Like The Great Feminization was last year’s conservative essay of note, this year’s is Niall Ferguson’s The Death of History (not to be confused with Fukuyama’s The End of History). In the coming days, I will discuss some of the most interesting responses to it. Today, I want to offer my own observation on the essay’s central theme.
The essay examines the dramatic resurgence of antisemitism on a scale the Western world has not witnessed since the end of the Second World War—something that, only a few years ago, many assumed could never return. One current of antisemitism comes from segments of Muslim communities, another from progressive intellectual circles, and now there is a third: the antisemitism of the anti-globalist “alternative” right. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, at this moment, antisemitism may be the only issue capable of uniting people across the West whose political views otherwise have nothing in common.
In milder forms, it appears as criticism of “Zionists” and the State of Israel or as jokes about Orthodox Jews. In its more radical forms, it becomes open admiration for Adolf Hitler, calls for the killing of Jews, or demands for their forced expulsion to Israel. That last sentiment curiously aligns parts of the West with Hamas, which has likewise celebrated the idea of concentrating Jews in a single place where, it claims, they could be more easily exterminated. As a conservative historian, Niall Ferguson expresses dismay at the collapse of the moral assumptions about good and evil that once defined the Western world. As he writes, he believed such a return was impossible. Yet it returned—and with astonishing ease.
Ferguson attributes much of this development to the algorithms of social media. They may well play some role. I would suggest a different explanation for the rise of this new right-wing antisemitism, which has grown so influential that making the occasional anti-Jewish remark has become almost a prerequisite for anyone hoping to emerge as a Republican presidential contender. Among Democrats, this has been true for quite some time; there is nothing new about it there.
The new right-wing antisemitism is not the product of something newly created but of something that is missing. There is nothing unusual about a seventeen-year-old boy, eager to prove how tough he is and determined to show that no subject is too dark and no taboo binds him, shouting about his admiration for Adolf Hitler. By twenty-five, he is usually embarrassed by it. Such behavior is largely harmless in a society where a functioning governing class still exists—one whose members possess a sense of responsibility. But what happens when such people are absent? To be sure, a few individuals with that sense of responsibility remain. There is Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, a handful of other unconventional figures, and the list quickly comes to an end.
The outburst that should have remained on the fringes, and that met with far less resistance than expected, ceases to be rebellious and gradually becomes mainstream. Major media personalities pursue ratings, politicians chase votes, and virtually any foolish idea can spread unchecked. Once it begins to spread, more and more groups discover that there is money to be made from it, accelerating the trend. I would not be surprised if some New York and California Jews were profiting from this wave of antisemitism as well.
Various conspiracy theories claim that the world is controlled by a secret group wielding immense influence. If only that were true. If only such people actually existed and chose to act. It would be infinitely preferable to a driverless car.
When I was still active in politics, a young supporter who had never completed elementary school enthusiastically showed me a speech by Adolf Hitler on his phone. I have no idea who produced it, but the video was professionally subtitled and interwoven with idyllic images of blond families alongside footage from the 2015 migration crisis. Naturally, I reprimanded him. The most basic sense of responsibility tells us that certain things simply cannot be tolerated, even at the risk of losing supporters. But perhaps that is a dinosaur’s way of thinking.