Last summer, I wrote an essay for VDARE.com about my personal journey from liberalism, with a Jewish bent, to the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. The essay inspired many emails, some of which raised very interesting points. VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow has suggested that I respond to some of the most provocative comments.
First, my essay’s salient points:
And I quoted from Nietzsche:
“The Jews, that priestly people, who in opposing their enemies and conquerors were ultimately satisfied with nothing less than a radical revaluation of their enemies’ values, that is to say, an act of the most spiritual revenge…It was the Jews who, with awe-inspiring consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value-equation (good=noble=powerful=beautiful=happy=beloved of God) and to hang on to this inversion with their teeth…saying the wretched alone are good; the poor, impotent, lowly alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly alone are pious, alone are blessed by God, blessedness is for them alone—and you, the powerful and noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, …the godless to all eternity; and you shall be in all eternity the unblessed, accursed and damned!” [On the Genealogy of Morals, A Polemical Tract, First Essay Good and Evil, Good and Bad, by Friedrich Nietzsche, Leipzig 1887]
Many of the emails I received were very complimentary, such as this one:
“Terrific piece of work. Very insightful and I suspect you could have developed your ideas in much greater detail given the space. (There may even be a future book in there). I think you've struck the nail squarely on the head. You've not only done so through the lens of what you see as a surviving Jewish observer but also the paralyzing effect of it all on the guilt-burdened Caucasian, which, as you have described, creates a truly toxic, symbiotic relationship.”
But a few emails were nasty pieces of work.
I’ve selected some of the most interesting, organized into subject matter, and responded:
1. Nietzsche v. Ayn Rand
“I suspect Ayn Rand is not all that different.”
My response: As far as I know, Ayn Rand doesn’t acknowledge differences among groups; it is not a material part of her philosophy. Yet the key underlying problem of the decline of Western civilization is the drastic change in demographics that is occurring at warp speed. It is not bigger government. Big government is a result of the loss of a peoples’ capacity to care for themselves. Government can be smaller when a people are more sophisticated, intelligent, and responsible, as there will be fewer collective needs. Rand is a libertarian whose philosophy is based on a theory of a perfect system.
2. The Enemies We Face
“A very interesting piece! It succinctly presents what have been my beliefs for many years. Overall I am afraid that we Americans, as well as Western Civilization in general, are doomed. However, on a positive note, maybe the brazen assault recently by the Muslim world will wake someone up, maybe even before it's too late. Keep your powder dry! Oh, I forgot you live in New York. Bail while you can.”
My response: I believe that, at this point in history, the more ruthless and thoughtless our enemies are, the better it is for us. Unfortunately, we will need to feel real pain before we react. The big question is how much pain and how much blood.
3. Kevin MacDonald and The Culture of Critique
I received several emails comparing my views to CSULB psychology Professor Kevin MacDonald, editor of Occidental Observer and author of the Culture of Critique trilogy. MacDonald has a theory of Jewish activity drawn from group evolutionary psychology theory that I regard as mistaken (apart from anything else, MacDonald thinks Jews act in their own self-interest, whereas I think they tend to be suicidal). Here are a few:
“a. You may be correct in your view that these views (regarding massive Third world immigration into White European nations) are 'suicidal' to all higher people, particularly the Jews—but, you are dead wrong about there not being a conspiracy among Jews to engineer the deliberate and malicious reduction of White European people to a minority status inside their own historic nations.
b. MacDonald argues (correctly in my opinion) that there have been several intellectual and political movements in the past century lead by people who strongly identify as Jews and view their involvement in their movements as serving Jewish interests. All of these movements may be seen as attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and provide for Jewish group continuity in either an overt or semi-cryptic manner. He views these movements as the outcome of the fact that Jews and gentiles have different interests in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues.
c. "In the past century, leftist movements [have been] led by people who strongly identify as Jews and view their involvement in their movements as serving Jewish interests." [MacDonald]. The key word here being "view." That is not inconsistent with your point that Jewish involvement with left-wing causes is contrary to Jewish interests or your point that Jews are part of Western man.”
I strongly disagree. Of course, that there is strong Jewish involvement in left wing causes cannot be denied. This is because of their "blind left eye," their inversion of values, and suicidal tendencies to support the ‘other,’ even whites. Read the above quote from Nietzsche on “inversion of values.” Yet their interests totally coincide with higher Western man, because they are part of the West. Let me give some examples:
1). Do you know a people that would deny their greatest attributes, their intelligence? Essentially, if they had a survival strategy, they would emphasize this all the time, as intelligence is valuable. Yet they maintain that they do well because they ‘value education,’ not because of any inherent characteristics. They do this not because of their virtue, but to belong to the other. But what value would they be to society without their intelligence, which they deny they have?
2) My general experience speaking to Jews is that they are insightful, professional, and rational on many topics. But when you get to politics, there is complete babble and incoherence. They are proud that they vote against their interests. It is narcissism, not a conspiracy, which many groups have in other areas. Jews believe in a moralistic fallacy that supports the idea that to be a greater human being is to live your life for the other and protect them from “higher” people. This is the key to their suicidal nature and hypocrisy.
3) Their temples are disappearing. Their population is declining. Intermarriage is soaring. At some level, they know that what will be left will be the Orthodox. In every way, they are trying to disappear.
4) The most religious Jews, or the most Jewish of Jews, are the most politically rational. But if it were true that Jews had MacDonald’s group strategy, the most religious Jews would be the most anti-Western; but it is precisely the opposite. The non-religious Jews, the ones who have abandoned God and their culture, are the ones who are the most left wing and anti-Western. They have nothing left; in essence, they are trying to rid themselves of themselves.
4. More on Jews
1. “Even conservative Jews like Mark Levin seem to have a blind spot for the group differences you mention. I am Jewish—voted for Lyndon Johnson, then saw the error of my ways within a couple of years when his policies led to the crumbling of the American Ethic. The article was one of the best and most insightful I have ever read.”
2. “One thing that puzzles me... is why the Jewish leadership is so beset upon itself to want endless immigration into America. Why destroy the country that took them in?”
My response: Jews are a didactic and idealistic people. They have a very slim grip on reality.
5. Group v. Individual
“All races and all cultures are not, of course, equal in their ability to produce genius. But within any race, and within any culture, you will find genius. Whether intellectual, artistic, or ethical. Given this, the emphasis must be on respect for the individual and not the celebration of the group. This perspective, embraced honestly, would solve many of the problems we now face as a society.”
My response: There is a group Bell Curve in intelligence and sensibility that is material to races and cultures, and makes it fundamentally destructive for divergent groups to live together. What my correspondent wrote is true on a micro-level but it is harmful to extend it to masses of people. Perhaps that is why there are nations
6. What is secular Christianity?
“Your term "secularized Christianity" is troubling. I realize that the term "secular Jew" is in common usage, and is equivalent to "non-observant Jew." These people adopt some to the cultural aspects of Jews, while maintaining essentially an atheist position. What makes this more complicated is that Reform Jews would consider themselves observant, even if in some cases they would be hard-pressed to demonstrate exactly what it is they observe. The point here is that there is no such thing—in the same sense—as a "secular Christian.” I think what you mean by "secularized Christianity" is more properly rendered as "sentimental theology." This refers to a tortured reading of Scripture and tradition to align itself with the popular culture and political correctness.”
My response: Secular Christians may go to church and observe traditions, but they do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, or even that there is a God at all. They do believe in the morals and precepts of Christianity, but these precepts come from man, not from God. Because they do not believe in a divine heaven, it is man who can create heaven on earth. This is enormously destructive. It denies all nature.
From Friedrich Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, “Good and Bad” First Essay, Section 1.
“I hope from my heart,…that these investigators and microscopists of the soul may be fundamentally brave, proud, and magnanimous animals, who know how to keep their hearts as well as their sufferings in bounds and have trained themselves to sacrifice all desirability to truth, every truth, even plain, harsh, ugly repellent, unchristian, immoral truth.— For such truths do exist.”
What elevates us, and what we desire to believe, is not always true. Error is mankind’s most dangerous enemy. What is “good” can be quite destructive for man; and what is perceived as “evil” could be his savior.
We in the West have managed to turn truth on its head and conflate evil with group differences. Even science has been corrupted to this purpose.
Morality is not truth. It varies over time. What is evil can become good and good can become evil. We will have to relearn this all over again.
Because of the errors and superstitions of today, the West is doomed to endure a very long and painful period of barbarianism, misery and even mass death. When it finally becomes unavoidably clear that group differences are real, I worry that the Jews, as the intellectual leaders of modern egalitarianism, will be shamed and no longer respected in philosophy and the social sciences. (But you’ll always want a Jewish doctor!)
Even worse, there is a danger that, out of this dark period, a deep anti-Semitism will emerge, as revenge for the betrayal by the intellectuals. The Right could become what the Left already claims—Nazis—and Left could become the lesser of two evils.
Jews are a tiny portion of mankind. Despite their important role in fomenting this disaster, it is inaccurate and intellectually lazy to blame the Jews alone for the West’s current problems.
The most profound truths are often the ‘ugliest’. Non-Jews, as well as Jews, must abandon and utterly reject these unhealthy ideas.
Susie Green (email her) is an American of Jewish background. She has worked in New York City all of her professional life in various high-level managerial jobs. She is married and has a large blended family of children and stepchildren.