A Response to "Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?" by Jason Richwine

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives

"Who are smarter, liberals or conservatives? This is the kind of question that could spark fierce and endless debates between political opponents, but what if we could know, scientifically, that one side has the edge in brainpower? Should that change how we think about political issues?" -- Jason Richwine.

There are too many variables. As the article stated, there are more than one way to define a 'liberal'. Blacks vote for the 'liberal' Democratic party, but they are not liberal in the original sense. Blacks vote Democratic for narrow-minded tribal reasons than to extend their sympathy and understanding to non-blacks. If we include blacks and the underclass in general in the 'liberal camp', then liberals have both the most intelligent people and the dumbest people whereas conservatives largely occupy the middle. Most Jews are liberal but so are most NAMs(non-Asian minorities). Of course, one could argue whether Jews are truly liberal in the truest senses or liberal for tribal reasons--'is it good for the Jews?'

So, suppose we narrow down this debate by focusing ONLY on white gentiles. Are white liberals more intelligent than white conservatives? Even here, the 'liberal' or Democratic side will have very smart whites but also much of the less intelligent blue-collar class. Conservative whites will be dominant in the middle(above average IQ but not brilliant)--along with some super rich busisnessmen and a good number of Bible-thumping dimbulbs(and peckerwood KKK types).

Richwine is largely correct that smarter people are more likely to question authority, orthodoxy, or tradition, BUT this hasn't always been true. It is true ONLY IF society is essentially traditionalist and repressive, in which case smart people would indeed be thinking/acting against the conformist grain. But, suppose society is generally permissive, hedonistic, infantile, consumerist, and amnesiac where it takes no courage or intelligence to be 'different'? Look at most of our dumb young people; they lack a sense of tradition nor do they have respect for authority. Kids grow up with rock n roll, rebel-as-hero imagery(and even porn on the internet). In a permissive and amnesiac world, the person who seeks to preserve, maintain, and revive tradition may be the one going against the grain, thus more intelligent than the mindless dufuses into punkism, bad attitude, or 'radical' platitudes. Someone who eagerly reads about Thomas Jefferson, Catholic tradition, or the glory of Western Civ could well be more intelligent than a guy who wants to rock n roll, join silly protests at G-20 summits, or swallow every global warming cliche by Bono and Gore at Live Aid concerts. A college student with real passion for Dante and Shakespeare may be smarter than a PC drone who reads literature only as ideological texts(as his professors taught him).
Also, while every brilliant NEW idea or ism may have been the work of a high intelligent person, those following in his footsteps tend to be less intelligent. Marx was super smart, Lenin and Trotsky were very smart, but Marxists got dumber and dumber along the way. The early Marxists were pioneers, later ones were mere sheep--which goes to show every 'liberal' or 'leftist' idea eventually turns 'conservative'. By the 1960s, Marxists were the 'conservatives' in Russia.

There also seems to be a snowball effect that determines how certain people think and act. If word gets out that smart people are supposed to think so-and-so, smart kids will gravitate toward those ideas via intellectual peer pressure without much resistance or skepticism.

Nor can 'smart stuff' be disassociated from the politics of morality. Indeed, many smart people have been subtly bullied into liberal or leftist orthodoxy. Emotionalism colors or even overrides intellectualism. For example, PBS and NPR--'smart stuff' for 'smart people'--sermonize about slavery, discrimination, 'racism', 'sexism', etc and champion egalitarianism as a secular religion. Thus, Many liberals refuse to consider the reality of race--though science is proving otherwise--because they've been morally and emotionally pressured to embrace 'anti-racism', 'progressivism' & 'diversity' as moral imperatives(masquerading as intellectual ideas or scientific truth). So, even if liberalism may indeed attract more intelligent people, it doesn't necessarily permit the full-range of intellectual freedom. (Under Marxism, one could be as intelligent as he wanted--as long as he confirmed the scientific truth of Marxism. Under Nazism, one could be as intelligent as one wanted--as long as one rejected 'Jewish science'.) Indeed, intelligence + courage is often prohibited or censored on the Left. Edwin O Wilson, James Watson, and William Shockley were attacked or vilified not for their lack of intelligence but for their courage to say what they really believe. A liberal who believes in evolution may be smarter than a conservative who believes in creationism, but a liberal is allowed to understand and study evolution only in a way that doesn't violate EGALITARIANISM. Radical correctness, no less than conservative orthodoxy, can stifle or suppress true intelligence and truth-seeking.

Also, I'm not sure that intelligence alone accounts for a person's willingness to challenge authority, tradition, or orthodoxy. There are forces of personality and social context to consider as well. A not-too-smart person with a strong personality may be more willing to challenge authority than a smart timid person. A smart Asian student is probably more likely to obey the teacher than a wild but not-too-smart black kid who refuses to sit still and loves to upset the order in the classroom.

And, a lot of well-mannered bland white liberals are practicing only the CONCEIT of being skeptical and intelligent because, in fact, all they ever do is nod their heads to whatever PC central--media and academia--tells them to think and do. They've learned to put on the 'smart' label than to think honestly or courageously. Today, if you simply agree with Jared Diamond on everything, you're smart. If you agree with Jared Taylor, you're not only dumb but EVIL. Notice that a lot of 'smart' liberals pat themselves on the back by calling everything they don't like 'racist', 'sexist', or 'fascist'.

Intelligence must also be considered within the social context. The notion that a smart person must think original thoughts or make new discoveries is a Hellenic & modern European idea/ideal. In most civilizations throughout history, the most intelligent people were expected to uphold tradition, preserve cultural memory, and maintain the social order. Indeed, preserving tradition and sacred texts was extremely time-consuming and demanded complete devotion. Books were copied page by page by scribes. Just maintaining the existing knowledge and tradition was a full-time job. Since reading materials were precious before the rise of the modern printing press, there was a much greater sense of REVERENCE than rebellion against knowledge handed down through the ages. (The wily and individualistic ancient Greeks were truly an anomaly in this regard.) Smart people just accepted Aristotle's 'discoveries' to be true for centuries.

In Stanley Kubrick's SPARTACUS, the rich and intelligent Crassus maintains the social/political order. Roman society groomed smart people to defend the order as it were. The people who rise up against Imperial Rome in the movie are the illiterate gladiators. Spartacus may have been a naturally smart guy, but his reason for rebelling had little to do with intelligence but desire for freedom.

Smart Jews and Chinese were deeply conservative for 1000s of yrs. Their histories demonstrate that intelligence can co-exist with traditionalism. Both Jews and Chinese revered their ancient texts and read them over and over;  they contemplated and interpreted than rejected or rebelled against those texts. God or Confucius was not not be questioned nor challenged(at least not in a fundamental way)... but his wisdom could be analyzed, debated, given a new subtle twist here and there. Of course, Jews were better thinkers than the Chinese. Chinese saw social reality in terms of teacher and student, whereby the student was supposed to obey the teacher and memorize things by rote. Jewish rabbis, on the other hand, encouraged their students to not just read the Bible but also to argue and find their own interpretations--a teaching method shared by certain schools of Buddhism with the use of koans. The key relationship between the rabbis and students was more like Judge and Lawyer. The Judge was indeed supreme, but the lawyer could make his case before the judge--like when Abraham pleaded with God to save Sodom and Gomorrah. God demanded obedience, but He also preferred strong personalities like Moses and David who had the will to do things their way. God didn't just want his flock to follow his orders but undergo some inner turmoil--through mistakes and foolishness--to realize what was right/wrong and act according to genuine moral understanding than mere blind obedience.

For most of Jewish history, the smartest kids were expected to preserve the tradition and go into Talmudic studies. In China, the smartest were chosen to become scholar-bureaucrats whose purpose was to maintain the status quo than to change society. In this kind of rigid world, challenge to authority was more likely to come from unwashed elements or barbarian bandits. In Akira Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA, a poor thief starts out as a free soul cyincal of authority but turns more 'conservative' after he's brought into the high-n-mighty 'intelligent' world of the warlord clan. In old Japan--and even in new Japan to some extent--, intelligence is synonymous with learning and revering knowledge-as-it-exists than rebelling against it.

The Power of Jewish Obsessiveness.

There's a Woody Allen movie called ANYTHING GOES which expresses the Jewish fear of being accepted into and co-opted by the white mainstream. On the one hand, Jews very much want to fit in and be considered part of mainstream America. But, Jews fear losing the edge, flavor, pungency--the wit and will to assert themselves.

Allen's generation probably had to put up with lot more 'antisemitism'. This could be blunt, as in a big dumb Polack at school saying 'Jews killed Jesus' and bullying Eugene Schwartz. Or, it could be subtle, as in WASP law firms kindly smiling at a Jewish applicant but turning him down. So, Jews lived in two worlds. In the white world and in their own world. They had to be scrappy, fierce, 3 or 4 steps ahead on the chessboard of social competition. Many older Jews have this very Jewishy willingness to fight--both the right and left. Michael Savage,the late Bob Novak(though later a convert to Catholicism), and Mark Levin are fierce as badgers. So are Alan Dershowitz, Noam Chomsky, and etc.

They all grew up with a huge chip on their shoulders. This may one of the reasons why neocons beat the Paleocons. Neocons knew how to fight, not just frontally but by culturally/intellectually/financially routing the enemy. White bread George Will is a prominent conservative but more of a follower than a leader. When neocons ordered him to be a good goyboy and attack Buchanan, Will did just that. Newt Gingrich was a more creative conservative than most, but he grew up in a troubled home--and so did Bill Clinton. Crisis from childhood sharpened the wits of these men and prepared them for great challenges. They never thought in terms of, "I graduate from college, find lifetime employment, and never worry for the rest of my life."

Jews have one advantage over waspy types: Obsessivness. Whether this is due to a personality trait, higher intelligence, cultural factors(legacy of Talmudic studies), or social anxiety, it is a reality among Jews. So, even if Jews become very much part of the white mainstream, their obsessiveness stoke the fire of creativity. Many of these obsessions are silly or useless, such as researching and gathering old baseball data, poring through Star Trek novels for meaning, or watching/analyzing every obscure movie from the 1930s. Much of Jewish intellectual obsessions are esoteric or apparently trivial in the eyes of most people: subtextual reading of toilet instruction manuals as a means of patriarchal domination in 19th century Vienna. Colleges are full of that stuff. But, obsessive people are using their brains, always turning over new stones, always on attack mode, always competitive. Even if 99% of their thoughts, ideas, theories, and 'discoveries' may indeed be ludicrous, they do dominate intellectual discourse both at the top and margins(two areas from which cultural changes take place, eventually to shape the middle as well--serious ideas/culture often came from the intellectual elite, pop music and everyday lingo from the underclass or underground), and occasion, do make a crucial breakthrough.

Whether it's chess, rock or movie criticism, archiving lost material, the art scene, scientific ideas, social theory, interest in other cultures, sports writing, Jews tend to be more obsessive than non-Jews. And whereas most people are interested in the LATEST STUFF and tend to be amnesiac, Jews have a strong sense of political, social, and cultural history--for the purpose of understanding, revising, or rehashing(look at Hollywood recycling of all the old stuff).

Jews tell us our own history because they study it. I'll bet a greater percentage of Jews than white gentiles know about the culture created by white gentiles. Jews are more likely to read up on US history, Shakespeare, and listen to classical music than your average white conservative whose idea of culture is country music or Hollywood Westerns(produced mostly by Jews, btw). Same is true of blacks. Jews are more likely to know about Jazz and blues than most blacks today who care about the LATEST HIPPEST stuff.

The False American Dream of the All-American Organization Man as Template for White Rule(at least in the arts & culture sphere).

Some conservatives hark back to a time when 'straight and narrow' wasp types ruled American politics, business, and culture. They fondly look back to the days of FATHER KNOWS BEST or UNTOUCHABLES. The get dreamy-eyed of the DONNA REED SHOW and the like. And, some conservatives want to return to this 'golden age'.

But, maybe the loss of wasp(or mainstream white gentile)culture had to do with this bland, colorless, and 'organization man' ideal. Americanism for conservatives became white bread and milk. It made them complacent, conformist, and consensus-oriented. White conservatives came to abhor crisis, and thus lost the wit and will to creatively take on the challenges of counter-culture and the culture war. They preferred to make concession after concession to agitators in order maintain some semblance order than fight it out. Since they didn't have the guts to fight for their whole race, they withdrew into their private worlds and chose to protect/preserve their own privileges at all costs--even when it meant betraying less fortunate whites. At most, they threw a few bones of social values--pro-life rhetoric and prayer in school--to the poorer or less well-educated conservatives in order to garner votes.

Some of us may think that the the 'golden age' of the 50s and early 60s was representative of the glory of white mainstream dominance, but maybe it was an exceptional latter-day development that only served to undermine the instinctive will and wit to survive and win.

Consider just the arts. The great writers and other creative people among white gentiles had mostly been mavericks, rebels, or strong individualists. Or, they experienced the world from a perspective of crisis. Why did the SOUTH create so many important writers like Faulkner and Flannery O'Connor? Southern whites were faced with grave social, cultural, and spiritual crisis. Old South was rotting and new forms was growing on the decay like mushrooms. Notice that Swedish-Americans up in the North have been far less interesting. Generally, the great white artists were obsessive men who didn't fit in or had strong personalities: F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, John Ford and Howard Hawks. Though there was the ideal of middle class comfort/stability throughout American history, the lives of most Americans--even whites--were filled with social drama, crisis, anxiety, challenges, etc. It was only in the postwar era that large numbers of white Americans realized the 'American Dream' and found sufficient comfort and privilege(often in the idyllic suburbs). This was all very nice in many ways, but it was a destroyer of the cowboy or the wildman spirit. (Though college boys often get wild, it's about gong along than expressing one's true identity). People who become complacent and entitled lose their edge. They either become happy in a whitebread dull way(if simple-minded or dumb) or grow neurotic due to lack of stimuli(if complex or intelligent). Or, they go looking for 'authenticity' in other cultures, as in 'stuff white people like'. The pervasiveness of the 'American Dream' washed white people of their cultural pungency with the All-American soap. Whites became scrubbed clean and polished into golden boys, but they lost the minerals necessary for creative alchemy.

Cultural ferment tends to dip without crisis. If William Faulkner or Martin Scorsese had been raised in white suburbia, he might have been just another 'organizational man'. Look at Germany in the late 19th and early part of 20th century. It was creative and interesting in many cultural fields. After WWII, Germans just wanted to be 'good' and 'normal', and they've been boring ever since. Look at Japan from the late 19th century to the late 60s. Faced with all sorts of challenges and tranformations, Japanese were forced to think, see, and grapple with things anew. Japanese culture became very interesting. By around 1970, Japan had stabilized into a middle class nation where most people could have a good steady job and stability. Japanese become white bread, or yellow cake. They've been dull ever since.

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.

Did Columbus Discover America? Yes.

Though it’s often(and properly and justifiably)been pointed out that Columbus arrived on a continent already inhabited by other peoples, one can still make an effective argument that Columbus DISCOVERED America. To some extent, this is a debate about semantics, but there’s more to it than meets the eye. In a very true sense, Columbus did indeed discover America in at least two ways.

First, most people in the time of Columbus lived in the "Old World"–Europe, Africa, Middle East, and Asia–than in the "New World". So, no one in the Old World knew of the Americas before Columbus discovered it. It was only through the achievement of Columbus that all Europeans, Asians, Africans, and Middle Easterners eventually got to know about the New World. So, for the Old World–most of humanity at least–, Columbus did indeed discover America. When we say a certain astronomer ‘discovered’ a new planet, we don’t mean he invented it or the planet came to exist ONLY BECAUSE the astronomer ‘discovered’ it. We mean he came upon the existence of a planet for the common pool of human knowledge. The planet had always been there, but it became a reality to us thanks to the hard work of the scientist.
So, yes, the American continents had always existed, and they had already been inhabited by indigenous peoples. But, it must be said there is a difference between migrating and settling AND exploring and discovering. The Asiatic peoples who migrated across the Alaskan-Siberian land mass during the Ice Age were not explorers nor discoverers. They migrated with the animals they hunted. They didn’t have exploration or discovery in mind, only food and survival. These peoples came to inhabit the Americas, and some of them–especially in Meso-America–developed notable civilizations and cultures. But, they didn’t have a clear idea of what the American continent as a whole looked like. Those in the South America didn’t know that North America existed, and vice versa. Most ‘native’ peoples of the Americas were tribal and primitive, and their view of reality was fixed to the immediate world they could travel on foot and see with their naked eyes. Indeed, there weren’t even horses in the Americas before the arrival of the Spaniards(though fossil records do show that there had been horses 10,000s of years ago). So, in a way, the Americas were discovered even for the natives by the white explorers and settlers. Prior to the arrival of whites, ‘native’ peoples had no idea what the continent they inhabited looked like. ‘Native’ peoples lived on the American continent but had no clue as to the extensive nature of land mass they inhabited and how it connected or were separated from other parts of the world. So, Columbus and others like him didn’t just discover the Americas but the very idea of a unified world. They did it for ALL humanity since everyone around the globe came to know about the world thanks to the voyages and explorations of European pioneers. It’s like there was always Antarctica and penguins living there, but we credit the DISCOVERY of Antarctica to the men who explored and mapped it out. We don’t give credit to the penguins.

Columbus didn’t just discover the Americas, but it’s through him that the natives of the American continent came to discover the "Old World"–which to them was a strange new world. And we should keep in mind that there is a difference between conquest and discovery though they’ve often been carried out by the same people–which certainly applies to the Spanish Conquistadores and of course, Alexander the Great in ancient times. Columbus really did seek knowledge and sought the true nature of the entire world. Of course, he was also serving commercial interests, but he needed to find financing somehow.

It appears we interpret and approach Columbus in three ways. There’s Columbus the actual man examined in biographies. But, there is also Columbus the mythic Promethean figure of history, the hero visionary, kinda like the romantic vision of Napoleon which captivated many progressives in the 19th century. . There is finally Columbus as a symbol of All the European explorers who followed him and expanded on his earlier discovery.
The truly momentous things for both the Old and New World took place after Columbus initial voyages to the Americas, but we find it convenient to attach a vast historical event to one figure, which is why the Pilgrims figure so much into the narrative of American history. Even today, we have ideas such as the ‘Age of Reagan’ even though the accomplishments of the Reagan era had been an intensely cooperative, with much good and bad happening outside Reagan’s control and power. We tend to lionize or scapegoat single individuals for the triumphs and tragedies of history.

We need to define and/or understand terms a little better if we want to deal with the confusion as to whether Columbus did or didn’t discover the Americas. To discover isn’t the same as thing as merely being. Discover means to become CONSCIOUSLY AWARE of something hitherto unknown. For the Old World, Columbus’s voyage to the New World could only be called a great discovery. And, even though the natives of America had long existed on the continent, they were not CONSCIOUSLY aware of their place on the planet, their relation to other parts of America. Prior to the arrival of Columbus and his followers, the natives of the Americas had known only their little world–and many peoples lived on a level not much higher than that of animals.. So, the indigenous natives of what is today Cuba or Haiti had no clue as to their place in the whole scheme of things. It was Columbus and his followers who came to map the Americas, mentally collect and unite the data, and draw up a big picture of what all of the Americas looked like. In this sense, Europeans also discovered much of Africa whose natives didn’t know what Africa was or looked like. "Pan-African consciousness" never existed prior to the white man’s mapping of Africa and the extensive research, archaeology, and studies that came to draw up an idea of a vast dark continent inhabited mostly by Bantu blacks(at least in the sub-Saharan part). The idea of "Africa" too is a European discovery, even an invention.

To better understand the meaning of ‘discover’, let us consider people like Galileo and Copernicus. They both came to discover that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not the other way around. This doesn’t mean that Earth began to revolve around the Sun BECAUSE Galileo and Copernicus found out it was so. Indeed, Earth had revolved around the Sun since time immemorial–even before mankind ever existed. But, it became a scientific fact and common knowledge thanks to the pioneering discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus. And, consider the discovery of the DNA by Crick and Watson. Again, it doesn’t mean that Crick and Watson invented the DNA. The DNA had existed for billions of years. Now, one may ask, like anti-Western skeptics ask about Columbus, "how can you discover what already exists?" But, this person has a misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘discovery’. It doesn’t mean creating or inventing something that never existed. For instance, one doesn’t say the Wright Brothers discovered flying; no, they invented a flying machine. One doesn’t say one discovered the atomic bomb. No, Oppenheimer and his colleagues invented and built it. To discover means to become aware of something–land, object, law of nature, etc–that pre-exists but isn’t known to people or at least isn’t known in a certain way. DNA existed as long as much of life existed, but it was only in the 20th century that humans became aware of it. So, Crick and Watson did indeed discover the DNA.
The same could be said of the Darwinian theory of evolution. Evolution has operated since the beginning of life, but it was Darwin who developed a theory that finally seemed to grasp some of the fundamental features of how it worked. One could argue that the idea of species changing through time goes back to the ancient times, and in that sense, Darwin didn’t really discover the concept of evolution. But, Darwin(and Wallace)did figure out what had evaded previous scientists and philosophers; they cracked the very mechanism of evolution, how certain traits were chosen through NATURAL SELECTION. So, even if we argue that Darwin didn’t discover the idea of evolution, he arrived at or discovered the true theory of evolution.

But, some discoveries are more subtle and elusive than others. Perhaps, the most subtle is the idea of the subconscious as developed by Freud and Jung. What we’ve come to call the ‘subconscious’ or the ‘unconscious’ has always existed in all higher forms of life before man began to think about it as a concept. And, it’s true enough that artists going back thousands of years wrote plays and poems and composed songs and music about the dark hidden side of the human mind and heart. But, it was Freud who took a scientific–rather than spiritual, poetic, or philosophical–approach to the reality of the subconscious. So, one could argue that Freud discovered the subconscious in the modern sense. But, this is still controversial, not least because of many of Freud’s ‘scientific’ ideas have been rejected or discredited by the modern psychological community. So, was Freud’s concept of the subconscious a false discovery or an overly simplistic one, like Marx’s concept of class dynamics in the making of history?

Finally, there are two kinds of discoveries–existential and collective–, and it’s the collective one that really matters. Each of us discover things on our own; we may even think no one has thought of it before... only to find out that it’s already ‘been there, done that’. We see this especially among kids who find a lot of things on their own and want attention/validation from adults. But, some individuals do indeed come upon a discovery that (1) no one had come upon before or had come upon but failed to share with rest of humanity and (2) may have profound impact on humanity/history. After all, discovery of the mechanism of cancer is going to be more important than the discovery of a new species of centipedes in the jungles of the Amazon. The discovery of Columbus was truly one of the most momentous discoveries in the history of mankind. (It must also be noted that some things are discovered, lost, and then rediscovered, which is precisely what happened with much of classical knowledge in Western Europe. With the fall of Rome came the Dark Ages, and much of the wisdom going back to the Greeks had been lost in all the sacking and pillaging. But, through Arab scholars and merchants who maintained connection with Byzantium and North Africa–colonized by the Romans at one time–, Western Europe ‘rediscovered’ much of ancient wisdom.)

Some people understandably object to observing Columbus Day because of the very tragic dimensions of white conquest of the Americas. No one with a mind and heart can deny the horrible side of this story, nor should we say whatever whites did was justified because the pagan natives also committed horrendous acts–such as grisly human sacrifice. Two wrongs don’t make a right. But, we can’t ignore the truly great side of this story either, the story of progress, development, and understanding.
Also, we should keep in mind that a special day need not be CELEBRATED. One of the problems is that people approach every observance day as a holiday, as if it’s supposed to be all fun and games. But, consider Memorial Day. Is it really for celebration? No, it is properly for sober reflection. It is for remembering the men who fought for a great cause, an evil cause, who fought and died bravely, who died shitting in their pants, for men who fought for ideals, for men who were just following orders, for heroes, for war criminals, for all those who died nobly or ignobly on the battlefield. It is a day for sober reflection than celebration and partying.

Well, it seems to me we can appreciate and remember Columbus Day in the same spirit. We need not see it ONLY as a day of praising Columbus as a great hero nor ONLY as a day for bashing him as a murderous pig. The truth lies somewhere in between, and that goes for all of humanity, white or non-white, male or female, then and now. It’s too bad that in our consumer-addled culture, we think of every special day as a time for barbecuing and funning around and acting stupid. No, some days should be observed as a day for special reflection. Here we are living in the great powerful rich nation called America only because men like Columbus discovered it. But, let us not forget the horrible decimation of entire populations due to diseases from the Old World, the enslavement of the natives, and the problems that exist among many indigenous peoples even today. Nothing in this world is all good nor all bad. And, we should approach Columbus the same way.

What Obama and Chance the Gardener of BEING THERE Have in Common.

Obama's success and popularity remind me of Hal Ashby's movie BEING THERE. Chance the gardener(Chaunsy Gardiner)says the most banal and inane things, but people find great meaning, hope, and wisdom in his words. Chance is misunderstood because people read him the way they want to. People think Chance is using gardening as a metaphor for zen-like wisdom not just about politics and economics but the spiritual and organic nature of man.

Much the same could be said about the appeal of Obama. When he ran for the presidency in 2008, he often said vague, contradictory, or high-faluting things which could be interpreted in any number of ways. His yammerings could be read as reformist, socialist, free-market, Christian, secular, patriotic, global, conservative, leftist, black, white, post-racial, pro-gun, anti-gun, pro-familiy, pro-abortion, etc. Even when he stood for a specific position, he wrapped it around emotions appealing to the other side. So, even when he was for abortion, he emoted a lot about how sacred life is--as if he was legally with the pro-choicers while emotionally with the pro-lifers. Though one of his books is titled AUDACITY OF HOPE, Obama's real secret has been the vacuity of meaning. Though empty and hollow, his mickey mouse charisma and status as a 'new kind of black guy' urged, even compelled, many white people to read meaning and 'truth' into his words and positions according to their liberal or 'progressive conservative' fantasies. How else do you explain Obama's support from the poorest blacks to the richest whites, from both Democrats and neocons, from the likes of Bill Ayers to the likes of Colin Powell, from both the gay community to Notre Dame university.

But, there is one major difference between Chance and Obama. Chance, like Forrest Gump, is utterly innocent and unaware of what's going on. He hasn't a clue as to what the buzz is all about. Obama, on the other hand, is like the Will Smith character in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION. He knows full-well how to work the system, especially the emotional and conceited psychological system of educated whites. If Obama should have won the Nobel prize in any area, it's in medicine--psychology--, as few politicians have mapped out, understood, and manipulated white mentality as well as Obama. He understands that whites are filled with fear/fascination and hate/love of blacks, and this fills whites with what might be called the negro/nigga complex. Indeed, white fear and fascination, love and hate, are complementary. Whites find blacks fascinating because blacks appear powerful, dangerous, and fearsome. Similarly, people are most fascinated by big fearsome animals such as lions, tigers, and bears. Most nature programs on TV are about big predators, not about gophers and frogs. There is also the guilt factor. On the one hand, whites feel(or are made to feel)historical guilt toward blacks--and look upon blacks as helpless victims who need white sympathy and help. But, many whites are also aware of many aggressive and hostile blacks who love to whup white folks. Society teachs whites to feel guilt and love blacks--indeed, this is trumped as the greatest virtue in the world--, but many whites who've seen or experienced social reality just can't help but to hate or fear blacks. This leads to negro/nigga complex. Society teaches whites to look upon blacks as noble negroes but many blacks turn out to be rappin' 'niggaz'. White folks, especially liberals, just don't know what to do. They've staked their goody-goodness on their compassion for negroes, but even a lot of white liberals can't stand how a lot of blacks act.

Blacks like Obama and John McWhorter know what this is all about, and they know how to manipulate the system to get as much mileage out of white guilt or Jewish compassion as possible. Obama utilizes just enough blackness to dazzle and woo the white audience, reining it in before it gets too threatening for whitey. He balances blackness with intellectaulity and dignity. Of course, he plays it both ways. He's also aware of the fact that many blacks resent successful oreo blacks who try to act too white--like Colin Powell--, so Obama has practiced a lot before the mirror to sound a bit Martin Luther King-ish and rapperish(even if just a hint of it).
Jews, unlike gentile whites, feel little guilt regarding blacks but prefer to blacks as fellow 'noble victims' of evil white Christian history and civilization. (This is useful for Jewish power and moral narcissism.) But, there has been a lot of trouble between Jews and blacks. So, Jews have latched onto Obama and John McWhorter(who now writes for the New Republic, a Zionist rag).

So, Obama is like Chance but he leaves nothing to chance. And, he certainly knows how to cultivate the mind garden of gulliberal whites. Besides, he has the vast money, influence, and power of the liberal Jews to help him at every step of the way. Just like Jewish Hollywood wrote, produced, and directed the movies of Will Smith, the Liberal Jewish Machine wrote, produced, financed, and directed the blockbuster starring Barack "Will Smith" Obama.

Obama Lives Up to His Promises as a Man of PEACE.

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, and his first major act since the honor has been to give a speech to a Gay & Lesbian lobby promising to end DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL in the US military. So, the US military will soon be an openly gay zone where homos can prance and dance around like a bunch of fruits that they are. The once mighty US military will have been gay-ized, feminized, wussified, and pussified. Our honorable men who've pledged to fight for their country will have to take showers with openly gay men whose declared fantasy is to bugger other men in the ass.

This is why the Nobel Peace Prize should really be called the Nobel Pussy Prize. Obama won the Pussy Prize because his stated goal is to pussify America, especially white America.

Why is the gay agenda more dangerous to white America? After all, isn't persecution and repression of gays a much bigger problem among non-white Americans--especially blacks and Hispanics--and in non-white parts of the world? Yes, this is very true, but since non-whites are seen as 'victims', the national media tend to overlook the problems of 'gay-bashing' in the non-white communities. Instead, the grand narrative fed to us by the LJM--Liberal Jewish Media--is that homos are a minority 'victim group', just like blacks, browns, yellows, red, and even women. So, even though the white community(even the conservative) is least dangerous to gays( while non-white communities tend to be most hostile to gays), the big idea perpetrated by the media and academia is that homos are 'victims' just like non-white minorities.

Obama--just like Jeremiah Wright, another supporter of 'gay rights'--is for the gay agenda because it will have the greatest impact on the white community. Obama is trying to load white people with yet another burden of guilt. Whites(especially the males) are supposed to feel guilty for oppressing blacks, browns, yellows, other peoples of color, and women. Add gays to the this bunch of victims, and white society will truly become pussified. Just imagine white people having to live in a world where they must respect homosexuality as being just as legitimate and morally valid as heterosexuality or normosexuality. Also keep in mind that the FAMILY is still intact in much of the white community. Since the family is a dinosaur in many black and brown communities, the negative impact of the gay agenda won't much matter there. Because the family is dead in the black and many brown communities, those people have come to rely on government and embrace the mantra of victimhood. Obama wants to destroy what is left of the family in the white community so that whites too will become dependent on government. Obama wants to 'niggerize' white people in the sense that most white people may come to feel that they too are victims of American capitalism and civilization--reject the very creation of their forebears. To 'niggerize' whites, Obama must weaken and eventually destroy the white community, and one way to destroy any community is to undermine its morals.

Obama seeks to do this with the Gay Agenda. The gay agenda will impact the white community more than any other community, not least because the LJM--liberal Jewish media--will focus disproportionately on stories of straight white violence against gays while burying stories of black or brown violence against gays. Notice that the DATE RAPE hysteria was almost entirely about 'privileged' white college males raping coeds when, in fact, most date rapes happen among blacks and browns. But, the LJM sought to drive a wedge between white males and white females. Liberal Jews, in their hunger for total power, seek to DIVIDE AND RULE. The most basic unity of any people is the love between their men and women. By making white women see white men as brutes, rapists, and evil-doers, the LJM seek to divide and weaken the white race.

Also, the military has long been a bastion of white male power and pride and conservative values. By allowing openly gays into the military, Obama is seeking to embarrassm, denigrate, and/or humiliate the code, symbols, and values of conservatism. At a time when American boys are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama's gift to them is to pander to the decadent and degenerate Gay Agenda Lobby and allow it to bugger the US military in the ass. After this is finished, the hardass of the US military will have been reduced to the faggotyass of liberalism. It's bad enough that white soldiers in the military must serve under a commander-in-chief who's a black nationalist, leftist, a puppet of liberal Jewish cabal, and a son of a disgusting shameless anti-American mudshark(and a good friend of people like Van Jones and Mark Lloyd and other worthless shits). Now, they must deal with openly fruity gays in the military.

When Clinton brought up the idea of DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL, I thought it was not a bad idea. I figure if gays wanna put aside their fruity gayness and serve honorably in the military, they should have the right. As long as soldiers who happen to be gay don't make a big stink about their gayness, I didn't see much of a problem with them serving in the military. But, as so often is the case, if you given them an inch, they soon demand a mile, or in this case, if you shake their hand, they soon wanna bugger you up the ass.

What does an OPENLY GAY POLICY mean? It means there will sensitivity--or thenthitivity--training to make soldiers into a bunch of namby pamby Mr. Rogerses. It will mean there will be gay pride weeks and parades in the military. It will mean gay soldiers will be allowed to hug and kiss each other in the military in front of other men. This is the Liberal Jewish and Obama's vision for the US military. They want to turn one of the last bastions of conservative values and white male pride into a pussified and wussified club of fruitcakes. It's bad enough that the US military has been racially integrated and that many decent patriotic white soldiers must serve next to and even salute jiveass Negroes who have no love for this country. It's bad enough that many white males in the military must swallow their pride and suffer the indignity of seeing so many white female soldiers put out to black soldiers. Liberals--especially the venal Jews--sought to integrate males and females in the military partly to promote miscegenation between black men and white women. Liberal Jews figured that in an institution where tougher black manhood would eclipse white manhood, more and more white women would flock to black men. Now, the liberal Jews and their boy Obama are seeking to drive the final nails in the coffin of white male pride. Though black soldiers don't like gays, they will pretend to side with gays in order to destroy what had been the bastion of white male pride and power from within. Trust me, Obama himself has no special love for gays. Obama is using gays against white America just like America used the Afghanis against the Soviets in the 80s. It's pure politics--enemy of your enemy is your friend.

As a result, white soldiers will even have to 'tolerate' gay soldiers wiggling their asses, making gay gestures with their hands, kissing and fondling one another in public, and talking/singing/dancing like fruits. So, this is what happens when a gentile society allows Jews and their degenerate, decadent, and subversive ideas to take hold of society. Wake up, White America.