Our enemies are now forced to write articles specifically defending Jews against us:
The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, passed a law last year declaring Israel “the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination.” One might suppose that this “Basic Law” (akin to a constitutional amendment) would be as contentious as the Vatican proclaiming itself Catholic.
No, because unlike the Jewish people, there is no ethnotribe called “the Catholic people”. As a matter of fact, the very term “Catholic” etymologically means the opposite:
Catholic (from Greek: ?????????, romanized: katholikos, lit. ‘universal‘) was first used to describe the church in the early 2nd century.
Which is not to say that Catholics have historically lived up to their name in practice (quite the contrary). But at least it claims to aspire to universalism, the same which cannot be said for Jews.
Back to the enemy article:
the law was enacted in response to (unnamed) people who have cast doubt on Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. How we got to the point where Israel’s government felt it necessary to belabor the obvious, officially, is an interesting story—two stories, really, intertwined. The first is about a change in left-of-center thinking, observable around the world but especially significant in America, Israel’s closest and most important ally. That change involves discarding a remedial mindset in favor of a prosecutorial one. Instead of solving problems, the Left wants to identify and berate villains.
The change you are describing is the very shift from False Left to True Left pioneered by us. However, we are not identifying and berating villains “instead of” solving problems, but in order to solve problems at their root instead of merely smothering the symptoms.
To be more precise, the new dispensation holds that social problems cannot be understood as bad things that somehow happened, or bad conditions that obtain due to misunderstandings or unavoidable complexities. Rather, specific problems resulting from specific sins of commission and omission cannot be solved unless those sinners are identified, then forced to atone and change their ways.
Yes, bad things happen because bad people behave unethically. Good people in the same circumstances would have behaved more ethically. But no, bad people are not “sinners” (Judaic concept), but rather carriers of inferior blood, and – being heritably inferior – cannot be trusted to change their ways, but must have their bloodlines eliminated. This is National Socialism.
The second story is about how Israel has, increasingly, become the object of this prosecutorial zeal. Susie Linfield, a journalism professor at New York University, makes it her subject in The Lion’s Den: Zionism and the Left from Hannah Arendt to Noam Chomsky. (Benjamin Balint reviewed the book this year for CRB Digital.) Linfield is “grieved by the contemporary Left’s blanket hatred of Israel,” in particular its “startling ability to support regimes far more repressive and violent, and far less egalitarian and politically open, than Israel.” Linfield’s analysis makes clear that this animus cannot be explained as a reaction to particular Israeli policies regarding Palestinians, but makes sense only by realizing that many progressives “are repelled by the existence of Israel itself.”
Firstly, we are not progressives, nor are we egalitarians. Secondly, we are repelled by the existence of Israel itself, but no more than we are today repelled by the existence of states such as, very obviously, Hungary:
or, more insidiously, Denmark:
not to forget Serbia:
Indeed, it wasn’t that long ago when, motivated by similar repulsion, we opposed (successfully!) the existence of Apartheid South Africa.
the Great Awokening is so strongly opposed to invidious distinctions in general as to have turned “other” into a verb, one that denotes and condemns a moral transgression. … According to sociologist Yiannis Gabriel, “Othering is the process of casting a group, an individual or an object into the role of the ‘other’ and establishing one’s own identity through opposition to and, frequently, vilification of this Other.”
We prefer talking about tribalism. We try to avoid the term “othering” because we find it psychologically inaccurate (in the same way that we find the common description of racism as “hate” to be psychologically inaccurate). Meat-eaters do not (and it would be blatantly absurd to suggest that they do) establish their own identity through opposition to or vilification of (much less hatred of) animals in slaughterhouses. They simply do not care and cannot be bothered to care. The same is true of how intra-human tribalists view humans not of their tribe.
Ultimately, of course, a world cleansed of other-ing must also renounce us-ing. Whether it’s a softball team or a nation, a human grouping to which everyone does or can belong is one to which nobody belongs in any way that matters or makes sense. No group can have an inside unless it also has an outside. The meaning and importance of being inside will, inevitably, turn on how those who are inside define and defend the boundaries that distinguish them from others.
No. To stoop to your vocabulary, it is possible to do “us-ing” without doing “other-ing”: by gathering those who have been victims of non-consensual (hence violent) “other-ing” by tribalists and who consequently hate the tribalists and understand our unifying destiny to retaliate against the tribalists. This “us” does not and cannot include everyone: it forever excludes the tribalists themselves! Therefore it both matters and makes sense. We National Socialists often call this “us” a folk. We even have a motto for this “us”: UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY.
the Great Awokening demands diversity and inclusion. The two are reconcilable and even inseparable if we accept the premises spelled out by Cropsey: liberals are committed to the simultaneous cultivation of “idiosyncratic freedom” and the coalescence of social communities based on humans’ posited affinity for one another. Thus enlightened, “men would wish to benefit themselves only in ways that are beneficial or at least not harmful to others. In that state, men’s perfect integration into the community would be indistinguishable from their perfect freedom to do as they please.” The Woke, then, are not just Anywheres but also Everyones. The nurturing subdivisions of the human family that promote individual fulfillment and interpersonal harmony must be cultivated, while the divisive ones that result in othering, opposition, and even vilification must be eradicated.
Your presumption that we are limited to caring only about humans is evidence of your inferiority. This may be true of False Leftists, but True Leftists care about non-humans no less than humans, and view humanism itself as a form of tribalism.
The only legitimate othering takes place when, in pursuit of social justice, the Woke call out somebody on the wrong side of what they regard as the one truly valid division among humans, that between the Privileged and the Oppressed.
Better terminology: Oppressors and Oppressed.
The former need not have personally victimized or exploited the latter, or even said bad things or harbored bad thoughts about them. The wickedness of the Privileged encompasses benefiting from past oppressions, even those in the distant past, and complicitly tolerating today’s unfair systems that mock and thwart the aspirations of the Oppressed.
The meat-eater who does not slaughter animals with his own hands and who does not make jokes about or sadistically fantasize about slaughtering animals but who buys meat is still participating in the slaughter industry. Also, using medicines invented from past experimentation on (obviously non-consenting) animals is definitely benefiting from past oppressions!
So, for example, there is “Racism without Racists,” which sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva used as the title for a book of his in 2003. Such racism transpires when America’s whites engage in the “color-blind racism” that leads them to accept and perpetuate, rather than work to dismantle, the “structural” or “systemic” racism that oppresses blacks and other minority groups.
An accurate title for the book would be “Racism without Sadists”. It is utterly false to say that those who accept and perpetuate racism are somehow not racists. They merely do not take direct pleasure from racism. They still don’t care about the victims of racism. To use the meat-eating analogy again, it is possible to enjoy the taste/nutritional value of meat without enjoying the suffering of the victim from whom came the meat, but the former alone suffices to convince the meat-eater to condone the suffering of the victim. The non-sadistic meat-eater is arguably not quite as bad a person as the sadistic meat-eater, but it makes little difference in practice to the victim.
There could, conceivably, be a moral and political philosophy that subsumed every controversy into the relationship between the Privileged and the Oppressed, and yet also emphasized the importance of empirical rigor and intellectual humility when making sense of a complex world. Determining who is and isn’t oppressed, it would caution, is more often difficult than simple. It would further observe that inter-group differences in wealth, power, status, and education—a feature of every social order known to history and anthropology—are too numerous and varied for all of them to be reduced to a single, neat causal relationship.
In other words, rightists who confidently disregard social conditions when positing hereditary inferiority of non-Jews/”non-whites”, now realizing that we are about to turn hereditarianism back on them, want us to be distracted by social conditions (while they continue their hereditarianism!). No, there is indeed a single, neat causal relationship: racists are racists because they have inferior blood.
The Great Awokening that we might have, however, is very different from the one that we do have. The Manichean one we do have stresses certitude and zeal while disdaining nuance and caution. People are either privileged or they’re victims. To suggest that not all victims are simply victims, or that not all their difficulties derive from being victimized, is to “blame the victim,” which is not just an intellectual error but a moral offense. Those who blame the victim further victimize that victim by reinforcing the structural oppression afflicting him.
I told you I would resurrect Manichaeism. I have delivered.
In the Great Awokening, to quote Goldberg again:
the same empathic outrage over the bigoted persecution by the “privileged” against the vulnerable…is extended out to the international arena where Israel is a fixture of every moral drama. A white supremacist America holds people of color down and keeps the door shut for others, while a “Zionist supremacist” Israel behaves in much the same way toward its minorities of color.
Goldberg points out that, from the time when public opinion surveys started asking the question in 1978, white liberals were more sympathetic to Israel than to the Palestinians…until 2016, after which they have consistently regarded Palestinians as the aggrieved party in this dispute.
Perhaps watching Israel’s consistent pattern of behaviour over the decades had something to do with this?
Founded three years after the end of World War II, Israel was an object of profound sympathy due to widespread horror and shame about the Holocaust. With images of Auschwitz in the world’s mind, it would have been grotesque to admonish Jews, in or out of Palestine, to check their privilege.It turned out, however, that even the Holocaust established Jewish victimhood only temporarily. Among the Woke, writes Goldberg, “Jews are perceived to be privileged—at least in comparison to other historically victimized groups.”
Having made a full recovery from the Holocaust, Jews are no longer the downtrodden collective that white liberals can readily sympathize with. Other groups lower on the privilege hierarchy and less tainted by association with whiteness now have priority.
That, despite far more non-Jews died in WWII than Jews, Jews have been able to make Jewish deaths seem more important than non-Jewish deaths, is itself evidence of Jewish privilege.
In particular, these victimier victims have come to include the Palestinians. In the belief that Palestinians have, as a rule, darker complexions than Israel’s Ashkenazim (Jews whose ancestors lived in Europe for centuries), the Woke apply the implicit rule of their privilege hierarchy, which holds that melanin is the most reliable proxy for moral worth.
Utter nonsense. It is discrimination against melanin that is a proxy for moral worthlessness. It is not our fault that Israel is, by its own volition, among the practitioners of discrimination against melanin.
As is Judaism itself, for that matter:
According to one legend preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, God cursed Ham because he broke a prohibition on sex aboard the ark and “was smitten in his skin”; according to another, Noah cursed him because he castrated his father. Although the Talmud refers only to Ham, the version brought in a midrash goes on further to say “Ham, that Cush came from him” in reference to the blackness,
Back to the enemy article:
If reparations for slavery and the abolition of private health insurance are now on the list of things we need to discuss, there’s no reason to assume that terminating America’s special relationship with Israel is off it.
Yes! If otherwise, our activism would have been pointless.
Johns Hopkins University political scientist Michael Mandelbaum has an account of the persistent strife between Israel and the Palestinians that is plausible rather than tortured. Responsibility for failing to secure peace, 25 years after the Oslo peace process began, “belongs to the Palestinians,” he writes. Hamas, which has controlled Gaza since 2005, “says explicitly that it will never accept Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East and devotes its resources not to promoting the welfare of those it governs but to terrorism against Israel.” The Palestinian Authority, in control of the West Bank, is “putatively moderate” by comparison, yet has “refused all offers to settle the conflict, which have included substantial territorial concessions, that Israeli governments have made.”
It has never put forward a counteroffer of its own or indicated the kind of settlement it envisions. It has done nothing to build the institutions of statehood other than deploying multiple police forces that repress political opposition. It has generated vile anti-Jewish propaganda that harks back to Europe in the 1930s and has sponsored the murder of Jews by publicly praising and paying the murderers.
This is precisely where our respect for Palestinians comes from: the content of their character, not the content of their melanin.
The Woke interpretation, then, is the opposite of Mandelbaum’s: responsibility for the hostile relations between Israel and the Palestinians belongs to Israel. Period. Palestinian acts of violence go unmentioned or, if acknowledged, are treated as responses to Israeli actions.
The latter, quite correctly. The initiated violence was the creation of Israel as a Jewish state:
Back to the enemy article:
Absent an unmistakable, binding Palestinian commitment to share peaceably with Jews the land they have fought over for nearly a century, no “solution” will actually solve anything.
More precisely, land which Jews stole from Palestinians. Since when is the victim of theft obliged to “share peaceably” stolen property with the thief? The ethical duty of the victim of theft is, indeed, not only to recover the stolen property, but also to actively ensure the thief never steals from anyone else ever again.
For Israel to submit to a two-state solution, in the face of the Palestinian and American pressure Peter Beinart calls for, would amount to a choice of protracted national suicide. Israel would acquiesce in the creation of an adjacent sovereign state whose animating principle was Israel’s destruction. The one-state solution, where Israel would be absorbed into a new nation-station where Jews are a minority and their implacable enemies a majority, differs only by accelerating the suicide timetable.
This is why we support only the one-state solution.
Golda Meir, prime minister from 1969 to 1974, took the position that Israel will not die so that the world will speak well of it.
Then we will kill Israel and continue to speak ill of it afterwards.
Netanyahu is prepared for many to speak ill of him and his country while he embraces what he considers the least bad option when two adversaries are besieging each other: be the side that continues the siege one day longer than its enemy. Though it cannot be known whether or how Netanyahu’s approach will ultimately fare, astute Palestinians have little reason to think that time is on their side as it becomes clear that a growing part of the Arab world is not. Over the past decade, Israel has strengthened its ties to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among other countries, while the Palestinians have strengthened theirs to the Modern Language Association. The resulting correlation of forces has been to Israel’s advantage.
But the success of Netanyahu’s approach is not assured. If: a) the Democratic Party’s Woke wing becomes dominant and b) succeeds in electing a Woke Democratic president and Congress, which c) uses American economic, military, and diplomatic leverage to
d) force Israel to bet its survival on the proposition that high-minded, generous, and unilateral concessions will secure a just and lasting peace by summoning the better angels of Palestinians’ nature
Correction: d) militarily invade Israel.
The case of Israel demonstrates that national identity is less a threat to democracy than a prerequisite for it.
We have said this ourselves, as a reason for why we oppose democracy. The corollary is that a world order based on autocracy (what we as National Socialists are aiming to restore) in practice prerequires destroying identitarianism.
The future of Israel, America, and other nations will be shaped by the contest between the Great Awokening and Somewhereism. If the latter prevails, it will be because national majorities around the world come to feel that “[t]his is our nation, language, and flag,” is not just a legitimate thing for an Israeli prime minister to say, but also for patriotic citizens of any decent country to believe.
Which is exactly what I have been saying from the beginning: the Zionist agenda is to promote far-right parties in other countries so that Israel ceases to be in the extremely dangerous position of being the only ethnostate in the world which can be easily singled out for criticism, but instead becomes merely one of many ethnostates, and hence normalized in common consciousness. If identitarianism wins, Zionism automatically and effortlessly wins just on account of being one of many forms of the general identitarianism which has already been declared victorious. Whereas if identitarianism is defeated, Zionism will have to resort to the Samson Option just to keep us at bay. But if anti-identitarianism can become as ideologically pure as the True Left alone promises to make it, we will be willing even to endure the Samson Option if that is what it must take to permanently eliminate Jewish blood from the world.
(On the other hand, as long as we are not willing today to wage even an almost risk-free war against a military nobody such as Hungary, I have no reason to be optimistic about our willingness in the near future to wage an unprecedentedly dangerous war against an ultra-high-tech military power such as Israel.)