我刚刚采访了一个美国人，他已经连续旅行了 18 年，但您一共在美国以外的地方已经 XNUMX 年了。 为什么，首先，你是如何维持自己的？ 没有你想定居的地方吗？ 你会回到美国生活吗？
我一直想旅行，看看世界。 我喜欢学习新语言、结识不同的人并体验其他国家的生活的想法。 因此，获得文学学位后，我决定去拉丁美洲教英语。 我在几个拉美国家工作过。 美国和拉丁美洲的生活形成了鲜明的对比。 在那里的银行业危机之后不久，我就在加拉加斯。 我教过的学校的学生在失去毕生积蓄后哭着来到课堂； 整个国家变得贫困。 我记得有一天早上，一位老师上班迟到了，因为警察真的把他从街上绑架了，把他带到市中心，把一袋可卡因放在桌子上说，“如果你不付我们 200 美元，这属于你。” 这发生在我在不同国家认识的几个不同的人身上。 它几乎发生在我身上，有一次。 诀窍是客气而坚定，不可让步。 “警官，你说我的证件不齐？ 让我再给你看一下签证印章。” 他们不想要一个场景。 我也曾在厄瓜多尔工作，在执政几个月后，总统阿卜杜拉·布查拉姆 (Abdalá Bucharam) 贪污了数百万美元，举办了一场派对，庆祝他年轻的侄子在海关工作中的第一个 XNUMX 万美元，然后推出了一张他自己唱自己喜欢的歌曲的 CD，这看起来像是一种非常愚蠢的分散注意力的策略。 值得厄瓜多尔人民称赞的是，布卡拉姆的滑稽动作引发了一场大规模的民众起义。 我的老板告诉我在抗议期间不要出去，因为他们可能会变得暴力，但我无法抗拒。 有游行和圣歌，街上的轮胎在燃烧，布卡拉姆挂在雕像上。 厄瓜多尔国会以精神不稳定为由投票罢免他，他带着数千万美元逃往巴拿马。 我看到在厄瓜多尔和许多其他拉美国家，人们彼此不信任，对不诚实的容忍度更高，公共服务功能失调，地方性腐败，医疗保健不良，公共乱扔垃圾，没有多少知识文化的方式，但犯罪率很高，而且不乏将国家的错误归咎于美国的人。 我不希望美国变成那样。
当我在 90 年代中期回到美国时，我试图与人们谈论来自拉丁美洲的大规模非法移民问题。 当时，移民还是一个禁忌话题。 Pat Buchanan 未能在 96 年获得共和党提名。 Republicans let themselves be convinced he couldn't get elected. 我的意思是，看在上帝的份上，这家伙真的想建一堵墙来阻挡非法移民！ 我仍然试图说服人们，我们的移民政策，尤其是来自拉丁美洲的大规模非法移民，会造成真正的问题。 我记得曾与一位刚从杜克大学毕业的年轻女子交谈过。 她聪明伶俐，身材匀称，容貌俊美。 在向我解释美国是一个白人至上主义国家之后，我想：又是一个深渊。 但后来，我记得看过一个关于“白度”的电视新闻片段。 它描绘了一个受创伤的少女白人女孩从一些斗争会议中走出来，通过她的眼泪和鼻涕呜咽，“我再也不会利用我的白人了！” 我记得那一刻。 我惊呆了。 病毒正在传播。 我不明白为什么很少有人意识到这种反白情绪的高涨以及对有色人种的大规模移民控制不力所带来的风险。
我没有看到移民缓和运动有能力产生很大的变化。 所以，我离开了亚洲。 中国是我的第一站。 我在广州教英语。 那是一次很棒的经历。 学生们有时会告诉我他们在中国的生活，他们在那里成长的经历，包括他们自己不喜欢中国人和中国社会的地方。 我学到了很多东西，并且越来越喜欢他们中的许多人。 从那时起，我几乎所有持久的友谊都与来自农村的中国人建立了联系。 他们通常是认真、真诚、非常正派的人。 我也在西部省份度过了一段时间，我的中文老师邀请我去她在农村的家过春节。 我吃了家常中国菜，和男人们喝了月光酒。 他们向我保证，如果中国和美国开战，他们会保护我。 但他们想知道一件事：美国人民怎么会愚蠢到选举了一个黑人总统？ 嗯……至少不是妄想的反白人仇恨。
多年来，我做过教师、编辑和作家。 正是这最后一部作品，最终让我离开了中国。 在专制国家当作家很困难，与许多外国人不同，我从来没有真正相信中国将要民主化的想法。 五千年的威权政府并没有突然民主化，因为拥有博士学位的新自由主义经济学家提出了一种巧妙的自私自利理论。 那时我也很幸运能赚到一些钱，这让我可以奢侈地开始成为一名作家。 作家通常需要某种外部资金来冒险。 我最终来到了台湾，这是一个伟大的国家。 即使习近平和约翰塞纳不知道。
你遇到过不了解美国白人如何选举黑人的农村中国人。 那是种族主义吗？ 他们只是希望人们为自己投票吗？ 我们不应该高于那个吗？ 你在东亚待了很多时间，你受到了怎样的对待？ 你觉得东方人如何看待白人？ 还有黑人？
我不喜欢“种族主义”这个词，因为左派用它来攻击他们不喜欢的种族的观点。 这就是它的主要功能。 任何使用它的右翼人士都同意在敌方领土上进行概念交流，舆论制造者已经在那里建立了防御工事。 基本上，我认为引发这个问题的原因是缺乏对美国种族关系历史的了解。 一个（半）黑人成为总统的部分原因是那段历史。 因果。 但是我通过简单地说明奥巴马的母亲是白人来避免所有这些历史，这是一个廉价的答案。 我想我老师的家人一定对黑人有负面看法，或者至少对他们在美国社会中的地位有负面看法。 一般来说，我在中国不太了解这种观点。 这在我的学生中并不常见，他们喜欢我的一位黑人同事。 另一方面，他确实有一些障碍需要跨越。 一些学生甚至在上他的课之前就抱怨，中国管理层最初反对雇用他。 （这所学校由一个西方人所有，他否决了他们。）我确实记得另一位来自讲英语的非洲国家的黑人老师告诉我，他在中国找到一份工作是多么困难。 我认为可能是中国人通常对与黑人的互动持开放态度，但有些人害怕发起这些互动。 种族观念很奇怪。 一位同事是一位亚洲女性，她在几个月大时从澳门移民到美国。 学生们确信她有浓重的粤语口音，这实际上是完全不存在的。
As for Asian’s perceptions of white people, I think it really varies. Your Asian girlfriend will occasionally get called a whore when she’s with you in public—in almost any Asian country. Unfortunately, there are foreign men of different races who become serial monogamists, which doesn’t help. But this attitude would probably exist, regardless. The impulse to protect one’s own is instinctual, and not always unhealthy.
What makes Taiwan a great country, exactly? What makes it a better society than the US?
In Taiwan people have much to be thankful for: crime is very low, public transportation is cheap and efficient, the food is good, the inexpensive socialized medical care is perhaps the best in the world (I’ve heard this from both one Chinese and one American doctor), and the education is decent and not expensive, though there is too much emphasis on rote memorization, like most schooling in East Asia. People, including mainland Chinese, remark on how Taiwanese seem friendly and confident, but not arrogant. Taiwanese neighborhoods are often contained within blocks that are several times larger than in the United States, so the interiors have their own self-contained spaces with parks, restaurants, cafes, nice liminal spaces. It’s the perfect mix of modern society with a laid-back island feel.
But it’s still a give and take. In Taiwan, like China, people tend to be more reserved about expressing their own opinions. This sometimes makes for boring conversation. There is also less risk-taking in business, which means many rich people prefer to sink their money into an already hyper-inflated real estate market, making it difficult for young people to buy their own homes and form families—the foundation of society in any country. Wealth inequality is high, and when young people aren’t forming families, they focus their energies on building identities that, while perhaps not unimportant, are peripheral to more fulfilling lives. Taiwan became the first country in Asia to legalize gay marriage in 2017. So, while gay people can get married, straight people don’t because they can’t afford kids.
I’m getting older and thinking about where I might settle. It’s not likely to be the United States. Taiwan would be nice, but you always have to worry about China paying a visit. There are other options in Asia. And I haven’t ruled out some European nations that still have a healthy self-concept.
The USA does not have a healthy self-concept, you’re obviously saying, but there have been no miscalculations. America’s sickness has been preplanned and quite smoothly executed, with almost no resistance. What will it take to turn it around, if not for the whole country, then at least for portions of it?
It’s important to recognize where the opposition may have a point, concede that point to the less radical among them, then divide and conquer. In Taiwan, the wealth gap is about the same as in the USA. Maybe worse. People grumble, but there is no simmering threat of revolution. Perhaps this is because younger Taiwanese are united against China, but more likely it is because they receive high quality education and health care at very low cost, two services that most modern societies value very highly. Conceding these issues to the left would gradually create a schism between the irrationals who think we live in a white supremacist society, and those who mainly want our poorly regulated capitalist system reined in a bit. (There are still a lot of the latter.) Campaign finance reform would definitely make this easier by minimizing the power of the corporate lobby, another point that could be gainfully conceded. Actually, conceded is not entirely the right word. Actively making common cause on these issues might be a better way to put it. There are also conservative organizations to get involved in, like Stephen Miller’s new legal foundation, or Project Veritas, and many others. But conservatives have to want to win as badly as liberals do. And they have to form communities and help one another whenever and however they can.
It will take time, of course. The left’s delusions are deeply entrenched. So, it’s good to have at hand some ready facts to shift a liberal’s perspective, especially if presented from a point of view sympathetic to minorities. For example: in 1970, after the civil-rights movement, 70% of black men had good blue-collar jobs. In 1987, only 28%. What happened? The policies of mass legal and illegal immigration, outsourcing, and automization prioritized profits above all else. In the 1990’s, civil rights leader Barbara Jordan complained about immigration taking jobs out of the black community.
I’m not sure how planned the assault on Western society has been, or if it’s just developed in fits and starts. Radicals come from all backgrounds. It might not have gained so much support if the growing wealth inequality of the last 50 years had been better managed. But maybe David Horowitz can speak to one aspect of your question. He’s been described as the intellectual voice who everyone listened to within the Marxist-inspired radical movements of the 1960’s and 70’s, which in a somewhat different form—critical race theory—has now infested many of our institutions. He founded and edited 城墙, a magazine which set the revolutionary tone of the New Left. (Perhaps it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Warren Buffet was a donor.) He later became a right-winger and wrote an autobiography, 激进的儿子, in which, at one or two points, he analyzes the Jewish propensity to identify with the underdog and become radicalized:
My parents and their comrades had given their hearts to a foreign power. The Soviet Union was the land of their dreams, and they pledged their allegiance to its political future. It was not my parents’ idealism that elicited fear and provoked hostility from the goyim. It was their hostility toward the goyim, and indeed everything the goyim held dear, that incited the hostility back. Of course, if my parents were right and America was as unjust as they were convinced it was, if its institutions could be changed only by violent means, if Marxism were the map of a radical future—then their persecution was inevitable, and they really had no choice. But my parents were incapable of entertaining the alternate possibility: that they were wrong about each of these points; that they could have lived different lives and still made moral stands; that the politics they had chosen were both a provocation and a threat. To the end of their days, they remained incapable of self-reflection about the radical commitments that had defined their lives. In this they were typical among the inhabitants of the progressive ghetto, who believed in their truth with a ferociousness that left no room for dissent.
Marx and Freud were strategies for dealing with their predicaments as members of a despised social group. European Jews had been given rights and were admitted to civil society only after the French Revolution. But they had been denied full acceptance through a kind of “institutional racism,” a code of civility that continued to put them in their place […] The revolutionary ideas of Marx and Freud were attempts to deconstruct these civil orders, and replace them with a universal one in which they would finally be granted the acceptance they craved. Thus Freud claimed to show that bourgeois civility was a mask for sexual repression, while Marx argued that it mystified economic exploitation. Each had a vision of liberation—science for Freud, socialism for Marx—that would provide a universal solvent in which the significance of ethnic identities disappeared.
[…] I began to review events of the past to which I had paid little attention before, like the expulsion of the Jews from the civil-rights movement in 1966. Jews had funded the movement, devised its legal strategies, and provided support for its efforts in the media and in the universities—and wherever else they had power. More than half the freedom riders who had gone to the southern states were Jews, although Jews constituted only 3 percent of the population. It was an unprecedented show of solidarity from one people to another. Jews had put their resources and lives on the line to support the black struggle for civil rights, and indeed two of their sons—Schwerner and Goodman—had been murdered for their efforts. But, even while these tragic events were still fresh, the black leaders of the movement had unceremoniously expelled the Jews from their ranks. When Israel was attacked in 1967 by a coalition of Arab states calling for its annihilation, the same black leaders threw their support to the Arab aggressors, denouncing Zionism (the Jewish liberation movement) as racism. Rarely had a betrayal of one people by another been so total or swift. Yet radical Jews like myself had continued our dedication to the black movement for civil rights—to their struggle and their cause. What was it that made us so willing to support those who would treat us like this, who would not support us in return? Why did we think it was alright, even noble, to operate according to standards so different from those that governed others?
[…] I had written a cover story for 城墙, “The Passion of the Jews,” in which I defended the denial engaged in by progressives like myself. It opened with an encounter that posed the same question. A Jewish doctor had asked me: “Do you have any Christian friends whom you could trust with your life?” I was appalled by his question, by the implication that there could be none. It was such a “plummet into tribal depths,” I wrote, that I did not want to confront it. Comfortable and safe as he was in American, this doctor could not forget the fate of Germany’s Jews, who had also felt comfortable and safe before being turned in by their Christian friends. In my answer, I attempted to place his anxiety in the frame of the revolution I still believed in and which I still believed would provide a solution. By rejecting their own societies, Jews had entered a stateless diaspora, like the Jews before the creation of Israel. Having no state to defend them, they identified with those who were powerless and oppressed. Out of this identification, a new community was forming—a community of faith in the revolutionary future which would rescue us all from this dilemma.
[…] What we had to ask ourselves was whether Marx wasn’t a self-hating Jew, and whether socialism wasn’t anything more than a wish to be included.
Although Horowitz admits to a persistent “Jewish hostility toward the goyim,” he attributes it solely to Jewish insecurity and anxiety, so Jews strive for universal solutions, where everybody is accepted and treated fairly. While I don’t deny there are many Jews who are genuinely idealistic, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for just causes, I see other Jews using such idealism as a smokescreen to enact their hostility towards goyim. After the success of the Bolshevik Revolution, for example, powerful Jews abused goyim with an unprecedented sadism, so there was no idealism there. Or we can look at how Jews treat Arabs in Palestine. Further, it’s Jewish racial supremacism, thus contempt for everybody else, that has led to their non-acceptance. In 2019, I interviewed 克雷格·内尔森（Craig Nelsen）. For trying to help troubled white youths, Nelsen has been targeted and demonized by Jews, so, again, I don’t see any idealism, only hostility. Do you agree that hatred of goyim is at the core of Judaism?
No, not usually. According to a Pew survey from last month, Jews in the United States who have married since the beginning of 2010 have a 61% intermarriage rate. So that would support a negative answer to your question. (Or would it indicate a yes?)
It may be more common to encounter irrational Jewish distrust and discouragement of non-Jewish whites taking an interest in their racial identity.