By the known rules of ancient liberty

Screen Shot 2020-03-29 at 10.07.19 PM

One evening a few weeks back, I went to the supermarket with a three-item list, and ended up spending $300 on dry goods and medicines. The place looked like the collapse of Soviet Russia. It was pandemonium. As I gazed upon the half-empty supermarket shelves, admonishments from the goldbugs and preppers of post-2008 all came echoing back. The libertarian conspiracy-sphere of the Bush II era all seems very prescient now. Ultimately, no system can save us from the system at its present scale. Aside from the Davos set, we’re all paleo-anarchists, we just don’t know it until the toilet paper runs out. In fact, this is especially true of the Davos set—and if they don’t trust their own system, why should you or I?

I’ve come to an age where people all look the same to me, like future corpses in the process of rotting on the wheel of time. It was shocking, at first, to see the wheel turn, and the fleshbags rudely rouse themselves. But why should any of this have been a surprise? We all think we’re well-aware of how thin the ice is getting, yet it seems our ability to procrastinate is limitless. For example, a time-lapse video of a Mormon homestead being built in the Idaho Rockies has nearly 6 million views on YouTube. That’s a 6 million-to-one ratio.

In the midst of this COVID hysteria, I keep hearing people say that our most basic individual freedoms do not trump their right to live. This is exactly backwards. Freedom is not a guarantee of life. From time immemorial, freedom has meant readiness to kill or be killed. Throughout history, those who preferred “protection” to freedom were stooges, serfs, subjects, perpetual children—as are those who are clamoring for government protection today.

Indeed, COVID-19 has brought government-suckers of every stripe out of the woodwork: the “resistance” wants Trump to take total control, while MAGA dupes want gibs at any cost. This thing has already ginned-up a conniption of snitching, too, as government authority becomes more and more arbitrary and experimental. For instance, I took my kid to the park the other day, and some busybodies had taken it upon themselves to cordon off the swing-set with yellow caution tape. There was no signage anywhere to indicate that this act had official sanction, yet no sooner had I torn the tape off and placed kiddo on the swing than some corpulent, elderly fuck out walking a shitty little dog (in flagrant violation of state quarantine orders) started mean mugging me, then walking towards me with his phone out. Not wanting myself and my child to become a photo on his iCloud, nor to be there when he called the cops, I took my son and hightailed it.

Later in the week, I was out walking a shitty little dog of my own, in flagrant violation of even stricter quarantine measures that had been announced by our (regional) government protectors only hours previous. Under the circumstances, I had to take seriously the possibility that I could be hassled or even detained. Having experienced a handful of oppressive run-ins with imperious cops over the years, I started imagining the worst. Consider, for example, the following hypothetical: you are minding your own business when a couple of punk cops, flush with emergency powers, arbitrarily attempt to arrest you. They contrive to charge you with some Gordian knot of administrative offenses that will more or less keep you detained indefinitely. Satisfying the judiciary of your innocence will mean the ruin of your career, your family, and your reputation. Forget, as well, that none of what I’ve just described is rare. For our purposes, all of this takes place in Bruce Springsteen’s America, the whole thing is an anomaly, and these two cops are simply bad apples, with innocent wives and children who want to see them home tonight. However, in this hypothetical, you have the opportunity (never mind how, exactly) to kill these two cops, and get away with it completely, i.e., to walk away immediately and never suffer any social repercussion, because no one else will ever know it was you who killed them.

Would you do it?

I leave the answer to your own private conscience. But by the known rules of ancient liberty, there is no civic obligation to forbear such injustice in the hope that a magistrate may eventually prove reasonable. Your ancestors (the ones who were worth a shit) would view our modern sensibilities in this regard as ridiculous, if not totally incomprehensible. On the contrary: to them, killing to avoid being kidnapped would be perfectly normal and acceptable. If a man threatens you, arbitrarily and maliciously, with a kafkaesque nightmare, and all of it could be avoided by killing him, then what is his life worth from your perspective? Is it worth a life-long ordeal? How about a decade-long one? What about five years? Or two? How about six months? I will tell you how I personally answer this question: virtually zero. If, by killing a government agent who would detain me, arbitrarily and with malice, for even five minutes, I could avoid that five minutes’ mental anguish and unjust detention, from my perspective it is absolutely worth taking his life, assuming I could get away with it. Obviously I’m not advising this course of action, but that’s only because you couldn’t possibly get away with it nowadays. No one can, which in itself ought to tell you something horrifying. Even if you could escape the system’s ubiquitous gaze, almost no one today is mentally equipped to survive off-grid, and even the lowest functionaries of e.g., the schools, the health care system and private businesses can exercise or activate some form of police authority that may not be much in the grand scheme, but could prove fatal anyway. And even if you believe that most people are not worthy of real freedom, under this system, not even the worthy are free, and our unworthy rulers will not be, either, because the very possibility of freedom—of authentic human life—is foreclosed.

Already, the mass psychology that’s being insinuated in response to this pandemic is that there are literally no boundaries the authorities cannot cross, because you are beholden to “the herd” on a microbial level. There is nowhere to escape from this mindset. Hysterical, child-like awe of authority has, instantaneously—as if by magic—been given every rationalization. The exercise of official power has crossed the line into a realm so experimental it can only be classed as entirely arbitrary. There is no privilege or benefit, no deterrent or disincentive, that could possibly suffice in one fell swoop to obligate all to do exactly as we are told the way this virus is being leveraged to do now.

In a landmark New Deal-era ruling that greatly expanded executive power, the Supreme Court remarked that “Rulers come and go; governments end and forms of government change; but sovereignty survives. A political society cannot endure without a supreme will somewhere.” Indeed, if you live in any but the smallest-scale political society, and you’re not the sovereign, you are necessarily a subject. But every revolution is a revolution in consciousness. The reigns of power have always been in the mind. So if you are worthy, it is time to scale down the system, and scale up the man.

 

How to Respond to Microaggressions

Screen Shot 2020-03-24 at 5.00.07 PM

figured him for more of a cucumber kinda guy

I come from a town where the locals can be a bit territorial.

In my mid-twenties, I went home and decided to finish college. Throughout this period, I moved around a lot between shared quarters of various kinds. At one point, I rented a backyard bungalow from a divorcee with two school-age kids.

Jenna was a petite blond in her early forties whose ex-husband was a schoolteacher. She took good care of herself. Apparently, it had occurred to her rather late that her sexual power was never fully realized, so she rebelled against this weak-chinned fellow to live the independent life of her dreams, in his house, on half his salary, with some strange renter sharing a bathroom with her poor kids—though I wasn’t around much, and it was only a two-month sublet anyway.

She devoted herself to jiu-jitsu, and would invite the whole staff of Brazilian instructors and other students over for wild parties. She had turned her living room into a salon, and whenever I got back from campus there’d be a gaggle of gibbering yentas all getting their hair and nails done. And she seemed to be dating quite a bit, with numerous types of guys. There was an uptight, white attorney who’d come for dinners after work in a suit. One of the Brazilians was definitely getting in there. Also, a high school classmate of mine who played bass for a local fixture rock-reggae band. And a couple of times I noticed a short-statured but muscular, intense looking black dude.

I was in very good shape back then. I had a weight set and a tower with dip handles and a pull-up bar, and in the afternoons I would lift in the backyard. It was springtime. One day while I was working out, I came through the back porch to the kitchen for some water. No one was home, so I had my shirt off. Just as I finished washing my glass and putting it on the dishrack, Jenna came in with this black fellow. Like me, he was shirtless, in basketball shorts. I was feeling friendly and self-satisfied. I greeted the two of them warmly and chatted with her a bit, but I could sense him sizing me up as competition.

When you’re from a place, you can just tell who’s local and who isn’t. Black people are no exception; in my town, I knew all of them, and he wasn’t one of the ones I knew. On the other hand, a part of me despises not just provincialism, but territoriality where no territory has really been earned. Out of both a cosmopolitan impulse and a certain penitence over my past, teenage life of petty robbery, I liked to be open and cordial to transplants, tourists, and students. One can learn a lot in this manner, without making any real compromises. So I extended my hand and introduced myself to this guy. He seemed a bit on edge, which was understandable. I assume it’s not pleasant to be brought home by a woman, only to encounter a shirtless, sweating bodybuilder when you arrive there. Immediately after learning the man’s name and telling him mine, I asked where he was from. He wasn’t from there, after all.

My question pushed him over the edge. He glared at me with intense hostility. “What do you mean, ‘where am I from?’” White people normally like to retreat when put in such a position. Whether they’re intimidated, or simply keeping their powder dry, the aggressor makes of it what he will. But not only was I not intimidated; I was in a good mood. And it would be incorrect to say that I wasn’t going to let my good mood be dampened, because I was in such a good mood that that would have been impossible. In other words, it was beyond my control. I felt great about myself. It just wasn’t a matter of what I was going to let or not let happen.

“What do I mean, ‘where are you from?’” I smiled calmly, but with a look indicating that I regarded the question as ridiculous.  “I guess I mean, where are you from?” I uttered this last part with slight but zesty sarcasm, making direct eye contact all the while. This whole thing was going to go my way. I could feel it.

“Yeah, what’s the problem?” Jenna asked him. “I don’t get it.” If he was mad before, now he was positively steaming. It was no longer a matter of whether I wanted to offend him, but of how far he wanted to take his own counter-productive bullshit. He was the houseguest of a loose woman, after all. Such encounters should be carefree. And although he was clearly in good shape, I did not look like anybody he wanted to fight.

I went back out and resumed my weight routine. Though I couldn’t make out the words, they were bickering in the kitchen—he in a strained, frustrated tone and she in a calmer, uncomprehending one. Frankly, I understood exactly what he objected to about my question. She, however, did not. He was trying to explain it to her, and having no success. By and by, the two of them came out back with a couple of beers. Her backyard was pretty big, so this wasn’t an imposition on my workout. She had a koi pond with a little bench. I was on my back in the grass, doing chest presses.

The two of them sat down. He was visibly perturbed. I stood up and started a set of curls. After what appeared to be some deliberation, he craned his neck my direction. “Hey Sam.” The use of my name signaled a painful concession to civilized mores. “How old are you man?” This was his attempt to shift gears from intimidation to condescension, but the fact that he was older than me only made things worse for him. Try as he might to tone it down, there was considerable edge in his voice. Not even bothering to turn my head his direction, I continued my set of curls. “It doesn’t make a difference and it’s none of your concern.” This was a devastating blow. Under the circumstances, it wasn’t something Jenna could hold against me. I hadn’t started anything with him and I didn’t need to reciprocate his softening up.

“You know, I don’t think you understand what it means when you say certain things to people.” He sounded more agitated this time. It was an impotent threat wrapped in an unsolicited lesson. “I don’t give a fuck what your issue is” I snapped back. “It’s your problem.” I got down and started a set of push ups. When I got back up, they were gone. Jenna later apologized profusely. She told me they’d argued more in the house, and she eventually kicked him out. It was a beautiful little triumph over the forces of arrogance and entitlement. Later that summer, I transferred to a university out of state, and I haven’t been back since.

Dual Loyalty

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 11.55.37 PM

the international Jew

One of Zionism’s founding fathers was Joseph Trumpeldor. A Russian officer during the Russo-Japanese War, he lost an arm in the Battle of Port Arthur, but went back into active service after insisting to his commanders that “I still have another arm to give the motherland.” After immigrating to Ottoman Palestine, he helped raise a militia to defend Jewish communities there. He was wounded fighting for the British Army at the Battle of Gallipoli, and later fell in Palestine defending a Jewish settlement from Arab marauders.

If Joseph Trumpeldor had irreconcilable dual loyalties, to Russia on the one hand, and the Jews on the other, I should think in that case that Russia owes him an arm.

Alt-right figures frequently accuse the Jews of dual loyalty: that we cannot possibly be trusted as Americans when we have such intimate ties and interests in common with the State of Israel. Another charge the alt-right likes to level at American Jews is that our tendency to support pluralism and liberalism is at odds with our Zionism, which is of course a form of ethnic nationalism. Of course, this is an oversimplification, because Israel provides tangible democratic protections to minorities that cannot be expected from the fascists who make this criticism of Jews.

But between these two accusations, there is a contradiction: if American Jews are compromised in our loyalty to America on account of ethnic nationalism, then so must the alt-right be. Except that the alt-right does not agree that America is fundamentally a plural or a liberal country. To them, the branch is an aberration from the root. Thus, ascertaining whether adherence to any given creed renders a man suspect in his loyalties to America necessitates that we inquire exactly what we mean when we say America.

In any case, I would hope that everyone in America is disloyal to America, at least in the sense that he believes something that could conceivably put him at such odds with the government, his fellow citizens, or the body politic, that he’d be compelled to make himself a pariah, break the law, or flee the community.

This doesn’t have to be credal, or ideological. It could familial; or it could just be a sense of fundamental fairness that comes inadvertently into conflict with a government official, or a large enough segment of the public. On the other hand, there is a multiplicity in this country of widely-held belief systems that are liable, on their face, to bring their adherents into conflict with “America,” however defined. Theoretically, almost every form of religious faith has this problem, as do numerous ideologies. As a practical matter, Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, old-school Mormons, Roman Catholics, Russian Orthodoxy, certain ultra-orthodox sects of Judaism, and various denominations of Islam all very acutely have this problem.

Also, ethnic communities in America tend to strongly support their brethren overseas. For example, the American Hellenic Council would love to see America at odds with Turkey, regardless of countervailing interests that may also be termed “American.” And dissident expats are usually strong proponents of American involvement against the regimes they’ve fled from. The Epoch Times, for example, is run by Chinese-Americans who urge the United States to take the strongest possible adversarial stance against Chinese communism—a cause to which America has hundreds of thousands of troops committed. Factions in every major ethnic and political conflict in the world avail themselves of supporters in the U.S. in order to pressure, petition or persuade the American public and the U.S. government. Foreign governments pay American PR firms millions every year to get them favorable press coverage here. And American ideologues of various stripes support foreign political factions without regard for what others may term “American interests.”

None of this is unique to Zionism. And there is no “core” or “heritage” America within which fissures like these have ever failed to open up, violently, from the XYZ Affair to the Know-Nothings to the Civil War. Anyone who is advocating for pluralism and for universal human rights is going to be compromised by some kind of bias, or narrow affinity; and every sectarian, every tribalist, every narrow partisan must necessarily assert his rights in terms that others—outsiders who do not share his interests—may understand. Everyone who wants something for himself that he wants to keep away from others recognizes that that thing is desirable to others for exactly the same reason it is desirable to him.

Charles Lindbergh once said the following, in a stump speech during his 1940 campaign against U.S. entry into WWII:

….the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.

What was his surname, again? Ah, yes… Lindbergh wanted the U.S. to allow Hitler free reign in Europe, so that America would eventually have to be very accommodating with Nazism; for reasons that were eminently understandable from his viewpoint. But were they really “American” reasons?

So, to return to our initial inquiry: just what is this America that we should all be loyal to?

America is founded on the proposition that all men are created equal. This is an echo of Genesis 1:27. It is true that citizenship was limited to whites in 1790. But look what this included: not only was full and equal citizenship extended to Jews at America’s founding, for the first time anywhere in the history of the world; at a time when, in the Old World, only a parishioner of the national church could be a full citizen, America decoupled citizenship from creed and, for the first time in the history of christendom, effectively enfranchised members of every Christian denomination, along with those who (like Thomas Jefferson) confessed membership in no sect at all. Hispanics were made citizens by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848; blacks, by constitutional amendment in 1868; Asians, and everyone born on American soil, by the Supreme Court in 1898; Indians, by Congress in 1924. These decisions were all made by white Americans. At no time throughout this history was the Jewish community a major constituency, much less a dominant one. Viewed in the context of this history, the Hart-Cellars Immigration Act is not anomalous; and this explains why it was supported by mainline Protestantism and the Catholic Church, as well as American Jews.

The alt-right insists that American liberty is an Aryan folk heritage, conceived by whites; and that if this heritage is extended to others, it cannot be sustained. But the history of Europe is rife with persecution, and even the most backward non-white peoples have a basic sense of fairness. In any case, the nature of the good is to be promulgated. When the Hebrew scribes redacted the Torah, they said that mankind, not just the Hebrews, are created in the image of God. That is why the Bible is still read today, the world over. When Christ likens himself to the least of these my brethren, he is addressing the righteous of all nations. When Socrates asked, What is justice?, he wasn’t talking just about what was good for himself, or his people. That is why he is still relevant, why his words resonate down the centuries. When the Arabs came thundering out of the desert, wild and warlike, they did not conquer for conquest’s sake; they brought along a universal creed. The political struggles of Anglo-Saxon history which produced the Declaration of Abroath, the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and the American Bill of Rights, are all successive refinements of justice without respect of persons. Western civilization is expansive, or it is meaningless. And America is the apotheosis of western civilization.

Is Zionism at odds with this heritage, in the sense of not aligning? Well… Zionism is the proposition that an ancient, venerable and long-persecuted people must reconstitute itself in its ancestral homeland. This isn’t a suggestion; it’s an imperative. So to be an American Jew is in some sense to place oneself outside the Jewish community as Zionism envisions it. But do we expect Greek Americans to oppose, or feel indifferent, to the political independence of the Greek nation-state, its survival and well-being? Is a Native American a hypocrite for demanding a fair trial, if his political activism is limited in scope to the concerns of his tribe? Must Mormons choose between concern for the integrity of their faith community, and their commitment to the Bill of Rights? Must Lithuanian-Americans abjure all sympathy with the Lithuanian state, in the name of better U.S. relations with Russia? Must Chinese Americans cease agitating against communist China, lest they get the rest of us in trouble with Xi Jinping? I don’t think so.

When a people, as a people, has been abused badly enough, their national defense becomes a matter of universal principles. Zionists, like the Palestinians, the Kurds, Greek Cypriots, Ukrainians, and dozens of other peoples who have family in America, would like to sell Americans their version of this proposition. So you don’t have to be a Zionist to understand that casting aspersions on the Americanness of American Jews’ Zionism is un-American. In fact, you could be quite anti-Zionist, and still understand it perfectly.

Fascism is Vaginal

Screen Shot 2020-01-17 at 11.49.21 PM

technically, it’s a perversion

“Fascism” is an epithet that gets thrown around a lot. But what distinguishes fascism from nationalism, conservatism, authoritarianism, militarism, or machismo? The alt-right (today’s fascism) is a mirror image of the woke/SJW phenomenon. But while the SJW phenomenon has to do with resentment stemming inevitably from congenital or immutable misfortunes, the alt-right stems from missed decisions and waylaid opportunities—no one who is independently accomplished has any need for it. In other words, while wokeness is a genuine envy and hatred of others, the alt-right is a sublimation of self-loathing.

First comes initiation, i.e., the red pill: the revelation of a hidden path, the maudlin solipsism of fallenness and unrequited nobility. The next step is manichaeism: a girt-round mind-state of war against a preternatural enemy who is everywhere and nowhere, objectified onto some hapless persons, principally Jews. Then comes sadomasochism: the object of his passions now clearly defined, his mind’s vagina now fully Zionist-occupied, the fascist surreptitiously derives pleasure both from victimology, and from fantasies of omnipotence and revenge upon the enemy, who merits no moral restraint. Hamstrung by spineless, prosaic scruples such as individual guilt and innocence, the uninitiated—“normies,” liberals, the bourgeoisie, etc.—cannot understand this. Like a clinical pervert or closet-case, the fascist thus inhabits a parallel world of titillation that dare not speak its name. His bad faith is endemic. This is why you hear so much talk about “optics” on the alt-right, whenever the movement periodically catches its fingers in the pearly gates of mainstream revulsion. Like eager homosexuals, they’re convinced that everyone is latently like them, and can surreptitiously be “turned.”

Jonathan Bowden (an obscure autodidact involved with the British National Party, whose writings and recorded lectures gained a cult following with the advent of the alt-right) once made the astute observation that the hero of American movies and comics is often a vaguely fascistic sort—tycoon, cowboy, war vet, vigilante—whose energy is misdirected toward democratic aims, e.g., defending the victimized and the disadvantaged, upholding the abstract “rule of law,” etc. But this begs the question whether fascism really is what Bowden thought it is. If strength is an end in itself, then who needs the strong? If “life is an instinct for growth, for survival, for the accumulation of forces,” then indeed, Private Ryan is not worth saving. This is why fascist “heroism” and discipline always devolves into rank criminality; because fascism is always Kant on the streets and Nietzsche in the sheets.

One of the worst proto-alt-right cliches is that communism is at least as bad as Nazism. This just misses the point entirely. Such things are a matter of substance, not body count. Communism produces one of two types of leader: (1) inquisitors—pure sadists, e.g., Mao; or (2) gangsters, pure criminals, e.g., Stalin. Fascism, on the other hand, produces only one type of leader: the callow, vindictive bully. “My spirit will rise from the grave and the world will know that I was right.” Translation: “You’ll all be sorry when I’m dead!” You’ll never catch communists feeling sorry for themselves like this. They know exactly what they’re doing.

Communism’s chief antagonist is the bourgeoisie: not so much a class of people as a mode of being, an amorphous set of predilections. Capitalism is a behavior. For example, in Homage to Catalonia, Orwell remarked about arriving in revolutionary Barcelona to learn that tipping had been banned in the hotels. Communism isn’t preoccupied with the enemy’s identity. Its aims do not depend on him. It is domineering in that way; it takes the initiative. In contrast, fascism’s chief antagonist is of course the Jews, and women. In fascist taxonomy, a communistic peasantry, or an inferior race, is just a puppet. But the fascist very viscerally senses that a woman has ideas of her own. This inconsistency exposes the whole basis of the fascist mind-state: the absolute most puerile sense of entitlement and vindictiveness.

Richard Spencer gave an interview to Alex Jones recently. Asked to speak about his background, Spencer said that “I could’ve become a lawyer and made a lot of money,” but instead chose the hard road of thought-criminality. But Spencer is not a hermit, or a crust punk, or a starving artiste. He isn’t risking his freedom or even his safety. He’s a professional Twitterer and civil plaintiff. Clearly, he lives entirely off his parents, and lives well. The source of the anomie and banality he sees everywhere in modern democratic society is himself. Can you honestly think of anyone in the alt-right who isn’t like this?

Here is one of Spencer’s recent tweets:

Screen Shot 2020-01-16 at 11.48.13 AM

The video Spencer tweeted is of Trump, bloviating at a rally about his China trade policies, and promising everybody better appliances. Of course, this is phenomenally low-brow. But is the washing machine itself really something to sneeze at? For someone who fetishizes knights, explorers, marble columns and cathedrals, Spencer doesn’t seem to have any regard for all the background accoutrements that liberate people to pursue those activities. This is the mentality of someone who doesn’t do his own laundry, if only in the proverbial sense that he doesn’t really do anything.

Here, on the other hand, is someone who does things:

Can Moses be an Englishman? It isn’t really for you or me to say. After all, we didn’t pass SAS selection. I can already hear the alt-right rejoinder that a million African migrants aren’t worth the trouble. Maybe not. But this isn’t about averages, it’s about what’s best and most noble in man. Isn’t that what fascism claims to be all about? For every million African migrants there may, indeed, be one future astrophysicist, or special ops major—but literally no one on the alt-right ever will be. That’s guaranteed.

Achtung Juden

IMG_3562

What ideology unites Antifa and 4Chan, manosphere he-thots and intersectional harpies, tradcaths and neopagans, wignats and hoteps, Dugan and Zizek, peacenik granolas and international arms dealers?

“Well it’s your own damn fault if you’re so hated!” By those clowns? Really? A man with no enemies is a man with no character, and these enemies are not sending their best. Like the Jersey City shooting earlier this month, last night’s machete attack on an ultra-orthodox Hanukkah party in upstate New York appears to have been carried out by a lumpen African-American under the influence of YouTube Wakanda theology.

Now, I’m half-Jewish, and basically a modern, secular person—I have about as much in common with Hasidic Jews as I do with the Denisovans. So it’s as strange to see people who are so different from me being attacked for what little we have in common, as it is startling to see how different the backgrounds of the perpetrators tend to be.

You may recall, for instance, last year’s events at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue. No, not the Purim party. I’m talking about the sabbath service where a lonely old wignat truck driver with an AR mistook the place for a range and did target practice on a dozen or so nursing home inmates in wheel chairs. Update: they didn’t survive. You may also recall the following April, when a homeschooled sperg male nurse took out a Federal Reserve banker at a shul in San Diego, wounding the rabbi in the process, along with an eight-year old girl who runs the porn industry. The perp there seems not to have had any imaginary friends, though he did have the next best thing, i.e., 8Chan anons.

Then there was the 2014 Kansas City JCC shooting, also perpetrated by a wignat, who killed a kid and two adults, all of them gingerbread-baking white Methodists in RealTree camo and ugly Christmas sweaters. At least the 2012 shooter in Toulouse (that’s France, for all you Victor Hugo fans) managed to hit actual members of the tribe, killing three toddlers and wounding five others at a synagogue daycare. Oh, and how about the 2009 DC Holocaust Museum shooting? That one took out a married black father of three, which is not as rare as a unicorn, but should probably require a permit or something. Then there was the Seattle JCC kindergarten shooting in 2006, and the El Al ticket counter shooting in LAX a year or so prior. Oh, and who could forget the 1999 JCC shooting in LA? A real classic, which took the lives of four children, a secretary, and the mailman.

Why do these things keep happening? I’m sure some anthropomorphic little Eric Cartman somewhere would love to fill me in. Yes, the Jews have their fair share of perverts, plutocrats, embezzlers and corrupt politicians. But these pogroms never seem to target those Jews—or any pervs, plutocrats, embezzlers, politicians, etc. So the question is not what the Jews have done to deserve these atrocities. Because if that was the question, they wouldn’t really be atrocities, would they? “Well they’re not, teehee.” Yeah, tell me more about elite pedophile rings there, guy who supports kindergarten shootings.

The reason these things keep happening is because Jews don’t prevent it. And so the real question is, what is to be done to prevent it?

I don’t intend the question as a “silence is violence” callout. Silence can be complicity in the unconscionable, but a lot of unconscionable shit goes on every day, and no one owes it to anyone else to think or feel anything. The solution, then, depends on the Jews. Do we want to live, or don’t we? It’s that simple.

Screen Shot 2019-12-29 at 6.32.51 PM.png

I know that’s sounds trite; I only ask because lots of Jews don’t want to. I mean, really, really don’t.

On the far left stand the anti-Zionists, who should be irrelevant—clammy, furtive little figures like Philip Weiss, Norman Finkelstein, Israel Shamir, and Gilad Atzmon, who make entire careers and identities out of shame, discomfort and denunciation of an identity they could easily just walk away from instead. Proof that mainstream liberal Judaism essentially fellow-travels with this pathology is the recent, wholesale renunciation of Zionism by Jewish Voice for Peace—whose board members include Tony Kushner, Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein. (It was 1941 when Jabotinsky declared “all those who regard [peace with the Palestinians] as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say ‘non’ and withdraw from Zionism.” Better 78 years late than never, I suppose.) Liberal Zionists like Jeremy Ben Ami and Peter Beinart are actually worse, because they’re pushing from within for the Zionist movement to reflect JVP’s attitudes. Of the Palestinian factions they imagine they’d like to conciliate, each one, including the internationally recognized PLO, has a completely undisavowed and remarkably recent history of deadly attacks on Israeli women, children and elderly. But then, no one in J-Street has to actually live with those consequences (unless J-Street is working with frummies from Monsey I don’t know about.)

As bad as all this is, there’s something far more patently offensive to the intellect about the left anti-Zionists’ mirror image on the right, among the burgeoning ranks of sycophantic, alt-right adjacent Jews desperately flailing to live down every absurd libel and stereotype as if it applied to them personally. (At least having no pride or self-esteem whatsoever suits leftists.) Tech entrepreneur Ron Unz, for example, runs the largest aggregator of anti-Jewish content on the web, where he publishes his own rambling, scarcely readable essays that reprise familial and childhood resentments at great length before eventually getting around to the ostensible topic, which is always how bad his own people are. Self-help charlatan Mike Cernovich similarly grovels for acceptance from Twitter Nazis. Classics professor Paul Gottfried pathetically fawns all over pseudoscientist Kevin MacDonald (and is shocked, shocked to find that liberal journalists associate him with alt-right leaders he actually associates with.) Eccentric inventor Henry Makow writes gushing blurbs for latter-day clerical fascist E. Michael Jones’s self-published screeds; and blog posts with titles like “Anti-Semitism is Legitimate Self Defense.” Would he like somebody to murder him, or what?

One looks for sanity in this febrile atmosphere of ADHD Twitter discourse, of anomie and atomization and dementia, and sees the Jewish civil society commentariat, the ADL, the Atlantic, etc., exuding precisely the fear and panic that the high school bully mentality of anti-semitism veritably lives to elicit. When has official Jewry in America ever prevented an attack on Jews here? When they aren’t pushing constitutionally dubious legislation that makes us look ugly and stupid, their solution to everything is “education”: more words, factoids, arguments, and admonishments against wrongthink; to explain ourselves for the umpteenth time to a balkanized and stupefied public irremediably leery of smug expertise.

In Russia, in 1911, Jabotinsky had a prescient sense of this:

Now they have raised a rumpus over ritual murder, and once again we have taken on the role of prisoners on trial: we press our hands to our hearts, with quivering fingers we leaf through old stacks of supporting documents that no one is interested in, and we swear right and left that we do not consume this drink, that never has a drop of it passed our lips, may the Lord smite me on the spot. . . How much longer will this go on? Tell me, my friends, are you not tired by now of this rigmarole? Isn’t it high time, in response to all of these accusations, rebukes, suspicions, smears, and denunciations—both present and future—to fold our arms over our chests and loudly, clearly, coldly, and calmly put forth the only argument which this public can understand: why don’t you all go to hell?

Who are we, to make excuses to them; who are they to interrogate us? What is the purpose of this mock trial over an entire people where the verdict is known in advance? Our habit of constantly and zealously answering to any rabble has already done us a lot of harm and will do much more. The situation that has been created as a result tragically confirms a well known saying: ‘Qui s’excuse s’accuse.’ We ourselves have acquainted our neighbors with the thought that for every embezzling Jew it is possible to drag the entire ancient people to answer. . . Every accusation causes among us such a commotion that people unwittingly think, ‘Why are they so afraid of everything? Apparently their conscience is not clear.’ Exactly because we are ready at every minute to stand at attention, there develops among others an inescapable view about us, as of some specific thievish tribe. We think that our constant readiness to undergo a search without hesitation and to turn out our pockets will eventually convince mankind of our nobility; look what gentlemen we are—we do not have anything to hide!

This is a terrible mistake. The real gentlemen are those who will not allow anyone for any reason to search their apartment, their pockets or their soul. Only a person under surveillance is ready for a search at every moment. This is the only one inevitable conclusion from our maniac reaction to every reproach—to accept responsibility as a people for every action of a Jew, and to make excuses in front of everybody including hell knows who. I consider this system to be false to its very root.

Old Jabotinsky could’ve saved Franz Kafka a lot of time and ink. But even the State of Israel cannot help us if this remains our mentality—not over there, where it can scarcely protect its own citizens from this kind of attack, and damn sure not here in America. Its leaders are busy fighting corruption charges, and casting belatedly and superfluously about for 1940s anti-semitism; it sends its condolences, as peremptory as any American politician’s. If the body count approaches a dozen, you may get an Israeli cabinet minister at your memorial service. Mazal tov.

So do you want to live, or don’t you? The state of our solidarity, of our situational awareness, of our rectal fortitude, is as sorry as it was in 1932. But though I may have as little in common with Jersey City frummies as I do with a Denisovan, though these things may happen thousands of miles away, every one of these attacks is an attack on my soul. Zionism is as much about spiritual exigencies as it is about practical ones. For over a thousand years, our ancestors were forbidden to own land, enter an honest trade, testify in court, ride a horse, or carry a weapon for self-defense. We were a “protected” class. A crime against us was a property crime. That is why the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was so important: not because it prevented any great proportion of the crimes committed against us by the Germans, but because it vindicated our dignity as human beings. The Israeli army exists as much to defend Israeli territory, lives, and infrastructure, as it does in order for you to know unequivocally that you are a free and equal human being.

I got into a debate not long ago with a couple of law school friends, about a Texas law requiring public contractors to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel. Though not Jewish, my friends are mainstream, pro-Israel conservatives. They defended the law, on the premise that a government contract is not a right; and I opposed it, on free speech grounds. In the course of our conversation, I ranted a bit about lobbyists, about Jewish pushiness and Israeli arrogance and how some principles (e.g., free speech) are higher than my ethnic affinities. I see now that this was a mistake—not because of the facts, but because of my motives. I wasn’t just defending free speech: I was obliquely defending Jews, by melodramatically trying to demonstrate that my loyalties are not conflicted. But my friends didn’t have any doubts about that.

So it doesn’t matter if this or that Jew is a bad person. Are you? Or are you worthy to hold your head up and live? Because if you aren’t, there’s always alt-right Twitter, or left anti-Zionism, or banging on the office doors of senators and police commissioners demanding indifferent protection. Just know that if you seek to validate and defend yourself in this manner, your work will never be done, because you will have handed all your power over to others, when they didn’t even ask for it. Almost no issue in public discourse needs to be about Jews in any fundamental way—not even, e.g., U.S. military aid to Israel, or the phenomenon of anti-semitic shootings. Rather, you need to fundamentally be about yourself, before you can be for others. And an attack on Jews is an attack on you.

So never denounce your own kind. Never second-guess a friend, or an enemy. Fold your arms over your chest, like Jabotinsky said. Be clear, cold, and calm. Don’t panic. Be stationary, be stoic. Exude utter contempt. That’s number one.

Number two is, be prepared to physically defend yourself, and your loved ones. Over the same weekend as the Monsey attack, a gunman stormed a church in rural Texas, and was immediately shot down by a parishioner before he was able to kill anyone else. QED: if Jews weren’t such soft targets, these attacks wouldn’t be happening.

It’s that simple.

 

 

Crocodile Logos

Screen Shot 2019-12-10 at 4.43.27 PM

the god pill is dispensed by social media, as soon as you hit the wall

“Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. If it could be understood it would not answer their purpose. Their security is in their faculty of shedding darkness, like the scuttlefish, thro’ the element in which they move, and making it impenetrable to the eye of a pursuing enemy, and there they will skulk.” —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp (1810)

“LOL, are you one of these coomers who wants to ban ‘hate speech’ but not porn?”

I don’t want to ban either. But when was the last time porn inspired a shooting? The social and psychological ill-effect of porn has been a lively topic of public discussion for nearly a decade—a discussion, not a debate, because the harms are proven. But until the alt-right got in on it, the issue was how to stop yourself, not about getting the government to do it for you.

I’m not sure porn is as bad as its most stringent detractors say it is—not because the effects aren’t real, but because choice still exists in the matter:

From a philosophical standpoint, pornography, like any other foul use of speech, has no socially redeeming value. But there is great value in having a government that lacks power in criminalizing people’s words, pictures, or thoughts, especially for the ill-defined goals of “community standards” imposed on other people. I’m not your parent, I’m not your priest.

As far as the “culture war”, this is the sort of thing you see pushed by Twitter conservatives, but there is no appetite for it in the real world. (Nothing is impossible for people who don’t have to do the fucking work.) Hard-core antipornites are a hashtag, not a voting block.

But meme magic is real: the above comment was stolen from a Reddit thread about a letter to AG Barr demanding he take action against porn, sent this week by four congressmen in the immediate wake of last weekend’s #BanPorn trending hashtag.

I have kids, okay? The oldest is nearly a teenager. My own formative years were substantially derailed by degeneracy, my own and that of others. So I’m hyper-aware of mass media social engineering, occult symbols—all that shit. And porn is clearly a tool of social engineering, I just don’t think that the harms are any worse than giving people who think like E. Michael Jones the power to ban it—and not just because he brazenly opposes the Bill of Rights in favor of Torquemada’s forceps. (He just told Alex Jones on a podcast interview that speech restrictions on social media are “antithetical to what we believe as Americans.” Presumably, he’s referring to the First Amendment. Yet he frequently, and with a straight face, calls for the reimposition of medieval Church doctrines which consigned Jews to second-class, “protected” status. I should think that would violate the First Amendment, too. Certainly it would be antithetical to what George Washington believed, about the Jews and religious liberty in general. It’s disappointing to have to take this stuff seriously, but as of this week we’re up to our third anti-semitic shooting in little over a year, and that’s just here in America.)

Jones’s thesis and most widely-quoted insight is that “Sexual liberation is a form of political control.” How this is so requires little imagination to understand, but like any effective propaganda, it is wildly oversimplified. Determining that you aren’t interested in having a say in what goes on between two consenting adults you don’t know is quite different than treating a politician or oligarch’s son to a night on the town and then blackmailing him with a nanny cam. And if sexual liberation means the freedom to choose unwisely, it must also mean the freedom not to, which is a bit more than can be said for life under theocracy.

But to the considerable extent that sexual liberation is indeed a form of political control, so is sexual repression. When Jones bangs on about Wilhelm Reich and Theodore Adorno, what he flatly misunderstands is that those guys were not just condemning religion or the traditional family as such. They were also saying, basically, that those institutions contained a great deal of repressed sexual energy, and that fascism was those people’s way of having an orgy (sometimes literally.) Think about it: when the Iranian morality patrol drags an Instagram model by her hair to a police station, are they just repressing the sexual impulses of others, or are they sublimating their own? Are you sure you want people like that deputized?

Jones himself is quite a shill for the Ayatollahs. I realize that sounds jaundiced, but there’s really no better way to describe it: as the paid guest of a regime that has murdered hundreds of American servicemen, he travels to Iran—a country where Christians are consigned to the same second-class “protected” status Jones would like imposed upon Jews here—and appears on its state-run media to denounce the United States wholesale as morally corrupted by Jews. Well, there’s plenty wrong with the United States, but that’s no less aid and comfort than Tokyo Rose gave Hirohito.

Though of course there were various Jewish shrinks and impresarios (among many, many Gentiles) who helped to sell it, the mid-twentieth century was hardly the first time in world history that decadence has broken out. If you’re an acolyte of Jones, you’ll be amazed to discover that it has even happened occasionally without the aid of Jews. Nature is cyclical, not linear, and dark energies are going to get released one way or another. Hawthorne understood this very well. Not every behavior that reason shows to be perverse or destructive is amenable to our complete control, and the controls we do place on them should be as circumspect as possible, if only because easy assurance that we can subdue or eradicate the forces of nature is always a form of hubris, whether espoused by trans-humanists or theocrats.

Jones, for example, is fond of remarking that Islam upholds “the logos of the family.” But a lot of sub-rosa perversion goes on in Muslim countries, and Iran is no exception. Anyone who has had their brush with Muslim culture knows exactly what I’m talking about and how widespread it is. Even in modern America, traditional morality can actually disrupt the “logos of the family.” In 1989, in a case Hawthorne would’ve appreciated, the Supreme Court heard a challenge (Michael H. v. Gerald D.) to a California statute granting the presumption of paternity to the husband of the mother. A woman had cheated on her husband; they stayed together, but the biological father of the child she bore wanted visitation rights. Writing for the majority upholding the challenged law, Scalia reasoned that it was supported by cultural norms and longstanding jurisprudence intended to protect the sanctity of marriage and the family. So in the name of protecting family, an infant child was denied, until the age of majority, the right to ever see or meet a biological parent who wanted to be in her life.

If you’re exceptionally miserable with a spouse, should you really have to prove—you, personally, to a judge—that one of you was beaten or cheated on in order to leave? Should you have to hazard pregnancy every time you shtup the missus? Multiply the you in this instance times a hundred million and that’s how we got contraception and no-fault divorce. How stupid do you have to be to believe that Jews are a necessary condition here? But my point with these over-worn examples is that traditional sexual norms are not so cut-and-dry as the tradcath community wants to believe. It has to do with more than just full D-and-E abortions and story time drag queens with prolapsed anuses. And even if it didn’t, the alt-right argument that those things dramatically affect every man, woman and child from sea to shining sea is as obtuse and disconnected from reality as the libertarian argument that you should be okay with having a crack house next door, so long as it doesn’t violate the non-aggression principle. I mean, without too much effort on my part, my kids have never seen a drag queen, and no one in my life has ever had a late-term abortion. While those things are certainly sickening, and result from, and contribute to an aggregate deterioration in public morality, for the most part you still have to go online to feel affected by it.

And this helps illustrate a larger point: though you can pontificate and grandstand on social media and sell an awful lot of merchandise in the process, the simple fact is that we do not live in a time or country where it is possible to meaningfully care about the common weal. Call it what you want, blame whomever you like, but that ship has sailed, and the way to find it is not through Congress or your ISP. “Seek not abroad, turn back into thyself, for in the inner man dwells the truth.” You’re online half the day, you don’t have three people you’d be willing to help move a couch, and you’re gonna stop a hundred million strangers from masturbating? Please. We live in times of anomie, depravity, and dissolution, but that isn’t stopping you from worshipping, getting in shape, getting an education, or starting a family. Spending nearly any amount of time in the alt-right, however, almost certainly is.

Don’t believe me? Well…. Porn is harmful, right? It’s addictive, it’s isolating, it detracts from real relationships, sets up unrealistic expectations, and exposes children to obscenity. It turns you into a hamster on a wheel chasing an ever more elusive hit of dopamine. Well guess what? So does social media, in the exact same way. It’s addictive, it’s isolating, it detracts from real relationships, sets up unrealistic expectations, and exposes children to predators and obscenity. It turns you into a hamster on a wheel chasing an ever more elusive hit of dopamine. The harm from porn addiction is no worse than simple overuse of the internet. And who’s on the internet more than the fucking alt-right? Sluts? Spammers? Grifters? Coomers? A man is known by the company he keeps. “But porn has never been more readily accessible!” That’s exactly right—the problem is the computer, not the content. The medium is the message. If all porn was removed from it tomorrow, the internet would be as big a degeneracy agonist as it is now with all the anal sex. It destroys critical brain regions. It causes blindness (yes, even without porn.) It breaks up families. It renders higher cognitive functions reptilian, almost by design. The effects are observable.

So if you’re “rejecting degeneracy” or “revolting against the modern world” on Twitter and YT, you’re an absolute clown. Twitter is awash in porn, yet E. Michael Jones posts there multiple times a day to over 17,000 followers. Do you think tradcath/alt-right content would even be on Twitter at all if it wasn’t helping the platform’s business model? “Well, the alt-right is using it to get a good message out.” Did you not read what I just wrote thirty seconds ago about addiction, social isolation, and fucking blindness? Or can’t you remember? No matter what anyone says, social media serves only two purposes: narcissistic aggression, and huckstering. Almost every internet personality with any kind of following is a frivolous grifter by definition, and the mark they need in order to buy and sell is you.

Notice how Roosh didn’t need Christianity to become JQ-woke? He’d dialed that bit of vindictiveness in already—being a literal e-thot was no impediment, but eventually he hit the wall. Jesus is nothing but a last refuge for this kind of narcissist, and Roosh is no less narcissistic as a Christian. All he did was gauge the wind and stock next products, posing with a vacuous, far-off look of wannabe profundity all the time like some Insta slag having breakfast at the Four Seasons Wailea. Talk about idolatry—would anyone who has an ounce of shame and self-awareness be selfie-sticking a toll road to Damascus? And here we start to see how wonderfully convenient it must be to have recourse to so ready made a vocation as castigating Jews at every turn. Incidentally, devout seersucker crusader Nick Fuentes is altogether a sly, deranged little Coco Puff packer on the order of Milo Yiannopolous. There is simply no reason to take any of these carnival barkers seriously. “Doctor” Jones is no exception, and in case you don’t believe me, he’s having a Christmas sale, and takes Visa, MasterCard, and American Express. I’m not saying the man shouldn’t make a living, but online marketing isn’t a real job no matter how much you love Jesus. Moral preening on social media is no less a sin of pride than physical preening, but at least Instagram whores have enough modesty not to press the Almighty into their service.

Screen Shot 2019-12-14 at 8.24.37 PM

In the Quran it is written that, when Judgment Day is concluded and the unfaithful are consigned to hell, they will cry out to Satan that he deceived them, and he will reply that, “I had no authority over you, but I called you, and you came.” Choose wisely, frens. Lolcowing Tinder screenshots of fat girls and single-moms is not anti-degeneracy, it requires degeneracy. It’s a chickenshit cope, and the only reason you don’t feel pathetic doing it is because it absolves you of having to face a real interaction—just like porn. “When men can hate without risk, their stupidity is easily convinced, the motives supply themselves.” (Think I can’t use Céline to mock the alt-right? Yeah, keep using Jesus to get retweets.)

Come to think of it, I actually rather like the darkness of these times. It gives me a sense of danger, and an opportunity to teach my kids exactly what not to get involved in. But if you’re not free to choose to look at porn, you’re not free to choose not to look at it. That doesn’t mean I’m going to upload the PornHub app to the smartTV my kids watch Disney+ on, but at some point, they’re going to be exposed to it, and that fact by itself, though unpleasant, does not exactly fill me with terror and foreboding. And if Matt Walsh or E. Michael Jones or any of these other carnival barkers says different about his own kids, he’s lying. Every one of these smarmy attention whores is the meddlesome, know-it-all beta-dad whom everyone just ignores until he gets hysterical.

St. Augustine wrote about finding his way to God by overcoming profligacy and waywardness. Without hedonism being available to him as an option, there would be no Confessions. There would be no Saint Augustine. Free will is perhaps the most important concept in teleological ethics and Abrahamic theology. Yet for over a millennium under Christian and Islamic theocracy, people were for the most part not free to choose any number of things we take for granted today, including sexual profligacy. When people are not free to face their darker nature, they lose the capacity and the perspective to resist it. This is why a millennium of theocracy has now given way to libertinism. And people who aren’t free to face their darker nature need a scapegoat, which the Jews provided to Europe for a thousand years. Yeah I know, they were very very naughty. But gentiles who were similarly naughty did not get scapegoated in this way, and Jews who weren’t did. And this scapegoat is exactly the role the Jews play in the alt-right/tradcath weltanschaung today. Collective responsibility is precisely what Roosh, EMJ and the rest of the alt-right believe in, and it is utterly “antithetical to what we believe as Americans.”

I know, I know: there are lots of wicked Jews on the loose nowadays, and they’re up to all manner of mischief. But the psychological mechanism underlying their importance to you and E. Michael Jones isn’t concerned with how true and significant that is. According to the most recent Forbes list, 1/5 of the world’s billionaires are Jewish. (European Gentiles make up more than half, so don’t talk to me about “overrepresentation.”) Does the alt-right focus only 1/5th of it’s animus on the Jews (or >1/2 on European Gentiles?) Hardly. The ready coherence of narratives like Jones’s would lose a great deal of force without this antagonist, real and imaginary. For if the Jews are the enemies of all mankind, then mankind is not the enemy of itself, and believers can very cheaply be absolved of a great deal of introspection.

The Church (which in any case began from a schism among the Jews) has gotten a great deal of mileage out of this little loophole. Can it be a coincidence that the Church has seen its sharpest decline in public prestige and moral legitimacy only since the emancipation of the Jews? So thoroughly is the faith predicated on the negation of Judaism that any Jew’s conversion represents its ultimate legitimation. No penitent drunk or gap-toothed Papuan’s baptism could ever serve to vindicate Christianity like the chastened, exhausted collapse of a Hebrew before the smug mercy of his ancestors’ tormentors. Yet without recourse to project inner foreboding upon we recalcitrants—as if into a spittoon—St. Augustine’s advice to “seek not abroad” had finally to be taken, and we don’t much like when the abyss gazes back into us now, do we?

That is why Vatican II was so undermining to the Church. When Jones says “You can have unity in the Church, or good relations with the Jews, but not both,” he’s absolutely right—he just doesn’t understand why. “When men can hate without risk, their stupidity is easily convinced, the motives supply themselves.” And when they can’t, they might actually have to look in the mirror. But if that’s too much for you, you have an alternative in E. Michael Jones—a shrill mountebank whose pathetic career consists in conscripting Christ Jesus into the pride and vanity of moral grandstanding on social media, and hardly has greater social value than pornography. Like the alt-right more broadly, he’s a spiritual crutch for those who will always be stuck among the middling realms of wisdom and understanding. But if that’s really what those types need to keep from fondling themselves, they’re more than welcome to hate me. By my stripes be healed, frens. I don’t claim to speak for God, but at least I’m not asking for your money.

Based Closet-Case Goes All-In for America

Screen Shot 2019-12-28 at 6.29.10 PM.png

America First

Nick Fuentes won’t debate me. Not only will he not debate me, he won’t risk having any contact with me whatsoever. Apparently, he doesn’t want to risk getting rolled like he’s been doing to those TPUSA clowns.

See, I have a (not very active) Twitter account that I use solely to troll anti-semites. When I say anti-semites, I don’t mean your grandmother saying “Jew ’em down.” I mean full-retard anti-semitism, which is a monomaniacal form of Dunning-Kruger effect (esoteric Dunning-Kruger, you might call it) that’s starting to become dangerous again thanks in part to a perfusion of unlettered mountebanks on Twitter, who are easy to skewer because their view of history and anthropology is just a lot of sub-literate jews ex machina. I’ve had the pleasure of BTFOing (and being blocked by) numerous such alt-right “thought” leaders:

Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 2.40.46 PM.png

But having never gotten around to aiming a single barb at Nick Fuentes, when I went to view his Twitter account amid the recent flurry of media attention surrounding his “Groyper War,” I was surprised to find that he had blocked me. I have fewer than 100 Twitter followers and, as far as I can tell, there are maybe three or four dozen regular readers of this blog. So for someone like Fuentes who’s in the national media spotlight to take precautionary measures against me seemed strange. But activism, after all, is a form of PR. I have a great deal of suspicion for anyone who makes a business out of it—the more vehement they are, the more suspect. Fuentes is clearly a savvy marketer, and like all savvy marketers, his effectiveness depends on the simplicity of his message, and the credulity of his audience. In this regard, he really is no different than Charlie Kirk.

For example, here is Nick debating some (apparently Jewish) little weirdo in a MAGA hat. The subject? Israel. I couldn’t stomach a whole 90 minutes of Fuentes smirking insufferably at this poor braying sperg (and neither should you) but I did watch the first few minutes. Right out of the gate, Nick states that Israel’s interests run counter to America’s, because America is interested in defeating ISIS, and Israel is not. Of course, if Nick is referring to the interests of the U.S. government, this is laughable obscurantism, and if he’s referring to the interests of the common American folk, one would think his paleocon isolationism would’ve kicked in to stop him advocating foreign wars. But what’s more revealing is when he goes on to opine that Israel is a pariah state, because its foreign policy is to divide its enemies against one another, and that this has caused a great deal of mideast instability, particularly the Syrian civil war.

Now, if you only breathe through one of the holes in your head, this sounds logical. But does any country that has enemies not have a policy of dividing them? Every country in the mideast has a policy of dividing Syria. Even Assad has a policy of dividing Syria, it’s how his family stayed in power when most of the country’s Sunnis hate them. Exacerbating wars among our enemies is the entirety of Brzezinski’s argument in The Grand Chessboard. Accordingly, the U.S. supports separatist insurgencies all over the mideast and Central Asia. Russia does the same thing, arming separatists in breakaway regions of U.S.-allied former Soviet states like Ukraine and Georgia.

What this leads me to is what has always been creepy and worm-infested about the left anti-war movement of the G.W. aughts, as well as paleocon isolationism and its offshoots in the alt-right. Here’s a heinous (if warmed-over) example of the former:

Screen Shot 2019-12-03 at 9.38.21 PM.png

“Time for a full response from Beijing”? Are you sure it isn’t actually time to light more communists on fire? Because I have no doubt that Galloway, apologist that he is for every form of Muslim violence (when it’s directed against Israel or the west), knows all about China’s “full response” to its Muslim population. Yet the alt-right, which is so opposed to (near non-existent) internet censorship here in the west, largely thinks like Galloway when it comes to China’s censorship regime:

68688497_1405528912920140_6894826792587100160_n

How’s that for “cultural Marxism”?

Don’t get me wrong here: I’m not a neocon. War is probably less destructive than saran-wrap and styrofoam packing peanuts, but I’m not interested in more of it. It’s just that war is interested in me, and you, and everyone.

The simple fact is that if you’re against American global hegemony, you’re against America. The founders were as liberal as it was possible to be in the 18th century, and they were not isolationists, they were expansionists—even Jefferson. Especially Jefferson. (What’s so hard to understand about “All men”?) So it’s lovely to think that we could all just go back to a rustic yeoman’s republic—and as soon as I have about $7 million for a lake in western Maine, that’s exactly what I’ll do. But even if you’re stuck in the ‘burbs, no one’s stopping you from doing plenty of prepping and bartering, it’s just that that’s not what attention-seeker Nick Fuentes and e-celeb Richard Spencer and e-marketer E. Michael Jones and all the rest of them are doing, or encouraging you to do. No, they’re busy titillating themselves on social media—and making a randy go of it, considering they have no cleavage to recommend them. In the words of the poet,

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

Well, that was in 1939—today, we “see [exactly] where we are,” we just want to blame someone else for it, and pad our PayPals and Patreons doing it. This is not the mentality of free men. And all these e-dissidents want the lights kept on just as badly as Joel Osteen, Howard Stern, and Rage Against the Machine do, even if it means bombing Tehran. Liberal democracy has created more power, prosperity, security and innovation than all the fascist strongmen the alt-right so longs for, combined, and they’re feeding off of it like pigs in a trough, scuttling every minute of their day into artificial diversions. “I can’t believe I’m doing this, I swear I’m not that kind of girl” is all their activism amounts to. Without Israel running interference for the petrodollar, every one of these alt-right clowns would be warming his hands over a trash can fire.

So Fuentes can call his podcast “America First!”, but if America is as bad as he and every other little alt-right hype-man says it is, then America’s adversaries are necessarily sympathetic. These fuckwits think dystopian China is “based” and Russians are like, the Amish or something. But nothing could be further from reality than the suggestion that Putin’s Russia is a defender of “traditional” values. Church attendance there is extremely low. One-third of all Russian families are fatherless. The country has the highest abortion rate in the world, yet its fertility rate is among the lowest—except among lumpen Muslim migrants from Central Asia, who are everywhere in Russian cities, and may soon comprise as much as a third of the country’s total population. And Putin’s archimandrites are as parasitical as even the most Jewish of his oligarchs:

Screen Shot 2019-12-03 at 9.48.17 PM.png

Granted, I’m not a big fan of PornHub, or drag kids on ketamine, but if you think America is so satanic, you might want to ask yourself: is what China is doing to the Muslims of Xinjiang (and to its Christian population, by the way, including Catholics) not satanic? Is Iran’s treatment of Christians in that country not satanic? Is Putin, as a man and a leader, not satanic in his own right? No? Are you sure? Don’t be ridiculous. Either America rules the world, or China does, and if you live in America this should be a no-brainer. Either Saudi Arabia fixes oil prices at our behest, or Putin fixes them at China’s behest, and jacks up the price of everything you eat on a daily basis.

And it’s not just a matter of economics. Russia and China heavily censor the internet. Isn’t that the problem all these alt-right Iran apologists think they have with Twitter and YouTube? (Even though those platforms give the alt-right 99.9% of its considerable reach.) Russia, on the other hand, just banned Wikipedia outright, the same way it did PornHub a few years back. How infantilizing is that? Does a sufferable regime need to limit its citizens’ access to information? Would you rather have Putin stop you from masturbating, or stop yourself? I get that the NSA and Facebook are using our data against us, but their Chinese and Russian equivalents are using their citizens’ data against them, too, for more repressive ends and without nearly as many of the benefits.

Do you really think you wouldn’t get a fairer trial in Duluth or San Antonio than you would in Irkutsk, or Shenzhen? The fuck out of here. Of course I’d rather my AR was full auto, but China won’t let their people have so much as a slingshot, and Russia’s permitting process for the .22 bolt-action squirrel peeler I could take home from Big 5 this minute makes Canada look like Peshawar. (I have family in Russia—I know what I’m talking about.) Yet paleocons want these regimes to have more power. They think it’s wrong to stymie them. Don’t believe me? Here is an article from Pat Buchanan from two days ago in VDare:

Screen Shot 2019-12-03 at 9.17.08 PM.png

On the day it came out, it had not one good word to say about the protesters. Though the article expressed concern for what will ultimately happen to them when PRC cracks down, it more or less called them criminals and lauded Beijing’s restraint. I chastised Buchanan in the comments, and the following day (yesterday), this appeared in TakiMag:

Screen Shot 2019-12-03 at 9.16.59 PM

It’s the exact same article, with that one line (“…America is on the right side”) added. That same line has been edited into the VDare piece as well; it wasn’t there on Monday. Well if America is “on the right side” in Hong Kong, then just why does Buchanan think it’s so wrong to call on China to stay its hand? Never mind that this aggressive regime is delighted to stymie America at every opportunity. Never mind that our ports, universities and national labs are crawling with Chinese spies. Never mind that China is pumping fentanyl into this country as part of an open policy of weakening the United States. According to Buchanan, stymieing China in these pursuits by simply voicing moral support for college students fighting for their lives in Hong Kong against the grimmest totalitarianism to yet make an appearance on this planet is meddlesome interference in a sovereign nation’s internal affairs.

Just like liberals and their self-righteous bumper stickers, this is a mentality that can never wonder how the meat gets to market. It is hermetically sealed against the thought that maybe (just maybe) life is sordid, and American machiavellianism abroad is reasonably connected to the material interests and political liberties of the people who live here. Instead, these manicheans who have never been tested for cowardice have to imagine a fairytale enemy, to save themselves from dying of boredom.

Marshall McLuhan put it this way:

You cannot cope with vast amounts of information in the old fragmentary, classified patterns. You tend to go looking for mythic and structural forms in order to manage such complex data.

And that is why Nick Fuentes and the alt-right literally blame everything on Israel. Simply speaking out rationally against e.g. trans kids on ketamine isn’t exciting. It might actually get results, and then what to do with all the sado-masochistic tension these sheltered, vindictive sorts derive from their peculiar form of slave morality? There’d be no edgy titillation to set their activities apart from beer pong, Star Wars, Steven Crowder or any other banal diversion from comfort, convenience and routine. At least people who dig comic book movies realize that they aren’t the protagonist.

So if what you’re really all about is traditional metaphysics, or family values, or free speech—as opposed to just channelling narcissistic aggression onto Twitter—and you think that opposing the Jews is crucial to defending those things, then you’re not really defending them at all. Have you seen Jews? Can you show me on the frog where they hurt you?

What someone like E. Michael Jones can never allow to occur to himself is that the Church gave way to PornHub because, until 1945, it used force, not reason, to keep people in the fold. None of these tradcaths—not EMJ or Nick Fuentes, not herpes-crusted Roosh V or duckbilled Faith Goldy—genuinely wants the kind of mind control by gilded pharisee eunuchs they all pretend to advocate. Porn, student debt, your parents’ divorce, the war no one’s asking you to fight: according to their whole weltanschauung, it has to be the Jews. Scratch the surface of this sad psychology and you’ll find these charlatans aren’t really blaming the Jews for rejecting Christ. They’re blaming the Jews for original sin. Doesn’t their penchant for gibbering about porn all the time strike you a little odd? They don’t actually want to live under the High Church of Sicut Judaeis. No—they just want to see those screws put into other people.

So it should come as no surprise that there is very convincing evidence that Nick Fuentes is gay. (I mean, evidence other than just his impish, Baby Stewie gayface, which has the disproportionally large forehead, pointy chin and horizontally long mouth characteristic of so many gay men, e.g. Pete Buttigieg.) It takes a great deal of cleverness for a gay man to dissimulate as heterosexual, and Fuentes is nothing if not sly. Everybody who’s been to high school has met an over-the-top closet case trying to cover over his sexuality. The Church has always been a hiding-place for these types, and stentorian anti-semitism suits both the gay penchant for melodrama, and the need for extreme dissociation. The model here is of course Father Coughlin, who was deeply closeted (the relevant passage is about nine paragraphs down, but it’s a hum-dinger.) The subconscious logic is, I may be a faggot, but if I denounce the Jews hard enough I might just get into heaven through the back door.

Neither is the type of grug-brained fanatic or impressionable college sophomore to whom Fuentes appeals given to looking askance at any charlatan who offers this kind of easy admission to esoteric intrigues. The Dreyfus Affair was utterly of the same species: the cheap scapegoating of a Jew by a coterie of officers invoking patriotism, Catholicism, and Jewish conspiracy—all in order to cover up their own incompetence, and the treason of one of their colleagues. Again—without Israel running interference for the petrodollar, every one of these alt-right clowns would be warming his hands over a trash can. But if my whole schtick was to press Jesus Christ into service e-marketing psychological distance to sub-literates on YouTube, I’d be doing a Father Coughlin impersonation, too.

 

A Death in Reno

Screen Shot 2019-11-09 at 10.46.47 PM.png

If a man dies in Reno, did he ever really live?

Lou was a Serb from Cincinnati. I knew him because his mail-order bride was a friend of my Russian mother-in-law. Her name was Yulia. She’d been a schoolteacher in Ukraine.

Neither of them had any kids. Except for her mother back home, neither of them had any relatives, period. They lived in a one-bedroom apartment a few blocks down from us. I’d see him maybe twice a year at my in-laws’ place, and when we had them over for Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving—that was my big act of charity for this guy, and a week later, every year, we’d get a package with treats and toys for the kids, and a thank-you card with a hand-written note that couldn’t have been more heartfelt. Just thinking about those packages, I feel awful. This guy languished and died three blocks down from me, for six years, almost totally alone—no kids, no friends, no extended family—and I knew, and I saw him less often than I see the garbageman.

At one time, years ago, Lou had a good-paying, white-collar job with some big company, but he’d been in a car wreck and lost a good deal of his mind. He was soft-spoken. He liked to talk politics, or high-brow movies, but he’d get confused real easy and lose his train of thought in mid-sentence. Once in awhile he’d make a wicked, salty joke, and you’d catch a glimpse of the man that used to inhabit him—witty, irreverent, self-assured. But mostly he just seemed vulnerable, because he knew he was crippled in the head, and when he realized that you knew, he’d get real embarrassed and clam up. I made it a policy to make conversation and treat him like he was perfectly normal. This was easy to do, because my in-laws and a lot of the friends they’d have around for parties were all educated and very self-righteously liberal, but Lou was conservative, which meant that even with his 6.5% rate of brain usage (or whatever it was) he was still smarter than most of them.

He and Yulia lived on his social security, and a pension from his old employer, but it wasn’t much, so they had to work. They were well into their seventies when we met. He worked “security” (I’d make the scare quotes bigger if I could) at a golf course. The place paid nine bucks an hour. She used to fold clothes seasonally, at department stores, which scarcely paid more. A couple of better-off Russian families in the neighborhood would hire her to give their kids language lessons, but they never stuck with it.

Yulia was already in her sixties when Lou brought her to the United States. She got her green card after they married, but she never became a citizen, because she spent six months out of the year with her elderly mother in Ukraine. She had a meager pension over there that she lived off of and used for airfare. This couldn’t have been entirely for her mother’s benefit, because she never went back during the winter. While she was gone, Lou would subsist on the McDonald’s Dollar Menu, and cheap TV dinners. He had a tremor in his hands. I doubt he could’ve opened a can of tuna.

Eventually, the golf course let him go, so he started driving for Uber. It made him feel pretty slick, like he was on the cutting edge. He even bought a pair of sunglasses and a faux-leather jacket, but he drove so far below the speed limit and racked up so many complaints about it that Uber fired him, too. Then he started driving for Lyft. This was right around the time the iPhone 7 came out, and some floozy passenger left one in his car. A couple hours later, as he was driving around, the thing started ringing like crazy from beneath the seat, so he pulled over and retrieved it, but he was embarrassed to answer because he was too confused to know where it came from or how to give it back, and too embarrassed to admit that he was too confused to figure it all out. So he went to McDonald’s to get a coffee and think things through, but all he came up with was to toss the phone in the bathroom trashcan and delete his Lyft app for good, forfeiting three or four hundred dollars of his own in the process.

The cancer took him quick—it couldn’t have been more than six weeks ago that I heard he’d gotten the diagnosis. It had probably been a decade or more since he’d even had a routine physical. I never went to see him in the hospital. My wife works sixty hours a week, I’m in medical school, our kids are growing—who has time? Yulia reached out to his nearest relative, a grand-niece somewhere in Illinois. Apparently, she isn’t interested. Yulia’s not going to host a funeral for him either. She’s trying to save money. She didn’t even bother to have his body dressed up, so he wore a hospital gown to his cremation. She plans to send his ashes to this niece by regular mail, probably in a store-brand freezer bag, and go back to Ukraine with his life insurance payout.

Thanksgiving—that was my big act of charity that I did for Lou. Everything we do for others in America is fetishized, performative, peremptory, and remote. Toys for Tots, breast cancer, all this kind of de-personalized annual bullshit. If we listened to our hearts, we might have to take Jesus’s advice. And then what would become of Uber, and McDonald’s, and the iPhone 7?

A Serb—a man—died this month, in Reno, on All Souls Day, alone, in an indifferent hospital ward named for the mother of God, off an interstate freeway that never stops. I hope there’s something better for him beyond.

Beyond No Nut November

Screen Shot 2019-11-07 at 9.42.19 AM.png

you are better

A professor I take a class from said the other day that being able to adjust your manner of speaking to accommodate people’s varying levels of sophistication is a virtue. The man is very much a deontological and utilitarian thinker—a classical liberal, which today is considered conservative.

To say that dumbing down your language, or varying your manner of speaking whatsoever, is useful, cannot be denied. But to call it a virtue per se is plebeian.

If you make the effort to notice it, you’ll be amazed at the extent to which black vernacular permeates not just society’s everyday lexicon, but your own. This is simple regression to the mean: those who’ve had their brush with black culture know that people who are innately obtuse and impressionable must be talked down to. Liberals understand this. Even the alt-right is awash in ironically appropriated black phrases.

This process is an aspect of darkness swallowing light, just like usury, insurance systems, consumerism, industrial pollution, pop culture, porn, the internet, trans-humanism, and democracy itself. A world system of darkness. And the perversion of language is fundamental to dominance by demonic forces.

Words are contagious, because language is exigent, and imminentized. Thus, everyone today speaks to some degree in idiocracy patois: professors, U.S. Senators, CEOs, little old white ladies employed in dentists’ offices in rural Pennsylvania. These people are no less obtuse than most blacks are. In fact, discernment (with regard to anything more than financial documents) is a disadvantage in America. A recent study has shown, for example, that soldiers with IQs higher than 128 make bad officers. And the prevalence of sociopathic traits among successful entertainers, politicians and executives is a well-known phenomenon.

Words are runes, magic. Words, not numbers, are the stuff of divination. The law, for example, a restricted system of logic, is entirely invented. No such invented system of mathematics could ever possibly be contrived by man; but words are different. So if you aspire to be better, you have to take back your words from the prevailing idiocracy. Make a conscious habit of not falling into black vernacular and idiocracy patois. Think of yourself as defending ground from a relentless aggressor. You’ll find that it requires far greater effort and awareness than No Nut November.

On a related note, American culture as a whole is intimately bound to the use of mind-numbing substances. Throughout my youth, I tried to fit the expectation, affirmed everywhere in American culture, to go out nights and revel. It never felt right. If you are like me, but younger, be aware that you have the option of not going to bars and clubs. It’s okay to be alone. If you need a friend, or a mate, it only takes one person, and that person will come along if you’re doing what is healthy and intuitive for you. Don’t “go out” into the darkness and artificial light of the drug-addled world of popular entertainment and revelry. You may as well sever a limb: it’s a net drain on all your resources. Time, energy, life itself.

The stars are brighter in November. Orion appears on the eastern horizon around midnight in the northern hemisphere. At the moment you step out to greet the stars in their uncannily reliable awesomeness, the clubs will be packed with brackish smells, inane music, artificial light…. and stupid, grasping people, heedless of the majesty above them.

Think about how sad that is, and how utterly avoidable. You don’t have to meet them on their level. Nor should you. It isn’t a virtue.

 

The Alt-Right Constantly Lies About Israel

Screen Shot 2018-10-22 at 8.58.11 PM

Who’s the fucking nihilists around here?

If you’re one of the many, many people who believes that U.S. relations with Israel are detrimental to America in a way that can only be explained by Jewish hypnotism, try asking yourself whether the U.S. gains anything from the relationship, and whether this presents any disadvantages to Israel.

I know, I know: the task of thinking is hard. But if what you’ve always assumed turns out to be counter-intuitive, that says an awful lot about the latent ideas that even normies and the MSM bring to the JQ.

America has been the world’s major power for seventy years. The United States has interests in every conflict, everywhere around the world, often on both sides. Obviously, the U.S. government is the enforcement arm (with Israel as one of its proxies) of a global oil, banking, and arms cartel. I’d rather America fill this role than China, even though there are a lot of American policies I disagree with. So you can call yourself “America First,” but no American party or politician that attains power—not Trump, not even Tulsi or Bernie or Rand Paul or Ilhan Omar—is going to forgo the advantages of American global hegemony, and let the Russians and the Chinese fix oil prices while Americans comb through trash heaps for scrap metal. So for the foreseeable future, there is almost no country on the face of the planet that has the option of not dealing, as a subordinate, with America.

Israel is no exception.

Meanwhile, every accoutrement of your comfortable life in America (from indoor temperature control and shipping/warehousing of consumer goods to heavy industry, oil refining, and the very electricity you’re using right now to read this) depends, in part, on the petrodollar; and thus, on containment of Iran. It depends on a lot of other factors as well. But generally speaking, whether Israelis—soldiers, civilians, women, children, elderly—are slaughtered in an apocalyptic war, or have to endure another decade of regular suicide bombings and rocket attacks, depends on just this one. And when it comes to containing Iran, Israel is doing yeoman’s work, so that Hector and Raylene can buy a gut bomb and a Monster Energy at the Cum & Go using an EBT card instead of siphoning your gas for a living. And I don’t like Hector or Raylene any more than you do, but those are the facts.

So I’m sorry, but the widespread notion that U.S. aid to Israel is charity, and that U.S. troops are deployed to the mideast to protect Israeli interests, is appallingly stupid and malicious.

During the 50s and 60s, Israel’s economy grew at an annual rate of about 6%. In the mid-70s, U.S. aid started coming in—even Mearsheimer and Walt acknowledged in The Israel Lobby that, at the time, this was commensurate with U.S. interests in the Cold War. But it had disadvantages for Israel. Over the ensuing decades, Israel’s economic growth slowed to less than 2%. To this day, Israeli economic growth consists largely in hosting facilities for U.S. tech giants, and selling start-ups to those same companies. It is well known that, aside from a handful of firms with strong ties to the Israeli government, there can be almost no other long-term objective for an Israeli tech firm than to get acquired by an American one.

Starting next decade, every dollar of U.S. aid to Israel will become a direct subsidy of the U.S. military-industrial complex. For about 35 years, it’s been 75%—Israel was allowed to spend roughly 25% of U.S. aid annually on its own domestic defense industry. This was originally part of a deal in the mid-80s that desiccated the Israeli aerospace industry: IAI had developed a third-generation fighter aircraft, the Lavi, a kind of store-brand F-16, and U.S. manufacturers didn’t want the competition. So Reagan applied significant pressure to squash the Lavi, putting a few thousand Israeli engineers out of work in the process. The U.S. aid regime we’ve known all our lives was a direct outgrowth of this incident.

But for a time, allowing Israel to spend 25% of U.S. aid on domestic wares turned out to be even more advantageous to U.S. industry than the 75% of aid Israel was required to spend stateside, because if your military is committed to spending a few billion dollars annually in the U.S. market, this means not only that everything you buy must be compatible with U.S. systems—it means that everything you develop must be as well. And the Israelis develop quite a lot of gear. Leading Israeli companies now partner almost exclusively with U.S. firms. They’ve set up taxpaying U.S. subsidiaries employing tens of thousands of Americans, and share their technology with U.S. partners first, rather than shopping around Europe or Asia for the highest bidder. And again, starting next decade, Israel will be required to spend 100% of U.S. aid in the U.S. market. Israeli defense contractors are already shutting down local operations, laying off thousands of workers and relocating manufacturing operations to America, while smaller Israeli companies that manufacture tank treads, helmets, and boots are going belly-up. I don’t expect anyone outside Israel to cry about this, but again, let’s keep in mind that U.S. aid is about 1/6th of Israel’s military budget: it isn’t a subsidy so much as it’s an inducement to spend the other 5/6ths in America. You can’t run a military, or any kind of large enterprise, on equipment from multiple OEMs.

So the U.S. isn’t just getting it’s money back from Israel: it’s turning a massive profit, both USG (through Pentagon foreign procurement programs) and the major corporate contractors. And because the U.S. arms Israel’s enemies (e.g., Lebanon, Iraq) and potential enemies (e.g., Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan), forcing Israel to outspend all these countries combined in order to maintain a qualitative edge over their militaries, every dollar of U.S. aid costs the Israeli taxpayer at least $1.60, all of which, again, gets spent in the United States. Thus, the per capita cost to the individual Israeli of his country’s relationship with America is far, far higher than the out-of-pocket cost to every American taxpayer. So this undead meme about massive, inexplicable American largesse toward Israel is a massive lie.

And Americans no more “die for Israel” than Israelis die for America. Over the decades, U.S. mideast policy has cost the lives of thousands of Israelis. When Israel had Arafat cornered within a hair’s breadth of his life in Beirut, Reagan ordered the IDF to back off and provided a naval escort for his extraction to Greece. It was Bush and Baker who pressured a Likud prime minster to first enter negotiations with the PLO in 1990, and Clinton who pressured Israel to allow Arafat back from Tunis into the West Bank, where he eventually used U.S. aid and training to murder thousands of Israelis throughout the early 2000s.

The fact is, your comfortable life in America is bought in part by Israelis living under constant threat of a massive war on their territory. Iran is critical to control of global oil markets, and America first intervened there in 1953, long before Israel came into the picture. A direct attack on Iran would be entirely at America’s discretion, and if it ever happens, it will be to accomplish American geopolitical aims, at a likely considerable cost in Israeli lives and infrastructure.