A widespread debate made the rounds of the broader Dissident Right some time ago on the subject of whether the primary enemy grouping should be called ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) or a new term, originating from the MAGA and post-MAGA space. The new term was GAE (pronounced “gay”): Globalist American Empire.
The divide was as predictable as it was tiresome. Commentators who minimize the enemy’s Jewish and Zionist character strongly favored GAE. Pro-Russian commentators, ever willing to demonize America and Anglo-Saxon peoples in general, merrily jumped on the GAE bandwagon. Non-white and non-racialist commentators whose primary gripe with the modern West is its “degeneracy” or its promotion of the LGBT agenda strongly favored GAE. ZOG, meanwhile, remained the mainstay of the committed anti-Semites, counter-Semites, the Jew-aware white identitarians and nationalists, as well as of the enemies of multiracial society more generally.
To call GAE dead on arrival would be an understatement on just how badly it performed. Even though it came out of the edgy post-MAGA sphere which attempts to usurp that part of the political spectrum which is to the right of MAGA, where the American nationalists are, it was soundly rejected by American nationalists. Even though there was much pleading that the “America” being denounced in the GAE acronym was the imperial entity in Washington rather than the Historical American Nation (a very poorly-chosen term, as far as acronyms go), these pleas fell on deaf ears. And indeed, if I were an American nationalist, I wouldn’t want America insulted. If we want to differentiate ourselves from the American nation, then ZOG, implying an occupation by a foreign or foreign-loving element, is a far superior and clearer term. The nation of America is under an occupation government. Their actions are not our own. Their ideology, Zionism, is not our own (American nationalism). They are not us, after a fashion.
The response by GAE’s proponents was nothing short of libtarded. They immediately began accusing those who defended the term ZOG of being “obsessed with the Jews,” “basement-dwelling incels,” “low-IQ wignats,” and other choice terms used by deradicalization agents to mount a psychological attack against a person’s self-perceived status in society. Accusations of mental instability followed these usual insults and attacks, blaming the recipient of being paranoid and “lumping all Jews into the enemy category.”
The tricks and deceptions of deradicalization agents and weak-willed cowards who nevertheless want to dip their toes into radical politics are nothing new for regular readers of Counter-Currents, but in observing the term ZOG and the response it generates provides a teachable moment. Allow me to conduct a little exploration of this concept of the Zionist Occupation Government.
When I made the case for ZOG, I was accused of being “obsessed with Jews.” Now, I’m sure many of you have encountered that accusation in the past and know how to defend against it. The problem I want to spotlight here is that in order to have a Zionist Occupation Government, there needn’t be any Jews in the government or even involved at all. The problem which the term ZOG points to in describing our enemies isn’t that the American government is full of Jews (not to imply that it isn’t), but that it is full of Zionists. Call me a stickler for precise language, but a Jew is not the same as a Zionist. Jews are a people, an ethnic and biological category. One doesn’t become, but rather is born, a Jew. Zionism, on the other hand, is an ideological disposition; it is Jewish, or more precisely Israeli, nationalism — the belief that the Jews should have their own state in the area which was historically the kingdoms of Judea and Samaria, with Jerusalem as its capital. It is a view held by many, but not only by Jews. Crucially, the majority of Zionists on this planet are not Jews. Rather, they are for the most part white gentiles. And lo and behold, the governments of the white nations of the world are full of them.
Okay, so some governments are full of Zionists, some of whom are Jews. Fair enough, but that doesn’t make said government ZOG. In fact, it is possible that while everyone in a certain organization is privately Zionist, the organization itself isn’t Zionist because it doesn’t work toward the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state in what is today called Israel. Indeed, even if a government were Zionist, in the sense that it supported and worked towards maintaining a Jewish state in Israel, it would only be a Zionist Government. To get the full ZOG designation, a government has to be full of Zionists, working towards Zionism’s political ends and, indeed, working towards its ends to the detriment of the native population it rules over. This detriment must exceed a certain threshold which brings such a government to the point that it cannot be considered a legitimate government, but rather an occupation government. In short, a Zionist Occupied Government is a government that bleeds and pauperizes the people it rules over, destroys the state it administers, and erodes its strength and prestige, all for the propagation of the Zionist project. Naturally, the term also implies a moral condemnation, given that a zeroth assumption inherent in every polity is that it will put its natives first, and that even when it does help other states for a variety of reasons, it does not do so to the extent that it imperils its own population. I therefore believe ZOG to be an excellent description of the American government, as well as of the governments of many other Western nations. They all put Israel first, even ahead of their own security and economic considerations.
We can argue all day about the exact proportion of Jews to gentiles in the West’s various governments, but it is irrelevant. The far greater problem than Jews in the government is the fact of white gentile judeophilia and judeolatry. Indeed, how else could Jews enter these institutions, which were founded by white people, and find themselves at home in them — even to the point of rendering their own nationalist ideology the state’s defining ideology — if the white gentiles who staff these institutions aren’t welcoming them, or at least indifferent to their national origin? In the context of historic anti-Semitism, this would have kept them out. They didn’t all change their names from Goldstein to Jones and then sneak through the gates (in fact, few probably did). No, they were let in by white people who were either blinded by ideas of meritocracy or judeophilia.
Judeophilia and white Zionism, specifically the kind of white Zionism that occurs at the highest levels of government and props up Israel at the expense of white nations, is just one of the many symptoms of what historians of the future will probably call the White People Disease: the absence or loss of the ability to conceive of a categorical outsider, a foreigner, or a man “not of our tribe” without first running the friend-enemy calculus through a moral lens. When an earnest white liberal thinks of “the other,” he imagines some cruel reactionary bully: a caricature of a bigoted Baptist preacher, or a skinhead beating up helpless blacks. When a conservative conceives of the “other,” he imagines an effete, lazy rich kid looking for handouts, or a cruel Communist bully, someone who’ll take away his freedom and prosperity, most likely in order to feed the lazy rich kid. In both cases, the other is more often than not someone of his own ethnic category. Both will willingly embrace a racial outsider if he mouths the correct moral platitudes.
The Jew, in this sense, stands as the absolute Other with regard to the white man. This is not because he’s been “otherized” or made into the “other” through the magic of Orientalism, but rather because he is almost diametrically opposed to the white man in the sociopolitical sense. The Jew does not consider morality a binding political and social identity, but rather relies on blood, joint membership in a tribe, and an ethnic category to form his political and social identity.
White people, surviving the harsh European winters as we did, evolved in an environment where sin was equivalent to death. In the dead of winter, he who steals from his neighbor kills his neighbor, and he who hoards and does not share with the tribe kills the entire tribe. Those of us who were morally lax, and those tribes which did not punish moral laxity, have all died out. Those of us who survived and were selected in the cruel Darwinian game are those who are both morally upright and willing to enforce moral uprightness, often at the cost of our direct kin.
Contrast this with the much milder Levant, where success or failure depended on the willingness to cohere together as a clan, regardless of what an individual had done. To a Jew, a Jewish criminal and lowlife is first and foremost a Jew, “one of us,” and no matter how deserving of punishment he may be, the goyim — the outsiders — must not be allowed to pass judgement on him. To white people, white criminals are the outsider, however, and an upright and law-abiding foreigner — whether Jewish, black, or brown — is part of the in-group. A social situation where whites and Jews coexist asymmetrically favors the Jews, who will always cooperate with each other, whereas the whites will cooperate with anyone to exclude those they deem to be moral outsiders, including and especially white people.
Many white identitarians have a sort of morbid admiration for the Jews, wishing that white people were more like them in the sense that we would be willing to put ethnicity and race first, before all other considerations. No amount of wishful thinking is going to reprogram the white man, however, given that he is a socially and politically moral animal. Rather, white identitarians must construct a moral paradigm which condemns out-group preference and prescribes in-group preference. It is nigh impossible for white people to “simply favor their own”; rather, a moral case must be built for our survival and for white-exclusive spaces, both actual and conceptual, as well as for the exclusion of non-whites, including (and especially) Jews. He who turns against other whites must be seen as a criminal and a moral reprobate, worthy of condemnation and exclusion. This is why the term anti-white has gained so much traction, because it is a term of moral condemnation for those who injure white people. It pushes all the right buttons in nice, suburban white women who are galvanized into moralistic outrage against the anti-whites, just as their grandmothers once campaigned against “demon rum.”
For this reason, I still favor the term Zionist Occupied Government. It points to a specific ideology that has to be attacked, and the immoral way in which it is imposed on white people in the West by our very own governments, which are full of Zionists, whether they’re Jewish or not. I once erroneously believed that the term ZOG originated with William Luther Pierce, although it likely predates his activism. Nevertheless, whoever came up with it was either a master of communication or very, very lucky. It contains so much information: political, factual, and most crucially, moral. It is one of those info-dense phrases which can communicate more than hundreds of thousands of paragraphs of heady philosophy. When the history of this movement is written from the standpoint of victory, the invention of this term will probably be considered one of our most important achievements.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 554 How Often Does Pox Think About the Roman Empire? . . . & Other Matters
White Altruism Revealed
The Matter with Concrete, Part 2
The Matter with Concrete, Part 1
Crowdsourcing Contest! Our Banner
The Captivity Narrative of Fanny Kelly
Race and IQ Differences: An Interview with Arthur Jensen, Part 2
The Unnecessary War