British Jew against Christmas
Even as I defend the Jews from the anti-Semites, there are those Jews who seem to glory in being walking advertisements for anti-Semitism. Stephen Pollard, who has a blog at the
Spectator, wrote
something about Christmas yesterday that was so offensive that I sent a comment to the Spectator, and, to my surprise, it was posted.
- end of initial entry -
Paul K. writes:
Can Stephen Pollard say what the purpose of his post was if not to mock Christianity? Every phrase oozes contempt—“some sort of holiday,” “My family has never done Xmas,” “Xmas—I use that spelling deliberately,” “an entirely secular festival.” Without the element of mockery this post would be too inane to have been worth the trouble of typing it up.
And then, when he is called on it, he seizes the opportunity to mock once again—“So much for the Xmas spirit”—and then calls those who find fault with him “tetchy” and “weird.” I suppose anything non-secular strikes Pollard as weird, as the word suggests involvement of the supernatural or unearthly.
Pollard mentions that there were some critical responses that he would not publish, “so vile were their antisemitic words.” However, he evidently feels that the crazed anti-Christian diatribe from “Joshua” does not exceed the bounds of reasonable discussion.
LA replies:
That Pollard thinks and writes as he does is bad enough. But that he gets published, and at a “conservative” website, that is what is truly appalling and totally unacceptable.
Paul C. writes from Texas:
I stopped reading the (London) Spectator nearly two decades ago. It has always seemed to lack a coherent view of the world. Back in the ’80s, chic leftists in the Banter and Chat Class begrudgingly praised it as “quirky.” The Stalinist academic left, of course, never read it at all. Following your link, I saw only a few names I now recognize, Taki and Charles Moore. Most of the rest were unfamiliar to me, including Stephen Pollard.
Looking over today’s Spectator, I’m reminded of why I stopped reading it—and most other British “conservative” periodicals. It’s still “quirky.” As such, it is offers a tedious deluge of preachy, self-satisfied political and cultural comment, where the ever present search for the most cultivated put-down masquerades as sophisticated knowledge. I just can’t stand that swill.
Stephen Pollard looks like he fits right in. Checking his biography, I followed the link to the think tank he oversees as president, the Centre for the New Europe, where it says on its main page, “The Centre is named for the ‘New Europe’ now being born, for the European Union’s daring, historic experiment to unite some 300 million Europeans in peace and freedom.” Small wonder he has such contempt for Britain’s Christian traditions. He, as with the others at his center, appears to be an EU enthusiast of the free market, open borders variety. I had never heard of the Centre for the New Europe, but even the title bespeaks of its “revolutionary” attitude towards the traditional order. In short, this fellow and his center sound like neocons of the Bill Kristol type. The economy is their god. The nation-state and the historic population that allowed for nationhood are simply speed bumps to be erased from history.
LA replies:
So he’s not even nominally a conservative, yet he’s at the Spectator. Similarly, Melanie Phillips, who despite her anti-leftism on some issues is a self-described liberal, not a conservative, is now published there.
I agree with you in having a very low opinion of the Spectator for a long time and virtually never looking at it, although now that Phillips’s blog has moved there I go there occasionally.
There’s just no serious conservatism of any stripe in mainstream Britain. There are certain things (the EU, the Sexual Orientation Regulations, anti-hate laws, official toleration and subsidization of Muslims etc.) which, once one has gone along with them , one is simply gone as a conservative and cannot come back short of a total act of repentance.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 26, 2007 10:19 AM | Send