Counter-Currents
1,585 words
Translations: Russian, Swedish
Once again, Palestinians and Jews on the shores of the Levant are demonstrating the worst feature of modern warfare: It solves nothing, because it seldom kills the people who are really at fault. In fact, neither side is really trying. Instead, they are gleefully killing innocents, while legions of morally demented bystanders frantically cheer them on.
The reason both sides target civilians is that their goal is ethnic cleansing through terror: Jews want Palestinian land, and Palestinians want Jewish land. Ultimately, the question is: Who has the right, the just claim, to the land? As an ethnonationalist, I believe that both peoples have the right to a land of their own somewhere, as long as it is not the same place, of course. (In my essay “The Autochthony Argument,” I argue that it is more important that every people have a home somewhere than it is for them to have a home on their original territory, which is often impossible.)
When the Ottoman Empire was dismantled, it should have been partitioned into homelands for its constituent peoples: Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Arabs and other Arabic-speaking peoples, and Jews. Of course, this did not happen, because the British and French empires preferred to grab what they could. Thus, everyone had to fight for an independent state. The result has been more than a century of bloody conflict.
If, however, the British and French had partitioned the Ottoman Empire along ethnic lines, the establishment of a Jewish state would have been seen as an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist act rather than the last gasp of European colonialism. (It didn’t help that most Jews who “returned” to Israel came from Europe, not the Ottoman Empire, and were genetically about as European as they were Middle Eastern.)
From an ethnonationalist point of view, the only way for Jews and their Palestinian neighbors to live in peace is for both peoples to have sovereign homelands, which requires settling borders and forever relinquishing claims to one another’s territories. That is what should happen. But it won’t happen anytime soon, because neither side wants that, and the rest of the world enables their continued conflict rather than forces them to bury the hatchet.
So now that we have arrived at the realm of Realpolitik, let’s talk about the current crisis. First, I have to be frank: My sympathy is with the Palestinians, because I, too, feel that I am part of a stateless people under a Jewish occupation regime. (For instance, I am censored on the largest social media platforms because an American Jewish organization, the Anti-Defamation League, thinks that freedom of speech is bad for Jews.) I certainly don’t see the situation as Spencer Quinn does, with the Jews as white settlers and the Palestinians as savage Apaches.
But feelings of sympathy don’t go too far in the world of Realpolitik, because as much as I want a world in which all peoples — Palestinians, Jews, and Americans — live at peace in their own homelands, very few Palestinians or Jews reciprocate such sentiments. This is abundantly clear in the current conflict.
Again, both sides are targeting civilians because they are committed to ethnic cleansing through terror. Where do they want the refugees to go? Both sides are quite candid about this. Jews want to displace 3.5 million Palestinians to Europe and other white countries, and Palestinians want to displace more than seven million Jews to the same destinations. But that’s bad for white people, because all white peoples are already in danger of losing our historic homelands to mass immigration and low fertility.
Why, then, are so many other White Nationalists cheering on the Palestinians?
The founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, believed that diaspora Jews came into conflict with their host populations because they had conflicting values and interests. His solution was to create a Jewish state. If a Jew accepts Herzl’s analysis of the Jewish Question and his proposed solution, he is a Zionist. If a non-Jew like me wholeheartedly agrees with Herzl and wishes Jews the best in their own homeland, he is called an anti-Semite. But conflicts like this make me feel that there is a world of difference between me and fellow White Nationalists who are cheering for the destruction of Israel.
Yes, in the short term, such conflicts can’t help but pull some Jewish manpower away from operations that harm whites, such as agitating against freedom of speech and for open borders. Yes, such conflicts are highly instructive to the general public when they see that the American political establishment is more concerned with Israel’s borders than America’s. Yes, the sudden normalization of bloodthirsty and bellicose nationalism and racial hatred against Palestinians in the mainstream media is also highly educational. But these are trivial boons given what is really at stake.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Trial of Socrates here.
If Hamas has its way, more than seven million Jews will show up in our countries. Does any pro-white person really want that?
Of course, Hamas is not going to get its way. But these attacks raise the likelihood that instead white countries will have to absorb 3.5 million more Palestinians. How can any pro-white person cheer that on?
Of course, Hamas’ cheerleaders aren’t thinking that far ahead. They are just engaged in emotional self-indulgence. Unfortunately, the emotion they are indulging in is self-destructive. They are indulging in spite.
Spite means hating your enemies more than you love yourself. I can’t help thinking that both Hamas and their White Nationalist cheerleaders are in the grip of spite. Pox Populi raises a very good question:
As Israel retaliates against Hamas with “overwhelming force” and the approval of demented Zionists and Zionist toadies, I’m reminded of Machiavelli’s words: “If an injury has to be inflicted on a man, it should be so severe that the man’s vengeance need not be feared.”
I wonder what Hamas thought they would gain from this assault which, while large-scale relative to previous attacks, is still nowhere near a full-scale and debilitating attack. Surely they must have known that Israel would respond with all its fury.
The answer is that Hamas is acting out of spite. They hate their enemies more than they love their own people, so they are eager to harm Jews, even to no earthly benefit. (It helps, of course, that Muslims believe they will be rewarded for suicidal attacks in heaven.)
When one recognizes that it seldom ends well when different peoples occupy the same territory, one has a choice. One can wallow in ethnic hatred or one can seek a solution. My preferred solution is distinct homelands for distinct peoples. Other White Nationalists don’t want Jews to live anywhere because they don’t want them to live. I call them exterminationists. They are highly aroused by the current conflict. But their position is indefensible.
No matter which side in this conflict wins, whites will lose. So if you ask me which side I am on, I am taking my own side, the white side. If white nations had pro-white governments, they would seek to resolve this conflict so that the Jewish and Palestinian diaspora populations on our shores could return to peaceful homelands, rather than grow through endless conflicts — conflicts that always have the possibility of igniting new regional or global wars.
Note
Mike Peinovich of The Right Stuff took it personally when I told a commenter who was playing exterminationist games to “go back to TRS.” He writes: “. . . Greg Johnson accuses me and my site of being exterminationist . . .” Actually, that’s false. I never accused Mike Peinovich of being an exterminationist. Indeed, the platform of his own political party, the National Justice Party, clearly states that Jews could live in an NJP America, as long as their power is limited. Point four of their party platform reads: “We support a two percent ceiling on Jewish employment in vital institutions so that they better represent the ethnic and regional population balance of the country.”
Peinovich goes on to write:
In any case, we do not advocate for anyone’s extermination, we simply do not endorse the view that White Liberation and White political power require us to form an alliance with Zionism. It’s an absurd premise, Jews have their Zionism and Whites are more disempowered than ever. Zionism is the engine of White disempowerment. They don’t need or want any help from us. Why offer it up for free?
This is a straw man. I don’t advocate an “alliance” with Zionism. Nobody makes alliances with powerless commentators on the Internet. I simply acknowledge that Zionism is ethnonationalism applied to Jews. As for the claim that “Zionism is the engine of White disempowerment,” that better describes the behavior of diaspora Jewry, which Zionism was designed to cure.
Peinovich continues:
Nor do we endorse the view that we must have a plan for “what to do with the Jews” before throwing off their power over us. I am not required to make accommodation for my oppressor before breaking his yoke from around my neck. Nor are Palestinians.
First of all, Mike Peinovich does have a plan for the Jews, namely to curtail their power in American society. Secondly, Peinovich is not so busy fighting the Intifada that he can’t take the time to talk about where Jews would go if Israel fell. After all, he is a podcaster. He’s a political commentator. Talk is his business. Indeed, in the time it took to peck out his reply to me, he could have gone on record about what sort of “accommodation” for his “oppressor” he envisions.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else 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. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
113 comments
In this article you said the exterminationist position is indefensible, yet unless I am mistaken everything after that did not say why. It would seem to me that if an ethnos dies out then the challenge of getting it into a single state also goes away.
Are you saying it’s indefensible because it’s practically unworkable (potentially leading to bigger problems), or is it for a theoretical reason (e.g. ethics) that you don’t mention here?
Mass murder is ethically indefensible.
Perhaps the existence of my people matters more than your ethics.
Good luck defending your people as a genocidal maniac.
I’m sure the people in South Africa being butchered by feral negroids egged on by Yiddish Communists have the consolation, as they breathe their final pained and blood-soaked breaths, that at least they didn’t do anything unethical. Because the truly important thing for the future of white people is to make sure that we appear nice.
Remember, fellow white nationalists: we’re working for a future where all the races join hands to sing Kumbaya together, presumably with Rabbi Shekelberg acting as conductor.
If you think morality is just a matter of appearing nice, you might be a sociopath.
A huge number of Jews and their shabbos goyim are openly exterminationist about Palestinians, at least in Gaza. And more than a few of them are exterminationist about Europeans and their diasporas. So I’m not quite sure why it’s “immoral” for us to advocate such a policy towards Jews. Perhaps it’s optically unwise to do so openly but you seem to be taking an absurd moralfagging position here, Greg.
Perhaps a Kumbaya future where Jews renounce their supremacist ideology en masse and forever is possible, but that seems like an unlikely bet, knowing what we do about their history and their present behavior.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
It is idiotic to use words like “moralfagging” unironically.
Agreed. Notice that people cheer leading mass murder of Israelis are the same that defend Russias mass murder of Ukrainians in Donbass and Crimea.
Maybe because both Iran (and its Arabian puppets) and Russia are vassals of Red China, and both conflicts, in Ukraine and in the Near East, are only parts of the Sixth Stratagem (“Make noise in the East, attack in the West” – or vice versa) and camouflage the planned invasion of RoC (Taiwan) by ChinCom.
When we think how much all Western establishments, incl. business, political elites, media and academia are infiltrated by the Chinese and their agents of influence, it possibly can explain much of the attitude of Westerners to both of those conflicts.
Here I would add that the big demos in Spain showed recently the mass support of Spaniards for HAMAS and Palestinians. Of course some would argue that the Spaniards themselves are in big parts of North African origin or that they were 700 years long under Arabian rule, but the demonstrators were mostly neither Arabs nor any other Muslims. And so I have just remembered that the Spaniards since 2014 have demonstrated for “Donbass people”, oppressed by bad and evil Ukrainian “fascists” and that very many people there support also Putin in his new war in Ukraine since 2022. So we can suggest that there are not any racial and religious consideration on their side there, but simply the Leftist attitude which is now mainstream in Europe and that’s why the Europeans are always on the side of some criminals, Russian, Iranian, Black, or Arabian, and also always against any “normal” people, white or not so white. The Spaniards were simply not taught by Senor Franco good enough and now they are badly bitten by the Left. The same could be said also more or less about other West Europeans, however not, of course, about Central/Eastern Europeans, incl. Baltic peoples and Finns, who are the last “normal” in the Old World.
Ahh, but isn’t this merely a “Paretian” old Christian residue? I agree with your ethical position, but that is because a) I was raised Christian, and b) would someday like to become Christian again, provided I can resolve to my satisfaction the various philosophy-of-religion problems that originally led me away from the faith. In the meantime, I mostly hue to the old moral codes, first, because I’m psychologically and culturally oriented towards them, and second, because, in Pascalian fashion, I believe such a course would be pleasing to (and perhaps even required by) God, should He in fact exist.
But if one does not believe in God, what is the meaningful ground of ethics? Eat or be eaten is the primordial law of life. Among animals, there is no ethics – and even that behavior which merely mimics human-understood ethics is limited to genetically similar creatures. Social animals, like chimps and humans, are tribal in nature. Such tribal structures mightily contribute to their members’ reproductive fitness. What imaginative philosophers might characterize as “ethical” behavior within such tribes are instinctively cooperative actions which strengthen the tribe as a whole, or else sanctions against ‘antisocial’ actions which weaken the tribe. Within a naturalistic metaphysics, from whence would be derived inter-tribal ethics?
No, I don’t think the only foundation of ethics is religion. Nor do I think Social Darwinism is a valid moral code. I think it is just post hoc rationalization for criminality. But that’s a conversation for another place.
To me the question of interest is whether there’s a possibility of being morally obligated to accept extinction to avoid committing murder, or to commit murder to avoid extinction, and second, whether we are in fact in such a situation.
If our options truly were murder or extinction, which would be the right course of action? Morals being subjective, I suppose there’s no one right answer. I don’t think we are in such a situation at the moment, though, so the question may be moot.
Please elaborate on your first paragraph. What do you mean by “murder”? Defending oneself – limb and property, and not just life – with lethal force is hardly “murder”. I think what you might be referring to is the morality of killing those of our racial enemies who are causing our passive genocide without actually (yet) actively “genociding” (murdering) us. You are doing as I wish someday to do, if I live long enough, have decent health, and have retired to my study and library: inquiring if we need to expand the moral definition of “war” and “defense” (unless I’ve misinterpreted you).
Your interpretation is right. If somebody is “peacefully” creating conditions that will lead to your extinction, must you be peaceful in response? If murder under the law is your only option to survive, are you morally obligated to refrain and go extinct, or no? Anyway, like most moral thought experiments there is no answer that will satisfy everyone…
I think the question is posed wrong. If it is a choice between killing and dying, then killing is legitimate in self-defense.
it’s the old ‘balloon debate’ isn’t it – are you entitled to push a person who has done you no harm out of the balloon in order to save yourself? – I would actually say no, you are not – unless he starts trying to push you out, in which case you become fully entitled to defend yourself against his unprovoked aggression. I don’t accept the utilitarian position, which would be that it is better for 1 person to perish, rather than 2 – no, there are just some ethical boundaries that you do not ever cross, no matter what the apparent consequences – better that you both die, rather than 1 of you murders the other.
I can’t see Israel falling. I see them as allowing this to happen in order to provide an excuse to rid themselves of the Palestinians. It also gives our own spineless leaders an excuse to start a war with Iran. It’s nothing more than 9/11 2.0. Prepare for another Muslim invasion.
Just like FDR and Pearl Harbor in 1941. “Let the Japanese strike first and we will get our just war.”
I thought that was well put. I think the outcome of Israel/Palestine would be irrelevant to us, except that Americans are highly morally entangled by our material and political support for Israel. But for that it would warrant attention similar to whatever is going on between the Azeris and Armenians. (I have no idea.)
I agree most white nationalists favor the Palestinians over Israelis because they share a common enemy. Their reasoning is like if He-man saw Skeletor fighting She-ra, he would jump in on the side of She-ra without attention to niceties. It’s skeletor for crying out loud! I’m not saying I agree with this; it’s how people think with their guts.
There’s a general principle in history, that, when a totalitarian or impartial power withdraws from a region, there is frequently ethnic conflict between the region’s former inhabitants, brought on by the abrupt change from totalitarian to ethno nationalist politics. The greater power was keeping ethnic rivalries in check, more or less, and the sudden withdrawal is like taking the cork off a champagne bottle. You see it wherever great empires have receded. For example, the stuff that went on in Yugoslavia between the Serbs and Croat’s was brought about by renewedtensions, when the Soviet union withdrew its power from the region. There was a similar ethnic conflict with a lot of killing in the caucus at that time, that’s less well publicized, but it was there. I also imagine the argument that could be made that what’s going on in the Ukraine has similar origins, but outside people stirred it up for personal interests. Similarly, when the British empire left India, they was prolonged and bloody war between the Muslims and Hindus, which resulted in the formation of India and Pakistan, and then, among different stripes of Muslims, which resulted in the formation of Bangladesh. The conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine follows that mold basically. But I have a feeling they would war on each other even if territorial lines have been drawn by the exiting imperial power. It would be interesting for a book on this topic, comparing the different situations of ethnic conflict at different times under imperial powers. It seems like a very repeatable phenomenon. I’m sure somebody’s already written it. A good historian could come up with more examples. We may have something similar to look forward to in the United States, if the Potomac regime cracks up shortly!
Good observations. I was already by the early 90s making the point implicit in your comment: that multiethnicity – and especially, multiracialism – are inimical to individual liberty (something perhaps more important to me than to the average WN), insofar as heterogeneity almost always requires strong central state power to prevent inevitable ethnoterritorial and ethnopolitical conflicts from spiraling into open hostilities. When the Democrats threw open America’s borders to the Third World in 1965 (and only to them: the “Hart-Celler Act” was designed to race-replace white Americans via demographic dilution, as opposed to the more usual ethnic cleansing; if that Act had literally “thrown open the border”, there would have been greater white immigration post-1965; it’s very important for patriots to be clear that the post-1965 Demographic Revolution was NOT “accidental”, as is often claimed, even by restrictionists), they were not only replacing whites; they were also laying the foundations for “identity politics”, POC Democrat bloc- voting, the racial spoils system, and the destruction of our traditional individual liberties.
Not bad for a day’s work!
Nobody wants to see civilians being killed by barbarians, I think that’s clear.
Hamas is acting out of spite and stupidity. The big winners of this conflict are Russia and Iran. Russia wants to deflect attention from Ukraine and Iran wants to sabotage the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, with the implication that Saudi Arabia would obtain full access to advanced technology, including nuclear technology, with the West approval. What Hamas gains out of this is full access to their 72 virgins.
And by the way, did you know that Hamas’ attacks are all Europe’s fault ? That’s according to Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Lior Haiat.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/israel-blames-europe-hamas-attack-antisemitic-propaganda
It’s educational to see the anti European Jewish spite at work in real time.
How much of that are we actually seeing? So far I am reading a lot of real-time spinning of atrocity propaganda alongside some actually documented cases, but much more of the former than the later. “Barbarians” – state actors wage war, non-state actors commit acts of terrorism. The distinction is nearly nil when you consider that state actors also rarely, if ever, actually play by the rules.
I don’t see why either side needs to manufacture atrocity propaganda, when massacring civilians in airstrikes on Gaza or at music festivals is atrocity enough. Or have people become so morally numb that these sort of things don’t seem outrageous?
We aren’t in disagreement, but it exists anyway. For starter, the butchered baby meme has already reared its head once more and there are and will be others.
Whatever take one chooses to have on the latest violence, it’s nonsense to say that the Palestinians (not just Hamas, as other groups cooperated in the attack as well) are simply acting out of spite, or with no clear goals in mind. This attack was carried out for very clear reasons: in response to the siege of Gaza that’s been going on for the last 15 years, in response to increasing Israeli clampdowns at the Temple Mount and elsewhere in recent months, to derail the US-brokered peace deal that was about to be signed between Riyadh and Tel Aviv (and which has worked, at least for now), and last but most important, to show the Israelis once again that the Palestinians can strike inside Israel, despite all their fancy, US-provided security measures.
I disagree strongly. From the new right Identitarian perspective the grievances of the Palestinians are irrelevant. We want both the Palestinians and Israelis to stay in their own countries because that’s what in our interest as Europeans, Americans, etc. Saying that the Palestinians have legit grievances that we ought to put before our own interest as White Identitarians reminds me of Kremlin apologist screaming about how terrorist and Russian invaders in Donbass have legitimate interest that should come before White interest.
Sej: You’re reading things into my words that are not there.
Again: why strike if you have no hope of preventing your opponent from doing worse to you? I don’t doubt that the Palestinians have had many provocations, but striking back is not rational if it will make you worse off.
Well, hamas is not identical with the interests of the Palestinian people is it? Doesn’t hamas originate outside Palestine, and they are thought to have strong connections to Iran. Higher Islamic goals like getting infidels off the sacred soil of Islam may be at work as well, and possibly the geopolitical interests of Iran and other Shia. Muslims in general seem more energized by spiritual offenses than crimes against their people for instance. Their mindset is not identical to ours and seems more magian in character, in the spenglerian sense. Hamas may not be acting entirely in the rational short term interests of the people in Palestine.
You are right about that. Hamas pursues their own agenda while hiding among the Palestinians who absorb some of the blowback. I would like to know what percentage of Palestinians actually support Hamas.
@Greg Johnson
Hamas pursues their own agenda while hiding among the Palestinians…
It doesn’t “hide” among the Palestinians.
It has risen from amongst them in plain sight. Its political faces operate publicly not under the shadows. Of course, its armed wing practices the necessary discretion.
Its deeply-committed members are comprised of men who lost their loved ones to Zionist brutality.
Its “agenda” has been there for all to observe and study.
It is not “Atomwaffen Division” operating from the woods on the weekends.
I would like to know what percentage of Palestinians actually support Hamas.
Numbers can be deceptive, biased or made up for consumption.
On the other hand, a genuine demonstration of solidarity in broad daylight is a relatively more solid piece of evidence.
The following are some images from last December when Hamas marked its founding anniversary:
https://www.alamy.com/gaza-city-palestinian-territories-14th-dec-2022-supporters-of-the-palestinian-hamas-islamist-movement-gather-during-a-rally-organized-to-mark-the-movements-35th-founding-anniversary-credit-mohammed-talatenedpaalamy-live-news-image500929452.html
https://www.alamy.com/gaza-city-palestinian-territories-14th-dec-2022-supporters-of-the-palestinian-hamas-islamist-movement-gather-during-a-rally-organized-to-mark-the-movements-35th-founding-anniversary-credit-mohammed-talatenedpaalamy-live-news-image500912898.html
https://www.alamy.com/gaza-city-palestinian-territories-14th-dec-2022-supporters-of-the-palestinian-hamas-islamist-movement-gather-during-a-rally-organized-to-mark-the-movements-35th-founding-anniversary-credit-mohammed-talatenedpaalamy-live-news-image500912909.html
Lastly, if Hamas was cynically using the Gazan population as a shield for its own nefarious goals, the Israeli intelligence would’ve obtained a lot of agents from the disgruntled masses to cripple this organization.
I feel sorry for these people, but beyond that, I just can’t relate to them.
@Greg Johnson
No problem.
I just wanted to bring the aforementioned facts and observations on the record.
The Palestinians didn’t carry out this attack because they believed they can defeat Israel on the battlefield. They did it for other strategic reasons. One, as I wrote before, is that they wanted to derail the peace process between Saudi Arabia and Israel brokered by the US that was due to be signed before the end of this year. And they succeeded in this, since the Saudis have already said that the process is now on hold. Only time will tell if it resumes later. But having the most prominent Arab state recognize Israel and make peace would be a huge blow for the Palestinian cause.
They surely knew that Israel would launch a heavy-handed military response, given that this literally happens every couple of years to one degree or another, but that’s also part of their calculations since it generates sympathy for them around the world which they rely on.
They also undoubtedly figured that this was an ideal time to attack since Israeli society is presently more divided than it has ever been before in its modern history over the Netanyahu government’s proposed judicial reforms, which led to record numbers of Israelis not showing up for their military service in recent months. Some Israeli commentators were even talking of the possibility of a civil war within Israel itself. The Palestinians are no doubt hoping to exploit this divide.
So in fact there were a number of very sound strategic reasons for them to attack at this particular moment; it wasn’t only done out of spite. If the Palestinians weren’t capable of shrewd long-term strategic thinking, they wouldn’t have been able to survive for the past 75 years.
@John Morgan
Very well said, Mr. Morgan.
The sheer grit and determination of the Palestinian folk and their refusal to tolerate Zionist bullying and whining can be envious. Hence, they are portrayed as “barbarians”, “terrorists”, “low IQ”, and just another “party” in the conflict.
Their meta-politics is formidable which has kept them disciplined and singularly focused on their goal.
They are not going to bury or trade their faith, culture, honor, and history for a second-class, humiliating “citizenship” in the Zionist “republic”.
The occupiers should regularly be reminded that trespassing and desecration carry painful consequences.
The progeny of Irgun, Alexandroni, Lehi, etc. terror gangs and the followers of figures like Meir Kahane and Itamar Ben-Gvir etc are bloodthirsty beasts in the clothing of humanity. Their disgusting behavior can only be countered by violence.
Right. This operation had to have been planned months, if not years, in advance. No doubt spite is a factor but you don’t plan an operation like this out of spite alone. Hamas may not achieve their objectives (whatever they may be), but I would not assume they had none other than lashing out at their oppressors.
Greg Johnson is one of the few adults left in the room when it comes to Identitarian new right. It’s fair to say that White Identitarians have little to no mutual interest with Israelis but this is a very principled exception. Europeans and those of European descent want Israelis to stay in Israel therefore we should wish them well in putting down this silly Palestinian temper tantrum. Just like how we oppose US meddling in Ukrainian affairs but when it comes to the war against Russian aggression we support the US taking steps to ensure Ukrainian sovereignty and safety.
Wake up folks and let’s take our own side!
Absolutely.
* * *
There’s just something about the JQ. . .
It’s like alcohol. To some, it’s helpful. To others, it’s a destroyer of good judgment and discretion.
Way too many White Nationalists have, to stretch the simile further, the constitution of your basic Injun.
Whomsoever conducts the war in the most brutal fashion will win the war, whether Israelites or Philistines. Can Mr. Johnson please reveal his mind on what opportunities will be open to us during this erratic time.
It is not more brutality but more men and armaments, as well as better intelligence and decision-making, that will be the deciding factors here. Israel has a massive advantage. Which means more refugees for Europe.
That was the only part of your essay I found wanting. Why does Middle East conflict mean more colonizers for Europe? Because of the weakness of Europeans. Whose fault is that? Certainly not the Israelis. They have every right to retaliate against this mass-murder, and if I were in the Knesset, that’s exactly what I’d advocate. Any European leaders who acceded to accepting millions of Palestinian demographic conquistadores, on the other hand, should be tried for treason, and imprisoned or publicly executed.
Under present regimes, white countries lose either way. Of course, and as I pointed out, pro-white governments could reverse this. White powers could engineer a settlement. Why? Because it is in our interests to have safe destinations for both our Palestinian and Jewish diaspora populations.
As for fault: Surely you know that Jews are the main pushers of open borders in white countries and the main impediment to rectifying the situation.
Gregory, may you please answer my query? what opportunities will be open to nationalists during this erratic time. Surely our opponents will use this war to maneuver their ideas, whether to open our frontiers for refugees from Gaza, or draft young men to spill their blood in persia. We re in check what are our moves.
Thank you,
M
Our moves are what we are doing now: point out the heinous double standards and lies of the establishment and frame everything in terms of white interests. That’s all we can do, but it is also highly effective in eroding confidence in the system and its legitimacy, so we need to keep at it.
Actually Greg Johnson is wrong in his moral fallacies — OR You can Keep “leadership” of White Nationalism Because I’m a White Supremacist.
An “intelligence failure” is blamed for Benny Netanahajew not realizing that Hamas is actually nothing more than open-air prison capos running the largest 2.3, now 2.2 million-mamzer open-air prison camp to house all these Palestinian refugees who were displaced for the last 70 years. 20 years ago they were herded into this camp to prevent desperate Palestinians from detonating suicide vests in buses. These people on both sides are simply nothing more than Canaanites who are of incompatible religions. I seen on TV where a 15 year old Palestinian girl detonated a suicide vest that killed a slightly darker 16 year old jewess. Which is why when the time came like 50 years after the Yom Kippur 1973 war hundreds of Gaza refugees with cheap AK-47s and 30-round clips ran past the blasted wire and walls and ran to these kibbutzes a half-hour away and ended up killing more jew settlers than were lost in the last war. The paragliders took slightly more effort to do against the jews having a rave party which was moved up, but that indicates that there was no “intelligence failure” but rather a 9-11 for jews to justify ethnic cleansing and a new war for the Zionists.
John Michael Greer in one of his articles a dozen years ago compared these failed Crusader states falling to a renewed Islam as inevitable when a mighty evil empire can no longer keep things going on the periphery and must pull back to protect the imperial center just like Rome from Britain in 410 AD after Alaric the Visigoth sacked Rome for the first time in over 800 years since Brennius the Gaul in 390 BC.
ZOG/Babylon is militarily bankrupt and it looks like the Russian-jewkrainian war to create a Nuevo Khazaristan-on-the-Dnieper is going to be scrapped in order to protect the shitty little babdit entity Khazaristan-on-the-Jordan from the unwashed Muslim Canaanites. But then again, even Israel Finckelstein the most noted archiologist claims that there was no Exodus but rather a series of Canaanite city states with a Levitical priesthood cult around King Joash circa 612 BC when the Assyrian Empire collapsed who claimed descent from Abraham 1400 years earlier.
Dual-Seedline Christian Identity says that jews are the spawn of Satan through Eve’s seduction by Satan and that Cain was the first ‘jew.’ Further study says that Noah’s Flood was limited to the Tarim Basin and that Canaan was the spawn of Ham and Naamah, who is mentioned in Genesis 4:22 as the sister of Tubalcain and the daughter in the Book of Jasher of the bad-seedline Lamech who killed Cain and of the Sethite female Zillah. Thus the Palestinians are nothing more than Canaanites who converted to Islam while jews are from the Hittite Canaanite son of Hsm and thus also Canaanite Khazars who converted to Talmudic jewdism. The word “arab” is a 5,000 year old word for the racially mixed hamitic peoples meaning “mongrel.” And thats what both the Palestinians and jews are.
August Kreis back in 2003 decided to make a bunch of money by opening up his Aryan Nations faction to non-white Muslims hoping to get theys’ ZOGbux. It used to be that at a minimum you had to not only be white, but at least a one-seedliner open to two-seedline doctrine in order to be an applicant to the Aryan Nations. Which is why when Butler died there was a factional struggle after Sept. 2004. I set up my Aryan Nations faction to try to prevent being doped up while imprisoned in the Fulton State Nuthouse in Oct. 2006 but ZOG obeys no laws. Now I’m recognized as Aryan Nations thanks to the endless Bryan Reo civil lawfare since 2014 at the Ohio and South Dakota and federal level. Both Bryan Reo, Dickie Spencer and Mike the Kike Enoch are founding members of the Foundation for the MarketPlace of Ideas / ZOGbot Poverty Flaw Center along with the rest of the Charlottesville ZOG jew crew.
See page 2 of my lawsuit defending against Bryan Reo from the ZPLC 501(c)(3) 2017 form in which Mike the kike Enoch is one of the civil-lawfare directors.
http://bryanreo-lawsuits.xyz/Reo_19CV001530_f2589/2020/Mar20/14Mar20_ML/Doc%2026-1%20501c3%20Tax%20Form.pdf
You have neither the experience or inclination to run a white supremacist domestic terrorist organization. The reason why this 9-11 against the Zionist khazar jew entity was so successful is that 2.3 million genetic Canaanite muslims were caged because they used to detonate suicide vests so when the signal came the Israelis were no more able to keep them from running out with cheap AKs and killing jews any more than I am able or willing to keep stray cats out of Hovel East in my sister’s trailer east of Granby if the door is left open more than 5 minutes. They got loose and proceeded to kill jews just like stray cats get into the single-wide and kill and eat mice when the door is left open. So call me the Benny Netanajew of stray feral tomcats. The little bastards run right back out the door quick when I think they’ve had enough and get up to run them out.
ZOG doesn’t have enough old junk to replace the munitions given to the jewkrainians and Khazaristan-on-the-Jordan. Yes the jews are using old M-113 APCs as opposed to letting them sit at Ft. Riley Kansas. But in Missouri there is only one 155mm howitzer unit — “Truman’s Own” from the Kansas City area when in 1986-87 when I attended Army Reserve for $104 per monthly drill there being six 155mm howitzer batteries in the Missouri Army Reserve. The 3d Battery of the 75th Field Artillery battery in Joplin becum the 414th MP Company back when Jorge Bush the War Criminal was running things and they replaced all these tube howitzer units with Multiple Launch Rocket Systems costing $500,000 per six-rocket shot from a crane-loaded box on a computerized truck so that Emma the 125-lb girly-girl with two lesbian mommies can be part of a crew of three sitting in a truck with computerized GPS firing. By the way, from what I hear there are no more field artillery surveyors setting up firing points to drive the launcher with a duct-tape centered at the front and back. Unlike the Lance tactical nuke with a 75 mile range with inertial guidance it is all GPS now. They pulled my old 2/42 Lance battallion out of Germany after the 1985 deal between Reagan and Gorbachev to reduce theater nuke Lances and Pershings. The Russians can now take out American artillery by launching two rockets into low earth orbit with a payload of a couple of bags of gravel taking out these GPS satellites. Meanwhile the Russians bought 10 million 152mm artillery rounds from theys’ friendly North Korean buddies so they can resume firing like its April 2022.
Lets say that the Russians sell plutonium to their friends the Iranians just like the Iranians sold drones to the Russians. Can you imagine the $13 billion USS Gerald Ford getting hit by an Iranian ballistic missile and headed to Davy Jones locker along with the rest of the carrier group? Or unleashing their Hezbollah proxies in Lebanon to fight the jews to a standstill like its 2006?
So the jews are going to call up 360,000 reservists to engage in a Stalingrad urban fight against dug in Hamas fighters? For how long and at what cost?
Lets understand that even decayed mighty evil empires can’t last against decentralized domestic terrorists who want to destroy their system of Satanic government. The Russian and Chinese regimes have no choice but to work together along with the Iranians and North Koreans to make Asia for the Asians. As it is now both the Russians, and Chinese support the UN Resolution for a Palestinian two-state solution to where Israel pulls back to the pre-1967 borders and sets up a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem. The Muslim powers of Pakistan and Indonesia are 100 % backing their fellow Muslims and against the Zionist entity.
The Republicans can’t even elect a new Speaker of the House and pass a budget or arms for theys’ jew colonial entity. So your caveat is altogether is one of claiming that you believe we have a whigger problem — something I’ve been saying & singing since 2010.
https://odysee.com/@PastorLindstedt:f/WhiggerProblem-Single2010:c
Actually given foreign and domestic decentrallized racial and religious terrorism I don’t think that this Mighty Evil Satanic Empire nor its jew Crusader Client State will last another year much undergo another Fake [S]Election meaning anything.
Hail Victory !!!
Pastor Martin Lindstedt
Church of Jesus Christ Christian / Aryan Nations of Missouri
Thank you for your testimonial. I truly am not a white supremacist and even if I were I would be fundamentally unfit to run a white supremacist domestic terrorist organization, since I oppose such operations because of my moral convictions, which you deem “moral fallacies.”
From the safety of his keyboard and behind an overweeningly pompous screen name, a guy who’s terrified to use his real name laments the weakness of Europeans while bravely calling for public executions.
What function would it serve if he were to proclaim his true identity? Most people here on a regular basis are actively working for the cause of white preservation and may find it easier to do so under a certain degree of cover. People like you and Greg who are public figures are justifiably revered in our circles, but even some of our favourite Counter-Currents writers remain anonymous: Beau Albrecht, Travis LeBlanc, Margot Metroland. Of course one could avoid the wrath of Goad by using a vanilla pseudonym but which approach is more honest?
The answer should be self-explanatory, but here I go explaining it again: If you’re such a timid mouse that you’re afraid to reveal your real name, you look ridiculous referring to Europeans (en masse at that) as weak cowards or calling for someone else to perform public executions (without getting your own hands dirty) because someone theoretically upset you. I understand why people use pseudonyms—because they’re scared—but by doing so, they surrender the right to refer to anyone else as a coward without looking like sad little hypocrites. I don’t have any problem with anyone who lurks behind a pseudonym to offer their opinions about anthing else besides cowardice. Capisci?
I get that commenters who use pseudonyms (and make subtle grammatical errors) really annoy you, but most people don’t need to be public and have good reasons to remain private on this site; you have no way of knowing what risks they’re taking that might entitle them to throw around an accusation of cowardice. Perhaps you’d be more comfortable if everyone just went by John T. Smith rather than a more transparent psudonym.
Cowards can still be correct when they accuse others of cowardice. It is fine to point out the hypocrisy. But it is still essentially the ad hominem fallacy if you think it refutes their claims. Hypocrites can still speak the truth.
Jim Goad,
You are a good writer: so few words, so many cheap shots.
As to the substance of your criticism (and not sure why you chose to attack me, as I’ve been steadfastly polite in my interactions with you as with other authors), I’ve explained my need for online anonymity previously to you. I live in a very leftist city brimming with progressives, diversity, BLM criminals, and antifa scum. This city is highly hostile to gun rights, SCOTUS and the 2Am notwithstanding, as well as self-defense. You or Greg or Jared, etc, could probably not obtain a fair trial here if you had to defend yourselves with lethal force against a POC thug, no matter how objectively and obviously justifiable. Your public writings would convict you.
I also need to work, and do so in a field and for a company with lots of progressives, feminists, queers, and diversity. The overall atmosphere is very PC, even somewhat overtly woke (though not as aggressively so as at a university; I actually had to attend a “diversity sensitivity” session after the Floyd outrage, but it was mercifully more about “sensitivity” than white-guilt-mongering, which I might not have been able to tolerate). I’m widely known there as an “extreme rightwinger” – mainly because I’m seen as a “Trump Republican” (ie, a normal moderate conservative), though not long after the Floyd riots, when some leftist affirmative action hire made a cutting remark directed my way, I pointedly said “looters need to be put down“. My coworkers know I’m a rightwinger, as is 45% or more of the country. I can get by with that. But CC? That would be a bridge way too far …
I’ve been loud and proud for our people for many decades, often to my personal and professional detriment, and long before you decided to transition from radical snark to racial nationalism. Although my Far Right junior activities didn’t hurt me in high school (my teachers back then were actually quite conservative), I was definitely blackballed by at least one important professor (my honors thesis advisor!) in college when it came time to solicit grad school recs. He refused to write one for me, saying that my “well-known view that Western civilization was being overwhelmed by colored peoples” [his words] made me “too dangerous” for him to be able in good conscience to recommend me. This was in 1983 (for younger readers, yes, things were bad then, too).
Throughout grad school in the 80s, I was a fixture at Hard and even some Far Right gatherings, especially in the Northeast, but going down the Mid-Atlantic, too. I don’t recall any serious antifa trouble. I was outspoken in school about at least some of my views (mainly immigration, as well as the “color of crime”; even then, I was much less open about biological race differences, but that was also because there was so much less of that kind of information readily available). I was infamous (within my humanities dept) for handing out FAIR (Federation for America Immigration Reform) literature right there on the campus main square, usually adjacent to some GOP undergrad group. Interestingly, though I would often get hostile reactions, I can’t recall any actual physical threats, such as there would surely be today. What can I say? The campuses of the Ivy League were much whiter (and less woke) then (though the general ideological atmosphere was still one of suffocating ‘do-gooder’ liberalism).
From the late 80s to the mid-00s, I was an activist for our people in all but name. I worked on many political campaigns, both for the GOP, and for various rightwing ballot propositions. In all my roles, including on a nationally covered GOP Senatorial campaign, I constantly worked to push immigration restriction and border security into discussions (for doing so once on TV, I almost got later fired). I believe I had some influence over at least one sitting Congressman, who got more aggressive wrt immigration across the 90s until he lost a reelection bid at the end of the decade and retired from politics. I also worked for over a year (1995/6) for Pat Buchanan’s then GOP Presidential nomination campaign. In addition to my usual, more cerebral duties, I, along with his driver, routinely acted as an implicit bodyguard. Generally, there were no problems, but on a few occasions we had to get in the faces of some very angry protestors (not many of whom were ever black; mostly Jewish and white leftists, along with some Hispanics at least one time).
Using my real name, and in person, I delivered many speeches back in 1994 on behalf of CA Prop 187 (the pioneering anti-illegal alien initiative). I was heckled and threatened repeatedly. One time especially, after a speech at a southern California State University campus, I was surrounded by a group of seriously antagonistic Mexicans as I was trying to make my way – alone – to my car in a university lot. If I hadn’t been early 30s, 6’4″ and a muscular 220+lbs, and exhibiting no fear, I think I might have been seriously injured or even killed (though if so, probably accidentally). Nothing happened, but it was ‘hairy’.
I could relay other recollections and anecdotes, but for you to imply that I’m a coward about standing up for our cause is ridiculously unjust. My situation is such that discretion now is by far the smarter and better part of valor. External conditions have dramatically worsened in all ways. So have I. I’m now 62, barely 6’2″, my youthful strength and physicality are mostly gone; my health is poor. I’ve had some very serious ailments in recent years, and I’m perhaps 15% or so disabled (I was nevertheless able to help another gent make a citizen’s arrest of a violent shoplifter during the pandemic, so I’m hardly a “basket-case”). If I should lose my job, in which I recently got a late-career promotion (undoubtedly my last), to a doxxer, there is no way I could find anything equivalent (I could probably be doxxed based on what I’ve set forth, but it would take detective-level research to do so, and I can’t see myself as sufficiently important a target for anyone to bother). I might retire at 65, or I might tough it out all the way to 70, just to save up more money for retirement (all the remainder of which at death will go to our cause, and probably exclusively to CC, which I now like much better than AR). Statistically, based on my medical profile, I only have about 15-20 years left (and maybe less, if some problems recur). This is my last job (I hope). Why would I want to risk it just to pen internet comments under my own name? What would be the benefit, to me or to the movement, of my doing so? Is my online anonymity cowardice, or prudence?
To be honest, I feel anyway like I’ve put in my time and energy, made my sacrifices, for our people already. I certainly devoted enough of my time in life to prowhite reading, commenting, some writing, and much actual and attempted political activism (some of which I haven’t even mentioned here). As my life winds down, I think I’ve earned some respite from the intense emotions and frequent conflict associated with being visibly prowhite. This has nothing to do with being “terrified”; “tired” is more accurate. Greg Johnson is wise in asserting that we should all be encouraged to contribute at our own paces and in our own ways. Once I retire, and have relocated near friends in my preferred Red State, I hope to do some substantive CC writing, and I suspect I’ll be vain enough to do it under my real name. For now, the best I can do is to be a thoughtful reader and commenter, flying under the radar.
I have to ask – do you suppose the European people were given a vote on whether or not to allow their countries to be colonized by Third World hordes? Their political systems are rigged by globalists. As we can see, the public turned to mainstream rightist parties in response to this mass migration, but the controlled opposition politicians never delivered the goods. It’s the exact same thing as in the USA.
Is this question directed to me? It’s hard to tell, visually. If so, I disagree with you. Europeans, arguably to a greater extent than us, have had multiple opportunities to vote for serious candidates of the Right. Sometimes, they’ve actually entered government (Freedom Party in Austria; the Danish rightist part whose name I forget; I think the Vlaams Blok in Belgium). Other times, they had a real shot (eg, Jean Marie Le Pen in 2002). The Brits could have voted big time for the BNP; the Italians, the Lega Nord or the Fascists; Germans for the AfD right now.
The (Trumpian?) hypothesis that the Right hasn’t won because the balloting is rigged strikes me as wish replacing analysis. Too many whites are just douchebags (evolutionarily defective). GOP base, if it had truly been enraged by the already decades-long-apparent race replacement invasion, could have supported Buchanan (Pat’s not quite one of us, but pretty adjacent!) in 1996, but they didn’t.
Whites just don’t seem to care that much about preserving their race and civilization.
We have met the enemy, and he’s us.
Which means more refugees for Europe.
Yes, and just for this aim the Ukrainians are killed in masses in the continuing war. The space is made people-less, empty and “free” for new settlers. Ukrainian officials says NOW that Ukraine would need to get 600 thousands immigrees YEARLY after the war. And those migrants would not be Poles, or Czechs, or Finns, or English, or Germans, or Danes, or even Japanese and Koreans. No, they would be Bengalese from Bangladesh, and Arabs from both Levant and Maghreb, and also maybe even Black Africans. No, not Jews from Israel, no new “Khazar KaGanat”, this is blatant lie. The room is made clean for rather another Near Easterners, because Europe is “overfull” now. That’s why Ukrainians should be decimated by Russia (West’s Golem) and driven out of their country. Everything is made in globalists’ interests.
What’s best for whites should always be our goal.
I think there should be more pressure on the part of European countries for Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states to take in Arab migrants. If I’m not mistaken, Saudi Arabia has taken in ZERO Syrian migrants but is funding a lot of mosques being built in Europe. There needs to be a candid conversation that all these Arab Muslims moving in to Europe isn’t going to end well. So on that note, I don’t necessarily see Palestinians refugees having to have to go to Europe.
The way this conflict is, it’s going to drag 3rd and 4th parties into it. From what I read recently, it seemed like Hamas thought they could have taken over a stretch of land in Israel just outside of the Gaza strip.
I think it’s easy to get pulled into the spite spiral but look at what it’s done for Jews. There is now a BLM chapter that has offered its support for Hamas. Queue up David Cole’s “stop with the golems!” column about how the golem they create to protect them always ends up coming back to attack them. All the “celebrate diversity!” migrants from the middle east that are now in Europe and even in the US showing their support for Hamas massacre. It’s even come to Harvard, where Jewish ex-Harvard president Larry Summers looked on at horror as a student group sympathized with Hamas and blamed Israel for Hamas’ attack. It’s the “congratulations, you played yourself” meme.
I’m probably going to get a lot of flak for saying this, but I think white nationalists can learn a lot from Israel as an ethnostate. The immigration of Jews to Israel and their conquest of the Arabs is a mirror image of the immigration of European whites to the American continent and their conquest of the American Indians.
Not sure I agree with your last paragraph, but I’d have to study more about the origins of Israel and the Palestinian refugee problem. I do know it’s an extremely difficult historico-moral issue. The Jews’ claim to Israel is theological, and very very distantly historical (if the Bible can be used as an historical document, a somewhat doubtful proposition, but not totally ludicrous). The Palestinians were the ones present when hundreds of thousands of Zionists pushed their way in starting in the late 19th century (at the time, this was rather newfangled demographic conquest). But there had also been a Jewish community in Palestine (known as the “Old Yishuv”) for as long as people knew. Moreover, the vast bulk of Palestinians today were not only born outside of Israel, their parents and grandparents themselves never set foot in Israel. Finally, we must look at what the Jews have done with the land, as against the accomplishments of the preexisting peoples. Jews built modern Israel (with the help of much foreign aid, esp from US and Germany); Palestinians built virtually no part of the modern nation.
So to whom does the land that is Israel properly belong? There is no easy answer.
I have very long agreed, however, that we white ethnostatists need to humble ourselves and learn from the Israeli experience in all of its aspects. They did it! They achieved what we want for ourselves. Our situation will not perfectly mirror theirs, of course. But there are many similarities, morally (the rights of peoples to be sovereign and free), militarily (a small state surrounded by hostiles), economically (their development of a domestic hi-tech industry to supply their military; their subsidization of water and agriculture), etc.
Greg Johnson makes a telling point about the history of the conflict, which I should like to enlarge if I may. After World War One, the British did their best to administer the League of Nations Mandate in Palestine fairly, but they were hamstrung by the two conflicting promises they had made: on the one hand the Balfour Declaration to erect a Jewish National Homeland there, and on the other the promises made to the Arabs in the Desert Revolt led by T. E. Lawrence et al. Of course the fallout of the latter is accurately depicted in that greatest of epic films, Lawrence of Arabia, but the sequelae of the former are less well known. Jews poured into Palestine from all over the diaspora, attracted by the prospect of finally being ‘a free people in their own land’. At first the Arabs were friendly, but by the late 1920s there were riots against the British and pogroms against the Yeshiv, the Jewish settlement in Palestine. The story of the Jewish Defence Organisation, the Haganah, fostered by eccentric but brilliant British officer Orde Wingate is a fascinating one. The British Empire, already in decline in the 1920s and 30s and struggling with independence movements in India and elsewhere responded with a moratorium on Jewish immigration. This is when the less savoury paramilitary elements such as the Irgun and the Stern Gang formed to drive the British out. Then the horrors of World War Two supervened: Jews will never forgive Britain for keeping the borders of Palestine sealed during the catastrophe that overtook European Jewry in those years. After the defeat of the Axis the situation was far worse: millions of displaced Jews with no place to go. The paramilitaries took matters into their own hands, striking the British in a series of terrorist attacks, of which the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Affair of the Sergeants are the best known (incidentally antisemitic riots in post-war Britain resulted from these). By 1947 the British had had enough: a partition plan was drawn up to carve Palestine into Arab and Jewish states roughly equivalent to Gaza + West Bank for the former and the balance of Palestine for the latter, with Jersalem as a shared ‘open city’. The British quit, handing matters over to the UN to implement — in theory. In practice a war broke out, with both the Jews of Palestine and the Arab League states Egypt, Jordan and Syria grabbing what they could amid atrocities and ethnic cleansing. The Jews declared the State of Israel in 1948, backed by the US and the Soviet Union: they had taken rather more than their allocation in the partition plan. Egypt took what is now the Gaza Strip and Jordan the West Bank. The Arabs of Palestine were the losers — stateless and, in some cases, having been, driven from their homes. Then a familiar litany: the recovery of Jerusalem, the Annexation of Sinai and Golan and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel after trouncing the Arab League once more in the Six Day War. The return of Sinai for peace with Egypt after the Yom Kippur War. The unsuccessful attempt to create a Palestinian proto-state in the West Bank, its undermining by Arafat’s cupidity and the land-grabbing of Jewish settlers. The withdrawal of the Israelis from Gaza and its seizure by Hamas. The whole sorry story ad nauseam. My own view is that it is hard to see any solution without some sort of population exchange: perhaps the Gazans to Egypt, the West Bank Arabs to Jordan and Israel returning the Golan. With generous compensation for displaced persons. Since the expulsion of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh has just occurred with little condemnation from the West, this concept seems to no longer be unthinkable to the international community. One only hopes that it could somehow be achieved without bloodshed.
Excellent comment. Perhaps I should have read it before penning a couple of mine on this thread. The bottom line is that we whites have no direct business in this conflict. But we have to be very careful for we do have indirect interests. I have thought for decades that we should do a kind of jiu-jitsu on the Jews; to wit, we make clear that our support for Israel will be henceforth contingent on Jewish support for Western immigration restriction. But if Jewish orgs do start supporting immigration termination, then we should continue to support Israel. I think Jewish-Muslim mutual hostility could be played off to Western advantage – if, of course, we had strong racial nationalist governments, instead of weak and treasonous liberal/progressives ones.
Also, even moderately conservative governments could use events like this to channel aid and protection to our white brethren in Southern Africa.
Where I completely diverge from the WN mainstream is in thinking that Muslims are the far greater threat to whites than Jews. But it would take me hours to think out and then write out exactly why!
Jews do not share your anti-exterminationist sentiment, Greg. Go on twitter and look at all the Jews gloating about the firebombing of Dresden. What Jews are doing to Gaza is what they’d do to Europe, and what they have done to Europe. Do you think you can co-exist with a people like that? Jews follow an ideology that commands them to wipe out all European people. You cannot defeat hate with reason.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Maybe you’d be more comfortable commenting at Jesse Dunstan’s site.
Yeah that doesn’t pass the bullshit test name me one nation that hasn’t had to cleanse from time to time how do you think America was fully conquered yes most of it was wilderness but we had to remove hostile tribes when conflict became inevitable granted I don’t want to support either side Palestinians don’t give a rats ass about whites but at least they have legitimacy to their land can’t say I support the terrorism I distrust Jews more but also understand they need a space too Jews want us exterminated so no love lost unfortunately civilization has rotted our survival instinct the universe is a moral there is no right or wrong just degrees of quality and our choices
(This comment probably won’t get approved, but here we go…)
As a white man of Central European ancestry who has lived and worked in both the United States (past) and Europe (present), I have had the “privilege” of dealing with both the Jews/Israelis and the Palestinians/Muslims/Arabs in a professional and personal setting. Trust me when I say this – most of them are scum (according to our white/European ethical standards, which Greg Johnson emphasizes) and the two groups are much, much closer to each other than either is to white people.
I can’t help but get giddy with excitement when I see these two groups fighting. Call me an “exterminationist” but, at this point, with the white population of the world critically endangered (America and Canada are almost completely gone and Western Europe is not far behind), I simply do not care anymore. Especially since both the Jews and the Arabs/Muslims have been actively (and gleefully) participating in white extermination (ideologically, demographically, etc.) for a long time. As I said above, both of these groups are scum and the more they kill of each other the better.
Have a nice day.
I get it. When one’s own people are on the ropes, it is hard to care about out groups fighting with each other. But given that (1) Europe and America effectively have no borders, (2) the obvious goal of both sides of his conflict is to use terror against civilians to induce them to flee, and (3) white countries will be the primary destination of the refugees no matter what the outcome, we really do have an interest in seeing this insanity stop.
Your feelings about this conflict are similar to mine about abortion. I think abortion is murder, but in the US, abortion primarily consists of enemies and rival groups killing their own children, so in the context of demographic struggle, it advantages whites. Thus my pragmatic approach is to point this out over and over and then ask: “Why interrupt your enemies while they are making a mistake?”
But in the case of this conflict, no matter what the outcome, under the present regime, whites will lose. So I can’t really get excited about it. And frankly it disgusts me to see people who are more or less in my camp getting priapic about Jews being massacred at a rave, just as it disgusts me to see normiecons in a lather over blasting Gaza. In the first case, they are indulging spite. In the second case, they are sublimating normal nationalist instincts that are not allowed them into Jewish nationalism, which is encouraged. It is analogous to sportsball but far more disgusting.
Thank you for your comments (and for the wonderful project that is Counter-Currents).
Regarding point 1 of your first paragraph – that is, America and Europe having “no borders” – I agree with the former, not completely with the latter. While having “no borders” may apply to Western and Northern Europe (although both of these regions are still demographically in better shape than the USA/Canada) it does not apply to most of Central or Eastern Europe. Many countries in these regions have a very strong opposition against nonwhite immigration (i.e., conquest), such as Poland and Hungary, to name two. Additionally, many other areas in this part of the world are shifting in a strongly anti (nonwhite) immigration direction – one need only look at the recent, unprecedented electoral success of AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) in Germany, not just in its historical stronghold in eastern Germany but throughout the country. Therefore, there is a strong likelihood of building a kind of “White/European Fortress” in Central and parts of Eastern Europe (and maybe even Northern Europe), which will have very strong and impermeable “walls” (borders) to nonwhite immigration. The support for this is becoming stronger by the year in Central and Eastern Europe, as the people of these areas continue to witness the “fruits” of nonwhite immigration into white lands, including, chiefly, the ongoing demographic displacement of whites in the United States, Canada and Western Europe (not to mention the ongoing demographic civil conflicts, which may soon erupt into full-scale civil wars in places like France, or even the United States).
With an understanding of the realistic possibility of a “White Fortress” emerging in Central, parts of Eastern (and maybe even Northern) Europe,
points 2 (“civilians” fleeing from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) and 3 (white countries having to host these “civilians”) of your first paragraph become less relevant. In short, there will be a very large part of the white world which will be safe behind the walls of our fortress and will not let any of these people in, no matter how hard they knock on the door. In that case, we can continue to cheer on the Israelis/Jews and Palestinians/Muslims/Arabs as they continue to slaughter each other. (Of course, not all Jews support Israel but I’m talking here about general trends, not individual exceptions).
Of course, I am less optimistic about Western Europe and even less about North America (the USA and Canada). If Western Europe doesn’t make
radical changes (regarding immigration, demographics) within the next two or so decades, its future will be very grim (it may or may not be our calling to help our Western European white brothers in their possible future civil wars, but that is a separate conversation). As for America, it’s in even worse shape. While some kind of civil war or conflict may be in America’s future, the more realistic scenario is a gradual racial mixing and mongrelization until, within a few decades, America looks (and functions) completely like Brazil. In the near future, the only realistic option for racially conscious white Americans might be to migrate to our White/European Fortress in Central Europe. This would, of course, only further reduce the need to accept any nonwhite immigration in the White Fortress of Europe since we would have sufficient white immigration from North America (we already have this, to some extent, with most of our immigrants being Ukrainians, and so on). Reducing the white tax base of the United States would also help to even out the playing field between Israel/the Jews and Palestine/the Muslims and Arabs (we don’t want either of them too strong), as the main reason it is not even right now is American, white tax dollars continuously flowing to Israel.
Your squeamishness about whites seeing the good sides of the Jew/Israeli vs. Palestinian/Muslim/Arab fight, whether legitimate or a bit of good optics, I find hard to relate to. Both of these groups are our mortal enemies (and, at this point, whites make up only about 10% of the world’s population, give or take, and that number is rapidly dropping). Knowing that most members of both of these groups would gladly displace – if not outright slaughter – white people if given the chance (as they have both done for a long time, whenever they have had the opportunity), allows me to indulge in these feelings and sleep like a baby. I am a caring and sensitive person, with a strong sense of ethics, but that doesn’t mean I’m a fool. And I reserve that care and those ethics for those who deserve it – that is, for white people (children, women and men) and for our beautiful, but highly endangered, white civilization. I guess, in this way I am more similar to white people a little bit further back in our history.
This is one article that could have been two shorter articles. One part makes the case that we Whites should take our own side and not embrace either of two other ethnic groups that don’t like us. The other part addresses Mike Peinovich of The Right Stuff and the National Justice Party.
The first part is correct and important and stands on its own. It does not require the reader to know or care about “inside baseball” issues of the pro-White movement.
The second part does require some background knowledge. Without that knowledge it might be harder for the reader to decide what he thought of the article as a whole.
There is a case for connecting these two parts based on the reasonable idea that spite and fantasies of extermination are bad influences.
The case for separation is that taking our own side is so important that the case for it should not be tied to anything that might make its reception more hesitant. We should want firm, simple, immediate assent to this.
Point taken. I moved the paragraphs about Peinovich to a note.
Peinovich is alleged to assert: ““We support a two percent ceiling on Jewish employment in vital institutions so that they better represent the ethnic and regional population balance of the country.”
So Peinovich is essentially calling for affirmative action to level out the power dynamic versus Jews, as he sees it. The Jews in the U.S. are largely Ashkenazi Jews with above-average IQs. (Yes, I know the issue is a bit more nuanced in that Jews are seen by him as an out-group, but I’m simply making an observation from an IQ standpoint).
This is interesting because he’d probably scoff at the idea of blacks or Hispanics demanding fixed percentages of representation in the government. Certainly many of his fellow-travelers would. There are also some White Nationalist Nordicists who claim other subgroups of Whites are implicitly demanding affirmative action, when it’s evident right here who is explicitly calling for it (one of their “leaders”). To be honest, this is the first time I have ever seen a so-called neo-Nazi so blatantly call for affirmative action.
His party asserts it, and I cite the source, so I take issue with the use of the word “alleged.”
I just saw pics of him and did a bit of digging on him, and it seems he’s a physically out of shape neo-Nazi type with some skeletons unearthed – having a Jewish ex-wife. He also allegedly has spewed, according to Redditors, the ancient Romans or Greeks were Aryan or Germanic We Wuz Kangz type of stuff that appeals to some of the childish types you have derided previously. Yet there’s the irony that he cries for groups with high IQs to have their proportion of influential positions reduced according to their percentage within the population (presumably he’s opposed to Asians living around his people, but in a hypothetical situation involving real-world compromise, inherent in law and politics, it seems he’d use similar arguments to restrict their representation, too). He’s a lot like what you’d find in some Afrocentrists in these respects.
What’s strange is he spent his most fertile years with a woman who many of his followers don’t even consider White. So he essentially advocated against himself. To this day, it seems he doesn’t have any kids, which seems to go against the idea that Whites must preserve their genes and legacy. At some point, it seems, there should be some consideration as to whether or not a person is living according to his own principles. But I see pics of him with Duke and others, so I guess this guy has been given a pass for all of this.
Mike’s priors are due to the fact that he grew up like most of us in modern America. He was a normie, in other words. The fact that he got a “pass” is frankly a sign of maturity in the movement, given that he is a good commentator, and TRS was a huge thing in 2015-2018 or so (I stopped listening in May of 2017). I am told that it started seeming stale in 2019. I don’t know when the peak of listenership was, but they have shrunk considerably in recent years.
It’s a ceiling, not a fixed %.
When a high-IQ group is capped with a “ceiling,” it’s effectively a fixed percentage because, without the ceiling, the group has already shown it can “max out.” So arguing about ceilings vs. fixed percentages is quite pointless. For example, Asian Americans widely believe they are given ceilings in university admissions – this would be an example of meeting diversity quotas.
As I wrote before, compromise is inherent to politics. So let’s say Peinovich can’t have his white ethnostate exactly as he envisions (yeah, let’s go there). Let’s say he’s forced by cirmcumstance to compromise on some core beliefs, given the real-world dynamics that make his ideals impractical. Let’s say a concession is given for Asians to stay, since some even on the far-right are calling for an Arctic Alliance of sorts. Is Peinovich going to sit still while Asians get a whopping 15-30% of admissions at elite institutions? Nope. He’ll say institutions must be kept as white as possible, thus preserving Western Civilization. This means, using the reasoning he has already shown (!!!), he will likely aim for ceilings on Asian Americans, just as non-competitive groups currently are trying to do to Asians right now. I’m not even stating Peinovich is necessarily wrong – I’m just calling a spade a spade and pointing out that he supports affirmative action.
It’s hard to be rational when “Jakob from Long Island” is stealing your home
This pretty much sums up the situation succinctly.
Nobody actually believes Hamas will evict Israelis. This is just a (well-deserved) bloody nose. These people need to know what goes around comes around. They have done this so many times to other peoples just for geopolitical assurances.
What did Armenians ever do to Jews? Nothing but compare their unrecognized genocide to ‘the Holocaust.’ That was enough (actually it would not have mattered because Israelis would have green-lighted it anyway) to arm Azerbaijan with drones in order to seize and pogrom Karabakh, giving an open Israeli proxy complete control over Iran’s northernmost border and potentially fueling further irredentist claims (there are more Azeris inside northern Iran than in Azerbaijan itself).
They are setting up for the next neocon wars to dismantle yet another geopolitical Israeli foe. They don’t care who is caught in the crossfire, yet we are supposed to care about their ‘civilians’ (no such thing in Israel, as they are all either armed or vanguard settlers)? That’s too much to ask.
I would rather have every Jew make Aliyah to Israel, but that will never happen because most of them do not want to live in a combat zone or away from whites, just like every other nonwhite group. Here’s what actually happens…
Israel has the highest birthrate by almost double the next runner up of ‘western countries.’ It defies every other demographic rule by maintaining 3.0 children per woman despite being extremely urbanized, feministic, technological, atheistic, educated etc. Even ‘liberal Jews’ have 2.6 children per woman.
Why? Something almost magical occurs in the Holy Land with Jewish fertility.
So Israel basically acts as a breeding ground for the Jewish race to restock and respawn, and then be deployed back to their former outposts in Europe, further rehabilitating and repopulating them back into footholds and strongholds all over again. Eastern European Jews have a TFR of 1 child per woman and severe intermarriage. They make Aliyah and it doubles in a generation.
The Haredim is the hated (yet intrinsic) hatchery of Judaism. So while you have lesbian politicians and libertine actresses depleting the birthrates in one area during this culture war against the goyim (basically a sacrifice identical to a fallen soldier before he has had a chance to marry), it is more than shored up by these religious Jews, who have 7-15 children per woman in New York, Israel and London.
There is such a bumper crop of a Jewish baby boom + Olim that they are using them as settlers in the West Bank and along Gaza. So they are a vanguard against the Palestinians they displace and the Christians that they spit on as a tradition.
Any disruption to International Jewry should be welcomed. It’s really not that difficult. They are now forced to play another hand that they will not win, which is destroying Hamas. They made the same mistake in 2006 against Hezbollah and lost. It goes back to the old saying: better them than us. It’s nice to see them get koshered for once. War is war. This attack was nothing but a second circumcision for Israel anyway.
No, Hamas is not ‘going to attack us next.’ This isn’t our war and for too long it has been made to be just that. Now the Navy SEALS are getting in on it to rescue ‘Americans’ (dual citizens who made Aliyah). Hamas is a Palestinian nationalist group with an Islamic tinge, not an Islamist international syndicate. They have never attacked anybody but Israel, just like ISIS/Al Qaeda has never attacked Israel. Strange huh?
Excellent analysis! You have summed up the Tribe’s evolutionary strategy quite beautifully. It took me decades of study and observation to reach these conclusions.
Additionally the cash-strapped British Navy will be taking a break from its English Channel patrol, wherein it ferries an unending stream of Third World ‘migrants’ to their new homes in the British mainland. It will sail to the Mediterranean where it can join a US carrier group rendering ‘aid and support’ to Israel. One wonders whether it is being readied to convey a tranche of Palestinian refugees to our shores, lest Mr Netanyahu decide to ‘go for broke’ and drive the Arabs out of Gaza? Certainly the British public will have no say whatever in the matter, in the same way that their misgivings over the demographic and cultural desecration of their homeland are ridiculed and vilified. At the very least we may expect more public money to be spent on Jewish ‘community security’ tone-policing NGOs, more censorship and a crackdown on the ‘far right’.
Not every people can or should have its own exclusive territory and state, and no one is this more true of than the Jews. The Jews have been in diaspora for 2000 years and you can see it clearly. They’re at least 3 different races. There has been no ethnogenesis in Israel. Even if the Palestinians didn’t exist, Israel on its own is a chaotic, ugly, schizophrenic mess and they don’t belong there. Literally all of the Irgun and Haganah Jewish terrorists who agitated for a state were fresh-off-the-boat invaders. Cry me a river about their larpy “homeland” being taken from them. The only realistic and humane context for understanding Zionism is in the dispossession of Palestinians, not some deluded idealistic Zionist dream from 150 years ago. Jews have only had their own state for 75 years and it’s been nothing but terrorism, ethnic cleansing, war with its neighbors and the most grotesque form of Abrahamic extremism. There has never been a consensus on its borders.
Palestine only has two kinds of nationalism – the more authentic Palestinian nationalism argues that even the UN partition wasn’t legitimate (Palestine never accepted it, Arab world boycotted the negotiations, they gave a 30% Jewish minority over half of Palestinian territory, and then the Jews immediately broke with the partition agreement anyway and seized 80% of Palestine, which became the pre-1967 “internationally-recognized borders” red herring we hear so often about in the media). Then you have another Palestinian nationalism that the Jews are probably even more terrified of because they keep trying and failing to subvert it – the BDS types who officially want to return to pre-1967 borders but with very important stipulations that gets them banned everywhere and will effectively strip all power from Jews (porous borders, Right of Return, equal rights for palestinians, etc.). Even Chomsky called BDS “anti-semitic” and said they “want to destroy Israel” and he got blown out as the crypto-Zionist Jew supremacist he is.
Those are your only two options. And both end with Israel ceasing to exist. Palestinians were promised unconditional Right of Return by the UN in 1948. This by far is the biggest issue and reason why Israel-Palestine has never come close to a resolution. Jews can continue to pretend they lead the pro-Palestine movement on tv and social media and cry about Hamas all they want. If Right of Return is not respected there will always be Palestinian militancy.
Jews especially need their own state, because they abuse their host populations horribly.
Not every people can or should have its own exclusive territory and state, and no one is this more true of than the Jews.
The problem is that if they do not have a homeland, there is no end to their invasive diaspora among White nations, which is so destructive. I favor a Jewish homeland for the sake of my own race, so we’ll have a place to make them go.
A lot of them support the idea of the State of Israel existing even though they don’t want to live in the Middle East. I would support another Jewish country somewhere on the planet. Anything to get them out of our nations, permanently. It would be the greatest gift to our descendants.
We should take the choice and opportunity of living beside and among us away from them. It should be our choice, not theirs. It may seem cruel to some to make Jews completely dependent upon their own kin and labor to survive, since they really have no experience with this, but they should have been preparing and planning for eventual independence from European peoples. If they were actually smarter than they claim to be (and wiser than they have ever demonstrated themselves to be), they would have been planning for complete independence.
Long ago I lost my patience and sympathy for them. I don’t wish for their extermination, but I want them gone from our lands. Permanently. And if they suffer as they try to adjust to living on their own, good. There is room in my humanity for a bit of longing for retribution.
The events of this past week, on top of the Ukraine fiasco, has underlined to me the urgency of removing these people from influence (or, even relevancy!) in European nations. How this will happen has been troubling me.
Being a long time reader, listener and supporter to both Counter Currents and TRS this vitriolic family feud offers entertainment value but at the end of the day, despite the stakes, I hope egos are tempered and personal slights brushed off. After all one of the most hilarious moments on TRS was Greg Johnson’s African / cat lady rants.
BTW Sven’s lisping imitation of Greg is rich being he can act like one of the bitchiest yentas in the movement.
Sven has two modes: suck up and shit down. Neither one is consistent with friendship or collegiality. When he was in the sucking up phase of our relationship, I actually thought he was a nice guy. Earlier this year, Sven scolded his employee Mike on TRS for attending a meeting of the Northwest Forum in 2017 or 2018. Mike pleaded that he didn’t know at the time that TRS was “bigger” and that he should have been shitting down rather than sucking up.
You can’t be friends or colleagues or comrades with people like that. You may think we are all acting for the greater good of the race, but they are anxiously monitoring their status markers and income streams the whole time, determined to come out ahead in every transaction. The best you can hope for is that they stay in their own lane.
By the way, according to SimilarWeb, CC is now much bigger than TRS/NJP, but Sven and Mike are still partying like it is 2016.
Counter Currents has never been a monolithic thought-blog but instead presents a wide spectrum of ideas and adaptable evolving concepts centered around white advocacy. TRS takes a more aggressive, unfiltered, no holds barred approach to white advocacy that can be almost as gritty as Jim Goad, but it does at times become an echo chamber centered more on the cult of the personalities.
You have to give some leeway to Sven, it can’t be easy being an aspiring Diva when you have a singing voice like a bullfrog on helium. Like the title of the Frank Zappa album says “Shut Up ‘n Play Yer Guitar”.
The reason I have no concern for either Jews (Israelis) of Muslims (Palestinians) — other than the horrid tortures of women and children and other innocents — is because they have both ‘written me out’ of their “Holy Books”, from “The Old Testament”, “The Torah” and “The Koran”, as well as myriad ‘Commentaries’.
Their use of the words ‘Goy’ – Pl. Goyim’ and ‘Infidel’ def. ‘Unbeliever’ — are meant specifically against me since I am in a different ‘nation’ (or what we call “race”) or from a different ‘place’ or patch of the Earth’s land.
Their ‘Holy Books’ are full of minute laws against the Infidels and Goyim which make it clear that we are quite different from one another. This is a vast subject to study at your leisure. But do learn your place as Goy and Infidel in their worldview.
But in closing, I choose not to be involved in choosing sides in the current insanity. I wish I could help the women and children and other innocent souls. By the way, war is very bad for the climate — something to remind the idiot Left in their shrieking protests against only Israel.
What would Julius (Evola) do?
He would take some drugs, of course.
Palestinians don’t occupy many of the highest positions of the U.S. government. Palestinians don’t control the financial institutions. Palestinians don’t control the country’s media.
Therefore, Palestinians are not a threat. The only way that Palestinians could be a threat, is if Jews decide to ship them to the U.S. or Europe. Thus, Israel, and by extension Zionism across the globe, is the only threat in this conflict. Any attempt to say, “I’m not on either side!” is merely the obfuscation of Jewish power.
I am glad that some Jews live in the Middle East instead of Europe or America. But that doesn’t mean I support their wars.
Your conclusion does not follow, since there are other ways Palestinians can be problems without controlling, banks, media, and the government. Beyond that, Jews have already decided to ship them and millions of others Middle Easterners to our countries, a number that will surely rise after the massacre they are preparing in Gaza.
Muslims are a hemotoxin.
Jews are a neurotoxin.
One pleasant side effect of the current War Between The Semites is that it has forced into the open and exacerbated the divide in the Democrat and wider Lib/Prog camps between their Jews and their various Peeps de Couleur.
Since both groups are enthusiastically anti-White, it is enjoyable to see the Hebrews cry out with a wounded sense of betrayal at the Black N Browns (whom they have imported to replace the Euros) who look at Israel and see just one more White oppressive colonial power wounding their fellow darker skinned natives.
I believe the apt German (!) word here is Schadenfreude.
I am not sure why nobody sees Ukraine project also as a product of Jewish grievances.