Print this post Print this post

Identity & Tribalism:
A Response to Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield

2,372 words

Daniel Greenfield of FrontPage Magazine has an interesting take on the Jewish response to the tragic Tree of Life synagogue massacre last month. In an article entitled “Identity Politics is America’s Anti-Semitism,” Greenfield scolds his fellow Jews for always looking Rightward for anti-Semitism, and argues that despite the eleven killed by Robert Bowers, anti-Semitism from the Left is far more common and politically correct than that from the Right. Greenfield has made a career out of exposing anti-Semitism from the Left and especially from Islam – which is celebrated by the Left – so this should come as no surprise. In his article, Greenfield offers evidence of Leftist anti-Semitism in America and concludes that “privilege” makes the difference when it comes to how this is all perceived.

As Greenfield sees it, Jews with privilege (read: wealth) can afford to avoid non-white anti-Semitism, and so ascribe the worst of it to the mythical Nazi bugbears that occasionally pop out of the woodwork. Poorer or more religious Jews, on the other hand, must deal with the much greater number of non-whites who hate Jews, and so are more in tune with anti-Semitism as it really is these days, at least in America.

Anti-Semitic violence by black supremacists and Muslim terrorists tends to happen in poorer, urban neighborhoods and is directed against a poorer and more religious class of Jews. White supremacist attacks tend to target more suburban, prosperous and less diverse Jewish areas.

Those are home to the same Jewish populations who are much more likely to write editorials about a loss of innocence. But innocence is a privilege that Jews in poorer urban neighborhoods never had.

Greenfield also employs the still useful tack of defending President Trump from the anti-Semitism charge and retaliates against these charges by connecting the dots between Leftist figures such as Barack Obama to real anti-Semites. I understand that many on the Dissident Right may not be too interested in such a tactic given their own critical attitudes towards Jews and Israel, but if such a tack can help polish the image of Republicans in the eyes of normies, then I guess there is little about which to complain – at least for now.

As with the editors of Breitbart, however, I always try to tread lightly when objecting to something that someone like Greenfield has to say. He is a member of what I call the Diaspora Right, and assumes an Israel-first, pro-Trump, anti-Left posture that really does help the Right in certain aspects of the culture wars. This makes for an uneasy alliance between them and my group, which I would call the White Right (i.e., race realist White Nationalists, identitarians, and advocates). Picking a fight with Greenfield or FrontPage editor David Horowitz would in most cases be counterproductive since it depresses enthusiasm on the Right and distracts both factions from their more pressing duties of resisting the Left. Further, these guys don’t typically go out of their way to pick a fight with us. We both railed against Hillary Clinton in 2016, so how much does it matter if we supported Donald Trump for different reasons?

They, of course, support Trump for mostly ideological and economic reasons pertaining to the ideal of the United States being a proposition nation and a second home for the Jews. Race, once you take Jews out of the equation, is secondary or not important at all. They are also reliably anti-anti-white – which, coming from Jews, is as nice as it is rare.

We, on the other hand, support Trump mainly because he’s the first step towards actualizing a white ethnostate (although we recognize his economic successes as well). Trump has introduced politically-incorrect language and ideas into the political vernacular that, under different circumstances, could be used to help whites one day establish this ethnostate. Of course, it must be mentioned that this ethnostate would have as much use for Daniel Greenfield as Israel would have for folks like myself.

The major bone I have to pick with Greenfield’s piece is not about how he underscores the cluelessness of progressive Jews, but how he condemns identity politics and tribalism as the major causes of anti-Semitism; and, of course, he’s talking about non-Jewish identity politics and tribalism here. Just because he claims that the Left has more of it than the Right doesn’t let him off the hook for his mischaracterization of white identity politics and his reflexive hypocrisy about the role Jewish identity politics also plays in generating anti-Semitism.

Here is what he has to say about tribalism as it relates to anti-Semitism:

Anti-Semitism is tribal. Those who hate Jews tend to be losers who are convinced of their own natural superiority and blame the Jews for their failure to achieve it.

And here is what he has to say about identity politics:

Identity politics does the same thing as National Socialism, combining the welfare state and anti-capitalist rhetoric with naked racial appeals, tapping into the supremacist convictions of failed groups, offering them special racial privileges, while blaming their failures on meritocracy and capitalism.

Yes, anti-Semitism is often tribal. Few anti-Semites are going to be entirely individualistic, with no emotional connection to blood, soil, and tradition. I think we can all agree on that. And yes, there are some obsessive Jew-haters who happen to be losers, as Greenfield claims (and let’s assume we’re talking about the sane ones here, not the insane ones like Bowers, who is far worse than a mere loser). But Greenfield’s statement is perfectly useless because any population will have its share of losers. Also, people who obsessively hate anything tend to be losers. The object of this hatred could be Jews, it could be Catholics, it could be an ex-wife, Donald Trump, the New York Yankees, the music of John Tesh, or the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. The list goes on. But what about the anti-Semites who don’t obsess over Jews and live perfectly productive lives? What about the folks who have perfectly rational and evidence-based reasons for their critical or resentful attitudes towards Jews? Greenfield doesn’t say. I doubt he believes such people exist. But, of course, they do.

As for his take on identity politics, it’s a fairly accurate description of the non-white, socialist Left. But it becomes quite inadequate once we add white identity politics to the equation. Sure, it works if you imagine white identity politics as the crude, Nazi caricatures found in The Blues Brothers. But what about white identity politics in Eastern Europe, which is staving off the Muslim invasion? What about the white identity politics of the Suidlanders of South Africa, who are preparing to deal with an oppressive and predatory non-white government? What about white identity politics in Western and Northern Europe, where many are sick and tired of riots, rape, terrorism, no-go zones, grooming gangs, and homeless Third Worlders shitting in their streets? What about the white identity politics that expresses concern that whites are on the verge of losing their demographic majorities in their homelands to people who are openly hostile to them? How is any of this “supremacist” or “anti-capitalist”? And if Greenfield is indeed including white identity politics in this description, how are whites a “failed group” when they decide to do the very natural thing of identifying with their tribe and taking care of their own?

Given his past, I would like to think that Greenfield never meant to insult all white people with these statements. I would prefer to conclude that he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to white tribalism and identity politics.

To further buttress my point, Greenfield also lets loose with this whopper:

While progressive Jews may deny that black nationalism and white supremacism are the same thing, the mutual admiration society between them makes a mockery of their denials.

Such risible nonsense. What “mutual admiration society”? Is there a white supremacist-Black Nationalist fraternal organization that I haven’t heard about? Is Louis Farrakhan going to be invited to speak at the next American Renaissance conference? Will the Black Panthers be dancing cheek-to-cheek with the Proud Boys any time soon? To set the record straight, the vast majority of whites on the Dissident Right are race realists who acknowledge black intellectual inferiority, criminality, and lack of impulse control; and that’s putting it lightly. Such whites would rather not share a nation with blacks. Sure, some White Nationalists may appreciate Black Nationalism and be willing to work with Black Nationalists – but only because Black Nationalists oppose racial integration and promise to keep blacks away from whites. Where’s the mutual admiration in that? In fact, just about the only time White Nationalists and Black Nationalists get along is when they realize they have similar complaints about . . . you guessed it . . . the Jews. Perhaps this is why Greenfield feels the way he does. From the limited and extremely partisan perspective of the Jewish patriot – which Greenfield seems to be – White Nationalists and Black Nationalists may as well have mutual admiration for each other. But that’s not enough to make it so.

Then there’s the part about “blaming their failures on meritocracy.” See the subtle Jewish supremacy here? Whites gripe about Jews because Jews are just superior people who steal all their thunder, right? I won’t dispute the high average IQ of the Ashkenazim, but Greenfield’s glib anti-white bias allows him to sweep under the rug how wealthy and influential Jews often employ unethical means and ethnic networking to seize disproportionate power among the goyim, which they then use to serve themselves at the expense of their host populations, all the while demonizing anyone who notices this as anti-Semitic, purging them from the political mainstream, insulting them, and suppressing their freedom of speech. Of course, Jews do climb up meritocracies, especially in medicine and other technical fields. But people on the White Right don’t complain so much about talented Jews who do great work in non-political fields. They complain about the people these people almost invariably vote for and donate money to: a hostile Jewish elite which is doing everything in its power to (among other things) displace whites in their own homelands with non-white immigrants.

So, white identity politics is about survival, not hating Jews. That a writer of Daniel Greenfield’s stature refuses to consider this indicates a lack of concern for the fate of whites in their own nations.

Then he wonders why some whites have a similar lack of concern for the fate of Jews.

And round and round we go. You’d think people would want to get off this odious little tilt-a-whirl by now.

The biggest blind spot darkening Greenfield’s field of vision, however, is his belief that tribalism among Gentiles is the cause of anti-Semitism without once mentioning how Jewish tribalism not only exists, but also may have a thing or two to do with causing anti-Semitism in the first place. I’m not asking Greenfield to turn into Ron Unz or Marcus Alethia here. I am just disappointed that a prominent man of the Right would miss something so obvious and crucial to the topic of anti-Semitism. Even an attempt to refute Jewish complicity would have been a welcome change. Instead, he gives us nothing.

Anti-Semitism is a tribal problem. Multiculturalism evolved into intersectionality, spawning more tribalism, more resentment, and an alliance of the resentful in which Jews are not full participants, but growing targets.

As a society becomes more racially and ethnically tribal, it grows more anti-Semitic. The white supremacist attack on a synagogue in Squirrel Hill is one symptom of a much larger problem.

This points to two fundamental flaws in Diaspora Right thinking. First, when Greenfield writes “[a]s a society becomes more racially and ethnically tribal,” he seems to assume that tribalism is an attitude or lifestyle decision, something that individuals can don or doff like they are trying on a jacket at a department store. He forgets that all humans are tribal. Tribalism, especially the racial and ethnic kind, is an inherent human characteristic. We cannot become something that we already are. The Diaspora Right lives under the illusion that ideology or economics can simply turn off tribalism, despite the lack of all evidence.

Secondly, Greenfield fails to include Jews in the great wave of tribalism he’s describing. He’s willing to hold Gentiles up to unrealistic standards of ethnic and racial egalitarianism, but not his own kind. He complains about Gentile identity politics, yet approves of Jewish identity politics in the now explicitly pro-Jewish Israel, where immigration policy is also explicitly pro-Jewish (and some would say racist). Does he not see that Jews practice tribalism as well as anyone else, if not better? Has he not heard of the Syrian Jews of New York or the Persian Jews of Beverley Hills? Is he not aware of widespread Jewish nepotism and ethnocentrism in the diaspora? Is this not tribalism as well?

This hypocritical ethnocentrism-for-me-but-not-for-thee attitude is what many perceptive Gentiles find so annoying about Jews. It is bald Jewish supremacy to presume that Jews have the right to ethnocentrism, but non-Jews (especially the white ones) do not. Thus it is that when Jewish writers like Daniel Greenfield complain about white supremacy (or black supremacy, or Muslim supremacy) while ignoring their own implicit Jewish supremacy, I tend not to take them very seriously.

And this makes me sad. Greenfield and FrontPage in general do good work in combatting the Left and Islam. These are important fronts in the culture wars, and all corners of the political Right in America benefit from their efforts. But in order for the Right to achieve victory in America – that is, to establish a white, homogeneous ethnostate that is inoculated against Islam and the Left – this ethnostate will have to do without tribalist minorities that cannot shake their anti-white racism and strong Leftist tendencies. There is no way the predominantly Right-wing Israeli government would tolerate such a subversive, foreign element in its nation, so why should whites do so in theirs?

This is an important question, since answering it will force Right-wing Jews like Daniel Greenfield to not only point his finger outward to explain anti-Semitism, but inward as well. And once that happens, maybe we can all hop off that tilt-a-whirl after all.

Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.

Related

13 Comments

  1. Brooklyn Dave
    Posted November 12, 2018 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    Very interesting article. I’ve been on that site many times and have a mixed reaction to it. As a New Yorker I see some of the “ant-Semitic” attitudes from various minorities that occasionally emerge. But first of all, just because a person is, let’s say, black or of Spanish speaking origin, this does not mean he or she is politically engaged or overtly feels a part of an identity group in the hardcore political sense. Yes, racial minorities, especially blacks, would take their frustration with Jews (whatever that may consist of) on Hasidics because of their easily identifiable demeanor. But when one speaks of anti-Semitism (as however one may define it) from the Left, I see it as expressed in a very politically correct way precisely because a good portion of those engaging in “anti-Semitic” expression are Jewish themselves.

  2. Gabriel M
    Posted November 11, 2018 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    A well-argued articles with some important points. I hope that Daniel Greenfield will read it with an open mind. If only this was a representative example of how the alt-right approached the JQ.

  3. 21st Century WN
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:53 am | Permalink

    Hitler knowingly had Jews serving in his military; one such individual was General Erhard Milch, whose father was Jewish. And there were quite a few others. Provided they served the Third Reich and “did not look or act like Jews” (and offered valuable service or expertise) they were permitted to aid Hitler’s war machine.

    That said, should the WN movement do the same? That might make a good article, one that would present the pros and cons of both sides.

  4. A. Yell
    Posted November 9, 2018 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    “the music of John Tesh”

    Just to be clear, Spence ol’ buddy, obsessive hatred of Tesh’s music is PERFECTLY normal!

    • Bernie
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:41 am | Permalink

      I have a vague memory of Oprah Winfrey saying she used to “date” John Tesh but that he supposedly told her he would not marry a black woman.

      • Gnome Chompsky
        Posted November 12, 2018 at 10:47 am | Permalink

        I have fortunately not heard this Tesh. What really sets my teeth on edge are the supremely insincere sounds of (ugh, even to type the name is a trial) ‘John’ ‘Legend’. Real name? I dislike his fakery enough not to care.

        Any time I hear his insincere and wildly auto-tuned voice, I have a hard-to-control urge to leave the place immediately.

        If I like the food, and want to eat it, headphones are the only recourse, play with my own work, or listen to something I like.

  5. Traddles
    Posted November 9, 2018 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    A few years ago I had a very minor brush with Greenfield online, in which he refused to allow the slightest, politest criticism of jews in history to be mentioned in his comment section.

    It was obvious that Greenfield and his supporters at FrontPageMag were more than little tribal themselves.

  6. Benjamin
    Posted November 9, 2018 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Religious anti-Semitism is largely a myth.

    Even back in The Days Of Yore (not to be confused with the Burzum album), if you actually look at the anti-Semitic pomgoms in Europe, you’ll find that they were primarily done by illiterate White peasants for secular reasons, and that whenever the Jews were exiled from an area, they would be given asylum in a neighboring region, by the nobility or priest caste, for religious reasons (e.g., “they’re god’s chosen”, “salvation is of the Jews”, “they’re the tree, we’re just a branch that was grafted on”, etc).

    So, this whole idea that Gentiles hate Jews for reasons relating to religious or mythological hocus pocus or hobgoblins is statistically laughable as the majority of historical anti-Semites weren’t even literate enough to understand their own religious teachings which allegedly stoked their anti-Semitism, and that’s assuming that most of Europe’s population was ever anything but NOMINAL Christians, and not theists, folkists, or crypto/pseudo-pagans for most of its “Christian” history.

    No, the #1 reason for anti-Semitism is the behavior that Jews engage in.

    Look at the Chinese, their Diasporia population functions in much the same manner as the Jews, in an economic level. And yet, there’s no widespread anti-Sinoism. Why? Well, they’re merely making a lot of money via nepotism and such, not promoting all kinds of weird and degenerate cultural practices for the foreign host nation they live in.

    If the Jewish Diaspora were merely acting like that, nobody, especially Whites, would much care.

    • nineofclubs
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

      An excellent comment. My only qualification would be that for those of us closer to China and Chinese influence, the lack of degenerate social practices is small consolation as swathes of our major cities are overrun. But in an American context, you are completely correct.

      .

    • alexei
      Posted November 11, 2018 at 2:35 am | Permalink

      – reason for anti-Semitism is the behavior that Jews engage in.

      This!

      The likes of Seneca and Cicero had some choice words for Jews, for their beliefs and their treatment of gentiles. Anti-semitism wasn’t invented by their own rebel sect.

  7. Antidote
    Posted November 9, 2018 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    I’m sure there is, clinically speaking, a rare pathology of irrational hatred or fear of Jews; without a doubt there is also religious antisemitism in that the Jews are on the hook for torturing and killing the Christus. But in the 21st Century, on a world-wide basis, the vast majority of antisemitic acts and sentiments are reactions against Jewish Supremacism.
    The Jews lump all Goys together; the soul of a Negro, a fish, a Dane, a fly, a Palestinian or a sea turtle are the same whilst the Jew’s soul is part of G-d’s Holiness. It even says in the Talmud, “He who strikes a Jew strikes the face of Almighty G-d.”
    If the Jews’ masterplan (Kalergi) is implemented, and all the tribes of the planet are melded into a great brown blob, there is no doubt this blob will be exploited and victimised by the Jews, and will be highly antisemitic.

  8. Ty
    Posted November 9, 2018 at 5:23 am | Permalink

    Greenfield’s blog is well written and very interesting. He goes as far as he is inclined, but most of the points he makes are good. We can’t expect the world from everybody, we can only take people as far as they want to go. I’ll give him and overall B-.

    • Ace
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

      I agree with what you say about Greenfield yet his assertion that there is a mutual admiration society between black nationalists and white supremacists is outrageous.

      Too, he writes with insight on many topics but for him to argue that anti-Semitism is the province of losers is just outrageous and exhibits one of the most outrageous qualities of organized Jewry, namely, the refusal to allow a scintilla of criticism of Jews based on substantive matters like supremacist and in-group behaviors or the disgusting attitude toward Christ in the Talmud (and its contempt for non-Jews).

      The least bit of substantive, fact-based criticism of Jews goes straight to the “anti-Semitism” shock brigade and no substantive criticism is possible. Is Israel really the great U.S. ally AIPAC and the ADL proclaim? Is Israel lying about shooting kids in the back in Gaza where they are 100 yards from the border and have their backs to the IDF position? Did Israel deliberately attack the Liberty and lie about it? Just what is Israel’s right to be where it is? We Jews way over-represented in the ranks of the Bolsheviks, esp. the ranks of the Cheka in Ukraine during the Holodomor? Do Jews control Hollywood, the media, and the U.S. government? Is U.S. involvement in the M.E. and hostility toward Iran because we are at the beck and call of Jews? Have Jews played an enormous part in ensuring third-world immigration? Did communism ride the coat tails of Jewish immigrants? Did Jonathan Pollard do enormous damage to U.S. security and did the Israelis shop our SIOP to the Soviets?

      The Jews answer to all such questions is: “Anti-Semitism!” Non-Jews are treated as losers, bigots, or people seething with barely suppressed rage, a hair trigger away from wanting to revive the concentration camps and dispose of all Jews.

      Greenfield wants none of that debate — one that’s central to the Jewish Question in any age — and for that he should merely be tolerated. A useful ally against a more immediate threat but one with his own agenda, one that does not include abandoning supremacist and aggressive in-group behaviors.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
 
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
 
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance