Two Kinds of People: Tribal/Selfless vs Universal/Selfish.

We loosely associate tribalism with selfishness and universalism with selflessness. It is said that a tribal–or particularist–person only cares about himself and his community whereas the universalist person cares about others and all of humanity. This may indeed be true in some respects, but selfless particularism and selfish universalism also seem to be quite commonplace. We only need to look at innumerable obvious examples from history.
　
Consider the Germans who obediently served Hitler. Consider the Japanese samurai who lived and died by their allegiance and oath to their lords. These were all highly particularist folks. They lived, fought, and died for their tribal, clan-centered, or national community. They were willing to sacrifice everything for their master or masters, to defend or expand a world of their own. They may have lacked great sympathy or feelings for people outside their community, but they were not selfish or self-centered individuals. Their life meaning was wholly invested in the community to which they belonged. If Hitler told his soldiers to go fight and die, millions of dutiful German soldiers did so. They considered it a great honor to fight and die for their Fuhrer, nation, and race. One could argue that they were selfish and greedy in a collective, communal, or tribal sense against other peoples, but they were not selfish in the individual sense.
　
Or, consider the family. There are many parents willing to do everything for their children. These parents can be said to be selflessly sacrificing for their children. And, some children are devoted practitioners of filial piety. But, these self-sacrificing parents or devoted children may not have much sympathy for people outside blood kinship.
Consider the movie GODFATHER where the Corleones will go to hell and back–at the very least, Michael went to Sicily and back–for the sake of the family but don’t much give a damn about those outside the family. Vito Corleone had tried to get Michael deferred from military service, and at one point, Sonny says only suckers fight and die for strangers. The young and idealistic Michael disagrees and says he signed up to serve his country. From this scene–the final one in Godfather II–, we might conclude Vito and Sonny are tribally generous but universally stingy. The Corleones established a good life in the United States, but their main loyalty is not to the US or the Constitution–nor even to NY–, but to blood. It’s all about the family. They’ll do anything for the family and closest associates(like Johnny Fontaine), but they’ll do little or nothing for the larger society. In contrast, Michael–at least initially–seems concerned about people and issues outside his immediate circle of family and friends. He appears more generous to all of humanity, less toward his own family. But, can we say that Michael is fundamentally more generous and selfless than the Corleones, or is the object of his selflessness simply different from that of Vito and Sonny’s? Furthermore, one can argue that Michael’s decision to defy the rules of the Corleone family was a kind of individualist selfishness. By embracing universalism–or a greater nationalism beyond family ties–, he was grasping for his own independence and freedom. Subconsciously, self-assertion rather than service to country may have been the main motivation.
As a member of the family, he was burdened with certain family obligations and expectations.
But, being a member of humanity–a patriotic American–enables him to lose himself among strangers to whom he owes NO SPECIFIC obligation. (One can only be truly free in the modern sense if one is a stranger among others bound by impersonal material contracts and abstract ideals. In this sense, it’s not surprising that even an oppressive ideology/system like communism had initially seemed liberating to many young people in poor countries who had previously been bound to family, clan, and custom.) One can also argue that an individual making a claim for the larger community or humanity is implying that he has the right to lead/rule/control/dominate other people or has the right to certain entitlements paid for by rest of humanity–welfare, free housing, free medicine, etc. Thus, universalism can also serve the interests of selfishness. Indeed, universalist selfishness can be more dangerous and destabilizing than particularist selfishiness. A would-be universalist leader seeks control and power over entire nations, even the entire world. A would-be universalist activist expects all the world to feed, clothe, and house him. Most radical universalists want either power or freebies. Rarely do they want to work hard and share the wealth they’ve created with rest of humanity. There are many ‘progressive’ rich capitalists, but they either tend to be naively stupid about world outside business, hungry for political power to bought with money, or simply afraid of ‘leftist’ activism and willing to dole out money to trendy causes so as to be left alone.
　
Let us consider some examples of universalist selfishness. Take Karl Marx. It’s often been said that Marx, for all his faults, was a man of great compassion. He wanted to ‘change the world’ so that man would not exploit fellow man. But, let us look at what Marx did for those closest to him? He had a devoted wife and children. His choice of lifestyle and career meant that his family would have to suffer, but Marx didn’t do much for their well-being. He was so busy caring about humanity that he let his family nearly starve to death. Now, it wouldn’t haven been so bad if Marx worked to feed his family, but he didn’t even do that. For all his professed compassion for the working class, he refused to stoop to its level and do manual labor. He only chose to do intellectual or ideological work, and he expected to be supported by rich capitalists who admired his genius. Indeed, one can argue that compassion conceals power-lust. Poor or weak people don’t feel compassion for rich or strong people. Feeling compassion for others means you’re in a position of superiority. Compassion is a form of luxury. A rich man dropping a few coins into a beggar’s cup feels the luxury of compassion. The beggar receives the coins like a dog receiving a bone. Thus, Marx enjoyed the pleasure of power-lust in his professed compassion for the working class. He claimed to struggle for a world with no more exploitation, but he never wanted to be a member of the unwashed rabble. He wanted to be a member of a moral and intellectual aristocracy that would lead the masses toward the new future. Thus, love for The People was a ticket to or a justification for his lust for power.
　
Or, consider Che Guevara, the much romanticized heir of Marx. He has also been praised and glorified as a man who cared for The People. Thus, it’s been said he was a selfless warrior who sacrificed his life for the good of the people oppressed by exploitative capitalism and imperialism. But, was he really selfless? He didn’t care too much for his family. He dumped his first ugly wife and married a prettier woman. But, he didn’t much care for her either nor the children they had together. He was too busy chasing after other women and the Revolution. His love for the People was a rationale for him to find pussy and adventure. Even if there was some truth to the fact Che was enraged by poverty and exploitation, it seems Che’s main motivation for joining the Revolution was vanity, self-glorification, and self-adulation. He wanted to be a communist god-king or rock star, a kind of Jesus. He dreamt of a communist empire stretching all across Latin America and saw himself as the King of the new order. And, was Mao any different?
　
Though universalism is often associated with collectivism, it is just as much a blood relative of individualism. After all, true individualism is only possible in true universalism. This is why there will always be a clash between nationalists and libertarians. Libertarianism understands that true individualism must be universalist. For an individual to be totally free and unconstrained by tradition, customs, culture, family, tribe, and nation, he must be a member of the universal or cosmopolitan community. Cultures compromise individualism because all cultures define and place moral/social demands on the individual. For example, a Jew is expected to uphold certain traditions and cling to certain loyalties. As long as he remains a Jew, he cannot be a totally free individual who makes his OWN choices on all matters. As a Jew, he is expected to remember the Holocaust and support Israel. To be a total individual, a Jew has to abandon his Jewishness and join the world community as a free-thinking individual who makes his own decisions every step of the way outside of social or cultural pressure.
Of course, the problem with libertarianism is it’s just another radical idea that tries to create the impossible. Despite all the talk of globalism and the privileged cosmopolitan delusions of the NWO elites, the fact remains that most people will remain affixed to a culture, nation, and tradition. Weakening borders and merging the world together will only produce more chaos, violence, and tensions. We need only look at the dire history of Latin America to realize that ONE WORLD culture doesn’t work. Catholics have failed, communists have failed, and globalism–at least the radical kind–isn’t working either.
　
If communism or Marxism is a form of collectivist universalism, libertarianism is a form of individualist universalism. Universalism is a good and noble idea, as it’s only natural for scientists, thinkers, spiritualists, and activists to seek or champion universal truth or justice. After all, we know that the law of gravity is universal all across Earth and throughout the universe. There is no British gravity as opposed to Arab gravity. And, we know that people everywhere are fundamentally similar; they feel much the same feelings and have many common intellectual abilities. So, universalism, to a sensible degree, was never the problem. The problem has always been radicalism, a poison that destroys all ideas, causes, and movements. Attach ‘radical’ to any -ism, and it turns into a purist, utopian, intolerant, and arrogant venom.
　
There may be moderate libertarians, but the more famous ones tend to be the radical ones like Ayn Rand and Grover Norquist. Perhaps, we should at least give them credit for their consistency of logic, but therein lies the problem–the idea that the world and humanity can be understood and saved by only one strain of thought or one thread of logical argument. No matter how logical an argument, all human arguments are grounded in ‘what FEELS right’. Ayn Rand calling her school of thought ‘Objectivism’ was just pure arrogance.
　
At any rate, libertarianism is valuable if only for exposing the moral defects of communism, and vice versa. Consider that both consider themselves to be universal truths, yet they’ve arrived at totally different conclusions. History had made it plain as day that communism was less about equality of man than about the Nietzschean power-lust on the part of some individuals to gain god-like wisdom, authority, and power. Communism may not take or maintain power without masses of selfless suckers willing to serve the Great Cause, the State, or the Great Helmsman, but it would never have come into existence or triumphed in certain countries without the cult of ‘great man’. So much for universal selflessness. Furthermore, the majority of the people came to tolerate or even support communism in communist nations out of selfishness than selflessness. Once Stalinist forced labor camps were shut down, communism for most Soviet citizens meant getting something for doing the least amount of work. A Polish friend once told me that despite communist Poland having been an unhappy place, the workers sure enjoyed their 2 hr lunch breaks. And, what does the passage of universal healthcare in America really mean? It means POWER for those who will control the system, and it means free healthcare for the masses who don’t want to pay for it themselves. There’s much here that has to do with selfishness.
　
Of course, other values and ideas are also rife with contradictions. Take heroism, for instance. Since heroes take on the toughest and most dangerous work, you’d think people on the ground or in the front line are most obsessed with heroism–and indeed this is true of some individuals. But, this isn’t so in most cases. Generally, those who make the most noise about heroism are the ones who are safely removed from the front lines. So, Patton talked big about heroism, but he was the one giving orders, not the one getting his guts blown apart. For soldiers on the ground or in the battle, heroism is an afterthought, if that. Their only thought is to survive and live another day. Men who lie wounded in army hospitals don’t think about heroism. Generally, chickenhawks and privileged men far removed from the battleground expound about big and grandiose ideals. There’s a scene in the German film DAS BOOT where the submarine crew comes up for air but then are lectured about duty and service by commanding officers who are enjoying champagne and gourmet food.
And today, there are many fools on the left who romanticize violent revolution and many idiots on the right who romanticize Nazi ‘heroism’ in WWII. Such people are poisoned by ideas and have little use for reality. They’ve forgotten the tyranny and murderousness of communism. They’ve forgotten the fate of the Germans in the war. Many German soldiers may have gone into battle feeling like great heroes, but they soon came face to face with the real nature of war–that heroism is a myth in war, especially in a modern war where whether one lives or dies is a matter of luck.
　
Hitler was the most frightening kind of tyrant for Nazism was a perverted synthesis of both particularism and universalism. It was what one might call a universalist particularism. Generally, particularists throughout history sought isolation. Thus, feudal Japan shut itself off from the rest of the world. Thus, Franco’s Spain was inward looking and wanted no great involvement in world affairs. The particularist right believed in a world of its own, wanted to be left alone, and wanted to leave others alone.
The universalists, on the other hand, sought to unify and reorder the world with their ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. They were not necessarily for a military conquest of the entire world. Their main objective was to spread their values and ideas all over the world. Thus, Christians sought to Christianize the world. It didn’t matter whether it happened by force, persuasion, diplomacy, missionary work, etc. This was also true of Islam.
And communists similarly wanted to turn the entire world communist by any means necessary. Universalism posited that people all around the world were fundamentally the same, therefore capable of understanding the same basic truths and attaining the same basic justice. Whatever delusions or hypocrisies were rife in all its forms, universalism was supposed to advance, liberate, and/or unite all of mankind.
　
The virtue of particularism was it wanted to leave others alone and wanted to be left alone. Its vice was its dogmatic clinging to much that was static and/or oppressive–in the name of sacred tradition–and its often petty or even contemptuous lack of curiosity for other peoples and cultures. (Thus, Japan stagnated over the centuries in virtual isolation precisely when the West was growing richer and stronger.) The virtue of universalism is it seeks to change society by overturning privileges of the few and ensuring rights to the many–all of us. It also has a very human and idealistic urge to share certain ideas, values, and truths will the rest of mankind. The vice of universalism is it can be intrusive, morally arrogant, aggressive, and blind to its own hypocrisies. Thus, Christian universalists were blind to the fact that other cultures had their own sacred faiths and even their own versions of universalism. After all, Buddhism and Islam are also universalist. Also, in its zeal and impatience to change the world, radical universalists have committed their own great crimes. The culmination of radical universalist folly was communism in the 20th century. Totally committed to their secular-faith-as-objective-science, communists were blind to their own blood-stained hands. It was more important to validate their sacred dogma, even if it meant enslaving or killing all the ‘wrong’ people.
　
Anyway, even more dangerous than communism was Nazism. If communism was radical universalism, Nazism was universalist particularism. Though it’s true enough that Hitler didn’t want to ‘conquer the world’, he did want to dominate of Europe and Eurasia and dominate world affairs. Hitler was not a traditional particularist whose motto was, ‘leave us alone, we’ll leave you alone.’ Hitler was a particularist on race but a universalist when it came to territorial vision. He wanted to universalize ‘Aryanism’. Since his ideology was based on blood–‘Aryanism’ was a biological truth than a moral or cultural idea–the only way to universalize it was by exterminating non-Aryans from the lands coveted by the ‘Aryans’. For a man who rejected universalism as an idea, he sure embraced universalism as a military and racial objective. Hitler sought to convert 1/3 of the world into an ‘Aryan’ utopia, and the only way it could be accomplished was by wiping off huge numbers of non-Aryans.
　
Some people on the White Right are ignorant of this and worship Hitler as a comic book hero fighting the venal Jews. Yet, other members of the White Right know this all too well but aren’t bothered by it because of (1) their obsessive fetish with the beauty, grandeur, and magnificence of the Third Reich. Priding themselves as nihilistic Nietzschean connoisseurs of higher beauty and unsentimental meta-morality inaccessible to the unwashed rabble, they turn their noses at notions such as sanctity of human life. As far as they’re concerned, most of humanity is commonplace and boring–what with 6 billion people around the world. What is truly precious and rare are deemed to be greatness, beauty, nobility, excellence, purity, etc. Since the ‘Aryans’ as formulated by Hitler were supposed to represent the highest form of natural beauty, cultural excellence, strength, and health & vigor, it is assumed that they had some natural right to dominate and even exterminate other peoples who were merely dime-a-dozen. Some white rightists admire the Japanese for the same reason. Regarding the warrior code and culture of the samurai to be cooler and more magnificent than the cultures of less martial Asians, some white rightists believe that the ‘superior’ Japanese had every right to massacre any number of commonplace ‘chinks’ to create an empire of the samurai. Most of these white right types tend to be hopeless geeks themselves. (2) There was and still is the idea on the part of some of the white right that Russians were lesser whites or no longer true whites because their blood had been tainted by Mongol invasion centuries ago and because their minds had been f***ed by the Bolshevik Jews. And other white rightists believe that the Germans had a right to rule over the Russians because Germans were simply a more advanced people while the brutish Russians were half-man/half-beasts who were only fit for taking orders. In other words, Russians are simply white ‘niggers’ or ‘spicks’, and Russia should have been a backyard for the Germans.
　
At any rate, it’s probably true that selfishness–or self-centeredness or self-more-ness–is a natural human trait. In this sense, if you repress one form of selfishness, it merely morphs into another kind. Similarly, if one suppresses or denies one’s sexual drives, it doesn’t really go away but surfaces in another form. Thus, if you lock up a lot of men together and don’t provide them with access to women, they turn to buggering one another. If you prohibit priests from marrying, some of them turn to child molestation. A lonely shepherd in the middle of nowhere may start mounting his own sheep. Or, if no kind of sexual outlet is allowed at all, sexual emotions can turn to violent emotions. To be sure, a few individuals do manage to overcome their natural animal drives, but it’s terribly difficult and not even desirable for most people.
　
Like sexuality, selfishness–perhaps it’s better to call it ‘selfness’–is natural. We see the world through our eyes. Even when a person sympathizes with others, he does it through his own private heart; all forms of sympathy is to an extent a form of projection, which is why some people are regarded and pitied as ‘victims’ even when they don’t see themselves that way. In other cases, sympathy is very selective and essentially self-serving. Thus, during WWII, Americans sympathized with those noble Russians and Chinese fighting the evil Russians and Chinese. During the Cold War, Americans sympathized with Afghanis fighting a ‘heroic’ war against communist imperialism. Oftentimes, we sympathize with other peoples–or fuel such sympathy among the masses–in order to serve our own interests in the matter. This self-serving sympathy can be political, economic, or essentially a form of vanity. After all, why do Americans care so much more for Tibetans than for the Uighurs who are also oppressed by the Han Chinese? Because Tibetan religion and culture invoke visions of spiritual Shangri-La so dear to narcissistic Westerners steeped in fashionable Eastern Mysticism. And, why are so many celebrities passionate about poverty among black Africans but show little interest for poor Bolivian Indians or Sri Lankans? Because the White West is obsessed with black athleticism and popular music, and thus feel more sympathy for suffering blacks than for suffering Bolivians or other ‘uncool’ peoples.
And of course, the sympathies of the some members of the White Right are just as suspect. They will bitch and whine about those innocent Germans killed in the Dresden bombing or raped by Russian soldiers but ignore, remain mum, or try to deny the much worse atrocities committed by Germans in the East.
　
In a way, one could argue that universalism can take the form of a megalomaniacal projection of one’s own ego–one’s own view of how the world should be. For the world to embrace universalism, there has had to be a person who projects his own idea of universal values and justice on everyone else. In other words, universalism isn’t possible without the prior existence of an individual with a huge ego who considers it a moral, philosophical, and/or political imperative for all of mankind to agree with HIS view of how the world should be. There can be no law unless there is a law-giver to begin with. Similarly, there can be no universalism without a man who lays down the universalist principles.
　
Great men who laid down universal laws must have been aware of the contradiction within their outlook. On the one hand, a GREAT MAN claims to be doing something for mankind–or the larger community–, yet he is imposing HIS own idea of how things should be. How can one convince the people–and oneself–that one is not merely forcing the people to follow ONE’S OWN idea of how things should be? Who is he to say HIS IDEAS are right for all people? Thus, the GREAT MAN often came to rely on God. He would say these universal or higher truths are not his own but were given to him by God to pass down to all the people. So, Moses went off to Mount Sinai to return with the tablets with the Ten Commandments. In the modern secular world, the creators of the new universal order invoke science, freedom, liberty, human rights, social justice, or The People.
　
This isn’t to suggest that all universal ideas are merely the eccentric inventions of individuals who seek to force their view of reality and justice on everyone else. Everyone is an inheritor of past traditions, wisdom, and experiences. With the power of reason, individuals may arrive at a set of values or principles that may indeed appear sound and useful to most people. Since people want to live in a ‘better’ world, there is a desire to learn, improve, and reform society. Some individuals are indeed more capable of connecting the dots, arriving at a higher truth, advancing rational arguments for the common good, and/or attaining an higher spiritual truth.
　
But, there are radical universalists who claim to be utterly selfless or other-istic and to speak and work purely for mankind. Yet, such radical suppression of the natural emotions of selfness leads to a monstrous selfness in the guise of utopian idealism. Consider Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Che. Each claimed to be utterly selfless agents of human progress. They claimed to desire no wealth, no privilege, no fancy jewelry and the like. They only wanted to save or help humanity. But, were they really selfless or other-istic? Did they really care more for other people than for themselves? No, they used the idea of revolution to gain obtain power for themselves. They may not have been greedy in the materialistic sense but they were greedy for power and for ‘truth’. They wanted to own and control the truth, which is why communists took over entire media networks, all schools, and all other institutions of information and learning. They always said it was all for The People–and they may have been sincere in their conviction–, but they were, at heart, very selfish or self-istic men. In the end, all that power and privilege–in the name of The People, of course–whet their appetite for other things as well, and it was only a matter of time before communist leaders lived like king and barons.
　
The best option for most of us would be finding a balance between particularism and universalism, between selfness and otherness. This idea may be old as the hills, but that’s why hills last so long.

A Response to WHY ARE JEWS LIBERAL? in Commentary Magazine

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/why-are-jews-liberals-a-symposium-15223

The following is my reply to COMMENTARY MAGAZINE’S symposium on why Jews tend to be liberal.

Norman Podhoretz's book is really an apologia for liberal Jews, which goes to show, that all said and done, it comes down to 'we Jews stick together.' Norman Podhoretz isn't condemning liberal Jews in the manner that Biblical prophets condemned Jews who went astray. Rather, he's like the father in the PRODIGAL SON story. He's pretending to be hopeful that liberal Jews will one day see the misguidedness of their ways and come back home. After all, his criticism of liberal Jews is a really a kind of flattery. He's saying that liberal Jews are sensitive to their own suffering as a people and thus have embraced the secular religion of SOCIAL JUSTICE--even if it hurts Jewish interests. (I would argue that the ONLY people who've consciously acted against their own interest are white Christians in both US and Europe who’ve sought to make amends for their racial bigotry, slave trade, imperialism, and the Holocaust--in the case of Germans and those who collaborated. But even here, rich white gentiles are protected by their own wealth, connections, and privilege. The only people who really had to pay the price are middle class, working class, and poor whites. No way that the Kennedies or Bushes will suffer in the forseeable future. They sell their own people down the river but reap praise and gain greater power for their 'compassionate' and 'progressive' virtues.)

Some people may think Norman Podhoretz’s book is aimed at Jewish readers, but it's really aimed at conservative white gentiles. If anyone feels cheated, it is us. We went out of our way to accommodate Jewish interests, demands, priorities, etc. We let neocons take over the party. We supported Israel 200%. We did everything to reject or marginalize elements of the far right--much more than liberals ever rejected the elements of the far left. And, what did we get out of all this? 82% of Jews voted for Obama. Something like 65% of Obama's $750 million came from Jews. The media owned and controlled mostly by liberal Jews protected and cheered for Obama. Educational policy formulated at the top echelons of the academia is largely in the hands of the Jewish Left.

Therefore, many of us are angry as hell. I sure am. And Norman Podhoretz must sense some of this simmering rage among white goyim. He must know are we are seething angry with much of the Jewish community. So, what does Norman Podhoretz do? Does he join us in condemning the liberal Jews? No, he sighs and grieves like a Jewish mother who's just seen her son marry a shikse; he tries to explain that though most Jews are liberal, they are liberal for the best possible intentions and due to long suffering under us goyim. It's a socio-historical defense of the Jewish liberals. You see, they are still traumatized because we goyim have been very nasty to them. It's not exactly an insanity defense; it's more like a childhood trauma syndrome defense. Norman Podhoretz has applied Freudianism to the entirety of Jewish history. Jews, even though they are rich, secure, and safe, cannot shake off their traumas from earlier years. So, what liberal Jews really deserve is SYMPATHY from us.
There's another implication in Norman Podhoretz’s prediction that Jews shall always remain liberal, which is that neocons may have to rejoin with the liberal Jews. If neoconservatives are Jews first and everything second, then they must stick close to the Jewish community. If Jews will always remain liberal, then neocons must eventually close shop and rejoin with the liberals(especially since the backbone of white conservatism seems to have been permanently broken due to PC indoctrination of the young and rapidly changing demographics). Indeed, many neocons have supported Obama and rejoined the ranks of liberals. Just consider David Brooks and Anne Applebaum. Also, most neocons must privately know that Obama has been bought and sold by liberal Jews who are no less pro-Zionist--though not as nakedly as neocons--than Norman Podhoretzs of the world. When it comes to the issue of Israel, Obama will be a good boy indeed. I believe that Jews supported Obama precisely because they are nervous about the growing murmur that "Jews control America." Bush was such a poodle to AIPAC that it became embarrassing to Jews. Jews want Israel to look like a poor helpless country aided by big strong US controlled by goyim. They don't want US to look like a stupid hick nation bought and controlled by Jewish interests; yet, Bush made it plain as day. Jews want power but want to appear powerless. The image of powerlessness--associated with the Holocaust--is one of the essential pillars of Jewish power. It staves off any criticism or scrutiny of Jewish power. So, Jews eagerly supported Obama who had some nominal ties to Palestinians and anti-Zionists which were supposed to throw observers off the scent. He also has a Muslim background. With Obama in power, Jews sought to fool the world that US was now in control by a 'fair-minded' black man of Muslim origin.
And though Jews created and made Obama, Jews also knew that Obama-as-president would make many(if not all)conservatives even more slavishly loyal to Israel and Jews. Because so many conservatives(especially Christian types)are utterly beholden to the idea of Israel and historical guilt regarding Jews, they've been worrying day and night about how Obama might harm the Jews--how he might indeed be a secret Muslim(!!!!!). So, even though Jews trashed the conservatives, conservatives are ever more down on their knees praying for the safety and well-being of Jews. Though Obama is a puppet and tool of Jews, conservatives are worried that he might harm the Jews. It goes to show white conservatives--many if not all--are more concerned with Jewish interests and survival than their own. They've been bred and conditioned this way by the media and academia largely in the hands of liberal Jews and naive or-just-plain-scared WASPS(whose moral authority was destroyed by Jews’ associating black American experience with the Holocaust; you'd think Jews would be forever beholden and grateful to white America for saving them in WWII and providing Jews with great freedom and opportunity in the US. Instead, Jews cleverly molded the Jewish and black experience as one narrative so that White Americans would be burdened with guilt no less than the Germans. What part of this Jewish strategy was driven by a culture of vengeance? If Christianity contains some teachings about forgiving your enemies, Jewish religion is one of vengeance. God said 'vengeance is mine' and he mercilessly destroyed all enemies of Jews. Secular Jews don't believe in God, but as we all know, people who reject God often act like gods themselves. And, Jews have been on a mission of vengeance against all of us. Jewish sense of history is rich and full of wisdom, but is also filled with powerful grudges, rage, and thirst for vengeance. Muslims have this too but tend to vent their anger in stupid ways like blowing things up. Jews, being smarter and more enterprising, plot their vengeance in a more Hyman Roth-like fashion. They say it's not personal, it's only business... but it's all personal.)

So, Norman Podhoretz is saying Jewish liberals are really the best of us. They may be naive, utopian, and misguided but they mean well, really really well. Uh shucks, they are even more well-intentioned than neocons. Norman Podhoretz is saying that the problem of liberal Jews is that they are TOO GOOD. Norman Podhoretz wishes that they’d finally see the light and realize that utopianism is a pipe dream in a dangerous world inhabited by sinful mankind. People should come back to ground and face limitations; people should be more realistic than idealistic. People should think in terms of cultures and tribes than in some dream of brother/sisterhood of man/woman. Even so, Jewish liberals are saints, really.

The problem is I don't buy Norman Podhoretz's argument. I think he knows full well that Jewish liberals, no less than neocons, have been working essentially for Jewish power, interests, and privilege. The idea that most Jews are liberal out of goody-goody idealism is just smoke-and-mirrors fraud. I believe Jews have supported blacks for three reasons, all for Jewish interests. Many Jews used to do business in the black community, and it was in the interest of Jews to be chummy with blacks--at least on the surface. Even today, Jews own many businesses--sports, music industry, TV, etc--which rely on black talent, and so it helps Jews to be on good terms with blacks. Also, blacks have been useful in undermining the moral authority of white gentiles, especially wasps--the main rival of Jews in the 20th century. When Jewish media and lawyers placed all of white society–since most white groups had been Anglo-Americanized--on the moral defensive, it became easier for Jews to get things their way by moral bullying and blackmail. Also, Jewish 'compassion' for blacks fits in nicely with the Jewish narrative on the Holocaust. There is also the sense among many Jews that due to demographic trends, blacks will gain power while whites will lose it. Jews want to be on the side that's on the up and up.

As for Jewish support of higher immigration, I don't buy the BS that it's all because Jews found haven in America and want to share that blessing with the rest of the world. (If Jews are so eager to share their wealth and blessing with the rest of the world, why not emigrate to poor countries and help the wretched of the Earth? Or, at least settle in inner-cities where they can share their wisdom, wealth, love, and advice with blacks or browns?) No, Jews have supported high levels of immigration for their own interest. Jews, as a powerful minority, know that they are safer in a diverse country where a large majority cannot unite against them. Jews knew they were safest in the Austro-Hungarian Empire where the great diversity prevented various ethnic groups from uniting against the Jew. And, Jews were safer in the USSR before the reappearance of Russian nationalism whereupon Russians began to target Jews as Jews even though everyone was supposed to nomially be 'comrades'. The fall of communism was initially good for Russian Jews who got fabulously rich, but the rise of nationalism under Putin has been bad for the Jews. Jews want diversity as a shield. One might argue that most white Americans love Jews and mean them no harm, but Jews have an unforgiving and paranoid mindset. Besides, Jews fear that rising Jewish power--surely to rise even higher as finance is the biggest sector of the economy and future wealth will come from high-tech which favors the smarter Jews--may eventually lead to goy resentment against the Jews(especially as globalism--which made Jews richer while making goyim poorer--continues to take its toll on America).
But, diversity isn't used only against whites but agaisnt blacks. Both neocons and liberal Jews are well-aware(if only privately)that most blacks don't like Jews. And, truth be told, most Jews don't like blacks on a personal basis. What Jews want is a symbolic and spiritual alliance with blacks, but more and more blacks have grown resentful since Jews got so much richer since the 60s while so many blacks still remain on the bottom--or have gotten worse since Great Society. This had led to the rise of guys like Farrakhan and Sharpton. Even the #1 'civil rights' leader Jesse Jackson was overheard calling NY 'hymietown'. How do Jews pressure blacks to behave? By boosting the number of Hispanics. With browns growing in number, blacks have to compete for attention and favors. They have to behave somewhat better if they want money and treats from Jews which might otherwise go to browns. The essence of Jewish policy on goyim can be seen on the Jerry Springer Show. Jerry makes various goy trash whump one another while he himself stands back and fakes it as Mr. Nice Guy who only means well.
Truth be told, even Reagan and Paleocons like Pat Buchanan supported the amnesty in 1986 for similar reasons--to use browns and yellows as buffer and competitors to blacks who've caused most of the racial havoc and problems since the 60s when cities burned again and again and when crime rates skyrocketed. But whereas Paleocons eventually wanted immigration to end when white majority itself was threatened, Jews wanted it to continue so as to undermine the dominance of the white majority itself. Jews wanted to hold onto dominance permanently, and they knew that the ONLY SURE WAY was to render whites forever incapable of uniting against the Jew. So, all this stuff about Jewish liberals supporting immigration out of idealism and against their own tribal interest is so much crap. And, I believe Norman Podhoretz knows this.

Indeed, I don't really see Jewish liberals and neocons as bitter enemies but as a tag team of sorts. Jewish liberals are useful to Jewish power by promoting the image of Jews as noble defender and champion of the downtrodden and poor against EVIL WHITE GENTILES. The problem with this narrative is that Palestinians are a downtrodden and oppressed people done wrong by Jewish imperialism. This is where the neocons step in to work on conservative gentiles. Neocons portray Israelis as fiercely patriotic and nationalistic people--just like gung ho American conservatives. Neocons assure conservatives that if the latter supported Israel 100%, demeaned Muslims, and expressed undying support for Jews everywhere, the wonderful Jews will eventually come over to the Right. (Heck, even a smart guy like Buckley bought this hook, line, and sinker.) Jewish liberals guard the image of Jews as noble victims of history who deeply care for other noble suffering people--especially if they happen to be 'victims' of white gentile evil. But, this opens Jews to charges of hypocrisy since they've stepped on Palestinians. This is where neocons step in and work on white conservatives and Christians and plead with them to SAVE THE JEW from Muslim savages. Conservatives are eager to oblige since sucking up to Jews is one sure way to wash the Right of the sins of the Far Right tradition of antisemitism(especially Nazism). Also, white conservatives simply feel closer to Israelis, many of whom are European Jews, than with swarthy looking Arabs. The irony of all this is that Jews, once victims of white supremacism, are exploiting white conservative racial biases to gain support of Israel(promoted as a beacon of Western Civilization) against those hook-nosed and curly haired Arabs–Jewishness has been Christianized and Arab Semites have been Nazi-ized. Also, many conservative Christians see the creation of Israel as the next best thing to the Crusades–the Holy Land has returned to the bosom of the West(though one could argue it’s more like the West has fallen into the control of the Jews).

So, we must see Jewish liberals and neocons as working in tandem. Liberal Jews garner and gain support for Jews from the liberal/left and people-of-color spectrum of the political divide, while neocons harvest support from the Right. In both cases, it comes down to 'what is good for the Jews'. I do believe that neocons were sincere in their disillusionment with Great Society, counter-culture, and communism. I believe that Norman Podhoretz has many sincerely held socially conservative views. But, he's a Jew first, American second. His main difference with Jewish liberals is that the latter are Jews first, globalists second, and Americans third.

Finally, I disagree with Michael Medved that what defines modern Jewishness is anti-Christianism. Far from it. Most American Christians belong to mainline organizations which are liberal. Jews have NO problem with them at all. One could even argue that mainline Christian churches are more truly Christian in spirit. Christianity is, after all, a religion for the poor and a universalist creed without nations, races, or borders. Materially speaking, one could say Christianity is Marxism without the sword. Jews embrace mainline Christians. Jews have a problem with Red State Southern Christians, but this has little to do with hatred for Christianity. What Jews hate is what might be called WHITE NATIONAL CHRISTIANITY. Many on the Christian Right are not very Christian in their values nor ideas. They love guns, they love blood and soil, they love borders, and they are very tribal in their thinking. Some even insist that Jesus and his disciples were 'Aryans' and that Christianity has always been and must be a white man's religion. Though Southern Churches reformed and opened its doors to all, there is still a lingering sense that they are essentially for white/American interests. The funny thing is that the Christian Right is actually closer to the Old Testament in spirit than the New Testament. It tends to be more militant, tribal, guarding of its wealth, morally intolerant, suspicious of strangers and aliens, and etc. Jehovah said 'YOU SHALL HAVE NO GODS BEFORE ME', and secular modern Jewish commandment to white goyim is, 'YOU SHALL HAVE NO TRIBALISM BEFORE OURS'. In other words, it's not Christianity per se that Jews find objectionable on the Christian Right but the race consciousness, nationalism, the culture of gun ownership and blood & soil(volkish traits), etc. What freaked the Jews about Sarah Palin was not that she was a Christian but a National Christian. Jews want Christians to act like TRUE Christians–turn the other cheek and all that–than like the Jews. Problem is that the Christian Right acts like white Jews.

One final word. I never understood the meaning or worth of 'social justice', a horrible idea probably cooked up by John Rawls. Justice is a matter of legality, not sociology. It is a matter of having laws that apply fairly to all and redressing wrongs committed by certain persons or parties. But, 'social justice' seems to imply that society is unjust simply because some have less than others. By this token, who are Jews to complain about 'social justice'? Since Jews are by far the richest people in America, they must be the most unjust. Is it socially unjust that a Jewish doctor makes more than a Polish janitor? If it is, why are Jews bitching about 'social justice' when they are the biggest perpetrators of social injustice--if we follow the logic of Jewish liberals? It is clearly unjust for some people to become fabulously rich by rigging the system--like Bernie Madoff and most of Wall Street elite--, but I've never understood the logic of 'social justice' except as a clever way for politicians and rabble-rousers to free-load off real earners. But, since Jews are biggest earners, why are they pushing this notion of 'social justice'? Actually, this may be the product of the dual nature of Jewish tradition. On the one hand, there is much stuff in the Bible that sounds like Deng Xiaopeng's maxim: 'to get rich is glorious'. But, there is also a great emphasis on the corrupting influence of riches, pleaure, women, and etc. All said and done, the pure-hearted Prophets get more respect than materialistic profits. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. At the end of the day, what is truly precious is one's devotion to the ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. So, one part of Jewish culture is money-and-success obsessed. But, another part is very mindful or narcissistic about issues of morality. Jews wanna have the cake and eat it too. So, Jewish liberals become billionaires but then act like Mr. Nice Guys. Some do it sincerely, some do it cynically--like Madoff the philanthropist, haha. Even Jewish porn makers have been known to donate generously to Israel. There is some of this too in Christian tradition though, owing to the stress on universality and equality, there is less dialectical tension between moralism and materialism. Chinese are like this too. They love to make money, but Confucius(and later Mao)said 'money is bad, and virtuous politics must lead society'. So, Chinese seek to makes lots of money but want at least one of their sons to succeed in respectable fields like academia or government.

--------------------

Maybe liberalism's appeal to Jews can be better understood by considering the political journey of David Mamet. A life-long leftist-liberal(though never a PC one)Jew, he veered to the right in recent yrs. If not exactly a conservative, he's not a capital "L" liberal anymore either. But, why did he turn rightward? Because he found conservatism to be an happier or more hopeful ideology? No, because it was a 'worse' ideology, by which I mean it has a truer grasp of the human nature–man is a sinner or even sh–. So, Mamet's rightward shift hasn't been an uplifting conversion but a depressing acceptance of reality.

And, one can see the same kind of shift among the neocons. Both neocons and Mamet--and guys like Horowitz--grew more depressed and grumpier with their rightward shift. As leftists, they may have been filled with rage or frustration, but there was also the excitement of a better future, utopia, the perfectability of man, the arrival of greater peace and justice. And, even if leftism appeared an uphill battle, a sense of revolutionary romanticism made it seem fun and worthwhile. This is why even an anarchist living at the margins of society can be happier than a conservative. He may know that his vision of society has little chance of success but still feel special as someone far ahead of the curve.

A recent survey said conservatives are happier than liberals, and this may be superficially true(especially if conservatives happen to rich/privileged or simple-mindedly religious). But, conservatives are generally more anxious because they must preserve what they have. Those guarding the castle are more worried that those attacking it. Those failing to storm the castle still have freedom over the vast expanse. But, those failing to guard the castle will be cut down to every man, woman, and child. The Left is, if only ideologically and spiritually, always on the offensive. The Right, no matter how powerful or secure, is always on the defensive. Even when the left loses, it has its shining ideology or idealism. The fall of communism still hasn't killed off the romanticism of Marxism or revolution--just look at Che t-shirts or Obama Mania. The right, in contrast, has little to cling to if it loses its material basis of power--land, women, pragmatic social values, wealth, guns, etc. Though the left has been tagged as secular and the right as religious, in ideological and emotional thrust the left has been more spiritual while the right has been more materialist. The Right may believe in such ideas as nation and freedom, but it comes down to LAND and MONEY. It may believe in family values, but it comes to women and children. There is the concept of God and Jesus on the Right, but Christianity originated as a leftist movement, and it may be this leftist element which imbues so many conservatives with naive utopian hope(if only in the hereafter). Besides, Christianity has also been turned into a militant tool or tribal banner--materials--for the survival of the Right.

The left is materialist in their scientism, belief in big government allocating resources, and theories of class struggle, but the heart and soul of leftism goes beyond materiality. There is a vague but all-encompassing vision of a better future. Obama's slogans HOPE and CHANGE and Martin Luther King's I HAVE A DREAM tapped into the core of leftist sentiments. It's like the BJ Thomas song HOOKED ON A FEELING. Conservatism worries if your spouse will remain true and loyal. Liberalism dreams of the perfect romance/lover. Conservatism may be better-grounded in reality but liberalism sure is more fanciful and fun, and this may explain why Hollywood fantasyland is the domain of dreamy liberals than hard-nosed conservatives.

To be sure, we need to differentiate between religious conservatives and secular conservatives. The former tend to be happier because they have the quasi-leftist dream-figure in the Jesus who loves and forgives everyone and promises utopia in heaven after death. The truly gloomy people are on the secular right. And, I would include most neocons--including Podhead--in this group. Neocons are too educated and too smart to LITERALLY believe in the Bible. Their idea of religion is really love of heritage, bloodline, culture, and tradition. Because neocons and secular rightists don't really believe in God or some dreamy utopia, they have fewer illusions; they cling to the material basis of power. They feel and fear that this power is slipping away; and so, their sense of bitterness grows and grows. I’ve known relgious rightists who are not happy about the demographic changes happening in the US. They too would like US to remain a majority white country, but they still believe that, at the end of the day, they are not worried because God/Jesus will take care of everything, and there must some grand meaning as to why things are happening the way they are. Secular right does not have this luxury of spiritual fantasy.

I was never so happy as when I was on the left back in highschool and in college--as many young people tend to be. Those were the yrs of idealism when I believed in everything rosy, radical, and romantic taught to me by public education, PBS, Hollywood movies, rock stars, movie critics, rock critics, professors, books, etc. Though the world was far from perfect from the leftist perspective, there was the hope of the perfectability of man, of society, of 'social justice', or revolution and excitement, of hipster subversion, or being on the cutting-edge avant garde, of overturning the values and truisms of all those lame whitebread squares, of all peoples around the world being brothers and sisters, of the equality of all people, etc. No matter what, history seemed to be progressing and thus ON OUR SIDE.
The spirit of leftism is like Star Trek--to go where no man has gone before. It was like you could be young forever. However great and formidable the task, there was the sense that WE held the real secret to justice and fulfilment of mankind--that the logical progression of history must vindicate us. But then, I began to realize that all the stuff I'd been told were lies, half-truths, or distortions. Communism wasn't just a misguided failure but a massive criminal enterprise. Marx wasn't a misunderstood wiseman but an arrogant, intolerant, contemptuous, and ruthless SOB. Races really do exist and racial differences exist. Culture, more than class dynamics, accounts for the economic/political/social success or failure of nations. There's a limit to which man can be changed or improved, and besides most people are mediocrites; worse, some of the biggest fools and monsters are highly educated intellectuals.
But, did my rightward drift make me happier. No, I've been depressed ever since. There are no more opiates of hope and change I can suck from faith in ideology. There are only the bare and hard facts of survival, power, and security.
So, this may explain why most Jews choose to remain on the Left. And, they can afford to do because they are rich. As I wasn't rich, I came face to face with the horrors of racial integration, sudden demographic changes, and economic challenges. I suspect Podherotz's negative experience with blacks had a sobering effect on him throughout his life and had a role in finally turning him rightward–though he hoped to solve the problem through dilutocide or miscegenation–weaken blackness by mixing black blood with white blood. . And, David Horowitz was put off by the macho strutting and bullying of muscular Black Panther types--even before he was horrified by what befell SE Asia when communists triumphed. And, keep in mind that Meir Kahane's band of far-right Jews tended to be poorer and at the mercy of black street thuggery.
Rich liberal Jews can ignore this reality, cherry pick facts and figures, and present their fantasy reality thru PBS and NPR which they control. Why would these people choose conservatism when it means coming down to ground? Why would they want to lose their angel wings as liberals? Indeed, the sight of Mamet's political transformation hasn't been pretty. He sounds bitter and pissed. He called NPR 'national palestinian radio'. He got tired of the fanciful idealism and hypocrisy of the left.
But, naive idealism and hypocrisy are necessary ingredients of happiness. How can anyone see reality for what it is and be happy? Even now, I wish the left was right about races--that the only difference is skin color. It would greatly simplify matters, and solutions to our social problems would eventually be found through social policy. I believe in races and racial differences because it’s true, not because it makes me happy; indeed, it scares and depresses me. It depresses me that Jews are smarter and, being more liberal, push liberal dogma on all of us. It depresses me that blacks are stronger and beating up and intimidating many of my fellow whites. Some neo-Nazi types may find happiness in their theory of 'Aryan superiority', but that too is a pipedream joke.
Generally, when people on the right turn leftist, they are happier than people on the left who turn rightist. John Leonard and Garry Wills started on the right and ended up on the left, and they seem to be happy with their idealism for 'hope and change'. But, look at guys like Podherotz, Horowitz, and Mamet, and they seem like a very unhappy lot. Same was true of Whittaker Chambers. Leftism is a religion as a magic carpet whose secrets can take you anywhere. Rightism is a religion as a security blanket in a world you know to be cold and dangerous.