Jordan Peterson Distorts “the Jewish Question”
by Organon tou Ontos
I REPRODUCE Peterson’s original article here. Below, I address his argument. Advocating the relevance of the Jewish question is not a necessary condition for taking Peterson to task for distorting it. But accepting or rejecting it should be based on an authentic view of it, not a Straw Man version of it.
Here is how Peterson sets up “the Jewish question”:
1) The question is “so-called” (i.e., Peterson already dismisses it before raising it).
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 claim to dissect the “far right” view of the Jewish question:
1) What are the motives for asking why Jews would be “successful” and over-represented in positions of “competence”? Peterson claims 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 dismissed the possibility of legitimate motives for validating the Jewish question, Peterson turns to the validity of the claims underlying the 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.” Peterson then cites the IQ of Jews, their work ethic, and capacity to network. Given this, of course Jews are prominent in positions of “competence” and “success.”
Having set up his Straw Man, Peterson proceeds to demolish it: “No conspiracy.”
I found Peterson’s article through Paul Joseph Watson’s Twitter feed. Watson is typical of the sort of smug, mouthy libertarian conservative for whom all of this is really about fighting political correctness and making sure there aren’t enough Muslims in our societies to cause problems for queers or Jews. In his view, the “alt-right” has splintered into two factions, including the New Right, who just want to party:
“One is more accurately described as the New Right. These people like to wear MAGA [Make America Great Again] hats, create memes & have fun… They include whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, gays and everyone else. These are the people who helped Trump win the election.”
Then there is the other half, who want to ruin the “fun” that Trump’s Presidency has brought:
“The other faction likes to fester in dark corners of sub-reddits … and obsess about Jews, racial superiority and Adolf Hitler. This is a tiny fringe minority. They had no impact on the election.”
To read Watson and Peterson, one would very easily get the impression that the “Jewish question” is a recent concoction of this nasty “fringe minority” of the “alt-right.”
Is all of this an accurate depiction of the “Jewish question”?
Theodor Herzl, the political father of Zionism, structured the Jewish question in the following way: What should be the fate of Jews, given irreconcilable ethnic interests?
The ethnic interests of Jews and non-Jews are irreconcilable without harm coming to either or both: In each country where Jews are present, what should come of them?
The same question can be asked now by non-Jews, and it has been asked for hundreds of years. But what is less relevant for most contemporary Britons, Germans, or Americans, is whether there is a “conspiracy” or if Jews are “successful” and “influential,” but what Jews tend to do with their individual and aggregate influence. The list of elements below is just a handful of factors, though there are others.
a) Jews tend to promote wars that help them but hurt their host;
b) Jews tend to promote or encourage transgender identity and homosexuality;
c) Jews encourage pornography and oversexualizing among their hosts;
d) Jews tend to promote racial and ethnic diversity in their host societies;
e) Jews promote loosening familial, societal, and ethnic bonds in host societies;
f) Jews often encourage a liberalizing of immigration policy;
g) Jews are often involved in, or lead, efforts to empower and elevate minorities;
h) Jews exploit the Judaic roots of Christianity to promote Zionist views;
These are not presented as a complete and exhaustive list. Each society is distinct, and the imprint of Jews can be distinct. However, the real issue is not over-representation of Jews in positions of influence. The real issue is the fundamental problems that are generated by the over-estimation of Jews by non-Jews, which leads to political, social, and ethnic challenges like those that are listed above.
Neither Watson nor Peterson are asking what the fundamental makeup of their countries will be in the next century. They are focused solely on functional civility: The extent to which the country in which they reside is a hospitable place for people to exercise rights. From their perspective, identity politics should be rejected. So, if we have no ethnic interests, there is nothing for Jews to detrimentally impact.
* * *
Source: Organon tou Ontos