In this month’s Atlantic Jeffrey Goldberg writes a sobering article that tries to answer the titled question, “Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe?” The essay is in depth and frightening. I would never assume that I know more of the subject than Goldberg and would never ever show little respect for his opinion and skills. But…
It strikes me that Goldberg obscures an obvious point. Six words in the introduction caught my eye and, perhaps, led me to a read it with more suspicion than the column deserved. Here is that introduction:
For half a century, memories of the Holocaust limited anti-Semitism on the Continent. That period has ended—the recent fatal attacks in Paris and Copenhagen are merely the latest examples of rising violence against Jews. Renewed vitriol among right-wing fascists and new threats from radicalized Islamists have created a crisis, confronting Jews with an agonizing choice.
Did it hit you as well? Renewed vitriol among right-wing fascists… just didn’t sit well with me. It made me uncomfortable, if I were a university student today I might take offense at those words and demand The Atlantic, Jeffery Goldberg, his wife, his family, and pet poodle banned from campus. Regardless of what liberal historians, constructionists, or de-constructionists say, the holocaust incorporated ideas drawn from the progressive left. Look no further than the eugenic aspect of German liberal authoritarianism.
Eugenics was the settled science progressives endorsed before they switched to believing in global cooling warming climate change whatever. Eugenics, a science dating from the 1880’s, is based upon creating a utopia by breeding a race utopian. Eugenics determined to wipe away all human beings deemed “unfit”. The philosophy became a sort of unofficial American national policy when twenty-seven states enacted laws that forced sterilization and segregation upon “weaker” bloodlines. This fascism from the left coercively sterilized about 60,000 Americans. Many states created marriage restrictions to keep preferred bloodlines pure. Strict adherence to settled scientific Gods bears tragic human consequences in any age.
Was eugenics a science from the left? Margaret Sanger, no right-wing clinger, agreed with the principles of eugenics because it sought to “…assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.” I’ll leave it to you which race Sanger meant.
The settled science of eugenics was already fifty years old in Germany before the madman of Austria first putsched around in a beer hall.
To gain and keep power, the bastard of Braunau am Inn used the Jews as scapegoat. He said the Treaty of Versailles was a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Germany. The hyper-inflation of 1923 was a Jewish attempt to destroy Germany. The loss of the First World War was the result of a Jewish conspiratorial attempt to… wait for it… destroy Germany. Of Jewry, “…he is an exploiter: the Jews are a people of robbers.”
This blaming of Jews, the infirm, the mentally deficient (as Sanger put it) has proven a pretty effective tool in whipping up whole nations to commit brutal acts. Do you think anybody would use such tactics today?
Well of course. Look at the long list of people modern day liberals blame for the troubles of the world. Do you own a gun? They blame you for any murder committed. Do you practice a religion other than Islam? They blame you for alienating and triggering the jihadista, the abortionista, the atheista. Do you have a job and are fairly successful? They blame you for income inequality. Are you white? They blame you and your damned privilege. Were you born with a Y chromosome? Boy, you’re gonna carry that weight a long time.
The past six years have seen a skyrocketing level of blame being thrust upon the backs of innocent people. When an official blames any sub-set that blame is perceived by the pre-disposed to grievance listener as a tacit but existent permission to hate. It is a modern and very liberal paraphrasing of, “…he is an exploiter: they are a people of robbers.”
The liberal science of eugenics used blame as thermo-tactic to boil a whole nation into murder on a large scale. The blame created an atmosphere of hate. Was that their goal?
No. They meant to create utopia. Impatience with the flaws and foibles of a slowly evolving mankind will always cause those who seek utopia to commit desperate, unspeakable acts. What does the jihadista desire? Islamic utopia. What does the Marxist desire? Economic utopia. Go down the list.
The common thread in all utopian dreams is control. Utopia must look exactly like what each utopic dreamer desires it to be. If that specific utopia fails to appear promptly the dreamer’s impatience pilots a flame. The impatience simmers to anger and blame. Soon it boils into rage and hate for all perceived obstructionists. A perfect recipe for mass death.
Like most of us I never imagined that in my lifetime America would see a student body protesting investments in Israeli companies. It starts small like that, you know; just wear this emblem on your coat so we all can tell you are a Jewish corporation and avoid association you. There are no stones cast, so the protestor feels morally superior and innocent. The stones are cast on the streets of Paris and Denmark; the immolations in ISIS controlled Syria. The rising tide of acceptable hate is palpable.
What kind of animal needs to re-learn the same lesson over and over and over? The liberal animal. Liberal eugenic science brought hell upon European Jews 75 years ago; current liberal policies have created an atmosphere in which Goldberg must ask if it is time for the Jews to leave Europe. The short answer? They must if someone’s utopia is to be realized. It is like a match in a tinderbox.
When you embrace the hate of one you encourage the hate of all.