Posts Tagged ‘israel’

Roots Of Modern Anti-Semitism

Friday, February 17th, 2017

While anti-Semitism makes no sense because it scapegoats one group for the failure of the much larger phenomenon of Western Individualism, it is easy to see how it came about in the modern time because of the unfortunate affinity of a large percentage of Jews for egalitarian ideologies which also reveals the eternal tragedy of the Jewish people in Europe and Eurasia:

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

When 2% of the population represents nearly 40% of the Communist Party, they will be targeted. Herzl recognized this when he noticed that among national populations, those who do not fit the national profile are attacked whenever things go wrong. But even more, when a stereotype becomes somewhat true, the brutality that follows seems justified or at least forgivable to most people, despite being unrealistic.

Naturally the tragedy of the Jews comes into play here. The Jewish diaspora began before the Jewish people were exiled from Palestine. It lies in the mixed-race nature of the Jewish population, who were probably once European but became merged with Asiatics and Asiatic-African hybrids because of Israel’s place as the center of world commerce at the time.

The Jews are a bourgeois tragedy: successful in business, they accepted everyone, which led to them changing from a European population to a mixed one. This guaranteed them a home on none of the continents and, when their homeland in the middle east was dispossessed from them, a wandering group who could never point to an origin and say “there, alone, we belong.”

Like the good businesspeople of the West today, the original Jews accepted diversity because it made good business sense. Thriving businesses do not turn down customers because of their national origin. But in doing so, the Jewish people invited in the hybridization that ensured they would never have a racial home or continental home except themselves.

This fundamental alienation led to a fascination with anti-majority movements for many Jews, explaining their higher participation in Leftist movements. However, their lack of an identity in one of the four root races — Australid, Caucasian, Asian and African — then turned against them, as even the Communists recognized the power of nationalism.

While this seems like a problem without solution, nationalism solves this problem. A new race was made: the Jewish people. It belongs to no one but itself, and it needs its own homeland, whether in Israel or Madagascar. It will never be European again, but it can be the best of what it is, and this begins with a divorce from the alienation that has led it into so many disasters.

In the meantime, these historical events prove how nonsensical anti-Semitism is. Our problem in the West is that we are following the path that the ancient Jews did because, as individuals, we are willing to “succeed” at the expense of civilization. We cannot blame others for our own moral failing, and indeed, doing so obscures what we must do, which is to change our ways.

Jewish Self-Hatred And Anti-Semitism

Monday, January 16th, 2017

In light of the recent doxxing fiasco in which members of the Alt Lite, neo-Nazi fringe and far-Left came together to destroy the life of an internet broadcaster, it is time that we on the Alt Right had a conversation about anti-Semitism and other forms of scapegoating.

It is in human nature to scapegoat. We play tennis and score badly, so the racquet is to blame, or maybe the net, possibly the fuzz on those tennis balls from the new brand that we are not yet sure we like. Dinner turned out badly? Must be the chicken, or the stove. These scapegoats live with us because they are plausible, but only tell part of the story in some cases, which means the wrong thing is being blamed.

For example, it is perfectly possible that the stove is really bad, and that the chicken is not great. However, those things alone do not make a bad meal. We knew of those challenges before we started. Also, maybe the racquet is not so good, and the new balls have less bounce. But these things alone can be compensated for. Failures come from several factors, A + B + C, and to blame any subset of that group is to scapegoat.

Scapegoating screws us in two vital ways: we fail to solve our problem, and we create other problems by chasing after the wrong culprit, including the ugly fact that we deplete our energy and will to solve the problem in the miasma of disappointment and confusion that occurs after a non-solution excites the crowd. Scapegoats doom us to perpetuate problems and create new ones.

How do you determine when you are using a scapegoat? The simple test is to correct for the factor you think is to blame and then run the equation again. If you suspect that A is wrong in A + B + C, fix A, and then re-run the test. If you would still end up with failure, or at least still be most likely to fail, then A is a scapegoat, or a contributory cause misidentified as the whole cause.

For this reason, our test for anti-Semitism is this: If all Jews died tomorrow, would our problems cease to be?

Waking up in a world without a Jew would mean that many prominent Leftist figures would be gone, true; it would also mean that the Democratic party would lose its major group of donors, and that Palestinians would both have zero restriction on their movement and no one to target for terrorist attacks. But look what remains.

The West would still be in decline, because we did it to ourselves by pursuing wealth and power instead of moral goodness. We would still have diversity, tolerance, equality, pluralism, neurosis and Leftism among us. Our civilizations would still be in the grips of an undeclared caste war, with a lack of purpose, ruled over by the democracy that makes every truth into a simplistic emotional symbolism that veers away from reality.

We would still have overpopulation, pollution and civilization collapse to wrestle with. Did Jews cause those things? They did not cause civilization collapse in Athens, nor in Tenochtitlan, nor in Chichen Itza, and probably not in Cahokia either. Civilizations tend to die when they become successful, lose purpose, and substitute with ideology and control to keep the franchise going. All civilizations die this way.

For this reason, anti-Semitism is not an accurate depiction of our problems. Worse, it fits into the form of an ideology, and is as addictive as drugs, over-eating, promiscuity or any of the other human pathologies we see around us daily. If allowed among us in a serious form, anti-Semitism becomes a replacement for realistic thinking and will lead us astray.

On the other hand, there are benefits to anti-Semitism as a conversational trope. First, it smashes a sacred cow that impedes nationalism, namely The Holocaust. Second, like most ethnic humor, it is funny because there is usually some truth to stereotypes. Finally, it widens that “Overton window” by allowing us to be critical of other ethnic groups and diversity again.

And when done by talented guys like the The Right Stuff fellows, it becomes a form of unity. People groove on the anger and mockery of a group that has been given perhaps a bit much focus in the years following World War II because of the attempted genocide that occurred during that war. You can fight over the numbers, details, dates, methods… whatever. Something happened, to our shame.

But The Holocaust has become a kind of scapegoat for Jews, too. It forces them to identify as victims, which puts them in a passive-aggressive mental state which will screw up any otherwise thriving group. It removes their initiative toward their own goals, and makes them fear “hypocrisy” for conducting necessary ethnic relocation, like that of Palestinians. The Holocaust is worse for Jews now than it was in 1945; then, it represented the loss of many people, but not the soul of a people. Now, it seems to have replaced Jewish identity with a type of self-pity that makes Jews hate themselves.

Jewish self-hatred is a widely-known phenomenon that tends to shock us goyish types when we see it. But Jews, as a group, are highly intelligent and tend to be very realistic. They know their position is dubious, since they are the results of a wealthy commercial society collapsing and, through miscegenation, converting itself into an Asiatic and African hybrid that will never again be fully European, despite having roots in what looks like populations from Italy and France. Jews also observe the behavior of fellow Jews and, much like white people, are frequently pained by it.

Perhaps the best description of Jewish identity comes from Alt Zionist, who writes of a practical Jewish identity that does not hit either of the erroneous extremes of denying mixed European heritage, or assuming that a unique and vital ethnic group has not been forged:

Instead, it is obvious that to be White is simply to be part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Europe many thousands of years ago, just as to be Jewish is to be a part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Judea many thousands of years ago and to be Black is to be part of a certain group of people of people who share a common set of ancestors in West Africa many thousands of years ago. That, at a certain point in the past, various people who had the right sort of ancestry in Europe were not called ‘White’ does not prove that Whiteness is membership in some sort of sinister social club, but only that people used to use the term ‘White’ in a different way than we do now. Analogously, we now consider many more people to be disabled than we once did, and on that basis give many more people disability benefits, but this does not in any way suggest that being disabled just is a matter of receiving disability benefits. Rather, we simply have found that the meaning of the term ‘disabled’ includes many more people than we previously thought it did.

There is much anthropological and philosophical complexity to the question whether racial terms like ‘white’ refer to biological groups or merely social constructs, and it is not my intention to settle the issue here. Rather, I should like to remark only on the disingenuity and hypocrisy of any Jew who adopts Brodkin’s stance on race. For such a Jew, inasmuch as they consider themselves to be White, attains to the privileged position of being able to, just as Brodkin does, decry Whiteness and slander White identity not as a hostile outsider but as an apparently repentant insider. Because Brodkin considers herself White, she must surely feel no compunction in admitting that her Whiteness is something hateful, bigoted and shameful. In other words, Brodkin’s self-identification as White allows her to make attacks on White people and their identity; whether or not these attacks are warranted by historical systems of power and oppression and present-day instutions of privilege is not germane to the issue: what is relevant is that Brodkin takes herself, as a White person, to be in a position to attack other White people.

But unlike the great majority of those White people in attacking whom Brodkin takes herself to be justifed, Brodkin is not truly attacking herself. For Brodkin has a competing identity behind which she can retreat in the face of her own invective: namely, Brodkin identifies also as a Jew. Brodkin’s own fears about anti-Semitism are evidence that she does not see herself as responsible for any history of power, privilege, and oppression, but rather as a precarious minority in the midst of a potentially hostile majority – a minority sometimes accepted as equals, but always separate and in danger of oppression. As such, Brodkin herself does not bear the personal weight of her attacks against White identity, and whatever justification those attacks might have obtained in virtue of her supposed Whiteness is merely disingenuous illusion.

The writer sees the error in assuming that Jews are “white” because it enables them to criticize whites from behind a protective alternate identity, like dual citizenship, where they can claim to be different from what they criticize. This is a dangerous position, and mirrors Theodor Herzl’s observation that to live among a national group and not be of that group would provoke retaliation, as it has with anti-Jewish pogroms in the past. It is bad to be different because each group needs to feel it is the same, and therefore, can work together as a civilization.

It does not take much of a leap to see that much Jewish self-hatred arises from this dual identity. They are mostly European, mixed with Other no more than your average Southern/Irish or Eastern European, but Jews have an identity of their own, which both makes them not “white” (a troublesome vague definition in itself) and part of a group united by commonality.

This duality confuses Jewish identity, and resentment over The Holocaust being the defining factor of modern Jewish life weaponizes the resulting discontent. For this reason, it is not surprising that many of the most virulent anti-Semites have had Jewish heritage. Witness the troubled past of Frank Collin:

Frank Joseph Collin is most often associated in the public mind as the neo-Nazi who threatened in 1977 to march and rally in Skokie, a predominately Jewish suburb of Chicago.

…The Illinois Corrections Department released Collin after three years, a “minimum time served,” from his 1980 conviction of sexually molesting young boys…For Collin’s role in the Marquette Park rallies in Chicago, the pamphlet distribution in Skokie with its “Death To The Jews” message, the media-manipulation after winning a Supreme Court decision allowing Collin to wear a swastika in any neighborhood of his choosing, Collin was never accused of anything other than being a nuisance, nor has he publicly spoken of those years since. Collin was once quoted as saying, “I used it [the First Amendment] at Skokie. I planned the reaction of the Jews. They are hysterical.”

Frank Collin was born in Chicago, Illinois on November 3, 1944. His father, Max Simon Collin (formerly Cohn or Cohen), a Jew who is said to have spent time in the Dachau concentration camp, may have had a major impact on his life. On Chicago television, one Illinois psychiatrist interviewed Collin during his neo-Nazi period and found him to be consumed with a “hatred for his father,” and thought Collin’s proposed Skokie march was, in effect, “an anti-Collin demonstration.”

Most people do not know that Up to 150,000 Jewish-descended people fought for Hitler and that many were decorated for their contributions. This leads to the obvious question of why someone who is partially or wholly Jewish would fight for a movement that is, to put it mildly, fervently anti-Semitic?

The answer can be found in looking at logical facts through history: Jews prefer the Western Civilization way because it fixes something that they find to be broken in Jewish history. A population ends up being mixed-race only if at some point, it believed in equality, and therefore encouraged admixture between ethnic groups so long as the offspring upheld the politics, culture and ways of the host civilization.

Jews have been bouncing back from that state for thousands of years. Although the diaspora was kicked off by Roman occupation, the attraction of Europe seems more than economic. Jews are in some way trying to rediscover and recapitulate their roots, as if hoping to end the dual mentality created by a mixed-race parentage even hundreds of generations later. In this outlook, strong nationalism is appealing even if it causes conflict with Jewish identity.

For this reason, Jewish people are formalizing their relationship with nationalism despite the dual attack of Holocaust fears and guilt over the Palestinian situation. They know that if left outside of their own communities in an increasingly secularizing world, they will soon cease to exist through outbreeding; if not vigilantly, Hitlerianly nationalistic in Israel, they will be outbred and thus out-voted by Palestinians who seek to destroy them.

The kerfuffle over anti-Semitism is thus temporary for two reasons: first, strong nationalism is about to be normed across the world, which means that resentment of other groups will become normal and through that, find a saner articulation — along the lines of “we want to be with ourselves, with no types of Other among us, no matter how nice they are” — instead of the moribund practice of emotional anti-Semitism. Second, as Jewish nationalism finds a voice, it is going to drive out the suicidal Leftist threads within Judaism and their reliance on multiculturalism.

This leaves us only with another question: what to do about doxxing? The destruction of Millennial Woes’ life by UK media which insisted on revealing his name and the addresses of his family homes showed us that doxxing is a tool of the Left. Only on the Left do people believe that some ideas are so seductive that they must be banned, which is separate from normal taboos that remove “words/images as deeds” activities like child pornography and easy home nuclear bomb kit instructions.

In other words, we need to simply cease destroying people for opinions, period. If we are to purge ourselves of defectives, we should do that on the basis of their behavior, much as we might have done to Frank Collin for his apparent molestation of young children. But we will only be able to get to the bottom of any political issue by allowing it to be aired fully and frequently from all sides.

Our only successful strategy here is to make sure the stigma is removed from all beliefs. Even if we hate anti-Semitism, we must defend anti-Semites, and we must abstain from destroying Leftists no matter what crazy stuff they say, if saying it is all they have done. In this way, we open the political window to its furthest possible extreme, and with it bring the hope of finally articulating the suppressed issues of the last century.

John Derbyshire Destroys The Jewish Question

Sunday, September 25th, 2016

Over at The Unz Review, notable Alt Right author John Derbyshire pens an explanation of ethnic clashes between European-Americans and Jewish Americans:

I cherish my Jewish friends, and I have publicly—and again, I think, more than once—expressed gratitude in print for the positive contribution Jews have made to our civilization, way out of proportion to their numbers.

That said, I know the following thing, which anyone who has observed the American political scene surely also knows: A subset of American Jews—a subset, a minority—suffer from a kind of psychological deformation that keeps them trapped in a particular, strangely atavistic type of paranoia, of victim mentality.

In this mentality, it’s always 1881 and we’re still in Russia. The Jews are cowering behind their doors in fear as the Cossacks rampage through the town, or Christian peasants with pitchforks and flaming brands march on the Jewish quarter.

Jews will never have confidence in their host nation unless it is entirely Jewish, at which point they can trust the people around them to have similar interests, including protecting Jewish people, culture, language and religion.

As the Left gears up for a new round of anti-Israel propaganda, Jewish Americans find themselves wondering if they are safe from anyone. Initially they assumed that with the Left, and its embrace of diversity, they were safe, but now they are seeing that equality including racial equality always means taking from high-performing groups and giving to lower-performing groups. Jews are a high-performing group, and thus, are targets.

The solution here as with all diversity questions is to recognize that every group acts in self-interest, and that these self-interests are incompatible between groups. For this reason, as Theodor Herzl noted, Jews need their own ethnic state — and until that day, they will always be unstable and tempted toward “easy answers” like Leftism.

Diversity creates endless clashes. The solution to these is to recognize that there is no universal society, and that each group needs its own space and self-rule. In other words, to save diversity, we must abolish diversity. Instead, we can have diversity where each group has its own nation, and none are thrust into the kind of instability that afflicts the Jewish mind in the West.

Zionism 1.0 Versus Zionism 2.0

Monday, August 8th, 2016


Since I am fortunate not to be a puritan or self-righteous person, I can say things as they really are, without any fear of social disapproval, because I have little — or nothing — to lose: I don’t like the Jews.

In my humble opinion derived from both real-world experience and extensive reading of history, they are a bunch of hustlers, charlatans, and parasites. They invent the most intricate theories and postulates in order to avoid picking up a shovel and working like ordinary people.

On the other hand, as a paleoconservative I see morality as an expression of the culture and society that produces it, and not as a universal and shared human value. When people tell me about how evil Zionism is, I shrug because Jews are not my tribe, and therefore Zionism is not my concern. No “I am not an anti-Semite, but an anti-Zionist” for me.

As I do not believe in magic, I won’t speak about of Judaism as if it were a religion of demons (what the hell?) and other nonsense which has been spoken over the centuries. Instead, I confine myself to the earthly things, since I’m not even sure to have a soul or a spirit chained to matter (I don’t think matter is pernicious in any way, but quite the opposite: I enjoy it and I hope a part of it will endure in time, as for instance, my genes, my pets, my books, and also my compact discs).

The Jews, just like any other people who feel that they have a common destiny and a cohesive force that transcends the merely territorial, have the right to have a homeland for their people, for their children, for their grandchildren, for their forthcoming generations and all those beautiful and honorable words we heard when they come from our mouths, but dangerous and virulent when they come out from theirs.

Despite my admiration for the Roman Empire, I think one of the larger challenges for Europe — as both blood and soil attest — was the expulsion of Jews from Judea after the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, consolidating the Diaspora we all know (Diaspora 1.0).

While other civilizations preferred the military occupation of territory, which required them to collect tribute but gave them the benefit of internal self-determination, Jews chose revolution and for that were exiled from the Roman realm. This was allowed because the Romans considered them useless — for example, the hysterical religious observance, the persecution of charlatans with messianic aspirations — which made it useless to even kidnap and enslave the population, common currency in ancient times. Instead the Jews were exiled as neurotics and petty criminals.

The expulsion of that bunch of troublemakers relieved the temporary tension and satisfied the Roman Empire: the desert territory was taken as spoils of war and a mockery against hordes of local fanatics. The Romans were admirable in their convictions, but also created headaches for European civilization.

We know well how the Roman Empire ended despite its greatness. Wwhen all has been conquered and pacified, and it is not possible to continue with the dynamics of the gang of Romulus and Remus1; imagine a yeast dying in their own alcohol, unable of eating more sugar. The sons of Zion took another path. Although they were not very skilled in buildings nor art (from the Western perspective, of course), they survived because their smallness, with a common element giving cohesion to hundreds of generations: to return to their homeland.

Over the centuries, the visually evident crossbreeding of Jews with Europeans made them more biologically white. They survived as an ethnic group by not forgetting their founding myths and the living memory of the moment in which the Diaspora 1.0 began. Despite the miscegenation, this idea of superiority and difference from the rest was never forgotten, but, even more, was emphasized, much as admixture with whites brought out the fundamentally Jewish character with greater intelligence.

Particularly, the idea of a bunch of Jews (from all races and colors) living together, happy and away from me not only does not bother me, but it pleases me. As a matter of common sense: isn’t better that they are all together at the same place, rather than dispersed around the world, being detrimental to the rest? If someone wants to accuse me of being a Zionist because of these thoughts, that person is probably accidentally correct. But, if so, I’d like to be accused of being a Zionist 1.0.

As a White Nationalist/Identitarian, how could I be against the idea above mentioned? The Jews are neither magical, and definitely they will not sublimate themselves, and as such, they will not disappear suddenly in the air. Indeed, a Holocaust to bring the final solution to the Jewish question (this time, a real one) won’t happen. Then, what is problem when boats, trains, omnibuses, airplanes and carts with Jews from all corners of the world leave their host lands, heading to Eretz Israel? For this reason, I am a Zionist 1.0 and not a Zionist 2.0, since I support the idea of a state for Israelis in Israel, and not in other place in the world. Or maybe somewhere else, but away from me. And away from my people. And away from the allies of my people.

Since the building of a Zionist state in the southern cone is my reality, honestly, I prefer a Jewish state in Palestine instead of a Jewish state in Patagonia disguised as communities with an increasing interest on ecological conservation2.

Being objective, to us, Zionism 2.0 is as dangerous as anti-Zionism: the first one wants an Aliyah of thousands and thousands of Jews going down to the Southern Cone, and the second one seeks the disappearance of the State of Israel, which leads to a Diaspora 2.0. In simple words, both Zionism 2.0 and anti-Zionism converge in the same result. When it comes to us, I’m against the State. When it comes to them (Jews), I am in favor to a State which keep them united, tight and within its current physical borders (sovereignty).

And what about the Palestinians?

Let’s be honest: no occupation is worthy; worthy men cannot live under occupation, but must be free and forge their own destiny, and it is logical that, being witness of the invasion of thousands and thousands of Jews, the Palestinians would react equally violently. Palestine is still in the third world, and while Diaspora 1.0 helped the Jews to acquire the successful methods of the First World3, it is consequently not possible that these two peoples coexist in a territorial overlap anymore. Israelis and Palestinians cannot co-exist side-by-side or comingled.

But Palestinians need a homeland, and that homeland should not be Chile; it should not be South America, nor should it be America. Currently, there is a diaspora of ten millions of Palestinians, and the place of those people should be Palestine, not any other place. From our position, we cannot and we should not advocate for any of the two sides, in fact, it is not our business. Being crude, it becomes our problem when one of them (anyone of the both sides of the coin), leaves its territory to get to ours.

Today, it is not an issue of being anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinian, is about being pro-Us and that leads necessarily to be anti-diaspora, Diaspora 1.0 as well Diaspora 2.0. As I am neither liberal nor self-righteous, I cannot base my argument in human rights, civil rights or the casualties of war. I can speak only common sense and logical reality.

I cannot tear my clothes upon seeing a lot of Israelis watching and cheering as military drops bombs on Gaza. We cannot pretend that they cry for those death toll. Palestinians are their enemies and it is normal to celebrate these bloody deeds. I expect that Palestinians celebrate the death of Israelis similarly and would be shocked if they did not. The world is cruel. Why should it be a wonderful place full of rainbows? We are animals. Aren’t we all?

Palestine needs a home and a State on its homeland. Israel needs a home and a State on its homeland. Probably, as Europeans, we are harvesting today what we sow yesterday, after the Bar Kokhba revolt, but it is time to end our sense of responsibility for the displacement of others and to look towards ourselves.

And with that, we realize that all diasporas must end, and only worldwide Nationalism can do this.

1 Jack Donovan. “Thug Life: The Story of Rome”. The Way of Men. 2012
2 “Chilean senator accuses IDF soldiers of mapping out country.” The Times of Israel.
3 Brett Stevens. “Gaza Everywhere”. American Renaissance, August 4, 2014

Zionism Is Nationalism And Worth Defending

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016

The internet, which is now a social interaction, like all social interactions distills complex ideas down to the viewpoint of the herd: we fear this, we do not fear that.

As a result, on the Right there is often talk about “Zionism” as being a horrible evil which intends to take over the world, forgetting that Zionism is an assertion of Nationalism — the idea that Jews need their own state, and all Jews belong there, where they can control their destiny and live according to their ways.

Its opposite is diaspora thinking, or the idea that Jews should live in every country on earth and try to be dual citizens there. The extreme of diaspora thinking is the idea that Jews must be exterminated because they corrupt these nations, and having them have a nation of their own is impossible.

Back when Ben Shapiro was writing most ardently on this issue, he stated the case for Nationalism as a way for high-IQ populations to defend themselves against assimilation by the much numerically superior third world populations:

Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It’s an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. And it is far less ugly than the prospect of bloody conflict ad infinitum. When two populations are constantly enmeshed in conflict, it is insane to suggest that somehow deep-seated ideological change will miraculously occur, allowing the two sides to live together.

Unfortunately, this insanity is generally accepted as “the only way forward.” President Bush accepts it because it is politically palatable. The Arabs accept it because for them, it is a Trojan horse. The Israelis accept it because they are afraid that if they expel the Arabs, they will be called Nazis.

In Israel, Jews have the ability to live as they want according to their cultural mandate. The more people act against Israel, the more the diaspora persists, creating the usual diversity conflict which is that multiple groups living in the same place prevents a value system from being chosen and upheld.

In the West, we live through the same invasion, not just of Muslims but of many other third world groups who reproduce faster than we do, and will replace us with a mixed-race population that has third-world levels of ability, moral character and inclination to social order.

For Israel to survive, it must adopt a policy of exclusion not just of Palestinians but all others. When this happens, the presumptive victims of Nationalism during the Second World War will have validated it as a necessary principle, and the rest of us can begin to adopt it from our countries, which are also under risk of third world assimilation.

The Complexity Of National Identity

Friday, July 15th, 2016

From an email exchange between a writer and an actress comes an affirming view of nationalism as not just practical ideal, but transcendental goal:

You know, the word “Hebrew” (ivri, as in a nationality, like Abraham the Hebrew) comes from the root for “to cross over” — la’avor. I think it’s related to Jews being nomadic people, or maybe Abraham being the first one to cross a river in the Bible? But it does feel like a state that is emblematic of our people, and maybe all people — that we are always in the midst of replacing one fulfilled desire with a new desire, accepting a new piece of knowledge with another question.

When I first encountered Buddhist thought in my 20s, I was so confused. I’m supposed to be content with what’s going on here and now? I realized how much Judaism for me was connected to yearning — to wanting what you don’t have — which is maybe why Israel is so complicated emotionally for Jews: It’s built into the emotional structure of our religion to yearn for a homeland we don’t have.

So then if we have it, what do we yearn for? We say “next year in Jerusalem” as if we are still in exile. But maybe Jerusalem as an idea is never attainable — so we can keep longing for it even when we have it, like a spouse you desire eternally. You keep feeling that you can’t get them, as if it were the perpetual beginning of a flirtation. Jerusalem does have an aura. The air feels thicker there. It feels like the city, itself, is manipulating, pushing passions around.

This sense of yearning is central to all conservative visions of civilization: always seeking for an excellence that rises above reactivity to the world and its material demands, and instead seeks to create an emotional and moral experience in which striving for improvement becomes a joy.

In this vision, self-discipline and civilizational nurturing become one and the same, based in identity as a people. We are ourselves, it says, and we will always have an infinite horizon of potential toward which to aim. There is never an ending, only an ongoing task in which we find pleasure in taking part.

In their zeal to condemn internationalism, of which the Jewish diaspora is the most potent symbol, Nationalists have mostly ignored the Jewish experience of return to a homeland and the loss of their historically temporary identity as the nationless, persecuted and victimized. In this return, we see the soul-nourishing aspects of Nationalism, and how it commands us toward a primitive conservatism, or conservation of excellence.

Israel Partially Vindicates Hitler

Wednesday, April 20th, 2016


A recent survey found that Israel Jews support Holocaust-style policies for Palestinians:

Almost half of Jewish Israelis believe Arabs should be “expelled or transferred” from Israel, a survey has found.

A study carried out by the Pew Research Centre found that around one in five adults questioned “strongly agreed” with the controversial statement, which amounts to ethnic cleansing under some definitions.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the act as “attempting to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic group”, while a United Nations report in 1993 additionally specified the use of “force or intimidation”.

The Western liberal press gets it wrong when they gang-rush Israel over this one. As mentioned here in the past several times, Israel has learned the lesson that Germans did when they voted for Hitler: diversity does not work because it cannot work; having two ethnic groups occupy the same space is paradoxical and creates culture clashes, class warfare, racism and genocide.

Initial NSDAP policy was relocation of Jewish people to Israel, which is their ancestral home and historical point of origin. Palestinians, or the Arabs and Jews and nearby populations who were servants to the historical Jews and were left behind during the diaspora, have no claim to the land, being closely related to nearby populations in Syria, Egypt and Jordan.

Israel has realized that it cannot coexist with people who are not only culturally opposed to Jewish people, but genetically opposed. Israeli Jews have an average IQ of 115, approximately, versus 94 on average for Palestinians. This means that one population will always serve the other, either by master through hiring, or as slaves through guilt, political correctness and other forms of social coercion.

The Germans realized that what Theodor Herzl, the founder of Israel, wrote about over a century ago was most correct. The Nazis understood his basic idea which was that Jewish internationalism creates anti-Semitism, much as it does when any ethnic group introduces diversity into a national population:

The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries—see, for instance, France—so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.

After WWII, it was surmised that destroying national populations of Western Europeans with diversity would remove the national consciousness that had caused the Holocaust, and thus would solve the problem. With continued racial antagonism present wherever diversity can be found — Muslims in China, Africans in Mexico, African-Americans in Ferguson, Muslims in Egypt, Palestinians in Israel, Mexicans in America — it has become clear that this viewpoint was wrong. Israel has confirmed this and now has turned against it, especially as it becomes clear that by the same principle as white genocide, Jewish genocide beyond Hitler’s wildest dreams will be accomplished through diversity.

Adolf Hitler has been vindicated by Israel, at least on the level of intent (his methods, which led to the Holocaust, remain suspect). This in turn liberates the West from its guilt at wanting self-interest, or to act for our people alone and to achieve that, to exclude all others on the basis of their mere Otherness. Only our own people belong in our lands, as only Jews belong in Israel.

Zionism = Nationalism

Saturday, April 16th, 2016


At this blog, I advance a number of controversial ideas. First and foremost is that Leftism is a form of Crowdism, which is individualism run amok that in groups, creates collectives hell-bent on “equality,” or the idea that all individuals are acceptable regardless of the consequences of their actions. Like Socialism, or “reward before performance,” this is a form of conflict-avoidance that results in lowered quality.

Perhaps more strikingly upsetting to some readers is my stand against anti-Semitism, which I criticize as failing to identify the real villains (Crowdism, diversity, Leftism, equality) and as a result, creating a scapegoat which will exhaust us and strengthen the actual problem. But even fewer like the statement that Zionism is a variation of Nationalism, just as German National Socialism was.

From an unlikely source — the article loses the narrative some time after this, but makes this point with great clarity:

The founder of the modern Zionist movement was a Jewish writer named Theodor Herzl…Fifty one years later, when the “State of Israel” was solemnly proclaimed at a meeting in Tel Aviv, above the speakers’ podium at the conference was, appropriately, a large portrait of Herzl.

In his book Herzl explained that regardless of where they live, or their citizenship, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people. He used the German word, Volk. Wherever large numbers of Jews live among non-Jews, he said, conflict is not only likely, it’s inevitable. He wrote: “The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers. Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews … I believe I understand anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear.”

In his public and private writings, Herzl explained that anti-Semitism is not an aberration, but rather a natural response by non-Jews to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes. Anti-Jewish sentiment, he said, is not due to ignorance or bigotry, as so many have claimed. Instead, he concluded, the ancient and seemingly intractable conflict between Jews and non-Jews is entirely understandable, because Jews are a distinct and separate people, with interests that are different from, and which often conflict with, the interests of the people among whom they live.

Theodor Herzl possessed a wisdom that modern nationalists lack: diversity does not work because each group must self-define so that it can rule itself according to its own standards, and the presence of other groups interrupts that and causes conflict. Racism, genocide and bigotry originate in that tension.

People may wonder why I write in support of Zionists, but it is not from neoconservative reasons, but rather the opposition. The proposition nation cannot work. What works is Nationalism, or each nation being defined by a Volk or ethnic group.

This has many tangible advantages. With a strong culture, less government is needed, and so life can be simpler and less formal. The formalization central to modern life creates high overhead and increases entropy by applying inflexible, universal rules to many particular situations, causing conflict and loss of energy.

One great irony — a lugubrious one — of WWII and the current neo-Nazi movements is that the Jews and Germans ultimately agreed on the correct solution, which was dissolution of the multiracial state and its replacement with ethnostates. Identitarian politics works; democratic equality and its ethnic counterpart, diversity, do not.

The article goes on:

On the basis of their shared views, Germans and Jews worked together for what each community believed was in its own best national interest. The Hitler government vigorously supported Zionism and Jewish emigration to Palestine from 1933 until 1940-41, when the Second World War prevented further extensive collaboration. / 9

(During the war years attitudes hardened, and policy shifted drastically. The German policy of collaboration with Zionists and support for Jewish emigration to Palestine gave way to a harsh “final solution” policy.)

During the 1930s, the central SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, repeatedly proclaimed its support for Zionism. An article published in 1935, for example, told readers: / 10

“The recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood and not on religion leads the German government to guarantee without reservation the racial separateness of this community. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry, the so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry around the world, and its rejection of all assimilationist notions. On this basis, Germany undertakes measures that will surely play a significant role in the future in the handling of the Jewish problem around the world.”

Today, Leftists attack Israel for the same reason they attacked Germany: Israel is a successful ethnostate, and this serves as an affront to the Leftist principle of equality. If anyone succeeds outside the mental ghetto of Leftism, the veracity of all of Leftism will be in doubt, and it must be smashed.

In that way, the ongoing terrorist war between Palestinians and Israelis is re-styled as cruel Jewish rednecks beating up on the sainted, innocent Palestinians for no reason other than “racism” and an inner cruelty. Current Leftist propaganda is more extreme than anything Der Sturmer was able to publish during the Third Reich.

As time goes on, we see that the Nationalists — even if their methods were in crucial cases, deplorable — were correct: diversity cannot work. It will exterminate the Jewish people as surely as it exterminates European populations. The mature response is to cast aside the nonsense idea of diversity, and to pursue instead what works.

Israel restores Nationalism

Friday, October 30th, 2015


As mentioned on this site four years ago, and eight years before that on the predecessor to this site, Israel will lead the way in restoring Nationalism, which is a world order where boundaries are defined by simultaneous shared ethnicity, culture and values of a population.

Now to the dismay of liberals everywhere, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formalized that statement. In a brilliant act of statecraft that flew over the heads of mainstream media, Netanyahu both re-legalized the defense of an indigenous ethnic majority by a state, and announced his plans for Palestine:

Mr. Netanyahu said in a speech to the Zionist Congress on Tuesday night that “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews.” The prime minister said that the mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, had protested to Hitler that “they’ll all come here,” referring to Palestine.

“ ‘So what should I do with them?’ ” Mr. Netanyahu quoted Hitler as asking Mr. Husseini. “He said, ‘Burn them.’ ”

While Holocaust historians and revisionists — neither of whom have a good record of getting the truth right the first time — will debate this into the ground, Netanyahu’s statement was subtle and profound. He looked carefully at the camera as he spoke the words clearly and strongly, aware that he was making history — even if the rest of the media and pundits have not caught on. Here are the implications of what he said:

(1) If you merely want to expel a foreign population, that is not really a bad thing, if you are doing it to defend your own people.

(2) Nationalism is necessary. It was necessary for Germany, and now it is necessary for Israel. It is the only way to preserve a native population.

(3) Palestine has been the darling of Europe both in the 1930s and in the present day, and both times have led to disastrous results.

The American media missed all of these implications in their desire to fight the last world war over again, mainly because it allows them to dog whistle the civil rights conformity signal to their audience, which unites them in a buzzing hive-mind.

Germany, wise to the ways of democracy which is essentially a popularity contest, tried to take away the narrative lead by immediately embarking on a guilt-drenched retrospective. Europeans have long known that there is no such thing as bad publicity and so a public self-flagellation gains power more than a denial. In democracy, it’s important to stay in the spotlight by any means necessary.

But look what else the article mentions, as if the synapses have almost sparked a circuit closed:

The controversy came amid weeks of spiraling violence in which Mr. Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have repeatedly accused Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, of lying, principally about Israel’s actions at a contested holy site in the Old City.

Netanyahu realizes that Europe today, Israel today, Germany in the 1930s and Israel in Biblical times share a problem: being small, higher-IQ and thus wealthier societies beset by vast hordes of angry low-IQ and impoverished third world people. The Palestinians, who are essentially the Mexican indios of the Middle East, consistently outbreed Jews and are using the womb as a strategy for conquest of Israel through the power of democracy. No sane politician — no, leader — would allow that to happen to his people.

Israel needs the right to do what it was formed to do, which was protect the Jewish people against not just the Nazi-inspired murders — most of which happened in advance of the Nazis arriving — but the numerous pogroms that saw the Jewish people ejected from every country in Europe and the middle east as well as some in Asia. This requires Nationalism, which is the exact same political system which was demonized in the wake of WWII.

If we view Western history as a series of political statements resolved by war, we see the French Revolution as the domination of democracy; the Napoleonic Wars as the incompatibility of democracy and aristocracy; World War I as the war to unify Europe under democracy, and World War II as the war against resistance to democracy. Democratization brings class warfare and its logical extension, multiculturalism or mixed-race societies, as part of its need to achieve total equality.

With the end of WWII, it was assumed — at least in the West — that Nationalism was dead because it was incompatible with the class warfare and multicultural narratives of democracy, which favors the Left. However, now that we’ve had 70 years of glorious multiculturalism, it is showing its age with remarkably similar symptoms everywhere it is tried: displacement of first-world populations with third-world ones, lowering of national IQ and raising of crime rate, epidemics of rape and other subjugation violence against the native population, and massive expenditures to try to keep the third-world population succeeding alongside the more intelligent and capable first-world natives.

Diversity does not work simply because it destroys culture by destroying standards. When you have two or more groups, standards differ, and thus an “official” Government standard must be created that includes both, which prevents each group from establishing its own cultural mores and values. This creates a Balkanization effect where each group withdraws, which prompts liberal democratic Government to try to force them to merge, resulting in genocide by outbreeding of both.

But diversity doubly fails when it is third-world integration into the first world. It takes a population which is genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, and introduces a new population which is genetically hardwired for the exact opposite. This forces the first-world natives to become caretakers for the newcomers, exhausting themselves and turning their society into a battleground for the symbolic victory of diversity.

Netanyahu has had extensive experience with the Palestinians, who as a mixed-race (Caucasian, Asian, and some North African) population of third-world status have its typical traits: low IQ in the low 90s, tendencies toward lack of long-term planning ability, r-strategic reproduction, unruly social behavior requiring rule by warlords, and a tendency to blame first-world populations for the third-world population’s endemic poverty, disorder, crime, corruption, poor hygiene and impulsivity. With Palestinians within its borders, Israel can never properly exist, and it cannot protect the Jewish people who share a culture, languages, heritage/ethnicity and religion.

With his statements, which were as much symbolic as historical, Netanyahu has signaled the future for Israel: as a Nationalist state dedicated to the Jewish people and excluding all others. This means the Palestinians must go, and immigrant surges like the Mexican indios in the United States and “Syrian” Arab “refugees” in Europe cannot be tolerated. He has given Europe the go-ahead to quit multiculturalism and eject its non-indigenous people while rejecting all immigration, if European leaders are able to stop emulating the political successes of the past, look toward the future and accept Netanyahu’s nod.

WWII will go down in history as a war of confusion. The Nazis and Japanese fought it to preserve their own people against both immigration and incursions by mixed-race Communists, while the Russians, Americans and English fought it to achieve economic dominance. Broad conclusions which were convenient for the post-1930s liberal parties in the US and UK were drawn, but they are not supported by actual historical events. Netanyahu is now correcting those misperceptions so he can ensure the survival of his people, and all us other first-world populations should follow his example.

Nationalism returns

Wednesday, March 18th, 2015


As I predicted, the rehabilitation of nationalism has begun starting with the Jewish people. When the presumptive victims of nationalism find that, in order to avoid the genocide their enemies desired, they must turn to nationalism, the idea of nationalism itself becomes a viable political option again.

In Israel Benjamin Netanyahu swept to victory in an election that the mainstream media said he was likely to lose, surprising pundits and world leaders, but not the citizens affected by the problems he, unlike others, would approach. After his victory, he warned of a typical leftist tactic, which is to use multiculturalism to obliterate the majority culture of a land:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sounded an alarm about a large turnout of Arab Israeli voters who he said endangered his rule, comments the Arab bloc denounced as racist.

The prime minister, who had fallen behind his main center-left challenger in polling days before Tuesday’s election, accused Arab parties of benefiting from funding by foreigners who sought to topple him.

Leftists in the United States use the same tactic. Starting in 1965 with the Hart-Cellar act, they began importing third-world labor, but this law was only the latest in a pattern of expanding the American franchise from “Anglo-Saxon” — German, English, Scots, Dutch, Scandinavian and other related populations with Nordic-Germanic roots — to include those of different traditions, from Greek, Italian, and Jewish to Irish and quarter-Asian Eastern Europeans.

Their goal is simple: to destroy.

Leftism parades itself as a group philosophy based on altruism, but its actual roots lie in narcissistic individualism. The underconfident and mediocre individual fears social judgment much like he fears natural selection, being aware of his weakness. He knows he can play the human game, whether social or credentialist, and succeed, but he fears being put up against a non-humanity reality. A night in the forest, or writing a novel of actual depth, or even understanding himself, puts such a person in a panic. He formulates a goal: remove social standards, so that his behavior can never be compared to an ideal, and through that contrast it cannot be revealed how far short he falls.

When groups of these people come together, they invent endless new theories. Their goal with this is to be a moving target. If you use last year’s term for their issues, or ideals, they will look at you with blank stares. They have moved on. The point is to manifest themselves under as many different names as possible so they are never recognized. This is why leftists have a mania for news and theories.

They also tend toward using justification-based logic. That is, instead of arguing that x action will produce y result, they find a presumed universal good — equality, helping the poor, racial justice — and use it to argue for their plan. On that level, x action is good because it falls under accepted justification y, and whether it achieves that result is irrelevant. This conceals the fact that their goal is not actually to achieve results, but to keep perpetual war going. They want goals that are impossible and paradoxical, because this allows them to force people to accept nonsense, and easily sort the sheep from the goats by letting in only those who zombie-like have accepted the nonsense.

Altruism works because a justification needs an object which is big and unassailable. Once upon a time, it was “the children,” orphans if you could and poor orphans if you were really lucky. After that it was the right of women to vote and do everything else a man could do. Then it was the American Indian, whose empire collapsed before Columbus but whose misfortunes could easily be assigned as a whole (instead of, correctly, in part) to European colonization. Then it was the African-American — formerly “colored” and then “Negro” and finally “Black” — who could be brought along to any party to shock the parents and show how open-minded you were. Then it was the great Hispanic gold rush of 2005-2008, and lately we’ve been on varieties of gays and other sexually non-conforming people. The object of justification must be someone who can be pitied, making the altruist feel both the frenetic strength of righteous conviction and an inner glow at how they are helping the “disadvantaged,” “less fortunate” or “oppressed.” It is a simple psychology.

The goal of the mediocritists — leftists and other Crowdists fit within this category — was to put the majority of Anglo-Saxon America on the defensive by invertedly accusing them of being unfair, cruel and horrible. Like a child lashing out at its parents, this reaction was calculated to invalidate the assumed benevolence behind authority itself: “But you haven’t included everyone!” they shriek, implying that therefore, the authority is favoritist for one party alone. Authority responds to this because without its validity, it looks like an oppressor… and we all remember that ugly situation in France and Russia that ended in streets red with blood (and Reds) and men, women and children being killed for the crime of being more equal than the rest.

The leftist goal is not what they say it is; they in fact, have no goal, only an impulse to destroy. The reason for this destruction is simple. They want to remove authority that can make them look bad. For that reason, they favor big government, which will tell them what to do with millions of little rules but transgressing against those never makes people look bad in a social context. Rather, they get sympathy from others for having been so oppressed. What they fear are social standards like morality, heritage, comportment and most of all self-discipline. What leftists desire is acceptance of all mediocrity, tolerance of all venality, and endorsement of all behaviors so that whatever they are doing goes unnoticed. It is like the classroom when the teacher is gone, where every child is glad to see another child doing something worse than they are. If what the other guy is doing is bad, then lesser offenses will not be noticed or if they are, not punished. This is why leftists want to destroy the majority and replace its standards of behavior with non-standards and a bunch of rules which ostensibly fill the gap.

Since the French Revolution, leftists have been trying to do away with majorities. Anti-nationalism — otherwise known as internationalism, and also: diversity, multiculturalism, multiracialism — became their tin drum to hammer during WWII and they have been beating it since. Whenever someone suggested nationalism, the leftists trotted out pictures of Holocaust victims. Not because they gave a fig about the Jews, but because the Jews could then be pitied. With pity comes altruism, and with altruism comes the magic sword that liberals can use to drive away authority: call it racist and mean and compare it to Hitler. In an instant, it fades away, and the leftists can assume power and hand out lucrative appointments to their cronies, ensuring that their behavior will never come to light. This is the leftist personal goal. They want no oversight, and they want the ability to profit from society by obeying its many frustrating roles that no sane person would tolerate, and being well-paid for their forbearance.

In Israel, the left predicted that Netanyahu could not win without a diverse constituency. In the United States, they now predict the same thing for Republicans:

Ninety-five percent of self-identified Republican primary voters are white. That’s among the findings of the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, as well as that 74% of all Americans age 18 and older are white, a figure that tracks with census data. This means that heading into 2016, the Republican primary electorate is dramatically less diverse than the country overall. The GOP primary electorate is even less diverse than the country was in 1916, when 91% of the voting-age population was white, according to historical census data.

All of this is a smokescreen. The leftists do not actually care about Palestinians or they would be over there taking up arms. They similarly do not care about the African-American, or they would be inviting said people into their elite city condos and gated suburb communities. They could care less on all fronts. What they want is power. They achieve it in the same way every parasite does, which is by destroying the brain of a people — its culture, its best leaders, and its moral standards — and replacing them with oblivion. In oblivion, the host does not notice the parasite, much like a spider with its brain paralyzed by a wasp sting that as a zombie does the bidding of its new master, to its doom.

This leads us to consideration of the future of nationalism. In France with the Front National, in the UK with UKIP, and in Israel with Likud we see that nationalism is rising. With Israel accepting it, we see the pity-justification of the left collapsing. The time is now for nationalists everywhere because people have realized that diversity is a sham, that leftist government is the same kleptocracy it was in the Soviet Union, and that the endgame will be the same as in Venezuela, with people starving while secret police catch those who whisper the wrong slogan. Leftism is death; multiculturalism and egalitarianism are the weapons of leftism. People everywhere are ready to remove the absolute nature of those weapons and replace them with former concerns thought lost: culture, results, responsibilities and moral standards.

World leftism is unraveling much as our kings and philosophers told us it would. It has taken over two centuries, but that is the blink of an eye to history. It takes at least a century to see the impact of any policy in full. In Europe and the United States, people are looking at the chaos that is Brazil and Venezuela and realizing that through leftism and diversity — even if we like and admire the groups being mixed into us — we will be replaced. What comes with replacement is strong leftist government and shortly after that, a series of ongoing collapses resulting in third world levels of disorganization, corruption, poor hygiene and social disorder. Anyone with a brain wishes to avoid this future, while liberals want us to accept it adn go along with because they, as individuals, do not care for the future. They are concerned only with their power right now. What happens in fifty years when they are dead bothers them not at all, and like any true parasite, they are sociopathic in outlook if not in tendency.

Netanyahu was told by all of the “authorities” and “elites” that he could not win with a nationalist platform. He won. Similarly they tell the GOP in the US that it cannot win by appealing to the white people who are 74% of the population, and yet it can win. The majority can and will defend itself once it emerges from the fog of the constant lies issued by leftists and the terms they change every few months to keep observers befuddled. Despite the best efforts of leftists, nationalism is rising and liberalism is falling. No matter how many lies they tell, remember that now is the time to push not for less but more, and to encourage the failed idea of leftism to fall into the dustbin of history where it belongs.