Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Zionism

The Jewish Question(and Some Answers)

The following is an interview I recently conducted with ‘Reactionary Jew’ and ‘The Rebbe,’two Twitter figures from a small grouping known as the Jewish ‘Alt-Right,’ or ‘JewishAlternative.’ As someone who has studied Jewish dynamics in White societies for more than a decade, I was interested by recent media attention in The Forward and elsewhere concerning Josh Seidel, an American Jew who claimed to be part of the Alt-Right. I say interested rather than ‘surprised’ or ‘puzzled’ because history is replete with small numbers of Jews who have pursued, what are from their perspective, ostensibly unusual political and ideological paths. In the most extreme cases, Jews have been pioneers of what has been termed ‘anti-Semitism.’ For example, one of the first great exposures of the anti-Gentile content of the Talmud was carried out in Germany by the 16 th century Jewish apostate Johannes Pfefferkorn. Between 1507 and 1521 Pfefferkorn acted like a kind of early modern Andrew Anglin, printing more pamphlets (in both German and Latin) attacking Jewish behavior than any other author. He demanded that Jews cease their practice of usury, and aggressively upbraided them for what may be loosely described as a range of ‘anti-social’ behaviors.

The following is an interview I recently conducted with ‘Reactionary Jew’ and ‘The Rebbe,’ two Twitter figures from a small grouping known as the Jewish ‘Alt-Right,’ or ‘Jewish Alternative.’ As someone who has studied Jewish dynamics in White societies for more than a decade, I was interested by recent media attention in The Forward and elsewhere concerning Josh Seidel, an American Jew who claimed to be part of the Alt-Right. I say interested rather than ‘surprised’ or ‘puzzled’ because history is replete with small numbers of Jews who have pursued, what are from their perspective, ostensibly unusual political and ideological paths. In the most extreme cases, Jews have been pioneers of what has been termed ‘anti-Semitism.’ For example, one of the first great exposures of the anti-Gentile content of the Talmud was carried out in Germany by the 16 th century Jewish apostate Johannes Pfefferkorn. Between 1507 and 1521 Pfefferkorn acted like a kind of early modern Andrew Anglin, printing more pamphlets (in both German and Latin) attacking Jewish behavior than any other author. He demanded that Jews cease their practice of usury, and aggressively upbraided them for what may be loosely described as a range of ‘anti-social’ behaviors.

Despite his great zeal in anti-Jewish activity, because of his origins Pfefferkorn was the object of much distrust, derision, and suspicion by his contemporaries. The same responses have been evident in relation to the small collective of Jewish nationalists seeking shade under the Alt-Right umbrella. Hostile non-Jewish responses are, given the sobering weight of grim history between our peoples, predictable, justified, and eminently sensible. The threat of infiltration, co-option, and misdirection is very real. I have composed essays explicitly dealing with this subject from a historical perspective, and I have advocated for the exclusion of Jews from the life of our movement for the sake of its ideological and material integrity. Possessing an eye for historical context, I didn’t like Seidel’s use of the term ‘Alt-Right’ to describe what he is, or what he claims to be. Seidel may well be a reactionary of sorts, and he may well be opposed to much of the agenda of the mainstream Jewish community. However, that does not make him a part of the Alt-Right, a movement which is, in the main, an outgrowth of European ethno-nationalism. He can no more be part of the Alt-Right than I can be a part of the Chabad-Lubavitch sect. The Alt-Right is not a social club. It is the organic expression of national will – the will of the best elements of the European peoples.

One doesn’t need to feel that the proverbial “all Jews” are dedicated to fighting against us in order to see that a blanket exclusion would be useful. Any suggestion of co-operation should be considered moot. A blunt ‘anti-Semitism’ that paints in broad strokes isn’t necessarily intellectually sophisticated, but it is a useful ‘shorthand’ for confronting some of our most pressing social, political, and economic issues. One might consider the analogy that our opposing forces act as a giant knife, cutting into the heart of the nation. The coterie of Leftists, anarchists, degenerates, homosexuals, self-interested elites, and others of our race make up the bulk of the blade. But with what preponderance are Jews found at the razors edge! It is almost always Jewish radicals that are found with the most cutting, most offensive, and most devastating theories and activism; theories and activism that appear designed only to divide, to separate, to tear apart. It is because of what occurs at the ‘razor’s edge’ that ‘anti-Semitism’ finds both its cold logic and shattering power.

That being said, one should be wary of being sucked into a lowly resentment of one’s opponents. One should be aware of socio-political realities without being consumed by them. Nietzsche once astutely observed that the aristocratic mind is capable of shrugging off opposition, and of always finding the means to a respect for one’s opponents. The lower mind, more fearful and shadowy, will recoil from a full confrontation with reality, preferring instead to view his enemy as monolithic, as ‘evil.’ His enemy stalks him everywhere. Like Nietzsche, I reject the concepts of good and evil, as they are popularly understood, and with that I reject the notion that all Jews are ‘evil,’ or even that there is something ‘evil’ about Jews. We have opposing interests and differing approaches and strategies to life. And I believe that these differences also have metaphysical expressions. However, I do not believe that Jews are all-powerful, and I do not believe that, in and of itself, communication with Jews is liable to leave one vulnerable to ideological deviation. Communication and co-operation are entirely different spheres.

Having laid this groundwork, I ask of readers only that the treat the following interview with the aristocratic mind-set I expect them to have. For my part, I have dispensed with soft approaches and have posed questions in a respectful attempt to get to the heart of what these individuals are in relation to us. They are clearly not members of the Alt-Right, but as strongly identified Jews what do they have to say about issues that the Alt-Right is concerned with? About identity? About the Jewish assault on Europeans? About future prospects for both peoples? One might enquire why such answers would matter. Purely on a personal level I would reply by pointing to curiosity; curiosity about truth, but also the truth that can be found even in deception, self-deception, or the sense of self that prevails in an opposing tribe. For the same reasons, I would interview the leadership of both the ADL and the SPLC if they’d dare to let me. I am sure that the answers provided in such interviews would provide food for both thought and discussion. Such interviews would sharpen our indignation, our ideological understanding, and our political senses. This one, I believe, is no different.

AJ: In the last 12 months there have been spasmodic debates surrounding the definition of ‘Alt-Right.’ How do you define it?

RJ: I perceive it as a broad-tent coalition bound together by one thing: explicitly fighting for white European interests, manifested via nationalism, either in one’s own country, or around the world. Within this label, there are many disagreements about peripheral issues (socialism vs. more libertarian economic systems, ethnic nationalism vs. racial nationalism, etc.). Some Alt-Right issues are considered important by the majority of the movement and seem almost inseparable from that core of white interests, such as the Jewish Question, traditionalist revival, etc., but are valued specifically because of how they are tied to white group interests and identity within the context of the movement. While I do think the Jewish question is (very) important, and I do believe in traditional sexual morality, I also consider those who disagree with me on both of those fronts to still be considered Alt-Right if they are fighting for explicitly white European interests. I should note that I do not consider Breitbart/Milo/PJW/etc. to be Alt-Right, since they refuse to talk in explicitly racial terms and will “condemn racism” when it comes down to it.

TR: The traditional “National Review” center-right confronted communism on a global scale and delayed creeping socialism. These two threats were stalking horses for the real enemy of the West: what you call “Cultural Marxism” (Jews would describe as “Frankism”). This Jewish Satanic heresy is the dominant paradigm of the Jewish intelligentsia and the Reformed/Re-constructivist denominations. The Alt-Right is a late-hour counter-reaction to this threat. While much of the Alt-Right doesn’t even fully comprehend this inchoate “POZ,” it has nevertheless mounted a successful intellectual assault and helped bring about the greatest political upset since Truman.

AJ: I regard the work of Kevin MacDonald as one of the primary ideological foundations for the Alt-Right. Have you read MacDonald, and do you view the critical analysis of Jewish behavior as a necessary and appropriate facet of Alt-Right activity?

RJ: I have read Dr. MacDonald’s work. I have also corresponded with him, and even spoken to him face-to- face. I learned many things from his work, and although we definitely have our disagreements, I think he tries his best to be objective. As stated above, in my opinion, the Jewish Question is not one that can be ignored, both by whites and by Jews. It is too immense and far-reaching. The consequences can be dire, for both peoples. For the skeptics out there, remember that the early Zionists themselves dealt heavily with the Jewish Question, and came to many of the same conclusions as “anti-Semites,” albeit not entirely for the same reasons. A central theme in Judaism itself, especially the traditional Rabbinic variant, is understanding our own group behavior and how that it plays out when we interact with other nations, but from a different angle. The most severe early criticism and harsh condemnations of Jewish behavior can be found in none other than th Bible itself.

TR: MacDonald’s well-researched work regarding ethnic interest provides an accurate model to explain historical Jewish behavior. However, when explaining the demonic Jewish radical Left, his theories break down like the laws of physics around a black hole. I could find only one article on Occidental Observer’s site that mentions Sabbatai Zevi or Jacob Frank, the two heretics who heavily influenced the POZ (as the article acknowledges). Rabbi Emden, the most noted pro-Christian Jewish theologian, first warned gentiles in the 1760s that the Sabbatians sought to “destroy the World”—their Satanic theology: “What is holy, unholy. What is unholy, holy”. Torah wisdom is systematically inverted by the POZ: homosexuality, transgenderism, feminism, pedophilia, obesity, pagan environmentalism, multi-culturalism, supporting Islamists, etc. They loathe the World of Creation and seek the Sabbatian Kabbalist apocalypse: all genders, races, and religions meld into one.

A great example of the lack of self-reflection on the part of contemporary Jews is the bizarre confrontation between the Reform rabbi (with his confused account of “radical inclusion”; Jewish heresy) and Spencer a few weeks ago. The rabbi had likely never seriously confronted Spencer’s viewpoint in his lifetime. Most Leftist Jews are like this in real life and sound like pod people. The most influential immigration propaganda, the “Melting Pot”; by Zangwill, actually recreated the Kabbalist apocalypse on stage. Frankfurt, of the Frankfurt School, was a hold out of Frankist ideas. Freud admitted to being a Sabbatian (as other intellectuals of the time) and seeking to destroy the West. Since the Jewish Left is steeped in heretical Jewish theology and functions often under the “Jewish interest”, it’s childish to think that any serious movement to oppose it can be conducted while ignoring the JQ. If anything, the “National Review” conservative movement debacle of the last few decades tried to sidestep any Jewish connection. So, any Jew serious about defeating this bizarro Left needs to be at peace with the research and blunt discussion of the JQ.

AJ: To what extent, if any, do you see yourself as White, or a part of Western culture?

RJ: I do not consider Jews to be white, even Ashkenazis. We have a fundamentally different identity, despite some of us having European blood. I am myself half-Mizrahi, which makes me even more “diluted” I could write an essay about the intersection of Jews and Western culture, but I’ll try to keep it brief. I’ll start by saying that I personally love European classical music, philosophy, literature, and art significantly more than I do those of other civilizations on average (sometimes second to my own), but most of that is subjective preference, and no doubt partly due to my upbringing in the US. As for Jews more broadly, European culture has certainly left its mark on us via the diaspora, for better and for worse. I’d like to keep the good parts as I see them, such as the structure of institutions, religious garb, academic methodology in multiple disciplines (with certain exceptions), etc. However, as a religious Jew, I do think it is dangerous to start thinking of oneself as “Western” as many Jews do, since we have our own unique moral philosophy that has been defined historically by specifically being not only the opposite of Greek and Roman ideals, but even strongly averse to them.

TR: White and Western. My mother converted from Anglicanism and her ancestors played bit parts in the last 1000 years of English history.

AJ: The Alt-Right is undoubtedly driven by the desire of Europeans to assert their own story and fulfil their destiny as a people. In such a context, do you think that Europeans need Jewish assistance in this effort, and what practical assistance do you believe Jews can offer Europeans?

RJ: If you’re talking about European cultural revival, no, I don’t think that is the case. Europeans should reconstruct their societies on their own terms. However, there is much to be gleaned from our successful nationalist movement, ethnostate, general history of group survival, etc. and I think that should at the very least interest Europeans who care about their group’s continuity both as a model and a warning. Dr. MacDonald has said similar things in his essay “Can the Jewish Model Help The West Survive?”

TR: Trump’s election would likely not have been possible without Jewish help. The young Donald Trump was mentored by Roy Cohn, a street-wise right-wing NYC Jew. Trump surrounds himself with a cadre of similar Jews to this day (whose very presence inoculate him against charges of being “Hitler”). Sheldon Adelson went out on a limb to provide Trump a major early endorsement in his Times of Israel. Jared Kushner’s audacious media/electoral college strategy helped capture PA, MI, and WI. And let’s not forget the contribution of Anthony Weiner’s laptop in saving Western Civilization.

AJ: European history is replete with instances of Jews using and abusing their host populations, facilitated primarily through alliances with native corrupt elites. In response, many European populations have abused their Jewish communities when opportunities to do so have arisen. Given this long, sordid, and extremely vicious history, would you agree that a total separation of our peoples is the best path to avoiding future bloodshed?

RJ: I completely agree that total separation is the ideal, and I’d love to see it happen. One can blame whoever they want to for the history between Jews and whites (I’ve seen both extremes); regardless of how one analyzes the cycle, it almost never seems to end well. Why keep trying a model that fails nine times out of ten? Additionally, regardless of the issues whites may have with Jews living in their societies, many Jewish religious leaders and committed Zionists have expressed similar sentiments due to Jewish collective survival concerns, such as the rampant assimilation and intermarriage of Jews in white societies.

TR: I’d encourage any Jew to support Israel through Aliyah.

AJ: To what extent would you agree that most Jews who look to the Right are motivated mainly by an aversion to Leftist positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

RJ: It is important to clarify the different schools of thought at play here. There are Jews who want to continue living in white societies, and see Islam as a much bigger threat in that regard than they do the white far-right. There are also Jews who see the American and European left as a much bigger threat to Israel on the international stage than they do the right. While I agree with both instances of risk assessment, I’d like to specifically distinguish myself from the “Democrats are the real(ly important) anti-Semites” camp. I acknowledge that Islam is not the only threat to the West, and the demographic decline from Africans and other groups would still be a huge issue without it. I also acknowledge that the traditional neocon narrative of “greatest ally against Islam” is mostly wrong; Europe would be safer if it closed its borders and deported people rather than by supporting Israel more. Additionally, I don’t want Jews to continue living in the West and I don’t shy away from the JQ. That being said, I do not deny the self-interest involved; it appears that white nationalists and I have many common goals -living apart from each other, the breakdown of the post-WWII international order, and the survival of the West – so why not work with them? Even in that last one listed I don’t deny the self-interest. While I value the West as a great civilization, Israel is much better off existing as part of a broader successful and productive first-world, or “Global North” if you will. I try to be as clear and honest as I can in this regard.

TR: You could say that, but there’s also a Christian case for Israel. I’ll just take Richard the Lionheart’s position: safe access to the Holy Land is essential to Christian dignity. Correspondingly, Islamic dominion (through politics or war) over Jerusalem and Bethlehem is a central objective of Jihadis and the POZ to demoralize Christians and the West. Fifteen years ago, Palestinians took over the Church of Nativity (where Jesus was born in the manger). They desecrated it with urine and feces, used the bibles as toilet paper, took monks hostage, and stole gold antiquities. Instead of condemning this, Christians generally blamed Israel. The Jihadi’s continued their terror campaign against Bethlehem’s Christian residents for years onward. The city’s Christian population has declined from 40% before the Church takeover to 12% today.

AJ: Many in the Alt-Right perceive highly ethnocentric Jews, in positions of influence, to be their most concerning opponent. Who is yours?

RJ: To me, as a Jewish nationalist, the biggest threat is the dynamic of the status quo created by the “international community” institutions (UN/ICC/EU), fueled (and even funded) by Jewish leftist traitors, perpetuated by useful idiot academics serving the cause of Arab Islamic nationalist ideologues, and re-entrenched by the US. The fact that we can’t take further measures (such as ethnic cleansing, or even annexation with tighter “security” measures) in the West Bank is actively getting my people killed in the land where they belong. Every move we make, we have be concerned with sanctions, due to the useless concepts of “human rights” and “international law” that only draw out the conflict, cause the situation to fester, and cost more blood in the long-term because they won’t allow for a swift resolution. It’s not any one particular group, but a combination of all of these, and when you put it all together, it creates a big problem for us on the international stage.

TR: The Frankists/Cultural Marxists are the existential threat, yet a movement based upon quasi-Satanism will inevitably implode under the weight of its decadence, madness, and sadism (PizzaGate?). Many of today’s Jewish intelligentsia are the “learn nothing and forget nothing” Bourbons. They are coddled nepotism placements. Ironically, it’s the Alt-Right who have the moxie of Trotsky and Alinsky. The Alt-Right rages about hypocrisy because Israel refuses refugees while the Jewish Left foists them on the West. However, you’re projecting a rudimentary capacity for introspection upon the Jewish Left. This movement of man-children will hopefully expire soon before causing any further undo harm. The USA’s end game will be the same as Israel’s: after quelling its own internal misanthropic Left, the remaining adversaries will be Islam and the global Left (including Communist China).

AJ: As a step toward European self-assertion, I would love to see the dismantling of organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and an overall decline in Jewish influence in our societies. How would you feel about the decline of Jewish power in the West?

RJ: I can tell you right now that I have no positive feelings whatsoever towards the ADL. There are few organizations that go to such great lengths to give us a bad reputation, which is especially ironic considering what they call themselves. The same goes for the SPLC and the rest of the alphabet soup of Jewish organizations which I see as actively destroying society. Their positions on Israel are also awful (such as the ADL’s support for a two-state solution) most of the time. While I am not a big fan of lumping together forces so disparate and fragmented, however prevalent they may be, as Jewish influence, in order to make a sweeping generalization of definitive negativity, I definitely don’t think it’s imperative that we have influence in the West beyond the typical influence of a foreign first-world regional superpower (on the world stage, as befits our geopolitical situation). While we’re on the topic of self-determination and purging external influence, I’d like to do the exact same in Israel, and I sympathize with that very basic desire, which is currently a far-cry from reality in both of our civilizations.

TR: Before the refugee invasion, Europe was first prepped for Islamic conquest with decades of pro-Palestinian propaganda, thereby normalizing Jihadi terrorism. Jihadi’s were victims of oppression with whom lasting peace could be forged but for Israel’s cruelty and Islamophobia. Zionist power in the US, thankfully, has inoculated our country from Jihadi tactics. Indeed, hostility to Obama’s program of importing millions of Islamic “immigrants” helped propel Trump’s candidacy. Jewish power sometimes acts to destroy the West and at other times to help it. It takes the better part of wisdom to know which is which. That’s why it’s called “The Jewish Question”.

1 Comment on The Jewish Question(and Some Answers)

Jobbik Makes Gains In 2014 Hungarian Election

Yesterday (Sunday, April 6), the national parliamentary elections, which are held every four years, took place in Hungary.

Yesterday (Sunday, April 6), the national parliamentary elections, which are held every four years, took place in Hungary. This election was particularly notable in that it was the first time that those of Hungarian ethnicity who reside in other countries were allowed to participate – a significant change considering how many Hungarians live outside of Hungary’s borders at the present time, most especially in those territories which it lost following its defeat in the First World War.

The Hungarian parliamentary elections work in a somewhat unorthodox manner, with voters having to choose both from a list of candidates from each particular party on the national level, as well as for deputies from those parties for their own specific county or district.

No one seriously expected that the popular Center-Right party Fidesz, which has governed Hungary continuously since 1998, would not be victorious again, and sure enough, Fidesz, in a coalition with the Christian Democratic People’s Party, won over 44% of the vote, giving it 133 out of 199 seats in parliament, and securing a two-thirds supermajority in representatives, which means it can continue to make changes to the national constitution without the consent of the opposition.

Nevertheless, Jobbik, the more radical contender on the Right in Hungary whose success has been inspirational to nationalist movements across Europe, made significant gains. Having been founded just over a decade ago in 2003, Jobbik polled at less than 2% of the total vote when it fought its first election in 2006. It surprised the world by placing third among Hungary’s parties and garnering over 16% of the vote in 2010. Yesterday, Jobbik won over 20% of the vote and 23 parliamentary seats, again placing third, and making gains even in the highly liberal capital city, Budapest. This was quite an extraordinary feat for a party that has been branded as “extremist” and “fascist” both at home and abroad, and whose message reflects an uncompromising commitment to a genuinely Right-wing perspective and traditionalist values. Jobbik is known for its defense of the Hungarian people, both within and outside Hungary, and particularly as against Hungary’s Roma population; opposition to liberalism and globalization; opposition to Zionism; and opposition to the European Union, the United States and NATO (part of its party program is to take Hungary out of the EU), which it says treats smaller countries like Hungary as nothing more than a cheap labor force to be exploited.

I was fortunate enough to watch the election returns as a guest of Jobbik at their campaign headquarters yesterday evening, and I had the opportunity to speak with Márton Gyöngyösi, Jobbik’s International Secretary, about what the party’s hopes had been going into the election and their reaction to the results. He told me that Jobbik’s primary goals in this year’s election were to displace Unity, the Leftist coalition, for the number two spot among the parties; to prevent Fidesz from securing another supermajority; to capture the deputy positions in as many counties and districts as possible; and to increase their general numbers among the national electorate. It was only in the last point that Jobbik was ultimately successful.

Unity is not itself a party, but rather a coalition of five socialist/Leftist parties who joined together simply for the purposes of fighting in the election, given the severe loss in support suffered in the 2010 elections by the previous number-two party in Hungary, the Hungarian Socialist Party (which regards itself as the successor to the Communist party which ruled Hungary between 1956 and 1989). Jobbik does not see Unity as serious political rivals, however, since the parties involved have little history of working together outside of the election campaign. Nevertheless, Unity was successful in securing nearly 26% of the vote and 38 seats in parliament, and won the deputy races in two counties, as well as in the deputy races in many districts of Budapest.

It should be noted that the fourth-place party after Jobbik was the Lehet Más a Politika (“Politics Can Be Different”), a Green party, which garnered less than 6% of the vote, and only 5 parliamentary seats. This was just barely sufficient to enable the party to enter parliament at all (5% being the minimum required). This is a clear indication that Jobbik has handily established itself as one of the only serious contenders for national leadership.

During the early phases of the election returns, it seemed as if Jobbik would win the deputy slot in Miskolc, the fourth-largest city in Hungary and a long-time stronghold of Fidesz, but once all the returns were in Fidesz managed to maintain a razor-thin majority. As a result, Jobbik did not win in any of Hungary’s deputy races.

Despite these setbacks, the fact that Jobbik is an actual party, as opposed to Unity, which is merely an alliance of many parties that are unlikely to work together in parliament, means that Jobbik stands as the second-most powerful political party in the Hungarian parliament today.

Márton Gyöngyösi noted that the balance of power between Hungary’s parties was largely unchanged from the 2010 election, which was disappointing for Jobbik. Nevertheless, he was pleased to see the increase in the number of voters who supported them, indicating that their message is beginning to resonate more and more with Hungarian voters.

When asked what Jobbik needed to do to position itself as a serious challenger to Fidesz’s domination, Gyöngyösi said that the party needs to find a way to appeal to voters in historically liberal Budapest. A look at the numbers shows that Jobbik is already the second-most popular party in many of the rural regions of the country, which are traditionally, and unsurprisingly, the most Right-leaning sector of the nation. While Jobbik increased its numbers in Budapest as well, it still received only slightly more than 10% of the votes there. With a population of two million out of a nation of nearly ten million people, a party’s success in the capital city is crucial to achieving victory. But as of now, Jobbik hasn’t succeeded in finding a way to attract significant support there, which Gyöngyösi said would be a top priority for the party moving forward.

Several Jobbik members also suggested to me that Fidesz’s popularity largely hinges upon that of its charismatic leader, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and that his eventual departure from the party could greatly reduce their appeal. Several Hungarians I have spoken with have also indicated that many voters who once supported Fidesz unconditionally have grown more skeptical about it, and their support for Fidesz was more reserved and hesitant this time around given Hungary’s persistent economic troubles. This is supported by the numbers, as Fidesz, while it remained dominant, saw its numbers drop significantly from what they were in 2010.

Gyöngyösi sees hope for his party’s future in the fact that Jobbik has attracted a great deal of popularity among Hungary’s youth, and most especially among university students. Opinion polls have indicated that Jobbik is the most popular party among approximately one-third of students. If present trends continue, as these young people grow older and become more active, Jobbik could be well-positioned to surpass its rivals in 2018 or 2022, barring any unforeseen changes to Hungary’s political landscape.

Those of a Rightist inclination should not be disappointed that Fidesz remains in power, however. While I find the policies and general political philosophy of Jobbik to be much more compatible with a “true Right” (to use Evola’s term) perspective, it cannot be questioned that Fidesz has done a great deal of good for the country, and would itself be considered “extremist” by Western European or North American standards. (I have been told that articles by the French “New Right” gurus, Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye, have been published in Fidesz’s party newspaper, for example.) Given that Jobbik and Fidesz combined accounted for 65% of the votes cast, this would seem to indicate that Leftist parties simply lack appeal for the vast majority of Hungarians and are unlikely to reestablish themselves in the immediate future. I suppose this is unsurprising in a country that had Communist rule forced upon it for nearly half a century, something that is still fresh in the memories of many Hungarians.

What is certain is that Jobbik is not a passing phenomenon, nor a force that can be ignored, and it is likely to remain a significant factor in Hungarian, and European, politics for years to come. This poses a serious counterargument against those who hold that the only way that Rightist parties can succeed is by moderating, since Jobbik has little history of watering down its messages, which are quite bold, to assuage the complaints of its critics. Given Jobbik’s highly innovative geopolitical stance (which favors an alliance of Hungary with Russia, Turkey and Germany as a bulwark against the EU and the United States), its critique of capitalism, and its adoption of some of the perspectives of traditionalists such as René Guénon and Julius Evola, this also suggests that many people are looking for new and innovative ideas on the Right as opposed to the recycling and repackaging of the same, tired conservative slogans of the past. The Right of the future, if it is to achieve anything, will be a very different Right (and may scarcely be “Right-wing” at all, in conventional terms).

Given the sudden increase in popularity of “radical” Right-wing parties across Europe in recent years, most notably in France, Jobbik seems to be only a part of a growing trend. Europeans, and young people in particular, have awakened to the fact that liberalism has and is continuing to fail to meet the needs and desires of our people. If we want to see where the vigor and innovation lies in the European political scene today, we must look to the Right. Tomorrow belongs to us.

John Morgan is Editor-in-Chief of Arktos Media. He currently resides in Budapest.

No Comments on Jobbik Makes Gains In 2014 Hungarian Election

The New Libertarian Hegemony

For the past 20 years, non-aligned rightists in America—paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, traditionalists, nationalists, et al.—have focused on the malevolent and all-powerful *neoconservatives* as their chief enemy. (And for good reason.) Readers of noted publications and websites have been treated to long chronicles of how the neocons undermined the “Real Right” in America. As we await a fresh recounting of the time Harry Jaffa scuttled Mel Bradford’s nomination to the National Endowment for the Humanities, I must point out that this familiar narrative is quickly becoming outmoded. The neocons no longer control the movement operationally or ideologically. In fact, they’ve largely been displaced by libertarians, who, in their way, are even worse than the neocons (yes, worse.)

For the past 20 years, non-aligned rightists in America—paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, traditionalists, nationalists, et al.—have focused on the malevolent and all-powerful neoconservatives as their chief enemy. (And for good reason.) Readers of noted publications and websites have been treated to long chronicles of how the neocons undermined the “Real Right” in America.

As we await a fresh recounting of the time Harry Jaffa scuttled Mel Bradford’s nomination as chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, I’m forced to point out that this familiar narrative is quickly becoming outmoded. The neocons no longer control the movement operationally or ideologically. In fact, they’ve largely been displaced by libertarians, who, in their way, are even worse than the neocons (yes, worse).

Put simply, the Dubya Era is over. Enthusiasm for foreign interventions to bring democracy to Third World nations has dried up among the GOP rank and file. Moreover, the desire for a strong state apparatus and the willingness to compromise with the welfare state is the complete opposite of what the conservative movement now advocates. The proposed intervention in Syria failed to get off to the ground largely due to Republican opposition, and many conservative legislators are now actually intent on eliminating some government programs (rather than just talking about it to get reelected).

So how is this a bad thing?

Besides the opposition to needless foreign intervention, the conservative movement is now more thoroughly libertarian than when it was a hodgepodge of neocons, paleocons, libertarians, and other political misfits. There’s no room for dissident thought, and the movement has become an unwelcome place for those who think differently about race and the future of America. And in a way, the libertarians’ ideology is far more removed from what identitarians believe than that of the neocons.

And libertarian power in Washington is growing with each passing day.

Edward Luce, a columnist for The Financial Times, sympathetically declared that “[t]he tide is rising for America’s Libertarians.” According to data provided by the Cato Institute, more than a third of Republicans now identify as libertarian, and almost a quarter of all Americans do.

Is this all because libertarians assure Whites that America will not turn into the hellish world of Elysium? Is it because libertarians promise to keep jobs here domestically and curtail immigration? Is it because libertarians craft policies that actually serve the interests of Middle America (unlike the two dominant parties)?

Sorry to burst to your bubble, but it’s none of the above. To Luce, it’s because they strike at authority like no other ideology does at the moment. In truth, the authority that libertarians oppose is not really state power so much as the power of tradition.

Gay marriage does not increase freedom, it only increases the control the state has over relationships. Legalized hemp does not hurt the state, it raises more revenue for it and offers the masses yet another distraction from reality. No serious figure actually wants to eliminate free trade, but removing the few restrictions on it only increases the disenfranchisement of White America and leads to more dependence on the state as jobs disappear.

Do you believe that libertarians actually care about issues affecting White interests? Do you think that Ron and Rand Paul are secret White nationalists?

To be frank, the Pauls and the libertarians would rather accumulate Bitcoins and promote enterprise zones in Detroit ghettos than preserve their people. Who knows what Rand and Ron really think, but effectively they have the same views on race as your average Sociology professor.

Don’t believe me? Look at the policies that a prominent libertarian thinks “the Liberty movement” should focus on in 2014: Drug Legalization, Gay Marriage, Economic Choice, and Bitcoin. (Yes, these are the issues libertarians really care about.)

“Economic choice” that allows for more instant gratification, legalized weed that allows for more instant gratification, and gay marriage that allows for . . . well, delayed gratification, I suppose. Judging by this list, Libertarians are shouting “Bring Us the Last Man!” at the top of their lungs.

At least the neocons had some sense of a higher ideal and celebrated the warrior spirit (if only for Zionists). Instead, libertarians just want to make sure you can vegetate on your couch without fearing that “the feds” might ruin your good time. Ain’t that America?

Again, the great irony of this “libertarian” program is that its policies attack tradition much more than the state. Libertarians are no longer paleolibertarians; indeed, the paleolibertarians are no longer paleolibertarians. Lew Rockwell, the man who probably penned the Ron Paul Newsletters and published Jared Taylor on his website, now publishes shrill screeds about rising fascism. (Taylor has beeb scrubbed from LRC’s archive, so Lew can better refashion his image as a Catholic universalist.)

Ann Coulter was somewhat correct when she dubbed libertarians “pussies.” Instead of focusing on issues that matter to White Americans, like employment discrimination laws, they continue to focus on pot legalization. But, in a way, libertarians aren’t pussies; I believe that they focus on these issues precisely because they care more about attaining freedom from tradition and cultural mores than almost anything else. They really don’t care about employment discrimination laws—in fact, some libertarians think that one of the few responsibilities of the state is eliminating racism.

Even when you might hope that the libertarian love for freedom would lead them to allow discourse on racial topics, they, once again, manage to beat expectations! Alexander McCobin, the President of a large and well-funded libertarian group known as Students for Liberty, responded to Coulter’s “pussies” accusation by essentially reaffirming the label. He even included a helpful guide for conservative movement groupthink:

We know what’s up for debate, and so we also know what’s not. The justifications for and limits on intellectual property? Up for debate. Racism? Not up for debate. Deciding which government agencies should be abolished, privatized, reformed, or maintained? Up for debate. State-sponsored discrimination against individuals based on their sexuality? Not up for debate. Austrian versus Chicago economics and their responses to Keynesianism? Up for debate. Ann’s claim that liberals are out to destroy the family? That’s so clearly absurd that it’s in stand-up comedy territory.

So the next time you want to talk about the future of Occidental civilization with libertarians, please try to relate it to the causes of the business cycle.

It’s worth noting that McCobin’s group is currently engaged in promoting liberty in Africa by giving away the books of Frederic Bastiat and Milton Friedman. Maybe this will convince Somalis that they are actually living in a limited-government utopia! (Even David Frum, who in 2004 co-authored a book entitled “An End to Evil,” sounds more grounded in reality than your average DC libertarian.)

As we’ve seen, the neocons’ policies in the 2000s led to the creation of a small, though passionate, opposition within the Right; and the enemy-of-my-enemy mentality that prevailed allowed for a certain openness to radical ideas. It’s worth noting that Richard Spencer worked within the movement during the Bush era, and The American Conservative regularly published Steve Sailer.

But the libertarians seem to be the only group that has actually benefited from these years of opposition. And the examples of Jack Hunter and Jason Richwine illustrate this point.

Hunter, as it has been well documented, used to be quite open about his views on race and immigration. He was a columnist (under Spencer) at TakiMag, and there was no hint of political correctness about him.

In an emasculating and widely mocked confession in Politico, Hunter declared that he had only pretended to be a racist. While the assault on him last summer forced him out of Rand Paul’s office, Jack managed to recover and now has an editorial position at the conservative media site Rare. When he was initially attacked, libertarians took to social media to declare #GotYourBackJack, and Hunter still enjoys considerable support, in spite of his past truth bombs.

Why? Because Jack groveled, fully recanted, and proved his bona fides by providing off-the-shelf libertarian commentary. While he might have lost some of his standing, Jack remains a major player in libertarian circles due to the fact he’s now 100% politically correct. (His current message is that libertarians need to be pro-gay marriage, pro-weed, and pro-life to win over more voters.) Essentially, Jack’s survival strategy has been to become a political eunuch.

On the other hand, Jason Richwine has experienced a quite different fate. As a researcher for The Heritage Foundation, and co-author of its study of last year’s amnesty bill, Richwine found himself under attack over his Harvard Doctoral dissertation. In it, he merely pointed out that Hispanics, on average, have lower IQs than American natives and that their mass migration into the states would have a negative effect on America’s average IQ.) This is, in a way, far less radical than what Hunter had said when he “played” a racist.)

Richwine’s dissertation bore the seal of Harvard University, but that wasn’t enough to save him when he faced a brutal assault from both the Left and Right and was forced to “resign” from Heritage. Conservatives didn’t start a hashtag declaring they had his back, and he never received a cushy back-up job after he was purged. Richwine also never groveled, and his Politico op-ed, unlike Hunter’s, reaffirmed his past research in an articulate and unapologetic manner.

But the ideas Richwine raised are no longer allowed in conservative circles, and it is likely that he will never have a job connected to the movement again, despite his credentials and skill level.

The libertarian takeover clearly spells out to identitarians that the conservative movement is no place for us. The libertarians, in a way, hate us more than they do the progressives (with whom they share a common soul).

But with every development comes new opportunities. If anything, it is past time for identitarians to stop focusing on electoral politics and donating to candidates they think might be closet WNs. They aren’t. And even if they were, they would be banished immediately by both the system and the party that put them in power.

It is time for us to focus more on culture and building communities with racially conscious Whites that would allow us to embark on our own path. We cannot rely on Conservative Inc. to change its ways and to suddenly nominate Jared Taylor as the Republican candidate for President. It will never happen. And we have to develop our own strategy for supporting our cause.

Libertarians are not our allies, and they support the destruction of our identity. Why should we want to be in the same movement with these pussies anyway?

No Comments on The New Libertarian Hegemony

Remaking the Right

Norman Podhoretz is something of an anomaly. His entire life has been centered around his Jewishness, but he sees himself as an outsider in the mainstream Jewish community. He shares a great many of the attitudes typical of that community, but draws different conclusions about how to navigate the contemporary American political landscape in a way that is “good for the Jews.”

Under Discussion: Why Are Jews Liberals? By Norman Podhoretz. Doubleday (2009), 337 pages.

Norman Podhoretz is something of an anomaly. His entire life has been centered around his Jewishness, but he sees himself as an outsider in the mainstream Jewish community. He shares a great many of the attitudes typical of that community, but draws different conclusions about how to navigate the contemporary American political landscape in a way that’s “good for the Jews.”

One area where Podhoretz is absolutely mainstream among American Jews is his sense of history. The first half of his recent book, Why Are Jews Liberal? lays out his version of the “lachrymose” theory of Jewish history in Europe and America in which the Diaspora has been one long vale of tears since the beginnings of Christianity. Whether or not this view of history is correct, the important point is that this is how the great majority of Diaspora Jews see themselves and their history. (My view is that many outbreaks of anti-Jewish feelings result from our evolved ingroup/outgroup psychology.)

This lachrymose view has major implications for understanding contemporary Jewish political behavior in the Diaspora. It proposes that, beginning with an unfortunate theological belief (that Jews killed God), Jews have been passive, innocent victims of marauding non-Jews. The lesson that Jews learned from the Middle Ages carries down to today:

[The Jews] emerged from the Middle Ages knowing for a certainty that—individual exceptions duly noted—the worst enemy they had in the world was Christianity: the churches in which it was embodied—whether Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox or Protestant—and the people who prayed in and were shaped by them. It was a knowledge that Jewish experience in the ages to come would do very little, if indeed anything at all, to help future generations to forget.

Jews were thus wary and mistrustful (at the very least) of all manifestations of Christianity. But the demise of Christianity as the central intellectual paradigm of Europe didn’t improve things for Jews. During the Enlightenment, anti-Jewish ideologies smoothly morphed into non-theological views in which Judaism was a superstitious relic that prevented Jews from shedding their attachment to their people—in Podhoretz’s words, “giving up their sense of themselves as a people whose members were bound together across national boundaries wherever they might live.”

The Enlightenment implied that Jews should accept the atomized individualism implied by the modern nation state. As Count Clermont-Tonnere expressed it in addressing the French National Assembly in 1789, “The Jews should be denied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals… . The existence of a nation within a nation is unacceptable to our country.”

In the 19th century, Jews began to be seen by their enemies as an economically successful alien race intent on subverting national cultures wherever they lived. Podhoretz is squarely within the Jewish intellectual mainstream in his attack on the idea that Jews and non-Jews are biologically different and in competition—“the new racist rationale [that] manifested itself in the portrayal of a war between Aryans and Semites as the central drama of history.” For example, Ivan Aksakov, a leader of Slavophiles in Russia, viewed Jews as a competitive threat intent on destroying Christianity:

The Western European Christian world will be faced in the future, in one form or another, with a life-and-death struggle with Jewry, which is striving to replace the universal Christian ideal by another, Semitic ideal, also universal, but negative and anti-Christian.

Even in the United States—the “golden land” as seen by Jewish immigrants—there was exclusion and antipathy from “the upper echelons of the WASP patriciate.” In America, Jews were excluded by WASP elites, and Christian forms of anti-Semitism (e.g., Father Coughlin) remained strong through the 1930s. Isolationists such as Charles Lindbergh also tended to see Jews as an interest group aiming at getting America involved in war with Germany. (Podhoretz refers to Lindbergh’s famous speech as “notorious.”)

Jews concluded, as they had ever since the political Left and Right came to be defined, that their enemies were on the right. But the main lesson Podhoretz draws is that over the centuries, Western intellectuals produced a variety of Christian and non-Christian anti-Jewish ideologies, each with the same result: Irrational hatred toward Jews. So it’s not just Christianity, but European civilization itself that is the problem for Jews.

And, although Podhoretz doesn’t explicitly make this move, it’s a very short jump from blaming the culture created and sustained by Europeans to the idea that Europeans as a people or group of peoples are the problem. Ultimately, this implicit sense that Europeans themselves are the problem is the crux of the issue.

Podhoretz generally underplays the reality that Jews tended to make alliances with elites wherever they lived. The main exception to this is an important one: The situation of Jews in Russia from around 1880 to the Bolshevik Revolution. But even here, Podhoretz fails to note that most Jews were better off than most Russians, and he fails to acknowledge legitimate, often-stated concerns by the authorities to protect the Russian farmers from Jewish domination of the rural economy and to protect the nascent Russian middle classes from Jewish competition. Most importantly, he fails to discuss the very large rate of natural increase among fundamentalist Jews in Eastern Europe in a situation where they had overshot their traditional economic niches. The result was widespread poverty among Jews and attraction to messianic ideologies of Zionism and, most importantly for the history of the West, Marxism.

As Podhoretz notes, Jews, even when wealthy and powerful, had always been attracted to the Left much more than their non-Jewish counterparts. But the result of this Jewish population explosion and widespread Jewish poverty in Eastern Europe was that the tradition of Jewish opposition to national cultures—well known and commented on at least by the latter part of the 19th century—was now embedded in an ideology of Marxist revolution—often combined with Zionism. Podhoretz’s background places him firmly within these two most important strands of 20th-century Jewish intellectual life.

These Marxist radicals emigrated in droves to the United States and other Western countries. In a few short decades, this politically radical Jewish sub-culture became not only the dominant political culture among American Jews, it became a major force on the intellectual and political left generally. In this Jewish subculture, being merely a socialist was considered “right wing.” The very strong Jewish identity of these Jewish leftists—Podhoretz among them—reminds us once again that a strong Jewish identity is and was entirely compatible with an ideology of Marxist universalism.

Podhoretz grew up in this mindset and, by his account, he remained a radical until the late 1960s. His central intellectual question is why Jews remained on the left despite what he sees as changes in what’s good for the Jews.

Podhoretz sees being on the left as good for the Jews for most of their history in America. In the early 20th century, the enemies of Jews were the “conservative upholders of the old order”—WASPs who prattled on about the importance of retaining ethnic homogeneity during the era of WASP ethnic defense that culminated in the 1924 immigration law. F. Prescott Hall, founder of the Immigration Restriction League, wrote, ”It must be remembered … that … our institutions were established by a homogeneous community, consisting of the best elements of population selected under the circumstances under which they came to the New World.“ And some of the enemies of the Jews were concerned with Jewish competition—“the Hebrew conquest of New York,” as Henry James phrased it.

Is the Left good for the Jews?

In presenting the case that circumstances have changed so that it is now irrational for Jews to be liberals, Podhoretz has one or two paragraphs on the idea that affirmative action is bad for Jews (not likely), the role of the Left in quelling debate on IQ other issues related to diversity on college campuses, and on alleged anti-Semitism by radical Blacks during the 1960s. Then he devotes 160 pages on the relative failure of the Democratic Party, and the Left generally, to protect the interests of Israel. It’s not hard to fathom what his real concerns are.

But despite his labors, the case is unconvincing.

Podhoretz certainly doesn’t have any difficulty finding anti-Israel attitudes on the left. For example, he devotes an entire chapter to Gore Vidal’s “The Empire Lovers Strike Back“ article that appeared in The Nation in 1986 – “The most blatantly anti-Semitic outburst to have appeared in a respectable American periodical since World War II.” Vidal’s article included this quote discussing Podhoretz and his wife, Midge Decter: “Although there is nothing wrong with being a lobbyist for a foreign power, one is supposed to register with the Justice Department.”

But whereas there was “complete silence from the left” regarding Vidal’s indiscretion, William F. Buckley is praised for not only condemning Vidal but also for expelling Joe Sobran from National Review.

The problem for Podhoretz is that there are also anti-Israel views on the right. Indeed, Podhoretz goes to great lengths to show that Buckley and National Review didn’t do enough to condemn Pat Buchanan for his “Amen Corner” column and his culture war speech at the 1992 Republican Convention. And because of failure to condemn Buchanan, there was “great damage to the prospect of a significant move by Jewish voters in a more conservative direction.”

So how are Jews to choose between the anti-Israel voices on the left and those on the right? One consideration is that, although there are anti-Israel voices on the left (Podhoretz would label them ‘anti-Semitic’), with the exception of Jimmy Carter’s activities after his presidency, he doesn’t provide any examples from within the Democratic Party (which, after all, is by far the most important institutional embodiment of the Left in the U.S.) Does the fact that Carter allowed certain anti-Israel resolutions to go un-vetoed at the UN and that since his presidency, Podhoretz sees him as “openly and virulently hostile to Israel” constitute reasons why Jews should not support the Democrats today? Indeed, Carter was prevented from speaking at the 2008 Democratic convention by Jewish activists, notably Alan Dershowitz.

What about Bill Clinton? Podhoretz notes that Clinton helped himself by tapping the “strongly pro-Israel” Al Gore (also a Democrat!) as vice-president, but then showed his true colors by appointing Warren Christopher as Secretary of State and Anthony Lake as National Security Advisor. (Both committed the sin of favoring withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza.) Podhoretz doesn’t seem to think it relevant that in fact Israel was never under serious pressure to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza during the Clinton years.

Although tough talk on settlement expansion characterized the early Obama administration, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has “dramatically changed her tone,” praising an offer of Israeli “restraint” on settlement expansion, whatever that means. Now we learn that Mahmoud Abbas has withdrawn his candidacy for president of the Palestinian Authority because he feels betrayed by the Obama administration.

Recently Congress approved by a lopsided margin a resolution calling on the Obama administration to “oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ‘Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ [i.e., the Goldstone Report, a scathing indictment of Israeli actions during the Gaza invasion of 2008–2009] in multilateral fora.” Democrats voted for it by a margin of 179 yea to 33 nay, while Republicans voted for it by a margin of 165 yea to 3 nay votes.

Podhoretz is correct that Republicans in Congress are more likely to be slaves to the Israel Lobby—for reasons to be discussed below. But in any case, there are certainly no signs of a groundswell of anti-Israel sentiment among the Democrats.

On the other hand, examples of anti-Jewish or anti-Israel attitudes on the right are quite close to the Republican Party. Exhibit A is Buchanan himself.  And then there’s George H. W. Bush and his “I’m just one lonely little guy” up against “something like a thousand lobbyists on the Hill”—said in the context of attempting to get Israel to freeze settlement activity by delaying a housing loan guarantee to Israel. And then there’s Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker who is widely reported to have said, ”Fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.”

Podhoretz bends over backwards trying to reassure Jews about anti-Jewish and anti-Israel attitudes on the right. For example, he gets into his legal-brief mode when trying to exonerate Pat Robertson on charges of anti-Semitism because of “certain crackpot ideas originating in the eighteenth century about a conspiracy between Jewish bankers and Freemasons to take over the world.” One would think that such ideas would make Robertson completely anathema to Jews. But for Podhoretz, Robertson is okay because of his “unwavering support of Israel.”

Indeed, Podhoretz is willing to forgive pretty much anything if its accompanied by pro-Israel attitudes. In the same passage, he forgives Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn his views on the role of Jewish revolutionaries in bringing communism to Russia for the same reason. (To Podhoretz’s credit, he even acknowledges, “Solzhenitsyn’s ideas about Jewish revolutionaries were based on an uncomfortable historical reality.”)

Oddly, Podhoretz fails to mention Robertson’s claim that “the part that Jewish intellectuals and media activists have played in the assault on Christianity may very possibly prove to be a grave mistake… .

For centuries, Christians have supported Jews in their dream of a national homeland. But American Jews invested great energy in attacking these very allies. That investment may pay a terrible dividend.
In a 1995 Commentary article, Podhoretz defended Robertson even on this, noting that in fact Jewish intellectuals, Jewish organizations like the American Jewish Congress, and Jewish-dominated organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, attempted to undermine the public strength of Christianity, or have led the fight for unrestricted pornography. I couldn’t agree more.

Oddly, Podhoretz makes no mention of his defense of Robertson on these issues in the book under review – perhaps because he realizes that this is a bridge too far for the vast majority of Jews. However, he does note, “If you scratch a liberal organization like the American Civil Liberties Union or the United Nations Association, you will find Jewish members and Jewish money sustaining it, and if you scratch a Jewish organization, you will find a liberal agenda.” Jews also contribute 50–60 percent of the funding for the Democratic Party.

Without question, Jews fund the left in America.

One wonders if Podhoretz would take such a principled stand on other conservative issues like affirmative action, immigration, or big government – not caring about ideas deemed by some to be anti-Jewish (e.g., “the Jews control Hollywood”) as long as one opposes affirmative action or massive non-White immigration.
The answer would be no.

The good news is that someone like me could be rehabilitated within the Jewish community even though I do believe in the uncomfortable historical reality that Jews control Hollywood and that this influences the content of movies by, among other things, denigrating Christianity. All I would have to do is come out as rabidly pro-Israel.
Ummm, sorry, but I can’t go there. Different countries have different interests—a simple fact that escapes an unregistered lobbyist of a foreign government such as Podhoretz.

Grand New Party

I conclude that Jews reading Podhoretz are unlikely to be convinced that they are better off with the Republicans or by becoming conservatives. Podhoretz is correct that the Republicans are a tad more likely to be slavishly pro-Israel. But he completely ignores another uncomfortable historical reality – that neoconservative Jews have been very active in purging true conservatives like Buchanan from mainstream Republican politics and that the neocons have remade the Republican Party in their own image. Indeed, as he phrases it (without evaluating the evidence one way or the other), paleocons believe that neocons like Podhoretz are “liberals in disguise who … succeeded in kidnapping and corrupting the conservative movement.”

This brings us to the heart of the issue. Podhoretz’s enterprise is fundamentally a fraud.
His issue is not whether American Jews could ever stop being liberal. His issue is whether they could bring themselves to vote for the Republican Party if the Republican Party was better for Israel. It has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism, Big Government or Constitutionalism.

And the best proof of this is that Jewish neoconservatives – by far the most important group of Jews who (at times) advocate voting for the Republicans – are not really conservatives at all. Their one and only concern has always been to steer U.S. foreign policy in the direction of Israel. They have consistently advocated liberal positions within the Republican Party and have only adopted conservative positions as “positions of convenience” designed not to imperil their larger pro-Israel agenda. The fact that the overwhelming bulk of Podhoretz’s book deals with support for Israel rather than any specifically liberal or conservative issue confirms this.

Exhibit A for this is immigration. Jewish neoconservatives have been staunch supporters of the most destructive force associated with the left since WWII – massive non-European immigration into America and other Western countries. As neoconservative Ben Wattenberg has famously written, “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” Such attitudes typify the entire Jewish political spectrum, from the far Left to the neoconservative Right.
And when it comes to opposing illegal immigration, the neocons jumped on the bandwagon only after it became politically expedient to do so. Bill Kristol, whose comments in the Commentary symposium on Podhoretz’s book indicate that he doesn’t want to think too deeply about why Jews are on the left (my paraphrase: “Just keep on being Jewish and things will take care of themselves”), is a good example of a neocon who navigates Republican politics to achieve his more basic goal of supporting Israel. As John O’Sullivan noted regarding Kristol’s activism on an amnesty bill,

Kristol, representing many neoconservatives disposed to favor the bill, came out against it. He did so in part because it had serious drafting defects but, more importantly, because it was creating a bitter gulf between rank-and-file Republicans and the party leadership. That in turn was imperiling Republican objectives in other areas, notably Iraq.

Peter Brimelow says it best:

Kristol will return to immigration enthusiasm once he has helped persuade Bush to attack Iran.

In a passage that should be required reading for all Republicans, Samuel Francis recounted,

[T]he catalog of neoconservative efforts not merely to debate, criticize, and refute the ideas of traditional conservatism but to denounce, vilify, and harm the careers of those Old Right figures and institutions they have targeted.
There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy of such institutions in neoconservative directions…. Writers like M. E. Bradford, Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan, and Russell Kirk, and institutions like Chronicles, the Rockford Institute, the Philadelphia Society, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have been among the most respected and distinguished names in American conservatism. The dedication of their neoconservative enemies to driving them out of the movement they have taken over and demonizing them as marginal and dangerous figures has no legitimate basis in reality. It is clear evidence of the ulterior aspirations of those behind neoconservatism to dominate and subvert American conservatism from its original purposes and agenda and turn it to other purposes…
What neoconservatives really dislike about their “allies” among traditional conservatives is simply the fact that the conservatives are conservatives at all—that they support “this notion of a Christian civilization,” as Midge Decter put it, that they oppose mass immigration, that they criticize Martin Luther King and reject the racial dispossession of White Western culture, that they support or approve of Joe McCarthy, that they entertain doubts or strong disagreement over American foreign policy in the Middle East, that they oppose reckless involvement in foreign wars and foreign entanglements, and that, in company with the Founding Fathers of the United States, they reject the concept of a pure democracy and the belief that the United States is or should evolve toward it.

So Podhoretz is exhorting Jews to defect from liberalism while his wife is deploring “this notion of a Christian civilization.” With conservatives like this, who needs liberals?[1]

In Commentary’s symposium on Norman Podhoretz’s Why Are Jews Liberal? historian Jonathan D. Sarna calls attention to the fact that “outside the United States liberalism is nowhere near so dominant a faith among Jews. In Israel, to take an obvious example, Jewish liberals and Jewish conservatives are fairly evenly matched.”

Actually, Israelis who might remotely be described as liberal are a distinct minority—the old Labor Party founded by Zionist socialists is on its last legs, accounting for only around 10 percent of the Knesset and functioning mainly to provide a fig leaf of respectability for the dominant ethno-nationalist Right.

Identification with the Left is not a general characteristic of Jews; it is, however, a definite phenomenon within countries in the Jewish Diaspora, indicating that in searching for an explanation of the attraction of American Jews to the left, one must also look to this Diaspora experience in Europe and other European-derived societies.

Thankfully, Podhoretz does not try to explain the Jewish attraction to the Left as resulting from a moral imperative stemming from the very nature of Judaism itself.

Such a self-conception remains strong among many Jewish liberals, including Deborah Lipstadt, who opines, “The Torah repeatedly instructs us to care for the ‘widow, the orphan, poor, and the stranger.’” Jewish advocates for non-White immigration sometimes use this rationale—Gideon Aronoff’s Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, for example:

Drawing strongly on Jewish tradition, we provide services to Jewish immigrants, refugees, and others in need—without regard for their religion, nationality, or ethnic background. We are guided by our Jewish values and texts. The Torah (Hebrew Bible) tells us 36 times in 36 different ways to help the stranger among us. This, and our core belief that we must “fix the world” (tikkun olam, in Hebrew), are the driving principles behind our work.

But the idea that the Jewish religion makes Jews into altruistic world-healers is an obvious non-starter, and not only because, as Podhoretz notes, the highly religious Orthodox are less prone to liberal attitudes than the rest of the Jewish community. More decisively, even the most out of touch among us are now becoming aware that Israel is an apartheid state dominated by the most extreme religious and ethnocentric factions of the Jewish community. The Palestinians are treated brutally and are dependent on the largesse from the rest of the world.

The morally uplifting Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and pretty much the entire organized Jewish community in the U.S., aid and abet Israel as an aggressive, racialist ethno-state, or at least they turn a blind eye to it. Whatever else one might say about it, the Jewish religion does not make Jews into moral paragons or champions of the oppressed. And it certainly doesn’t make Jews into champions of religious and ethnic diversity.
Podhoretz’s explanation is that liberalism has become the religion of American Jews—an irrational set of beliefs resistant to disconfirmation. As he notes, the same was true of the long Jewish love affair with Marxism, and it was certainly true of Jews in traditional societies.

Liberalism is not a “substitute for religion”: it is a religion in its own right, complete with its own catechism and its own dogmas … obdurately resistant to facts that undermine its claims and promises.

The idea that Jewish political ideologies and behavior have religious overtones is attractive. My book Separation and Its Discontents has two chapters on rationalization, apologetics, and self-deception among Jews, beginning with a quote from a famous Talmudic scholar describing the ideology behind an example of classic Jewish religious writing: “Things never are what they seem because they cannot be.” In traditional societies, Jewish scholars interpreted any and all historical events as conforming to the messianic hope of a return to political power and worldly riches in a restored Israel.

All religious thinking tends to be impossible to refute, while at the same time it promises to explain everything. The interesting thing about Jews, however, is that they have dominated several intellectual movements that masqueraded as “science” while nevertheless having strong religious overtones.

Podhoretz is quite correct that the powerful Jewish attraction to Marxism was fundamentally religious in this sense. I have made similar comments, not only about Jewish involvement in Marxism, but also in psychoanalysis and other movements of the intellectual left. These movements were centered around charismatic rabbi-like leaders, and they were constructed in a way that allowed them to explain everything and be impossible to disconfirm. As in all religions, dissenters (heretics) were simply expelled.

Therefore, I have no problem agreeing with Podhoretz that there is a strong streak of religious thinking among Jews—even among the “secular.” In my view, religious thinking has been highly adaptive throughout Jewish history because it resulted in a powerful ideology of the ingroup. No matter what happened, the fundamental rationale for group cohesion would not be threatened. Whether in synagogues during the Middle Ages, in Marxist cells in the 20th century, or at conventions of psychoanalytic societies, true believers make good group members. Nothing can cause them to waver in their allegiance to the group.

But the fact that Jewish identification has always had religious overtones—even among secular Jews in the 20th century—does not explain why Jews in the Western Diaspora are liberal—only that their belief systems are immune from conflict with empirical reality.

Moreover, contra Podhoretz, liberalism seems awfully compatible with Jewish self-interest. In America, both the Democratic and Republican parties are Israeli occupied territory. So it’s hard to see that Jews are being “irrational,” as Podhoretz claims, in not voting for Republicans. For rational Jews concerned only about Israel, it’s pretty much a toss-up.

The clincher is that, as Podhoretz himself notes, citing an academic study, Jews “back Republicans only so long as they adopted the liberal position on ’such bellwether issues … as immigration, abortion, gay rights and the separation of church and state.”

In other words, Jews have been opposed to the traditional culture of America and the West and are strong advocates for the displacement of Whites via immigration.

In attempting to understand this, a good place to start is John Murray Cuddihy’s classic, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity:

With the advent of Jewish Emancipation, when ghetto walls crumble and the shtetlach begin to dissolve, Jewry – like some wide-eyed anthropologist – enters upon a strange world, to explore a strange people observing a strange halakah. They examine this world in dismay, with wonder, anger, and punitive objectivity. This wonder, this anger, and the vindictive objectivity of the marginal nonmember are recidivist; they continue unabated into our own time because Jewish Emancipation continues into our own time.

In psychological terms, Jewish identity in the Diaspora is based on psychological mechanisms of between-group competition. A strong sense of Jewish identity has always been accompanied by negative attitudes toward non-Jews—ranging from the laws of cleanness in traditional Judaism (according to which anything associated with non-Jews was unclean) to the revolutionary hatred of the non-Jewish power structure by Jewish Marxists, to the adoption of values in opposition to the traditional culture of America and the West. These negative perceptions are exacerbated by the lachrymose theory of Jewish history accepted by Podhoretz and the mainstream Jewish community: It is not simply that Christianity is evil, but that Western culture itself is poisonous to Jews.

The implication therefore is that Jews will be much more likely than non-Jews to have negative attitudes toward the traditional culture of America and the West. Importantly, Jewish voters are liberal on all issues, from government power to welfare. But as Podhoretz notes, it is especially on social issues where Jewish liberalism becomes “unmistakable and undeniable.” A 1996 poll of Jewish attitudes indicated that

Jews are firmly committed to permissive social codes, sexual codes in particular. The gap between Jews and others in polls regarding non-marital sexual behavior, marijuana, and divorce laws is quite substantial: 58 percent of Jews had liberal responses on these items as opposed to just 31 percent of non-Jews. In like fashion, huge gaps separate Jews from others on abortion (86 percent vs. 44 percent) and control of pornography (71 percent vs. 45 percent).

There are similar differences even when controlling for socio-economic class. Not surprisingly, support for gay marriage and for Roman Polanski are good career moves in Hollywood.  Moreover, Jews are dead last among all American groups in “confidence in the military,” but they favor gun control laws more than any other American group. And Jewish antipathy to the culture of America and other Western Diaspora societies extends to hostility against the formerly dominant White Protestant elite. Podhoretz quotes sociologists Mark Lipsett and Earl Raab, noting that Jews “are more at ease with the kinds of people they find in the Democratic Party – their fellow ethnics with whom they grew up in America – than with the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants still predominant in the Republican Party.”

So it’s not just Christianity that keeps Jews away from social conservatism. Latino Catholics, Black Southern Baptists, and Asian Christians are much preferred to the formerly dominant WASPs, who represent the traditional American culture and erstwhile ruling class. It’s not really about religion but ethnicity and race.

Nevertheless, it is indeed the case that White Christians are an object of special Jewish hostility. In the Commentary symposium, Michael Medved describes Jewish atavistic phobia about Christianity as the religion of the outgroup: “Jews fear the GOP as the ‘Christian party.’” And Jewish hostility towards Christianity unites the most Orthodox and conservative Jews with the most secular and liberal.

It is the hostility of the outsider against the culture of the White majority. As a result, expressions of hostility toward Christianity have a special place of pride in the contemporary culture of the West. A good recent example is Larry David pissing on a picture of Jesus in HBO’s Curb Your Enthusiasm—an event which evoked yawns from the rest of the media.

The Moral Status of the Outsider

This status of being an outsider with deep historical grudges has grave moral implications. As Benjamin Ginsberg notes, the social marginality of Eastern European Jews made them useful instruments for the imposition of Soviet rule over reluctant populations, not only in the first genocidal decades after the Bolshevik Revolution when they acted as Stalin’s “willing executioners,” but also during the post-WWII period in the USSR’s satellite states (Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, and Romania). Throughout Eastern Europe after WWII, because Jews were outsiders and dependent upon Soviet power for their positions and even personal safety, they could be trusted to remain loyal to the Soviet Union.

This has been a pattern throughout Jewish history. Jews as outsiders in traditional societies allied themselves with elites – often oppressive alien ruling elites engaged in exploiting the people under their control. In the Commentary symposium, Sarna gives a rather tepid version of this, quoting historian Ben Halpern, “They depended for their lives on the authorities, on the persons and groups who exercised legitimate power.” Quite correct. Jews were protected by the government, but their outsider status also made them more willing to engage in unpopular activities, such as collecting taxes for rapacious elites with no allegiance to the people they ruled.

The self-conceptualization of Jews as outsiders certainly should not make the European-descended population of America confident about the Jewish role in future governments when they are a minority.

However, the Jews-as-outsider theory does not adequately get at the role of Jews as a nascent elite displacing previously dominant non-Jewish elites. The Jewish identification with the left should also be seen as a strategy designed to increase Jewish power as an elite hostile to the White European majority of America. As I have argued, Jewish intellectual and political movements have been a critically necessary condition for the decline of White America during a period in which Jews have attained elite status.

All of these movements have been aligned with the political left. As Democrats, Jews are an integral part of the emerging non-White coalition while being able to retain their core ethnic commitment to Israel. Indeed, the organized Jewish community has not only been the most important force in ending the European bias of American immigration laws, it has assiduously courted alliances with non-White ethnic groups, including Blacks, Latinos, and Asians; and these groups are overwhelmingly aligned with the Democratic Party.

Whereas the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly non-White (the last Democratic president to get a majority of the White vote was Lyndon Johnson in 1964), 90 percent of the Republican vote comes from Whites. In the recent off-year elections, Democratic candidates for governor received only about a third of the White vote.

America will soon realize that it is at the edge of a racial abyss.

Because the Republican Party remains an important force in American politics, Jews are well advised to retain an influence there as well. Republican Jews retain their core liberalism on all the key issues like immigration and culture by aligning themselves with the “moderate” wing of the Party. Like Podhoretz, Republican Jews are motivated mainly to keep the Republican Party safe for Jews, in their estimation, and to promote pro-Israel forces within the party. In general, Republican Jews have acted to make the GOP as much as possible like the party they left behind and to influence it to eschew nationalistic attitudes, especially self-consciously White or Christian identities.

At the end of the day, Podhoretz’s enterprise is an exercise in deception. He erects an image of irrational Jewish liberals who cling to liberalism as a set of religious beliefs completely beyond the reach of logic or empirical data. In fact Jewish liberalism is quite clearly a Diaspora strategy designed to obtain power for Jews at least partly by building coalitions with non-White ethnic groups. Moreover, he erects an image of principled, rational Jewish conservatives as true conservatives, while in fact they are leftists who have been a prominent force in elbowing out true conservatives within the Republican Party in order to pursue their pro-Israel agenda and make the Republican Party into something they deem safe for Jews.

Welcome to the Alice in Wonderland world of Jewish political thought.


  1. Indeed, it would be a good project to find out exactly what Jewish intellectuals think conservatives are. In the Commentary symposium, historian Jonathan D. Sarna labels Louis Marshall a “stalwart conservative.” In fact, Marshall (1856–1929) was a Republican, but, like the neocons, he cannot be called a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Marshall was a director of the NAACP and a champion of minority rights. He was also the point man for the Jewish thrust for unrestricted immigration during the period. At a time when the population of the United States was over 100 million, he stated at a Congressional hearing on the ethnically defensive 1924 immigration law, “[W]e have room in this country for ten times the population we have”; he advocated admission of all of the peoples of the world without quota limit, excluding only those who “were mentally, morally and physically unfit, who are enemies of organized government, and who are apt to become public charges.”Obviously, Marshall, a Zionist, did not believe that the American majority had a right to defend their ethnic interests by controlling immigration policy. The neocons would be proud.  ↩

The article was originally published at AlternativeRight.com in 2010.

No Comments on Remaking the Right

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search