Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Historical review panned

cal state long beachdavid irvingjewish journalkevin macdonaldlos angeles timesopinion l.a.

In a cover story for the Jewish Journal, Brad A. Greenberg gives a long, fascinating profile of Kevin MacDonald, the Cal State Long Beach professor whose, um, particular interest in The Jews has created a dilemma for the college. The piece is well worth reading in its entirety, but I'll just note that praise is due to: 1) Cal State Long Beach, which is doing a creditable job of balancing MacDonald's academic rights (if you believe such rights exist, as I don't) against the need to protect itself against both anti-Semitism and lawsuits; 2. Greenberg, who seems to maintain a perfectly dry tone in the face of some pretty hair-raising stuff (and I only say seems because I'd never heard of MacDonald before reading this piece and have nothing against which to measure it); and in a strange way, 3) MacDonald himself, who blends creepiness, crackpottery and a surprising forthrightness into a weird form of amiability that I can sort of respect. I hate to use such a hoary cliché, but he's a quintessentially American type of oddball, the kind you don't want to listen to because he occasionally makes you say "Hm, he's got a point." In particular, check out his case for why David Irving's biography of Goebbels should be put back on the shelves; if the book is as he characterizes it, then... Hm, he's got a point. (Experts alert: If it's not as he describes it, the comments are open!)

As I said, I'd never heard of MacDonald before this piece, but in the way of such things, once you're aware of him, he starts showing up everywhere. Interestingly, his real pillars of support are not just among white supremacists. (MacDonald, don'tcha know, isn't against other ethnicities; he's just supportive of his own European roots.) Instead, he attracts some pretty broad interest for his particular case on immigration:

MacDonald's core complaint is Jewish influence on immigration laws. He blames passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, which abolished national origin quotas and made immigration easier for non-Westerners, on a Jewish desire to oust European Americans from the majority.

"European people in this country will be a minority in a few years," MacDonald said. "I don't think that would have happened if we had had a sense of ourselves as a culture worth defending. Now, everything is up for grabs."

Which is weird, because I thought building secure border fences was one of those areas where The Jews and the proud European-Americans were in perfect harmony. This stuff gets so confusing so fast you can drive yourself crazy. And then you get tenure, I think.

Whatever your race, creed, color or religion, enjoy this beautiful weekend.

 

Comments () | Archives (2)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mithcell Young

Ah this brings me out of retirement, if only to elaborate on libertarians' idiotic blindspot on ethnicity -- a strange thing because it is one of the whitest political movements around.

The fences thing isn't a contradiction -- if you buy MacDonald's thesis, which in its specific application here would run " Israel is a Jewish state , let's keep it Jewish. America isn't a Jewish state, and we don't want to stand out against a 'white bread' background, so let's try to make it more multicultural." Now there are problems with this thesis, but arguing that the Israeli border fence and the American border fence is a conflicting data point is obtuse.

Here is a data point, supplied by your own token 'conservative', that supports MacDonald's thesis. Many more are required for 'proof' of course.

Look when it comes to ethnicity, a lot of folks are hypocrits. Indians (including Desis who write for major newspapers) often promote 'liberal immigration' policies when it come to the US, Canada, UK. But India itself has a very restrictive immigration policy -- unless you are brown and Hindu and I don't see a lot of protest about that from the various Indian diaspora groups. Jewish organizations like the ADL promote open immigration here but not for Israel. One thing MacDonald does do, even if you don't buy his whole schtick, is point that out.

Ken Shultz

Couple o' points, Herr Young...

1) It's important to differentiate libertarians from the LP. If the LP is to libertarians as the Green Party is to people whose politics reflect a concerns about environmental issues, then I need to know whether you're talking about the Green Party or something else before we talk about how white the environmental "movement" is.

Oh, and as the post WoT left libertarian "movement' continues to coalesce, don't be surprised to see more African-Americans jump on the bandwagon. I suspect they're just as interested in their freedom as white people--call it a hunch.

2) I'm not sure I'm following you exactly, but if you're suggesting that what's good for Jewish Israelis isn't necessarily what's good for Jewish Americans, I'm not sure that explains why what's good for Israel isn't what's good for America.

Explaining the logic behind a contradiction doesn't mean there isn't a contradiction.


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video


Categories


Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »

Archives
 


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.



In Case You Missed It...