The End of Zionism

^[1]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.

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.

^[3]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 ^[4],

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.