Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Sean Wallis

Here, Wallis writes,
One minute’s reading of the source blog above shows that it is the original reporter who introduces the very anti-semitic slur that I am accused of.
I wasn't entirely sure what slur he denies, so I stuck a tack in it. Now that David's addressed it, I thought I was going to be a "moderate" voice. David caught a similar denial, but one a bit less specific. I could add a bit more info and perhaps nuance, since Wallis actually references a "slur" in my quote.

However, at the "source blog" Wallis writes,
At the time of speaking I was not alluding to a conspiracy theory which I have since discovered to be in circulation on the internet.
However much clearer this is, it's still very odd. He most definitely does not deny having said what he said, only that it references a particular circulating "slur." It seems Wallis is denying a belief that Jews secreted away large sums of cash from Lehman Brothers before its collapse. Clearly, Wallis is not accusing Jews of having the sort of advance knowledge of conspirators. And yet, he sees absolutely no problem voicing a charge that rich Jews -his reference to Lehman Brother's was absolutely about the stereotype of the parasitic, rich Jew who didn't earn his money; just not about a conspiracy of parasitic, rich Jews- are unfairly interfering in the matters of the UCU. Except..

That unfair interference seems awfully conspiratorial.

I'm confused again. What he said was about lawyers with -and here's the actual quote he doesn't deny-
bank balances from Lehman Brothers that can’t be tracked down.
My impulse is always to assume a difference of narrative and consequent misunderstandings. I'd figured he had a different idea of antisemitism and the problem was bound up in that. I was prepared to argue that point, but now I'm starting to think he's just being maliciously dishonest. It's really rare for me to have any such suspicions about people, and perhaps someone can clear this up for me.

Is it perhaps that, rather than a limited conspiracy of a few Jewish lawyers, he actually associates Jews more generally with a corrupt financial system? Is that a way of avoiding charges of conspiracism? Or perhaps he's not talking at all about Jews, except so far as the powers that be happen to be Jews? Can one even delude oneself into thinking that's not an antisemitic charge of Jewish power? Or am I just veering into incoherence trying to understand what Wallis might think he meant to say?

I guess my "nuance" isn't so "moderate."

No comments: