Category Archives: Jihad

Reductio Ad Iudaeoram, Pt. II

innocence is bliss

Dave Chappelle is woke as fuck. He traffics in every NPR tote-bag trope from hair touching to food deserts, and tops off each of his specials with grave sermonizing about racism. His recent tranny bit was a fig-leaf for Netflix, and his “Space Jews” bit only made the whole thing palatable for consumer-dissidents of every variety, whose bravest ego-defense will always be Palestine.

What do I mean by this? Full-retard anti-semitism is not a garden variety prejudice, but its psychological mechanism is textbook projection, which works the same in every fanatical creed, its object being to salve the conscience while relinquishing one’s freedom. Moderate, “implicit,” classical liberal racism is sober and mature—the subtle recognition of ontological differences that makes mutual respect possible. Full-retard anti-semitism, in contrast, is dishonest precisely because it arises from a sense of innocence, something cunning and vindictive mediocrities are always in the market for.

As an illustration of this, here is Congressman Thomas Massie commenting apropos of the recent controversy around the congressional progressive caucus’s rejection of an allocation for Israel’s missile defense system:

the innocence abroad

I like Thomas Massie. I’d make him President if I could. I’m certainly not calling him an anti-semite, but his Twitter feed is full of this Pollyanna bilge, and his formulation (above) is a good illustration of psychological distancing. Obviously, both of these things (“fantasy” and “reality,” above) are true, and they’re interdependent because a lot of the time it’s Foreigner A exerting influence on Congress to suborn U.S. influence over Foreigner B. But even supposing Massie’s tweet is correct as formulated: in order to buy influence, you have to have someone who is willing to sell, someone who holds power and is willing to hire it out. What Massie was implying instead—and certainly what those applauding him inferred—is that foreigners are corrupting Americans who would otherwise be quite innocent in foreign affairs.

Well I like America fine, okay? But that’s pure idolatry. Ever heard of Brown Bros. Harriman, or Mr. Potter? How about the Contracts Clause, or Lin Manuel Noriega? This country was structured on peonage and patronage and foreign wars from day one. Horatio Alger was a pederast for chrissakes, and Reverend Dimsdale was a paragon of “a moral and religious people.” Show me a man who thinks the problem is Jews, and I will show you an exhibit of the psychology needed to willingly go on having a problem when the debt for it comes due. And as for those earnest liberals who now essentially view Israel entirely from the Palestinian perspective, if I was King of the Jews I’d relinquish everything up to the 1949 armistice lines just to force the purveyors of this thoroughly conventional iconoclasm to say what they really think.

Oh, and by the way: $4 billion per year in military aid to a country whose military is constrained by this arrangement to spend $20 billion here, annually, equals negative 16 billion dollars, geniuses.

The Last Refuge of Scoundrels

generation identitaire

I said I like my enemies ridiculous, and the universe did not disappoint:

There are only two things that Antifa, the Vatican, grooming gangs, neo-Nazis and BLM all have in common: (1) they are god-awful reprobates, and (2) they reflexively support the Palestine Arabs. It was only a matter of time before unibrowed Insta slags began slithering that direction—a cherry-on-top that is most fitting, and not only for its circumference. There really is nothing more intellectually lazy than anti-Zionism; when you look at all the factoids and incidents that Israel’s habitual detractors busy themselves flapping about, you’ll eventually notice three things: (1) a kind of high-powered microscopy, as if to the exclusion of all other topics this one holds no end of fascination; (2) a penchant for sensationalism coupled with a distinct and remarkably consistent aversion to context; and (3) indictment counts that could just as readily be turned on anyone, e.g., callousness, “privilege,” solipsism, etc. Sure, the Jews are wicked. But they are wicked in the way of all flesh. Ultimately, the cause of their detractors’ singularly circuitous loathing is that the Jews are trying to live, and we don’t like it when others do that. The Palestinians are trying to live as well, and (if they had the whip hand) would treat their neighbors most sadistically. They’re not shy about this. But they lack the whip hand, and pity is cathartic, and taking a criminal for what he is would force us to look too closely in the mirror.

Lord knows I’ve picked my arguments with Zionism; but no creature in the world is sicklier than an anti-Zionist Jew, so I tried to at least make my criticism a novel and constructive one, viz., that Zionism, despite its blood-and-soil mythos and martial culture, is in large part a victimology and thus a fitting spearhead for some of the worst cultural and technological excesses of global liberalism. But liberals have never been comfortable with Israel, because Israel is a constant reminder that what opposes one’s life and thriving must be regarded as evil, rather than misguided.

To regard conscientious, unabashed criminality and celebration of murder as misguided is to presume to arbitrate moral law; to treat it as justifiable is to vicariously absolve oneself of moral duty. That is why Palestine is a cause célèbre. It unites a remarkably broad coalition the world over, because it is a vocation of moralfags and a refuge for ulterior motives of every variety; a veritable Burning Man of ego defense and weaponized magnanimity. The Jews may not be Christ-like but our detractors undoubtedly are Pharisees. And as I said in my takedown of Grand Inquisitor E. Michael Jones, 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. A faith so cheaply bought is chaff for the wind—-its nihilistic heart reveals itself at length:

Of course I don’t blame anyone for pitying Arab children, even if they’d never pity Jewish ones—-because if it’s between my kid and someone else’s on a playground somewhere, I hope my child gives the other a pummeling, and I won’t be made to feel guilty about it. So I think it’s high time the Jews learned to embrace the world’s opprobrium. Get the fuck off social media and get over it. The whole late 20th-century Jewish discourse of “tolerance” and moral sniveling is sick and regressive. As Mencius Moldbug pointed out,

Animosity, when expressed from higher to lower, appears as contempt. Expressed from lower to higher, it comes out as resentment

You cannot evidence contempt for something you aren’t taking at face value. If someone insists that I am his superior—-my “influence,” my intellectualism, my persistence in thriving, in full view of him—-who am I to argue? A man who lives in resentment will avenge you, upon himself, without needing to be asked. And if I have the power to give offense merely by existing, why should I deprive myself of this power by attempting to placate someone who cannot be reasoned with in any case? Why should I lower myself to counter-signal him? It makes no sense. The human creature is titillated by being shown disdain; the PR dividends will pay themselves.

Every atrophied impulse that reactionaries fetishize is latent in Zionism, because the question of Palestine is conveniently beyond good and evil. It is not a question of whether there can be peace, or who has what rights. It is not a question of fine-wrought claims adjudication and who did what to whom. Peoples clash. They migrate and conquer, they form armies and flee from armies, are conquered and displaced in turn. It is the way of the world. Muslims will feel assured of their rights even if it desecrates justice from here to eternity, because they understand this all very well—that is why, after a millennium of brute dominance they turned around, once defeated, and took up the tactic of weeping about human rights. The Jews are no less guilty of this, the difference being, bizarrely, that we didn’t begin weeping until we’d started to win. Either way, the question of Palestine is essentially whether either people, Jews or Muslims, are to be the kind of sacrosanct exception to the ironclad laws of nature which modern progress keeps seeking to carve out; and because (no matter how many stars we may wish upon) the only possible answer is no, the real question reveals itself as: if I am not for myself, who will be for me?

In that context, being reviled with the kind of cheap and scurrilous rectitude that always accosts the Jews is an honor.