Print this post Print this post

What About the Palestinians?

APTOPIX Mideast Israel Palestinians2,778 words

“I sympathize with the Palestinians, because I too live under Zionist occupation.” — Greg Johnson

Author’s Note:

I am frankly dismayed at the lack of sympathy for the Palestinians being savagely massacred in Gaza in some White Nationalist quarters. Thus I think it opportune to reprint my essay “White Nationalism and Jewish Nationalism,” which I offer as a reasonable and nuanced White-centric position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. This essay is also available in my book New Right vs. Old Right

Translations: French, German, Spanish

Guillaume Faye’s speech at the 2006 American Renaissance conference was quite eventful. Most people have heard of the infamous Michael Hart incident.[1] But to my mind, something far more significant occurred during Faye’s speech, something that later struck me as revelatory.

In Faye’s view, the “Global South,” organized under the banner of Islam, is the mortal enemy of Europe. The United States, which favors the Islamization of Europe, is not the primary enemy of Europe, but merely an adversary. Faye does not, however, classify the Jewish community as an enemy or adversary of Europe at all. Instead, Faye views the Jews as a potential ally in the fight against Islamization.

Thus, at a certain point in his speech, as Faye enumerated the possible negative consequences of the unchecked march of Islam, he said, “The state of Israel may cease to exist.” But, to his obvious astonishment, this statement was met by enthusiastic applause.

Now, to be fair, I admit I joined in the applause too, in a spirit of pure mischief. But later I thought better of it. After all, as a friend pointed out, “If the Jews lose Israel, where do these people who were clapping think the Jews will go? They’ll all be here or Europe. Do they really want that?” I knew that, of course, and I am sure a lot of the other people clapping knew it too.

But some people hate Jews more than they love their own people. They hate Jews so much that they want them to be harmed, even if it harms us too—even if it harms us more. Call it the white version of the “Samson Option.” But if we are going to think rationally about the Jewish problem, we first have to identify and isolate this strand of suicidal spitefulness, which obviously conflicts with cool calculations of how to pursue our long term racial interests.

I would like to offer some notes on White Nationalism and Jewish nationalism in order to clarify my thoughts and provide material for discussion.

(1) As ethnonationalists, we believe in the “Ein Volk, ein Reich” principle: “One people, one state” (at least one state per people, although there could be more than one). This means that we support, at least in principle, the nationalism of all nations, the ethnic self-determination of all peoples. We envision a kind of classical liberalism for all nations, in which each people has a place of its own, whose legitimate rights need not conflict with the legitimate rights of all other nations. If this vision came to pass, we would have a world of perpetual peace. It is an appealing ideal, even though there may be insuperable impediments to its realization.

(2) Zionism is a species of ethnonationalism. It was conceived during the heyday of 19th century European ethnonationalism as a solution to the so-called “Jewish question.” The idea was to address the underlying causes of anti-Semitism by creating a sovereign Jewish homeland and encouraging a Jewish ingathering, a reversal of the diaspora.

(3) As an ethnonationalist, I do not object to Israel or Zionism per se. Yes, I object to our foreign policy toward Israel and its neighbors, which is dictated by Israeli interests rather than US interests. Yes, I object to foreign aid to Israel that does not serve US interests. But let us be perfectly clear here: These are not problems with Israel per se. They are problems with the Jewish diaspora community in the United States.

I do not oppose the existence of Israel. I oppose the Jewish diaspora in the United States and other white societies. I would like to see the white peoples of the world break the power of the Jewish diaspora and send the Jews to Israel, where they will have to learn how to be a normal nation.

(4) But what about the Palestinians? First, let me state unequivocally that I sympathize with the Palestinians, because I too live under Zionist occupation. Second, I must also state that I admire the Palestinians, because unlike Americans and Europeans, they are fully aware that they are an occupied people. Third, and most importantly, the Palestinians are fighting against their oppressors, and I wish my people would do the same.


(5) But ultimately, white interests and Palestinian interests do not coincide. Palestinians, quite naturally, want their country back. They want to send the Jews back whence they came. As a White Nationalist, I want all our Jews to go to Israel, and that means that I want Israel to stay put.

What about Palestinian self-determination? I support a Palestinian homeland, right next to the Jewish homeland, because I want to send the Palestinian diaspora home as well.

In short, I favor a two state solution. I do not favor the destruction of Israel, because I want the Jews to live there, not among my people. I favor a Palestinian state, because I want the Palestinians to live there, not among my people.

(6) Unfortunately, when it comes to the Palestine question, the views of many White Nationalists are clouded by the fact that they hate Jews more than they love their own people, thus they are willing to beat Jews with any stick handy, including the appeal to principles that are deadly to our people as well.

(7) For instance, I think it is self-defeating to oppose Zionism on anti-colonialist grounds, for the simple reason anti-colonialism undermines the legitimacy of the founding of the United States and practically every other white nation if you go far back enough. Some guilt-besotted souls have actually contemplated resurrecting the Neanderthals, presumably so they can apologize to them for the genocide allegedly committed by our Cro-Magnon ancestors. But fretting over past wrongs distracts us from something far more important, namely preventing future ones. And the most pragmatic approach is to give both Palestinians and Jews their own homelands.

(8) It is also self-defeating for White Nationalists to attack Israel on the grounds of multiculturalism. Yes, some of the very same people who complain of the Jewish double standard of promoting multiculturalism in the diaspora and an ethnostate in Israel, lament Jewish-promoted multiculturalism at home while demanding that Jews adopt it in Israel! Of course the Jewish double standard is logical, insofar as it actually advances the interests of the Jews as a diaspora community and the interests of the ethnostate of Israel.

But for White Nationalists, such a double-standard serves no rational purpose at all, since we do not have political power anywhere in the world, and our only hope of gaining such power is first to build a coherent intellectual case for a white ethnostate and then to build a cultural and political movement that will actually be able to take power and create one. But one cannot build a coherent intellectual foundation by appealing to contradictory principles because one’s only concern is venting hate on the internet.

(9) The same argument applies to attacking Zionism because it is a form of nationalism. Since Jews have invested so much in demonizing Hitler, many think it terribly clever to liken Zionism to Nazism and Jews to Hitler. (Most White Nationalists don’t go quite that far, of course.) As a White Nationalist, however, my quarrel is with diaspora Jewry’s promotion of multiculturalism and suppression of healthy nationalism in white nations. I do not oppose Zionism because it is a form of nationalism. If Jews agree with nationalism (or National Socialism, for that matter), that is to their credit.

The same argument applies to the charge that Zionism is a form of racism.

I sincerely believe that a lot of the support for Israel among American and European conservatives is merely a form of sublimated white racial nationalism. That was certainly true of me when I was a conservative. So let’s leave the Jews to their racial nationalism and have our own instead.

(10) It is also self-defeating to attack Israel on grounds of human rights, international law, and opposition to violence. Because everyone except complete pacifists recognizes that there are circumstances in which violence, revolution, and war are justified. Jews, moreover, have invested a great deal in promoting the idea that resisting genocide can justify pretty much any means necessary. That’s convenient, since we wish to resist our own genocide, and our enemies are not likely to give up without a fight. Any measures that Jews justified against Nazis in the past and against Palestinians today can be justified against our enemies tomorrow.

(11) Since people fight more fanatically if their backs are against the wall, Machiavelli argued that it is always prudent to leave an enemy a means of retreat, as it increases the likelihood and reduces the costs of victory. Diaspora Jewry regards Israel as a refuge, an insurance policy in case things go bad. The continued existence of Israel may, therefore, make it easier for whites to combat the power of diaspora Jewish communities in our various homelands.

Part of Jewish psychological intensity is their propensity to treat every issue as a matter of life and death, which produces the absurd spectacle of the leaders of the world’s most powerful ethnic group comporting themselves with the hysteria of cornered rats. The actual destruction of Israel would really give them something to whine about. It would immensely heighten the Jewish siege mentality and toughen Jewish resistance to white interests.

(12) I have argued that White Nationalists have an interest in the continued existence of the state of Israel. Does this mean that European nationalists like Guillaume Faye, Nick Griffin, Geert Wilders, and Anders Breivik are justified in allying themselves with Jews, whether in Israel or the diaspora?

Absolutely not, for a host of reasons.

(13) The foundation of this proposed alliance is an alleged common interest of native Europeans and diaspora Jews in resisting Islam. But does that common cause even exist? After all, the state of Israel, which diaspora Jewry regards as their last line of defense, exists in a sea of Muslims. There are, moreover, millions of Muslims within Israel’s borders. Thus one has to ask: Do Muslims really make Jews feel insecure? Or, if Jews are afraid of Muslims, is there something they fear even more?

Jews in Israel seem willing to exist at close quarters with Muslims to avoid a greater evil. What greater evil? European anti-Semitism, of course. The Zionist project was conceived as a refuge from European anti-Semitism. The state of Israel was founded after the Second World War. The holocaust is upheld as the justification for Israel’s founding and for all of its subsequent wars, annexations, and acts of oppression against the indigenous population. Jews definitely fear and hate Muslims. But they fear and hate white Europeans even more.

Given Jewish fear of European anti-Semitism, it follows, that Jews would actually feel safer in Europe if its indigenous population were diluted with non-Europeans, including Muslims. This hypothesis is, moreover, completely consistent with the policies supported by the leading Jewish organizations, which oppose European nationalism while supporting multiculturalism and Muslim immigration into Europe.

(14) But what about instances in which Jews have been attacked and killed by Muslims in Europe? Is this not a basis for a common interest in resisting Islam? I think not. Jews pursue policies in Israel that virtually guarantee Muslim terrorist reprisals. Yet Jews pursue these policies anyway, because they think they are worthwhile, even figuring in the inevitable Jewish casualties.

The same logic is at work within Jewish diaspora populations. Yes, supporting Muslim immigration into Europe does expose diaspora Jews to Muslim violence. But the Jewish community regards this violence as a small price to pay compared to the benefit of the dilution and ultimate destruction of the indigenous European population.

(15) Jews feel safer around Muslims than around Europeans. Jews do not, therefore, believe it is in their interests to ally themselves with European nationalists to resist Muslim immigration into Europe. But even if it were in their interest, that still might not be enough to alter Jewish policy. After all, it may be the case that Jews hate whites more than they love themselves.

(16) It may be a mistake to ascribe too much rationality to Jews. Jewish power may be less a product of rational calculation than of the irrational and compulsive repetition of a set of evolved strategies for achieving dominance over other groups. If these strategies are applied compulsively rather than rationally, one would expect Jews to continue to apply them even when they are becoming counter-productive. And indeed, this has been the Jewish pattern for centuries. Jews have continually risen to positions of wealth, power, and influence. But they have a tendency to push their host populations too far, leading to sudden backlashes and terrible reversals of fortune. You can’t drive a car without brakes, and Jews have no brakes.

(17) Even if Jews turned against Europe’s Muslims, Muslims aren’t the only problem. There are plenty of other fast-breeding non-white groups that could just as effectively dilute and then destroy European whites. By using “Muslims” as a politically correct proxy for non-whites, European nationalists have painted themselves into a rhetorical corner, in much the same way that American conservatives have by using “illegal” immigration as a proxy for non-white immigration. Muslims, however, can become Christians with a splash of holy water, and illegals can be legalized simply by changing the law.

(18) If Jews wanted to limit Muslim immigration into Europe, they would not need small European nationalist parties to accomplish it. Virtually overnight, they could have the conservative parties opposing Muslims on conservative grounds, the liberal parties opposing Muslims on liberal grounds, the Greens opposing them on Green grounds, the socialists on socialist grounds, etc. That is what intellectual and political hegemony means.

(19) Political alliances are not based merely on common interests, real or perceived. Nobody seeks alliances with powerless parties. And the European nationalist parties have little or no power. Even those parties that have achieved parliamentary representation have been unable to effect real change. European nationalist parties have nothing to offer Jews, who have real wealth and real power.

(20) Why, then, do some Jews seek to join European nationalist groups, as well as White Nationalist groups in America? A variety of motives are possible, including sincere conviction, insanity, hedging, spying, and sabotage. Unfortunately, there is no foolproof way of determining what a given person’s real motives are. I’m betting that most of them are up to no good.

Since we are fighting for nothing less than the biological survival of our race, and since the vast bulk of Jews oppose us, we need to err on the side of caution and have no association with Jews whatsoever. Any genuine Jewish well-wishers will understand, since they know what their people are like better than we ever can.

Saving our race is something that we will have to do ourselves alone.


1. After Faye’s speech, a member of the audience stood up and asked Faye, in a roundabout way, if the organized Jewish community in France played the same role as it played in the US in opening the gates to non-white immigration. It was a fair question, one that had also occurred to me. If I had any objection, it was to the fact that the questioner was unaware of the long line of people behind him and took too much time to get to his point.

But before Faye could answer, a Jew (author Michael Hart), angrily jumped up and denounced the questioner, David Duke, as a “fucking Nazi” and a “disgrace to the Conference.” This rude and foul-mouthed tirade, was, moreover, delivered in front of the children of one conference-goer. “Surely,” I thought, “Jared Taylor needs to be more selective about who comes to his conferences. This Hart guy should be shunned.”

Others felt similarly. Indeed, one group concluded that the incident proved it was high time for Jared Taylor to crack down on anti-Semites, the kind of people who goaded the poor victim Michael Hart until he couldn’t take it anymore. This brazen little cabal, led by Larry Auster, even framed the whole affair as the “David Duke incident,” and a lot of White Nationalists who should have known better went right along with it.


  1. me
    Posted July 23, 2014 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    You haven’t addressed the Palestinian plight. In the process of creating Israel, many Palestinian properties – buildings, farms, homes, etc. – were destroyed/stolen, often in front of their eyes. What should we (or they) do about that?

    Jews are constantly meddling in other countries affairs. It seems to me that a most practical solution is to place them on a relatively isolated island where there are no nearby neighbors to meddle in.

    • Justin Huber
      Posted July 24, 2014 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

      The Madagascar Plan maybe?

  2. Van Phauc
    Posted July 23, 2014 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    Jews already have another homeland besides Israel, which Stalin thoughtfully created for them.

    They would not displace anyone by going there.

    WNs should not be committed to the preservation of the state of Israel, we need to remain flexible on this issue, which is ultimately immaterial to us, in case the opportunity for alliances with anti-Zionist forces in the Muslim world or on the Left becomes significant in the future. This is an issue where the the rhetoric of younger, more international members of the left is increasingly difficult to distinguish from the rhetoric of some elements of the far Right.

    Pan-Nationalism is a form of universalism. Better to simply care about what is good for whites, than to commit to some ideology that may have long term implications that are bad for whites.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted July 24, 2014 at 12:41 am | Permalink

      The truth is by nature universal. But one universal truth is that it is natural and normal and right to have a preference for one’s own and take care of one’s own first. Thus there is no contradiction between nationalism and universal truths.

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Posted July 24, 2014 at 3:55 am | Permalink

        White Nationalism is only the particularization of a universal truth : all ethnic or racial groups have the right to an own independent territory, therefore Whites also have that right. Of course Whites should then concentrate on their own particular right. I don’t know what “moral” objections leftists could raise against that (except of course the objection of “racism”, but that can then easily be refuted by pointing to the universal principle. Objections by Jews could be refuted by pointing to the existence of Israel). The most important application of this principle for Whites is to claim the moral right to stop immediately all further non-White immigration (illegal or legal) and to start a serious discussion about the repatriation of already present non-Whites in an orderly and humane manner.

        • Van Phauc
          Posted July 24, 2014 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

          ” all ethnic or racial groups have the right to an own independent territory, therefore Whites also have that right.”

          This statement reeks of liberalism. Where do these rights come from? Certainly not from natural law; 99% of species are extinct. Rights aren’t universal moral truths, they’re just things that people think would be nice.

          It would be better to say something like “We recognize that each ethnic or racial group is justly entitled to strive for their own survival and sovereignty.”

          Historically many groups have failed to achieve sovereignty and/or survival. But you can’t blame them for trying.

          Trapping whites in a universalist ideological construct (pan-Nationalism) that creates a moral imperative to go to Africa and give our lives for the cause of pygmy nationalism is not good for whites. White Nationalism should be about doing what is good for whites.

          Remaining flexible, opportunistic but generally uninvolved with the Middle East is good for whites. Marrying ourselves to a rigid ideological position that can cause missed opportunities is bad for whites.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted July 24, 2014 at 1:36 pm | Permalink
          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Posted July 25, 2014 at 5:15 am | Permalink

            1) Yes it reeks of liberalism, but we live in the age of liberalism and we should use its terms to defeat it.
            2) Yes rights are not “natural”, they are human constructs, but as humans we construct culture including rights.
            3) The belief in universal human rights doesn’t mean that Whites only should try to implement them. By its very nature that should be a universal endeavor.

          • M.
            Posted July 27, 2014 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

            What also reeks of liberalism is the delusion that a person is of value by virtue of his or her biology, of being white, or being human, and not because of his or her actually bothering to further our cause by actually upholding his or her ancestral integrity and in ways above and beyond biology which is what the preservation of a people is ultimately about. To reduce a race to its material context is also to marry oneself to a rigid ideological position and one that suffers the delusion that a land of exclusively white liberals, idiots, and, degenerates is somehow an achievement compared to that of an ethnocentric community of non-whites that actually uphold traditions. What is the point exactly to fighting for our race if its respective material cultures, languages, and ethes mean nothing?

            • Greg Johnson
              Posted July 27, 2014 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

              Race is a material/biological concept and nothing more. Character and culture of course matter. But the most important thing is to preserve our race. If forced to choose between saving our race and saving our civilization, I would of course choose the race, since civilizations can be rebuilt if our people are preserved, and the existing one does not matter to me if there are no white people around to appreciate it.

              I would much rather live in a country of white “liberals, idiots, and degenerates” than a thriving non-white “traditional” society, simply because white people are my kin and non-whites are alien to me. “Tradition” however you are using that term is not more important to me than race. Non-whites and “Tradition” can take care of themselves, whereas the white race is dying — physically, materially, racially — and needs to be saved physically, materially, racially.

              There is nothing wrong with “liberalism” that cannot be fixed by ejecting (1) the idea that racial and sexual differences do not matter to what rights and duties one has, and (2) the idea that the freedom of the individual always trumps the collective good. The things that Christian reactionaries detest about modernity — reason, science, religious tolerance, secularism — are precisely the things that I wish to preserve about it. What I wish to reject are ultimately remnants of Christian anthropology, morality, and eschatology.

          • M.
            Posted July 28, 2014 at 4:52 am | Permalink

            Greg, you appear to be confusing culture with civilization. Yes, we can rebuild our cities, but race becomes emptied of meaning without culture as it is an element of culture: anthropological models see culture as the race , as well as the ethos, the language, and the tangible and intangible artefacts of any given people. Your separation of a race from its respective culture – and traditions – makes about as much sense as considering white people who act and think like jews and negros, that is, people who are jews and negros for all intents and purposes, to somehow be “the same” as you and I by virtue of their biology. To me this is no different and no better than the egalitarian nonsense that posits that men and women and white and black are the same by virtue of their biology. The greatest mountains of minds of the intellectual heritage of our movement – men like Jünger – rejected a purely material conceptions of race as vapid and as pointless. To them such people were not white irrespective of their biology because they lacked the spirit of what that actually means.

            • Greg Johnson
              Posted July 28, 2014 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

              Whether you call it culture or civilization, race is more important to preserve, because white people naturally create cultures/civilizations just as blacks naturally create chaos and barbarism. It is in our genes, which means that our genes need to be preserved. Of course I want to preserve both, but if forced to choose, one must choose the most important.

              The problem with putting too much emphasis on culture is that it is too often the coward’s euphemism for race, but if one follows the logic of putting the stress on culture, then (1) we are forced to exclude whites who do not share our culture from our ingroup, and (2) we are forced to include non-whites who do share our culture in our ingroup.

              Whites who think and act like non-whites are still white. They would be better, of course, if they did not have heads full of mush. But they are still our kin. They can be re-educated, or their children can be properly educated.

              I really want to separate the New Right from broad-brush reactionary anti-modernism, since that is a ghettoizing trap. In the ten years I was on friendly terms with Sam Dickson, I never once heard him say that he liked or loved white people, but I heard him say “I hate white people” countless times, not because they were not white, but because they disagreed with his reactionary value system, which seemed to float somewhere between 19th-century Anglo-chauvinism and 17th-century Calvinist bigotry.

              Junger was an interesting fellow, but like Evola, Spengler, Yockey, but when it comes to biological race he was an obscurantist. Race is a biological, material concept, and nothing else. Character, culture, civilization, etc. are all important, but they are not reducible to biology, even if they do have biological foundations and boundaries. The idea of a spirit that is separable from the body and possessed of some sort of higher intrinsic value is, of course, what some of these obscurantists are trying to defend. But why not just embrace outright dualism, in which case the soul is not a biological/material concept at all?

              “Spiritual race” is an obscurantist clot in the arteries of our movement, just waiting to break free and paralyze our brains. It urgently needs to be dissolved or scraped out.

  3. Jan L
    Posted July 24, 2014 at 12:13 am | Permalink

    Spot-on! This is exactly my take on the relationship between White Nationalists and jews. No stupid emotions, please!

  4. Sofia
    Posted July 24, 2014 at 12:48 am | Permalink

    Great article but 2 points overlooked. 1) Israel needs a diaspora population. And a powerful diaspora population esp in places like the US (think AIPAC) so it can manipute and bully the host into underwriting Israeli’s military and general economy. It needs its diaspora population to control the Federal Reserve (never been a non-Jewish chairman of the fed reserve), the supreme court, the congress, the media, the executive branch etc etc as it has successfully done in the US. Without a diaspora in white ountries Israel would not last a werk in the Middle East
    2) Unlike the Islamic Middle East which for the past 1500+ years has rejected Jewish economics and banking with usury as its center-piece, Christendom completely surrended to Jewish finncial control and is therefore under Jewish and hence Zionst control until it decides to break free of it. The reason Jews left the Middle East is that Islam did not surrender to usury and materialism as Christendom did. The Middle East was not a place the Jews could do userous business in because usury was not allowed.
    The Jewish claim to that particular piece of real estate after a 2500 year absence is laughably tenuous. Ie based on a book of fairy tales that holds that God is a real estate agent and he assigned his chosen people to a particular spot and that after a 2500 year absence in Europe (where olive skin dark eyed jews return fom Europe blond haired and blue eyed with the right to displace the indigineous Palestinians from their honeland is beyond preposterous

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted July 25, 2014 at 1:51 am | Permalink

      1. The diaspora allows Israel to be a rogue state, bad neighbor, and a parasite rather than a self-sustaining state. If the diaspora were ended and Jews forced to move to Israel, they would have to become productive, pull their own weight as a nation, and turn their attention to friendship rather than antagonism with their neighbors.

      2. I don’t think usury is the only variable here. Jews enjoyed life under Muslims in the Middle Ages and speak of it as a Golden Age. They gained far greater power in the West not just because of usury but also because of the rise of liberalism which led to their “emancipation” and integration into European societies as citizens.

      3. The Jewish claim on Palestine is of course based on religious superstitions. But Realpolitik and ethnonationalism combine to make it necessary to find some place for them, and since they have built a state in Palestine, they might as well make a go of it.

  5. Petronius
    Posted July 24, 2014 at 3:15 am | Permalink

    I used to care, but I don’t anymore. It wears off if you live in European country like me that is subject to Muslim settler colonialisation, and the recent ant-Israel demonstrations in Germany and France showed how far this is progressed. Otherwise these are reasonable points, but still I am unable to show any enthusiasm for the Palestinian cause.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted July 24, 2014 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

      I completely understand. Looking at the photographs of the demonstration in London, I had a hard time seeing white faces. It really made clear just how advanced the Islamization of Europe is.

      But still, I remain as sympathetic as possible given that I believe that every last one of these people, and all of their children, need to repatriated.

      • R_Moreland
        Posted July 28, 2014 at 4:36 am | Permalink

        One thing (among many) which bugs me about large third world populations inside Europe and (white) North America is how quickly they turn their presence into a front for their own political activism. Regardless of how one feels about the state of Israel, there is something disturbing about Muslims marching in the streets of London, Paris, Malmo or Los Angeles to support what amounts to a jihad. It’s a battle which ought by all rights be fought in the Middle East being displaced into the White homeland.

        Obviously, it is much more disturbing to see their “youth” torch cars and otherwise pillage ancient European cities. And enlist in various jihadist movements currently fighting in the Middle East.

        I have brought this point up to liberals I know, and their response is to the effect, “Ghee whiz golly, isn’t it wonderful that Muslims have the freedom to protest in Europe and America?”

        Well, maybe. But you have to wonder what Charles Martel, Constantine Palaeologus or Jan Sobieski might have thought of all this.

  6. Jaego
    Posted July 24, 2014 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Good point about the Conservative mentality. And many idealistic Liberals seem attached to American Indians as a sublimated form of White Tribalism. We have become a race of “fans”.

    Jews were offered Madagascar and other large territories. They would have made short work of the natives. But they insisted on Palestine – utter hubris.

    • JayBro
      Posted May 14, 2015 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

      Even if it was utter hubris, what would European Settler-Colonialism be considered? You are doing what Greg criticized: letting your vitriol of Jewry overpower your Pro-White feelings. The European Settler-Colonialists be they in *Canada* or *Rhodesia* had a homeland they came from. There was no other Jewish-Heritage-State except for Israel. Vitriolic Hypocrisy.

  7. Sam
    Posted July 24, 2014 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Off topic, sorry. Dr., I do not have access to any of my Evola volumes for a couple weeks. In Men Among the Ruins, did he define a decadent age as one in which men look on a past age as a greater age, one in which they would have preferred to live? I am sorry to bother you. It is for a paper I am writing.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted July 24, 2014 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

      I am in exile myself, so let’s crowd-source this one.

  8. WWWM
    Posted July 24, 2014 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    Greg I think you contradict yourself here. If not, then I am not sure you are fully recognizing what Zionism is. I used to think the Jews were like a very successful version of the Irish Americans that supported the IRA, or the Cubans in Miami that were so pushy about having us take out Castro. But Zionism is much more than Jewish ethnocentrism. Zionism is the Jews infiltrating every aspect of a culture. It is not just that there inclinations (probably an evolutionary strategy) are to infest the wider culture. It is that people of European descent, probably also due to evolution, are particularly prone to fall prey to Jewish manipulation. We carefully listen to moral arguments, even from an outsider, and Jew is only interested in “arguments” if they serve their own power and tribalism.

    It was item number 16 up here were you were right on. The Jews are not the least bit rational. There is a good article in the old Insturation magazine titled “What the Jews Can Do for Us” (cannot remember the issue) that clarifies just how far from logic they are. I don’t think we are gonna make use of any standard political strategy like giving our enemy a way out, or any of the stuff that would work with normal people. Put simply, the Jews have got to go. I still like the Madagascar plan, but I am wondering if Antarctica would not be the best option. We could build something down there for them and drop food and fuel off – whatever else they need. Just no trips back to the civilized world. Staying in Israel is not an option. Israel is a cancer that is metastasizing all over the world. The USA is terminal from it.

    I will admit I have made some of the arguments about why we should support Palestinians – as a means of destroying Israel. The Jews destroyed the west with multiculturalism, so let’s crash Israel with full Right-of-Return of the Palestinians. But the real reason to support the Palestinians is basic decency. They did not bring any of this upon themselves, and I am a lot more sympathetic to them then I was to, say, blacks in South Africa (who were probably better off under Apartheid anyway). So much to about the topics you raised in this essay.

  9. Greg Johnson
    Posted July 25, 2014 at 1:57 am | Permalink

    I think you are using “Zionism” as a euphemism for all aspects of Jewry, including diaspora Jewry at its parasitic and subversive worst, as opposed to the correct use of the term to refer to Jewish ethnonationalism, which includes critiques of diaspora Jewry indistinguishable from anti-Semitism. See, for example, my review of Yoav Shamir’s Defamation:

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Posted July 25, 2014 at 4:56 am | Permalink

      He uses the term “Zionism” in the sense of Jewish supremacism, which is not uncommon for people critical of Jewish behavior. Strictly spoken Zionism is the endeavor of Jews to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine (and after its establishment to maintain it). Jewish supremacism is the belief in Jewish superiority and the right to rule others. Supremacism is no Jewish monopoly. Around 1900 all West European peoples were supremacists as were the Japanese at the same time. Islam too could be called a supremacist ideology. The uniqueness of Jewish supremacism is that it is the ideology of a minority population which tries to achieve its aims by stealth and manipulation rather than open fight.

  10. Sofia
    Posted July 25, 2014 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    Thank you Greg.

    1. Not withstanding the Zionist need for a homeland on a bible designated spot, doing the Palestinians out of their ancient ancestral homelands and thus natural justice is not the answer as we full well know. The logic that a blond haired blued eyed polish Ashkenazi has a greater entitlement to Palestine over a indigenous Palestinian who has intergenrationallyinter-generationally lived there upwards of a thousands years is preposterous and imposing neo- colonialist rule on native Palestninans. Failed experiment.

    2. The reason historically Jews lived in peace under muslim protection and prospered in the Middle East and never experienced banishment and pogroms was that they were never allowed to impose Jewish economics on the majority population. They were allowed participation in all trades and professions but were never allowed to collect taxes on behalf of the state or lend interest baring money to anyone, let alone to kings and ruling classes to raise money for wars as they successfully did in Europe. Eg Rothschilds. Take modern Iran, with the largest Jewish population outside Israel in the Middle East. The Jews are a prosperous upper middle class with their synogoues and traditions intact, with mandated parliamentary representation under the Islamic Republic of Iran constitution, and participate in all professsions in Iran with one exception. They are barred from usurous banking and surruptious economic policy formulation. There are no Jewish oil or banking oligarchs and barons, there is no cabal of Jewish bankers holding politicians to ransom and screeening them at election times. They are not allowed to control the media or insult Islam or frame politicians. So yes, wherever Jews lived in these conditions under muslim protection they were never pogromised or had a hard time because their powers as a minority were clearly and transparantly defined. Wherever they could create monopolies of banking and media power and politician buying there is a different outcome as we saw and continue to see in Europe and the US.

    3. Finally let’s ask a real Palestinian like my mother who a real semite is. “The real semite is me. Like hundreds and thousands of Palestinians who know their family history I can tell you my family were Jews who converted to Christianity when Christianity came. Then with the arrival of Islam we converted to Islam. Our blood attachment and loyalty to the land of Palestine was stronger, far greater and above any loyalty to any religion. Our attachment to our olive trees, to our date palms, to the earth, to the air of Palestine withstood everything. Religions, invaders and empires came and went but we stayed. Unlike a Russian settler who burns down olive tress and plants the European pines and builds slanty roofed European dwellings because he misses Europe so much, a true inhabitant of this land never burns down sacred olive trees and is head, heart, blood at home in the native Palestinian environment ” Palestine belongs to Palestinians. Perhaps in an ideal world Palestine would welcome as Palestinian Hebrews all Jews who are not into likudnik Jewish supremacy with a Jews-only state while ethnically cleansing native Palestinians. Viva Palestine.

  11. Greg Johnson
    Posted July 25, 2014 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    The nuclear arsenal that makes Israel a threat to humanity also makes your proposed solution a non-starter.

  12. Jules
    Posted July 25, 2014 at 7:23 pm | Permalink


    Any idea why all your (excellent) posts from earlier this week were removed from that Mark Hackard article at Radix?

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted July 25, 2014 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

      I think Gregory Hood’s recent piece tipped their hand: They hope to get money from Russia by putting out pro-Russia, pro-Putin, pro-Dugin puff pieces like Mark “Dances with Bears” Hackard’s rather embarrassing bit of courtier journalism “National Nihilism.” I dragged them and some of their kommentariat over the coals a bit. They have no trouble with malevolent trolls like “Laguna Beach Fogey” as long as they toe the Kremlin line about Ukraine. Frankly I’m appalled.

    • Ulf Larsen
      Posted July 26, 2014 at 3:44 am | Permalink

      What article is that?

  13. Justin Huber
    Posted July 27, 2014 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    I agree that we shouldn’t try to score cheap points by condemning the means by which the Jews maintain their ethnostate. We might have to resort to these same tactics ourselves. However, I can’t bring myself to supporting Israel even on the grounds that someday it might make a good dumping ground for our Jews. Perhaps our best stance would be one of “neutrality” with the hope that someday maybe the Muslims could achieve the overthrow of Israel themselves. Admittedly, that would probably take a miracle.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted July 27, 2014 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      “Support” is an ambiguous term here. I am certainly not arguing that we keep feeding these lice as we do now. I am simply talking about support in principle for the idea of a Jewish state.

    • JayBro
      Posted May 14, 2015 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

      “Perhaps our best stance would be one of “neutrality” with the hope that someday maybe the Muslims could achieve the overthrow of Israel themselves.”

      Why do you insist on the latter? Well? Would you be okay with the African-Rebels who “overthrew” the Apartheid Regime and would sent them back to Europe? While the difference is there is no other State-Of-Jewish Heritage that exists except for Israel. So you are basically a holocaust denier pushing for a holocaust. Which is exactly what Greg spoke against. Don’t let your hatred become un-necessarily anti-White. If Jewry is contained in Israel, you should be neutral from then on. Personally, I see Muslims and Jewry as cousins/frenemies. If they are not in Germany or Norway, why does it concern you. Because you have that hatred-thing going on that Greg described. How about America act as mediator? Between Muslims and Israel? Not going full Neocon or going full David Duke?

  14. R_Moreland
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 4:42 am | Permalink

    I would like to see the effort too often put into sympathy for the Palestinians diverted to supporting White peoples under siege globally. White South Africans are increasingly being dispossessed in the country their ancestors built, as well as being subjected to some really grisly terroristic crime. Any way a forum could be developed to provide a voice for Whites in South Africa? I’d like to see articles by White SA activists because it could be a way to share tactics and unify resistance.

  15. Thomas Schelling
    Posted August 1, 2014 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
    for the ashes of his fathers,
    and the temples of his Gods?

  16. JayBro
    Posted May 14, 2015 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

    I think America could act as mediator between Muslim and Jewry, who are after all cousins. Think Camp David Accords of 1978 by that “Jew-Hater” Jimmy Carter. Hysterical David-Duke Iranian-Russian-Syrian-Fascism or Neo-Con Cosmopolitan Imperialism are not mediations.

    It does seem odd that you see some Nordicists taking Pan-Arabist positions. Oh well.

    Also, the hypocrisy of defending European Settler-Colonies that historically existed while criticizing the existence of the only State-Of-Jewish-Heritage, is silly. One doesn’t need to be a Zionist. But one shouldn’t be hypocrite.

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