On Mar. 11 of this year, Canada’s Globe and Mail published an article by academic/lawyer/writer, Philip Slayton. Its topic was Antisemitism, its thesis more or less implied by its subheading: “The fight against mindless populism must be fought, though it will never be won.”
In the third paragraph of his massive opinion piece, Slayton informs us that antisemitism is basically a predilection of the mediocre, those given to a banal envy of all who have excelled. He cites Sartre who said: “There is a passionate pride among the mediocre, and anti-Semitism is an attempt to give value to mediocrity as such, to create an elite of the ordinary.” Slayton expands upon this idea in his own words, stating: “Democracy and its surrounds empower this elite of the ordinary.” Somewhat later he adds: “This is the great paradox and weakness, if not tragedy, of democracy.”
So-called “ordinary” people would seem to be those not blessed with higher educations or significant degrees of wealth or power Are there within this vague demographic people seething with envy towards others and particularly those of Jewish extraction whom they demonize in ignorant, stereotypical terms? Of course there are. But in the same demographic are millions of people of simple common sense trying to live decent lives whatever their socioeconomic status. The brazen lie at the heart of Slayton’s article, which never ceases to invoke its own stereotype of “mindless populism,” is its failure to mention that it is our “intellectuals” who have in fact bequeathed us a world rife with envy and resentment!
A few blogs back I discussed Paulo Freire, a pioneer in the development of Critical Race Theory. His informing idea was that there are only two categories of Men, oppressors and those whom they oppress. This simplistic, Neo-Marxist notion defines the very essence of the contemporary Left, a political perspective which invites every “underprivileged” demographic to resent the “oppressors” responsible for their plight. While Slayton no doubt sees “populists” as mostly middle and lower middle-class Whites, a recent poll shows that 97% of the antisemitic crimes in the States last year were committed by racial minorities! But why wouldn’t this be so? The dominant narrative of our era is that such minorities have every right to resent the rich and successful?
That Jews are invariably rich and successful is a ridiculous stereotype I will not flatter with a comment. But it is interesting that three of the most influential cultural figures of the last 150 years, Marx, Freud and Einstein, were of Jewish extraction. Studies disputed by egalitarian fanatics have in fact shown that Jews are on average smarter than other segments of the species. Such findings, of course, entitle no one to prejudge any individual based upon his or her race [or gender, sexual orientation, etc.]. The “conservatism” [i.e., Humanism] defended in these blogs fully concurs. Martin Luther King’s famous statement that a man ought to be judged on the content of his character rather than the color of his skin, is in fact a basic “conservative” tenet.
Oddly, in the latter half of his article, Slayton qualifies almost everything he said in the first half. Having ranted against the evil of online populist hate speech, the nature of which he never really defines, he rejects the option of government censorship. Having demonized Democracy for enshrining the tyranny of the mediocre, he nevertheless demands we “embrace and protect it.” Having aggressively denounced Identity Politics, he says “it has ethical and historical justifications that give it enormous traction and legitimacy “to the grievances of women, racialized communities, Indigenous peoples, and members of the LGBTQ community….”
No rational “conservative” would deny that Women, certain Races, Gays, etc., have been treated unfairly in the past, both here in the West and elsewhere. But this does not mean that every statement and every action of every member of these groups must therefore be accepted without comment. The scourge of Identity Politics is that it utterly preempts the possibility of rational, civilized, discourse. Make the eminently reasonable argument that Western European Civilization, for all its flaws, was always inestimably more evolved than those of America’s Indigenous, and you are a Racist. Object to individuals with penises using Women’s washrooms, and you are a Transphobe. Suggest that Men and Women are different in a variety of ways which lead quite naturally to their unequal presence in various socioeconomic niches, and you are a Male Chauvinist Pig. Such is the quality of the fanatically Egalitarian, Identity-based commentary that has come to dominate contemporary political discourse and it is clearly the “gift” of our “intellectuals” and their Leftist advocates rather than Slayton’s “mindless populists.”
His article is in fact a masterpiece of double-speak and obfuscation. Is one’s defense of Democracy not seriously compromised by the statement that it inevitably entails the Rule of the Mediocre and the spread of Hate Speech? Can one have it both ways? In making a strong case for two mutually exclusive options, has one said anything at all? Would Slayton applaud the censorship bill Justin Trudeau has just managed to pass or denounce its for its tyrannical arrogance? It’s hard to say!
The key to his perspective is perhaps best implied by his assertion that the fight against populist ignorance “will never be won.” He is clearly a pessimist with a low opinion of the species. But the Enlightenment philosophers assumed Man to be a Rational Being capable of evolving Morally through the dialectic of free and open debate. Theirs was a vision utterly at odds with the simplistic paradigm of Oppressor and Oppressed, indeed the vision which led to the multitude of positive developments over the last 50 years in the West’s approach to the “oppressed.” Yet what seemed a legitimate drive towards social justice was perhaps always infected with the divisive, hate-filled, Neo-Marxist fanaticism that has come to poison contemporary political discourse. How can “liberal intellectuals” who preach the gospel of Oppression, who suggest the Norms of Western societies are “systemically” racist, who declare that Male Sexuality is inherently toxic, who promote the notion that the inordinately high rates of crime among Blacks and the Indigenous are always the fault of White people, not realize that they are promoting a climate that exacerbates division, that incites hatred, indeed that is perhaps responsible for the apparent rise of Antisemitism among the ranks of the “oppressed.”
Slayton never makes this connection. I have no knowledge of his political affiliations nor do I care. But his article is rife with the Double Standard that has come to define the Left, a perspective from which any resistance by “ordinary” White people to their designation as “oppressors,” is immediately dismissed as just so much populist ignorance, while the so-called disenfranchised may engage in any abomination whatsoever [i.e., BLM’s destruction of over two billion dollars of other people’s property in 2020] with little critical comment from our “intellectual” elites.