Jews As Mediators Between The Right And The Left


The Right Stuff raised an crucial issue with an article entitled “Zero Tolerance: Why Aren’t White Nationalists and Jewish Nationalists Fellow Travelers?”. In it, the author argued that “the (((traditional enemies of the White Man)))” — including Jewish people — ought to be excluded from alt-right conferences and identitarian movements.

As a half-Jewish yet Right-leaning writer who is sympathetic to and supports identitarian ideals, I have no wish to argue the minutiae of the article and the arguments made by its author. For the sake of argument, let us assume the article is correct; this technique allows us to see the consequences of an argument taken to its logical extreme. Instead, I want to argue an addendum: that Jews are strategically positioned to mediate and synthesize between the Right and the Left.

Although I have Right-wing leanings, I am also openly a fan of Left-wing philosophy. This means I am able to mediate between Rightist and Leftist philosophies because I speak the language of each and both at once. This requires two essential deviations from politics as normal:

  1. Treat politics as philosophy. Politics is not two tangible sides, composed of people, as in a sports game. It is a conflict between ideas.
  2. Avoid the categorical fallacy. Political ideals cannot be applied by blanket approval of what one side or the other says, but are principles that must be interpreted through specific implementations at a granular or “particularized” level.

The Right seems, too often, to shut their ears whenever phrases like “social construct” come up or authors like Michel Foucault are named. Likewise, the Left seems, too often, to walk away when words such as “nationalism” or “identitarianism” come up or authors like Julius Evola are named. Jim Goad once said “In politics, both sides are convinced the other side is comprised entirely of dupes and idiots, and both sides are right,” and I think he is correct.

This tactic of ignoring argumentation based on pre-conceived ‘sides’ is intellectually lazy and, ultimately, does a disservice to whatever movement one is trying to promote. I say this not because I think Evola’s promotion of Traditionalism ought to be applied to critical race studies nor do I say this because I think Foucault’s analysis of “the repressive hypothesis” ought to be applied to studies of nationalism. I say this because, despite disagreement, both sides are attempting to be intellectually rigorous and therefore both have something to offer one’s ideology.

It may be that, as the original article suggested, people like me should be excluded from formal participation in the alternative right. Under that framework, I can take on an alternative role. If those who wish to exclude me do so based on narrowly defined circumstances, they likely are the individuals on the Right who shut their ears when they hear ‘Leftist phrases’ and I would thus happily work outside their space. Where they will ignore Leftist thought, I will read it and synthesize it with Right thought.

My role instead is to encourage interplay between both sides (Right and Left) through a mediating force that is not centrist, but focused on answers to real-world problems through political philosophy. Not everything on the Right is correct and not everything on the Left is incorrect and it is wise to recognize that fact considering that, like so much else in life, political philosophy is not zero sum but ought to be a synthesis of ideas.

Thus to my fellow Jews, half-Jews, White Nationalists, non-white Nationalists and anyone else “ought” to be excluded from the alternative Right, I present to us a new role: we are the bridge between two equally ideologically valuable, but blind, groups. As the saying goes, “the truth is out there,” and I intend to find it, and I suspect that will not be within tidily-defined human ideological lines.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedIn

Recommended Reading