Jews and the Measure You Use

Dear Gavin,

I know that we have been talking primarily about whites and blacks, but I want to change the subject, moving over to the Jews for just a moment. This is only an apparent change of subject because the basic principle involved in this transfers straight across to every set of ethnic tensions known to man, and we will shortly come back to white/black relations. The reason for appearing to change the subject is that I have recently been interacting with some folks with regard to the Jews, and have been astonished at how opaque this most transparent principle appears to be to some people. These issues have therefore been on my mind, but as you will see, they transfer readily. So remember that potent two-word phrase there, “the Jews.”

Here is the principle first . . . and it has to be considered as the cornerstone of Christian Ethics 101.

Now let me push this principle into the corners. We are taught this principle in numerous places, and in numerous ways. You must never evaluate someone else and/or their group with a standard that you are flat unwilling to have flipped around and applied to you and your group. This is the Golden Rule. This is the law and the prophets. This is equal weights and measures. This is what it means to pray the Lord’s Prayer. This is the hazardous plea to God, a plea that God requires of us, that of asking Him to treat us and ours in exactly the same way that we treat them and theirs.

A bigot wants to get his thumb on the scale in this way. He wants to make an assertion about another ethnic group with just two variables—the ethnicity in question and the bad behavior. He says something like, “yeah, well, my grandma was mugged by a black dude once.” There it is, the ethnicity and the mugging. To which the only cogent reply would be something like, “Yeah, well, Ted Bundy was white.” Crime and color, and we have the case sewn up, right? Not exactly, because a bigot cannot abide equal weights and measures, and so he then has to rush in with twenty-eight additional variables that might help to explain Bundy—things like upbringing, religion, lack of sleep, whatever. The bigot will never say, “Yeah, he committed those crimes, and he sure was as white as me. I never thought of it this way before . . .”

Now what the leftist wants to do is take this biblical requirement of an equitable standard and glibly assume that an equitable standard will always and everywhere result in equal results. They always do this. It is their foundational assumption. The conservative Christian wants everything equal when the starting pistol goes off, while the liberal wants every race to wind up with a photo finish. The difference in worldviews could not be more stark—equitable standards versus equal results. For them, one person winning the race is proof that someone is cheating somehow.

This has come to be held with all the fervor of a religious dogma. In our time, the only thing that is necessary now to prove discrimination in a court of law is simple discrepancy in the results.

This creates an optical illusion that throws the bigot. The leftist talks about equal opportunity so much (while meaning equal outcomes) that when someone else comes along and urges equal opportunity also, it is assumed that he is a leftist too, or tainted by leftism.

This is important to note because when you are discussing this topic with a reactionary bigot, the same thing happens. He assumes cheating simply and solely on the basis of different results as well. The bigot and the leftist think they are enemies, but they are actually running the same play. The conservative Christian points to an objective standard outside all the players, and wants the results to be determined by that standard. He wants honest refs, in other words. If the ball went in the basket, it should count, regardless of the color or ancestry of the shooter. Those in the grip of identity politics want the fairness of the outcome to be determined by the scoreboard, or by the life experience of the players. But the honest way to play is to simply play by the rules.

So back to the Jews. My basic argument with regard to the Jews, as I have laid it out in my book, and in a few other places, is that Jews are a high performance people. There are a number of historical and culture factors that went into this, but the end result is that when they are good, they are very good, and when they are bad, they are very bad. A great deal of common grace has flowed through them. We should be way more grateful than we are. Although they are less than 1% of the world’s population, they are responsible for an incredible percentage of inventions, patents, innovations, and so on. A lot of Jews have made a lot of our lives a whole lot better.

And also, since I am being remarkably even-handed here, the Jews are also disproportionately represented in a number of highly destructive cultural activities and movements. How many Bolsheviks were Jews? Are they disproportionately represented in the porn industry? What about the Frankfurt School? A lot of Jews have made a lot of our lives a whole lot worse, right?

By framing it this way I am insisting that we consider more than just two variables. This is fine because the objective rule book that we should all be using encourages us to take in more than two variables.

The philosemite wants to point only to the marvelous and happy contributions, the antisemite wants to point only to the destructive ones, while the consistent Christian has a biblical template that includes them both. Now in my clashes with the antisemites, which have been for some reason increasing in frequency of late, I have noticed that they are particularly obtuse on this point. And it is not a trifle because they will be judged with the judgment they are extending. That’s not good news for them. Nobody should want to heading toward Judgment Day with an attitude like that.

One of their complaints against the Jews is that they refuse to follow Christ—unlike these antisemites, who nobly pretend to follow Christ. What did Christ tell us to do?

Set this out with a simple illustrations. I say that a lot of Jews have black hats and a lot of Jews have white hats. The philosemite only wants to talk about the white hats. The bigoted antisemite only wants to talk about black hats. And when I try to contribute to the conversation by saying something like, “you know, I met a white hat Jew once,” the retort (we should not deign to call it a reply) is routinely something like, “why are you defending black hats? A black hat owns PornHub.” To which I respond, ummm.

And so the conclusion of the matter is this. Do not apply to any group a standard of judgment, or a line of reasoning, or a set of arguments, that you would chafe under if someone just changed all the nouns, and evaluated you and yours with that same approach. If, when it is applied to you and your people, you see the fallacy immediately, then you have a moral obligation to see the fallacy when it is being done to somebody else. And failure to see this is a fundamental moral failure. It is soul rot.

Now this all sounds like I am singing some hippie song from the seventies. “C’mon people, now, smile on your brother . . .” In my next letter I am going to take this same principle and show you how to apply it in a way that will draw the inevitable charge of racism.

Cordially in Christ,

Douglas Wilson