Counter-Currents
2,287 words
Arabic version here
Paul Findley
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby
Westport, Connecticut: Lawrence Hill & Company, 1985
The late Congressman Paul Findley (1921-2019) was a Republican Congressman from Illinois. His hometown was Jacksonville. Like so many other Midwesterners his ancestors were a mix of the Yankees and Pennsylvanians who created a civilization on the wild prairie.
Paul Findley’s family was among the original pioneers of Illinois.
For most of Findley’s twenty-two years in Congress, his main concern was helping economically manage the considerable output of corn and hogs for his district — but then he waded into Zionist intrigue. To explain, in the early 1970s, a constituent of modest means asked for his help to set free a teacher named Ed Franklin, imprisoned in the Communist nation of South Yemen.
Findley journeyed to South Yemen. The United States had no diplomatic relations with South Yemen in the early ‘70s, so there was concern that this visit could go badly. What he found was that the South Yemenis were quite rational. They were also utterly frustrated with the American government’s enthrallment to Israel, as well as American support for Saudi Arabian attacks on South Yemen.
Findley secured the release of Ed Franklin and in the process was introduced to Arab leaders in the region such as Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat. What Findley found was that the Arabs were not the fanatics portrayed by the media and were often treated badly by the American government after they had acted in good faith. One example of such happened during the Iran hostage crisis. Yasser Arafat genuinely served as an honest broker, securing the release of 11 prisoners. The Carter administration was aware of the help, but didn’t publicly thank Arafat or help the Palestinian cause at all.
Congressman Paul Findley.
Findley came to believe that it was time for the United States to take an evenhanded approach to Middle Eastern issues, especially with regards to Israel. What Findley discovered was that this attitude led to him being labeled an enemy of Israel and an anti-Semite.
In 1980, Findley faced a tough re-election bid. He faced a Republican primary challenger and a formidable Democratic rival in the general election. He won, but he had to carry out considerable fundraising to match the money that poured into both of his challengers’ campaign coffers.
In 1982, his congressional district’s boundaries were re-drawn. He lost his hometown base of Jacksonville and gained areas where the Democratic voters were predominant. Meanwhile, money from Jews poured into the new Illinois 20th Congressional District and Findley barely lost to his rival, Dick Durban.
Left: US congressional districts in Illinois from 1973 to 1982. Right: US congressional districts in Illinois from 1983-1992.
The American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) claimed they were responsible for the victory. To make a complex situation simple: AIPAC was somewhat correct in claiming victory. Nonetheless, the race was so close, and the circumstances of the 1982 election were so varied that it is hard to truly know for certain if that was totally true.
Regardless, after his election loss, Findley took a hard look at the Israel/Jewish Lobby in America. (Findley uses both Israel and Jewish as adjectives and I will do so in this review.) He published They Dare to Speak Out in 1985. He names names, gives important dates, and has direct quotes that show exactly how the Jewish lobby functions.
Elections
The central endeavor of the Israel Lobby is shaping who gets elected. Jewish activists and their allies monitor every committee hearing, work in the staffs of every congressman, and consider every statement made by an elected official. They even have a network that reports off-the-cuff private remarks. Anything but total subservience will bring down hostility from a large network of Jewish activists.
Even impeccably liberal activists with long histories of pro-Jewish submission can run afoul of the Jewish Lobby if they aren’t subservient enough. Findley writes,
Adlai Stevenson III’s campaign manager for the 1982 Illinois gubernatorial election Joseph Novak remarked after Stevenson’s very narrow loss was that “If [a Jewish led anti-Stevenson] effort hadn’t happened. Stevenson would be governor today.” In the predominantly Jewish suburban Chicago precincts of Highland Park and Lake County, “We just got killed, just absolutely devastated.” Press secretary Rick Jasculca adds, “What bothers me is that hardly any rabbis, or Jewish leaders beyond Phil [Klutznick] were willing to speak up, and say this is nonsense to call Adlai anti-Israel.” (p. 92)
Like the disciples after the crucifixion, American politicians cower for fear of the Jews.
Foreign Entanglements
The Jewish Lobby warps American politics in other ways. The United States doesn’t really need to have a vast military presence in the world. The web of military alliances that ensnare the US does not benefit the Americans. Nowhere is that situation more glaring than the relationship between the United States and Israel. Indeed, all of America’s military operations in the Middle East have an Israeli angle.
The United States also gives vast quantities of financial aid to Israel. This aid continues in the teeth of recessions, unemployment crises, natural disasters, and wars that spring up elsewhere. This is surprising in that foreign aid is one of the most unpopular things the American government does. The main driver is the Jewish lobby. “Except for a few humanitarian and church-related organizations, AIPAC serves as foreign aid’s only domestic constituency.” (p. 29)
Christian Zionism
Israel also gains support from a Philo-Semitic group of Americans called Christian Zionists. These people are American whites who follow a theological fad called premillennial dispensationalism. This iffy theology holds that Israel’s founding in 1948 was foretold in the Bible and portends the return of Christ.
Findley writes:
The religious convictions of many Americans have made them susceptible to the appeals of the Israel lobby, with the result that free speech concerning the Middle East and US policy in the region is frequently restricted before it begins. The combination of religious tradition and overt lobby activity tends to confine legitimate discussion within artificially narrow bounds. (p. 239)
Findley refutes Christian Zionism by quoting several non-Zionist Christian theologians. They argue that the prophesized return of Israel took place after the Babylonian captivity. Modern Israel is therefore not part of some grand Biblical plan unfolding in the present day. Also, the Covenant between God and Abraham’s descendants was rendered void when the Jews failed to follow God’s Commandments. (p. 245)
Christian Zionists are peddling falsehood. Meanwhile the Jews the love do not love them back. Christian Zionists also tolerate horrifying behavior on the part of the Israelis against a large Christian community in the Levant.
The Mailed Fist
Findley has a great many examples of anti-Israel activists who were personally ruined by activist Jews. One owned a Middle Eastern restaurant in Skokie, a town with a large Jewish population. His restaurant was boycotted and had to shut down. Other activists get threatening letters and menacing phone calls in the middle of the night. Jewish activists even harass activists and ordinary researchers at mid-grade universities in places like Temple, Arizona. Many have lost jobs and are hounded afterward through some malicious lawsuit or another trick.
Part of the problem is there is basically no white pushback to this menace. In an earlier time, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles complained: “It is impossible to hold the line because we get no support from the Protestant elements in the country. All I get is a battering from the Jews.” (p. 119)
Findley also discusses the Israeli sneak attack on the USS Liberty. Additionally, the State and Defense Departments are riddled with offices and sections which specifically focus on supporting Israel or Jewish issues.
Not all is a mailed fist though. Israelis directly working with American government officials are warm, intelligent, and helpful. These Israelis quickly become part of the team — and then they steal American secrets and technology. Findley explains that professional AIPAC lobbyists show up on time, are courteous, are on point, and don’t waste anyone’s time.
A Message to America, the Republicans, & the Palestinians
Congressman Findley lived a long life. Even as the infirmities and indignities of old age wracked his body, he continued to speak out for American interests and against the Israel lobby. He argued that a way to defeat the Jewish lobby was a constitutional amendment that restricted campaign donations for a politician to people who’d lived in that political district for several years. All Americans should consider this idea.
Republican cowardice in the face of the Israel Lobby and the organized Jewish committee is easy to comprehend in the light of Findley’s 1982 electoral defeat, but the circumstances may have changed enough that an exact duplication of Findley’s ouster might be hard. America is now polarized in such a way that the Democratic Party is split between an Israel First establishment and a pro-Palestine left wing. Meanwhile, the organized Jewish diaspora in the United States is intractably hostile to the GOP. There is no reason for any Republican to care about Israel, they’ll be called a racist and anti-Semite regardless. Should all Republicans in Congress stand against Israel, they will change the dynamic in the course of an afternoon.
Republicans can make support for Israel an issue with their base. Don’t like troops in Syria. . . well, the Israel Lobby. Didn’t like Trump’s impeachments or the 2020 election fraud. . . well, let me tell you about the organized Jewish community. White Americans are ready to hear a counter-Israel message. It just requires teamwork and a little courage.
I encourage Arab groups in the United States who are working against Israel’s terror machine to reach out to ordinary Americans, like those Americans that come from the same racial stock as Paul Findley of Illinois. There needs to be some finesse — a great many Americans have Arab = Terrorist burned into their mental programming, especially after 9/11. However, Americans should be reminded that Arabs like Ralph Nader and Massad Ayoob are totally dialed into traditional white American culture. On the other hand, Jews like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, or Max Boot are utterly hostile to American whites. By their actions, we can see they only care about America in so far as they can plunder its people and resources.
Rashida Tlaib & Matthew 18:21, 22
As this article goes to print, the most outspoken counter-Israel member of Congress is not an American like Paul Findlay, but a foreigner of Palestinian stock named Rashida Tlaib. White advocates reading this may very well be angry with Tlaib. Among other outrages, she voted for Trump’s impeachment and screamed obscenities at a venue where Trump was speaking.
This anger is justified, but I’ll argue here that it is better to just let all of that go. Instead of spitting tobacco juice on Tlaib’s shoes, white advocates should follow the words of Christ quoted in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew. We should “forgive [her] up to seventy times seven” times for these transgressions.
Here’s why. The main driver of hostility between Americans and Arabs from the Levant is not anything any American or Arab is doing. It is caused entirely by Israeli actions and diaspora Jews residing in the United States. Next, a peaceful Palestine means an end to refugee flows from that region. As a result, there will be fewer radicalized, dangerous men seeking to murder whites at a Colorado King Soopers or Fort Hood. A peaceful Palestine means a city like Gaza can become a haven for tourism due to its Mediterranean climate and low cost of living. If Palestinians can carry out economic activity free from Jewish F-16 attacks, they can become a market for American products.
Palestinians are not savages. The Palestinian Liberation Organization and Hamas aren’t terrorists in the al-Qaeda or ISIS sense either. They are more like the Maryland militia in the War of 1812.
Palestinians may appear to be on the same team as Black Lives Matter terrorists, but a closer look shows this is a tenuous alliance of convenience. Palestinians are in a desperate situation. They’ve been steamrolled by Zionism since the end of World War II. They’ll take allies wherever they can take them. Additionally, through the warped media lens through which the rest of the world views America, BLM might seem just to them. They don’t know about the knockout game or black crime more generally. I think a people who live in an open-air prison that is subject day and night to artillery bombardment can be forgiven any such misunderstandings.
Palestinians should not count on the Black Lives Matter movement for long-term support. Eventually, the BLM “brand” will imply crime, terrorism, and African pathology in the same way the Freedmen’s Bureau “brand” did by the late 1870s. I recommend Palestinian activists be very polite and grateful to BLM support while cultivating white American supporters.
The ultimate rogue nation in the world is Israel. Its aggression drives much of the turmoil in the Middle East. Since that fact is objectively true, it is natural that many types of people will align themselves against Israel. These people might have considerable differences, but all alliances do. To be part of a mature and serious movement, white advocates will need to get along with all kinds of people. I’ll conclude with the idea that white Americans are more Palestinian than not.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
17 comments
I thought this was a well thought out article, and I can’t disagree with any of it. I read this book about a decade ago, or skimmed parts of interest, and something I seemed to think at the time was that Findley leaves certain things to be read between the lines by the reader rather than stating inferences. For example, at one point he says that several times in chambers with other legislators in private he would make anti Israel urges to them, say regarding some funding bill, and within minutes their offices would be bombarded with high pressure phone calls from Israeli activists. My interpretation of this is that he is allowing the reader to infer that they are bugging or somehow eavesdropping on the legislators without making paranoid sounding statements. Perhaps they have these crystals or whatever somehow implanted into all these people, if I had to guess. Imagine all the personal back info they would have on all of them! Any opposition really is simply pointless.
I don’t have a deep knowledge of US politics, but I guess that’s why congressional limits are opposed by some some politicians is general, and many lobby groups in particular ?
The politicians themselves will want to ride the gravy train as long as they can. That usually happens, too. Public opinion polls show that Congress has a ridiculously low approval rating, but Congressmen have a ridiculously high reelection rate nonetheless.
It would be great if the Muslims took our side, but I doubt it’s happening any time soon unless Muhammad Aryan here can sweet talk an Arab oil baron into supporting us. It’s a fine idea, but if they had any interest in cooperation, we would’ve heard from them by now. (I think it would be more workable to reach out to Jews who have their heads screwed on straight, aren’t flaming leftists, and don’t feel like sinking the ship they’re riding on.) I’m fine with having Muslims do their own thing in their own living spaces. The problem is that the usual suspects have opened the borders of our own living spaces to bring the “let’s you and him fight” dynamic right onto our doorstep. Muslim immigrants (especially in Europe) have proven to be yet another truculent minority that has unacceptable habits of consuming welfare, breeding like bunny rabbits, mistreating our women, street crime, terrorism, and acting like they own the place. The only way to deal with them is at arm’s length, which means they go back to their living spaces, and we stop picking fights over there for the neocons.
:)..
Firstly, Jews systematically and methodically destroyed White gentile societies. One doesn’t ‘reach out out to’ those who have repeatedly betrayed their benefactors (gentiles). They have produced financial criminals, women traffickers, pornographers, cultural corruptors, political manipulators, and people who have always considered it their moral duty to break the racial/ethnic solidarity of their hosts through placing gentile trojan horses among the majority host populations.
And remember they did all this not surreptitiously but openly in the name of ‘personal freedom’, ’emancipation from the shackles of tradition’, ‘liberty’ and other such nonsense. They wrapped their degeneracy in the garb of respectability.
Secondly, I think an analysis of the immigration pandemic in Europe and other territories of majority European stock like USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. should be racial/ethnic and not religious, because the issue is not Islam vs the West but Whites VS those who want to deny/destroy/replace them.
Jews have cleverly sold this Islam vs West canard to keep the racial angle out of focus. And much of the gentile Whites have been buying it for years.
Does it benefit the Whites when some unhinged de Sade screech that it’s his ‘universal right’ to pour vitriol on a particular faith?
Who suffers the most from the resultant chaos?
And who comes forward with alacrity to defend the values of a ‘Judeo-Christian’ (((Western civilization)))? Recollect the ‘Republican marches’ of January 2015.
Lastly, the dissidents are always on firm ground when they keep it racial. The moment one brings faith into it, he/she leaves the material, biological domain and jumps onto the metaphysical one, thereby, unconsciously sabotaging his/her hitherto formidable battle-front.
I do not see Arabs and Palestinians as our friends and allies in any real or lasting sense. Fanatical or what is really normative Islam has tried several times throughout history to destroy the Christian West. Both Jews and Arabs stand against White Europeans and Heritage Americans for both racial and religious reasons (the Jews, admittedly, more so).
Yet, at the same time, I think you’ve made some very insightful points. I see the wisdom of dissident and ‘normie’ Whites supporting the Palestinian cause mainly because it agitates Israel, and causes problems for them. I want the Palestinians weaponized against Jews just as Jews have weaponized Blacks and Browns against White people in America and Europe. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
There is strategic wisdom in forming limited alliances with Muslims (preferably secular ones) against Israel. If racially-aware Whites in fact engage in such alliances, you can bet that Jews in America will even more target our people with the most draconian laws. But so what? They already hate us to the extreme, and work night and day to racially and culturally displace us. This is war, and we ought to see it as such.
I no longer see ‘radical Islam’ as our greatest threat (although I don’t necessarily see them as benign either). Israel and the Jews have managed to now persuade me that they are our principle agitators and greatest threat. How could it otherwise when one fairly looks at the evidence?
I prefer that White countries leave the Middle East alone in terms of trying to make Islamic countries democracies or to adhere to western standards of morality. We need to stop interfering and leave them the hell alone! At the same time, Whites need to protect what is theirs and stop all Muslim immigration into our countries. Walls make peaceful neighbors.
Trying to get ‘normie’ Whites to see Israel and the Jews as a deeply-rooted and subversive enemy will prove to be quite the challenge. The deception runs deep among our people, and they have been conditioned for the past 20 years since 9-1-1 to especially view Israel as ‘our greatest ally’ and Muslims as our greatest threat. They have no awareness in the least that our hostility with Muslims is due, in large part, to our constant interference in Muslim nations, not to mention our endless proxy wars on behalf of Israel.
As advocates for Black supremacy in America like to say, ‘There’s still a lot of work to do.’
They Dare To Speak Out was a real eye-opener. Equally great was Deliberate Deceptions, his 1993 follow up book.
I’m a Christian Arab (non-Israeli) and I disagree with the reviewer’s conclusions. I understand his (and Findlay’s) frustration with the powerful influence of the Israeli lobby in the United States. For any country to have to kowtow to a foreign lobby wielding so much power is humiliating and poses problems, understandably. However, to jump from that fact immediately to the conclusion that the entire US-Israel alliance should be sacrificed is irrational and ill-advised: it is like someone in a disadvantaged situation who suddenly wakes up to his condition, and instead of intelligently working to improve his standing, decides to burn down everything, without careful consideration of both long and short-term strategic goals. By doing so, he proves exactly to be weak, and fixes nothing.
Even if we concede that Americans are currently getting a bad deal from their partnership with Israel, becoming anti-Israel is not necessarily a solution to that. It could, for instance, be more advantageous to fix and normalize that relation, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The solution to unilateral and asymmetrical Israelophilia in the West should not be anti-Zionism and political Islamophilia.
I cannot speak to Findlay’s book, but some of the reviewer’s statements in his conclusion are misinformed and misleading. I’ll just point out a few:
– “The main driver of hostility between Americans and Arabs from the Levant is not anything any American or Arab is doing. It is caused entirely by Israeli actions and diaspora Jews residing in the United States.” — Muslim anti-Western sentiments by far predate the foundation of Israel, or even the birth of Zionism. One doesn’t need to subscribe to Huntington’s thesis of a clash of civilizations, or even to go as far back as the crusades, to understand anti-Western sentiment in Muslim countries: it is rooted in the humiliating realization of their weakness and technological, social, and material backwardness—after nearly a millennium of cultural and scientific dominance—in the face of modern European imperialism (Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt is a landmark). To pin entirely the hostility between Americans and Arabs on Israel is therefore misleading. The Israel issue is merely a compounding factor, not its source.
Even more ridiculous is this statement: “Next, a peaceful Palestine means an end to refugee flows from that region.” — Palestinians constitute a negligible percentage of refugees to Europe from the Middle East. The claim that Israeli-Palestinian conflict is responsible for the flow of Middle Eastern refugees to the West is simply unfounded.
Finally, to suggest that, without Israel, Arabs in the region would live prosperously and peacefully is a typical Arab argument which merely reflects an unfortunate tendency within Middle Eastern societies always to lay blame on others (“the colonizer,” “the West,” “Zionism,” etc.) as a way of shirking responsibility for their own failures (to be fair, scapegoating is a universal phenomenon, but is exaggerated in the Middle East).
Israel has made great strides in recent years toward normalizing relations with its Arab neighbors, e.g. the Gulf countries, Egypt, etc. There is no eternal law which says that Israel and neighboring Arab countries cannot co-exist peacefully and prosperously.
To be sure, Israel is an aggressor, but the Palestinians, through repeated miscalculation and incompetence, fueled and justified that aggression every time they tried to obliterate the Jewish state: in 1967, 1948, and earlier. To this day, the so-called pro-Palestinian faction does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, and is hellbent on wiping Israel and its people off the map. Say, if you were Israeli, and engaged in a permanent existential struggle as a member of your nation, wouldn’t you do anything to enlist foreign support to your cause, including by lobbying foreign states? For any nationalist, I would think, there’s something admirable about Israeli patriotism—its steadfastness, resolve, resourcefulness. However, when it becomes overzealous, overbearing, and appears to hold too great an influence abroad, this can sometimes backfire. Hence, Findlay’s reaction. But the solution to that problem is not cutting all ties, but redefining the proper boundaries and the terms of this relation.
There’s also this: the so-called Palestinian cause is politically and ideologically tied to pro-Arabism and Sunni supremacy, and therefore undermines local nationalist causes (notably the Lebanese one), and contributes to the increasingly dwindling and endangered Christian presence in the Middle East. This is something most white nationalists fail to realize: their anti-Zionism, immediately translated into support for Iran/Palestine, comes at the cost of the presence and dignity of the millennial Christian presence in the region, with its long-standing cultural, religious, and political ties to the West. Although they have nothing to do with American “Christian Zionists,” Christians from the Levant—provided they have not been brainwashed by leftism—usually have very reserved feelings about the so-called Palestine cause. Do you think Rashida Tlaib cares about the fate and treatment of Christians in Palestine and the region? The same people who today are stomping their feet with righteous indignation against “Zionist colonialism” at the Aqsa mosque are, by and large, those who, only last summer, jubilated when Hagia Sophia was turned into a mosque. Did Rashida Tlaib et co. tearfully tweet about the latter incident, decry Turkish colonialism, etc.? Why should Christians support a cause which, at best, does not care in the least for them, and at worst, seeks to replace them?
Finally, the convergence of the so-called Palestinian cause with BLM is not an accident: both have roots in ideologies/movements of anti-colonial struggle, etc. The two cannot be easily uncoupled; to oppose one is to oppose the other, both ideologically and, increasingly, politically—at least for the foreseeable future.
…it is rooted in the humiliating realization of their weakness and technological, social, and material backwardness—after nearly a millennium of cultural and scientific dominance—in the face of modern European imperialism (Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt is a landmark).
222 years after Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign, Egypt is still Egypt but is France really France?
My point was simply that Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt, like subsequent European colonialism in the lands of Islam, was experienced as a humiliation by the umma—it scarred the Muslim psyche. 222 years ago mass migration was not an issue in Europe, and no one could have foreseen it would be. But putting that consideration aside, 222 years after Napoleon’s campaign, France’s GDP is 9 times that of Egypt, even though Egypt’s population is almost double the size of France’s. 222 years later, Europe is still a leading innovator in technology, whereas the Arab world—including its richest countries—is almost exclusively a consumer of new inventions. Can you cite one major Arab invention in any field in the last two or three centuries? It’s been a stale and stagnant world for a long time—hence its frustration and resentment against the West. Who knows, that might change this century, like China in recent times.
Ultimately, the differential that matters, and would always matter, is metaphysical/metapolitical/spiritual not material.
Now, on that scale, the Occident has been ‘a stale and stagnant world for a long time‘. If it had been on the contrary, we wouldn’t be conversing on a platform like this.
The separation between “metapolitics,” on the one hand, and the economic and the material, on the other, is an illusion. The question of race is eminently a material (if not strictly biological) question. As is the question of demographics. It is the material wealth and social advantages of Western countries that drives the flux of non-white immigrants. To address the historical dynamics between the West and Islam without recognizing the economic and material angle is empty verbiage.
As for your second comment, namely that “the Occident has been ‘a stale and stagnant world for a long time’,” I admittedly wouldn’t be as suspicious if your name wasn’t “Muhammad Aryan,” and that your previous comment on this thread did not insinuate that the conflict between Islam and the West is “invented,” as if the two would go together like hand and glove, if it weren’t for those pesky Jews. It’s the all-too-common tune: “West decadent. Islam heroic/Aryan. Now submit to Allah to save West.” No, thanks. Besides, the West, spiritually and metaphysically speaking, has not been “stale and stagnant” at all. If anything, the opposite is true: it’s been metamorphosing at a dizzying speed.
What long term strategic goals of the USA does the alliance with Israel facilitate? I’m just asking, not being polemic. You say that Israel helps Arab Christians who would be gone without it. Were there no Christians in the Middle East before Israel? Wasn’t the guy who shot Robert Kennedy a Palestinian Christian? He must not have felt this to be the case.
I appreciate this article simply for the sake of nostalgia. I recall liking Paul Findlay in the 80s, but had pretty much forgotten him long ago, and would have assumed he was long dead had his name been dredged up in my presence. He did live a very long time; I had no idea he was still active in the past decade. But the mention of his name brings back some happy memories from that happier era (for me and America).
That said, I don’t agree with this author’s conclusions at all, except in the general sense that Israel is a parasite on the US, and our “special relationship” with it is obviously totally one-sided, and in need of termination. That Israel provides no benefits to America does not mean, however, that I possess any sympathy with any Arab people. Does the author have any personal experience with Arabs? One of my uncles, a devout Christian (that is, NOT a heretical “Christian Zionist”), was a career military officer who had extensive experience as an American military advisor to various Arab regimes in the 1960s. His experience was, we would say today, extremely “redpilling”. He basically developed a deep disgust for any Arabs who weren’t Christian. For what it’s worth, he also harbored a lifelong aversion to Jews. I suggest this is the correct stance towards the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both groups are enemies of whites; neither offers anything we need, especially since we’ve attained energy independence (thanks to free markets and white American ingenuity), at least for the moment, though it might be squandered by ecosocialists in the Biden junta allegedly worried about non-existent climate change.
The proper position for whites on Middle Eastern matters is a rigid neutrality focused solely on white American ethnonational interests. Domestically, we should play off the one against the other, threatening to cut off aid to Israel unless there is Jewish support for immigration curtailment; fomenting trouble between CAIR and ADL; etc.
I respectfully disagree.
White nationalists should fully back Arab Nationalist struggles against Zionists and their agents.
Vehemently condemning Ashkenazi theft of Arab land doesn’t hurt the cause of White Nationalism.
Why should there be any ‘neutrality‘ when it’s the Jews and their gentile shills not Arabs who leave no stone unturned to deny the Whites any racial/ethnic solidarity in White majority territories?
Notwithstanding the other problematic aspects of this comparison and given the fact that Arabs are not even 1% of US population of which majority are Christians, are you seriously suggesting that ADL and CAIR are equally destructive and resourceful against a White man in America?
Israel is a criminal base of Zionists from where they send and manage various Jonathan Pollards operating in gentile lands. Incidentally, did an Arab ever declare openly that Arabs living in foreign countries should spy on their hosts?
Israel, an Ashkenazi encroachment, should receive nothing but vitriol from White nationalists/nativists.
After massive, documented Jewish subversion of White countries through cultural degeneracy and the deployment of other colored minorities against majority Whites, I think White self-respect demands that there should be NO prevarication on the Israeli/Jewish question.
I totally agree. Both Jews and Muslims should not be seen as our ‘friends’ or ‘allies’ in any meaningful sense. We must remain on guard against both of these tribal sand dwellers. This doesn’t mean we have to engage in world-wide anti-Islamic campaigns nor call for the death of Jews or anything that extreme. We just need to have a hands-off policy when it comes to these groups (meaning, not entangling ourselves in foreign squabbles), and forbid any foothold or influences they might have when it comes to our political and social policies.
It’s aggravating how both Jews and Muslims have managed to have such wide influences and say over our people and nations. Our demise would not have occurred had we kept Jews and middle easterners out of our lands. We don’t need them, but they sure as hell need us.
Rockaboatus and Lord Shang:
Well said.
They need us, we don’t need them. We must remain focused on what’s best for European whites.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
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.