Notes on Freedom and Virtue


, , , ,

Modern people are supposedly free and live in a free country and free society. It is evident that they take pride in that perception and indeed have little sense of self (i.e., identity) other than being free. In such logic, freedom mustn’t be only a good but the highest moral good that all other goods must serve; it must be the end to which all else is a means. Modern people value freedom because they have no sense of self but in pleasure, which they value because modernity is a time of moral alienation. In so many words, all true human virtues have been deconstructed and removed from their normative place in society; and hence modern people are alienated from their true selves. Moral alienation makes human transcendence an impossibility. Moral alienation reduces the person from man to animal; for man has a synthetic existence of mind and body, unified in pure will, but lower animals exist only in body.

Of course, in an absolute sense, all people are free in all times and places. To be free is to do as you will, and all people do as they will in all times and places. To say otherwise is to evade responsibility for one’s doings. Rather, what modern people imply in boasting that I am free is to suffer no social or political consequence for doing as they will. That which the person wills may be in virtue and vice. It is by virtue that the person transcends and by vice that the person degenerates. Such freedom treats that which leads to transcendence and that which degenerates the human person as equals. As such, what is meant by this freedom is not sincere freedom, which all people possess in all times; but it is the deconstruction of virtue in society and the person’s subsequent moral alienation. Without virtue, the person enslaves him or herself to the pleasures of the body. The person’s humanness becomes not the striving of the will, unifying body and mind, but the unbecoming of the person who is enslaved to the body.

The view of freedom as the good to which all other goods must serve is a consequence of the moral alienation of modern people. Freedom can never be the antecedent but only a product of a good society; that is, only a virtuous people can truly be free. Because the virtuous person does not need law to act well, he or she can be given freedom. And yet, given the same freedom, that vice-ridden person will destroy himself and everything else that he can touch. Such an outcome contradicts the just function of civil society, which is to cultivate virtue. A vice-ridden people can never be free, but if free, they will enslave themselves to their own hubris.

An Apologia for Female Exclusion


, ,

A piece of wisdom that our ancestors knew but modern people have forgotten is the need to exclude women from political power. European cultures have historically included a public/private social distinction. Men are in the public and women in the private. In the original Latin, the Roman Republic (Res Publica) is the “Public Matter.” Since politics is a public matter, it is a male duty, and homemaking is a female duty. Modernity’s deconstruction of that distinction has likewise deconstructed gender roles as a whole and the state as a force for good. Here, I intend to show that distinction to be the legitimate basis for the state and the common good.

Plato likens ideal statesmen to “herdsmen of humanity.” That should be applied even further to the state as a whole, particularly since it implies human herds. These herds are formed by genetic similarity; such are races, nations, and families in an overlapping continuum. The sum of such a continuum is civil society. That is essential to actualizing human potential because civil society is how people comprehend themselves in the world. It is the function of the state to guide humans toward their potential by binding the herd in common spiritual struggle. As such, there must be familial continuity; for all humans herds are extended families. And yet, female political power divides the family against itself in pushing women into male spaces of politics. In dividing the family, both the family and civil society becomes dysfunctional. Hence, female political power contradicts the basis for the state.

Humans are rational, but not fully so since they are also ruled by intuition. A person’s intuition is developed by evolutionary history and in his or her relation to civil society. Human intuition in differing between human groups rules how they use rationality to relate to the world. All human action is the consequence of a dialectical process of rationality and intuition. Further, men and women differ in their innate intuition. Male intuition is to war; female intuition is to mother. War and motherhood are the essential conditions, for which nature conditions men and women respectively. Men perceive all other people as friends or enemies, and women perceive all other people as children or partners. Since the state is itself a friend/enemy distinction, such female intuition make them particularly unfit for political power. It does not matter how rational or “intelligent” a woman might be because they lack the psychology to understand the conceptual basis of the state. The state is an alternative to war. The state establishes law over a certain people and uniting a people in common spiritual struggle. Only those who can comprehend war and the friend/enemy distinction are fit for political power.

Humans are social animals. Social structures and roles are inseparable from their humanness; both of which have origins in human nature. Tear down one structure, and you will see another takes its place. These together form social roles, which are antecedents of the developed human self. It is utterly immoral to deconstruct gender roles since that would also deconstruct humanness as a whole. Since gender roles have origins in human nature, to create true equality between the genders would require suppression of human nature and therefore extreme tyranny. But, instead, blather about gender equality is mostly just rhetoric. Feminism is a method for women to opt out of social duties but still benefit from the social duties that men owe to them. As such, patriarchal norms that grant privileges to women suffer no objection from feminists. Encountering women, men do not demand the same of them as they would of other men because people have an intuitive understanding of gender roles. And yet, politics is premised on duty that men have to each other. Thus, a consequence of female political power is a deterioration of the polity as whole.

Jewish Hubris and Acceleration


, ,

A person also need not deny or even question the narrative of the Holocaust to be Holocaust-denier. That absurd and extraordinary claim is what the Jewish scholar Debra Lipstadt is stating in a screed of hers. Since the Trump Administration failed to credit Jews as the sole victims of the Holocaust, she argues, they might as well just deny it altogether; she calls that “softcore Holocaust denial.” And, furthermore, for her, it can’t be sincere. It is either a mistake or motivated by deep-seating hatred that Trump has for Jews. The latter is frankly ridiculous since he is surrounded by Jews, including two daughters-in-law and one son-in-law. All of what Lipstadt writes seems so ridiculous, but in actuality, it must be motivated by either (1) Jewish hubris or (2) tribal group-think.

Hubris is an unmistakable characteristic of Jews. Seldom will any mistreatment befall them that they won’t imagine is the most evil and desperate act in all of history. They will never assess their own behavior or consider that grievances against them might have rational motives. Of the 60 million people that died in World War Two, they consider their alleged 6 million to be worthy of a permanent blood libel against the German nation and white people in general. The hubris involved in that is unimaginable.

And yet, that hubris has been successful in modern history. It could easily also, then, be tribal group-think to their collective advancement as an ethno-cultural body (i.e., a group-evolutionary strategy). While establishing an ethno-state for themselves, Jewish power has also overseen the Western World made into a multicultural swamp. No one will notice any of that, however, lest they be anti-Semitic and socially shamed. That group-evolutionary strategy has worked so far, so they react by doing the same with greater frequency whenever they are displeased.

Lipstadt’s screed may be a syndrome of that. Trump’s emphasis on a neorealist foreign policy and patriotic immigration reform is an antithesis of what Jews want. Trump is also an architype of everything that they fear and loath (i.e., a nationalistic blonde German); as such, they try to destroy Trump with their usual tactics. But such tactics are losing power because they seem desperate and absurd. Since Jewish power comes from appealing to Goyish slave morality, they have no other tactics at their disposal unless they intend to admit interests and goals. Doing so, however, would also be counter-productive because Jewish power is predicated on a perception of them as oppressed and powerless victims

The Meme and Meaning of the Current Year


, , , , ,

Memes are never just memes. Memes are social ideas that are contextualized into visual perception. And ideas are mass viruses of the mind; that is, ideas have the power to destroy societies or people. In so many words, memes have meaning behind them. As such, the Current Year meme is invaluable in understanding the psychology of the Left. Since they themselves perpetuate it, they much believe it, so it is valuable to understand their antics following Trump’s inauguration.

Part of the reason for these antics is Trump’s victory is both cultural and political. It is not yet clear which of those elements is more significant. But the Left is populated by mental children who do not like to lose. And, indeed, they have never lost in memory and only ever won; every year cuckolded republicans surrendering more ground to them. And yet, there is a more serious but equally infantile reason for the hysteria. The Whiggish Theory of History is central and invaluable to Liberalism itself.

Liberals base their ideology according to the assumption that there is eternal progress toward to the liberal ideal; that is, every year, we become more equal and free. Since liberals are atheistic, that crypto-Christian assumption of progress gives liberals a sense of salvation. It gives liberals, in other words, a sense of purpose and meaning because they feel that they will be proven right one day. Accordingly, the current year is virtue signaling, but is also more than that. Reciting the current year is a method for liberals to reiterate their salvation. It is precisely the same impulse as the religious zealot who shouts: “God will give me justice!”

Trump is a macho, blonde, nationalistic German who can’t be controlled by their sphere of money. For left-liberals, that is the archetype of everything that they fear and loathe. Him being elected President and then doing what he promised is a nullification of their theory of history and therefore a contradiction of their salvation.

The Crisis of Liberal Cultural Hegemony

Although the assault on Richard Spencer is admittedly a humiliation for the Alt-Right, it is significant not only for that reason. The reaction to it is more significant than the action itself. It is not surprising that antifa (i.e., “anti-fascists”), who are thuggish communists and anarchists, assaulted a right-wing ideologue, but it is in fact surprising that left-liberals rushed to celebrate and justify the assault. As long as I can remember, liberals have put on airs of supporting free thought and non-violence. Even if liberals call for restriction on “hate speech,” they never call for explicit violence against ideological opponents—until now. Since politics is cultural and dialectical, such a change in liberals’ tactics is symptomatic of a greater change in the cultural dialectic. Even as the assault is a consequence of a change in the cultural dialectic, it will also affect the cultural dialectic in ways that empower the Alt-Right.

Trump’s running for President and winning changes the cultural dialectic profoundly by normalizing unthinkable thoughts. Trump is successful in normalizing a communitarian maxim of “America First!” to the contrary of the neoliberal capitalist values of Paul Ryan. In so doing, Trump shifts the cultural dialectic to include such perspectives. Whereas neoliberals and left-liberals fundamentally agree about political values (i.e., equality, universality, et cetera), the Alt-Right and left-liberals fundamentally do not. Politics requires common values because it is the act of reaching a compromise between parties—or there is no reason for either party to accept it. Such common values do not exist between the Alt-Right and left-liberals, so there can be no politics between them; the only alternative to which is violence. In normalizing political violence, liberals will force their enemies to act likewise to defend themselves, making right-wing violence (“RWDS”) inevitable.

Moreover, Liberalism loses its monopoly on what is acceptable thought in politics. It is also apparent that the Alt-Right threatens liberal cultural hegemony. People know what the Alt-Right is because it is mocked on SNL, written about in the New York Times, and even attacked by Hillary Clinton. Since hegemonic ideologies use violence to defend their hegemony, liberals’ newfound justification of violence is a rational action.

The price that liberals are paying for losing cultural hegemony is the Alt-Right entering the cultural dialectic. But, once in the dialectic, the Alt-Right can then influence the cultural dialectic. Thus, such a change in the cultural dialectic is both a consequence and an act of the Alt-Right.  Every time an Alt-Right ideologue speaks to the press, he sets the topic for the cultural dialectic, forcing liberals to be the reactionaries in politics.

Error in the Liberal Ethical Theory of Sex


, ,

Most people would agree that bestiality—by which, I mean a sex act that a human being performs upon an animal—is morally wrong, but scarcely can a person explain why. Most people simply assume that bestiality is wrong while having no reason for that. It is important, then, to establish a reason as to why or why not bestiality is morally permissible because Reason is needed for authentic living. Reason is how human beings access Truth; that is the basis for Virtue and hence authentic living. As such, the modern imagination finds itself in a paradox. The liberal social order has an ethical theory of sex, but its theory can’t explain why bestiality is morally impermissible. The question, then, is whether (1) the liberal ethical theory of sex is wrong or (2) bestiality is morally permissible.

The liberal ethical theory of sex is implicitly Christian, albeit secular, in its praxis. Like Christians, liberals deify “love” as self-evidentially good. Sex is thought of as a part or expression of love. Since liberals are materialists, love is not metaphysical, but they only perceive love in terms of preferences or pleasure. The liberal ethical theory of sex considers only consensual sex to be morally permissible sex. Accordingly, bestiality must also be morally permissible. In such an act, the only actor whose will (i.e., consent) is relevant is that of the human being. As a society, we kill animals to eat them, so we do not care about the consent of animals; the will of the animal, then, is not relevant. As such, bestiality must be morally permissible, but it is not as Reason vis-à-vis our basic human instincts tell us—so the liberal ethical theory of sex must be wrong.

Its error starts with the assumption that the purpose of sex is pleasure. The arbiter of permissible versus impermissible sex, then, falls to consent. And yet, there are species of animals that do not experience pleasure during sex. Moreover, sex is an evolutionary mechanism to promote fertile breeding and hence the survival of the species. Evolution itself precedes consciousness; evolution even takes place in non-conscious beings. And consciousness precedes consent. Thus, the purpose of sex can’t be pleasure, and the arbiter of permissible sex can’t be consent.

But, contrarily, the purpose of sex is determined by its nature as an evolutionary mechanism. The purpose of sex is to promote fertile breeding and eventual biological improvement. Since genetic improvement can lead to moral improvement, permissible is sex that can serve that evolutionary purpose, such as coitus. And, further, coitus between persons of high genetic stock should be highly encouraged. But sex that can’t lead to procreation whatsoever, never mind evolutionary progress, is impermissible.

Do Not Ban the Burka!


, , ,

Banning the burka would be stupid and pointless virtue signaling, which no identitarian should support. Merkel’s sudden decision to support such a ban may be political opportunism, or she may argue it is necessary to preserve secular Germany, but it does not matter. The problem of Muslims has never been that they are religious. The problem, rather, is they are very different in historical and racial terms—and hence they represent an existential problem for both Germany and European civilization as a whole. Banning the burka, then, is like giving a band aid to a man with a collapsing lung. Even if there is cause for the band aid, it does not treat cause, only the effect.

But, insofar that the burka is an effect, it is not a bad effect altogether. It is not like the mass rapes of European women on the streets of Cologne, Hamburg, and elsewhere; these were also effects of that existential problem. It is instead a symbol of religious tradition, devotion, and female virtue and modesty. I do not forget that these traditions are different than European traditions, but I nonetheless find these to be admirable. Damning these traditions requires that we also damn our traditions as Europeans, so social degeneracy and destruction is the only result.

Moreover, for identitarians, the burka can have positive social consequences. The burka acts as a mechanism for identity as a juxtaposition of “us” versus “them.” The people who wear burkas are signaling that they are not part of our ethno-cultural community (“us”) but part of their own (“them”). In this sense, the burka makes obvious more substantial differences between Europeans and Middle Easterners. It is similar to how difference in skin color makes the differences between Europeans and Africans more obvious. Liberal cosmopolitans (e.g., Merkel) would like to erase these differences to ensure that we are all part of the raceless and cultureless machine of international Capitalism. For these cosmopolitans, then, it is a very ethical thing to ban the burka.

Dialectic of Violence


, ,

Violence is an expression of the human will. As a part of his or her will, violence is an essential part of the human being. Since societies are made of human beings, violence is also an essential part of all human societies. Violence can be minimized but never abolished, so liberal attempts to do that are intrinsically ill-fated. And yet, violence expresses itself in different societies differently because these societies are organized differently. The manner of violence, then, is a consequence of the politico-cultural system. For lack of a better term, it is the dialectic of violence.

Such systems execute justice through violence; that is, the dialectic of violence directs violence either upward or downward. “Downward” violence is directed by a central authority, such as a state, against people whom violate its laws. It is absolute and abstract in that such laws are the same for everyone or no one—and such laws appeal to unseen mechanisms of enforcement. “Upward” violence is direct by people or groups of people against persons whom commit a perceived act of sacrilege. It is relative and concrete in that it is reliant on a tribal code of honor—and its mechanisms are expressed before everyone.

“Upward” violence can only be a cohesive form of justice in societies that are homogeneous, high-trust, and honor-based; lest, it lack legitimacy and only be delinquency. Where there is social continuity, the community enforces its code of honor, and there need not be political conformity. Likewise, where there is not social continuity, a central authority must enforce political conformity. Heterogeneous (i.e., “diverse”) societies lack trust and therefore lack a common perception of honor, so “downward” violence is the only possible system of justice. Consequentially, heterogeneous societies head down an ugly path of destruction of political freedom by inducing a sense of nihilistic atomization in the people.

Beatnik Fascism and the Metaphysics of Modern Life


, , , ,

Beatnik Fascism is an interesting book because it is in a style that has potential to fill what has been missing from illiberal politics—by that, what is meant is art. All metapolitical movements must have a cultural and aesthetic basis, for which ideological art is also needed. This essay intends to explain why such art is needed, the value of metapolitics, and summarize Beatnik Fascism on micro- and macro-levels; thus, in so many words, I will analyze Beatnik Fascism as a whole and in part.

The title of Beatnik Fascism is a metaphor. It is reference to a Twilight Zone episode, in which an invading army of fascist aliens disguise themselves as beatniks. For identitarians, perhaps that is a fitting metaphor because we feel estranged and alienated from the world, almost like we are indeed in a twilight zone. But, further, it is like a literary representation of Revolutionary Conservatism; by which, what is meant is ideology that seeks to overturn the status quo to establish a more traditional and hierarchical political order. Beatniks are counter-cultural, but Fascism is ultra-conservative, so it is counter-cultural Conservatism. It is a revolution against bourgeois liberal Modernity in favor of something newer, better, and truer.

And yet, mere politics is petty in the sense that politics is only expressed in paradigms, in which there are presumed ideas. Ideas out of the paradigm are neither considered nor tolerated but simply rejected. In this sense, politics is a slave of metapolitics because metapolitics defines what political ideas can and can’t be considered (i.e., what is in and out of the political paradigm). By understanding metapolitics, the New Left has defeated both the Old Left and the Right. To defeat the New Left, it is essential that European Identitarianism also understand metapolitics.

Accordingly, it is also essential that European Identitarianism embrace art as part and parcel of an avant-garde Futurism in opposition to left-liberal bourgeois Modernity. As a book of poems, Beatnik Fascism is important because it focuses on the themes of Identitarianism and Futurism. In common, Beatnik Fascism has an overall sense of loathing for the present as a time of nothingness. There is also reverence for both the ancient past and whatever potential future may lie ahead. Modernity is characterized by spiritual death, an absence of beauty, lack of transcendence, and senselessness or a sense of being being-less—i.e., having no will and no power.

The writer walks through an antique shop, noting that it feels like traveling in time, but he then finds a statue of a Roman centurion. He is transported in time vis-à-vis his Romanophilia to the sack of ancient Rome. It is apparent that is a tragic poem because the writer admires Rome and sees it destroyed.

My eyes hone in on a statuette of a bronze centurion, and

suddenly I’m there watching helplessly from the vestibule,

waxing nostalgic for the old pre-christian pantheon days when

Jupiter and Mars willed us to victory, and

Cupid shot arrows of affection into our pulse pounding hearts,

drunk out of our minds off the wine of Bacchus as we

danced over the corpses of conquered foreigners

and made love with their wives, sons and daughters,

absorbing them into our growing empirical blob of a world.

Now I can only look on regrettably as

Alaric’s Visigoth army sacks Rome,

looting everything of value and

stripping away layers upon layers of civilizational achievements

that had accumulated over the centuries.

That passage creates an association of Rome with “victory,” “dancing,” and “love”; contrarily, the Visigoths “loot” and “strip away… civilizational achievements.” The writer is delving into ancient history to find civilization, so civilization is not merely the most advanced way of living, but it must also be a metaphysical condition. Simply put, the Visigoths are destruction and therefore death and the Romans are pleasure and therefore life. That juxtaposition of metaphysical death and life is also a juxtaposition of Tradition and Modernity. In Tradition, we find life because we find transcendence in a true expression of our collective spirit. In Modernity, we find death because there is only destruction for our collective spirit. Civilization, then, is not only a condition of living in an advanced way but a metaphysical condition of being.

Another poem (“Dodging the Draft”) emphasizes that personal lack of being by comparing modern life to war, but it is metaphysical war, rather than physical war. In so many words, modern life is a struggle that a person either wins or loses according to his or her will. Modern life is a prison that is characterized by misery because the people therein have lost of all sense of meaning in lieu of material things. Although Capitalism gives people so many things, people are still miserable with their lives. That seeming contradiction can be resolved in that people are lowered to be nearly slaves by Capitalism for things, which are material in nature, but such things can’t possibly make us truly happy because true happiness comes from truth. By its nature, truth must be transcendent, so happiness from material things is a lie.

Such misery is a proxy for metaphysical death because misery per se is a negative condition; that is, people are miserable because they can’t or don’t. Metaphysical death means not knowing a meaningful existence or truth. That means a person does not live and therefore is being-less in modern life. It is a personal struggle of truth against the prison of modern life. The lesson of is to emphasis the destructive nature of materialist Capitalism. Unless we escape, we will die in this metaphysical war.

Although many reactionaries see what wrong with Modernity, it is seldom that they think or articulate an alternative. Reactionaries usually want to return to some envisioned period in the past, but that devolves into LARPing because past periods can’t be recreated. Even if such periods could be recreated, doing so would be equivalent to rewinding a film; that is, it would lead to the same place, so stupid reactionary LARPing leads nowhere. An additional weakness of the reactionary view is it accepts the hypothesis of Historical Materialism, seeing history as starting at a point and progressing to a final end. The reactionary only reverses its ethical order and favors the beginning over the end. Thus, leftists and reactionaries agree that Modernity is by itself an end.

Rather, identitarians should see Modernity as a temporary condition of history, just as every other period was also a temporary condition. Modernity was necessary, but it is necessary to move beyond the period. Accordingly, identitarians must start to think and by thinking create a new future that is neither past nor present. In a short poem (“Dust on the Moon”), as such, the writer starts to envision a new future:

For those of us who prefer to seek out and

supersede the biologically imposed limits of

our understanding of the universe as organisms,

without restricting ourselves to uncritical faith in

currently unproven bronze age supernatural beliefs or

leaning on the crutch of an imagined higher power,

the future is this way.


Let those who are content on the prairie, live as

happy families in their familiar traditional communities.

We will strive to build lunar cities.

Our ashes will become moon dust.


It is ironic that the writer juxtaposes futurists with people on the prairie because exploration of the prairie embodied the same lust for the unknown as Futurism. The writer also disassociates Futurism from tradition, which is problematic. Tradition and Futurism should be joined because both are needed for identitarians to triumph. Becoming either futuristic nihilists or primitive traditionalists would be failure. To avoid that destructive cycle, Futurism must be Archeofuturism, or it will be nothing.

In spite of these criticisms, I genuinely enjoyed reading Beatnik Fascism. The title’s metaphor is fitting because Identitarianism is Revolutionary Conservatism in the sense it wants to overturn the status quo, but it also fits our psyche. We feel alienated from our societies in a way that could be present in the Twilight Zone. Further, Beatnik Fascism adds a sense of culture and metaphysics to Identitarianism. Since it is innately a metapolitical ideology, Identitarianism must have a sense of culture because it seeks to shape and reshape culture. And, lastly, Beatnik Fascism gives a helpful critique of Modernity from the point of Futurism.




Adamson, B. (2016). Beatnik Fascism. Phoenix: Briny Books.

The Problem of Jewish Anti-Culture


, ,

“Anti-Semitism” has been made a dirty word, but it can be a rational impulse for gentiles insofar that it is a healthy suspicion or dislike of Jews. The organized Jewish community can be a unique existential threat to gentile societies because they can be “in” but never “of” such societies. That existential threat originates from Jewish ethno-cultural identity that predisposes Jews to parasitic activity and action. A parasite is the contrapositive of a cuckold; that is, a cuckold is someone who produced without consuming, and a parasite is someone who consumes without producing. It is fair to call Jews parasitic because they subvert political and intellectual traditions to favor their ethnic interests at the expense of the host society; that will lead to the overall degeneration of such societies. Accordingly, it is an imperative for gentiles to avert Jewish power in their societies.

Ethno-cultural identity is a rational consequence of human beings having physical and metaphysical needs for community. Ethno-cultural identity should be the basis for mutual respect between peoples. Ethno-cultural identities are like each other in the sense that these identities emphasize their difference from others, love of their homeland, reverence for their traditions, myths, and ancestors, et cetera. And yet, Jewish ethno-identity is not like other ethno-identities because it expresses these things in a depraved manner. As Freidrich Nietzsche noticed, that Jewish identity is a “Slave Morality,” and indeed their own myths deify themselves as a defeated people; thus, the Jewish mythos perpetuates their loathing of both themselves and gentiles. Jews have also been a homeless people for two thousand years, so they think of themselves as that. Jewish identity for that reason is irrevocably cosmopolitan and rootless. Perhaps it is ironic, but Jews tend to be more honest about themselves in outlets that are explicitly theirs. In the Jewish Journal, a writer pontificates on that aspect of Jewish identity:

Jews will always believe Black Lives matter because Jews do not think of themselves as “White People.” You have but to walk down a street in Tel Aviv to see the multiplicity of Jewish skin colors. You have but to live as a Jew in any time in history, in any country including the United States, to recognize we are not the White People – we were not the White People allowed into certain clubs, schools, neighborhoods for most of American history. We are not the people rallying for “white people’s rights.”

Dennis Prager makes much of how the Left has often betrayed Jews. He is not wrong about that. But he is wrong in thinking that means Jews should stop supporting the causes of the Left. Consider the alternative: How have Jews fared under the right? Far worse. In Egypt, or under the Greeks and Romans, in Spain and Portugal under the Inquisition, in Europe during the Reformation, in France at the time of Dreyfus, or in Hitler’s Germany or his Reichlands. Consider the fate of Jewish lives under right wing governments in Hungary or Poland – are they better off than they were under Leftist regimes?

It is a betrayal, then, for Jews to be anything but unassimilated in gentile societies. Whereas normal ethno-cultural identities are about being “in,” Jewish identity is about being “out.” Jews know who they are because they know who they are not via past humiliations and indignities. Jews are unable to approach gentiles from a position of mutual respect because they are unable to see gentiles as anything but a past and future oppressor. Rather than ethno-cultural, Jewish identity is consequentially anti-ethnic and anti-cultural because it reverses the ideas of homeland and tradition that undergird normal ethno-cultural identity.