How come Jacob Rees-Mogg’s antisemitism goes unnoticed?
Published
by
Richard Kuper
JVL Introduction
Antisemitic tropes don’t seem to trouble the guardians of Jewish communal interests if they come from the right.
A clear example from no less a worthy than Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, hidden in plain sight, has slipped quietly below their radar.
Prof Michael Berkowitz shines a little light.
This article was originally published by UCL European Institute on Thu 5 Sep 2019. Read the original here.
Jacob Rees-Mogg’s alarming cry of “Illuminati”
Loading article text…
I have no desire to defend Rees-Mogg but to claim he was knowingly using an antisemitic slur is a stretch, as the Illuminati allusion is by no means only Jewish, just as that mural was by no means only Jewish. It’s important to distinguish between criticising people who happen to be Jewish and because they are Jewish – that’s the definition of antisemitism after all. We can’t reduce a global criticism (say ‘greedy banker’) to an antisemitic trope unless the antisemitic intent is clear. To do so would be the opposite – othering Jews as better than others.
The talk of the “Illuminati” reminds me what I learned about a 16th century group of Spanish priests at the University of Baeza called “Los Alumbrados”, and who promoted a form of Christian mysticism. A number of them were of Jewish ancestry, and this aroused the suspicions of the Spanish Inquisition, setting back their careers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Baeza
Notwithstanding, I totally agree with Dave’s comment above. Jacob Rees-Mogg may have been using words rather loosely and we are in no position to infer antisemitic intent. Indeed, we should keep clear of the tactics that people use to discredit anyone who dares criticise Israel.
The point is not so much whether Rees Mogg was antisemitic but to note that many Labour politicians and members have been slated for statements that carry far less antisemitic potential than his. He is given a free pass for his casual language. The usual suspects did not take offence to this when they raised hue and cry of pain for far milder mis-statements.
He said, “The motion would allow a designated Member—or a few of the Illuminati who are taking the powers to themselves—to give notice of the presentation of this Bill on the first day of a new Session and then provide time for debate on this Bill on the second day of the new Session, interrupting the Queen’s Speech.”
Maybe it was just coincidence that the person seeking the ‘powers’ was a Jew, Oliver Letwin, and was being enabled by the contested actions of another Jew, The Speaker John Bercow. However those on the left have had to train themselves to be alert to such ‘coincidences’ or suffer grave consequences, those on the right can, it seems, be insouciant without fear of consequence.
Rees Mogg is very calculating and most poisonous as he employs very polished diction to enhance the vile claims and lies he peddles to make them more valid ! Everything is perfectly reasonable that he projects it’s just the content is pure bile lysed distortions and untruths.
“The point is not so much whether Rees Mogg was antisemitic but to note that many Labour politicians and members have been slated for statements that carry far less antisemitic potential than his.”
We can all agree on this but that wasn’t the point of the article though – the author said: “There is no other, anodyne usage of this term in current political discourse.” It is only about R-M being antisemitic.
It seems “the” debate has moved on on a number of fronts.
We are used to hearing accusations of some being the wrong kind of Jew.
Now – it seems – there are right and wrong antisemites, depending upon – presumably – the extent to which they side with racist supremacists like Trump, Orban and Netanyahu
Dave, Jonathan, if the Board of Deputies etc had treated him in the same way that they have with anyone on the left who says anything that might be twisted into faintly resembling an antisemitic trope, then he might have had to give an explanation, and we might have a better idea of why he used the word. It may be that he was not aware that Letwin and Bercow are of Jewish background. As it is, perhaps we should be alert to whether it remains an isolated incident or becomes part of a pattern on his part.
Very interesting article. Many thanks for clarifying the meaning and use of the term ‘illuminati’.
This is pushing argument as much as Rees-Mogg is in claiming to represent the people against the Elite.
The illuminati as pointed out in the article refers to an 18th century Germany movement of the enlightenment very far from Judaism, a group formed to fight the influence of the Jesuits in German universities. In its modern form we can think of groups like the Skull and Bones club of the “Wasp” elites at Yale in the USA and the Bullingdon club here – “Masters of the Universe” as described by Tom Wolf in Bonfire of the Vanities, groups that have intentionally excluded Jews.
It is important not to claim antisemic intention by convoluted argument. Most of the Super Rich, be they bankers or otherwise are not Jewish. It would be terrible if criticising the Super Rich elites became confused with antisemitism which by linking the Illuminati to Jews professor Berkowitz does here.
In the US there is a fight between the NeoCons like Bush/Chenney/Kagan and the equally far right populists libertarians like Breitbart/Solov/Alex Jones both sides accuse each other of conspiracies.
The “Thirdway” left made the space for the libertarian or populist right by failing to oppose austerity and generally failing to represent the majority on wages and conditions. The idea of the Thirdway is that the actual left would just have to hold their noses and vote for a Clinton or a Blair while they shifted ever further to the right to pick up votes from the “centre”. They pushed this so far that Obama voters voted for Trump in the US rust belt – out of desperation.
Now we have Rees-Mogg, a hedge fund owner, claiming to represent the people against the “Elites” while using the trope of “the other” coming to take your jobs to advance Brexit. Rees-Mogg does not go down well in Sunderland nor does Johnson all we need to do is show them for what they so obviously are.
Rees-Mogg and the right are using racism and should be called out for it but I think this article tends to make it seem absurd and confuse the issues.
The Labour party have rejected the “Thirdway” giving us a real prospect of changing society. The manifesto is popular, there is almost nothing to attack Labour on so first they tried calling Corbyn supporters anti-Lesbian which got nowhere then they tried anti-semitism which because the left tends to care about Palestinian rights got some traction.
We should not also throw around dubious claims of anti-semitism like the entire anti-Corbyn main stream media.
Isn’t JVL missing a trick here? Surely, instead of vainly expecting the right wing to denounce one of it’s own, it should denounce him instead.