Greg Johnson
Once again, Palestinians and Jews on the shores of the Levant are demonstrating the worst feature of modern warfare: It solves nothing, because it seldom kills the people who are really at fault. In fact, neither side is really trying. Instead, they are gleefully killing innocents, while legions of morally demented bystanders frantically cheer them on.
The reason both sides target civilians is that their goal is ethnic cleansing through terror: Jews want Palestinian land, and Palestinians want Jewish land. Ultimately, the question is: Who has the right, the just claim, to the land? As an ethnonationalist, I believe that both peoples have the right to a land of their own somewhere, as long as it is not the same place, of course. (In my essay “The Autochthony Argument,” I argue that it is more important that every people have a home somewhere than it is for them to have a home on their original territory, which is often impossible.)
When the Ottoman Empire was dismantled, it should have been partitioned into homelands for its constituent peoples: Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Arabs and other Arabic-speaking peoples, and Jews. Of course, this did not happen, because the British and French empires preferred to grab what they could. Thus, everyone had to fight for an independent state. The result has been more than a century of bloody conflict.
If, however, the British and French had partitioned the Ottoman Empire along ethnic lines, the establishment of a Jewish state would have been seen as an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist act rather than the last gasp of European colonialism. (It didn’t help that most Jews who “returned” to Israel came from Europe, not the Ottoman Empire, and were genetically about as European as they were Middle Eastern.)
From an ethnonationalist point of view, the only way for Jews and their Palestinian neighbors to live in peace is for both peoples to have sovereign homelands, which requires settling borders and forever relinquishing claims to one another’s territories. That is what should happen. But it won’t happen anytime soon, because neither side wants that, and the rest of the world enables their continued conflict rather than forces them to bury the hatchet.
So now that we have arrived at the realm of Realpolitik, let’s talk about the current crisis. First, I have to be frank: My sympathy is with the Palestinians, because I, too, feel that I am part of a stateless people under a Jewish occupation regime. (For instance, I am censored on the largest social media platforms because an American Jewish organization, the Anti-Defamation League, thinks that freedom of speech is bad for Jews.) I certainly don’t see the situation as Spencer Quinn does, with the Jews as white settlers and the Palestinians as savage Apaches.
But feelings of sympathy don’t go too far in the world of Realpolitik, because as much as I want a world in which all peoples — Palestinians, Jews, and Americans — live at peace in their own homelands, very few Palestinians or Jews reciprocate such sentiments. This is abundantly clear in the current conflict.
Again, both sides are targeting civilians because they are committed to ethnic cleansing through terror. Where do they want the refugees to go? Both sides are quite candid about this. Jews want to displace 3.5 million Palestinians to Europe and other white countries, and Palestinians want to displace more than seven million Jews to the same destinations. But that’s bad for white people, because all white peoples are already in danger of losing our historic homelands to mass immigration and low fertility.
Why, then, are so many other White Nationalists cheering on the Palestinians?
The founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, believed that diaspora Jews came into conflict with their host populations because they had conflicting values and interests. His solution was to create a Jewish state. If a Jew accepts Herzl’s analysis of the Jewish Question and his proposed solution, he is a Zionist. If a non-Jew like me wholeheartedly agrees with Herzl and wishes Jews the best in their own homeland, he is called an anti-Semite. But conflicts like this make me feel that there is a world of difference between me and fellow White Nationalists who are cheering for the destruction of Israel.
Yes, in the short term, such conflicts can’t help but pull some Jewish manpower away from operations that harm whites, such as agitating against freedom of speech and for open borders. Yes, such conflicts are highly instructive to the general public when they see that the American political establishment is more concerned with Israel’s borders than America’s. Yes, the sudden normalization of bloodthirsty and bellicose nationalism and racial hatred against Palestinians in the mainstream media is also highly educational. But these are trivial boons given what is really at stake.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Trial of Socrates here.
If Hamas has its way, more than seven million Jews will show up in our countries. Does any pro-white person really want that?
Of course, Hamas is not going to get its way. But these attacks raise the likelihood that instead white countries will have to absorb 3.5 million more Palestinians. How can any pro-white person cheer that on?
Of course, Hamas’ cheerleaders aren’t thinking that far ahead. They are just engaged in emotional self-indulgence. Unfortunately, the emotion they are indulging in is self-destructive. They are indulging in spite.
Spite means hating your enemies more than you love yourself. I can’t help thinking that both Hamas and their White Nationalist cheerleaders are in the grip of spite. Pox Populi raises a very good question:
As Israel retaliates against Hamas with “overwhelming force” and the approval of demented Zionists and Zionist toadies, I’m reminded of Machiavelli’s words: “If an injury has to be inflicted on a man, it should be so severe that the man’s vengeance need not be feared.”
I wonder what Hamas thought they would gain from this assault which, while large-scale relative to previous attacks, is still nowhere near a full-scale and debilitating attack. Surely they must have known that Israel would respond with all its fury.
The answer is that Hamas is acting out of spite. They hate their enemies more than they love their own people, so they are eager to harm Jews, even to no earthly benefit. (It helps, of course, that Muslims believe they will be rewarded for suicidal attacks in heaven.)
When one recognizes that it seldom ends well when different peoples occupy the same territory, one has a choice. One can wallow in ethnic hatred or one can seek a solution. My preferred solution is distinct homelands for distinct peoples. Other White Nationalists don’t want Jews to live anywhere because they don’t want them to live. I call them exterminationists. They are highly aroused by the current conflict. But their position is indefensible.
No matter which side in this conflict wins, whites will lose. So if you ask me which side I am on, I am taking my own side, the white side. If white nations had pro-white governments, they would seek to resolve this conflict so that the Jewish and Palestinian diaspora populations on our shores could return to peaceful homelands, rather than grow through endless conflicts — conflicts that always have the possibility of igniting new regional or global wars.
Note
Mike Peinovich of The Right Stuff took it personally when I told a commenter who was playing exterminationist games to “go back to TRS.” He writes: “. . . Greg Johnson accuses me and my site of being exterminationist . . .” Actually, that’s false. I never accused Mike Peinovich of being an exterminationist. Indeed, the platform of his own political party, the National Justice Party, clearly states that Jews could live in an NJP America, as long as their power is limited. Point four of their party platform reads: “We support a two percent ceiling on Jewish employment in vital institutions so that they better represent the ethnic and regional population balance of the country.”
Peinovich goes on to write:
In any case, we do not advocate for anyone’s extermination, we simply do not endorse the view that White Liberation and White political power require us to form an alliance with Zionism. It’s an absurd premise, Jews have their Zionism and Whites are more disempowered than ever. Zionism is the engine of White disempowerment. They don’t need or want any help from us. Why offer it up for free?
This is a straw man. I don’t advocate an “alliance” with Zionism. Nobody makes alliances with powerless commentators on the Internet. I simply acknowledge that Zionism is ethnonationalism applied to Jews. As for the claim that “Zionism is the engine of White disempowerment,” that better describes the behavior of diaspora Jewry, which Zionism was designed to cure.
Peinovich continues:
Nor do we endorse the view that we must have a plan for “what to do with the Jews” before throwing off their power over us. I am not required to make accommodation for my oppressor before breaking his yoke from around my neck. Nor are Palestinians.
First of all, Mike Peinovich does have a plan for the Jews, namely to curtail their power in American society. Secondly, Peinovich is not so busy fighting the Intifada that he can’t take the time to talk about where Jews would go if Israel fell. After all, he is a podcaster. He’s a political commentator. Talk is his business. Indeed, in the time it took to peck out his reply to me, he could have gone on record about what sort of “accommodation” for his “oppressor” he envisions.
