Jimmy Carter seems like a gentle man. Gentle as a wheeze. But the response to his recent “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” book hasn’t been. It’s been anything but gentle. It’s been outrage.

Some now say he’s anti-semitic. Which is unwarranted, and worse – irrelevant. The issues contested concern Israel – and Islamic fundamentalism. Not Judaism. Not the Jewish – or Masonic or Templar or Protestant – conspiracy. Not any more. Since the creation of Israel, it’s what goes on in the Middle-East getting voted most likely to enflame Armageddon.

Carter is wrong, of course. That’s clear the moment we concede Israel’s entitled to defend herself. Right? However defined, apartheid is offensive – and thereby can’t conceivably be practiced in self-defence.

Concrete example: the Israeli security fence. Some call it the apartheid wall. But, of course, they’re absurd calling it that. Since anything apartheid is offensive. Like, the Berlin Wall was an apartheid wall. Insofar it unjustly imprisoned a population, it was highly offensive. The Great Wall of China, diametrically contrary, was no apartheid wall. Insofar it excluded violent invading, it was defensive. Not offensive. Not so long as we believe China was entitled to defend herself.

If China was entitled to defend herself then the Great Wall of China wasn’t offensive. It was great. It was terrific. Take a total basket to get offended by self-defence. Regardless Israeli or Chinese.

The Israeli security fence is like the Great Wall of China – and nothing like the Berlin Wall. It has proven tremendous for defence. Stopping suicide bombing, anyhow. Not so great stopping rockets. Then again, neither would be the Great Wall of China. But never mind that Islam can’t stop shooting at Israel. Point is, the Israeli security fence proved effective in defence. It was particularly designed for defending. At great expense. With high hopes.

So it’s silly – or clumsy – calling the Israeli security fence an apartheid wall. Equally silly as claiming Israel an apartheid state.

Carter says he defines apartheid as the “forced separation of two peoples in the same territory with one of the groups dominating or controlling the other.” Well, there’s no doubt shooting at people often involves dominance issues. But where’s the offence in building a fence instead of shooting back right away? Where’s the offence in trying to force separation? Who goes into a war zone, gets offended there’s no casual mingling with the enemy, and charges apartheid? Only a total basket.

That’s what the outrage is about. That’s why some say he’s anti-semitic. Not because Carter’s wrong – after all, who isn’t? Nope. That’s not why. It’s because he comes across like a basket case. And he couldn’t possibly be such a total basket. No way. He was president of the United States.

Ayup. Newsflash. There may be another basket in the Oval Office right now. Maybe. It’s conceivable.

Different baskets. But both a bit weak. A tad bewildered. Prone to mishandling. And ideologically, sharing that charming, off-the-ranch, gung-ho naïveté.

It’s ideological naïveté that baskets Carter. Particularly, in his case, Marxism. Closet Marxism, since he doesn’t flaunt it. Doesn’t even admit it, perhaps. Yet, nonetheless flamboyant in his charging Israeli apartheid.

It would certainly explain why Carter sounds so lost in his basket. As a closet Marxist, he’d believe all conflict rooted in class struggling over the means of production. Struggling by the exploiting class – rich, power elites, etc. – to exclude the exploited from means of production; and struggling by the exploited classes – poor so thoroughly victimized that any getting ahead demands radical militant action – to liberate and redistribute the means of production from exploiters.

As far as Carter would be concerned, were he a closet Marxist, believing anything different could only mean wishful thinking. Believing anything else could only be an opiate. An ideology. Not real. While that which causes conflict in history must be real. Tangible. Material. Namely: the disparity between rich and poor. Between exploiters and exploited. For any Marxist, whether closeted or not, conflict in human history must be expressive of class struggling over means of production. And class struggling must originate from material causes – from material exploitation. Any believing otherwise – i.e., that struggling may be rooted in ideology rather than materiality – is pipe dreaming.

Matter of fact, Marxists are mostly wrong. By far most conflict in history is ideological – not economic. Rich and poor of one ideology struggle alike together – against those of conflicting ideologies. Precisely how Islamic fundamentalist culture – in the sphere of which subsist the wealthiest states on the planet – converges against infidels. Armageddon is far more likely to spark from even minor ideological misunderstanding – i.e., Muhammad cartoons – than from struggling for control of monopoly oil pricing. Ideology precedes economics as sunlight precedes vegetation – and as vegetation precedes cultivation. Ideology binds us together – and tears us apart – prior the possibility of economics. There is no possibility of society, even – far less so economics – absent ideological fabric binding us together. Marxists are mostly wrong, in fact. But that’s not the point.

Aside from Marxists being wrong. The point is they can’t even conceive being wrong. For them, everything – struggling included – must originate in material causes. There’s no believing otherwise, for them. Conflict must be materially rooted.

It’s been called (not only) scientific materialism: that conflict arises only by material causes – and that nothing, including conflict, arises for ideological reasons. Marxists can’t conceive otherwise.

That’s the point. Scientific materialism is an ideology. And that scientific materialist ideology can’t conceivably be wrong to those adhering it, that it can’t be refuted, means that scientific materialism isn’t scientific. It’s as if someone were to declare all crows black – and then deny the evidence on being presented a white crow. “I just told you all crows are black – so, since the bird you’re showing me is white, it’s no crow.” Fine. Be like that. But let’s get real. That’s totally not being scientific. That’s being dogmatic.

Marxists are materialist by ideological dogma. They dismiss ideology from all accounting of human history. And, far as they’re concerned, that’s no self-refuting contradiction. Nope. That’s being scientific.

But never mind how they contradict themselves. Nevermind that historical impact – i.e., of Marxism, for instance – is animated primarily by ideology. The point is they can’t admit, or even conceive, that they’re being dogmatic. Not scientific. Particularly and precisely not scientific.

And that’s the whole point. If Marxist, Carter is a dogmatic materialist. If Marxist then he can’t conceive conflict as other than class struggling over means of production. So silly. If Marxist, that would make Carter a basket-case – a dupe – when it comes to the Middle East.

We’re familiar with some Marxist silliness. For instance, those obsessed with struggling over means of production can’t comprehend the meaning of productivity. Like even a voluntary employment relationship. To any dogmatic materialist of Marxist variety, it isn’t voluntary. It isn’t collaborative. Rather, since the employer profits from the employee’s labour, the employer necessarily belongs to an economic class inimical to that of the employee. The employer is exploiting the employee. And the longer such exploitation continues, the worse it will get. Inevitably, whether sooner or later, the employee will have no recourse but to rise up and put an end to it. A violent end – since the exploiting leech isn’t gon’na let go economic blood-sucking otherwise.

We’re familiar with this aspect of Marxist dogmatic materialism. We’ve seen what went on behind iron curtains the past hundred years. The terminal, totalitarian wreck of the marketplace. We know about it – even if we don’t fully understand how inevitable it is.

Absolutely inevitable. There’s no voluntary collaborating behind iron curtains. There’s no voluntary agreeing – such as private employment – permitted. Since, according to Marxist dogmatic materialism, such would constitute endorsing exploitation. Thus, collaborative labour must be managed and enforced by authority – more often than not at gunpoint. At gunpoint in order to ensure exploitation – i.e., voluntary collaboration such as in standard private employment – is extirpated. But what gets extirpated, of course, is everything voluntary. Including voluntary work. Eventually, no work remains voluntary. All work is at gunpoint. If not at gunpoint – well, they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.

We’re familiar with this aspect – that productivity has no meaning for dogmatic materialists obsessing the means of production. There’s other aspects, though – some with which we aren’t familiar. Particularly, there’s another aspect worth familiarizing – to help appreciate where closet Marxists like Carter are coming from. And why they come across like such baskets when it comes to the Middle East and Islamic fundamentalism.

It is this. Marxist dogmatic materialists can’t conceive conflict as genuine unless rooted in economic class struggling. There’s no conceiving genuine conflict rooted in ideological dispute, religious intolerance, cultures clashing. No way. No conceivable way. Not genuine conflict. Merely noise and confusion under the influence of ideological, religious or cultural opiates. Alternately, should conflict prove unavoidably genuine, then it must be rooted in real economic class struggling. No conceivable way for genuine conflict to root and emerge from opiates like ideology, religion or culture.

It comes down to this. If Carter is a Marxist then he can’t conceive there being genuine conflict resulting from clashes of culture and cultural principles. Hence, Islamic shootings at Israelis constitute mere noise and confusion under the influence of ideological, religious or cultural opiates. So Israelis must stop shooting back, for crying out loud. They must stop the confusion. Get serious about mingling with and talking to the Muslims. C’mon, tear down that offensive apartheid wall already. You know there’s no real conflict. There’s no defensive justification for that wall. Stop provoking! There’s no conflict. It’s just some noise, smoke and confusion. Get together, mingle, have something to eat, straighten out and get down to economic brass tacks. No? The conflict is real? Those bodies are actually dead? Not dug up for propaganda? You’re not just provoking? Kidding around? Too much opium? No? Dang. Ok. Alright. But look. If the conflict is for real, if the shooting is genuine, then no way does real conflict and genuine shooting emerge from opiates like ideology, religion or culture. No way. If the shooting’s for real, then it must result from real class struggling. If so, fine. Stop shooting back and get serious about mingling with and talking to Muslims. Stop over-reacting! You’re not going to stop them shooting with a wall. There’s no defensive justification for walls. Tear down all apartheid walls! Talk! Mingle! Find out the real, the material causes. Find out how you’ve exploited them – and get to rectifying your exploitation. If you didn’t mean to exploit Islam then stop shooting back, tear down the apartheid wall, get out of those military uniforms and wave your white flags! Talk. Mingle, damn you, just mingle. Tell them you didn’t mean to and you’ll pay whatever it takes to make it up! Stop over-reacting! Just mingle with Islam, already.

That’s where it’s at with Marxist dogma. Either Israeli defence is in provocation – false and intended to perpetuate the sham of ideological conflict. Or the conflict is materially real and Israeli defence, albeit genuine, is in utterly confused over-reaction – hopeless when it comes to addressing and resolving material root causes. Either way, Israeli defence is dismissed. Either way, Israel is deemed to be engaging in forced separation for no good reason. And hey – that’s apartheid, damn it. Forced separation for whatever no-good reason. So, either way, Marxists can’t help getting offended by Israel. It’s not that Marxists agree with Islamic fundamentalists that Israel should hurry up and die already. They just don’t get why Israel persists either over-reacting or provoking – as if entitled to self-defence. As if Israeli self-defence could conceivably be reasonable or justified.

That’s why Carter is offended. That’s why he charges apartheid. He ain’t any kind of bad semitist. He’s just Marxist. And if he got out of the closet about his Marxism more often, people would get it. He wouldn’t require cluster-huddling with rabbis to prove what a good semitist he is.