Furthest Right

Why Anti-Semites (And Everyone Else) Should Support Israel

One finds salient observations in unlikely places, like this salient admission from the Pravda of the USA:

When the caffeine finally kicked in, Alex told me that for many years, his father had not been eager to advertise his Judaism because “this was something he was almost killed for.” But he had always “identified firstly as a Jew,” and his philanthropy was ultimately an expression of his Jewish identity, in that he felt a solidarity with other minority groups and also because he recognized that a Jew could only truly be safe in a world in which all minorities were protected. Explaining his father’s motives, he said, “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew — unless you become a nationalist and only fight for your own rights in your own state.”

This rings true, and sets up two options:

  1. Multiculturalism: one society where every ethnic group can live because it protects minorities, which means in practice giving them rights not given to the former majority.
  2. Nationalism: many societies, one ethnic group in each, where every person will “become a nationalist and only fight for your own rights in your own state.”

The former appears to be more like the modern West, and the latter, like the ideal of Israel. If the Palestinians were gone, it would be a nationalist Jewish state in which people only fought for their own rights among a society of their own people.

If you are one of those people who hate Jews — I caution against this, since scapegoating misses the real culprit, the Big Lie of “equality,” and you will end up committing mass murder while failing your own people — you might like the idea of Israel for Jews only, and all Jews.

You would get your society free of Jews. You would rapidly find yourself missing out on some things, but nothing your people could not do eventually, and that would mean it would be yours entirely, so this is a positive long-term move with high short-term costs.

Even more, you would find yourself only among your own people. This would remove the “camouflage” of diversity, where society is chaotic and so bad behaviors go unnoticed. Instead, people would be seen as what they are, and their character revealed.

In the end calculus, blaming other ethnic groups for our problems never works. Our problem is diversity itself, since having multiple ethnic groups in a society abolishes culture and starts constant in-fighting between these groups as they vie for power and the ability to define standards of behavior.

Diversity takes a prosperous society and turns it into a shopping mall with overactive security guards trying to stop the different groups from beating each other up. Those security guards ultimately decide that it would be best if everyone just mixed together, making a tractable grey race.

Equality naturally gives rise to diversity, just as democracy produces the types of flatterers and salesmen as typical leaders who will sell it to the population as anti-fascism, but really intend to use it to buy votes so they can rule permanently. That is what political machines do by definition.

In the end, diversity destroys the host society. A few people get rich and flee to Switzerland with suitcases of bearer bonds, but become nobodies in history, since they achieved nothing constructive or creative with their power.

That leaves behind yet another society like so many we see on Earth today: mixed-race genetics creating a population with no specific abilities, all intelligent people having fled or been killed, and equality reigning through subsistence living. Utopia, it must be.

Years ago I turned on anti-Semitism because it strikes me as being just as all-consuming as the Big Lie. If the Jew is responsible for all our problems, the solution becomes working to remove all Jews. This ignores the mental virus that has us all befuddled, equality.

Hubris, the mental state at the intersection of narcissism, solipsism, and individualism, which our ancestors warned us about, serves as the archetype for equality. Man wants to be equal to the gods and nature, which since man acts in the short term, means in power over them.

In reality, nature is less a “thing” than a series of patterns at a mathematical level, like the need for seemingly erratic distribution of traits to avoid unison. Consider the following metaphor for the crisis of uniformity:

In April 1831, a brigade of soldiers marched in step across England’s Broughton Suspension Bridge. According to accounts of the time, the bridge broke apart beneath the soldiers, throwing dozens of men into the water.

After this happened, the British Army reportedly sent new orders: Soldiers crossing a long bridge must “break stride,” or not march in unison, to stop such a situation from occurring again.

Structures like bridges and buildings, although they appear to be solid and immovable, have a natural frequency of vibration within them. A force that’s applied to an object at the same frequency as the object’s natural frequency will amplify the vibration of the object in an occurrence called mechanical resonance.

Mechanical resonance in a society would consist of everyone doing the same things at once, forming an impassable logjam. If you wonder why we have geniuses and dolts, and some boys who like to play with footballs and others who like to draw, this is why.

Individualists want uniformity because they fear someone else getting ahead of them. This shows us the fatalism of individualism, or the idea that the individual alone acts and all else is standing still; the individual who does not know how to have what others do assumes that he can never create it. Therefore, he wants what they have, instead of making his own.

On the other hand, too many variation also produces chaos, just that of completely random activity that never connects its parts. If people did not all need to eat, we would end up with a society of many drawings, most hopelessly bad, where good artists could not get noticed.

The crisis of the West comes from this hubris, not Jews, who at best are a symptom of mixed results — many Jews have contributed to our sciences, arts, and economies — and at worst are a secondary cause of our decline.

Blaming them will simply make us murderers, accusing others of the disease that lies embedded deep within us and enrages us become we cannot remove it, while letting the real villain (the mental virus of equality) to go free.

However, if we want to talk about functional civilizations, it becomes clear that in the West as everywhere else, we need one ethnic group per nation. That way there is less infighting and no need to fight persecution.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn