2,161 words
Ever have one of those moments that make you question everything? Sometimes things get so confusing that up seems like down, day seems like night, and you find yourself revisiting some of your most fundamental principles. Of course, I’m talking about the Jewish Question. Nothing ties contradictions into ugly little bows better than the Jewish Question.
Philip Giraldi’s Unz article “Rampaging Israeli Settlers” makes a great case in point. In it, Giraldi sheds light on some nasty, violent, and unabashedly bigoted behavior on the part of certain Israelis, many of whom are part of the Right-wing, anti-miscegenation group Lehava. Hundreds of them reportedly stormed through Jerusalem on April 22, attacking Palestinians and chanting “Death to Arabs!” Giraldi describes how they had the support of the Israeli police and military who fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and “skunk water” at the Palestinians (as well as at Left-wing Israeli counter-protestors). The Israelis reportedly pushed through the counter-protestors and entered the Palestinian neighborhood Sheikh Jarrah where they attacked homes and slashed automobile tires.
105 Palestinians received injuries with twenty-two having extended stays in the hospital. Giraldi cites “unconfirmed reports” that at least four Arabs died in the violence. According to Giraldi, right-wing Israeli lawmaker Itamar Ben-Gvir (a protégé of Meir Kahane) had sent a message to the settlers, urging them to “hang Arabs.” Also according to Giraldi:
Lehava claimed it was only avenging alleged attacks on Jews by Palestinians in and around Jerusalem, but most reports indicated that recent violence was instead caused by small groups of Jewish teenage boys looking for trouble.
By teenage boys, I believe Giraldi was referring to the Purim riots from this past March. (I could not find corroborating sources for his previous two claims.)
Apparently, this stage of the Israeli-Palestinian unrest started on April 13, when Israeli police had prevented Palestinians from gathering outside of Damascus Gate during Ramadan. This sparked clashes with the police as well as Palestinian attacks upon ultra-Orthodox Jews, hence the Right-wing outrage. Curiously, this US News article is more evenhanded than Giraldi’s, stating that Israeli police had mainly tried to keep the Israelis and Palestinian apart and had sprayed both groups with skunk water. It also mentions how Ben-Gvir had stated that he opposed the anti-Arab chanting. Most importantly, it describes how Palestinian youths had antagonized the police during the riot by hurling firecrackers at them and setting fire to trash bins.
So what to make of all this?
I don’t know. I wasn’t there. And I’m not about to start teasing apart this insidious tit-for-tat that has been going on for over a century now. Neither side is innocent, and each side blames the other. Furthermore, when news sources tell you conflicting things, it’s never easy to know what to believe. We can probably all agree, however, that the situation is a mess. When you mix ethnonationalism and religion in a multiracial autoclave like Jerusalem, there’s bound to be conflict.
Beyond this, however, this reaction to the Ramadan riots can be seen as an example of what I call “counter-plugging.” Counter-plugging is simply adhering to the opposite of one’s principles as it applies to one’s enemies. So, in Giraldi’s article, and in some of the articles he cites, the Left is portrayed as either innocent victims or righteous freedom fighters, both in Israel and in the United States. Giraldi states [emphasis mine]:
The attacks took place on April 22nd, ironically the same day that Congressmen Ted Deutch and Michael McCaul released a letter that they had sponsored. The letter was intended to stop dead any consideration that the United States just might condition its billions of dollars in largesse to the Jewish state annually based on Netanyahu and his band of war criminals restraining themselves just a bit.
Such a possibility has been raised by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, along with a handful of other brave legislators, who expressed concern that Israel will act without restraint as long as it knows that its money from Washington will continue to flow.
Brave. Yes, that’s the word I would use to describe these two loathsome hobgoblins of the Left. Lizzie Warren recently sponsored a bill with that rabidly anti-white, bald-headed siren of Progress Ayanna Pressley, which would make racism a public health crisis. And Bernie Sanders, in 2019, promised to “go to war against white nationalism and racism.” It would take more counter-plugging than I could stomach for me to say anything nice about such people.
But Philip Giraldi seems to place greater importance upon countering Jewish control over US foreign policy than upon combating the growing anti-white racism that his “brave” Democrat politicians so enthusiastically support at home. That’s his prerogative, of course. Furthermore, he’s not wrong about the undue influence Jews and Israel have over American politics. The strongest part of his article, in my opinion, was not attempting to embarrass Israel with a one-sided take on the recent misbehavior of some of its more ardent citizens, but in revealing how Israel and AIPAC have pretty much the entire US government bought and paid for. And they use this influence to further their interests, not America’s.
It seems that this is Giraldi’s argument of necessity, whereas exposing Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians is merely an argument of convenience. The Israelis could patch things up with the Palestinians tomorrow and embark upon a thousand years of peaceful co-existence, and as long as they keep bilking the US for billions every year, Giraldi and his Council for the National Interest would still have something to complain about. And they should. It’s a disgrace how much money the United States gives Israel and other countries every year.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s novel Charity’s Blade here.
Meanwhile, Giraldi paints our beloved Right is as villains. Yes, there’s the one swipe at Donald Trump for acting the puppet to his Jewish donors and neocon advisors. But who are the real villains in this case? People who are in the majority, fiercely nationalistic, against miscegenation, and refuse to take any guff from minorities. This about sums up Lehava. And this might remind you of a few other people who shall remain nameless. If you’re having a hard time remembering exactly to whom I am referring, I will pause this essay to give you time to recharge your noggins.
3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
Yes! We are also describing the Dissident Right. If you are a fan of this site and found yourself rooting against Lehava while reading Giraldi’s article, then you are engaging in counter-plugging. Nothing wrong with it. It’s perfectly natural to want one’s enemies to engage in dysgenic behavior while prohibiting such behavior for you and yours. For example, I get demoralized whenever I see feminized or otherwise unmasculine white men, especially young white men. Likewise for masculine or otherwise unfeminine white women. However, whenever I see such types among non-whites, especially blacks, I don’t have a problem with it at all. In fact, nothing would please me more than if homosexuality and transgenderism took off even more among the non-whites in the West.
Dysgenics for thee, but not for me.
I can’t help it. It’s how I feel.
Counter-plugging concerns me, however. First of all, there is the old Russian saying: Beware digging a trap for your enemy, lest you fall in it yourself. Secondly, do my principles (excuse me, “muh principles”) amount to anything at all if I counter-plug? Maybe it’s mighty white of me to say this, but I would like to think that my principles are universal. Racial differences are real. Ethnocentrism is real. Furthermore, despite how some races bring higher levels of civilization than others, all races prefer their own kind of civilization. Given these indisputable facts, it follows that the most successful political systems will be as racially homogeneous as possible. In the absence of this — that is, in cases where different races are forced to coexist — it would be rational to support the side that brings the higher level of civilization. For thousands of years (and with a few exceptions), this has meant the white side.
While reading Giraldi’s article, I felt a twinge of angst when I realized that Leftists had had similar nits to pick regarding apartheid South Africa or the Jim Crow South years ago. Sure, there were instances in which whites from those places behaved badly against blacks. But both societies were designed to allow whites to defend their racial interests against people who would degrade their civilization if given the power to do so. This is exactly what has happened in both places now that the traditional white power structure has been overturned. Further, the amount of crime and barbarism from blacks during this time has dwarfed the anti-black violence and oppression which preceded it. In my mind, this exonerates the whites, misbehavior and all.
So shouldn’t then the Dissident Right resist the urge to counter-plug and focus on what we have in common with these rampaging Israelis? The Ramadan riot is certainly an instance of bad behavior on the part of Israelis. But all people have instances of bad behavior. And these in particular certainly have more to offer civilization than the Palestinians do, in science, technology, medicine, culture, you name it. Wouldn’t we be acting like base hypocrites if we opposed ethnonationalism and anti-miscegenation for Jews in Israel while supporting it for whites in the West?
These are all reasonable points. The problem is that people usually aren’t terribly reasonable. Most people (or peoples) will try to have their cake and eat it too. Israeli Jews are not going to shed many tears over the plight of whites in America and Europe regardless of how nationalistic or ethnocentric they are. They never have and they probably never will. What we have in common with them in terms of principles and worldview means little. Jews have shown that as a diaspora they swing hard Left, and in Israel, they swing hard Right. They don’t typically have a problem with this inconsistency, and the ones that do are small enough in number not to matter.
As for counter-plugging, Jews are the heavyweight champions of that, condemning whites whenever they express the same racial identity that they themselves express all the time. When faced with an enemy like this, why should white dissidents care about consistency? Why shouldn’t we counter-plug when it is convenient for us to do so, especially if it hurts the people who constantly counter-plug against us?
This brings to mind my dichotomy of Demoskrieg and Diaskrieg which are mutually exclusive tactics for dealing with the Jewish Question. Each functions within a completely different paradigm and makes different fundamental assumptions about the nature of the ancient struggle between Jews and whites. For demoskrieg, the struggle is primarily racial — Jews versus whites — and transcends national boundaries. For diaskrieg, the struggle is primary ideological — nationalism versus globalism — and transcends racial boundaries.
Here’s how I initially described it.
Demoskrieg: Engaging Jews with the same weapons with which they engage whites. In this case, “weapons” refers to the reliable Jewish tactic of using blacks, browns, and aboriginals as weapons against white civilization. It also refers to its more recent flipside: the white gentile tactic of using the Palestinians as an excuse to condemn Israel.
Diaskrieg: Focusing on reversing the influence of diaspora Jews (more specifically, Liberal Diaspora Jews, or LDJs, as I have referred to them before) and deliberately limiting attacks on Israel, thereby giving Jews a convenient out should whites ever convince them to beat a retreat from traditionally white homelands.
By using their mistreatment of the Palestinians as a means to reduce their influence over American foreign policy, Philip Giraldi is clearly waging demoskrieg against the Jews. I find this distasteful, since in doing so, he demonizes the Right. I also find his approach dishonest since he shares only that information — confirmed or unconfirmed — which supports his anti-Israel agenda, and ignores the rest. However, since this is exactly what the Jewish diaspora does to whites in the West (and have been doing for over a century) and since Jewish nationalists in Israel will not lift a finger to stop them, I can only boost Giraldi in his efforts. Jews insist on waging demoskrieg upon whites. So demoskrieg it will be. Thank you, Philip Giraldi. Please tell us more about these rampaging Israelis.
I don’t like it, but I like the alternative — that is, trying to forge an alliance with nationalist Jews and failing — even less.
* * *
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:
14 comments
Pardon my insolence, but I have not a shred of concern in the least for either Israelis or Palestinians. I cannot fathom the message in your post. They are both nothing other than Semitic tribes whose hatred for each other goes back millennia. They add nothing to the planet but continual disturbances and incessant whining — “He hit me first!” — like 6-year-0lds in a schoolyard.
I found this argument, while raising good points, a bit tendentious. White conflict with blacks and other nonwhites in the US and Africa is different from the Arab Israeli conflict. White nationalists do not want to harm or ethnically cleanse blacks and other races. We want to maintain a white supermajority civilization and be at least fair to our own people by doing away with genocidal policies like affirmative action and open boarders immigration. We(most of us) don’t want to put blacks in open air concentration camps and slowly strangle them for resources. Diplomatically, South Africa and Rhodesia were grouped with israel, but I’ve always felt this was unfair to white African countries. Blacks struggled to enter South Africa even during apartheid. The economics were better. Life for blacks under white rule has always been better, even under apartheid and segregation which were not that harmful to blacks and were effective arrangements based upon group differences which benefited both races. The Palestinians are marginalized under the Israelis and they were ethnically cleansed from their homeland to begin with. Palestinian and Israeli iq is similar. Ashkenazi Jews, a European group, are the ones with high iq and their work was mostly done in Europe Russia or America when they have immigrated to Israel. White nationalist ethnocentrism vs Israeli ethnocentrism is the difference between a responsible imbibing of wine and alcoholism.
One more layer is all the efforts to make fun of that, such as the “open borders for Israel” meme, and of course anti-racist Hitler:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/dBfI0J0cEqIK/
Dare I say, a “brave” essay?
I like your “counter-plugging” term. There’s indeed somewhat of a parallel between Lehava and the dissident right whether a lot of dissidents want to admit so or not. Lehava are staunch Jewish nationalists and identitarians. The temptation for dissident right folks to counter-plug stems from a disdain of Jews. You think Mike Enoch and other podcasters like him actually care about the Palestinians?
And yes, Jews have god-tier counter-plugging. I know a jignat who lives in a settlement and is very vocal in being anti-Trump, praises RBG and at the same time votes for the Kahanist parties in Israel.
There’s indeed somewhat of a parallel between Lehava and the dissident right whether a lot of dissidents want to admit so or not. Lehava are staunch Jewish nationalists and identitarians.
There is/should be NO parallels between White Nationalism and these Ashkenazi scum who have been arriving from the Occident to steal Palestinian Arab land for the last eight decades. The former is a perfectly justified and moral struggle for an honorable separation whereas the latter is a band of pampered and overindulged riffraff who have the international media brigades at their back to manipulate the narrative on their behalf. They receive diplomatic/material support from shameless globalist White gentiles.
Whites would be well advised to stay out of this matter. Save your blood and energy and don’t spill it for the Pharisee trash. Enough of that has already been sacrificed for the Netanyahus and Cohens of the world.
“A band of pampered and overindulged riffraff”
I spit out my wine reading that! I worked for nearly 25 years around Ashkenazi Jews in the entertainment and arts fields and this is the best description of them I’ve ever read.
I don’t mean to be petty and I know it’s a bit off topic from the point of the essay, but I want to say that I just don’t see the mythical 115++ IQ that is supposed to be so common. They do have above average intelligence (and plenty of arrogance and some aggression), but I just don’t see the 115++ IQ, unless it’s in the real sciences people are talking about. I’ve never known a physicist so I can’t speak to that. Physicists are way out of my social circle and way above my IQ.
Riffraff. That’s great. I’ve known one or two gems, but most of them are the stereotype.
As far as the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I’m with Alexandra on this one (her comment above). I don’t give a s—-, either.
What it is with right-wingers constantly sucking up to Israelis? Anytime anyone throws a punch that lands, these right-wingers always start wanting to hold back. It is as if they don’t want to win.
The line from the Old Testament that God will “curse those that curse Israel and bless those that bless Israel.” I have been taught that for years and it actually causes my stomach upset to now understand that the Jews hate us and want us destroyed by the most vicious means. Reconciling those things in my heart is actually a terrible burden.
First, the Old Testament does not say that, that is a misquote. Second I was referring to the author:
“deliberately limiting attacks on Israel”
Why the hell would anyone want to do that? Other than as a cowardly “dissident right” form of status signaling. My opposition to those people is not “strategic” it is serious.
These are the most deadly enemy, there is no “limiting attacks” on them by any serious person. The people who trot out the line “give your enemies a means of escape” are just doing that status signaling, as if they are “clever tacticians” which they are most certainly not.
The Right always loses to these enemies and has for at least 100 years. Maybe the problem is that the Right is simply not a viable vehicle for our survival.
Some of the critical comments here are off-base. Spencer Quinn is more subtle in his thinking than he is being credited. Still, he has only himself to blame on this one, as the article itself is perhaps not his most articulate.
The only racial thing that should ever matter to a white man is, is X or Y or Z good for whites? For a Christian, XYZ must further conform to that morality derived from Christian theology. So aggressing against innocent racial Others would not be permitted. Other than eschewing clear violations of moral law (I’m again speaking here as a hypothetical Christian) like theft, rape, enslavement or extermination, however, whites in their dealings with or thinking about other races should always pursue maximum advantage for our race.
WRT the interminable and unimportant Israeli/Palestinian conflict, my belief is that there is no benefit to our wasting a single quantum of energy even examining this topic. We owe nothing to either of these alien peoples, just as we are not charged with working for peace between India and Pakistan (except to the extent that the whole world has an interest in peace between these two nuclear powers). All US foreign aid (aka backdoor subsidies to certain politically favored US exporters) should be terminated. American energy independence, achieved by Trump, and now jeopardized by the awful Biden Admin, must remain a priority. With it, we can exit the Middle East altogether, and should.
“Counter-plugging” (could there be a better term, one more self-evident in meaning?) is perfectly justifiable against alien races, perhaps all of them, but undeniably those who themselves are waging various forms of constant, sub-military warfare against whites and our legitimate racial interests. I don’t think it would be ethical (again, for a Christian; I don’t believe in ethics for atheists, at least outside the moral boundaries of tribe or race) to encourage nonwhites to, say, poison themselves (by our pretending something deadly is actually healthy). But even as a Christian I would hold that we are under no obligation affirmatively to help alien races (rather, we merely must not hurt them, unless in reasonable self-defense) – and this includes helping them avoid making the same ideological, political and social mistakes that our own race traitors (and stupid or weak ancestors) have forced upon us.
Thus, eg, even as we work to increase global white fertility, we should be doing all we can to encourage family size limitations among nonwhites (which ultimately can even be construed as altruistic, given the ecological damage nonwhites do to the planet). If I were President, I would therefore do all I could to promote feminism among nonwhites globally (as raising the legal status of women has proven to be the very best means of reducing fertility), even though I totally oppose feminism on principle (and esp among whites). I believe this is what Spencer means by “counter-plugging”. Another example would be to encourage gay rights among nonwhites, as that, too, will reduce their fertility. We should encourage sectarianism among Muslims (let Shia and Sunni butcher each other as much as possible; it lessens their threats to us). Likewise, we should support human rights in Tibet and Hong Kong (the right thing to do anyway, in this case, but action which also weakens our racial and civilization enemy in Beijing).
Indeed, for those of you who are really advanced thinkers … do we really want more blacks “acting white” (as blacks themselves castigate proper behavior)? Who is more dangerous to white interests: “West Side Willie”, or Barack Obama?
Interesting comments, all. Some things I need to address here:
My intent was to make Philip Giraldi’s argument as weak as possible, and then demonstrate that it still has justice and is preferable to the alternative. Until about 6-7 years ago, I had a very philo-Semitic neocon perspective (which began to be cured after reading the Culture of Critique). I *wish* had been exposed to an article like this one years ago, because it would have spoken to me and people like me. In other words, I don’t make an a priori argument for counter-plugging Israel (like many of us do). Instead, I take a more a posteriori approach, in the hopes to convince potential dissidents who are still hampered by a pro-Israeli bias. I would hope that more than the dissident right chorus reads Counter-Currents.
Thank you for appreciating the term “counter-plugging.” I hope it takes off and people find it useful. I think it describes something very real, and it is something we should be aware of. If there was a second motivation to write this article, it was to unveil this new idea.
Today I am more sympathetic to demoskrieg than I was when I wrote that article back in 2019. However, diaskrieg does make logical sense, in that to focus on diaspora Jews rather than Israel will allow the Jews to have a place to go to once (if) we ever get the will to evict them. This has a historical precedent in the Soviet Union. In any case, the Jews don’t make this kind of distinction when dealing with us, so, again, demoskrieg may be the way to go.
I am noticing a contradiction among some of these comments. People are saying that whites should not insert themselves into the Israel-Palestine conflict and then say counter-plugging the Israelis is a good thing. You can’t have it both ways. Counter-plugging (as Giraldi does) *is* inserting ourselves in this. I just think we should understand we are doing this to counter-plug an enemy, not because our hearts bleed over the Palestinians. Mine doesn’t, because I know that Palestinian hearts don’t bleed for us.
I do see what you mean, but I wanted to point out that our cause is different from the Arab Israeli conflict. We have a guilt in that conflict too because our weapons and influence and money are being used against the Palestinians. They are justified in hating us, in fact. Not we here, of course, but as a polity.
I used to have neocon views too and to listen to Michael savage. They were the only ones in the mainstream who seemed to share opinions with me so my unformed mind assumed they were right about everything! Then in 2008 I read Patrick Buchanan’s book of that date, and within a month I had read and grokked Kevin Macdonald. That was my great red pilling.
Don’t attack the enemy this way because I find it distasteful and it makes “us” look bad. It’s bad optics to attack the enemy where they are weak. Ultimately, it’s a bad idea to win, apparently.
If demonizing the Right it what it takes to win, it’s better than losing. Who needs the Right anyway? What did they ever win? What did they ever accomplish?
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.