October 25, 2023

“Judgment Day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews. The Jews will hide behind the stones and the trees, and the stones and the trees will say, O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” — Muhammad, according to the Hadith

“Too many Jews for my liking.” — Siouxsie and the Banshees, “Love in a Void”

Let’s start with a couple of Jewish jokes.

The governing bodies of world football (soccer) meet up and decide to form a world team. Someone says, “But who will we play?” The others answer, “Israel, of course.”

Next, we visit Weimar Berlin and find two old Jewish gentlemen sitting on a park bench reading newspapers. One is reading the German national newspaper Die Welt and smiling broadly. The other is reading The Jewish Times and looking glum. He says to his jovial partner, “How can you read that and smile?” The other replies, “Well, in the paper you are reading, Jews are the wretched of the Earth. In my paper, we run the place!”

These two gags show key aspects of our modern Jewish question: the Jew as victim and the Jew as global ruler.

The Jews perfected victimhood in the modern world, and their lessons have been learned by Muslims and blacks. “Anti-Semitism” is the mould from which “Islamophobia” and “racism” were cast. The Holocaust is still a strong card in a world hobbled by a moral code fast becoming unwieldy and outmoded, and it is of course the central supporting wall of the house of Jewish victimhood.

As for the malevolent presence of Jewry at the heart of governments, banks, corporations, the media, Hollywood, and every other politico-cultural engine-room, a Devil’s advocate might say: “Well done, Jews. You won, or at least you’re winning.” The problem for the rest of us, we goyim and shiksas, is to what extent world events of import unfold in a way orchestrated by Jewry, and whether that orchestration is good for anyone but Jews. And there is a lesson in this: Jews have got what they want, to an extent, in the existence of an ethnostate, and we would very much like at least one of our own. Our question concerning any global event such as the current war between Israel and Palestine — don’t give me that Israel vs. Hamas nonsense — should always be simple and always be the same: What’s in this for white people?

There is little point in my writing about the recent events in Israel and Gaza as though I were doing what a lot of pundits are currently doing, which is to channel the REM song “World Leader Pretend.” Everyone is an expert military analyst now. I date my interest in geopolitics back to 9/11, and I elected to study Islam rather than Jewry. Not that the Jews exactly play a cameo role in the history of the Muslim enterprise, as the negation of Jewry could be said to be the whole point of Islam. The second clause of the Iranian Constitution sets out its goal as the destruction of Israel, so that’s quite high on the mullahs’ to-do list. You can imagine future Arab leaders, still exhilarated at the idea of the nuclear extermination of Israel, sipping tea and looking at one another and saying, “Well, guys. Now what?”

I therefore have a sketchy idea of what Israel and the territories are and have become. I know about the various occupations, the League of Nations, Balfour, 1967, Black September, the Yom Kippur War, and so on. I know the difference between a one-state and a two-state solution. But the geopolitics I will leave to the experts. I am interested in the metapolitics. How is this new-yet-old war playing out in the Western media and on Western streets?

For the media, the “atrocities” are the focus. Hamas may be a tiny genetic notch up the scale from goatherds, but they understand Western sensibilities. They made no attempt to hide the carnage. The 260 young people gunned down at a music festival — Islamists really don’t like music — and the infamous beheaded babies are the twin symbols of the first incursion. There seem to be three possible reasons for these events, and they are not mutually exclusive.

Firstly, the southern Israeli atrocity exhibition leaves the following calling-card to both the Israelis and the West: This is who we are and this is how far we will go without remorse. It is reminiscent of the scene in Apocalypse Now in which Brando’s Kurtz describes the “genius” and “strength to do that,” referring to the amputation of the arms of a village’s inoculated children. The question of the babies prompted a bizarre apparent correction by the Israeli government, who stated that the beheading of the babies had yet to be confirmed, but the slaughter was not in dispute. There is an odd moral calculus at work here, as though this were a gory video game in which headless babies accrue more points than those with the heads still on.

Secondly, the slaughter could be an invitation to Israel not just to react, but to overreact, and this takes us into a very thorny briar patch. Whenever there is a cross-border incursion prompting a military response, you often hear — always, in Israel’s case, though I don’t remember it applying to Ukraine — talk of “proportionate/disproportionate response.” In my ignorance, I did not know the internationally agreed definition of “disproportionate response,” so I thought I had better check. Surely NATO has one, or it would be in the Geneva Convention.

I’m still looking. If anyone reading this can point me in the right direction, I would be grateful. The closest I got was a short paragraph by Anne Flaherty for ABC News in a piece about Israel and international law. Now, Ms. Flaherty is described as a “Verified Senior Domestic Policy Reporter,” so she needs a roomy press pass. Quite why she is writing about a war in the Middle East is unclear, but she assesses Israel’s part in the war in terms of compliance or otherwise with international law:

But there is disagreement between international groups about exactly what qualifies as a violation in a country’s quest to defend itself against terror attacks, as well as whether Israel could be prosecuted through the International Criminal Court — an entity Israel doesn’t recognize.

Simply put, there are rules of war, but no one can agree on what they are. What is a “proportionate response” to an incursion of the nature Hamas made? Do you kill and rape and behead the same number while a United Nations guy with one of those click-counters looks on? Do you tot up materiel, or ordnance, and have a weight limit, like baggage on an airline flight? What counts as proportionate or disproportionate response is unclear.

What is clear, however, is that whatever these limits are, Israel had better abide by them. Is there such rigorous oversight in the current Sudanese civil war? Perhaps it might be an idea to have untrammelled warfare. Tear up the Geneva Convention, tell the embedded UN observers to get another job (at least it will stop them from raping the children they are supposed to be protecting), and let’s have no more backchat about proportionate response. Just “Have at you, sir!” and send someone in to bag up the limbs later. Wars might be shorter, although the arms industry may be minded to lobby against that. Wars mean profit, and rules lengthen those wars, meaning more profit.

The danger is that “dis/proportionate response” might be whatever the media say it is, which might depend on what tune is playing on whose heartstrings today, as well as whose hand is ultimately on the media tiller. As always, when something requiring a working definition floats around the media untethered to meaning, nothing good will come of it. And comedian Chris Morris’ superb 1990s satirical news show, The Day Today, makes clear the dangers of the influence of the media concerning war.

Thirdly, the airing of the initial massacres via media both mainstream and social is a flare in the air, and the point of flares during wartime is that you can see where everyone is. It has already become mandatory in the United Kingdom to take the approved side. Certain celebrities who are usually vocal in their support of the current thing are silent, anyone with the faintest suggestion that Palestinians might have a bit of a long-standing grievance clearly approves of executing babies, and the BBC refuse to call Hamas “terrorists.” Newsrooms have already become the battlefields for a proxy war.

Every flapgums in the mainstream media who talks about this subject is obliged to give a little speech as a preamble, a sort of moral resumé, so that we all know that they are gutmenschen. Thoughts and prayers are with the victims’ families, as a mother I can only imagine, etc., our hearts are broken. Why? Did you know any of these people? Just give us the news and cut the crap. You don’t care about dead Israelis any more than I do. Let’s leave the newsroom and take to the streets.

Those who are prompting demonstrations on European and American streets predictably labelled the protests they called for an international “day of rage.” Rage is a very unpredictable and savage condition in which to find oneself, and the French will be amused by the English word’s meaning. The French word rage means rabies.

Two points of interest about the London demos. Firstly, despite some ground-level apocryphal reports (and one video) of Jews with flags being chased by protestors, there were just 15 arrests. You get more than that at a Glaswegian bar fight. This event looked like a safe bet to turn into an orgy of destruction when the Sun went down, but it didn’t happen. The crowd didn’t send that sort of Black Lives Matter-style message. They sent another one: sheer weight of numbers.

It was a huge demonstration, tens of thousands marched, and it was replicated in Paris, Rome, Berlin, and doubtless every major Western European city, as well as across America. There were thousands of people snaking into the distance from every camera angle I saw. If demonstrating in favor of Palestine is equivalent to anti-Semitism, there sure are a lot of anti-Semites out there.

Incidentally, the number of talking heads both on the mainstream media and various podcasts who believe that the phrase “anti-Semitic” is pronounced “anti-Semetic” is growing. Even helium-voiced Jew Ben Shapiro does it, and I imagine he uses the phrase more than most.

The usual inconsistencies and confusions abound, presumably to keep ordinary folk from having a fixed point from which to make their own assessment. After drumming into the peons that they should not be anti-Palestine but anti-Hamas — who the Palestinians voted for to govern them, at least in Gaza, if not the West Bank — the French and Germans specifically banned pro-Palestine demonstrations.

There have been “calls” in Britain to strip pro-Palestine protestors of their passports and deport them. Now, whenever anyone “calls” for something, it is generally so much static. If you go to Breitbart first thing, for example, and the main headline is someone “calling” for something, you know there is no news of any import that day. But the media are mostly calling for attention to themselves, both in the United States and the United Kingdom, and are making their moral response into the story.

There sure are a lot of little-league thought experiments going on in newsrooms. “I’m a mother! Imagine if that was your child who was raped in front of you and then shot in the head!” Well, it wasn’t. Why would I spend valuable time having such gory thoughts about something that didn’t happen? Why would anyone? Am I supposed to empathize? Compliant empathy is a subset of servitude, something we are trying to avoid.

The media’s orthodox opinions are expressed using the language of Medieval morality. Today’s news anchors use the terms “good” and “evil” more than the Church does. Waving morality around like a toy gun isn’t going to help in this war. The Jews will fight like hell to protect the Holy Land that was gifted to them by compliant goyim, and their enemies are Muslims. This is a kinetic, real-world event, not an ethical Punch-and-Judy show.

That, of course, will be the fuel for the American response — always with the good and evil. That said, American military backup may be problematic for Israel. Are they getting tough, no-shit Marines with buzzcut haircuts and a metal plate in their heads from Iraq, or a bunch of sensitive plants with mascara in their General Issue kitbag? All the talk in the US Army these days is not exactly promoting their brand of global tough guy. This is unlikely to be the first trans war.

The current woke junta have a problem with manhood. Andrew Tate recently spooked the horses on the Left with his brand of pimp-macho, the only problem for the social justice warrior brigade being that Tate is a Muslim and so not as easily sniped at. In a British poll to see if schoolchildren admired Tate, the group which registered the highest approval rating, at 61%, were Muslim boys.

The West is becoming used to the feminization of men on the one hand, and their castigation for oppressing women and blacks on the other. The Muslim world has no such decaying image of what it is to be male; quite the opposite. And masculinity is a very useful attribute. As Nietzsche wrote in The Antichrist, “At least Islam assumes it is dealing with men.” And as the eminent and radically empiricist philosopher Michael Tyson said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.”

The question for us is not whether Hamas are subhuman barbarians, nor is it whether Jews are illegal occupiers. The question for us is simple: How does this war and its potential escalation affect whites? What do we get — or stand to lose — from it? We won’t get the answer by charging into the fray waving the child’s plastic sword of morality. We want to know what is happening, not watch news presenters tearing up over a literal and cultural stranger’s dead baby.

In Hannibal, Thomas Harris’ sequel to The Silence of the Lambs, the psychiatric nurse Barnie, who attended Hannibal Lecter in his cell for years, is asked by Mason Verger about Lecter’s relationship with FBI Agent Clarice Starling. Barnie replies that it seemed to him that . . .

Verger stops him and says: “Just tell us what you saw, Barnie, not what you thought about what you saw.”

The trusty “moral compass” has also been in every media outlet’s waistcoat pocket. We hear a lot about this device, but not much about the fact that each culture has their own, and the calibration and direction it is pointed in can be very different. Thus, morality is not the tool for the job — not for us, at least. Race is not a social construct, and neither is gender. Morality, on the other hand, is. Morality does exist, but it is de facto and not de jure. Morality is much like a potato-peeler. If you wish to peel a potato, it is utterly irreplaceable as the tool of need. It is a sine qua non. But, unless you are a psychopath, peeling potatoes is all a potato-peeler is good for. The rest of the time it stays, unused and unseen, in the cutlery drawer, where it belongs. If you insist that a problem has become a wholly moral concern, you are essentially saying, “Look at me. Over here. Look at me!” It is a form of entertainment, a type of showmanship, a sort of autistic vaudeville. It is assumed that morality is just the good stuff, but serial killers have a moral code, too. The Jews have always handled moral pressure expertly. As the old adage runs: The Jew cries out as he strikes you.

That said, a lot of energy is expended by the dissident political Right on the subject of Jewish world domination. This isn’t to say that energy should not be expended, just that for some it has become a monomaniacal obsession.

A short example: A few weeks ago, I wrote a review of a book of British Critical Race Theory (CRT) for The Occidental Observer. It can be read here. The second comment quoted the review’s very first line, which is as follows: “Britain has an unfortunate tendency to import the more questionable aspects of American culture, and so it is proving with CRT.”

The commenter then went on to quote a paragraph from a book I had never heard of intended to explain that the undesirable imports to which I referred were engineered and promoted by Jews. It is very possible that this is true, but that is not what the piece was about. The fact that my commenter quoted just the opening line before springing into action suggests to me that he didn’t bother with the rest of the review, which ran to almost 4,000 words.

That man with the acorn cup on his head, the Pope, has called for respect for human rights, “especially in Gaza.” But human rights cannot be enshrined, despite what your rulers tell you. Human rights are what you fight for and win or fight for and lose. Legislated human rights, and their moral obstinacy, are trinkets of little value — except to the legal profession.

So, as should be clear, I have no “side” in the Gaza conflict. It’s not a sporting fixture. I don’t have any money on it. Dead babies here, white phosphorus there. Whatever. There are other factors: Iran, HizbAllah, hostages, Putin, Xi, the coming wave of displaced Gazans into Europe. They are the issue, not the media’s moral showboating. As noted, the only relevant question is: What is in this conflict that will benefit whites or otherwise and, if otherwise, what do we do about it?