Category Archives: Yiddishkeit

Reductio ad Iudeaoram: Conclusion

IMG_2955

Chosen

Part VI of a series; Part I here, Part II here, Part III here, Part IV here, Part V here

The bottomless self-pity of the Jews renders Zionism, Judaism and Jewish peoplehood utterly devoid of any one coherent, comprehensive ethic. Their only essential components are Darwinian (really, anti-Darwinian) survivalism, rationalized behind the mask of a liberal democracy at best tangential to Zionist aims, and a grudge-nursing, biologically reductionist ancestor worship whose sole transcendent element is an insoluble sense of injury. I’m not against Jewish survival, any more than I’d be against the survival of any ethnic group. But after seventy years of Jewish statehood, you’d think the Jews’ approach to the matter would look a bit less like Chicken Little’s. At once self-aggrandizing and pathetic, Leo Strauss’s conclusion that the purpose of the Jews is to prove there’s no redemption is the reductio ad absurdum of Judaism itself. Who that believes in God could believe it, or want it to be true?

The Hebrew Bible and cosmogony are indeed of singular significance to western civilization; in light of this, the significance of the Jewish revolts against the Seleucids and Rome is generally underrated, historically (though, thankfully, not by Monty Python.) But Zionism was a moment. It was an opportunity that was not fully seized, and instead of turning over a new page and giving way to a new man, it has given way to the same old story in revised form. A few years ago this decade, the dark comedy Bastards (Hebrew, “Nevilot”), an Israeli TV serial, inadvertently captured how hopelessly lost the Zionist moment truly is, what a dead end it has become. After one too many encounters with the present generation’s impudence and narcissism, the protagonists, an elderly pair of lifelong best friends and veterans of Israel’s war of independence, take to murdering young Tel Aviv hipsters in their neighborhood. The plot revolves around their periodic, lifelong love triangle with a gorgeous Holocaust refugee, alternating between the present and flashbacks to the two men’s glory days fighting the British and the Arabs in late 1940s Mandate Palestine (when their mutual love interest first arrives from Europe.) The contrast is stark.

Obviously, I wouldn’t discourage anyone from taking the harsh view of Judaism and Zionism I’ve just outlined. I wouldn’t object if anyone wanted to claim that (for better or worse) the Zionists instigated the Palestine conflict, or to argue that the US relationship with Israel is bad for America, or that Jews are disproportionately influential in public affairs, and that this is a bad thing. But the problem, as I see it, is that many of the critical claims and arguments directed at the Jews are extraordinarily myopic and illogical, and this is historically habitual. I’ve given many demonstrations throughout the present series, but these ideas are so facile that they tend to multiply redundantly. Historian and Catholic apologist E. Michael Jones has claimed, for example, that the Spanish Inquisition was not directed at Jews, but effected Christians only. That’s a neat bit of phariseeism if ever I’ve heard one. He also likes to assert that the source of the Jews’ historic misfortunes is their rejection of Christ, “the logos incarnate,” as detailed in the Gospels. (The phrase “logos incarnate” summarizes the great hang-up many non-Christian monotheists have with Christian theology.) Of course, as a metaphor, there’s something to this claim: Judaism’s rejection of Christianity is singular, emphatic, and embittered. It’s not difficult to comprehend how such jaundice pollutes objectivity. But as a bald statement of fact coming from a scholar, Jones’s claim doesn’t hold up, because there’s no great evidence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth, much less this detail about the Passover throng preferring Barabass. Due respect for the limits of certitude has never been a quality of anti-semitism. Advocates for the Palestinians likewise, having premised their arguments on solid ground, tend to veer wildly afield, which is one reason why the Palestine conflict is such a tiresome topic.

It would be one thing to pronounce anti-semitism intellectually stultifying, or a kind of bias confirmation. But what it really amounts to is a slander far in excess of the Jews’ ample real-world deficiencies. It’s one thing to say that schizophrenia is a form of mental illness; it’s quite another to claim that the schizophrenic demonstrates his mental illness by reacting violently to being poked with a sharp stick.

There was a time, not long ago, when this topic impassioned me. It no longer does, but as I’m somewhat of an expert on it, I’ll always have a lot to say about it. The purpose of this essay series was merely to document my view of the matter in a comprehensive and final way. I hope someone, somewhere may’ve gotten something out of it.

Advertisements

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. V

Screen Shot 2018-03-10 at 1.01.20 AM

The world’s foremost problem

(Part I here, Part II here, Part III here, Part IV here)

In The Forest Passage (1951), Ernst Jünger (1895-1998) references Oedipus and the Sphinx to illustrate man’s intrinsic prostration before an essentially inner mystery—a fear to be overcome, just as the forest is at once a refuge, and a place of deep foreboding.

Jünger was a radical individualist, a believer in the ultimate prerogative of the rarified spirit—in some sense intensely Christian, yet also a Nietzschean relativist of sorts—and it occurred to me when reading him that Heidegger, in contrast, by asking “Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?” took man’s confrontation with the void in the exact opposite direction, i.e., outward. This suicidally literal-minded question is analogous to Nazism’s misspent intensity and titanic hubris.

Perhaps not incidentally, Heidegger was an enthusiastic party member, while Jünger openly disdained the NSDAP, resigning from his WWI veteran’s association when its Jewish members were expelled.

We’ve covered neofascism quite a bit here at Utter Contempt. It certainly has its virtues. It’s highly transgressive, for one. But is it off the plantation? Well, if you buy the kabuki theater that the Mueller investigation is anything other than a tour bus for Biff Tannen to throw his used-up associates under, that Vince McMahon’s sparing partner was in earnest with his Father Coughlin impersonation (only to slip on a banana peel and wind up co-opted by Jared from Subway), or that white nationalism is a real heavy counterweight to DARPA, the Syndicate and the Bank for International Settlements, then you may just be the type who’ll love Red Ice Radio‘s asinine slogan: “The future is the past.” If fascism was pseudo-reaction, then the alt-right is neo-pseudo-reaction. What a time to be alive, eh?

So I can’t quite take the same attitude toward the multifarious alt-right that Jünger once took to monolithic Nazism. In all fairness, anti-semitism as an online sinkhole for the half-educated predates the alt-right by about a decade. There’s just no pleasing some people without naming the Jew. Which makes it an airtight alibi for sundry charlatans and provocateurs. “You’re not a cop, are you? I mean—a Zionist?” There’s just something so goddamned apoplectically cult-like about the whole thing. Full-retard JQ-woke Asperger’s is to the redpill what farting in the bathtub is to Archimedes’ “Eureka!”

Every alt-right webzine has the obligatory post denouncing “Hollywood Nazis”, bad optics, people who see Jews in their sandwiches, but this is all just bad faith. There are no moderates among pamphleteers and carnival barkers. Of course it’s possible to be a little bit anti-semitic, but not when you’re podcasting about it. If you’re part of the problem, you’re part of the problem. Scapegoating ol’ Cletus McJergens just shows disdain for your intended audience. But then, we’re talking about a movement that distributes its redpills exclusively via the matrix.

For example, the following pile of garble from Chateau Heartiste:

Ted Colt notices,

“One needn’t look further than a Wikipedia article describing NeoConservative history to comprehend the connection between neocons & free trade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

EVERY! FUCKING! TIME!

If your Alt-Right brand isn’t ‘anti-semitic’ then you’re not alt-right”

I prefer the more accurate term of art “countersemitic”. (The ADL, unsurprisingly, does not.) We are countering the malicious agenda of a hostile minority intent on drowning us in foreign invaders, trite consumerism, backbreaking debt, endless interventionist wars, and basically anything that destroys the historical and cultural bonds of the majority’s community, neighborhood, town, and nation.

Wow. Ted Colt, huh? “No further than Wikipedia,” indeed. (Isn’t that a Jew-run outfit?) “Branding,” while bitching about consumerism in the comments section of a PayPal-panhandler site.

By the way: what is semitism, or counter-semitism? Well, the proto-Semites were South Arabian nomads who settled among the people of the Levant and the fertile crescent some 10,000 years ago, bequeathing their language to the region. This resulted in the emergence of the world’s first alphabetic writing system and the inscription of the Hebrew Bible. Muhammad was a Semite, as was St. Paul, and Hedy Lamarr, and the Son of Sam. Far be it from me to suggest that the word is meaningless—obviously here it applies to the Jews. But even then, calling oneself anti-semitic is about as lucid as calling oneself anti-canine, or anti-bicycle. Replacing “anti-” with “counter-” only compounds the mouth-breathing.

So it tires me to argue with this middle-school caliber copy-pasta; to rattle off litanies of phenomena that are driving world events, other than a conspicuous handful of Jews being wealthy, disgusting, and politically active; to point out that the inception of modernity is not the moment the yid peddler shows up in the village, but the moment that Christian elites realize they were stupid to grant him a monopoly on usury; that the porno industry can only supply an extant demand, or that Zionists are obviously no more sinister than a great many foreign and domestic grifters milling around, raining bukake on the bloated, insensate pudding vagina we have for a system in this country, hoping the next queef out of Congress will blow their direction. Besides, wherever they may choose to wash their money, it’s generally got to be counted in greenbacks—and whose fault is that? All six of those Wise Men were goyim.

But who has time for such obscurities? What interests me is the provenance of this idea, this reductio ad iudeaoram. It has a long history, but let’s start with its underpinnings in the alt-right. If you’re familiar with Chateau Heartiste you know that his writing is incisive and stylish, but as a platform the blog itself is basically one big no-homo “Hot or Not” where beta-anons with anxious delusions of Clevon-like virility outsource their defective instincts to pseudo-ironic support group scientism. So it’s not surprising that the author’s JQ-woke Aspergers is cribbed (or contracted) without blinking from Kevin MacDonald, the evolutionary psychologist infamous for his thesis that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy” aimed at weakening Gentile host societies.

Now I’m no fancy-pants evolutionary psychologist, but if by “group evolutionary strategy” we mean anything that involves, you know, not being legally handicapped and regularly massacred for twenty centuries at a stretch everywhere from Malaga to Mosul, then the suggestion that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy” is ridiculous on its face. There’s also the obvious, practical question of the scope of Judaism’s (or, if you insist, Zionism’s) aggression. Christianity’s was world wide, and wore itself out (though the Pope still claims to speak for one and all); Islam has now taken up the torch anew. Liberal humanism and communism, also universal faiths, have plenty of blood on their hands; but where was MacDonald’s element of inter-ethnic subversion in Red China, the English Civil War, or Renaissance Florence? It’s ridiculous.

Instead, what you might take from MacDonald’s work is that inter-ethnic enmity is a two-way street—especially if you’ve been fire-hosed your entire life with the liberal narrative of perennial white guilt. But his thesis is the exact inverse of that, so the street is still one-way:

With his thousand-year-old mercantile dexterity he is far superior to the still helpless, and above all boundlessly honest, Aryans…. While he seems to overflow with ‘enlightenment,’ ‘progress,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘humanity,’ etc., he himself practices the severest segregation of his race…. His ultimate goal in this stage is the victory of ‘democracy’…. It is most compatible with his requirements; for it excludes the personality and puts in its place the majority characterized by stupidity, incompetence, and last but not least, cowardice….

….und so weiter. (I guess a plurality’s better than a full majority. As for boundless honesty, that point can probably best be disputed by the Plains Indians. Or Thucydides, or Chaucer, or Shakespeare, or Dale Carnegie. Was PT Barnum of Hebrew descent, or just the bearded lady?)

The full-retard anti-semite will usually balk at being associated with Hitler, calling it a libel although he agrees with der führer entirely. But I didn’t just quote Mein Kampf in order to associate Kevin MacDonald with the Austrian corporal—there’d be no need for that. Rather, I’m quoting Hitler in order to provide the smidgeon of contrast necessary for pointing out how incredibly innovative and thoughtful a theory like MacDonald’s would be, in spite of every flaw—if it was original. But it isn’t. On the contrary, it’s the best attested theory of history in all of history. If you stumbled upon it as if upon a revelation, and felt your scattered erudition suddenly bundle itself tightly into a faggot (or fasces, if you prefer) of clarity and purpose, then you may as well be holding a bouquet of balloons there, luftmensch. Rather than the defensive weapon those who brandish it mistake it for, anti-semitism is a stick they carry around in their ass. Obviously culture is predicative of behavior, and Judaism is inflected with a snide aloofness and a victimology that are eminently distasteful. But if you find all this more sinister than it is pathetic, you’re not working with a full pack of crayons. I’m happy to hear out any conspiracy theory, but if your smoking gun is evolutionary psychology, then we’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves.

But so far, we’ve only covered the sincere aspects of fulltard JQ-awakening. Meanwhile, the utility of this shibboleth is not lost on up-and-coming merch-pimps and aspiring alt-media gadflies (not to mention PayPal panhandlers like ol’ Chateau.) Getting slapped on an ADL hate list is now marketable martyrdom, such that cookie-cutter manifestos and Hitlerian little memoirs of awakening are regularly produced by figures as varied as Roosh V and Squatting Slav. The former, a self-styled manosphere pick-up artist, writes prolifically at a seventh-grade reading level about his sexual encounters on the road in impoverished countries. Undoubtedly by mawwing the requisite JQ-dribblings, he was able to secure a time slot to hustle his fetid self-publishings one year at Richard Spencer’s NPI conference (a controlled-op termite’s nest if ever there was one), despite being a patently non-white immigrant with a beady-eyed sociopath countenance. Such is the mental caliber of the alt-right. Squatting Slav, meanwhile, hawks T-shirts on a satirical pan-Slavic FB meme-page that can claim the minor feat of having united a few hundred-thousand former-Yugoslav followers, not only despite their own intractable enmities but in spite of the admin’s unabashed Serb-posting. Apparently unaware (or unashamed) of the arming of the Serbs by Israel during the 1990s, and of the singularly barbaric WWII massacres perpetrated against his people by and with the support of the Nazis, even Mr. Squat could not get past the apparent need to clear the air by regurgitating the MacDonald-redux of their theories into a handful of v-log tutorials. Because you can’t understand stupid, repetitive jokes about rakia and pickled tomatoes without JQ-awakening.

Then there’s wall-eyed, man-jawed Lana Lokteff of Red Ice Radio (a real prefrontal butter churn of primo alt-content) whose antipathy to all things yiddish is such that she is able to read rootless cosmopolism into the Hasmonean revolt against the Seleucids, recounting it as an instance of Jewish meddling in the sovereign prerogatives of Gentiles (ROFL.) With logic like this being pervasive on the alt-right, one is entitled to ask whether anti-semitism is the punchbowl, or the turd—which brings us back to Chateau Heartiste, in an essay defending kid-fucking:

Say what you will about Roy Moore, at least his girls agreed to date him (even if they retconned a discomfort 40 years later). The Synagogue of Seediness doesn’t bother with the formality of mutual agreement, they just passive-aggressively jam tongues down throats “to rehearse our lines”.

Of course, Chateau absolutely condones those tactics (that’s what his whole blog is about) unless the perp is tribal—the latter reference being to Al Franken, who at least targeted grown women. But if Chateau really believes that his hypothetical 14-year old daughter is qualified to give Roy Moore consent, then you’ve really got to commend his intra-Gentile solidarity.

But this is all just grist for the infotainment landfill. Anyone who hopes to escape the Tower of Babel the oligarchs have planned for us is going to have to grow up. Just look at the Charlottesville dumpster fire of mouth-breathing self-abusers and agents provocateurs that cemented the alt-right as a webcast-only phenomenon, with Richard Spencer condemning violence in therapeutic lilt as cops and revelers died of tidbit-nipply passive aggression gotten out of hand, and his associates went to jail. Even if he’s a fed (or a lizard person or an ancient alien) so what? You may not consider him your personal führer (who really consciously has leaders nowadays, anyway?) but the fact is, Spencer’s as alt-right as it gets (he’s as white-nationalist as it gets, too, if you insist on the distinction) and the sum total of his activity is to expose himself and a half-dozen sycophants to jeering and tomato throwing at huge cost to municipal resources. He’s nothing more than Milo with street-cred. Pure clownworld.

No—whatever you think the problem is, it doesn’t have a political solution. As Jünger puts it in The Forest Passage:

An assault on the inviolability, on the sacredness of the home, would have been impossible in old Iceland in the way it was carried out in 1933, among a million inhabitants of Berlin, as a purely administrative measure. A laudable exception deserves mention here, that of a young social democrat who shot down half a dozen so-called auxiliary policemen at the entrance of his apartment. He still partook of the substance of the old Germanic freedom, which his enemies only celebrated in theory…. Naturally, he did not get this from his party’s manifesto….

In this analogy, how many people on the alt-right (or Antifa, or any such full-retard ideologues) are the “so-called auxiliary policemen” (“celebrating in theory”) and how many are the young social democrat? To ask the question is to answer it.

Ultimately, what the alt-right specializes in is mystifying the unlettered with cherry-picked Nietzsche and Evola, heedless of what the former actually said about anti-semitism and what the latter actually said about nationalism. It’s high-octane full-retard.

Never go full retard.

Why War?

Screen Shot 2018-05-02 at 4.34.12 PM

known for their fondness of brains

“All things pall after a while—sleep, love, sweet song, and stately dance—still these are things of which a man would surely have his fill rather than of battle, whereas it is of battle that the Trojans are insatiate.” —Homer, Iliad, Book XIII

A group of 250 French public figures signed a statement released last month, decrying the “quiet ethnic cleansing” of French Jews as a result of Muslim extremism. This is a very interesting choice of words.

Strictly speaking, it is correct, and backed by the relevant statistics. Indeed, over the past couple of decades, French Jews have been emigrating (to Israel, to North America) to escape both a steady, irreversible increase in street crime and a campaign of terrorist massacre at the hands of lumpen Muslim banlieue-dwellers (whose fanatical antipathy to Jews undoubtedly exceeds their disdain for other non-Muslims.) 

Certainly this suggests that the machinations of the global inner-oligarchy (behind both the humanitarian disasters in the third world and the mass migration of its denizens into Europe) have little to do with Judaism per se or the welfare of Jews overall—which it appears to consider expendable, in spite of the high proportion of ethnic Jews in its ranks and among its lackeys. But there’s an elephant in the room here: if “quiet ethnic cleansing” in this context entails a precipitous drop in quality of life (particularly in terms of public safety) for the targeted group, their displacement from whole cities, and their being targeted for every kind of violence (on account of their ethnicity and its privileges—real or perceived, legitimate or illegitimate), then the ethnic cleansing thus effected by the mass inflow of third world migrants into Europe touches Jews only incidentally, because its primary target is the native majority. This is obvious. Under the rules of public discourse (unwritten in the United States but partially encoded, as it happens, into actual hate speech legislation in the EU) such a dire warning can really only be issued about Jews. But the fact that it is being issued at all speaks to a subconscious awareness of far larger developments.

Now consider the following scenario:

Country ‘A’ is large and unmatched in wealth and power. Its rulers gain and maintain power in large part by promoting moral corruption around the world* (sexual perversity, intellectually stultifying mass entertainment and, especially, usury) and have boasted openly for decades about their plans for world domination. Beleaguered and near-universally disliked, Country ‘C’ survives and thrives as an appendage of Country ‘A’s warfare industry and has managed to place both its sympathizers and in some cases even its operatives in very high positions in Country ‘A.’

Meanwhile, Country ‘B’ refuses to submit to vassalage under Country ‘A,’ and to that end is covertly developing a nuclear deterrent. Although ‘B’ is in no position to ever strike ‘A’, its venal and repressive rulers make intemperate threats against ‘C,’ which is located nearby, and the two countries fight one another by proxy in neighboring third countries. In addition, every six months for the last decade, the swaggering (but henpecked) little kritarch who runs Country ‘C’ scolds an international body for its inaction against ‘B’, or holds a press conference where he hops up and down in front of a power point presentation, demanding that ‘A’ invade ‘B’ and slaughter its citizens wholesale by aerial bombardment.

This is of course all very tragic and volatile, but what I want to point out about it is that discourses regarding this situation nearly always fail to touch upon at least one of the following three important facts:

(1) ‘C’s pretext for possible further action against ‘B,’ (i.e., the suggestion that the whole world is in real danger from ‘B,’ and therefore needs to preemptively attack it) is laughably incredible, while ‘A’s pretext for possible action against ‘B’ (i.e., the credibility of ‘B’s threats against ‘C’) is critically exacerbated by ‘A’s own explicit designs on ‘B’s sovereignty.

(2) While ‘C’s demands demonstrate an unparalleled solipsism and myopic self-regard on the part of its people and their culture (which is why they’re so widely disliked), ‘A’s rulers are actually leveraging ‘C’s insecurity and playing with the lives of its citizens as surely as ‘C’s leadership is brazenly attempting to manipulate ‘A’ and siphon it’s bloated energy for the purpose of destroying ‘B.’

(3) The resistance by the rulers of ‘B’ to ‘A’ and ‘C,’ no matter how odious either or both may be, is not a redeeming characteristic in itself. Its rulers aren’t interested in their professed beliefs, or their people’s future, to 1/100,000th the degree they’re interested in their own asses, and bank accounts. In our day, the enemies of Rome (and of Judea) are never saints.

So would a US war on Iran be a “war for Israel?” Was Iraq? Was Libya? These memes are incorrect. Vital interests of the global inner-oligarchy are at stake in Iran and Syria, namely the imperatives of great power politics which Zbigniew Brzezinski specified in The Grand ChessboardThe long-term vision of this elite (which you can read about here, here, and here) has nothing to do with Judaism, properly understood. And as I’ve pointed out here already, although many of its ranking members are ethnic Jews and even Zionists, one effect of its strategy is to make regular Jews pawns, and subject them to terror.

Still, the Israeli leadership, along with the Saudis, has its own priorities vis a vis Iran, and can certainly move the ball on a US war, as it has done before. From the perspective of a morally normal, intellectually honest Hebrew this raises disturbing questions. What kind of people believes that others have a limitless moral obligation to defend it? What kind of nation hopes, expects, and sends its leaders abroad demanding that the soldiers of another nation be killed doing so? In Israel’s case, this actually goes against the premise of Zionism, i.e., that the Jews have only ourselves to rely on. Self-defense is a sacred right and a duty, but there has to be a defined objective, a point at which other contending parties’ legitimate interests enter into one’s strategic calculus, or else we are totally solipsistic and unhinged.

However, encouragement of Arab and Muslim disunity and backwardness is the pillar of Israeli foreign policy. So while you may accept the premise of Zionism, when a nation is obliged to help spur destruction on the massive scale we’ve seen in Iraq (a war the Israeli leadership lobbied for vocally, across party lines), Syria (where Israel is directly supporting the scum of humanity), Libya and Yemen, along with the spillover of desperate people from these regions into Europe with all its attendant horrors—well then the reasons why, e.g., the apparently endless sense of victimhood and entitlement of organized Jewry, no longer matter. A faction that cannot envision an attainable end, nor even a plausible reason for an end to its imposition on others simply has no future.

 

(*a phrasing for which I must credit the conservative Catholic historian E. Michael Jones)

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. IV

harvey-weinstein-serious

Comes in handy

(Part I here, Part II here, Part III here)

One upshot to the profusion of online Hitler sympathy this past decade is that it shows how brittle American liberal indoctrination really is, despite its insidiousness. Of course, it also shows that older habits tend to die harder.

To wit: every now and again some earnest little yid blogger pokes his head up on an alt-right podcast and tries to explain that we’re not all that bad—while agreeing that indeed, we are all that bad. It’s a bit like playing dead: contrition itself is supposed to be a point in the Jews’ defense.

Now, if your experience tells you that Jews are oily, pushy, whiny, loud, snide, solipsistic and cheap, well…. Join the club: so does mine (though only a couple of those apply to me). Perhaps you live in a community somewhere back east where the ethnic fault lines are long standing, and over the decades each of the local constituencies has made a certain impression on its neighbors—well and good. If it’s a matter of navigating daily life and real relationships, stereotype away, for all I care. But when we refer here to anti-semitism, what we mean is the full-retard pamphleteering variety, a worldview mediated secondhand, a partial flight of fancy:

710full-seinfeld-screenshot

Though it exposes me as a third-rate intellectual at best, that much is already quite obvious, so I’ll go ahead and quote the late Christopher Hitchens in this connection:

The Nazis thought of Slavs and Gypsies as racial inferiors by all means, but the organizing principle of their racism, the thing that gave it its energy and its consistency was the hatred of the Jew….. Would it be believed by anybody, if it was said that all the Armenians left the World Trade Center before the planes hit, or all the Irish? I don’t think so. It has to be the Jews, it’s not exciting if it’s not. It would be a mere vulgar prejudice; there’s not enough traction and grit and flavor to it, unless it’s the real thing.

Again: if experience recommends wariness of a given human group, then be wary—end of story. Self-defense, after all, is a dish best served cold, and sparingly. And xenophobia is clearly evolutionary—it needs no laborious rationale, no theory, no social approval. But for the full-retard anti-ZOG pamphleteer, there’s no adrenaline in that, no hard-on, no quasi-mystical shivers. For them, the case is so open-and-shut they can never shut up about it.

Henry Kissinger once said that a people that’s been persecuted for 2,000 years is doing something wrong. A certain Luke would beg to differ that being persecuted necessarily means you’re in the wrong, but he didn’t much like Jews, either. In any case, a people that beats those kinds of odds has also got to be doing something right.

All the same, you might think it would be worthwhile for the Jews’ own sake to at least engage with their worst critics and try to learn something from them. But hesitance to fully recognize hostility can only play as sycophancy. Indeed, when you reach out to full-retard anti-semites (lots of those abroad in the world nowadays) what you’re invariably going to find is that the burden of proof falls exclusively upon the semite. Your every overture is taken both as subterfuge and servility. Your every word short of utter self-abnegation amounts to proof of incorrigibility, no matter what you’ve conceded—and so does self-abnegation. There is literally nothing that can be proved to these types. Perhaps you share alt-right or far-left concerns about the complicity of Jews in systems of power you oppose, but that’s never how anti-semites see you, and the only effective way to deal with execration is with a grin, and a middle finger. Full-retard anti-semitism (right or left) is not about opposing systems of power per se; rather, it is the vocation of finding fault with yidden. It’s a manichaean template that confers total absolution from shame, and earnestness is poison when you’re dealing with a shameless interlocutor. As soon as you give him the time of day, you’re taking on all the shame in the equation.

Take, for example, the following aside (~29:00-30:00) from alt-right agitator Mike Enoch on that episode of The Daily Shoah podcast I hyperlinked above (the one with the yiddle-diddle blogger guest interviewee.) Here Enoch’s talking about the HBO series Curb Your Enthusiasm:

We had this conversation today where we were talking about Larry David, that fucking stupid show where he runs around being Jewish…. and someone [some fellow anti-semite] was like, ‘Oh no, but it’s hilarious because he’s so Jewish [that] he’s fucking over even other Jews.‘ And I’m like, yeah, but at some point I just want to be done with this Jewish psychological shit, I don’t want to be sucked into this world of the Jewish fucking inner turmoil, I just want to be done with it.

Um…. excuse me? You guys are the ones with a three-times weekly podcast called The Daily Shoah (“shoah”=Hebrew for Holocaust) that’s going on its 200th episode at 2+ hours apiece, and in every single one, you discuss Jews at length. No schtick fatigue? I get that plutocrats and media mandarins are disproportionately Jewish, that such power ought to be accessible to satire, and I can at least respect the alt-right for its irreverence, but…. You “want to be done“? The fuck outta here. What would you even do with yourselves at that point?

Someone who claims to have caught a whiff of sulfuric old Beelzebub is liable to be reminded that whoever smelt it dealt it (it’s called negative transference.) Yet the self-flagellating little yid blogger guest on the podcast ends up agreeing with Enoch about yiddishkeit in showbiz: “Right, this is 2% of the population, why is this the thing that’s being constantly put in front of us?” I don’t know, why are there so goddamned many steers in Texas? In the words of the great Marshall McLuhan: if you’re seeing it, it’s for you. Someone got you straightjacketed to a theater seat? Lots of options what to watch nowadays. Last I checked, HBO is premium cable. So I’ve heard a lot of anti-semitic tropes in my day, but as these things go, “wanting to be done with the Jewish inner turmoil” that’s “sucking me in” is revealingly bizarre. Whether it’s only tortured logic, or also tortured, sub-rosa yiddishkeit, what it reveals about anti-semitism is the same.

Back in the mid-aughts I was sitting around one weekend with a friend—also Jewish—smoking something stupid and watching one of the hundreds of conspiracy documentaries then mushrooming on the new-fangled YouTube. Up until that time, my conception of Jewish success was that it confirmed the old stereotype about Jewish brains. But due to events like 9/11, the NSA spying scandals and the 2008 financial crisis it was starting to become painfully clear that the height of success in America is something profoundly dark, and that one’s ethnic group being disproportionately implicated in it can be a very bad thing. At one point during the documentary, my friend turned to me and asked, “How are we supposed to cope with the fact that we come from a race of deceivers?”

You might ascribe that sentiment to the influence of drugs, or to half-baked YouTube documentaries. But would you know who agrees with it? Larry David. Here’s how David treated the Weinstein/#MeToo scandal in the opening monologue of a recent episode of Saturday Night Live he hosted (executive summary here):

What’s awkward about this performance? It isn’t the references to sex, or to genocide. It isn’t the uncouthness, or even David’s openness to discomfort. No, what’s awkward about this performance is its sincerity, its utter lack of irony. It’s a public service announcement concealed behind only the most implausible veneer of comedy. Larry David means exactly what he says: he reflexively feels that allegations against a handful of fellow Jews reflect on him, fundamentally. And what’s ironic about the tenebrous self-awareness he exhibits is not some corollary intellectual benefit, but that it’s avoidable, unnecessary, and entirely self inflicted. A gallery of perennially offended professional Jews squawked a bit online the week after this performance, but that’s because they suffer from the same pathology that David does—they aren’t mad because they disagree with what he said, they’re mad because he said it—they feel that he reflects on them, same as David feels about Weinstein. The assumption of responsibility for another person’s crime speaks to a need to feel rejected in order to feel validated. This is why the vindictive sniveling inherent in so much of Judaism locks Jews into a sadomasochistic relationship with anti-semites—the Purim and (to a lesser extent) Passover holidays are great examples of this. (Only Hanukkah represents a genuine triumph of the will.) So unless you limit your Judaism to a given understanding of the divine, an answer to the need for a certain modicum of ritual, and communion with your ancestors, you’ll always be spinning your wheels in a mud puddle of Talmudic agony like some kind of OCD sufferer. (By the way—I don’t know too much Talmud, but I know there’s at least one volume of it that ought to be as popular as the Gospels or the Tao te Ching. It’s called Pirke Avot. Check it out sometime. Guide for the Perplexed is also very good, for similar reasons.)

Professional Jew Jeffrey Goldberg typifies this masochism. I’ve bagged on him here before, so I hate to do it twice, but he’s just too typical. As a teenager, he served as an MP in the IDF (that part’s atypical), then came back to the US and wrote a stupid memoir about his one-sided friendship with a Palestinian terrorist he guarded in a military jail, entitled Prisoners: A Muslim and a Jew Across the Middle East Divide. The tone-deafness of the title (equating a gaoler with his charge, conflating people’s religion with their entire being) is bad enough. Per the NY Times review:

Rafiq Hijazi [is] the Muslim of the book’s title. The story of their unusual and complicated friendship is at the core of Prisoners, weaving its way through the narrative like a serpentine question mark. It begins with their meeting in 1991 at Ketziot, the Israeli prison filled with thousands of Palestinians arrested during the first Intifada. Rafiq (Fatah-affiliated and deeply religious) was Goldberg’s ”favorite” prisoner. ”I wanted to make Rafiq my friend,” he says. ”I liked that he had the dispassion of an analytical academic in a place notable for its absence of thought. He also had an open-mindedness that to me was a clear sign of inner benevolence.” After their first conversation—separated by a fence—Goldberg had ”a feeling of connection. It was a strange and traitorous feeling, but it was also a true feeling, and it was accompanied by a satisfying frisson of danger and dissent.”

He could be describing an illicit love affair. Except, more than once, and increasingly so as their relationship is tested against the backdrop of violent political developments, it appears to be a case of unrequited love—Rafiq does not seem to be in need of their friendship. They continued to meet, over many years, in different places: at Rafiq’s parents’ home in Gaza, in Washington, where they both lived with their wives and where Rafiq was completing a Ph.D. in statistics, later in Abu Dhabi. There were also frequent long breaks between their meetings, especially after Rafiq—who, Goldberg tells us, had become a fundamentalist—announced that he would not demonstrate against suicide bombings or when he said that if he had to kill his friend, ”it wouldn’t be personal.”

Goldberg is invariably the one to make the next approach: ”I was raised to search out the familiar in the stranger, on the theory that we are all alike. I looked for the familiar in Rafiq, and found it.” The almost pathetic one-sidedness of this friendship, the need to be accepted, liked and understood not only by Rafiq but by other, less moderate political enemies (”I was fascinated by them”) would be almost moving if it didn’t point so obviously back to the old trauma of the rejection by the anti-Semitic bullies in that Long Island playground. Beneath the physical pain and the humiliation, there was always the perennial Jewish question: Why don’t they like me?

Who gives a shit? Does Rafiq have this problem, this tortured relationship with gods and men? Of course not. Rafiq has a proper respect for his place in the natural order of things. His “analytic academic’s dispassion” is a tool, not a ball-and-chain. But at least Jeffrey Goldberg has a choice about whether and what kind of ball and chain to carry around. Not all Jews have been so lucky.

Mihail Sebastian was a Romanian-Jewish linguist and novelist who kept a diary of life in Romania between 1935 and 1944. The manuscript was smuggled to Israel by his brother in 1961 and eventually published as a book after the Cold War. What’s interesting about it is that many fellow Romanian intellectuals whom the author maintained friendships with were vehemently pro-Nazi. According to a 2001 book review in The Irish Times, Sebastian had a remarkable tendency to make excuses for them:

Sebastian’s friend, the charismatic philosopher and teacher Nae Ionescu, who enthusiastically supported the Iron Guard, agreed to write a preface to one of Sebastian’s novels, but when he did, it turned out to be vigorously anti-Semitic.

Ionescu warned the younger man against imagining that he could become assimilated into the gentile community, asking of him “Are you . . . a human being from Braila on the Danube? No, you are a Jew from Braila on the Danube.” Sebastian, in typical fashion, continued to look upon his friend and mentor with fondness, regarding him indulgently merely as a rogue and an opportunist whose heart nevertheless was in the right place; when Ionescu died prematurely in 1940, Sebastian wept in sorrow.

He even found excuses for his friend the novelist, and fascist, Camil Petrescu. When the private houses of Jews were confiscated by order of the government, Petrescu complained to Sebastian that he would probably not be given one; Sebastian said that surely, under the circumstances, his friend would not accept a house even if it were offered to him, at which Petrescu stared at him in surprise and asked: “Why not?”

The type of person who countenances this kind of treatment today will be a school shooter tomorrow, or a mental patient, or a Great Gatsby, but he’ll never be content. So is there anyone more pathetic than the person who devotes time and energy to authoring broadsides about his unmatched malevolence? Our next installment will be about Kevin MacDonald, and his acolytes.

Dear Father X

Uncouth reflections

Dear Father X,

I feel that in matters of the heart, of which faith surely is one, we must be unfailingly honest. Yet I’m afraid there is nothing I could say to you with perfect honesty, because to do so would be to malign your faith, and faith of any kind is sacred, and what is sacred must be honored, even if it is only sacred to others.

Does Christianity prescribe such respect for other faiths? On the contrary, it demands their obliteration. To the extent this renders frankness only on my part uncouth and fruitless, I regard you warily. Yet because your life’s enterprise also involves the promulgation of beauty and compassion in this world, and the transmission of ancient wisdom, I believe it must be defended.

My wife would like you to baptize our son. She cannot comprehend what this means for a Jew, and our common scriptures forbid me from putting a stumbling block in front of the blind. Then there is the matter of the Golden Rule: how can I deny a sacrament to a believer, even if it’s a sacrilege for me? I suppose you don’t need me to tell you that ethics sometimes trump confessional fidelity, and love sometimes trumps law. Christianity talks a big game on both counts, yet I wouldn’t expect a serious Christian to take my feelings seriously in this matter, and my only consolation is to remind myself that in any case, no man can know the mind of God.

It isn’t that I regard my particular faith as realer than yours or anyone’s. What if we all err in roughly equal proportion, and need one other to make up the difference? I’ve heard tales of miracles from adherents of every faith tradition, and it would be as easy for a man of no faith to dismiss them utterly as it is difficult for a man of true faith to dismiss any of them.

When I was a child, some antediluvian spirit drew me to the Hebrew scriptures, which spoke to me directly: Jacob and the Angel, Joseph in Egypt, Moses and the Burning Bush, Joshua at Jericho, Samuel’s visit to Jesse, David’s flight from Saul, Solomon asking for wisdom, Daniel in the Lion’s Den, Ezekiel in the Valley of the Dry Bones. These legends seemed to contain a lost key—an inkling of eternity.

So I’m not concerned here with historicity, nor to pit revelation against revelation. Rather, my concern is to salvage something from the death of god. In this, I do not deny but rather affirm that the Christian dispensation has its place. Yet you ask me, essentially, to forsake my fathers, to compromise my most fundamental integrity at the spearhead of their accumulated wisdom and experience, and extinguish the flickering entrée to eternity they handed down to me. Even if Christian theology is correct in every respect and Judaism is entirely in error—can it be possible to respect a doctrine that demands such things of others? Even if this doesn’t violate the letter of the First Commandment, it violates its spirit, and strikes me as perfectly analogous to Ivan Karamazov’s suggestion that the edifice of human happiness be build upon the foundation of the torture and unrequited tears of a single, innocent creature. But I think more of Christianity—like Judaism, it forbids flexibility of conscience.

Your scriptures claim there is neither Jew nor Greek, but if not for the distinction of family and tribe, where would we derive the very experience of solidarity that might then be applied to the stranger? It seems to me Rabbi Hillel’s resolution for that paradox represents the limit of our capacity to deal with it. Both Christianity’s promises and its expectations seem to me outlandish. But again, supposing I’m in error somehow, so what? Who isn’t? The journey is more important than the destination, and Jewish dialectic tension and intellectual agonizing cannot be salved but only extinguished by Christian grace.

There have long been many who believe this would be for the best, but they’re rarely forthright about it—they euphemize, prevaricate, and always seem to drag a vaguely afflicted conscience around behind their intellectual levity. Perhaps it’s better to extinguish a candle than curse the darkness. But desecration is the essence of crime, and crime is not a matter of degrees, but of intent. So please don’t pretend that I’m missing something, or presume to suggest how easy it would be for me to overlook this or that, and rely on elided interpretations. What kind of belief would that be, anyhow? It’s unprincipled.

But enough of ontology. Regrettably, the politics here simply cannot be avoided. When has Christianity not been implicated in politics, in the most sordid affairs of this world? The pharisees of Gospel fame are classic figments of Freudian projection. And while the Tanakh does hold that “By Me kings reign, and rulers decree justice,” it also says He removes them, presumably not by airbrushing. So it doesn’t follow that “consequently, the one who resists authority is opposing what God has set in place.” Incidentally, when Jesus tells Pilate that “the one who handed me over to you is guilty of the greater sin,” it is curiously sycophantic. Love thine enemy, turn the other cheek, render unto Caesar. This isn’t morality, it’s a civics lesson. Is it any wonder that for eighteen centuries this creed unified and palliated in precisely the same proportion as it endeared coachman to duke, reduced the slave before his driver, and blessed the condemned with his executioner in the same breath? Because much of the message of the Gospels’ Jesus to the Jews is to cease resisting Rome. Certainly this is the only way that Luke 19 can be given a coherent reading.

But what good is it to wrestle with spiritual wickedness in high places (Ephesians 6:12) if only Jesus is not required to ask nicely? No Christian people smarting under an infidel yoke has or ever will be condemned from any pulpit as graspers and sensualists simply for taking up arms in defense of their freedom to worship. Christianity has never enjoined anyone but the Jews to lay down their arms in such a predicament. Back when the Church intended to vanquish or at least defend itself the Muslims, at least it accepted the necessity of fighting them.

Growing up Jewish, they beat you over the head so much with tales of persecution that in modern times, it all takes on an allegorical quality, or that of a horror story. Until I was an adult, anti-semitism—vehement, full-hilt anti-semitism—was something I understood only dryly. But once I’d encountered enough of it, I had to wonder what it would mean if such sentiments were pervasive, and when I asked myself that question I realized, viscerally, all of a sudden, what sheer intransigent execration—its precipitous depth—my ancestors endured, in spite of how easy it would have been for them to break and be done with it as you now enjoin me to do.

Though he was more of a christian—that is to say, a railing, outlandish perfectionist—than he supposed, Nietzsche said it more strikingly:

Every Jew possesses in the history of his fathers and grandfathers a great fund of examples of the coldest self-possession and endurance in fearful situations, of the subtlest outwitting and exploitation of chance and misfortune; their courage beneath the cloak of miserable submission, their heroism in spernere si sperni surpasses the virtues of all the saints…. and the virtues which pertain to all who suffer have likewise never ceased to adorn them. (Dawn of Day, 205)

The irony of this—that it is the Jew in history who most conforms to the Christ archetype, even as he resembles Judas—ought to produce a wincing mortification in any introspective Christian. You say you wish to see the Jews perfected, but isn’t it you who seek to be perfected through us?

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?

Anyone can see how few self-supposed Christians are keen to really take up the Great Commission now that it threatens to cost them just a fraction of what it once did at Rome. More of the redeemed gave up their lives in those days than are willing to give up Instagram and a matching 401(k) in ours. But you are someone who has taken it up, and if I thought I could tell you any of what I’m writing down now, I have no doubt we would relate to one another preternaturally, you as spurned priest and I as execrated Jew, locked in antagonistic yet mutual, ascetical love and fear of the Almighty. My ultimate enemy, like yours, is Mammon and his priests, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and my own corollary impulses. Of course, a true friend will be the enemy of our enemy. So while I’m not holding out for your blessing, neither would I refuse it.

Sincerely,

O

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. III

We are all Palestinians

(Part I here, Part II here; Part IV here)

Almost all Palestinians who fink on other Palestinians to the Israeli security services do so in a limited manner under some form of duress. At worst, they do it for money. Mosab Hassan Yousef, on the other hand, is the only Palestinian to have betrayed his people wholesale, and voluntarily. This is typical: most peoples can count their historic traitors on one hand. After all, betraying us won’t make you one of them. It only nullifies you.

Essential human qualities—those that come from before—are intractable. Others define them for us. The best we can do is to live out the verdict with dignity. Do Jews tend to manage this very well? I’d laugh, but there’s a stabbing pain in my ribcage (both sides.)

In our previous installment, we were introduced to one Henry Makow, a Jew who, though he isn’t exactly an apostate, feels anything but warm and fuzzy about his heritage. Mr. Makow runs a conspiracy webzine where he alleges that, because (1) prominent Jews and Jewish interests are complicit in a global Satanic bankers’ conspiracy, (2) conspicuous Jewish opposition to that conspiracy would conciliate anti-semitism. I’ll readily grant the first of these two contentions: Weinstein, Epstein, Goldman Sachs, that punk Kushner—pretty greasy stuff. But what about Makow’s second contention?

Well, we know for a fact that there is indeed conspicuous Jewish opposition to the planetary managerial class. There are Jewish journalists, activists and academics who denounce the powers that be, in part or in whole. There are mainstream Jewish authors and historians whose research provides excellent fodder for those on the fringes who are willing to draw bolder conclusions. There are Jewish conspiracy theorists of Makow’s ilk. There are even Jews who beat their breasts denouncing Zionism wholesale and condemning Jewishness and Judaism in all its forms but the most prophetical, pusillanimous and pacifistic.

Does any of this ameliorate anti-semitism? Of course not. Anti-semitism is the conviction that Jewishness itself is immutable and fundamentally odious. (Antipathy toward Jews short of that threshold, I’m not defining here as anti-semitism.) From that perspective, Jewish opposition to any or all of the powers that be, and even to Zionism, is taken as strategic retreat, controlled opposition or ethnic obfuscation. For full-hilt anti-Semites (not a few of those abroad in the world nowadays) a Jew’s every word short of utter self-abnegation equals dissembling, or proof of incorrigibility—for chrissakes, that’s Internet 101.

In my lifetime, I’ve experienced anti-semitism mostly as a subdued curiosity, lurking in the form of the incorrigible ease with which Jewish culpability can be accepted in various quarters as sufficient explanation for complex and sundry events. But as I grew older and my own material for observation increased, I slowly began to realize that where Jews are disdained and suspected in this manner it is a continuation, never a fresh perspective or a novel analysis. Granted, I’ve habituated to taking accusations of anti-semitism with a grain of salt, because the ancient prejudice appeared to have been so throughly routed in the late 20th century, and because many Jews can be quite oversensitive. But over the past decade and a half of palpable civilizational decline, the attendant profusion of anti-semitic sentiment has given me an inkling of what it must have been like for my father’s people to weather this execration in overt form, day by day, generation after generation. I don’t that these people were holy innocents, but being blamed for the plague is a bit much.

It had been many years since I read Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew when I saw it quoted recently in an article about the alt-right:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. … If then, as we have been able to observe, the anti-Semite is impervious to reason and to experience, it is not because his conviction is strong. Rather his conviction is strong because he has chosen first of all to be impervious.

Granted, these are mere field notes, not hard science: Sartre’s remarks could apply to many progressives I’ve debated with about race and gender (arguing in bad faith, giving ridiculous reasons, etc.) But for a current example of the kind of moving-target anti-semitic logic he’s referring to specifically, I’ve dug up an article from an alt-right blog called Aryan Skynet, entitled “Global Rat-Perch: Jewish Misdirection in the Work of Michel Chossudovsky.”

Chossudovsky is an academic and the editor of an obscure anti-war, anti-neoliberal web journal called Global Research. The authors of the article first commend Chossudovsky for his anti-war reporting, but they take him to task for his analysis of Israeli culpability in US imperialism, which they feel is overly lax toward Israel:

Chossudovsky acknowledges the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and its collusion with the U.S.; but, for him, “Tel Aviv is not a prime mover” for intervention against Iran and “does not have a separate and distinct military agenda” from that of the Pentagon. Israel, for Chossudovsky, is only “part of a military alliance” – practically a pawn – that might “be used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of world opinion, a military intervention of the U.S. and NATO with a view to ‘defending Israel’, rather than attacking Iran.”

“Israel cannot launch a war against Iran without Washington’s consent. Hence the importance,” Chossudovsky avers, “of the so-called ‘Green Light’ legislation in the U.S. Congress sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution 1553, which explicitly supports an Israeli attack on Iran.”

“In practice,” he continues, “the proposed legislation was a ‘green light’ to the White House and the Pentagon rather than to Israel” and “constitutes a rubber stamp to a U.S.-sponsored war on Iran which uses Israel as a…. pretext.”

Of course, if events ever prove this surmise correct, the gentlemen at Aryan Skynet will promptly develop amnesia so as to go on blaming Jews and Jews alone. But a more benign anti-semitism would simply recognize that the US-Israel relationship is a business partnership, and that if you get into business with Jews, they’re going to get their share. Of course it’s perfectly plausible that the US inner-elite has long term plans involving the removal of the present Iranian regime, that their priorities are different from Israel’s, and that Israel is the junior—and more malleable—party to the partnership. If so, then it’s obvious that Iranian aggression toward Israel (real, imagined, or in-between) will be the most likely pretext for US action.

But that’s not what Chossudovsky is alleging.

The authors are correct that Chossudovsky ignores manifest Israeli interests vis a vis Iran—but that’s because he doesn’t even credit the Israelis with having their own interests. When a leftist yid doesn’t recognize Jewish power, it’s because he’s not terribly interested in Jewish power. Rather, he’s mired in moralism and victimology:

The real culprits, Chossudovsky alleges, are the “Anglo-American oil giants.”

“The U.S.-led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world’s reserves of oil and natural gas.” The best the professor can produce in the way of evidence for his claim is a Clinton-era National Security Statement citing the strategic interest of the U.S. in ensuring the security of Middle East oil reserves.

Well, that’s not bad evidence, and if it’s all Chossudovsky cites, it doesn’t mean there’s no additional evidence of long-term US geostrategic designs on the Eurasian landmass and its natural resources, designs to which Israeli concerns would obviously be subordinate. But if the authors of this critique (of Chossudovsky) can’t recognize Gentile powers and the interests of those parties, it’s because they, too are mired in moralism and victimology:

Dr. James Petras and Muhammad Idrees Ahmad have already lain this lamestream liberal canard to rest. “Through its all-out campaign in the U.S. Congress and Administration,” Petras observes in his book The Power of Israel in the United States, “the U.S.-Jewish-Israeli lobby has created a warlike climate which now goes counter to the interests of all the world’s major oil companies including BP, the UK-based gas company, SASOL (South Africa), Royal Dutch Shell, Total of France, and others.” Chossudovsky is not unaware of the work of Dr. Petras; he is simply engaging in racial and ideological obfuscation.

The oil companies—victims of ethnic obfuscation! I guess that’s one industry not controlled by yids.

Clearly, the authors mistake the mere existence of a counter-argument for a full refutation. But if they detect a dearth of evidence behind Chossudovsky’s claims due to a possible ethnic dimension to his worldview, why can’t they extend the same incredulity to Petras? Anti-semitism is a deeply cultural legacy. Is a scholar of Catholic background less subject to such biases than a Jewish colleague?

His blood be upon us and upon our children…. 

As for the putatively authoritative role of the U.S. Congress that Chossudovsky cites as evidence of Israel’s lack of agency in America’s foreign policy agenda, that is only a sickening joke in consideration of the fact that those in the know have for decades acknowledged that Israel’s U.S. lobby, AIPAC, grips the House and Senate.

Quit blaming the Romans, Jew!

Okay, so congressmen are manipulated by AIPAC. What? A whore can’t have more than one regular customer? “Grips the House and Senate” is a tad myopic. But Chossudovsky doesn’t say Congress is authoritative, he says they gave a rubber stamp.

In any case, Israel’s total GDP was $318.7 billion last year; ExxonMobile’s net worth is $486.4 billion. If the latter’s exertions in lobbying Congress (or those of the aerospace defense industry, or any of the myriad interests behind American imperialism) are less conspicuous than Israel’s, maybe it’s because there’s no ancient, international subculture of intrepid crackpots specializing in publishing salacious broadsides characterizing them as the one sinister key to understanding world history. But speaking of “lack of agency,” if the US enjoys effective veto power over Israel’s most sensitive defense priorities, and Congress is not authoritative, then Israeli lobbying efforts in Congress indicate a rather desperate negotiating position, and the difference between US leverage over Israel (on the one hand) and Israeli influence on the US (on the other) is the difference between a nutsack and an ingrown pubic hair.

Like all hopeless ideologues, the authors of Aryan Skynet are chafing under some inchoate sense of life’s unfairness they were never fully equipped to cope with as children. But if you get your education on YouTube and are readily reeled in by morality tales and faux-esoterica, then the party misdirecting you is not the obscure likes of a Michel Chossudovsky, nor even the Atlantic or the Washington Post—it is you. Reductio ad Iudaeoram is autonomic obscurantism. If you think the JQ is the rug that really ties the room together, you’re easily impressed. And yet, as we have seen, Jews themselves are taken in by this in a remarkably consistent manner.

How can yiddishkeit be untangled from its sadomasochistic relationship—from any relationship—with this sub-species of vindictive mediocrity?

I think, perhaps, it can’t. Judaism is indeed the problem, but not quite the way that anti-semites imagine.

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. II

Gaydar hyperdrive

(Part I here, Part III here, Part IV here, Part V here)

I would like to be wealthy, and in better shape. I certainly wouldn’t want to be homeless, or obese.

There are many things that I would like to be, and many things that I would not like to be, but to the extent that there’s anything essential in a human being, something that precedes him, what I want more than anything is to be exactly what I am.

But in the meantime I want to acquaint you, if you aren’t already familiar, with one Henry Makow, the proprietor of a ranty-ravey webzine concerned with exposing the Illuminati conspiracy, particularly its Jewish elements (Mr. Makow is a deeply conflicted Jew). Here is Mr. Makow’s take on anti-semitism:

Well, you cannot be a Christian if you’re involved in a Satanic conspiracy, but we know what Makow means by “Christian”: he means Gentiles. WASPs, to be precise, and probably also some descendants of traditionally Catholic ethnic groups. Once involved in a Satanic conspiracy, these people lose their essential (or vestigial) Christianity. The same cannot be said of Jewishness, of course, because Jews are a race (or an ethnicity, or whatever.) But if no one accuses Makow of being anti-WASP when he condemns the Rockefellers, it’s because Makow doesn’t conclude that the prominent involvement of WASPs in this conspiracy implicates all WASPs—nor does he seem to view anyone but Jews as having a need to redeem their national reputation by opposing it, even though he has said that the vast majority of Jews aren’t involved. Is Makow at least correct in assuming that opposition to it on the part of Jews would mitigate anti-semitism?

Of course he isn’t.

Perhaps another exhibit will illustrate why not.

Mosab Hassan Yousef is the son of a high-level Hamas operative—a high-level Hamas operative who spent decades in Israeli prisons. He spent decades in Israeli prisons because his son ratted him out. You see, Mosab Hassan Yousef is best known for defecting to Israel as an informant, and later immigrating to the United States, converting to Christianity, and authoring a tell-all about his experience, which he has promoted on various television shows.

To give you a very precise idea of where Mr. Yousef stands when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, here he is speaking before the UN Human Rights Council as they deliberate about one of their monthly or weekly resolutions condemning Israel:

Now, to the extent that I am a Zionist, I badly want to relish what Mr. Yousef is telling the committee—but I can’t.

It isn’t that what he says is not true—most of it is, and the part that is true constitutes a neglected message that needs to be heard loud and clear: the PLO is indeed a retrograde kleptocracy, thuggish even in comparison with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. But it is not “the greatest enemy of the Palestinian people,” that’s ridiculous. The greatest enemy of the Palestinian people is Israel, and Mosab Hassan Yousef may be right in every single one of his criticisms of Islam, the Arabs, and the various Palestinian factions. But when all is said and done, this is a man who betrayed his people, his family, his faith, and helped their mortal national adversaries imprison his own father. And now he lets himself be used as a marionette, because there’s no other kind of existence left for him but that of a stool pigeon.

As a Zionist, am I pleased that Yousef helped the Israeli authorities prevent attacks on Jews? Of course I am. I am very pleased by it, I’m even grateful to him. Yet when I look at Mosab Hassan Yousef, I can only feel total revulsion, because what I see is a faggot—and not just because of his textbook gayface. The simple fact is, Mosab Hassan Yousef is a worm, a complete betrayer, the type for whom Dante reserved the lowest circle of hell. We’re not talking about simple political betrayal, either—he’s not a North Korean who defected to the South. This guy betrayed his own blood, not just his family or his people but himself, his heritage, and everything that’s essential about him. To the extent that I identify with Israel, I can absolutely relate to a Palestinian irredentist who’s willing to bleed me bleach-white in the name of his worthy God and his lost homeland. I can respect that, even if I can’t tolerate it. But as much as I want to like him, a Mosab Hassan Yousef is intolerable to my soul. As is a guy like Henry Makow, who is so disproportionately mortified by any misdeed committed by a fellow Jew (as if he’s such a fine specimen himself) that, with the best of intentions and no sense of irony whatsoever, he can bring himself to pen an article entitled, “Anti Semitism is Legitimate Self Defense.” Of course, the whole history of anti-Semitism is one of scarcely discriminate massacre of disarmed, enfeebled people. Would Makow like somebody to murder him, or what? Yet perspectives like his really aren’t uncommon among Jews. What could possibly explain this extraordinary masochism? Can it be cured? On to Part III….

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. I

Valerie Plame

veyizmir

(Part II here, Part III here, Part IV here, Part V here)

“What have the Jews not done to prove that they do not stick together?” (Menachem Begin)

This week saw media coverage of author and (perhaps, former) CIA agent Valerie Plame, who provoked controversy when she tweeted an article from Unz Review titled, “America’s Jews are Driving America’s Wars.” Plame subsequently apologized and resigned in disgrace from a spook-tank called Ploughshares Fund.

A CIA agent pointing fingers about who’s driving America’s wars is pretty rich. (In the greater-DC area alone, how many horse faced goyim are dining on steak tonight or driving all-terrain motorized shopping carts out to their hot tubs, courtesy of the military-industrial complex? I guess they just don’t realize how egregiously they’re being taken advantage of.) What’s interesting about this little kerfuffle is that, ironically, Plame did nothing more than express the establishment position. Of course it can be a matter of degrees, but to assert in a major publication or on a university campus that Israel and her US supporters exercise critical, undue influence on US mideast policy has been uncontroversial for quite some time. I even recall an episode of The Simpsons making a joke to this effect as long ago as the late 1990s. (If I ever find the clip, I’ll hyperlink it.)

If, on the other hand, you really want to know what the US is up to in the mideast, it isn’t all that hard to find out. So this idea that, due to Jewish pressure, an otherwise cohesive and sober American elite (or an inept, naïve one) is sticking its neck out for Zionism with no corresponding ROI is pedestrian wisdom masquerading as radical, taboo and esoteric. And the notion that the global power elite is comprised of just so many portfolios being managed out of Tel Aviv by means of seamy Polaroid floppies and Monopoly money may never lose its mystique for the great plurality of intellectual minutemen. But Israeli meddling in US domestic politics, at least, can be explained with simple common sense: i.e., in order to mitigate overbearing US meddling in their affairs (particularly their aerospace defense sector, essentially an ankle-monitored junior partner to its US counterparts) the Israelis are leveraging the labyrinthine inertia of the American system just like other foreign actors—they just require more brainpower, man-hours and connections to accomplish what others can get done less conspicuously. For instance: the US puts personnel in actual harm’s way by the tens of thousands to defend Poland, Saudia and South Korea. Yet no one ever thinks to inquire about these arrangements as if they’re particularly fishy, ulterior, or inexplicable.

In any case, US aid to Israel is equivalent to about 0.7% of the overall US defense budget ($5 billion versus $640 billion annually). Zionism has less to do with America’s wars than Lutheranism. (If you think I’m being facetious, click the hyperlink.) The question is, why would that be so counter-intuitive for so well-informed an insider as Valerie Plame? She may only be a lackey, but she’s got to know a thing or two about how the system works.

According to her Twitter profile, “Valerie is a wife, mother of twins, author, anti-nuclear activist, and a former covert CIA ops officer.” In other words, she’s a legally blond soccer mom in the big city. But while nothing a CIA agent (former or otherwise) says can be taken at face value, it does seem as though Plame was very deliberate in tweeting the article. For one thing, she didn’t have to, and there was, apparently, personal cost involved—and before you quote Voltaire (i.e., “If you want to know who rules over you, find out who you cannot criticize”) I’ll have you recall that you’re also not exactly allowed to speak impolitely in public about the mentally retarded, or say nigger, or question the sanity of men who claim they need surgical castration in order to self actualize; but no one seriously believes that transgendered niggers with Down Syndrome are running the government.

In tweeting her subsequent mea culpa Plame pled ignorance of the article’s contents:

I skimmed this piece, zeroed in on the neocon criticism, and shared it without seeing and considering the rest. I missed gross undercurrents to this article & didn’t do my homework on the platform this piece came from.

This is not only implausible, but irrelevant. I mean, “undercurrents”? The headline reads “America’s Jews are Driving America’s Wars.” In the same Twitter thread, Plame tweeted that, “in the past, I have also carelessly retweeted articles from this same site”—clearly she’s well aware of “the platform this piece came from.” Clearly, Plame wants (or wants others) to believe that America’s Jews are driving America’s wars. The question is, why?

Certainly Plame is no innocent lamb when it comes to America’s toxic impact in the world. You don’t even have to be a covert intel operative to know what I just noted above: that Congress just proposed a $640 billion defense budget for 2018, a $37 billion increase over the Trump administration’s $603 billion request for the same year and a $57.3 billion increase over the Obama administration’s $582.7 billion defense budget for the prior year. America’s Jews are driving this?

If so, it hardly makes sense that Valerie Plame would condemn them for it, because she can hardly regard the US as anything but a force for good in spite of its all worts. To consider other possibilities would be to confess venality. Ms. Plame, after all, is a product and lifelong servant of the system, and it’s axiomatic in our day that machiavellianism tends to fly under cover of sanctimony. Much more convenient—and well-precedented—to blame the Jews wholesale. But Valerie Plame—neé Plamevotski—is kinda, sorta…. Jewish (not to mention Lutheran.)

What makes so many Jews and partial-Jews denounce their own kind like this? The Christian critique of Jewish moral turpitude has long been aped by Jews—in part as a distancing mechanism, a defense against criticism, but also because many Jews love not only to morally agonize, but to remind people how ethnically special they think they are. It is nowhere clear that Valerie Plame is invested enough in Jewishness to make this true in her case. The question remains, however: what makes anyone settle on clandestine Jewish machinations to explain so comprehensively such diverse and multifarious phenomena? The great, torpid ease with which this is so often done ought to offend the meagrest intelligence. Is there nevertheless something about Jewishness that provokes or exacerbates it? (Of course there is.) Is there a way for Jews to mitigate it, without stentorian public self-flagellation over the Palestine question, or who controls Hollywood? (Probably not.) Either way, how should persons of Jewish provenance orient themselves to it?

Stay tuned for our next installment…..

 

 

 

Crypto-fascist, Crypto-Jew

zionism-equals-nazism

Bro I wish

Part II of a series in progress….. Part I here, Part III forthcoming

I.

When I was eighteen, I beat up a white power skinhead. My late-adolescent self-seeking had taken a schlocky, Daniel Deronda kind of turn, so any opportunity to defend Jewish honor I felt I had to take, no matter how contrived. I guess I fancied myself a little like the Jewboy Schwartz in Porky’s. 

Anyway, as I was standing with a gaggle of crust punks one weekday afternoon on a downtown corner across from the bus station, a sinewy little guy with a shorn pate and narrow mustache strolled up in boots, braces, beater and bomber, drew one of my punker compadres aside and transacted a drug deal inconspicuously. Then he started back on his way—that is, until I shoved him, hard, from behind. On that day I decided I would simply refuse to accept that neo-Nazis should make themselves visible.

He turned around to face me, breathing through his open mouth, his incisors streaked a scummy, bacterial yellow. He had grimy pores and crusted-over scabs, his fingers were nicotine stained and filthy under the nails. There were little SS lighting bolt runes tattooed on one side of his neck, an iron cross on the other.

I stepped forward and poked him in the chest. Fear flashed momentarily across his eyes but he steadied his gaze, grinning as he reached into his beater and flipped out a brass swastika on a long, thin chain around his neck. That was when I hauled off.

I managed to land a solid several thumps upside his noggin as he flailed, until suddenly he surged into me at chest level, Hail Mary-like—head down, forearms up blocking. He managed to back me up a few steps, grabbing me by the shirt collar as he poked his little radish head up to bite me, square on the nose. The shock of this lent him the further momentum to bare down and take me tumbling to the pavement, back first. I almost rolled him but he bore down hard again, straddling my chest as he tried to strangle me. He overplayed his hand, though: as he wound back to clock me point blank, I availed myself of the empty space between my sternum and his groin, gripped him square in the nether region with one hand and up under an armpit with the other, then pulled him sideways into my chest and flipped him square on his back.

I mounted, I grounded, I pounded. Quite often the toughness of recidivist scumbags has more to do with the capacity to absorb a beating than to mete one out. He struggled, quivering with desperate futility, like a live fish held down for gutting.

Then suddenly I heard a crisp “snap!” I thought the sound was his nose breaking, which it was. Although I didn’t feel the pain immediately, it would also turn out to be the distal metacarpals on my mean right shattering in several places each. The pain settled in a second later, as I looked down and noticed that my opponent, though conscious, had given up, and was bleeding profusely from his nose and mouth.

Just then, someone yelled “cops!”

I looked up to see two peace officers, a man and a woman, sprinting towards us down the sidewalk some fifty yards off. I hopped up, bolted and rounded the nearest corner. Within two blocks I’d completely lost my pursuers and cut through the parking lot of a gated condo complex to a corner hamburger shack on the other side that had a pay phone booth in its back parking lot, out of view of the street. My dad was just getting off work and I called him for a ride.

II.

Awhile after that, once my broken hand had mended, I saw a member of the same local clique of white power skinheads strolling past me on the same downtown block. He was wearing a trucker hat on which he’d stenciled an iconic punk-rock anti-fascist symbol….

keepctryt

Only $12.99 on Angry, Young & Poor LMFAO

….only in his rendition, the stick figure was trashing a Star of David, not a swastika. I was so shocked by this meager display of literacy that I doubted what I had seen until he was well out of sight, but twenty minutes later he came back in the opposite direction with a slice of pizza in one hand.

As he passed by I snorted, ‘Nice hat.’ He turned to see who’d paid him the compliment and I mean-mugged him like I intended to do him harm. He froze, gazing back indecisively, whereupon I decked him in the face with my skateboard, an act I hadn’t planned nor even anticipated from myself. His pizza slice went flying as he dropped, hard, straight back. As soon as he hit the pavement he began seizing violently. I found out later that I had actually cracked his eye socket.

If you go out of your way to seriously insult strangers, you should probably be better prepared for a backlash than this guy was. But then, if you set out to harm everyone who says stuff you don’t like, you’d better know your limits a little better than I knew mine. I’d been reading a lot about the Irgun and Murder, Inc., but imitating them didn’t feel so good. I had beaten people with fists before, but this was the first time I used a weapon. In an instant I had become a more brutal creature than I realized I was, or ever had been. Frozen in shock, staring down at my victim, I experienced the disembodying sensation of a strong compassionate impulse concurrent with the realization that I had now forfeited my right to feel it. When I reemerged into linear time I heard shouting, and glanced up just soon enough to outrun bus station security.

I was less than six months out of high school then, and while I was heavily into pot and earning C grades at the local community college on my Jew-doctor daddy’s dime, my best friend Max (a goy, if you must know, and a profoundly goyische one, at that) was getting heavily into meth. He used to flop at a mutual friend’s apartment, where a female roommate was dating one of the skinheads, who also happened to be meth retailers. They would party there too, and crash on weekend nights. Word got back to me from Max that the White Power crew was looking for me and that their leader, a hardened ex-con by the nom de guerre of ‘Panther,’ had vowed to handle me personally. I didn’t know what Panther looked like, but he sounded fearsome.

III.

At that time I was also running a moderately lucrative sideline in pot (re-upping weekly by the quarter-pound), and one of my occasional customers was a six-and-a-half foot homeless high-yellow, also an ex-con, who bore an uncanny resemblance to Lawrence Fishburne—pockmarks and all—and went by a nom de guerre of his own, ‘The Reverend.’

In some visceral, sub-conscious nether region I understood perfectly well how predatory blacks can be, but at that age the psychic patina of racial pathos and Pavlovian guilt-inculcation at the hands nearly two decades’ worth of Hollywood movies and civics lessons prevented me from metabolizing this information to the full benefit of my survival instincts. If defending Jewish honor was a legacy passion project, evasion of actual danger was a work in progress.

Perhaps intentionally, The Reverend dressed a lot like Morpheus from The Matrix, in a ratty trench coat over an unwashed hoodie, with greasy cargo pants and army boots. His hustle was fortune telling for racially solicitous post-pinko granolas at a card table he used to set up in front of a health food store on the downtown strip, with a purple velvet table cloth where he’d lay out crystals for sale. Obsequious in characteristically downtrodden-black fashion, with that opportunistic malice lurking plainly underneath, The Reverend used to call me ‘Young Buck,’ and I showed my appreciation for his backhanded flattery by over-weighing his twomp sacks by a half-gram. Sometimes I’d smoke a joint with him just to be friendly. I was listening to a lot of rap music at that age.

One day as I was making my rounds on the downtown strip, I passed by The Reverend’s tarot table when he hailed me. I was carrying a bag of fruits and vegetables I’d just purchased from the health food store. He asked if I had any bud for sale, and slid a twenty spot onto the table. I snapped up the bill, slid my backpack down one arm and fished out a half-eighth (about half a gram more than I normally charged twenty for). But The Reverend gave a pensive, dissatisfied grimace and deadpanned, ‘Now why you tryin’ ta short me, homie?’ My balls dropped a bit as it dawned on me exactly what The Reverend took me for—ironically, this Morpheus-lookalike kind of redpilled me that day. As I returned the weed to my backpack and tossed his twenty-spot back onto the table I told him, “Go fuck your mother you shitty fuckin’ nigger.” It was the first (and second to last) time in my life I availed myself of that epithet in the second person.

Well that must not’ve made The Reverend’s day, because no sooner had I made my way half a block up from where he sat than I heard someone murmur, “The fuck you say to me?” and when I looked back over my shoulder, there was The Reverend in hot pursuit. I turned, snarling to face him and he stopped about three feet shy of me.

The Reverend was fairly big. He probably could have fucked me up; he probably could have fucked me. A crowd gathered ’round as we stared each other down, but this didn’t register immediately. All that was going through my head was that fight-or-flight electric slow-mo, and while (relative to his size) I might not have had the ablest fight in me, there was no flight. On that day—in spite of the stifling, kumbaya college-town atmosphere and the gaping hipsters and granolas gathered ’round to spectate—I simply refused to accept that I owed a predatory hustler anything but flagrant contempt.

The Reverend looked around at the assembled throng and decided to go for a half-measure: kicking around the back of my shins in big circular motions, trying to trip me. I jumped, took a step back, and grabbed an apple out of the grocery bag I had dangling from my wrist. My side-hand curve went ‘thwap!’ upside The Reverend’s head and dropped to the sidewalk broken open, dripping juice; then I hurled another, and another, each one landing with a ‘thwap!’ as we danced around in circles like a folk jig, him still trying to trip me, until I was out of apples.

Realizing, I suppose, that this spectacle was liable to cost him business, after a minute or so The Reverend stopped, hung his head sullenly, and skulked back to his tarot table to pack up his things. As I moved on up the strip, the atmosphere around me seemed to inflate with a laden tingling of shame. Had anyone heard me say nigger? Would word get around? Would I now be labelled a racist?

In just a few short months, The Reverend had made himself such a figure in town that at one point, about a month prior, he officiated a well-attended, interactive ‘white privilege’ self-flagellation demo organized by some intrepid sociology students at the university campus. It even got written up in the local weekly. But after our confrontation I never saw him in town again.

But the day of our confrontation, as I tender-hoofed my way up the strip and away from the scene, the strangest thing happened. A lousy, shirtless, sunburned little man with a shorn pate, wearing blue jeans, combat boots and braces came straggling along behind me. When he caught up he blurted out, breathless, ‘Are you having trouble with that nigger?’ Unsure of his intentions and leery of being judged by any proximate third-parties who might’ve seen what just happened, I replied ‘Hey man, that’s some pretty strong language right there.’ But when I glanced over I noticed that he was covered from torso to neck in Nazi tattoos. This dude intended to lend me moral support on the grounds of white solidarity. ‘Man, I hate that fuckin’ nigger. Just out here preyin’ on dumb fucks in this town. You don’t have to take that shit.’

‘I don’t know if you wanna take my part, bro. I’m Jewish.’

‘Well…..’ He paused. ‘I don’t have anything against Jews. I just have a problem with certain Zionists.’ I was taken aback, not at the note of acceptance but at the vocabulary, and not because it was impressive, but because it existed at all.

‘Name’s Panther.’ He extended a hand and we shook. Panther was small enough I could’ve picked him up and tossed him in a trash compactor. ‘Stay out of trouble, brother. Just look at me’—he was pretty haggard—‘it ain’t worth it.’ And off he went into the evening.

Herzog to Amona residents: Zionism is not a land grab….

amona

“‘To build a home and plant a tree’ I told ’em, LMFAO.”

…..per the Times of Israel.

Pardon me while I die laughing. Zionism, not a land grab! Life is a land grab, I could see excepting pacifism or Buddhism or beta-male hipster bisexuality, but Zionism? Herzog could’ve logically said, “Grab this, not that, grab strategically.” He could’ve said “Grab ’em by the pussy” with greater dispassion, because the basis of leftism is wishful thinking, which is why the Netanyahu administration is starting to look like Putin in terms of longevity in office.

In the same vein, during the Q&A at white nationalist Richard Spencer’s recent talk on the Texas A&M campus, the local Hillel’s young rabbi roused himself:

You’re here preaching a message of radical exclusion. My tradition teaches a message of radical inclusion and love. Will you sit down and learn Torah with me, and learn love?

Radical inclusion! Perhaps King Solomon should’ve divided the baby, so as to’ve been radically inclusive of both broads? Spencer handily eviscerated this low-hanging fruit:

Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel? Maybe all of the Middle East could move into Tel Aviv or Jerusalem…. Look, the Jews exist precisely because they did not practice inclusion [and] I respect that about you.

But if we cannot respect ourselves enough to look in the mirror, how can we expect our adversaries to respect us enough to stop stabbing us for sport under the anatomically ill-proportioned nose of the world’s fourth most powerful army? Liberal Judaism is a masochistic sickness. I’ve yet to encounter a mindset more autonomically empty behind the eyes. Its practitioners mask their real aims from themselves, and the Arabs know it. I hear they’re accepting Levantine asylees in Stuttgart this year, if land grabbing’s not your thing.