The Future of Israel and the West
The New Republic worries that the real anti-Semitism of today exists on the left.
A Lethal Obsession is an encyclopedic—and genuinely alarming—compendium of the new anti-Semitism. Wistrich gathers a massive amount of evidence to drive home the point that we are witnessing yet another significant chapter in the history of anti-Semitism, one that the conventional focus on the history of anti-Semitism before and during Nazism and the Holocaust does not address. Every historian must decide what the proper balance is between argument and evidence. No one can criticize Wistrich for paucity of evidence. The examples are plentiful, overwhelming, at times excessive. And the plenitude of scholarship here is more than is necessary to make Wistrich’s argument, which is that the history of radical and potentially genocidal anti-Semitism did not end with the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945.
Hitlerism, understood as hatred of the Jews and of liberal modernity, persisted beyond the destruction of Hitler, in Wistrich’s account, and acquired new political, cultural, religious, ideological, and geographical coordinates. The terminology of the new post-1945 Jew-hatred was no longer predominantly Christian, fascist, or racist. Instead it draws on neo-Marxist, Islamic, or anti-globalist ideologies. Unreconstructed neo-Nazi groups persisted, to be sure, but largely on the margins of European politics, and they ceased to be the most important source of radical anti-Semitism. Instead, the anti-Semitism after Hitler consisted of a mixture of the “old anti-Semitism” with “the new anti-Zionism.” It was expressed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, by the radical left since the 1960s, and above all in the mix of secular and Islamist politics of the Middle East and Iran.While the rallying cry of the old anti-Semitism was the attack on “world Jewry,” the core of anti-Semitism has been the attack on “international Zionism” and on the state of Israel…
Wistrich presents evidence of a “culture of hatred” in the Middle East in recent years that permeates books, magazines, newspapers, sermons, videocassettes, the Internet, television, and radio on a scale unprecedented since the heyday of Nazi Germany. “Indeed, the demonic images of Jews presently circulating in much of the Islamic world are sufficiently radical in tone and content to constitute a new warrant for genocide. They combine to devastating effect the blood libel of medieval Christian Europe with Nazi conspiracy theories about the Jewish drive for world domination and dehumanizing Islamic quotations about Jews as the ‘sons of apes and donkeys.’” Like the Nazis, these anti-Semites see themselves at war with Western decadence, infused as they say it is with evil “Jewish influence.” “Islamofascism today builds on the same mythological figure of the satanic, ubiquitous, immoral and all-powerful Jew that once haunted the European anti-Semitic imagination from Richard Wagner to Adolf Hitler.” I find these claims entirely persuasive.
It came to me while reading this that what the neo-cons have subjected the Muslim world to its own culture of critique. Dr. MacDonald in his book shows that Jewish were successful in pathologizing mainstream white culture and theorizing that things like racial pride and traditional gender roles were mental illnesses.
The obvious difference here is that they couldn’t sell this view of Muslim culture to the Muslims themselves as they did with the white CoC but sold the view of a negative Islamic culture to the West, which then works to undermine the traditions of the Middle East.
The first two-thirds of Wistrich’s tome examines postwar Europe and the Soviet Union. He describes the “new breed of anti-Zionist publicists” in the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s who combined Marxism-Leninism with attacks on the idea of the Jews as the chosen people and on Judaism as a religion that justified imperialism and a variety of sins committed against the Palestinians. In his study of the “anti-Zionist masquerade” which was, he argues, anti-Semitic in its essence, Wistrich reminds us that in September 1971, Yakov Malik, the Soviet Ambassador to the United Nations, replied to the Israeli representative’s remarks about Soviet anti-Semitism as follows: “Don’t stick your long nose into our Soviet garden.” Zionism, he said, was a racist theory, and was “the same that the Fascists advocated towards all peoples….The chosen people: is that not racism? What is the difference between Zionism and Fascism, if the essence of its ideology is racism, hatred towards other peoples?” It was the Soviet anti-Semites who introduced this equation of Zionism with Nazism, and also the idea that Zionism was similar to South African apartheid.
Leftism has told us that racial exclusion and Western people are evil and browns are morally pure. So when a (sort of) Western people tries to displace non-whites and set up an ethnostate, the neo-cons are absolutely shocked that the world opposes this!
The anti-globalist types are generally college town losers and powerless. Israel won’t have to worry about Western anti-Semitism as long as they have the American MSM and Congress. The Europeans are politically and culturally impotent. The womb of Muslim women is the only real threat and will probably be the Jewish state’s doom eventually. Maybe this was what was behind the neo-conservative attempts to democratize the Middle East. If the region becomes Westernized the people will seek peace and stability and care more about making money than jihad. It was always a long shot, but is there any other plausible way that Israel survives? There will be 743 million Arabs by 2060. Iran will go from 73 million to a hundred million, Pakistan from 170 million to 300 million and Afghanistan from 28 million to 79 million. Look at it this way. Iran can never be occupied partly because its population is simply too large. The two countries the US did invade had populations under 30 million. By 2060 Afghanistan will have as many people as Iran does today, and Pakistan will have as many people as the present day US! What intelligence agency is going to keep on eye on all these Muslims? Where will you get the soldiers to occupy their countries when they fall apart? I could see the neo-cons thinking to themselves “Ok, the Muslims are growing exponentially. There’s no appeasing their hatred of us. Eventually their nations are going to be too big for much Western influence. Let’s try this democratizing business. It’s a long shot. But what else are we going to do?!?”
If I were an Israeli I’d get my family out of there.
48 Comments
Feb 4, 2010 4:36 pm |
Israel also has an internal demogro-Muslim problem, as you have probably noted in some other post. I’m not sure that problem isn’t more challenging than the external one. Naturally Israel will retain the nuclear backing of the USA. Expected future levels of disorder and economic stagnation in the USA will little impinge on our ability to stock the Big Ones, which are inexpensive. If you ask me the real question, which I know nothing about, is whether the Islamic world can be expected to come up with ocean-crossing missiles. If you want to play the game for rel, a few nukes by themselves aren’t all that great unless you have the numerous missiles (or air superiority) that can put them on enemy cities. Air superiority will of course continue to belong to one or more of the US, EU, and China, not to Islam.
Feb 4, 2010 4:41 pm |
The Muslims don’t need to cross oceans in order to hit Israel. There’s no peace with Syria and Lebanon is a base for attacks. Both countries border the Jewish state.
What you’ll see is a lot more terrorism, not organized Muslim invasions. While it may not kill many people, just a few terrorist attacks causes the public to shit its pants and widespread panic. Just imagine three or four times as many Muslims to watch, media to monitor, intelligence to gather, etc. That’s only assuming that the propensity to become terrorists stays the same. It may very well increase as the Muslims start seeing more pressure on Israel and Europe falling.
Feb 4, 2010 5:22 pm |
You might well be right that terror can cow Israel into giving up its state jewishness. Especially with a large contingent of far-left jews (both American and Israeli) to help push the agenda of capitulation in the papers and the parliaments — that’s the way it’s done, according to Mencius Moldbug. If the capitulation happens, jews will have to become second-class citizens or end their democracy. As you say, the most eloquent words cannot make the muzzies to take up judeo-european nihilism; they won’t even give up chauvinism.
The main thing that might prevent a soft surrender to terror would be the fact that Israel’s Ashkenazim are declining, while low-IQ highly-religious jews are breeding like Afghans and Pakis.
While the US is certainly able in theory to nuke everything they want to (as long as Islam doesn’t have numerous nuclear ICBMs), you make a strong point against me about how weak this deterrent is in fact, simply because it is to unlikely to actually be used unless Israel is actually invaded — unless American democracy were to yield to right-authoritarianism, even neocon-authoritarianism, which I think very unlikely for at least the next 40 years.
To save Israel, a large base of non-nihlistic low-IQ non-Ashkenazim would have to link up with multiple silver-tongued Ashkenazim who are political geniuses on a level not much below Clinton, who can powerfully influence the entire elite. Otherwise we will probably see a Rhodesia-like exodus of jews within what, 30 years or so.
Feb 4, 2010 5:25 pm |
> or end their democracy
…and be ruled by a basically all-jewish oligarchy. Which basically amounts to being a pariah state on the verge of apartheid, if the feelings of the “international community” do not change radically.
Feb 4, 2010 5:42 pm |
I’m not completely convinced by all these claims suggesting Israel’s demise in the near future.
I just don’t think that these hardy, crafty, ruthless people are just going to roll over.
If anything, these claims serve to keep up and maintain Jewish vigilance and resolve and keep the US focused.
Feb 4, 2010 6:18 pm |
There was a quotation in a previous article about Sweden’s Malmo, where a Jewish person said they were moving their family from there to Israel for safety’s sake … so from their point of view, Israel is more safe than *Sweden*.
Feb 4, 2010 6:19 pm |
Hoste, why not be honest about the object of you concern with Judaism, which is to have the Jews expelled?
Feb 4, 2010 6:30 pm |
Hoste, why not be honest about the object of you concern with Judaism, which is to have the Jews expelled?
This is what I get for showing concern for your future? You’re never happy.
Feb 4, 2010 7:07 pm |
> from their point of view, Israel is more safe than *Sweden*.
Maybe it is — now. But not for long.
Feb 4, 2010 8:22 pm |
The real tragedy of a Jewish expulsion from Israel, is that most of them would probably end up in Europe and N. America where they will inflict further damage on indigenous White populations.
Feb 4, 2010 9:40 pm |
If the west ever gets serious about subjugating these people, it wouldn’t be too difficult. With about a quarter of our present population, and with other commitments, the Nazis managed to control a huge area with many, many millions of hostile people until they were kicked out by some real armies. The only reason 70 million Iranians would present a challenge is that we fight wars with one hand tied behind our backs. If the Jews collectively decide that they want that hand untied, it’ll be untied.
Ultra-orthodox Jews have higher birthrates than Palestinians and will be a majority in Israel about the same time whites become a minority here, so there’s no real danger of Israelis being out-bred by Palestinians. Even if there were, that’s nothing that forced relocations couldn’t solve. But having a majority of mystically-minded lunatics does present its own problems.
Israel’s doom depends on the West and Israel being lukewarm in the defense of Israel, which is entirely possible but perhaps not guaranteed. But if we wanted to, we could do whatever we wanted to the Middle-Easterners, who haven’t won a war with whites in centuries, and are only alive because we’re merciful.
Of course, this all changes if Middle Eastern countries get nuclear arsenals, which is also entirely possible.
Feb 4, 2010 9:58 pm |
If the west ever gets serious about subjugating these people, it wouldn’t be too difficult. With about a quarter of our present population, and with other commitments, the Nazis managed to control a huge area with many, many millions of hostile people until they were kicked out by some real armies.
They weren’t controlling 740 million Arabs, 300 million Pakistanis, 100 million Iranians, and 80 million Afghanis. The occupied Europeans never had a never ending supply of suicide bombers either. Even Saddam Hussein had to periodically put down rebellions. Do you think whites will ever be as brutal as he was?
No, the Muslim world will never be subjugated.
Feb 4, 2010 11:23 pm |
What neocons and some others fail to recognize is that not everybody views Muslims as the biggest threats in the history of the universe nor does everybody care about Israel and it maintaining dominance in the region.
There are American political elements and figures, such as Brzezinski, that want Iran to have nukes and a relatively secure position in order to counter Russia and China who are much greater strategic competitors in the long run, especially in that region for its energy.
Feb 4, 2010 11:35 pm |
I give Israel a lot better odds of surviving than France or the Netherlands.
Feb 4, 2010 11:47 pm |
Israel needs to get serious about its demographic problems. The absolute prerequisite is they need to tell their business community—NO, we will not bring in guest workers for you that you can pay less than our own Jewish workers, or to clean Jewish homes or mow our lawns—and if you persist in calling for this, we will politically, economically, and socially ostracize you. Once that is done, you need to take steps to reduce the birthrates of your non-Jewish Israeli population. There are lots of ways to do this, many of which are subtle enough that they don’t even set off red flags and alarms in the press. Also, you can offer buyouts to encourage some of them to leave–perhaps to areas of the West Bank that you can ‘give back’ to another state. If you want to take some of the heat off of yourselves, perhaps some covert support of nationalist groups in Europe (Geert Wilders, BNP, Vlaams Bloc, etc) would suffice. Most of them don’t like Arabs much at all.
Feb 5, 2010 12:25 am |
It would be sweet if we could cut a deal with Russia and China or something to cleanse all the Muslims and Jews out of the Mideast and divide up the oil.
Feb 5, 2010 12:29 am |
It would be sweet if we could cut a deal with Russia and China or something to cleanse all the Muslims and Jews out of the Mideast and divide up the oil.
No, it wouldn’t. Stop with the genocide talk.
Feb 5, 2010 1:15 am |
If your numbers are right, that’s 1.2 billion subjects, about 4X the present US population. That’s not too much higher than the ratio of Germans to occupied Europeans – which the Germans managed to do with a relative handful of second-line troop, seeing as how they were busy fighting real armies with the bulk of their good men. They didn’t have drones, a significant number of bombers, or even an adequate number of trucks. If you gave the Nazis the resources of the US and asked them to completely subjugate the Muslim world, they would find it unchallenging. It’s also far, far lower than the ratio of Britons to colonized subjects in the heyday of the British Empire.
The occupied Europeans weren’t the suicide-bombing type, but another country in WWII did have an endless supply of suicide bombers – Japan. Two nukes and they lost their enthusiasm. Their suicide bombers also lacked opportunities because we generally did not allow the Japanese to approach our soldiers or military installations. Most of them were shot before they had the chance to blow themselves up.
“Even Saddam Hussein had to periodically put down rebellions.”
Which he did quite effectively, with a military that was by most measures pathetically inferior to the US military. That supports my point.
“Do you think whites will ever be as brutal as [Saddam] was?”
Saddam treated his enemies like enemies. He was no more brutal than many whites pre-1945 (and many whites east of the former Iron Curtain much more recently). I expect whites would become that brutal (which is historically normal) if the media and the intelligentsia stopped banging the drum of white, western guilt, and stopped focusing on the suffering of enemy civilians, and stop telling us lies about how difficult it is to subdue a country. They didn’t give the US military any problems in WWII, when the enemies were right-wingers. What ethnic group is grossly overrepresented in the media and intelligentsia, again?
No, I don’t expect this to actually happen (note this does not mean I rule it out, just that I wouldn’t bet on it), because I’m not anti-semitic enough to believe that our Jewish-dominated elites will cynically do a 180 on imperialism to save Israel. They’re infected with the suicidal mind virus of liberalism like we are. But if I were a MacDonaldite like you, I’d be certain of it. The reasoning would go as follows: the Jews have pushed and continue to push weak counterinsurgency warfare and have suppressed colonialism due to anti-white animosity, but they’ll change their tune and use their white puppets to crush Israel’s enemies when Israel’s survival is at stake.
Feb 5, 2010 1:47 am |
The Zionist enterprise was considered illusional from its very beginning. When I came to Israel we were less than 2 million against 100 million Arabs with oil, and the situation looked hopeless. We have not only survived, grown and prospered but are completing the settlement of Eretz Israel and wrecking the nerves of our neighbors.
Feb 5, 2010 3:06 am |
RH:”If I were an Israeli I’d get my family out of there.”
BAD ADVICE! Israel is fine…it isn’t going anywhere considering the huge pile of nukes it has.
And where do you propose Jews go? back to Europe? Or in to the USA?
There are already 20+ million Jews living in the USA…we don’t need or want anymore of them.
Feb 5, 2010 3:12 am |
NR:”The real tragedy of a Jewish expulsion from Israel, is that most of them would probably end up in Europe and N. America where they will inflict further damage on indigenous White populations.”
Yes, precisely right – that is why pro-White people should SUPPORT ISRAEL at all costs…we want them to stay there in Israel, not flood in to our nations and further subvert our countries.
The LAST thing the USA (or Canada, Europe, Australia, Latin America, etc) needs is even more Jews pouring in to it – then the entire USA and those other nations would become even more completely owned and controlled by Ashkenazi ethnic networkers.
Feb 5, 2010 8:34 am |
So Hoste thinks Iran cant be occupied because its population is (or will be) too large. I shall not dwell on the fact that Iran itself is a country occupied by minority Persians, but there are numerous historical examples of large countries administered by smaller nations. Britain ruled India (and a few other places) for centuries. Holland had Indonesia. North Siberian tribes conquered China not once but several times (Mongols, Manchu). My own grandfather in the AustroHungarian Army marched on Beijing. The 140 Spaniards of Pizarro took the Inca Empire of millions, roasted the Inca, raped the Virgins of the Sun and ruled happily forever.
Feb 5, 2010 9:36 am |
The occupied Europeans weren’t the suicide-bombing type, but another country in WWII did have an endless supply of suicide bombers – Japan. Two nukes and they lost their enthusiasm. Their suicide bombers also lacked opportunities because we generally did not allow the Japanese to approach our soldiers or military installations. Most of them were shot before they had the chance to blow themselves up.
Japan’s suicide cult wasn’t the same as the Muslim one. The Japanese were doing it in a professional army and stopped as soon as their emperor told them to. The Muslims are decentralized and participate in grass roots killing.
Saddam treated his enemies like enemies. He was no more brutal than many whites pre-1945 (and many whites east of the former Iron Curtain much more recently).
Saddam had a base that made up 20% of the country. He didn’t inspire as much hatred because he was himself an Arab.
Do you think the Soviet Union in the 1980s was insufficiently brutal in Afghanistan? They killed a million civilians and 140,000 of the enemy. They lost a hundred thousand men. I’m sure they could’ve done it if they threw nukes, chemicals, biological weapons and everything else at the enemy but nobody’s ever going to do that. You can’t kill millions in today’s world.
Anyway, the point is moot as I was originally talking about the prospects of Israel surviving. There’s no reason for the West to care how many Muslims there are. Distance is our friend. We should only care about how many are in the West.
Feb 5, 2010 1:27 pm |
“I give Israel a lot better odds of surviving than France or the Netherlands.”
For crying out loud, the Eurabia nonsense will never die: muslim birth rates are decreasing — both inside and outside the West. The answer is easy: women in the muslim world are having fewer children and their first child later, because they get more education and work more often. Only SS Africans seem to be stuck in Malthusian fertility these days.
France has the highest White birth rate in the Western world, at replacement level. (And no, it’s not just the non-Whites who inflate the TFR.) The Netherlands is >90% White and birth rates or different ethnic groups have been converging for over a decade.
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2010/01/netherlands-non-westerners-becoming.html
Israel’s birth rate is healthy, the population growing, Jewish immigration increasing; they have a kick-ass army, a superb intelligence force, nuclear weapons and the most powerful allies out there; a liberal thriving market economy. The only problems for Israel are the Palestinian birth rate and Palestinian supporters like Iran who fund Hamas et al. I once read a RAND report on Iran that claimed such support was way overèxaggerated anyway — a media myth.
Feb 5, 2010 1:44 pm |
The Japanese were doing it in a professional army and stopped as soon as their emperor told them to. The Muslims are decentralized and participate in grass roots killing.
So? The point is that you don’t let them get close to you and they can’t suicide bomb you. And why did the emperor order them to stop? Because he saw that there was no chance of winning the war and that continuing hostilities would only lead to the nuclear annihilation of his country. If we had had scruples about nuking Japan, they may or may not have given up, and the result could have been that we would have had to deal with their 10,000 remaining kamikazes and these guys.
Insurgents now don’t give up so because they think – correctly – that if they stick it out they’ll wear us down and win. If they didn’t think they could win, they would give up, unless we stupidly backed them into a corner where they had to fight to the death (which I don’t advocate – if they’re willing to cooperate, treat ‘em well).
Saddam had a base that made up 20% of the country
So he had 20% less of the country to subdue. His resources were far less than 80% of those of the US.
Do you think the Soviet Union in the 1980s was insufficiently brutal in Afghanistan?… I’m sure they could’ve done it if they threw nukes, chemicals, biological weapons and everything else at the enemy
You just answered your own question.
Actually, I wouldn’t advocate NBCs. The Afghans were a tough enemy because they are tough people. They’re not like the Czechs who could be subdued with one Lidice. But the Boers were tough too. This is how the British dealt with them:
The British also implemented a “Scorched Earth” policy under which they targeted everything within the controlled areas that could give sustenance to the Boer guerrillas with a view to making it harder and harder for the Boers to survive. As British troops swept the countryside, they systematically destroyed crops, burned homesteads and farms, poisoned wells, and interned Boer and African women, children and workers in concentration camps. Finally, the British also established their own mounted raiding columns in support of the sweeper columns. These were used to rapidly follow and relentlessly harass the Boers with a view to delaying them, and cutting off escape, while the sweeper units caught up. Many of the 90 or so mobile columns formed by the British to participate in such drives were a mixture of British and Colonial troops but also had a large minority of armed Africans and the total number of armed Africans serving with these columns has been estimated at approximately 20,000.
The British won.
If the Soviets had done something like this, they would have won, but that’s hard to do when you’re claiming to be the liberator of the proletariat. So, yes, they were too soft on the Afghans from the point of view of subduing them.
You can’t kill millions in today’s world.
That’s true. Why not? Because the liberals won’t let you. If they change their minds, as they did when the enemies were fascists (the last war we actually won decisively), you’ll be able to kill millions again. That’s all there is to it. If I believed what Kevin MacDonald believes, I would think that the Jews have the motive and the ability to change our minds about how wars should be conducted, and I would expect them to as it would be in Israel’s interest to see the Muslims subdued.
Anyway, the point is moot as I was originally talking about the prospects of Israel surviving
Which mostly depend on the actions of their Muslim neighbors, which depend on what are willing and able to do to stop them from achieving their goal of destroying Israel. The point is not moot.
Feb 5, 2010 1:59 pm |
Ok, we agree. The West can subdue masses of third world people if it completely changes its culture and is willing to kill millions. I was arguing it can’t be done fighting by modern standards.
If I believed what Kevin MacDonald believes, I would think that the Jews have the motive and the ability to change our minds about how wars should be conducted, and I would expect them to as it would be in Israel’s interest to see the Muslims subdued.
They’ve created a monster and can’t control the mass egalitarianism they’ve unleashed. MacDonald doesn’t believe that whites are simply passive vessels prone to adopt whatever Jews fill them with.
The situation wouldn’t be ideal for them anyway, because how do you convince whites to remain diversity loving but that it’s ok for Israel to kill all its enemies? And if you do convince whites they can reject multiculturalism and act collectively, then they may start wondering how they could’ve been so stupid for so long.
Feb 5, 2010 2:46 pm |
My thoughts on the destruction of Israel can be found here:
http://statsaholic.blogspot.com/2010/02/geopolitics.html
Feb 5, 2010 3:47 pm |
I think it could be done by making an exception for Muslims – the message would be that their religion is too barbaric so they’re outside the pale, not subject to the rights everyone else gets. Look at Gates of Vienna (an anti-Islam blog) or anybody who calls themselves anti-Jihadists. Give them five years to propagandize Americans through mainstream media channels and you’ll have a lot more Christian Zionists ready to do anything to the Muslims.
I don’t think it would necessarily really require killing millions – but it would require the will to kill millions if that’s what it came to. If they knew we would do it, they wouldn’t provoke us, barring lunatic leadership, which none of those countries have to my knowledge. The Iranian leadership isn’t backing down on nukes because they know Obama’s not going to do anything. If they were just as certain that he would use their skulls as urinals if they didn’t back down, they would probably be content to remain a non-nuclear power.
Feb 5, 2010 6:36 pm |
“If I believed what Kevin MacDonald believes, I would think that the Jews have the motive and the ability to change our minds about how wars should be conducted, and I would expect them to as it would be in Israel’s interest to see the Muslims subdued.”
MacDonald doesn’t believe that whites are complete zombies wholly controlled by “the Jews” nor does he argue that Jews are a completely unified bloc, including on what’s best for Israel and Jewish interests. You’ve already mis-characterized his views twice in this thread. Jewish influence is an issue of degree. Not of two mutually exclusive categories of total Jewish control vs no Jewish control. MacDonald is pretty clear about this in his writings, so it’s unfair to misrepresent him like this.
I don’t think MacDonald would say that Jews have the total power to completely manipulate whites’ minds regarding warfare against Muslims. For one thing, it’s clear that Jews aren’t unanimous on this issue. There are plenty of Jews who sincerely believe that what’s best for the Jews and Israel is some kind of wishy washy, “peaceful,” non-military solution, that it’s better to just muddle through instead of being decisive. Also, it’s not clear that trying to “subdue” the Muslims would be in Israel’s interest, insofar as any such action would provoke response not simply from Muslims around the world but from nations like Russia and China that would be opposed to complete US/Israeli hegemony in the region.
And it’s clear that some groups of Jews, namely the neocons, have been pretty successful in influencing both the government and the general American public on how geopolitics and war should be conducted. But this power and influence is not total nor is it such that Americans’ minds can be changed on a whim. It’s situational and has to comport to the circumstances at hand. I’m sure they’re aware that the kind of total war you have in mind is possible but that it couldn’t be just promoted out of the blue (if it’s something they wanted), but that it would require an extreme terror attack like a nuke going off, and then “spinning” this event and taking advantage of that window of popular rage to launch total war.
Feb 5, 2010 7:09 pm |
Eman said…
There are already 20+ million Jews living in the USA…we don’t need or want anymore of them.
Where the hell did you get a number like twenty million? WTF? As far as the estimates I have seen online the US has six million Jews, and many of them are intermarrying with gentiles.
Again, where do you get the 20m number for American Jewry?
Feb 5, 2010 9:17 pm |
coldequation,
You are making a grave error in thinking America could subjugate the Muslim world if only Americans were influenced to give up on the Liberal idea that Hyper-Brutality in War is wrong.
It is true that Nazi Germany did tremendous things in the field of subjugating vast populations, but there were FAR more differences between us and the Nazis than our relative degree of moral scruple in the field of warfare.
The American has millions of economically unproductive Minorities to feed and give healthcare to. Nazi Germany didn’t. And thus the Nazis were able to spend far more of their Tax Revenue on Military Adventures than the American Government of today could ever dream of.
Just as importantly, Nazi men were Racialized enough that they were willing to risk their lives for the group without resisting. In contrast, American Whites have been so deracialized by the Jews that most of them will do anything avoid risking their lives in combat.
Also, even Racialized American White Men have their patriotism undermined by the simple fact that their Government is Genocidally hostile to them, even going so far as to enforce insulting and harmful discrimination against both their Race and Sex.
Speaking for myself, I would fight for a drug addled sex cult before I’d fight for the goddamned United States of America. After all, the average drug addled sex cult hasn’t done one millionth as much damage to White Men as the US Government has.
But yeah, except for not having the Money and not having the Men, America has everything it needs to conquer the Muslim world.
But seriously folks, the only thing that could save Israel is if America became like Nazi Germany in meaningful ways (not just in terms of brutality), and that won’t happen unless White Nationalists take power.
And the last time I checked, White Nationalists aren’t overly interested in the project of expending White Lives and White Money for the sake of protecting Israel.
They’ll laugh as the last Jew is thrown into the sea.
Feb 5, 2010 11:47 pm |
Reginald,
You make an important point about deracialization and its consequences on morale and on commitment to a massive imperial military.
I think religion (i.e. conservative Christianity) played/plays a comparable role to race in terms of sustaining morale and “inspiring” the soldiers, and it could probably be reasonably argued that religion in this case is a conduit of “implicit Whiteness” in the first place. The millenial and eschatalogical views of many Christians were fertile ground for a theatrical, apocalyptic terrorist attack close to the turn of the millenium like 9/11 in terms of motivating and sustaining a response conceptualized as a kind of long religious war or struggle.
But even this kind of religious faith is a finite resource, not to mention the fact that not all these Christians are as fanatical in their faith. It is being sapped and there is a general feeling of war fatigue.
Feb 7, 2010 2:56 am |
“I don’t think MacDonald would say that Jews have the total power to completely manipulate whites’ minds regarding warfare against Muslims. For one thing, it’s clear that Jews aren’t unanimous on this issue.”
The latter statement is more true than the former. That’s the only way to explain within MacDonald’s framework.
I remember white gentiles that I knew personally in 2001 saying we should nuke Afghanistan, which is far worse than anything I’ve proposed. Your faith in the soft-heartedness of whites is touching if you don’t think endlessly hammering this message home wouldn’t change a lot of minds.
Jews can’t control us like zombies, but they can get their message heard. Obviously, if they’re selling something too crazy (“in style for 2010 – giving rimjobs to fat guys”) nobody will listen, but the behavior I’m talking about is far less unnatural than white behavior MacDonaldites attribute to Jews. It’s how we fought WWII.
“The American has millions of economically unproductive Minorities to feed and give healthcare to. Nazi Germany didn’t. And thus the Nazis were able to spend far more of their Tax Revenue on Military Adventures than the American Government of today could ever dream of.”
You are obviously innumerate. The Nazi economy in WWII was a rounding error compared to the modern US economy. The US military budget is huge.
“Just as importantly, Nazi men were Racialized enough that they were willing to risk their lives for the group without resisting. In contrast, American Whites have been so deracialized by the Jews that most of them will do anything avoid risking their lives in combat.”
Go to tell that to some Marines. Be sure to call an ambulance first. There are still plenty of patriotards.
Feb 7, 2010 3:32 am |
“You are obviously innumerate. The Nazi economy in WWII was a rounding error compared to the modern US economy. The US military budget is huge.”
Then why is the American Army so tiny compared to how large the Nazi army was?
I was talking about Military Budget as a percentage of Tax Revenue. Absolute size of Military Budget is irrelevant as there’s been economic growth around the world since the Nazis that inflates the cost of outfitting an effective soldier.
“Go to tell that to some Marines. Be sure to call an ambulance first. There are still plenty of patriotards.”
Marines are a tiny, elite, and highly selected group.
I’m talking about the big picture. American Whites are worthless of soldiers, unless you pay them so much that they stop being soldiers and start being mercenaries.
Feb 7, 2010 3:34 am |
Almost the entire US Military are Mercenaries, at this point, and you can’t outfit an Imperial Army of mercenaries as it would be too expensive.
Instead you’re stuck with a half-assed midget sized army like America has now.
Feb 7, 2010 3:37 am |
“I remember white gentiles that I knew personally in 2001 saying we should nuke Afghanistan, which is far worse than anything I’ve proposed. Your faith in the soft-heartedness of whites is touching if you don’t think endlessly hammering this message home wouldn’t change a lot of minds.”
The Jews had better hurry, if as you claim they actually have this power, as such a program as you describe will soon become worthless due to the Iranian Nuclear Program.
Feb 7, 2010 8:39 am |
American Whites have been so deracialized by the Jews that most of them will do anything avoid risking their lives in combat
What planet are you living on? It took three weeks for the American Army to finish Saddam Hussein’s army, the same army that fought Iran and its ayatollahs for seven years. There is just no comparison between the American Army and the Na’vi like armies of the Third World. And to answer the slander that American Whites will not risk their lives, just now there are thousands of them engaged in combat in several countries, some of them you never heard of. I respect them, you should too.
Feb 7, 2010 10:17 am |
Hi. It is really strange to hear you all expressing concern that the Jews control the minds of white folks.
Aren’t yall all white folks?
And aren’t y’all thinking things other than what the Jews want you to think?
Doesn’t that show that white folks have minds of their own?
* * *
Feb 7, 2010 4:25 pm |
We should indeed only care about how many Muslims are in the West. Our oceans can save us. The open door has to shut and the sentimentalism end. I am intrigued by the arguments concerning whether or not modern (really modern) weaponry can control millions of restive semi-literate people. I think they can. Remember that millions of people living in fragile societies, in terms of physical infrastructure, can be eliminated with biowarfare agents. If there isn’t a syringe of medicine quickly to be found, viral or bacterial (eg, plague) would be exponentially lethal. Those agents can be dropped from drones or spread via nanobots.
It is best to forget WW2 as an object lesson. German armies invaded Russia using horses for much of the locomotion.
The luftwaffe had some nifty planes in the works, but that is about it.
Come to think of it, though, maybe the best lesson from WW2 is the lesson of geopolitics. Germans knew their nation was always going to be in a geostrategic bind simply because of its centrality and vulnerability to encirclement and blockade. Germany’s big mistake in WW2 was its neglect of its navy. Only its navy could defeat Britain, and could have were it not for Corporal Hitler’s fascination with Lebensraum, and stupid racial ideas like “inferiority of the Slavs.”
Wrong, Adolf.
For us in the US, geopolitics is working in our favor. North America can be made into our island if we want it to. But we have to get serious.
Feb 7, 2010 10:41 pm |
“What planet are you living on? It took three weeks for the American Army to finish Saddam Hussein’s army, the same army that fought Iran and its ayatollahs for seven years.”
In Operation Desert Storm the American Army didn’t clear and hold a single square foot of Iraqi Territory.
And Operation Iraqi Freedom came after Saddam’s army went through more than a decade of devastating sactions, sanctions that were so severe that they caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to die.
The last non-destroyed Country America cleared and held the territory of was the pathetic little Latin American Country of Panama.
Before that there was Grenada.
Before that Vietnam. Oops, America lost that one didn’t she? And in fact, America lost that war in spite of using massive amounts of chemical weapons against the enemy, and in spite of the American Public tolerating a magnitude of dead American Soldiers that they would never tolerate nowadays.
Feb 7, 2010 10:43 pm |
Also it should be noted that I recall it took about 120 American Soldiers in WWII to defeat 100 German Soldiers.
This was in a time period where White Americans were about one million times more willing to die in combat than they are now.
Feb 8, 2010 12:34 am |
It is interesting that an Israeli water engineer is so adamant about defending the honor of the American military. Perhaps this is an indication that the American military is serving the interests of a foreign power rather than those of our own nation.
Feb 8, 2010 1:54 am |
It is pretty bizarre that an Israeli has to defend the honor of American soldiers against an American slanderer.
Feb 8, 2010 2:19 am |
If the American military were being used in the service of our own interests, soldiers would be on the Mexican border, not in a desert on the other side of the world and in countries we have “never heard of.”
Feb 8, 2010 12:34 pm |
Reginald, most of what you said isn’t even worth responding to, but I would note that if it’s true that 120 US WWII soldiers = 100 German WWII soldiers, since the US has roughly 4 times the population of Nazi germany, America can field an army about 3.3 times as strong as that of Nazi Germany, which would have no problem at all occupying the Muslim world.
Feb 8, 2010 12:58 pm |
That ratio was from a long time ago, when Americans were willing to take hundreds of thousands of War Dead.
You can’t do what the Nazis did unless you’re willing to get your nose bloody, and its clear from how much trouble the Pentagon goes to avoid American War Dead (even refusing to send their “Soldiers” after Osama Bin Laden AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS!) that Americans would faint if they a significant amount of blood coming out of their nose.
Feb 8, 2010 12:59 pm |
If they had a significant amount of blood coming out of their nose, I should say.
Feb 8, 2010 3:30 pm |
It is much smarter to kill the enemy from unmanned drones. Even the idolized Wehrmacht (by Reginald) preferred to shot unmanned V-2 from secure bases in Germany instead of “bloodying their noses” by crossing the Channel.
Leave a Reply