Monday, November 27, 2017

O Israel

Via Steve Sailer, Israel's prime minister Netanyahu recently announced the country's intention to deport 40,000 "illegal infiltrators ... without their consent".

Israel has a population of a little over 8 million. The US has a population of nearly 330 million. Adjusting for population size, that'd be the equivalent of president Trump announcing an "accelerated removal" to send 1,500,000 infiltrators squatting in the US back to the countries they came from.

Israel already has a wall, of course. The colloquialism about them leaving us in the dust understates the reality. The dust they've kicked up will have long ago settled by the time we come shambling by it.

Q: What do you call someone who wants an ethnostate, a wall, and the mass deportation of illegal aliens living in the country?

A: An Israeli.

No hatred here. To the contrary, a begrudging admiration. We just want what (((you))) want. Is that too much to ask for?

35 comments:

chris said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V054eqVFaXs

A White Zion. That's what we need.

Dan said...

Great post. Calling out these hypocrites matters rather a lot. I mentioned the execrable hypocrisy of Ben Shapiro and David Brooks, but Podhoretz and Bill Kristol are big hypocrites too in this regard as founders of major 'conservative' media. Heaven help us.

Dan said...

Ben Shapiro needs to be called out constantly, including on Heartiste. That article in Townhall in 2003 about ejecting arabs from Israel is so far beyond anything American nationalists have ever suggested and yet yes kicks nationalists in the nuts constantly. And his influence is tremendous. He is very talented and young, so the damage he could do long term is great. Criticism of him could hopefully reduce his off the charts hypocrisy.

Gavriel M said...

1) Ben Shapiro has renounced(more's the pity) his earlier article on expelling Arabs from the West Bank (not Israel). His views on immigration to America are not all that bad. He's repeatedly endorsed Ann Coulter's book. The alleged discrepancy in his case is an artifact of what you imagine to be his views about Israel being different from what you imagine to be his views about America.

2) When you say 'We just want what (((you))) want.', what does this mean? Do you want what Israelis want? Fine, but Israelis aren't stopping you from having it. Do you want what American Jews want? No, you don't. If your argument is that Bill Kristol is a s**t, admitted. It's not a terribly novel one, though, and rather less significant than the alt right imagines it to be.

Now, if you actually want what Israelis have (minus security guards outside every medium sized shop, I guess) then you could actually, y'know, study the Israeli experience and work out how to replicate it. What's pretty obvious, though, is that no-one on the alt right has even the slightest interest in understanding anything about Israel at all. It's all about point scoring against someone who's not even involved in the conversation, that is to say, virtue signalling.

benkurtzblog said...

Israel, indeed, is a light unto the nations.

I have visited the county and I am very fond of the place. I much prefer visiting Israel to, say, visiting France.

I have great respect for the Israeli people, who have created a reasonably orderly and prosperous society in a region marked by constant warfare and bloody strife. I have no desire to score points at their expense.

So I earnestly say that the United States, and the nations of Western Europe, would do well to study the Israeli response to the threats of terrorism and illegal immigration, and attempt to replicate their successes.

More fundamentally, I feel that the United States and the nations of Western Europe would do well to study the Israeli attitude of self-respect and self-determination -- the collective state of mind under which a people gives itself license to do what seems reasonably necessary to secure a peaceful and prosperous existence for itself and its posterity -- and find some way to re-establish that mentality among their own peoples. For that is what lies at the heart of the matter; I cannot think of any problem or challenge facing the western world today that is so intractable or overwhelming that it could not be readily overcome, if one we developed the will to overcome it.

Dan said...

Gavriel --

Ben Shapiro endorsed Ann Coulter's book? Is this is what you are referring to?

Ben Shapiro interviews Ann Coulter; Adios America; 7/13/2015; C-Span
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVIkAqwcgas

Good on him for that.

Am I too harsh on Shapiro? He isn't the worst, but he sure has a tendency to shoot at conservatives a lot. He seemed to fight Trump all the way in 2016 and he's helped diminish Milo's voice and career. Even more recently, he tried hard to get rid of Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race, participating in an attack that was an obvious hit job. He seems to be intent on attacking Roy Moore with 1970s crap while what he eloquently wrote in 2003 should be no cause to judge him?

When Shapiro says he doesn't care a fig about the demographic makeup of America, the hypocrisy is great because he manifestly cares a lot about the demographic makeup of another country.

I am not alt-right (at least since moronic Nazi LARPers co-opted the term), or Antisemitic. Do understand the frustration as we dopey American conservatives fall over ourselves to love Israel but many Jews in America seem to return the favor by attacking Americans at every opportunity.

My frustration does not extend to Jews in Israel. They do not harbor animosity toward Americans, broadly speaking.

BenKurtzBlog --

"I feel that the United States and the nations of Western Europe would do well to study the Israeli attitude of self-respect and self-determination -- the collective state of mind under which a people gives itself license to do what seems reasonably necessary to secure a peaceful and prosperous existence for itself and its posterity -- and find some way to re-establish that mentality among their own peoples."

The collective desire to "secure a peaceful and prosperous existence for itself and its posterity" comes no doubt in large part from the recent history of the holocaust. The American people have never known that kind of existential threat.

I am genuinely very glad that the Israelis are holding on and do hope it is possible for America to do likewise. One challenge for that is America's very success and size, which makes us a huge magnet.

Gavriel M said...

When Shapiro says he doesn't care a fig about the demographic makeup of America, the hypocrisy is great because he manifestly cares a lot about the demographic makeup of another country.

If 1,000,000 blacks converted to Judaism and moved to Israel it would be the happiest day of Shaipro's life. Second best would be if a million blacks converted to muh constitution. The difference is that Israel has a substantive non-ethnic concept of nationhood ('Judaism') as a basis for nationalism. Ethiopian Jews don't agitate for Somali bantus to come over (only lily white Ashkenazim do that) because they see themselves as Jews first and black second, if at all. [That's not to say Ethiopian Jews do any better than any other group of blacks in terms of contributing to society - they don't - but luckily they are not that many of them]. In America your only alternatives are some version of Jeffersonian universalism or 'whiteness', which is simultaneously too fuzzy and too inflexible to work as a basis for nationalism. That's not Shapiro's fault, though.

Do understand the frustration as we dopey American conservatives fall over ourselves to love Israel but many Jews in America seem to return the favor by attacking Americans at every opportunity.

Jews in America mostly suck. I'm not on speaking terms with my American relatives and, in general, the relationship between Israeli Jews and American Jews gets worse all the time. The Interior minister [!], Aryeh Deri (a typical corrupt non-white (Mizrahi) politician as far as it goes) greeted the election of Trump as a victory over the forces of Reform and Conservative Judaism (movements that are essentially non-existent in Israel), which draw their strength from the Democratic party. More recently, American Jews are throwing a tantrum because the deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotolevy, pointed out some obvious facts about them and they can't shut her down by shouting 'anti-semite'. You won't read that on Steve Sailer, though, because he has no interest in actually understanding Israel at all - which is fine, I have no interest in Mongolia, but then I don't write a blog about it every other day.

DissidentRight said...

So much easier to mooch off high-trust goyim than fight (literally) to defend your homeland. That why Israelis deserve respect, whereas (((Shaprio & Co.))) do not.

His views on immigration to America are not all that bad.

Uh, yeah they are. Shaprio doesn't believe America is white.

We just want what (((you))) want.', what does this mean?

It means we want American to be American.

If your argument is that Bill Kristol is a s**t, admitted.

Bill Kristol isn't American.

What's pretty obvious, though, is that no-one on the alt right has even the slightest interest in understanding anything about Israel at all. It's all about point scoring against someone who's not even involved in the conversation, that is to say, virtue signalling.

Obviously. Israel serves the double purpose of demonstrating Jewish hypocrisy and that the Alt Right is not anti-semitic. Beyond that, I have about as much interest in Israel as I have in Sudan.

DissidentRight said...

If 1,000,000 blacks converted to Judaism and moved to Israel it would be the happiest day of Shaipro's life.

That’s not true. Shapiro’s multiracialism is for America alone.

The difference is that Israel has a substantive non-ethnic concept of nationhood ('Judaism') as a basis for nationalism. 

Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism is actually ethnically based. When you say “substantive”, that is a bit of an exaggeration. Compare the ethnic makeup of Jews to the ethnic makeup of Christians or Muslims.

Ethiopian Jews

Are a tiny minority.

In America your only alternatives are some version of Jeffersonian universalism or 'whiteness', which is simultaneously too fuzzy and too inflexible to work as a basis for nationalism.

The goal is to break up the Yankee Empire. Who wants to be ruled by Yankees? Not Southerners, that’s for sure. Midwesterners don’t either.

Gavriel M said...

That’s not true. Shapiro’s multiracialism is for America alone.

No, that's not true.

Shaprio doesn't believe America is white.

That's kind of a high bar. By the same token nor does Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan. You are at liberty to think 99% of your countrymen are insufferable cucks, but I don't think it will get you very far.

The goal is to break up the Yankee Empire. Who wants to be ruled by Yankees? Not Southerners, that’s for sure. Midwesterners don’t either.

My inclination is that this is the best strategy. Better late than never.

Compare the ethnic makeup of Jews to the ethnic makeup of Christians or Muslims.

Well, yeah, but Islam and Roman/Protestant Christianity are on the far Left of the univeralist - nationalist spectrum. Judaism is a lot less ethnically based than the Druze or Yazidis. It's pretty similar to old-time Christian denominations like the Copts.

But that's not really the point. Judaism serves as an effective basis for nationalism (though it took some work) because it's intelligible, it's not obviously made-up and it's flexible without being completely subjective. Americaness doesn't, whiteness doesn't.

DissidentRight said...

Talk is cheap. If a million blacks converted to Judaism and tried to move to Israeli, Israel would block the move and Shapiro would come up with an excuse to justify it.

That's kind of a high bar. By the same token nor does Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan. You are at liberty to think 99% of your countrymen are insufferable cucks, but I don't think it will get you very far.

It’s not going to get very far in the present, that’s for sure. But it’s true, and it’s always best to be on the side of truth. It’s also true that America is WASPs.

Well, yeah, but Islam and Roman/Protestant Christianity are on the far Left of the univeralist - nationalist spectrum. Judaism is a lot less ethnically based than the Druze or Yazidis.

The difference, of course, is that Jews wield a substantial (disproportionate, even) level of power. In that sense, Judaism is arguably the world’s most dominant religion. When compared to the other two dominant world religions (which are wholly universalist), the nationalist Jewish element really stands out.

 It's pretty similar to old-time Christian denominations like the Copts.

To be fair, this is an awful comparison. That’s like saying a black church is ‘pretty similar’ to Judaism because the members share a common ethnicity. Most churches are split up that way. That has nothing to do with Christianity in general.

Judaism serves as an effective basis for nationalism (though it took some work) because it's intelligible, it's not obviously made-up and it's flexible without being completely subjective. Americaness doesn't, whiteness doesn’t.

“White Americanness” serves as an effective basis for nationalism ONLY in the context of defense against globalism and xeno invaders. Obviously, absent these external threats, it would become perfectly obvious that the various white nations of the United States are totally incompatible–in large part for cultural reasons. Hence the part about ‘breaking up the Yankee Empire’. The fact that I have a tremendous level of sympathy for Southerners does not magically turn me into a Southerner.

On a related note, I think it’s hilarious how pan-Europeans wanted to be “like America” so they created the EU, while forgetting that the Yankee Empire was built on a foundation of sand.

Gavriel M said...

Talk is cheap. If a million blacks converted to Judaism and tried to move to Israeli, Israel would block the move and Shapiro would come up with an excuse to justify it.

You know what's not cheap? Flying a bunch of planes to Ethiopia to airlift in tens of thousands of derelicts who, in all likelihood, are the descendants of Judaizing Christian sect that went too far. Israel actually did that making it the most race-cucked nation in human history. Every year black converts come to Israel and I've never seen any evidence to the effect that they have a more difficult time doing so than anyone else. To the contrary they are endlessly feted, so that you would imagine that their numbers are larger than they are.

However, we don't even have to get on to blacks. Jews of Iraqi or Yemenite extraction are a damned sight less white than Hispanics and Jews of North African extraction are about as white as Hispanics and they are outbreeding Ashkenazim more than 2 to 1. The 'browning of Israel' is happening right now. As a race-realist, I worry about this, though it has short term political advantages. However, Ben Shapiro certainly doesn't, nor does the Israeli Right in general (it's pretty lonely being an Israeli race realist.)

In that sense, Judaism is arguably the world’s most dominant religion.

That's an extraordinarily silly thing to say. Were that so, the temple mount would have a nice synagogue on it and Muslims who wanted to visit would have to queue up outside in the heat for their hour-and-a-half-slot, before which they are body-searched for prayer articles and removed from the site immediately if they make a gesture that could be construed as prayish, while a Jewish mob shouts at them. Instead the reverse is true. (I speak from experience).

Jews are powerful, no doubt, but powerful Jews either practice no religion or Reform Judaism which is a branch of Liberal Christianity without the Jesus bit (even that is optional in practice, as I have found on occasion).

To be fair, this is an awful comparison. That’s like saying a black church is ‘pretty similar’ to Judaism because the members share a common ethnicity.

You are unfamiliar with the middle East. It is very common for an Arab to describe himself as a 'Christian' despite having been nowhere near a church in ten years and being an atheist (and, back when that was still cool, a Communist) because 'Christian' is essentially an ethnic category. The tendency for religious groups to become ethnic groups is, it is true, universal, but it is particularly strong when the religion in question is a minority. Judaism only seems highly ethnic to you because you are from America.

Obviously, absent these external threats, it would become perfectly obvious that the various white nations of the United States are totally incompatible–in large part for cultural reasons

Agreed.

“White Americanness” serves as an effective basis for nationalism ONLY in the context of defense against globalism and xeno invaders.

Disagree, unless you have a different definition of 'effective', which means the opposite of what it usually means.

DissidentRight said...

Flying a bunch of planes to Ethiopia to airlift in tens of thousands of derelicts who, in all likelihood, are the descendants of Judaizing Christian sect that went too far. Israel actually did that making it the most race-cucked nation in human history.

1) Fair enough. 2) Whites are better at race-cucking than Israelis. America is well over 30% non-white. Not that it’s a competition…

However, Ben Shapiro certainly doesn't, nor does the Israeli Right in general (it's pretty lonely being an Israeli race realist.)

Aren’t we agreeing that Shapiro is a globalist?

That's an extraordinarily silly thing to say. […] Jews are powerful, no doubt, but powerful Jews either practice no religion or Reform Judaism which is a branch of Liberal Christianity without the Jesus bit (even that is optional in practice, as I have found on occasion).

Fair enough. Pan-Jewish power, after all, is rooted in the ethnicity and clannish culture rather than the religion itself. But it is entirely fair to observe the connection of the religion to the ethnicity and the culture.

You are unfamiliar with the middle East

True.

It is very common for an Arab to describe himself as a 'Christian' despite having been nowhere near a church in ten years and being an atheist (and, back when that was still cool, a Communist) because 'Christian' is essentially an ethnic category.

That’s a bait and switch. Associating with Christianity for ethnocultural reasons does not have any bearing on Christianity. Neither does the fact that Christianity does not magically create ethnic diversity in an otherwise homogenous region (and therefore churches are ethnic snapshots of the region). Christianity is fundamentally, inherently pan-national and pan-ethnic.† On the other hand, the fact that Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel does not obviate doctrines about how “Jewishness” is inherited, let alone the Mosaic laws regarding ethnic purity.

†Fortunately, Christianity recognizes a fundamental distinction between Church and State, and Christians also value civil order, which makes nationalism entirely compatible with Christianity.

Disagree, unless you have a different definition of 'effective', which means the opposite of what it usually means.

You are unfamiliar with America. The Democrats are already the “anti-white” party. Check back in 2024 and see if you can distinguish the GOP from the “pro-white” party.

Audacious Epigone said...

Chris,

Richard Spencer nailed it. Camera didn't have the questioner's face, but it sounded like he was stultified. As he should have been.

Dan,

Agree regarding Shapiro. See Z-Man's recent post that deals in large part with him. The problem with these slick establishment pets is that they serve primarily to patrol the boundaries beyond the land he's standing on. Shapiro works constantly to ensure that he's the one standing on the edge and anyone else who tries to step past him must be cast into the abyss.

Gavriel,

Rhetorically this post is directed towards American Jews but also towards the large numbers of gentile Americans--"boomer nationalists"--who love Israel and also love America but who don't tend to take the next step and advocate as stridently on behalf of America protecting its own domestic interests as they do apologizing for Israel doing the same.

I have enormous respect for the nation of Israel. That we could have leaders--and citizens--as concerned about ourselves and our posterity as they do.

Wrt to Shapiro putatively celebrating a hypothetical massive injection of African Jews into Israel, it only seems that way because all of us--including him--know it isn't going to happen.

Ben Kurtz,

Well put.

Dissident Right/Gavriel,

Fantastic back and forth, thanks. Lots to digest there.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Agree regarding Shapiro. See Z-Man's recent post that deals in large part with him. The problem with these slick establishment pets is that they serve primarily to patrol the boundaries beyond the land he's standing on. Shapiro works constantly to ensure that he's the one standing on the edge and anyone else who tries to step past him must be cast into the abyss.

To be an optimist, you can argue that the overton window for the right is shifting to where losers like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer aren't even taken seriously as token cuckservatives anymore. Ben Shapiro is cucky in a lot of ways but he is definitely further to the right than either Kristol or Krauthammer. Shapiro also has less leftist baggage because a lot of token cuckservative commentators have roots in the Democratic Party or heck, even Trotskyites in the case of Kristol (I know it was his father but still...).

Shapiro has come off as controlled opposition for a while. The biggest sign was a year and a half ago with the Lewandowski situation. Ever since then, a lot of his actions make sense if you realize he's being paid to be a shill. Especially now that he is becoming the token conservative on mass media.

Gavriel M said...

That’s a bait and switch. Associating with Christianity for ethnocultural reasons does not have any bearing on Christianity. Neither does the fact that Christianity does not magically create ethnic diversity in an otherwise homogenous region (and therefore churches are ethnic snapshots of the region). Christianity is fundamentally, inherently pan-national and pan-ethnic.† On the other hand, the fact that Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel does not obviate doctrines about how “Jewishness” is inherited, let alone the Mosaic laws regarding ethnic purity.

There's a strong tendency for any religion, even with the most theoretically universalist belief system, to become an ethnic category because it's easier to indoctrinate kids than convert other people. The only exception is freakshow religions that don't reproduce like Shakerism, or liberalism.

Christianity started very universalist, but the thing that really fixed that in Western Christianity is that it became the religion of the Roman Empire a hundred years before it split up into warring kingdoms. Non-western Christianity ossified into an ethnically based thing long ago. (Interesting factoid: Arab Christians in Israel have higher education levels and incomes than Jews, while Muslims obviously have much lower. That's despite the Christians being on the whole more hostile to Zionism. There's a reason for that and it's not 'muh culture'.

Islam went through a similar process to Christianity in that it expanded with unbelievable rapidness thanks to the simultaneous collapse of the Byzantine and Persian empires. Even so there's a clear phenomenon of non-Arab Muslims being considered second best, which is is why Pakistanis and Indonesians dress up like Arabs to indicate religiosity.

Judaism is an interesting example in that it started as a very ethnically based construct (see the book of Ezra) then became much less ethnically based because of the post Bar Kokhba revolt diaspora (Ashkenazism are half Italian). Then it became more ethnically based as religious categories became fixed under Christian and Muslim regimes and it became impossible to get new converts.


Check back in 2024 and see if you can distinguish the GOP from the “pro-white” party.

We'll see. I agree with the analysis here: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.il/2007/11/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist.html

But, hey, good luck. It's not like I have better a better idea.

Aren’t we agreeing that Shapiro is a globalist?

Yes. Actually, I hate Shapiro. I find that nerdy Jewish voice schtick unlistenable. I just think he gets unfair press on the Dissident Right because of his being Jewish, which I guess sets under my skin because I'm ethnocentric.

Anonymous said...

Gabriel,

Israel is the Right's hostage against American Leftist Jews or any other pro-open borders Jews such as Kristol, and especially the National Jewish Lobby. Also the international globalist movement.

Worse their motive Gabriel is genocidal racism against White Europeans and your diaspora is quite open about their genocide by immigration plans. Open and often open about their desire to replace us* with the brown tide of the 3d world.

*Hence you will not replace us. Hence we will replace you. etc. Hence Kalergi plan.

Israel is our hostage as indeed American might overseas has become to an extent Israel's club to wield.

The problem with getting into other people's politics is you're in other people's politics, as our US govt is entirely too much into yours. See settlements.

The other problem is Jews without real problems such as the Israelis have tend to get into politics that cause problems such as the Kalergi plan. The Kalergi plan should be a bizzare footnote to history filed on the shelf next to HP Lovecraft. Instead it was put into a sort of practice by open borders.

Gabriel America and Israel need distance. You'll find no shortage of allies.
Get them now as our alliance has become toxic as alliances tend to. Alliances are affairs, not marriages. Get away from American politics now.

The solution as I always say is we be men and stand up - we white men - and stop inviting aggression by being so weak. We must rule ourselves it is true. But that's men's work and they want to find manhood by channeling Hitler, Stonewall Jackson...thinking the past will man them up in the present.

As for the rest of the partition and Nazi fantasies, secession and the rest as well as ethnostate that's just American cowards running from a fight - not realizing that either nazism or partition would simply exponentially increase the bloodshed and wars involved.

They LARP about Israel Gabriel for the same reason they LARP about Nazi reichs and Confederacy redux, partition into separate American nations and the rest for you see they want to LARP and wish way into manhood rather than work and earn it.

You see when Data isn't comforting* then there's always wishing ala LARP.

*Oh yes. The precious data disappears when geography or history is pointed out - for instance American continental partition will simply not work. Just like it didn't work before and the reason is geography.

Merry Christmas to all,

vxxc

Anonymous said...

Clarify: Israeli Jews have real problems.

Diaspora Jews imaginary ones - or they were imaginary.

"The other problem is Jews without real problems such as the Israelis have tend to get into politics that cause problems such as the Kalergi plan."

vxxc

Dan said...

Speaking of Ben Shapiro, he criticized Lucian Wintrich after Wintrich was attacked trying to give a speech at UConn last night.

What a peach. For the 9265th time, Ben Shapiro shoots at his own side in the midst of a battle only to play the conservative when the battle is over.

DissidentRight said...

Gavriel (1/3):

There's a strong tendency for any religion, even with the most theoretically universalist belief system, to become an ethnic category because it's easier to indoctrinate kids than convert other people.

True as far as it goes.

Christianity started very universalist, but the thing that really fixed that in Western Christianity is that it became the religion of the Roman Empire a hundred years before it split up into warring kingdoms. Non-western Christianity ossified into an ethnically based thing long ago.

1. Christianity remains universalist.
2. I think it has more to do with Western wealth. Missionary expeditions are easier to fund if you’re rich. And being rich is easier if your national IQ is higher. Poor men who are oppressed and concerned for the safety of their families have less time for evangelizing aliens.
3. I’m not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that an Arab or Near-Eastern Christian would reject Madagascar Christians who are descendants of Norwegian converts on account of their ethnicity?

Even so there's a clear phenomenon of non-Arab Muslims being considered second best, which is is why Pakistanis and Indonesians dress up like Arabs to indicate religiosity.

I see no analogy to this in Christianity. I don’t want to live around black Christians, but that doesn’t mean I think they are less Christian.

Judaism is an interesting example in that it started as a very ethnically based construct (see the book of Ezra)

As I’m sure you’re aware, it was like that from the beginning. There was tolerance for aliens, but there were explicit instructions to not intermarry with the Canaanites. They got more aggressive about enforcing it after the Babylonian Captivity.

became much less ethnically based because of the post Bar Kokhba revolt diaspora (Ashkenazism are half Italian)

Yeah, but even so, Judaism still has the rule about Jewishness being passed biologically. Nothing comparable exists in Christianity. Baptism (or, for Protestants, a positive confession of faith) makes you a Christian.

We'll see. I agree with the analysis here: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.il/2007/11/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist.html

“A slightly more sophisticated version of the Hitler argument is to argue that white nationalism is evil not because of what white nationalists did in the past, but because of what they might do in the future. In other words, the problem with white nationalism is that it is dangerous.”

I’ll just quote Our Supreme Dark Lord:
“National Socialism was, first and foremost, a pan-Germanic supremacist movement that violently looked down on every other white nation.”
“”White nationalism" is an American phenomenon that is the direct result of this American mongrelization, and pan-racial bonhomie notwithstanding, it is not compatible with the actual European nations either.”
“So, pan-white pan-nationalism is not, and will never be, viable anywhere outside of the United States, where a second white American identity is gradually being forged under the pressure of immigration and anti-white hatred.”
“Regardless, one cannot be both a white nationalist and a neo-Nazi, any more than one can be a libertarian and a neo-Communist or a red-tailed hawk and a fish.”

“So why am I not a white nationalist?

I am not a white nationalist because I don't find white nationalism useful or effective.”


Neo-Nazism isn’t useful or effective, of course. But recognizing that Americans have common political interests, interests which directly conflict with the interests of blacks, hispanics, asians, Muslims, Jews, and pasty soy boys, is entirely effective, as the Democrats and GOP Establishment are continuing to discover.

I avoid the term “white nationalism” because I prefer reminding people of the grievances between Yankees and Southerners. Yankees fucked America. I want America back. Obviously the xenos need to go home as part of the process.

DissidentRight said...

Gavriel (2/3):

And, more to the point, what is the one ideology least likely to convince them to change their nefarious ways? What is the system of thought that Brahmins are most powerfully inoculated against? White nationalism!

And yet…and yet… Vox Day pointed out how liberal cuck Rob Dreher (of The Benedict Option) is sliding inexorably to the Right. Why? Because he’s white and he doesn’t like the Diversity Coalition’s open anti-whiteness. Identity > ideology.

”The problem with white nationalism as a military or political strategy (of course there is no line between the two - if your goal is to capture the government, your goal is to capture the government) is that however much it may manage to fire up the OVs, it fires up the Brahmins ten times as much. Since the latter are the ruling class and hold the whip hand, white nationalism remains a losing strategy.”

That depends on how the strategy is implemented. We’ve all noticed the RINO, neocon, cuckservative, Never Trump phenomenon. We mock them incessantly for it. Due to the nature of elections, and certain recent developments in the media cycle, this had made it very difficult for a variety of members of the Controlled Opposition Ruling Class to maintain their status as members of the government. It worked before when they had the media covering their back, but now with a nationalist President, they are finding it very difficult to avoid outing themselves as actual traitors.

”See also the anti-Semitic species of white nationalism. While a blatant misperception of reality, it at least identifies the fact that not all white people are on the same side. But, by describing its enemy as a basically-nonexistent ethnic-nationalist mafia, rather than a nontheistic Christian sect (which happens to have effectively assimilated many Reform Jews)”

I don’t think this view has aged very well. Jews aren’t unique. We’re not any more “anti-semitic” than “anti-Mexican.” Jews in America just pull off identity politics more effectively than other xeno groups. Obviously, progressive leftism is not a uniquely (or even particularly) Jewish thing…but then again, even Larry David conceded that a disturbingly large proportion of the sex offenders being uncovered are Jews. It’s not our fault that rapey Jews are making the case for anti-semitism themselves…

“This is the trouble with white nationalism. It is strategically barren. It offers no effective political program.”

The 2016 elections (GOP primary & general) and the current political battles demonstrate otherwise. We’re going to see more of the same, just better, in the 2018 midterms. You could say, “That’s not white nationalism.” Not explicitly, no. But else would you honestly call “It’s okay to be white” (as one example among MANY), which received promotion from all the alt-light civic nationalists, besides a ‘white nationalist’ tactic? White identity is a powerful and effective rhetorical device.

But white nationalism offers no formula at all for how to transition from bad government to good government.

Hey, I’ll take bad white government over non-white government any day of the week. But yes, this where strict white nationalism ceases to be useful. Bad white government is a white people problem.

And the worst thing about white nationalism, in my opinion, is just that it's nationalism. Nationalism is really another word for democracy

Nonsense. A monarch can be globalist or nationalist. Nationalism simply describes the purpose of government, not its structure. “Good government” is by definition “nationalist”, because what purpose does government serve other than to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to secure a future for our posterity?

DissidentRight said...

Gavriel (3/3):

Compare this to the world of the ancien regime, in which French aristocrats had far more in common with Russian aristocrats than with French peasants. The world before nationalism and democracy was a world of mild wars, small and effective governments, personal freedom, and civilized high culture.

The aristocracy can act in the national interest (noblesse oblige). They can act in their own personal interests (‘let them eat cake’). And they can act in the interests of the international aristocratic ruling class (current year). One of these is moral and sustainable. One is stupid. And one is evil. Nationalism is the DUTY and PURPOSE of the aristocracy/ruling class. Otherwise, Delenda Est.

”Universalism itself is a kind of nationalism. Of racism, even. It accepts only one nation: the entire planet. It knows only one race: the human race. Reading these sentences, any Universalist will nod his head and smile at the unsurpassable beauty of his own faith. Which in fact is unsurpassed only in its potential for gigantic and diabolical evil.”

Potential? Universalism is, by all reliable accounts, the ultimate evil. Heck, this is evil of Biblical proportions. God himself put an end to the tower of Babel. Nationalism is the answer.

The cure for Universalism is not the creed that Universalism hates most. It is a clear and simple understanding of the real principles of political, economic and military organization in human societies.

To understand the real principles of political, economic, and military organization is to embrace nationalism. Nationalism, of course, is not the whole cure. But it is the chief and most necessary component. Without nationalism, everything else is a waste of time. Good government must be nationalistic.

I also read Moldbug’s taxonomy of US social classes https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/castes-of-united-states.html which is fine as far as it goes, but US history is not a history of competing social castes. It is a history of the war (political and otherwise) between Yankees and Southerners, with blacks and white immigrants representing NPC factions. Player 3 joined the game in the form of 20th century utopian progressivism and eventually acquired the permanent loyalty of black NPCs. Anti-progressive Yankees, Southerners, and white immigrants formed coalitions against Player 3, but had no success. Then Player 3 invited more NPCs to the game: namely mass xeno immigrants…not realizing that they would become Player 4: Fake America.

And now that the anti-progressive coalition is morphing into pro-American, anti-xeno coalition, it is finally beginning to get traction.

DissidentRight said...

Me: Universalism is, by all reliable accounts, the ultimate evil. Heck, this is evil of Biblical proportions. God himself put an end to the tower of Babel. Nationalism is the answer.

By the way, Christian universalism (John 3:16-21, Gal 3:28, etc.) must be understood in the context of John 18:36 ('My kingdom is not of this world') & Hebrews 13:14 ('For here we have no lasting city'), et cetera. This universalism is unrealized and fundamentally CANNOT be realized on earth.

Traitor Christians forgot the latter part and tried to build the kingdom of heaven on earth. Naturally, they ended up building the kingdom of hell. God will sort the dead.

Gavriel M said...

3. I’m not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that an Arab or Near-Eastern Christian would reject Madagascar Christians who are descendants of Norwegian converts on account of their ethnicity?

No, but nor would Jews.

As I’m sure you’re aware, it was like that from the beginning. There was tolerance for aliens, but there were explicit instructions to not intermarry with the Canaanites. They got more aggressive about enforcing it after the Babylonian Captivity.

I'm trying to be objective. Most scholars would argue that 'Judaism' doesn't go back further than Ezra, certainly no further than Josiah.

I'm afraid I don't have time to play defense attorney for Moldbug.

Nothing comparable exists in Christianity. Baptism (or, for Protestants, a positive confession of faith) makes you a Christian.

Early Christianity had adult baptism as the norm, as befits a truly universalist religion. The move to infant baptism was part of the natural process of re-ethnification. Since having some water splashed on your head as an infant cannot plausibly be described as an act of the will, it's basically the same thing as religion being biologically inherited.

Anonymous said...

Gabriel,

You misunderstand Baptism, at least for infants. Babies are baptized so they can enter heaven. The logic being the unbaptized do not. Unbaptized babies went to Limbo. You can look this up. Recently the Catholic Church relaxed on that, but baptism for babies is about salvation not adult choices.

Choosing the religion comes at Confirmation.

An act to ensure the child if it dies enters heaven is not to be confused with forcing the religion on the baby, or or an ethnic reaffirmation ritual.

Christianity is about salvation in the next life.

vxxc

Audacious Epigone said...

The only exception is freakshow religions that don't reproduce like Shakerism, or liberalism

Ha!

The problem with white nationalism as a military or political strategy (of course there is no line between the two - if your goal is to capture the government, your goal is to capture the government) is that however much it may manage to fire up the OVs, it fires up the Brahmins ten times as much.

That's true until it is not (not wrt white nationalism specifically, but wrt to the power of the Brahmins--just because it's been the case for a couple centuries doesn't mean it will remain so). Gracchi brothers used OVs to jettison ahead of other Brahmins. Marius took this from a political tactic to a formula for ultimate power, and a lot of OVs benefited (Marius' mules). The Brahmins struck back with Sulla but Caesar blew the whole thing up and we ended up with equites in the highest positions of power, like Agrippa and Rufus, Augustus' two righthand men, and by the time of their ascension the entire political/cultural landscape of Roman society was unrecognizable from a century before.

It may be ridiculously optimistic, but I get the sense we're seeing something similar occurring now. The old power structures are impotent. Increasingly they cannot control anything. Currency could be the last major domino that needs to fall before the whole thing collapses. Crypto currencies up XX,XXX%? I'm hopeful.

DissidentRight said...

No, but nor would Jews.

Fair enough.

I'm trying to be objective. Most scholars would argue that 'Judaism' doesn't go back further than Ezra, certainly no further than Josiah.

Fair enough. We Christians have our own scholars, after all. At any rate there is a substantial change that begins with the return to Jerusalem.

I'm afraid I don't have time to play defense attorney for Moldbug.

The TL;DR is that Moldbug equates nationalism with a democratic form of government, whereas nationalism is actually the purpose of government (the only legitimate purpose, anyway), independent of its form.

Early Christianity had adult baptism as the norm, as befits a truly universalist religion. The move to infant baptism was part of the natural process of re-ethnification. Since having some water splashed on your head as an infant cannot plausibly be described as an act of the will, it's basically the same thing as religion being biologically inherited.

That’s a really remarkable perspective. Nobody would have made that argument until after the Reformation, since nobody until then disputed that the church practiced infant baptism from the beginning. I point out that adult baptism never went away, and is the norm for all converts. Today, a huge portion of Europeans and Americans have never been baptized, despite being inhabitants of what is nominally Christendom.

Measuring the national/ethnic makeup of various religions over time (in particular Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) might not prove anything, but it would be strong evidence that Christianity has always been universalist, and is today more universalist than ever before.

DissidentRight said...

It may be ridiculously optimistic, but I get the sense we're seeing something similar occurring now. The old power structures are impotent. Increasingly they cannot control anything. Currency could be the last major domino that needs to fall before the whole thing collapses. Crypto currencies up XX,XXX%? I'm hopeful.

DEUS FUCKING VULT.

Feryl said...

"The TL;DR is that Moldbug equates nationalism with a democratic form of government, whereas nationalism is actually the purpose of government (the only legitimate purpose, anyway), independent of its form."


Admittedly, I didn't (couldn't?) hack my way through every comment on this page, but for what it's worth, nations/tribes/empires have governments. Government always ends up reflecting whatever direction society is headed in. It's why I roll my eyes about lolbertarians and horse manure about statist this and statist that. Right now America is clearly headed in the direction of collapse, under the weight of the combined hubris of two generations (Silents and Boomers) who don't have the guts (the former) or the brains (the latter) to see through the fantasies and delusions that have increasingly driven the behavior of Western elites since WW2 ended. The US had the population, infrastructure, and skill, subsequent to WW2, to almost immediately start Pax Americana in earnest. We placed our bases in as many places as possible, developed animosity to the relative handful of countries who told us to go fuck off (Iran and so forth), claimed we were stopping the Great Satan of communism (in reality, we simply were picking fights with regimes who didn't suit us), etc. As our ability to handle domestic affairs and foreign conflicts diminishes, our ambitions only seem to grow. Taking care of a core tribe of legacy Americans is increasingly irrelevant to the goal of "spreading democracy" (e.g., enlarging Pax Americana), and to the prostration of America's political, academic, artistic, and financial elites to the corporate NWO.

Our empirical government often has people who have minimal genetic and/or emotional investment in America's founding tribe doing nothing to take care of the simplest tasks of running a decent society. HIllary Clinton may be WASPy, but she's also the most corrupt figure in American history, what with she and her husband, and everyone in their orbit, running numerous money laundering and influence peddling schemes, while openly taking bribes (Hillary refused to not give lucrative Wall Street speeches just months before her election campaign took off). Their days of having leverage (black mail, threats, bribes) over important people, including possible critics and prosecutors (journalists and judges), goes back to the mid 80's, if not earlier. The Bushes are nearly as bad (though they didn't kill as many people), but Trump was too much of an outsider and too wealthy to intimidate.

Gavriel M said...

Dissident Right.

Partly, we are talking about different things. If you want to argue that on a pure theological level Christianity is non-ethnic and Judaism is ethnic, then I'm not arguing; if you want to say there is a metaphysical distinction between being born into a faith or being baptized as a baby, again, fine. I'm talking sociologically. Nor do I even disagree (in fact I said so) that the two major branches of Christianity are very far to the non-ethnic end of things. [Parenthetically, there is an evolutionary angle here. Religions naturally tend towards ethnification, but the ones that, for whatever reason, avoid it have much more potential to spread].

What I am saying is that whatever Judaism may be on a platonic level, Judaism the actual entity that has evolved up to this present day is multiracial. Not as multiracial as some religions, but more so than, say, Sikhism. I don't think Ben Shapiro would oppose a state for Sikhs; perhaps someone should ask him.

Anonymous above says that the argument from Jewish hypocrisy vis a vis Israel is one of your more powerful weapons. How much that is so depends on how important the Jewish role is in your national decay and how much the Jews concerned care about Israel. Those are empirical questions. What I am saying is that if you want to use this weapon effectively, use it accurately. If you say 'Israel is racially pure state, how come we can't have a racially pure state' you just make yourself look like a dolt. If you say 'Israel is an ethnostate how come we...?' you get into an endless fruitless argument about what is an ethnostate. If you say 'Israel has a strong national identity based upon shared historical experience and structures its immigration policy to strengthen rather than undermine this identity, how come we...' then maybe you'll get somewhere. Or maybe not, but it's worth a try. Since you spend a lot of time JQing as it is, you might as well do it right.

DissidentRight said...

 Gavriel:

I'm talking sociologically.

Fair enough. Admittedly I am not especially knowledgable Judaism/Israel, so I appreciate the information

 If you say 'Israel is racially pure state, how come we can't have a racially pure state' you just make yourself look like a dolt. If you say 'Israel is an ethnostate how come we...?' you get into an endless fruitless argument about what is an ethnostate. If you say 'Israel has a strong national identity based upon shared historical experience and structures its immigration policy to strengthen rather than undermine this identity, how come we...' then maybe you'll get somewhere. Or maybe not, but it's worth a try. Since you spend a lot of time JQing as it is, you might as well do it right.

More than fair.

Anonymous above says that the argument from Jewish hypocrisy vis a vis Israel is one of your more powerful weapons. How much that is so depends on how important the Jewish role is in your national decay and how much the Jews concerned care about Israel.

I think the power of the argument is in the fact that Israel has (or appears to have) sane (or more sane) national policies, and that American conservatives and GOP-aligned Jews endorse these policies for Israel, but oppose them for America. The argument targets conservatives and conservative sympathizers, particularly evangelical fundamentalists who have their weird millennialist views about the intersection of Israel and prophesy. It’s not specifically limited to racial issues. Your point that framing it in terms of a racial issue is not going to go very far if you encounter someone knowledgeable about the actual status of Israel is well taken.

Nevertheless, I think it is very telling that someone like Shapiro wrote “Transfer is not a dirty word”. He was, of course, right.

Gavriel M said...

And that's a wrap. Thanks for the civilized conversation.

DissidentRight said...

Same.

Audacious Epigone said...

empirical government

Imperial government, presumably.

Gavriel,

Israel is a state of civic nationalism, with that civic nationalism being Judaism. It's better than what we have here. Moving our needle in that direction is an improvement even if it's not the ultimate goal. So we use the rhetoric we can to push that way. Ambiguity and imprecision are more a feature than a bug in this regard.

Dissident Right,

The argument targets conservatives and conservative sympathizers, particularly evangelical fundamentalists who have their weird millennialist views about the intersection of Israel and prophesy.

Exactly.

Bill said...

"We just want what (((you))) want. Is that too much to ask for?"

But it is, AE, it is too much to ask for. Approach it however you wish - game theory, resource acquisition and control in a zero-sum environment, predator-prey, parasite-host, master-slave - it all comes down to we can't have what (((they))) have. We're weak, they're strong.

I've seen it explained to KMac before, but even this insightful evolutionist doesn't get that it's not "hypocrisy" on their part. The charge of hypocrisy is only relevant within the in-group, other than that it's merely tactics used against a competitor. Really, it seems as if whites - lower case, as you always write it, perfect for a group lacking an identity - currently universalize the concept of hypocrisy because for millennia now they've universalized everything. "Thou shall not kill (the ingroup)" becomes "Thou shall not kill (anyone)."

We're part of a conquered tribe, and now we increasingly learn the bitterness in the phrase, "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi."