Counter-Plugging the Ramadan Riots

Posted By Spencer J. Quinn On In North American New Right | Comments Disabled

[1]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” [2] 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 [3].

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 [4] 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 [5] 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 [6]. And Bernie Sanders, in 2019, promised to “go to war against white nationalism and racism.” [7] 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 [8] 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.

[9]

You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s novel Charity’s Blade here. [10]

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 [11] 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 [12], browns [13], and aboriginals [14] 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 [15]. 

Diaskrieg: Focusing on reversing the influence of diaspora Jews (more specifically, Liberal Diaspora Jews, or LDJs, as I have referred to them before [16]) 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.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here: