The Age of the Liberal Blood Libel
It
was a common occurrence in medieval Europe:
whenever tragedy struck or an outrage committed - real or imagined -
demagogues would rush to attribute blame, without evidence or any logical
basis, to the Jews. While individual
Jews bore the brunt of the mob violence that ensued, or were at times even
formally indicted, the allegations always really targeted Jews as a collective,
or, more accurately, some vague conception of an all-power malevolent Jewish
cabal, secretly plotting against their gentile neighbors.
Following
the Enlightenment, however, popular support for such behavior declined in the
West. Blood libels were increasingly
seen for what they really were: an
opportunistic attempt by fear mongers to gain attention and prestige at the
expense of others. Individual events
were detached from their particular circumstances and people involved and
instead projected onto an entire population.
Rational arguments of guilt and legitimate evidence were never
provided. It thus came as no surprise
that the practice became so reviled in Western Europe and the United
States.
Thus,
when the modern incarnation of the blood libel was employed in France in 1894
against a young Jewish army officer, it was hardly surprising that a liberal
backlash against the baseless charges formed
to defend him. One hundred and twenty
years later, however, many liberals in the United States employ their own
demagogic rhetoric in leveling absurd accusations of collective guilt.
To
be sure, many in the progressive left still emphasize the need to place
individual blame for criminal outrages rather than attack entire
populations. At least they do in the
case of Islamic terrorism, where any connection between the actions of the 9/11
hijackers or other mass-murderers and their Islamic faith is scrubbed away. Even the mere mention of the fact that the
9/11 killers were Muslims is enough to earn one visceral condemnation from the
progressive left.
Yet
when the target is not radical Islam but American society, or better yet, white
America - as if white Americans form some sort of coherent, culturally
homogenous tribe - the left gleefully indulges in the most shameless and
irrational collectivization of guilt.
While the actions of 19 Muslims - along with the rest of Al Qaeda -
clearly indicate nothing about Islam or imply guilt for Islam as a whole for a
culture of violence - the foolish statements of Cliven Bundy, for the left, are
clearly the fault of American conservatives as a collective.[1] Are Donald Sterling's obnoxious - though
private - comments to his girlfriend his own responsibility, the result of his
troublingly antiquated views on race?
No! Rather, they are the
collective responsibility of every (white) person in America.
The
far-left hit the proverbial mother lode, however, this past week when a deeply
troubled young man went on a killing spree in California after expressing not
only racist but sexist views on the internet.
The blood libels were quick to follow.
Film critic Ann Hornaday pinned the blame on "white men", who,
she asserts, are controlled by "escapist fantasies" which "revolve
around vigilantism and sexual wish-fulfillment"[2]. This
must be the case, writes Hornaday, since
"for generations, mass entertainment has been overwhelmingly controlled by
white men". Hornaday doesn't even
attempt to bring proof linking Elliot Rodger's actions to films, much less to
the white men in Hollywood.
Interestingly, Hornaday targets only white men as a whole in
Hollywood. If the ethnicity of
influential groups in Hollywood can be blamed, does that mean her argument
extends to Jews?
Not
to be outdone, Salon.com offered its own vile tract of demagoguery by Brittney
Cooper[3]. Cooper uses the killings not merely to bash
whites and men, but bolster the popular progressive talking point of
"white privilege". "Can I
go ahead and scream yet? It's time for America to admit what it's long
resisted: White male privilege kills".
The
hypocrisy displayed by the progressive left is nothing short of
astounding. The mass-murder of 3,000
people by fundamentalist Muslims is, they insist, reflective of nothing more
than those individuals directly
involved. This despite the breadth of
Islamic radicalism as a popular movement, one which has seen the fundamentalist
Muslim Brotherhood win popular election in the Arab world's largest country.
The
merits of this approach towards the large and complex Islamic world can be
legitimately argued in both directions.
It certainly fits in with a atomistic view of the individual. Yet that individualist outlook which was once
at the heart of liberalism is frighteningly absent today whenever a white male
(or half-white in Elliot Rodger's case) makes headlines. Never mind the fact that Elliot Rodger's had
a lifelong record of mental and emotional issues. Blood libels aren't intended to make sense;
they're meant to stir up the most base of emotions and elevate the accuser at
the expense of the others.
[1] http://www.salon.com/2014/04/28/modern_racists_just_repeat_conservative_talking_points_donald_sterling_cliven_bundy_and_the_ugly_face_of_gop_policies/
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/in-a-final-videotaped-message-a-sad-reflection-of-the-sexist-stories-we-so-often-see-on-screen/2014/05/25/dec7e7ea-e40d-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html
[3] http://www.salon.com/2014/05/27/white_guy_killer_syndrome_elliot_rodgers_deadly_privileged_rage/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
