Jordan Peterson Distorts “the Jewish Question”
by Organon tou Ontos
I reproduce Peterson’s original article here. Below, I remark on his argument.
First of all, here is how Peterson sets up “the Jewish question”:
1) The question is “so-called” (in other words, he already presupposes it is idiotic).
2) Advocates of “identity politics” (i.e., ethnic or racial nationalists) question why Jews are in “positions of authority, competence, and influence.” These are Peterson’s terms.
This is a classic case of a Straw Man. He’s already structured it in a way he can easily take it apart: The so-called question of why Jews are in positions of “competence.”
He then goes on to pretend to dissect the “far right” view of the Jewish question:
1) What are the motives for asking why a minority group would be “successful”? In many, if not most cases, it is probably because that person…
a) is a loser;
b) can feel like a victim;
c) can feel superior;
d) can simplify the world;
e) can have an object of “hate.”
2) Having provided reasons for dismissing the possibility of legitimate motives, Peterson now turns to the validity of the claims of the Jewish question itself: “Second, in what manner (if any) are such claims true? Well, Jews are genuinely over-represented in positions of authority, competence and influence.” He goes on to cite the IQ of Jews, their work ethic, and their capacity to network. Given this, of course Jews are prominent in positions of “competence” and “success.”
Having set up his Straw Man, Peterson smugly proceeds to demolish it: “No conspiracy.”
The smugness of Peterson’s claim has led other mouthy twerps to boast about it: In fact, I found Jordan Peterson’s article through a link from Paul Joseph Watson’s Twitter feed. He proclaims that “Jordan Peterson dismantles the Alt-Right.”
The question we should pose is whether if he has a) adequately summarized the Jewish question and b) properly addressed with a sufficient range of facts and details.
What is the Jewish question? It’s certainly not a strictly modern one, as he claims.
The real question is this: What policy should be adopted toward Jews as a group?
When ancient kingdoms addressed the Jewish question, they were not vexed with how to answer why Jews were affluent or successful. They were concerned with a troublesome and difficult group of people, associated with civil unrest, challenges to state authority, as well as undesirable practices, like usury.
Jordan claims that the Jewish question is a creature of the “Alt-Right.” It is not. It has existed for as long as Jews have been migrating.
Answering the Jewish question requires that we consider all their actions as a group, which will vary depending on the country in question. In general, they may include:
a) The role of Jews in promoting unnecessary wars;
b) The role of Jews in promoting pornography;
c) The role of Jews in promoting transgender identity and homosexuality;
d) The link between Jews and multiculturalism;
e) The link between Jews and liberalized immigration policy;
f) The role of Jews in empowering and elevating other minorities.
The answer to the Jewish question will rightly depend on the country. Different countries have had different experiences with Jews, warranting potentially different answers.
Here is a sample of the responses of different fascist groups:
– The Regency of Carnaro (D’Annunzio’s Fiume): D’Annunzio was critical of the impact of Jews on world finance, but from his Constitution we can extrapolate that he was prepared to allow Jews to remain, subject to the same provisions that affected all subjects of Fiume regarding political loyalty.
– The British Union of Fascists (BUF): Sir Mosley was prepared to allow British Jews to stay, but only ethnic Britons could be involved in politics, media, and education. Jews could live normal lives, run businesses, and prosper, but under Sir Mosley’s future regime, they would have to stay out of government.
– The National-Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP): The NSDAP was resolved to try to remove all Jews and their families from German society, not just bar them from influence.
* * *