Print this post Print this post

The End of Zionism

1,653 words

Zionism’s days are numbered. The probability of its ultimate demise seems high, though the timing is unpredictable.

Zionism was the project to create a homeland for the Jewish ethnic group by having world Jewry and what were then (c. WW I) still arguably Western elites steal the land of Palestine and ethnically cleanse it of non-Jews. In 1880, Arab Palestinians constituted about 95 percent of the population.

Zionism was a racial, not a religious enterprise. It did not emerge until Jewish life had become secularized to some extent. Secularization began in the 18th century with the Haskalah (Hebrew, “enlightenment”) movement inspired by the European Enlightenment and initiated by German Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn.

The Haskalah marked the beginning of a move away from traditional religious orthodoxy and its replacement by Jewish national feeling as a unifying force.

Later, German Jewish socialist Moses Hess, the prophet of Communism and Zionism and friend of Karl Marx, urged in Rome and Jerusalem (1862) the founding of a Jewish state in Arab Palestine.

In 1897, Hungarian Jew Theodor Herzl, author of The Jewish State (1896), founded the World Zionist Organization to solve Europe’s Jewish problem. Thereafter, Jewish immigration, land purchase, and claims to Palestine increased.

No one gave serious thought to the question of whether all the world’s Jews would reside in Palestine, or only those who chose to or could be compelled to do so.

The upshot was that only a fraction of the world’s Jews ever made Israel their home. The US, not Israel, became the “headquarters” of world Jewry. Jews dominated the governments and societies of post-WW II Europe as well.

There was never a realistic prospect that Israel could become the home of all Jews.

Jews occupy a unique ecological niche among the peoples of the world. They habitually live among, and off of, other people. As a single group gathered in one locality they could not survive.

Their only real analogue in this regard is Gypsies. But Gypsies occupy the bottom of the social pyramid in host societies. Though they constitute an alien and irritating presence, they never produce serious culture distortion.

In marked contrast, Jews invariably thrust their way to the top of the social pinnacle within a single generation of their arrival.

When their numbers are sufficient, they become the dominant cultural element and distort and twist society beyond recognition. If their numbers are insufficient to achieve dominance, they remain rich, high-status, and influential as individuals within the host Establishment.

Hungarian Zionist propaganda poster

Israel is, and always has been, dependent for its survival on Jews outside of the Middle East, and on the white states subservient to them. When support among Jews for Zionism ebbs, Zionism’s international support structure will collapse also.

Furthermore, the white populace that propped Israel up politically and financially is in massive demographic eclipse, thanks in no small part to the intentional actions of Jewry itself.

The replacement of indigenous Europeans with non-white Third World populations—the policy of “replacement migration”—greatly exacerbates the ex-First World’s demographic and financial crisis.

In part, the peril to the West is viewed as well-deserved “payback” for the “Holocaust,” racism, and colonialism.

Due to irresponsible fiscal, foreign, and domestic policies, ex-white nations are now teetering on the brink of financial collapse.

The anti-white racism of both Jews and non-Jews that has led to this pass is driven by hatred, and is therefore impervious to reason. (Hatred is irrational—an emotion.) In destroying the white race, Zionism’s political and material underpinnings are being unintentionally but inexorably destroyed as well.

The Role of Gentiles

Non-Jews play a subsidiary role in both Zionism and anti-Zionism.

Currently, Zionism is the official position of the Establishment everywhere. The servility of Gentile politicians and journalists to Zionists is breathtaking to behold, negating the idea of democracy, or even human decency. The same is true of academia, though matters there are becoming less clear-cut.

Gentiles, however, whether selfish opportunists or genuine worshipers of Jews, are prepared to shift position on Israel at a moment’s notice—the opportunists because they always do what is personally advantageous, the worshipers because their ardent spiritual mission is at all times to mirror Jewish desires.

Jewish alignment with Christian Zionists strongly suggests a subtle, “invisible” erosion of support within the true Establishment—a downscale social move accompanied by a whiff of desperation.

The same is true of alignment with eager “nationalist” or “populist” parties and groups in Europe, the US, and elsewhere.

With regard to the latter I am referring strictly to Zionists using such movements for their own purposes, as they previously used South Africa. A broader Jewish presence must and will be maintained to Buckleyize the movement and ensure its ultimate failure to preserve the white race.

It is entertaining to observe Jewish Zionists barely able to conceal their condescension and contempt for their servile “Christian” and “nationalist” allies.

One senses, too, a growing willingness on the part of leading Gentiles not to endorse every single Israeli or Zionist demand or action.

Gentiles who behaved in this manner earlier displayed more integrity than those who did so after the glacial internal shift within Jewry became more apparent.

Thus, Irish Catholic US Secretary of Defense James Forrestal (D.), US Rep. Paul “Pete” McCloskey (R.-Calif.), US Rep. Paul Findley (R.-Ill.), US Senator J. William Fulbright (D.-Ark.), and US Senator Charles Percy (R.-Ill.) were more principled about Zionism, on balance, than former President Jimmy Carter (D.), academics such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, or mainstream Christian church bureaucrats. The former spoke out when it was harder to do so.

As support for Israel gradually recedes among individual Jews, and ultimately within organized Jewry, more Gentiles will sense the shift, and alter their own “values” and behavior accordingly.

Zionism’s Lingering Strength

The assertion that Zionism is waning should not be seen as a statement about its present power, or a prediction concerning its duration. The time horizon of Jews is longer than that of whites, just as whites’ is longer than that of blacks’.

Because Zionists still run roughshod over everyone and everything—dictating, assassinating, torturing, recklessly overthrowing country after country and butchering anyone they please like animals, including heads of state and entire populations—there is the perception that things could go on this way forever.

Indeed, the violent destruction of Iran, a beautiful country with a storied Aryan past, seems assured, and possibly Syria and Saudi Arabia as well. A nuclear or biological attack against Arabs and Muslims cannot be ruled out either. No scenario is too extreme where fanatical Jews and their eager beaver acolytes are concerned.

But it is an ill omen for Zionists when they habitually become tagged in the Establishment press, academia, and the intellectual class with labels like “hard line,” “the right,” “neoconservative,” and so on, in contrast to their ostensibly “liberal” and “progressive” opponents.

In reality, “liberal,” “progressive” Jews are every bit the match of hard-line Zionists when it comes to cruelty and fanaticism, as the history of Communism and anti-white racism abundantly demonstrates.

But the hardening of such manipulative nomenclature is important because of how Jews self-identify and present themselves to the world.

Tectonic Shift

The Zionist project is no longer sustainable over the long run.

Its end, like that of its fraternal twin, Communism—another appallingly hateful, bloody, messianic remake-the-world scheme that callously destroyed millions of lives and billions of dollars worth of painstakingly accumulated capital—will hopefully occur with a whimper rather than a bang.

It may take decades, or it may happen soon. But it will almost certainly occur with unexpected suddenness.

Within American Jewry, Zionism began as a minority movement. It was not the consensus view of the Jewish elite. Anti-Zionism was.

Prominent American Jewish leader Henry Morgenthau, Sr., father of the Treasury Secretary who concocted the Morgenthau Plan to destroy the German people after WWII, spoke for most of American Jewry when, in 1921, he called Zionism “the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history.”

But, after the establishment of Israel in 1948, Jewry turned on a dime (or seemed to), and suddenly everyone who didn’t support Zionism became a “self-hating Jew.”

Principled individuals such as Alfred Lilienthal and Rabbi Elmer Berger, mainstream figures only a few years before who refused to instantly change course with the herd, suddenly found themselves hated and marginalized.

Jewry often undergoes a long, internal buildup before suddenly violently reversing direction in a kind of tectonic shift.

Communism offers a clear parallel.

During Communism’s heyday, when tens of millions of Europeans and Asians were killed or shoved into concentration camps or mental institutions, Jews everywhere were virtually all Communists, fellow travelers, or anti-anti-Communists.

But, by the 1960s and 1970s, things slowly began to change. Jewish support ebbed away beneath the surface. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s books were published abroad, acclaimed in the West, and the author awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. Jews swelled the ranks of “Soviet dissidents.”

R. James Woolsey (D.), the philo-Semitic, neoconservative former CIA director (a Presbyterian from Oklahoma), has written,

A number of times during the Cold War, I was involved in arms control negotiations with the Soviets. No matter how bad the tension across the negotiating table during the day, Russian and American negotiators would often end up going out for dinner together. Somehow, even in the most difficult periods, the conversation frequently turned to trading jokes. I always thought it remarkable how much Russian humor was suffused with a wry, self-deprecating, ironic tone both quite funny and somehow quite familiar to Americans. Later, finding versions of a number of these jokes and stories in Leo Rosten’s wonderful The Joys of Yiddish, I realized the source of the familiarity.

Most of the negotiators on both sides were Jews.

Another Establishment figure, not pro-white, said he knew that Communism was finished when it lost the support of the Jews.

The fall of Communism occurred as a sudden tectonic shift.

The end of Zionism, like its 1948 emergence, will likely mirror this.


This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Razvan
    Posted November 5, 2011 at 12:39 am | Permalink

    Not really important, but … The first propaganda poster is not really “Hungarian”. It says “Toward a new life” and “The first spoken movie” first in Romanian next in Hungarian. Probably it was targeting both the Romanian speaking Jews and Hungarian speaking Jews.

  2. Simon Lote
    Posted November 5, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    This is probably the best article I’ve read which explains the internal dynamics of the jews. It is also interesting that that not only national political discourse but geopolitics ultimately boils down to disagreement (sometime hostile) between jews of how to advance their own group interests. The interests of gentiles predicably don’t figure at all.

  3. jack
    Posted November 5, 2011 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    Current European nationalist success is only due to pro-Israel commentators and media pundits especially Fox News and blogs like Jihad Watch which convey Muslim immigration as an internal threat were as prior to 9/11 we were openly backing and supporting jihadists against Serbs under a mythical “Greater Serbia” conspiracy in the Balkans and welcoming Turkey into the EU.

  4. Greg Johnson
    Posted November 5, 2011 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    As a White Nationalist, I think the failure of Zionism would be a bad thing for whites, because if Israel fails, virtually all of its Jews will end up in white countries. The best option for whites (the best realistic option, I should say) is to complete the Zionist project: to send all Jew to Israel. Israel needs to accept a two state solution, so that we have somewhere to send our Palestinians as well. Ideally, of course, Israel should give up its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. (Fat chance of that.)

    • MOB
      Posted November 6, 2011 at 12:04 pm | Permalink


      Yes. I think the only thing able to make a change significant enough to matter is a shock and awe attack of Dresden proportion. Poetic justice, as well.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted November 6, 2011 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

        While you contemplate your beatific visions of genocide, we will be working out intellectually sound and practicable solutions.

    • Posted November 6, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

      @ “Ideally, of course, Israel should give up its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.”

      At the same time of deporting all Jews to Israel? That will never happen unless before there’s a total nuke exchange since they’d (rightly perhaps) think that we’re just using the forthcoming radical Muslim states, some of which will become nuclear, to do the dirty job (final solution) for us.

      Deporting all Jews to Madagascar or Israel would have worked hadn’t the Anglo-Saxon world declared war on Hitler. We had our opportunity to destroy the Ring after Sauron was defeated in Germany but, like Isildur, the Anglo-Saxons fell into temptation of financial power: the greatest sin in modern history and the etiology of the present mess.

      • Albertus
        Posted November 7, 2011 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

        Chechar, Sauron was the Allied war coalition and has not been defeated yet. The war against Germany was wanted principally by England and America and the evils wreaked in the world by this victory are so immense as to possibly lead to the wiping out of the white race. Israel and its constant threat to mankind is one of the outcomes of this victory.
        Separate yourself from the good feeling about destroying Germany, because this feeling constitutes the basis for the current Jew-dominant world. Don’t forget that England (and France) declared war on Germany, and England torpedoed all further attempts to end it without bloodshed. Look at how the war was engineered. Do you see a connection between the ever-present and constantly re-hashed atrocity propaganda from the war and the “rights” Israel and Jewdom are deriving from it?

    • jack
      Posted November 6, 2011 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

      @Greg Johnson

      Jews over Muslims is far more preferable situation who at least are a part of western civilisation and are not as openly hostile to the countries they inhabit like Muslim communities.

      WN morons in America like David Duke actually think we should create an alliance with these people.

      I take it they have never heard of the tale of the scorpion and the frog/fox.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted November 6, 2011 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

        Thank you, concerned troll. We will take your advice and begin clawing one another’s eyes out.

        Jews are just as hostile to Western Civilization as Muslims, and far more destructive. It is not an either/or: They both have to go.

        While we’re at it, scorpion, henceforth you are spam.

      • White Republican
        Posted November 7, 2011 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

        I wonder if the comment that Jews “are not as openly hostile to the countries they inhabit” as Muslims was a Freudian slip on the part of this troll. Jews might not be as openly hostile to the countries they inhabit as Muslims in countries like France and Sweden, but they are hostile nonetheless, and they are far more powerful and dangerous than Muslims.

        Anyone who introduces themselves to Counter-Currents by praising Faux News and Jihad Watch, and attacking “WN morons in America like David Duke,” makes it clear where they are coming from — and where they must go. The behavior of this troll recalls Andrew Hamilton’s remark in the article above: “It is entertaining to observe Jewish Zionists barely able to conceal their condescension and contempt for their servile ‘Christian’ and ‘nationalist’ allies.” Many Jews exercise more chutzpah than cunning. In the case of trolls like this one, this might be because they make themselves obnoxious to make a few shekels, and they don’t particularly care whether they work effectively or not.

  5. Greg Johnson
    Posted November 6, 2011 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    You are naive if you think that the Jewish will to survive will disintegrate in a bath of mere words. That only works on white people.

    • White Republican
      Posted November 7, 2011 at 12:26 am | Permalink

      Jews are not superhuman — as William Shakespeare had Shylock remark, if you cut them, they bleed — but I think it’s impossible to reverse engineer the methods of cultural subversion that Jews have used against us. We can’t infiltrate Jewish institutions in the way that Jews have infiltrated our institutions. We can’t manipulate Jewish psychology in the way that Jews have manipulated our psychology. As the Jew Alvin Toffler put it, the way we work is the way we make war. We can’t think like Jews and we can’t fight like them.

  6. CompassionateFascist
    Posted November 6, 2011 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    There are already 3 million “ex-Israelis” (Ilana Mercer and 2,999,999 others) now living in America, a number which dwarfs the number of “American” Jews who have aliyah’d; Sharon himself once referred to America as the “true Zion”. Since then Israel’s position in the Middle East has drastically deteriorated. When Israel goes under, either via a Middle East military-political cataclysm (likely, the Iran War), or continuing demographic hemorrage, many or most of the Zionists currently camped out in Palestine will wind up in the “True Zion”….which is where the Jewish Problem will finally be resolved. One way or another. Contra Greg, this is good, not bad.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 6, 2011 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

      Pray, enlighten us on how this would be a good thing.

    • White Republican
      Posted November 7, 2011 at 12:28 am | Permalink

      My guess is that he’s thinking that the Jewish problem would then be more localized and therefore potentially more manageable. One thing that makes the Jewish problem so difficult to address is that it has no frontiers.

    • ricks77
      Posted May 1, 2016 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

      @Compassionatefasict – I think you are absolutely right. I think Israel will definitely fail. America is the True Zion and it will fail too, because the Jewish Agenda actually undermines the white race, which LONG TERM undermines jews. This article is absolutely right, Jews cannot survive and evolve by themselves/on their own they need a host to latch onto. Probably 75-80% of Jews are like that. For every 1 good/honest Jew there are 3-4 Bad Jews. The problem is their Supremacist Tribal Religion. The irony is in the US, the Muslim and Blacks hate them and Anti-Semitism is rising amongst NON-WHITES, in Europe its the smae (but worse) Muslims attacking Jews…. Jews amongst Non-Whites are seen to have double the privaledge of looking White and also Rich!

      Zionist/Jewish power is waning in Israel and due to the Mess they have caused in the West also is waning in the West. They can only hold on to their power for so long, via their Talmud Vision and Corporate/Banking Shenanigans….. The White race will survive and rebuild.

  7. White Republican
    Posted November 6, 2011 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    I’ve thought for a long time that White nationalists seem to have given little serious thought to the related issues of (1) the future of the Jewish problem, and (2) what can and should be done to deal with the Jewish problem. Andrew Hamilton’s article is a short but thoughtful article on the future of Zionism, and I think he’s right to emphasize that things are likely to change unpredictably and rapidly. What this means for our people remains to be seen.

    Patrick J. Buchanan’s latest book asks the question of whether the U.S. will survive to 2025. I suspect there’s a good chance that it won’t, at least not as a superpower. The waning power of the U.S. will obviously change the position of Israel. It’s likely that Jews will visit the Wailing Wall more frequently to wail, whine, and kvetch. (Incidentally, I recall reading a newspaper report around two to three years ago about a Jew who handled mail addressed to the Wailing Wall. He remarked that while much of the mail asked G-d to do things for them, like help them out financially, very little of it expressed gratitude to G-d.)

    I raised the issue above of “what can and should be done to deal with the Jewish problem.” I didn’t say “solve the Jewish problem” because I believe it is insoluble. I believe that we can expose, challenge, and contain the Jewish problem, but I doubt that we can eliminate the Jewish problem.

    We need to put the Jewish problem into proper historical and political perspective if we are to address it in a truly practical and effective manner. I doubt that a problem which is three thousand years old will be solved any time soon. I recently commented:

    “The Jews have a metis for subversion that Whites find difficult to recognize, understand, and resist. I recently quoted Maurice Mégret’s remark that psychological warfare obliterates the distinction between war and peace, that it is free of all barriers of time, place, and conventions, and that it is susceptible to all incarnations and metamorphoses. This remark is highly applicable to the Jewish war against Whites. Whites have a primitive understanding of Jewish subversion and their responses to it have typically been slow, irresolute, inept, and ineffective. The Jews are in a permanent and total war against Whites, but Whites have failed to recognize this and respond accordingly, their resistance to the Jews being fitful and sporadic. White anti-Semitism has therefore often resembled whack-a-mole.”

    This explains why, to paraphrase Horace, you can throw Jews out with a pitchfork, but they will always return. You might be on guard against them, but others are not.

    • Posted November 7, 2011 at 12:18 am | Permalink

      White Republican, I believe that the JP can finally be solved. But the price is apostasy.

      What you say above, that white reaction to the problem has been so erratic, timid and inconsequential is exactly the impression I got when reading the book by a Jew on anti-Semitism, Esau’s Tears. I was exasperated by the 19th century German response to the JP as described by this academic work: so erratic, so timid, so inconsequential after all of what even this Jewish author recognized their tribe did…

      My last blog’s entry advertizes a book of mine that moved me to start another blog last week. At the end of my book I recount my spiritual agony of my late twenties: how even though I had rejected belief in the existence of a personal God, I was still much in the clutches or my parental introjects regarding religion.

      You say that nationalists have not given good thought to the future of the JP. What nationalists ignore, even atheist nationalists, is that while they may have given up belief in the creeds of Christianity they still live under the sky of a neo-Christian—i.e., secular-liberal—meta-ethics. Elsewhere in this blog I made fun of it comparing these meta-ethics with the good guys at the Harry Potter series, who are forbidden to use the killing spell while their enemies use it every other day. This self-restraint works in movies for children. It doesn’t work in real history.

      We must start thinking like the enemy (precisely what the NS men embryonically tried to do): what Svigor is calling “towards white zionism”. But to do that we must abandon these childish Potter prohibitions. We must become true apostates. Presently, those Christian meta-ethics that exasperated me during my reading of Esau’s Tears are exacerbated in secular liberalism, which ironically strengthens both deranged altruism toward the Other and altruistic punishment toward Us. As a retired blogger said a couple of years ago:

      There are several reasons why Christianity leads to secularism in its latter phases. Secular Christianity has thrown out god and Christ, but keeps the Christian ethics (inversion of values etc.). And the Christian ethics actually gets heightened and unfettered in Secular Christianity. (I have written much about that in my blog.) With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics.

      In a nutshell: it’s not enough that the white people give up the Church Councils’ dogmas. A revaluation of Christian ethics too is the only way forward to defend ourselves. Christianity worked marvelously in the Middle Ages and even later until the Enlightenment to tackle the JP. Now the magic of the religious archetype is gone. Franco’s Spain was, in fact, Christianity’s last ditch in history in the sense of using actual violence. Francis Parker Yockey was right: cultures, like humans, have souls and die. The meta-ethics of crazy secularists and deranged Christians—i.e., the dying soul, the dying paradigm—has become almost identical. On the other hand, under the new sky that is forming in the whites’ collective unconscious, the price to save the white race and to solve the JP will be full apostasy, which includes axiological apostasy.

      • White Republican
        Posted November 7, 2011 at 9:16 pm | Permalink


        You might like to know that Revilo P. Oliver addressed the issue of cultural residues in a number of his writings, such as his review of William Gayley Simpson’s Which Way, Western Man? and articles such as “The Millstone Around His Neck” and “The Bear in the Bush.” As you note, many people who think of themselves as non-Christian or even anti-Christian are Christians without knowing it, in the sense that they adhere to secularized forms of Christian values and beliefs. And as you also note, these values and beliefs can be even more dangerous when secularized. As Joseph de Maistre remarked, “the Gospel, outside of the Church, is a poison.”

        An obvious problem with the kind of “apostasy” you advocate is that it would take a long time to occur on a scale that would give it cultural hegemony. (“Apostasy” isn’t the right term here, for it is a matter of being faithful to what we are rather than being faithless, of establishing a new order rather than simply rejecting an old order.) As such “apostasy” is currently individual rather than collective, intellectual rather than political, “apostates” might know what should be done and yet be unable to do it.

        This doesn’t make “apostasy” any less valid or less imperative, but it sets severe limits what can be done. In its early days, a project for a “transvaluation of values” might appear to be “neither here nor there” because it has no real presence, influence, or force. Its proponents would need to think and act in a long-term manner.

        Gustave Le Bon remarked that the greatest revolutions are those of thought. Such revolutions often take generations to accomplish.

  8. PC
    Posted November 7, 2011 at 4:49 am | Permalink

    End of Zionism? I believe the problem is Judaism – it is far bigger problem than mere Zionism. If Zionism ends, Judaism will still be there.

    • Albertus
      Posted November 8, 2011 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

      True, PC. Zionism is the offspring of Judaism and at one point did indeed seem to have intended to normalize Jewish existence as a real state with defined boundaries, political representation as a government with all its branches, diplomatic relationships, treaties etc.
      If this attempt at normality really was made in the form of Zionism, it has long been overtaken by the Jewish character that was to be normalized or at least to be brought into a normal relationship with the world.
      Zionism will end, since the entity Israel on foreign soil is as untenable as the Crusader Kingdom was untenable. The Jews will still be there as they always were. Their multiple passport nationalities and international connections will make the move from Israel to any of their chosen host countries as easy as a move from one neighborhood to another for non-Jews. They will not change. They missed a chance when they were fomenting war, casting the world into its as-of-yet biggest catastrophe, instead of accepting the will of their host nations who wanted them to leave and cease meddling in their affairs.
      If one wants to know what one wants and wants to fight for, one needs to define one’s enemy, and in the present case, the essential enemy is not Zionism but Judaism. Judaism needs to be restrained, and this is quite possible, as was done, e.g. in the Byzantine Empire, where Jews could hold no public office. Their meddling was thus restricted to their own ranks.

    • White Republican
      Posted November 8, 2011 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

      Andrew Hamilton’s work clearly shows that he understands that the problem is the Jewish people rather than Zionism. He’s not like the leftists who denounce Zionism in the Middle East while promoting Jewish agendas in their own countries.

      It’s interesting that both David Irving and Guillaume Faye have questioned Israel’s long-term survivability. Israel is effectively an artificial state.

  9. Attila
    Posted November 7, 2011 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    Forgive my naïveté, but I recall that when an organism needs to build immunity – frequent exposure to small quantities of the virus/bacteria- enough to build immunity but not enough to overwhelm the sytem- will eventually lead to resistance to the full-blown disease. Some used to call it “mithridisation”- based on the legend of the Greek warrior. Why can’t Euro-WNs study the Jewish and Islamic scriptures the way the Jews and Muslims themselves study them- that is – with a view to build up knowledge of their basic thought processes and world views? Would that not be better than to engage in one-upmanship as to who has the better roach trap?

  10. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted November 8, 2011 at 1:30 am | Permalink

    The Jewish people is for all practical purposes an ETHNIC MAFIA and it is for it’s members very profitable to be part of it.If you “deconstruct” the myth of that Mafia that doesn’t negate the profit of being a member of it.Myth or no myth,the Mafia will simply continue to exist.Ever heard of secular Jews?They feel as Jewish as the religious ones.The Zionist Jews who created Israel were nearly all secular and so are most Jews in key positions of power in the modern West.They don’t care for their religion, even ridicule it,but still think, feel and act as Jews.Even such books as “The invention of the Jewish people” by Shlomo Sand,in which the ethnic origin of the Jews is questioned will make no difference.Collective profit not myth is the main motivator for staying Jewish.

    As for a solution of the Jewish problem,keeping in mind that JEWS CANNOT CHANGE,any attempt at “reform” of this people is bound to fail.So barring genocide the only final solution is the confinement of all Jews in an ETHNIC GHETTO,not an ethnic state because such a state would only be used as a base for global criminal networks,as Israel already is.Such an ethnic ghetto should be surrounded by a high wall with no permission for the Jews to travel to or communicate with the outer world.My favorite location is TIERRA DEL FUEGO at the southernmost tip of South America,far removed from the inhabited world.

    Under the present condition this solution is of course impossible but that is mainly because of public opinion.We must try to change public opinion by constantly exposing Jewish misbehaviour throughout history and stressing their incapacity to change.

    P.S. The problem is not Zionism nor is it Judaism (or Talmudism) or any other “ism” it is the Jewish character itself and that CANNOT CHANGE.

    • A Swain
      Posted November 9, 2011 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

      My sentiments precisely!

      What a remarkable appraisal and insight into the perverted, avaricious and hate-filled workings of the Jewish mind which continues to afflict the whole of the globe without hinderance to the present day

      Mr Ryckaert, you’ve hit the nail full square on its head. Well said!

  11. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted November 8, 2011 at 5:24 am | Permalink

    The Sicilian Mafia functions very well without a “dream”,so does the Jewish Ethnic Mafia.Even if you would take away from the Jews the “dream” of their past (their Biblical story as “God’s Chosen People”) they still have the story of their perennial persecution and their ambition to rob and rule the world to keep them going.Jewish society is not a “magic” society as that of the American Indians was,it is an ethnic brotherhood that runs very well on secular lines,vide how they function in America.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 8, 2011 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

      We can’t even preserve our own societies much less dream of shattering the solidarity of the Jews.

  12. Greg Johnson
    Posted November 8, 2011 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Whatever their IQs, the fact remains that Jews are the wealthiest, most powerful, and to whites the most hostile nation in the world.

  13. White Republican
    Posted November 8, 2011 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    In America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative, Revilo P. Oliver wrote:

    “A calculated effort to split the Jews in this country and to destroy the virtual solidarity that gives them such power over us is an undertaking which, if not flatly impossible, calls for great subtlety. Crudely open efforts to do so have consistently failed. In the pronouncements of most of the professedly anti-Jewish organizations it is usually impossible to distinguish between (a) a strategic purpose to create schism, (b) a desire for protective covering to avoid the charge of hostility toward all Jews, and (c) a residue of veneration for God’s Elect as inculcated by the tales in the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible. These three alternative or concurrent motives account for the anxious efforts to discriminate (a) between God’s pets and the ‘Synagogue of Satan’ that perversely rejected the avatar of that god, or (b) between ‘orthodox’ Jews and Jews that claim to have rejected Jewry by turning Christian, or (c) between Khazars and the ‘real’ Jews, or (d) simply between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Jews, or, more recently, (e) between different racial strains that can be physiologically distinguished within the Jewish race. Whatever the basis or purpose of such discrimination, experience has shown that the effect is nugatory. It does not deceive or conciliate the Jews, and serves only to confuse Aryans who do not consider it a cowardly and hypocritical evasion.

    “It is true that there have been bitter and sometimes murderous dissensions among the Jews throughout their history, but the antagonists have always united against other races, thus showing a prudent solidarity that our race would do well to emulate. It is also true that a few individual Jews evidently defected from their race and expose themselves to vicious persecution by their compatriots, but although we may feel confidence in their sincerity and gratitude for their services, they are so few that they are politically irrelevant. The chances of inducing a schism among the Jews sufficient to impair their power over the United States seem to be minimal.”

    If we had the power and the cohesion to create serious divisions among the Jews, we would also be able to deal with them by more direct means, such as expelling them.

  14. MOB
    Posted November 9, 2011 at 3:42 am | Permalink

    I don’t know what “Zionism” refers to in the phrase “the end of Zionism.” Does it mean the end of the movement to create a Jewish state? That movement has already taken place. Does it mean the end of the Jewish state, Israel, itself? Without actually bombing it, the way we do other locales that have become offensive to us?

    I have always seen Israel as a physical act of incorporation, just as any company of individuals might incorporate themselves for whatever tangible and intangible benefit that action gains for them. That act of incorporation has already taken place. The rewards reaped from political and legal recognition, power and influence “as Jews” are obvious, as is the fact that incorporation included the setting up of a bank account into which could be deposited the millions upon millions of dollars and other currencies pouring in as reparations, military and other gifts labeled “aid”, Jewish and Christian-Zionist fund-raising millions, and, I suspect, a percentage of the millions secured so cleverly and fraudulently by Jewish individuals and firms so especially skilled in that form of warfare.

    Another tangible benefit that “incorporation”–in the sense of a dedicated land mass–bestowed on Jews worldwide was a place in which to build a world-class army and weapons arsenal with which to blackmail, threaten, and engage in perpetual killing and maiming activity, all of which are natural to their instincts and preferences.

    In 1999 I sent around an email entitled Iraq and Dimona. In it I included a listing of the actual military capabilities of all of the Mid-East players at the time (Syria, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Libya, Pakistan, India) and, of course, Israel, with its huge nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal, making the point that little Israel was not in the grave danger from Iraq that it insisted it was.

    I added to that a 1996 article by Avner Cohen entitled “Kennedy, Ben-Gurion and the Battle Over Dimona, April-June 1963,” in which he describes the secret meetings between JFK and PM Ben-Gurion between April-June 1963. He wrote, “Kennedy raised his concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missiles, requesting American bi-annual visits at Dimona to start soon. Success or failure in curbing Israel’s nuclear development seemed to him critical, both regionally and globally. Under American pressure Ben-Gurion repeated his commitment that Dimona was exclusively for “peaceful purposes” and agreed to annual visits at Dimona. However, this concession did not satisfy Kennedy who continued to press the issue. On the day of Ben-Gurion’s resignation, 16 June 1963, Kennedy’s most threatening letter was about to be delivered.”

    Taking from “recently declassified primary documents, both from the United States and from Israel,” Cohen wrote that Ben-Gurion did not want to risk a confrontation with a determined American president, trying first to dodge Kennedy’s request, but “Then (in two separate letters) he called attention to Israel’s security predicament, invoked the memory of the Holocaust and compared Nasser with Hitler. He also made an urgent request for American security guarantees.” Though Kennedy disagreed with Ben-Gurion’s assessment of Israel’s situation, he ordered the administration to explore options of providing Israel with security guarantees in return for an Israeli commitment not to go nuclear. Such a quid-pro-quo – security guarantees for atoms – was at the heart of the McCloy’s mission to the Middle East. The mission was aborted due, in part, to Ben-Gurion’s sudden resignation.

    Cohen concluded with “The Kennedy/Ben-Gurion exchange was fateful in shaping the limits of both Israel’s nuclear policy and American non-proliferation policy for years to come. In retrospect, it determined the essential parameters – resolve and caution – that have guided Ben-Gurion’s successors to this day. The seeds of Israel’s posture of nuclear opacity were planted.”
    Doing a Search for the Cohen article on the Internet this morning, I could only find a version in Hebrew, which is cited on this page:
    Avner Cohen:

    The Search also turned up this very interesting page:
    Jeff Gates/Ben-Gurion:

    While it’s true that Jews kill dreams, when it comes to Zionism, otherwise known as “Israel,” it relies on the more tangible weapons of money and state-of-the-art means of murdering those it decides are interfering with their very concrete goals and intentions.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace