For a Jew-Crusader Alliance

In his just published Chronicle, “Originary Demography” (http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/views/vw339.htm), Eric Gans concludes that the aging, demographically suicidal cultures of Western Europe

can renew themselves rather than (as Steyn predicts) breaking down in ethno-religious strife and/or giving way by mid-century to a second Muslim conquest: demographic recovery through the revival of European Christianity. This is not to say that “Islam is the enemy.” But Islam, for better or for worse, remains deeply connected to traditional society. That is the secret of its higher birthrate, as well as of what modern eyes see as oppression of women and tolerance of barbarous forms of violence. The only way to reconcile European Muslims with modernity is by demonstrating to them that European market society is indeed a viable human project–as a society that disdains to reproduce itself is not.

I couldn’t agree more–nor, I suspect, could Pope Benedict.  I would like, in fact, to piggyback on Gans’ suggestion by proposing what seems to me the only (albeit radical) political platform likely to promote such a course reversal on the part of the Europeans.  First, though, I will issue a minor dissent regarding Gans’ immediately proferred answers to possible objections: 

One need not be entirely pessimistic in this regard. Emerging generations cannot fail to see the bankruptcy of the postwar social-insurance state, both as a demographic entity and as a spiritual one. Nor need this renewed Christianity take the form of fundamentalist literalism. The anthropological understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition that derives from the work of René Girard gives religious faith an ever-clearer unity with fundamental anthropology. Convergence of faith and self-knowledge would make the choice between secularization and fanaticism increasingly irrelevant. The future of European Christianity may well look surprisingly like Generative Anthropology.

First of all, emerging generations certainly can fail to see the bankruptcy of the present social order, certainly in the numbers required by the kind of revival this turnaround would depend upon; in fact, if they could just see it, why would a revival of Christianity be necessary? Why not just invent the spiritual beliefs which correspond more directly to the current need if one recognizes that need so clearly?  And, if only a small (even if significant) minority recognizes the need, they may very well emigrate, leaving the more desperate, violent and nihilistic behind.  My second point is related:  if we genuinely want a revival of Christinaity, we can’t pretend to desire it in forms we find preferable.  Such a revival will have to be an event, it cannot be a calculated social policy, and as an event, or revelation, it will be enthusiastic and evangelical, and there is nothing we can or should do about that.  (Would we oppose the revival if it indeed began to take shape in some “fundamnetalist, literalist” form?  The question of how we Generative Anthropologists might participate and seek to help shape developments is another question.) 

One more, not so much objection, as observation, which will then bring me to my larger argument:  Gans’ argument for a renewed, demographically relevant Europe leaves unaddressed the question with which he opens, the political consequences of White Guilt:

The impact of World War II that dominates the postwar era to this day is embodied in its twin revelations about human violence, epitomized by Auschwitz and Hiroshima: we can no longer use violence to settle ultimate questions of power, and we can no longer tolerate the legally enforced dominance of one group, however defined, over another. The reluctance to accord privilege has led us to the threshold of gay marriage; the fear of all-out violence ties our hands on every battlefield. The most salient fact of American history in the sixty years since Nagasaki is that the United States has not won a definitive military victory: not in Korea, surely not in Vietnam; not in the first Gulf War, where we forbore to defeat Saddam as we had defeated Hitler, nor in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that persist in the aftermath of conventional military victories. Sixty years after we defeated Nazi Germany, a majority of Americans are convinced that we are incapable of securing the metropolitan area of Baghdad.

Would the re-Christianization of Europe help us to secure Baghdad (or, more precisely, help us to realize that there is no way that we can’t secure Baghdad, if we decide to do it)?  My answer is that it certainly would, and therein lies the enormous power of Gans’ argument here.  A Christian revival would be the antidote to White Guilt, probably the only one available to us; in fact one could trace the emergence of White Guilt to the demise of the post-sacrificial order signified by Jesus on the Cross, which demise allowed the sacrificial function to be “distributed” to the “Other” of the West, with disastrous consequences. 

But if a Christian revival would be an enormous boost to American political power (and not just in the “realist” sense, but in the more “evangelical,” world-transforming, democratizing and liberalizing sense), shouldn’t we take the next step and proclaim that American foreign policy interests are directly tied to such a revival, with the minimal beginning of defending Christians and Christian institutions wherever they are under attack?  Christianity is reviving elsewhere–evangelical forms of Christianity (even Mormonism, I understand) are spreading in Latin America, and a continent-wide struggle between Christianity and Islam is underway in Africa. One recent commentator (I think it was Mark Steyn, but if it wasn’t, it could have been) noted that if one looks at Latin American social conditions one wonders why the Wahhabis haven’t disseminated some seed money throughout the region–if even 5% of Latin Americans were converted to Islam the balance of power there might be shifted even further away from American interests toward the emergent Left-Islamist alliance.  And, could we really expect a resurgent Christianity in Europe if Christianity goes undefended elsewhere?  We could even posit the following criteria or “metric” for victory in the GWOT:  we will have won once Christians are free to safely proselytize anywhere in what is now the “Muslim World”–whether that is because Islam has changed, or Islam, shown to be incapable of change, has been swept away, is not our problem.

Well, if we are thinking big, how about considering the next step:  since new Christians and born again Christians seem to be more sympathetic toward Jews and Israel than just about any other social group (including Jews!), doesn’t it follow that an explicit defense of a world wide Christian revival would lead us to to remove one qualification and restriction after another on our alliance with Israel?  To the point where we make what would certainly be the sound decision in purely military terms to carry out joint actions with the IDF and coordinate our strategies in what is after all a common war against shared enemies?  I, at least, have never seen, anywhere, anyone draw up, even as a thought experiment, what such coordination might look like–and the reason for that is surely that, on the face of it, the idea is so politically crazy to be unthinkable.

But, as I have argued before, we are living in abnormal times, when the unthinkable oftentimes becomes the commonplace.  A genuine Israeli-American alliance (which would meet resistance on the Israeli side as well, of course–Israelis have historically been extremely resistant to linking their wars to anyone else’s, to agree upon limitations to their freedom of action, or to place Israelis in a position where others are dying for them or they are dying for others) is “obviously” crazy because it would confirm the prevailing Arab/Muslim stereotype of a “Zionist-American” (in whatever formulation) conspiracy to subjugate them and the rest of the world.  But the post-colonial Left, in its argument for “appropriating” the stereotypes imposed upon one rather than inevitably self-defeating attempts to “disprove” them, has a very good point–the best way to disprove or dispel the stereotype is simply to implement it and show that it has none of the anticipated effects.  Drastic measures are needed in dealing with deeply rooted pathologies, and the Arab/Muslim “fantasy ideology” (to use Lee Harris’ term) which reduces the world to continually reiterated acts of heroic if hopeless “resistance” to the “Jew-Crusader” conspiracy is the most dangerous fantasy the world has seen since the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (which, of course, has been folded into this fantasy ideology).  Aside from the military conveniences such an alliance would offer (a secure, permanent base in the Middle East, for one thing), it might work as a kind of radical “transference” (in the psychoanalytic sense) for the Arab/Muslim world–in some way, we will have to intervene drastically and surgically in that world before this is all over because they will not leave us alone as long as they are gripped by this fantasy ideology, and any attempts to “ungrip” them without dramatic change simply strengthens the grip; so, why not try and disrupt their projections by working through them? 

 Scenic Politics

Be Sociable, Share!

5 thoughts on “For a Jew-Crusader Alliance

  1. Matthew

    I got this from Wikipedia:

    ‘In his classic work The Gift, Mauss argued that gifts are never “free”. Rather, human history is full of examples that gifts give rise to reciprocal exchange. The famous question that drove his inquiry into the anthropology of the gift was: “What power resides in the object given that causes its recipient to pay it back?” (1990:3). The answer is simple: the gift is a “total prestation”, imbued with “spiritual mechanisms”, engaging the honour of both giver and receiver (the term “total prestation” or “total social fact” (fait social total) was coined by his student Maurice Leenhardt after Durkheim’s social fact). Such transactions transcend the divisions between the spiritual and the material in a way that according to Mauss is almost “magical”. The giver does not merely give an object but also part of himself, for the object is indissolubly tied to the giver: “the objects are never completely separated from the men who exchange them” (1990:31). Because of this bond between giver and gift, the act of giving creates a social bond with an obligation to reciprocate on part of the recipient. To not reciprocate means to lose honour and status, but the spiritual implications can be even worse: in Polynesia, failure to reciprocate means to lose mana, one’s spiritual source of authority and wealth. Mauss distinguished between three obligations: giving – the necessary initial step for the creation and maintenance of social relationships; receiving, for to refuse to receive is to reject the social bond; and reciprocating in order to demonstrate one’s own liberality, honour and wealth.

    ‘An important notion in Mauss’ conceptualisation of gift exchange is what Gregory (1982, 1997) refers to as “inalienability”. In a commodity economy there is a strong distinction between objects and persons through the notion of private property. Objects are sold, meaning that the ownership rights are fully transferred to the new owner. The object has thereby become “alienated” from its original owner. In a gift economy, however, the objects that are given are inalienated from the givers; they are “loaned rather than sold and ceded”. It is the fact that the identity of the giver is invariably bound up with the object given that causes the gift to have a power which compels the recipient to reciprocate. Because gifts are inalienable they must be returned; the act of giving creates a gift-debt that has to be repaid. Gift exchange therefore leads to a mutual interdependence between giver and receiver. According to Mauss, the “free” gift that is not returned is a contradiction because it cannot create social ties. Following the Durkheimian quest for understanding social cohesion through the concept of solidarity, Mauss’s argument is that solidarity is achieved through the social bonds created by gift exchange.’

Leave a Reply