1,990 words
Part of what we do here on the dissident Right is talk about the news. When there is a big conversation going on, we want to be part of it. Recently, conflict has again broken out between Israelis and Palestinians. The Internet is aflame with Zionists and anti-Zionists tweeting pictures of dead babies at each other and exchanging accusations of terrorism and genocidal intent. So the question for the dissident Right is, what is our take on this? And more specifically, whose side are we on?
I think there are two kinds of content creators on the dissident Right: intellectuals and propagandists. An intellectual might look at an event and, based on his philosophical framework, try to find the morally and intellectually correct position. A propagandist will look at an event and think, “How do we spin this to our advantage?” An intellectual pursues the truth even if the truth is black-pilling, while the first commandment of propaganda is “Thou shall not black-pill.” This can often lead to disagreements over messaging. But the dissident Right needs both. Without the intellectuals, a purely propagandistic dissident Right would become too Machiavellian, and without propagandists, it might become too unpragmatic. There have already been some articles at Counter-Currents where intellectual arguments have been made on this subject, but I want to look at the present conflict as a propaganda event.
The idea of Israel is ridiculous. For the sake of argument, say the mainstream Holocaust narrative is entirely true: six million were killed, and all the stories about soap made from human fat and masturbation machines actually happened. If Jews need a homeland, why not give them a piece of Germany? If Germany committed the crime, shouldn’t they be the ones to pay the price? Right off the bat, making Palestinians pay for someone else’s crime is absurd on its face. The Jews could have had their own country in many other places, but they insisted on the Levant because, according their holy book, God — which no Jew actually believes in — told them it was their homeland. But when you actually read their holy book, you find out that they actually came from Egypt. So why isn’t Egypt their homeland? If Jews really want to get back to their roots, they should be trying to get back to Egypt, the birthplace of Moses. Or Chaldea, the birthplace of Abraham. None of it makes a whole lot of sense.
But Israel exists where it does, and we have to reconcile ourselves to that fact. As a rhetorical device, Israel is a useful concept for White Nationalists. “If Jews can have an ethnostate, why can’t we?” “They put up walls in Israel, but they won’t let us put up walls here.” “They kick out their darkies in Israel. We should do the same.” If some Jewish journo starts kvetching about anti-Semitism, you can always say, “Have you ever thought about moving to Israel?” Israel is the trump card if anyone wants to fearmonger over the possibility another Holocaust: “If things get really bad for Jews, they can always just go to Israel.” These are tried-and-true White Nationalism 101 normie red pills. Thus, Israel as a concept can be a useful tool to have on one’s belt.
One of the questions floating around about the Israel-Palestine conflict is what the correct nationalist position to take on it is. Some would say that Palestinians are trying to break away and form their own country, and thus they have the more nationalist argument.
But there is another faction among nationalists which believes that how another country deals with its own troublesome minorities is none of our business. People bemoan the world not minding its own business when it came to Apartheid in South Africa. Nazis complain about Wall Street Jews dragging everyone into war because Hitler was being mean to his troublesome minorities in Germany. I’m always annoyed by non-Americans wagging their finger at us over our treatment of blacks when they’ve never had to live around them. Someday I would like all Western countries to mass deport their troublesome minorities, and when that day comes, I would appreciate it if the rest of the world minded their own goddamn business while we were doing it. Plus, all this “Israel is mean to their browns” conjures up flashbacks to Bush-era “Saddam Hussein gassed his own people!” rhetoric. Yes, there’s a nationalist case for supporting Palestine, but there is also a nationalist case for “Who cares?”
This is one of the issues with jumping on the pro-Palestinian bandwagon. Strictly from a propaganda perspective, bemoaning the fact that Israelis are mean to their minorities undermines the usefulness of Israel as a rhetorical weapon. It makes it possible to answer the question “Jews have an ethnostate, so why can’t we?” with “Yes, Israel is an ethnostate, and they are also mean to their minorities. That proves ethnostates are bad.” When we say things such as “Israel kicks out their blacks,” the message is of course not that Israel is bad for doing so but that an independent country should have the right to decide who can stay. Taking a hardline pro-Palestine stance drastically reframes things and makes it more difficult to argue, “We want what they have in Israel.” The current conflict is bad publicity for Jews, and thus the schadenfreude among White Nationalists is understandable. But it is also unfortunately bad publicity for ethnonationalism, as Israel is the best-known example of a really existing ethnostate that was deliberately constituted as such.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
That’s not to say that one should become an open Zionist. Even if I thought that Israel was entirely in the right and Palestine was entirely in the wrong, I could not bring myself to defend them in any context. They already have multi-billion dollar institutions and vast networks of influencers dedicated to defending Jews and Israel. They don’t need my help. Plus, Jews do not support any one else’s right to a nation, so on principle I refuse to burn calories defending theirs. The same people who say that “Palestine” is not a real thing also say that “white people” are not a real thing. At most, Israel can expect no opposition from me, but they will never have my support.
But I think there is a Machiavellian case for White Nationalists getting behind the pro-Palestine cause, or at least not opposing it.
There’s an Eddie Murphy movie from 1992 entitled The Distinguished Gentleman about a black con artist who fakes his way into becoming a US Congressman because his name is similar to that of a previous representative, who has died. The voters elect the black guy because they think he’s the same as the previous one. It’s a fairly pedestrian fish-out-of-water comedy, but there is one very memorable scene (the following is from the script; the scene in the movie is a bit shorter):
TERRY: Listen, I’d like to do more money for you. I just need to know your positions on a few issues. (O’Connor takes out a pen and leather notecard case) For instance, where are you on sugar price supports?
TOMMY: Sugar price supports? Where should I be, Terry?
TERRY: Shit, makes no difference to me. If you’re for ’em, I got money for you from my sugar producers in Louisiana and Hawaii. If you’re against ’em, I got money for you from the candy manufacturers.
TOMMY: You pick.
TERRY: (writing) Let’s say “for.” Now, what about putting limits on malpractice awards?
TOMMY: You tell me.
TERRY: Well, if you’re for ’em, I got money from the doctors and insurance companies. If you’re against ’em, I got money from the trial lawyers. Tell you what, let’s say against. Now how about pizza?
TOMMY: (indicating his plate) I’ll stick with the salad.
TERRY: Not for lunch, shmuck, for PAC [Political Action Committee] money. A lot of the frozen pizzas use phony cheese. There’s a law pending requiring them to disclose it on their labels. If I vote for the labels . . . then I get money from the dairy industry . . .
TOMMY: And if I vote against the labels, I get money from the frozen food guys.
O’CONNOR: Excellent! And don’t forget the ranchers, because they get hurt if pepperoni sales go down!
TOMMY: (laughing in admiration) A pepperoni lobby. I love this town.
That scene is how many on the dissident Right view a lot of these hot-button issues that are not directly related to white interests. But in our case, instead of money we’re talking about likes, retweets, and the ability expand one’s audience. Palestine? Well, if you’re for it, I can get you likes and retweets from anti-Zionist Bernie Bros and libertarians. If you’re against it, I can get you some likes and retweets from Turning Point USA and the Bronze Age Pervert scene. COVID vaccines? If you’re for them, you can get likes and retweets from respectable establishment types, and if you’re against it, I can get you some retweets from the QAnon crowd. Women? If you’re for them, you can get some likes and retweets from e-thots, and if you’re against them, I can get you some retweets from the manosphere . . . And so on.
So when Greg Johnson asks, “Why, then, are so many other White Nationalists cheering on the Palestinians?”, I think this is why. While “both sides are bad” might be a morally sound position, the unfortunate reality is that it is not a position that is going to make you many friends. Once upon a time, such a position might have scored you points with the New Atheist scene, but in 2023, it’s a message without an audience. On the other hand, there are various networking opportunities with adjacent communities to be had from taking a hard position one way or the other. Keith Woods took a hardline pro-Palestine position before it was fashionable, and he is now being invited to speak on a diverse array of streams and podcasts outside our circles.
One of the dissident Right’s goals is to normalize criticism of Jews. This normalization is currently in its infancy. A few years ago, you could not criticize the Jews in any context, but now there are a few contexts in which you can criticize Jews without getting fired from your job. It is now socially acceptable to criticize the Anti-Defamation League, for example. You can also criticize Jews for being mean to the Palestinians. Take out the morality and relative merits; if the goal is to normalize anti-Semitism and criticism of Jews, the pro-Palestine movement achieving a degree of mainstream respectability would be a positive development.
That is the Realpolitik of the situation, and so I can understand why some White Nationalists feel invested in the success of the pro-Palestine cause. If we are being honest with ourselves, and if we were to rank the reasons why we don’t like Jews, the fact that they are mean to Palestinians would be quite far down the list — but that’s not really the point. The point is that White Nationalists see it as a useful tool for desensitizing people to criticism of Jews. You can say that they are right or wrong for doing so, but it is certainly understandable why people would like to see the Palestinian cause go mainstream.
My position is that it’s none of our business. But not taking a side does not mean you have to check out of the conversation. There are still plenty of propaganda opportunities in this conflict. Jews and neoconservatives have filled social media with genocidal fedposting that would make Mr. Bond blush. And Jewish hypocrisy is on full display as they are expressing the same kind of nationalism that they call everyone else Nazis for displaying.
There are a lot of memes to be made out of this mess.
40 comments
With mild amusement and heavy exasperation I see the mainstream contradictory being drawn up. The Left loves Jews in Ukraine but hates them in Israel. The Right loves Russians but hates Palestinians. Once again none of it makes sense. I do wonder why the Jews, with all their media power, seems unable to convert Western Leftists to their Zionism. I guess the Western Leftist just can’t turn their backs on an underdog – unless the underdog is white, of course. THAT bit of programming did go through.
The Right loves WHITES, buddy, and that’s it (I admit to having a lot of respect for the Japanese, however, along with some of the grudging variety for the Jews). Any rightist rooting for the Russians is a ‘tool’; any rightist with any concern for the Israel/Hamas conflict (except to minimize its blowback for our people) is a fool or a phony.
I remember back in the early 90s having a conversation with an already very old rightist, who explained that our basic position is always to support the whitest against the less white: Nordic/Germanic over Slavic; English over French; Scotch-Irish over Catholic Irish; Northern Italian over Napolitano or Sicilian; Slovenian over Croatian over Serb over Bosnian; any European over any non-European; Northeast Asian over all other nonwhites … all the way down to the African and the Abo, whom he derided as the lowest of the human species.
Something to consider as a rough rule of thumb, though in this current Middle East war, choosing sides is extremely difficult (I’ll admit – at great risk here – that I’m more sympathetic to the Israelis), which is why our position should be one of strict American non-intervention, along with, of course, absolutely NO Arab “refugees”.
Your last statement there immediately shows the flaw in your theory. Following the whitest in this case would lead to supporting the Zionists, though they owe their whiteness purely to osmosis from parasitizing the Europeans for centuries. Obviously allying with Israel is a losing game, while we have a lot to gain from undermining support for Israel and their founding myths. Let’s try to view the world along an axis of justice vs injustice rather than just the racial axis of white vs nonwhite.
Yeah I find this line of reasoning very foolish. I also think it’s counterproductive and divisive to rank European countries according to how “white” they supposedly are. We should be focused on putting an end to intra-European conflicts, not egging on whichever side is “whiter.”
That elderly gentleman was most erudite and sagacious.
I have for decades lamented intra-white conflicts. I dislike seeing white Ukrainians fighting white Russians (though not fighting the nonwhites in the Russian army). I hated The Troubles in Ireland (even though I firmly sided with the Northern Irish and British against the vile Marxist IRA). OTOH, I don’t see how any true white nationalist could not be at least a bit of a Nordicist. It doesn’t have to be obnoxious or even very oft-mentioned, but within the white race in general, and within each white nation in particular, who are the worthiest persons as a general rule (always acknowledging the probability of multitudes of individual exceptions)? In France, in Italy, in Spain, and Greece, etc, the ‘whiter’ whites and regions tend to be the higher civilized. Is that accidental? Should it simply be glossed over, at least within the private thoughts of WNs?
I would love to witness a population explosion amongst the indigenous of all European nations. But, ceteris paribus, I’d rather have the explosion among the Germans, Danes and English than among the Mediterranean peoples.
I disagree with you on multiple points. First, I stated clearly my preference for the US staying completely out of this new Middle East conflict, not for allying with Israel.
Second, I disagree with your assertion that the Israelis are whiter than the Arabs due to “osmotic” miscegenation with Europeans. The Ashkenazim in fact are the truest Jews. It’s only over the past century or so that there has started to be a lot of Jewish/white intermarriage. I know two blonde Jews who can trace their exclusively Jewish ancestry back centuries. It’s the increasingly predominant darker Jews who are the more ‘mixed’ ones. Reflect upon the fact that the entire world has been getting racially darker for millennia. The original people of the Bible (Mediterranean) were mostly as white as we are. Herodotus described his fellow Greeks as “blonde and blue-eyed” (I’ve known Greeks who still fit this description, but they’re rare). The pharoanic Egyptians were neither black, nor nearly as Negroidal as the totality of today’s Egyptians.
Third, you and many other prowhites may view the Zionists as our chief enemies, but I don’t. I regard the evolutionarily defective white genome that produces white (race) liberals to be our greatest problem/adversary. Outside of our tribe’s “black sheep”, I view the greatest threats to white perpetuity (admittedly, there are so many …) as 1) Islam (the ideology of Islamism in combination with the Muslim colonization of Europe); 2) the African population explosion; and 3) China’s long term quest for global supremacy.
The Jews have been a (perhaps even the) major threat in the recent past, but I don’t think they will be going forward. Contrary to both WN and Zionist imaginings, they are ultimately dependent upon us for their very survival. I think ever more are coming to this realization. This is especially true for the Israelis, who are not in the least bit hostile to whites (paradoxically, the Israelis are less ‘white’, and becoming ever less so, than their more liberal {ie, antiwhite} co-ethnics in the West).
Finally, I absolutely do not agree that “justice” resides with the Palestinians – and certainly not with the Hamas butchers of women and children. As a universal ethnonationalist, but also as a militant white preservationist, I do support Palestinian statehood. Why is more complex than I have time for at this moment. But the Jews have made a great success of Israel, while the Arabs mostly cannot behave or govern themselves decently (those Arab states which are wealthy are so because of Western development of and need for their oil reserves). The Jews in Israel today have nearly as much right to their land as we white Americans have to our New World nation. Claiming Palestinians have a “right” to Israel morally and rhetorically disarms whites in the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, Argentina – any place where our people colonized undeveloped lands that had prior inhabitants.
What matters in cases of “ancient lands” disputes is not who was there first, but which group built the modern nations existent now. Not even three weeks ago, prolific CC book reviewer Morris van de Camp reviewed here a book discussing and critiquing such “stolen land” narratives, which are almost always the product of nonwhite envy (at least for now; someday, whites will be making such arguments wrt our own lands, and we will have justice on our side!).
What matters is who can control the narrative, and in a liberal system the Israelites have proven that they run rings around everyone else. The real arbiter of control of territory is the command of superior force and the will to use it.
Lord Shang wrote: “I remember back in the early 90s having a conversation with an already very old rightist, who explained that our basic position is always to support the whitest against the less white: Nordic/Germanic over Slavic; English over French; Scotch-Irish over Catholic Irish; Northern Italian over Napolitano or Sicilian; Slovenian over Croatian over Serb over Bosnian; any European over any non-European; Northeast Asian over all other nonwhites … all the way down to the African and the Abo, whom he derided as the lowest of the human species.”
With this one paragraph, you pretty much confirmed Jim Goad’s claim that you have no justification in suggesting anyone else is a coward with your pseudonymity. This is the proof that many white people need to watch their backs with people like you. Just imagine living in a society where this is the norm in thinking, or where this reasoning is commonly entertained… what a mess for so many “white” people… you know, the lesser whites to people like you. It’s a good thing you must resort to hide your identity, because with this type of crap out in the open, I will be honest and say you’d be a target – not of the browns, mind you, but of whites who would deal with your snot-nosed attitude in a more up-front manner. Whatever, man. You do you. But Goad called this one well, in my view.
What in the hell are you talking about? You have misrepresented me to such a degree that you need to improve your reading skills. As you say, whatever.
Two additional comments:
I wrote an extensive reply to Goad’s little attack; you should read it.
You write: the lesser whites to people like you. It’s a good thing you must resort to hide your identity – when did I say anything about myself? Projecting, are we? You don’t know my ethnicity. I could be Chinese or Jewish for all you know (I’m not). I was relaying something said to me a long time ago (by an old man who’d been involved with the prowhite cause over many disappointing decades). I do think his rule is a good general one. It follows from everything known (so far) in the area of genetic similarity theory. (Oh, and I notice you hide your identity. Why is that?)
All I know is Goad called you out and you gave a long dissertation on how you’ve put in work for the cause, all unverified, and among the more amusing claims of yours is that you openly stated in your workplace the almost uncontroversial position that “looters must be put down.” So blurting populist slogans within an earshot is now the standard for fighting for the cause, right? That’s a low bar, in my view. (As for myself, I am happy to keep a distance from movements that attract people with your line of reasoning on the hierarchy of humanity).
Anyway, yes, it’s fine that some prefer a subtype of white more than others according to genetic similarity theory… but I do think it’s against the interests of most whites to become part of an ethnostate that deems them as inferior a priori, or that gives preference to some over others – a type of “affirmative action” – given the great variation within subgroups.
I don’t mind people having their own biases, but the problem lies when/if these ideas are institutionalized. I also think this view of the world is cynical and toxic, by reducing the humanity of overs based on their latitude of origin. It also ignores much of history – that civilization came from the south, not the north – and I notice to square this circle you are essentially arguing that the ancient Mediterraneans were Nordic or more Nordic than they are presently. I’m not in the mood to debate this, as this has already been covered by Greg Johnson himself, but I’ll just say I for one am not and never will be on your team.
Ancient Central and Southern Italy were easily the most impressive parts of the boot. The heavily Germanic and to a lesser degree Celtic North not so much. This Nordicism is so goddamn tiresome and counter-productive. I’ve read Herodotus and don’t recall him saying the Hellenes were all blond/blonde and blue eyed. Were there blonds in ancient Greece and Rome/Italy? Absolutely. Is there any reason to believe they were super abundant? Absolutely not. This is just a massive cope to make oneself feel better about having NO real connection to Greece and Rome, while trying to de-legitimize the real descendants of the great people. It really is We Wuz Kangs level nonsense.
seems unable to convert Western Leftists to their Zionism
Because the Western Leftists are hostile to ANY national states, Jewish or not Jewish. Even the majority of Leftist Jews in the West dislikes Israel.
Keith Woods hard line pro-palestinian position is pretty much the norm in Ireland. It was no great risk to take, domestically anyway.
In Ireland, probably not but I definitely remember him getting some flack within the Dissident Right who either didn’t think wasn’t relevant to white nationalism or thought the idea of white knighting for brown people was gay or that caring about Palestinians a lefty thing to do.
IMO, Keith Woods is top of the Dissident Right league table at the moment. Nick Fuentes is probably still getting more press because he’s a clickbait boogeyman but in terms of who is driving the discussion and who people are looking to for their talking points, Keith Woods is the man of the hour. He just passed 100k followers on Twitter and Elon Musk likes him so he probably won’t get banned.
My Keith Woods impression.
“White interests” are very simple to figure out: if two billion people on earth are reading the same book — the Koran, for example — which talks over and over about “Infidels” as being their enemy, and how Moslems must fight against Infidels, and that they must first kill all Infidels in order to take over — is that seriously not clear to Whites?
And I understand that something very similar is written in the Jewish Holy Book, the Torah, which I admit I’ve never read a page. Anyone familiar with it? We really need to know what our enemies intend for us.
You probably mean the Talmud. The Torah is their word for what we call The Old Testament.
Not to sound pedantic, but The Tanakh is Christianity’s Old Testament; The Torah is the first five books of the Tanakh (i.e., The Law).
On another pedantic note, Abraham was from Ur Qasdim which is in Southeast Turkey.
I didn’t know that; I only knew that he had many sons.
No it isn’t, Ur is located in what is now Iraq.
You’ve never read any parts of the first five books of the Old Testament? I doubt that. Did you perhaps mean the Talmud?
Normalizing criticism of Jews is the big possible win here. This conflict serves as a way to illustrate Jewish behavioral traits, such as their particularly dishonorable form of ethnocentrism, which is in sharp contrast to Europeans’ more masculine, forthright form of ethnocentrism.
We need to point out their deceit, malfeasance, and hatred of non-Jews and then frame antisemitism as a sort of social immune response.
Mercie pour l’interessant mots Leblanc.
Sur Mai 3, Omar a posse la questione ” qu est que vous pensez de non blanche, blanche nationaliste?” a Johnson, Goad et Stueben sur cc radio. Et tous etiant d’accord il etait acceptable. Mon question maintenant est pouvons nous travaille avec les contres mouvements a notre propres fini? La guerre est opportunitie alons y utilise ca. Les gens qui sont marchent avec gasa sont detestable, mais nous avons besoin enlever le bottine de notre cou. Sil vous plait je vais rappelle tout le monde si une cote trouve la victoire totale il vais etre pire pour nous, deux millions les palestiniens ou sept milions juifs. le poele lors que mijoter nous manouevrons. Le question a Gregoire est peut il etre faire?//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Thank you for the interesting words Leblanc.
On May 3, Omar asked the question “what do you think about non-white, white nationalist?” to Johnson, Goad and Stueben on cc radio. And everyone agreed it was acceptable. My question now is can we work with the counter movements to our own end? War is an opportunity so let’s use it. People who walk with gasa are detestable, but we need to get the boot off our necks. Please I will remind everyone if one side finds total victory it will be worse for us, two million Palestinians or seven million Jews. the stove while simmering we will maneuver. The question to Gregoire is can it be done?
Merci,
Jean-Baptiste
There seem to be some errors in recalling Biblical tradition here (a century ago every educated white person knew this stuff off by heart). Firstly, Abraham was not born in Egypt, he was a wandering Aramean, from Ur in Mesopotamia. Abraham’s grandson Jacob, who was renamed Israel after wrestling with an Angel, had twelve sons, including Judah and Joseph. The latter became vizier of Egypt and the Children of Israel (descendants of Jacob) sojourned there for some generations until a Pharaoh who ‘did not know Joseph’ began to oppress them. Moses, born in Egypt, received the promise of the Land of Canaan for his people if they would accept the burden of the Torah. The flight of the Israelites, their wanderings and travails, is related in the second to fourth Books of the Bible. The conquest of Canaan and the fate of the tribes already living there is treated in the subsequent Books of Joshua and Judges. Each Israelite tribe, descending from one of the twelve sons Jacob, received an inheritance — a region of Canaan along with a set of duties and prerogatives. The southern hill country containing Jerusalem went to the tribe of Judah. Canaan was resettled and ruled by Israelite Judges and subsequently the Kings Saul, David and Solomon. Then King Rehoboam, son of Solomon caused the northern regions to defect so as to form the breakaway Kingdom of Israel, the southern rump becoming the Kingdom of Judah. Here we arrive at roughly the point where Biblical tradition merges with the wider recorded history of the region. Incidentally ten of the Twelve Tribes were lost in the upheavals of conquest and Babylonian exile and tribal filiations became doubtful, so that all Jews today are deemed either priestly Cohens, musical (inter alia) Levites or generic Israelites. Fringe groups such as white British Israelites and black Rastafarians are fond of claiming descent from the Lost Tribes. Finally, though Hollywood moguls and Wall Street tycoons may be atheistic, the same can most certainly not be said of observant Jews, who comprise a growing force in both the modern State of Israel and the Diaspora.
Yeah, I assumed Travis was being sarcastic or fishing for laughs on that latter point. Many diasporic Jews are atheists, but Israelis are getting more religious all the time, mainly due to the astronomical birthrate among the Orthodox. Indeed, the growing numbers of religious and what their duties to the state might be was the issue at the heart of the vitriolic recent disagreements over “judicial reform” in Israel – a state of intra-Israeli conflict many are now saying influenced the Hamas attack and its timing.
And Abraham et al were not born in Egypt (lol!), though of course Moses was.
Point taken. What Christians refer to as the Old Testament is actually extremely interesting reading in its entirety, commended, as if that should be necessary, to all denizens and metics of Counter-Currents. If only to compare and contrast with our own foundational epics, the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid and Simarillion.
The Silmarillion is not a “foundational” work of Western Civilization, really Greco-Roman Civilization as the other ancient works mentioned. I don’t care as I don’t think highly of him, but it’s worth pointing out that Tolkien was a philo-Semite, who once said he “regretted” that he had no known Jewish ancestors. If a European writer said that today, he would,rightly, be called a shabbos goy and a cuck of the highest order. But Tolkien gets a pass because Hobbits are cool, I guess.
The Professor actually intended early versions of the Silmarillion to supply a lacking ‘Mythology for the English’. He felt that, Beowulf aside, the Anglo-Saxons had little mythic literature of their own compared to the Celtic peoples of our Isles and set out to rectify matters. Whether he succeeded is a matter of taste. Certainly his mythos is monotheistic, but the supreme deity and his demiurges are generally rather more gentlemanly than the Jealous God of the Old Testament.
I am an American, with no vital interest in the latest ME border war, I prefer a neutral position, and little to no engagement with one of the nastiest Tar Babies on Earth.
OTOH – we can use this war to pummel one of our most troublesome sectors in the US – the LDJ (liberal diaspora Jew, a term coined by Greg, I think). It is child’s play to point out the many liberal orgs (eg blm) and Universities (eg Harvard) that are hotbeds of full throated Pro-Palestine support and anti-zionism which are fully supported by LDJ donations. But will they wake up and shut off the cash to these trouble-makers? Due to the war, we can find common enemies of the WN and LDJ in America.
“Yes, Israel is an ethnostate, and they are also mean to their minorities. That proves ethnostates are bad.”
I would reply that the problem is not Jewish ethnostate but the lack of Palestinian ethnostate. Besides, one-state solution would likely increase ethnic rivalry, not solve it, and ultimately lead to civil war.
I despise the state of Israel for a multitude of reasons, but with that being said I’m not that high on Palestine either. I’ll probably get flak for this but, I don’t believe “Palestinians” exist, that is as a distinct people/ethnos. As far as I’m concerned they’re just Arabs who have lived in Palestine for a while. However, seeing Yahwehs’ chosen lunatics frothing at the mouth getting ready to obliterate Gaza, is pretty reprehensible whether they are a distinct people or not, and I certainly have some sympathy for their plight. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be stuck in Gaza as Shlomo’s bombs rain down in “self-defense”.
I’m currently in England and was shocked to the random Arabs/Muslims waking around with Palestine flags. I predicted that there would be ad hoc laws to prevent anti-Zionism in Western Europe and presto. There are so many Arabs/Muslims in Europe that I can expect to hear a bullhorn of ‘free, free Palestine!’ And then walk through a demonstration.
Even though I’m glad Hamas did what they did, I found myself annoyed at these Muslims doing this in white countries, but I don’t have the energy to debate after over 2 months of travel. If Muslims and Jews love this region so much, why don’t they all live there? Why do whites not get to have our own countries? I’m so sick of both groups and I hope they continue to neutralize each other. Sadly the next USS Liberty is already there ready to ignore the Iran war should it get to that point.
I don’t have a high regard for Islam and don’t think it belongs in the West. I don’t have anything against Muslims but they can keep their refugees and their “sixth pillar of the faith” (Jihad) in the Middle East where it comes from. If the Arabs want to fight the Israelis, I don’t care.
That being said, I can’t really agree that Israel is an ethnostate — at least not one that should be exemplified by White Nationalists.
Hitler summed up Zionism in Mein Kampf. He said that it was not a movement dedicated to building a nation-state that Jews will ever want to live in. No, Israel is a place instead for some other good Jew to make Aliyah and go there to live.
Like the spokes of a wheel that bear the load, Israel is really about its Diaspora.
Hitler said that a sovereign Jewish state allows the coordination of global mischief and provides a diplomatic refuge whenever some cosmopolitan Jewish gangster gets caught.
Does the current conflict weaken the Zionist grip on Western institutions? I doubt it. The reverse is much more likely.
I’m a Boomer but I don’t watch Fox news and have not been consuming much mainstream media these days. I am not happy to be pessimistic, but I am expecting stronger Zionism and an emboldened Israel out of this chaos — like clockwork — plus lots more Brown people on our teeming shores.
🙂
I advocate ethnic nationalism because it is generally the best way to secure two values that conflict when subsumed under a larger state or empire: cultural diversity and peace. Multiculturalism leads to conflict. Reducing ethnic diversity through separation leads to peace and allows different peoples to flourish in their own sovereign homelands.
Why then isn’t Israel, the Jewish state, another Slovenia or Denmark: a peaceful, prosperous, largely homogeneous country that few people even think about — as opposed to a pariah state, hated by its neighbors and always on the brink of starting World War III?
The main reason is twofold: 1. Israel is ethnically diverse, with millions of Palestinians under its highly abusive control. 2. Israel is capable of maintaining highly abusive relationships with its neighbors because of the backing of the United States and other Western countries.
Israel does not secure the backing of the United States like any other ally: through quid pro quo dealings. Instead, the United States extends unconditional, one-way support to Israel because of the strength of the Jewish diaspora community in the United States.
Israel will remain a ticking time bomb until the power of the American Jewish community to dictate US foreign policy is ended. Only when that day comes will Israel be forced to deal decently with the Palestinians and its neighbors. The only solution is for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, give the Palestinians a truly sovereign homeland, forever relinquish all other land claims, and restore Jerusalem to the status of an open city (primarily to protect Muslim and Christian holy sites from Jewish fanatics).
Many diaspora Jews in America would move to Israel if it were more peaceful and secure. But Israel will never be peaceful and secure because of the power of that same Diaspora community to secure unconditional US support of Israel, war crimes and all.
Obviously, then, if there is to be a solution, the impetus must come from non-Jewish Americans. We need to end the power of the Israel lobby in the United States.
If Herzl was right and Zionism is the way that Jews can become a normal people in a normal country, it will only happen when non-Jewish Americans end the power of the Israel lobby to enable Israel’s continuing abusive relationship to the United States, the Palestinians, and Israel’s neighbors.
I think that is a fair point in that other homogenous ethnostates, like Slovenia and Denmark in the example you gave, do not have the political influence vis-a-vis their expats residing in other countries the same way Jews do especially in the US. I think Biden’s cabinet has enough Jews for a quorum to do a proper synagogue service.
But there isn’t a perfect parallel either. The Scandinavians at one point were at war with each other. Israel is kind of like the US in its wild west days with its settlement of territories and having a hostile enemy of another ethnicity/race. It’s one thing for Keith Woods to be on the side of the Palestinians but I think it is a harder position for white nationalists in the US or any other country colonized by Europeans; there’s a sort of cognitive dissonance.
Peoples who can’t drum up the required cognitive dissonance when required are at high risk of extinction. But really the amount of cognitive dissonance required to believe the past and current regime lies is off the charts, so why not a little more? All it would take is the media……
Article in French translation: Le conflit israélo-palestinien, une opportunité pour le nationalisme blanc – Front National Suisse (hautetfort.com)
Guillaume Faye stated that ‘they’ [meaning the Islamic Persians] are not bringing in their best to Europe. Thus I support Israel in a Machiavellian sense.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.