Amoral familism – Social action persistently oriented to the economic interests of the nuclear family. In a controversial account of poverty in a village in southern Italy (The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, 1958), Edward C. Banfield argued that the backwardness of the community was to be explained ‘largely but not entirely’ by ‘the inability of the villagers to act together for their common good or, indeed, for any end transcending the immediate, material interest of the nuclear family’. This was attributed to the ethos of ‘amoral familism’ which had been produced by the combination of a high death-rate, certain land-tenure conditions, and the absence of the institution of the extended family. Banfield’s thesis provoked considerable debate about the nature of ‘familism’ and the role of culture generally in preventing or facilitating economic development (see development, sociology of).
We can generalize this idea to account for the different empathy group horizons I’ve speculated correspond to different regions on Koanic’s mohawk. These empathy horizons suggest individuals possess group selection strategies that encompass different group sizes. An individualist will pursue individual reproductive success at the expense of all larger groups, a familist will pursue family reproductive success at the expense of the tribe, a racist will pursue racial reproductive success at the expense of the nation, and so on. Although family reproductive success requires high average individual reproductive success of the family members, a familist may still cut off or destroy an individual family member who is costing the family average too much. This idea also generalizes to tribes, castes, races, nations, etc. That generalizes the familism aspect.
The moral/amoral aspect will be defined here by the trust/faith k-axis in the edenic political theory, and the definition of leftism as advocacy for cheaters in commons dilemmas.
Leftism and rightism emerge from the free rider problem in group selection. It’s about trust, which leftists are fundamentally incapable of having, deserving, or understanding. Rightism is the political expression of high in-group preference and is primarily concerned with enhancing group fitness and punishing defectors. Leftism is the political expression of high individual preference and bad faith, and is primarily concerned with removing the group’s ability to punish cheaters. You can explain all political activity this way: rightists vote to make marijuana illegal because this punishes social parasites, whereas leftists vote to make marijuana legal.
The essence of faith is to be worthy of others’ trust. A wife can trust a faithful husband not to cheat on her while he’s gone all day, and vice versa. The benefit of this high-trust environment is high group strength in group-selected environments—the part that’s no fun is that this requires serious personal sacrifices of reproductive success from individual members of the group, up to going full Pat Tillman. This leads to a phenomenon I’ve called the Pyrrhic cycle, where the most adaptive empathy horizon and group size cycle dynamically.
Leftism is here defined as political advocacy for cheaters who break the anti-parasitical mores of their societies. It follows that leftist amoral familists will advocate to remove punishments of amoral families in general and as a matter of principle (as well as advocating for particular causes that will immediately benefit their family). This general advocacy to remove the mores against familial cheating makes sense because such laws, traditions, and unspoken rules would undoubtedly restrict their future activities. Imagine you’re a mob boss and a court is about to rule against a rival mob that’s been practicing nepotism, giving their family members cushy jobs in local government. Even though that ruling would be bad for your enemies and good for you in the short term, you want to nip that in the bud because it sets a bad precedent.
With that in mind, Jewish support for Muslim immigration makes sense as a manifestation of amoral leftist racism.
Why do American Jews, as democrats / liberals, support the importation of Muslim migrants who want them dead?
Why do Jews support them? Because Jews remember what it was like to be excluded from entry to America and be sent back to Europe to face Hitlers gas chambers because no one would let them into America and we learned what the words “never again” truly mean.
When someone arson burned a Mosque to the ground in a small town in Texas – the local Rabbi walked, it being a Sabbath to the Imam’s home and handed him the keys to the Synagogue so they had a place to go and pray while their building was being replaced…
It’s not good for the Jews for borders to become less permeable in general for diaspora peoples, therefore they pose pictures of dead Syrian refugee children washed up on the beach.