gigachad-library/bap-on-israels-problem.html

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
    <meta charset="UTF-8">
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
    <title>BAP on Israel&#39;s Problem — GigaChad</title>
    <link rel="icon" href="/favicon.ico">
    <link rel="stylesheet" href="/style.css?v=1">
    <meta property="og:type" content="website">
    <meta property="og:title" content="BAP on Israel&#39;s Problem — GigaChad">
    <meta property="og:description" content="The greatest website on the interwebz!">
    <meta property="og:image" content="/icons/chads/chad.png">
</head>
<body>
<script>
const setTheme = () => {
    const root = document.documentElement
    const storage = localStorage.length > 0 ? localStorage : sessionStorage
    for (let key in storage) {
        if (storage.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
            root.style.setProperty(key, storage.getItem(key))
        }
    }
}
setTheme()
document.addEventListener('visibilitychange', () => { if (!document.hidden) setTheme() })
</script>
    <h1>BAP on Israel&#39;s Problem</h1>
    <div style="text-align: center;">
        <a href="/"><img class="epic" src="/icons/chads/chad.png"></a>
    </div>
    <hr>
<p class="nav"><span class="nav-left">Listed under <a href="/bronze-age-pervert.html">Bronze Age Pervert</a>.</span><span class="nav-right"><a href="/theme.html">Theme</a></span></p>
<p>From the <a href="https://theamericansun.com/2019/08/01/bap-on-israels-problem/" target="_blank">original article</a> on August 1, 2019. Author: Bronze Age Pervert.</p>
<p><em>Today we bring to you a special missive from BronzeAgePervert on Israel, nationalism and Hazony.</em></p>
<p>Some on dissident right troll about Israel as ethnostate or unapologetic nationalist state. It’s stock argument on the non-neocon right. It’s very strong. There is yet no answer to this trolling at least from those who would support Israeli nationalism but use extreme and immoderate language—“Nazis,” “nativists”—to refer to the same in other parts of the world. Richard Spencer confounded an Israel apologist with this argument in public, and it was a great embarrassment for the upholders of this double standard. (Spencer, who is not my fan, nor I his, must be given this credit nevertheless, and it must also be said: he was physically attacked soon after this episode, swamped with antifa).</p>
<p>There can’t in principle be an exception for Israel, or any
acceptable reason for the idea: “<em>nationalism
only in Israel</em>”. But this isn’t whole story and there is value beyond
trolling in thinking about Israel’s foundation and Israel’s troubles. One can
learn from its problems. It isn’t as healthy and vibrant a nationalism as some
think.</p>
<p>To understand the Israel problem is important to look at
Israeli history and its founding. The problem is that its founding principles
are in theory no longer accepted either inside or outside the country. But
they’re rejected for different reasons by Israelis and by liberal Westerners.
Israeli nationalists are in the difficult situation of trying to set this right
somehow.</p>
<p>Israel was founded in the ideology of Herzl as Ashkenazi
supremacist state. Some in Israel still desire this. The idea of Herzl was
simple: the Jews seemed to him to be an exceedingly gifted people in many
areas, and very creative, but their potential was squelched by having to live
in others’ countries where they were oppressed and where furthermore they were
degenerating into an unacceptable creature. Herzl and the early Zionists
largely agreed with the anti-Semites on the bad way that diaspora Jews had
turned out, especially in the Ashkenazi world, at least from a moral and
physical point of view. Max Nordau, an early Zionist, was also a promoter of
eugenics and was an avowed racialist. Israel as an independent nation would
correct these faults: Israel would make vigorous and courageous <em>men </em>out Jews again. Not Woody Allen, but
Moshe Dayan and Samson were to be the models of the Israelis in the 20<sup>th</sup>
Century.</p>
<p>More important, Herzl’s new state of Israel would free up
Ashkenazi creativity and allow them to shine finally: but is important to
remember here what he meant by shine. For Herzl, the shining of the Ashkenazi
was to be an entirely European shining. With maybe certain qualities of its
own: maybe is possible for example to hear in Mahler this or that Jewish
sensibility, but he is a European composer through and through, inconceivable
outside European civilization, and for Herzl and those like him, the early
founders, Israel was to be a shining exemplar of European culture and European
civilization. Israel’s contributions were to be to European science and culture,
and Israel itself an extension of European civilization, an outpost of European
colonialism. This attitude is especially marked in Nordau and others like him. The
brilliance of the Jews is taken to be the brilliance of the Ashkenazi who
became what he was because of Europe; the history of the Yemenite or Georgian
Mountain Jew or other such is unedifying and shows what Jews would have been
without European civilization and European culture. In Herzl’s words from his
manifesto on the Jewish State, when he is considering the advantages of
Palestine versus Argentina as a refuge:</p>
<blockquote>
  “We should [in Palestine] form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia<em>, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.</em> We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded by assigning to them an extra-territorial status such as is well-known to the law of nations. We should form a guard of honor about these sanctuaries, answering for the fulfilment of this duty with our existence. This guard of honor would be the great symbol of the solution of the Jewish Question after eighteen centuries of Jewish suffering.”
</blockquote>
<p>Ashkenazi creativity aside, it should be emphasized that for
Herzl, as for later Zionists, Israel was to be a solution to the plight of the
average Jew, and the Jewish common man, not for the benefit of the Jewish leadership.</p>
<p>To this early strain of Zionism was later added another that
introduced however only minor modifications from a public relations point of
view: that of the kind of ethnic nationalism that became powerful in central
and eastern Europe in the early 1900’s and through the 1930’s. Out of
embarrassment this is often called, uncomfortably, socialist nationalism but
the distinctions between this and German national socialism are trivial at
least in the case of Israel. </p>
<p>The main organ of this was the Hashomer Hatzair youth guard
movement, openly modeled on the German Wandervogel youth movement, and
indistinguishable from other nationalist European scouting movements of the
time. In the intellectual and political work of men like Jabotinsky and Abba
Ahimeir, and organizations such as the Irgun and the Palmach, this strain had
its full development: and Jabotinsky was proud above all that the Ashkenazis
were proving to be the <em>colonial people
par excellence, the consummate European colonialists. </em>(In this sense, as a
colonial, settler, and conquering enterprise, closely tied with the British
Empire, Israeli socialist nationalism is entirely unlike Kurdish or Basque
varieties of the same, and can’t be easily aligned with the international left&#8230;and
in practice it’s never been really aligned with the international left but with
the colonial settler right, e.g., South Africa.) The purely theoretical
distinction between leftist socialist nationalism and rightist German national
socialism was never very clear anyway, and Israel’s specifically colonialist
version places it much closer to the German type.</p>
<p>I must repeat a historical peculiarity: both these strains of
Zionism, that of Herzl, and that of later Jewish national socialism, had
tremendous contempt for the weak Jewish diaspora shtetl being, and leftists to
this day resent them for “<em>perpetuating
anti-Semitic stereotypes</em>”. It is alleged even by some on both the left and
the right that the Zionists worked together with the Nazis to promote migration
to Palestine, which was, by the way, the original intention of the Nazis
themselves until Britain closed the sea ways. The point man for this
collaboration would have been Adolf Eichmann, a man fluent in Hebrew, whose
role in World War II is then said to have been somewhat distorted by the
mainstream accepted version of history. That is to say, it seems that Israel
targeted him later in Argentina not for his supposed role in the murder of
millions of Jews (there were several other more prominent living in South
America and elsewhere that Israel could have targeted), but because he had
knowledge of this intimate collaboration. This isn’t the place to treat this
problem, but there is plenty of evidence for it. Consider, for example, just
one very small peculiarity that can never be explained away: Eichmann’s strange
situation in Argentine Nazi society, his very low and marginal status in that
society at the time Israel apprehended him. He was foreman at a Mercedes
factory, living in extreme poverty in a hut outside town without electricity,
and openly under his own name fearing no retribution.</p>
<p>In any case, the main two currents of Israeli or Zionist secular
nationalism were the two: Herzl and his vision of an Ashkenazi supremacist
colonial state where the Jews would be free to contribute at the heights of
European civilization and culture; and the second, east or central European
Yiddish national socialism, based on the ideology of national socialism in
almost every point, and founded on the need for racial survival, for living
space, and on a pride of the Jews as among the finest colonialists, to use
Jabotinsky’s own words. </p>
<p>Whatever protestations exist abroad, anyone who has known Sabras
furthermore knows their extreme pride at having dispossessed the Arabs of their
land. This Israel is therefore a part of European world civilization. In its
colonial aspect it is an extension of the Anglo colonial project and can be
understood in multiple ways, physical, spiritual, intellectual, as an outgrowth
of the British Empire. In its national socialist strain, of Jabotinsky and Abba
Ahimeir, it is an outgrowth of a later European ethnic or racial nationalism
that was both in theory and in practice opposed to English internationalism or
globalism, but not, however to the colonial aspect, nor to a European
civilization from which it continued to draw spiritual and intellectual
legitimacy as well as physical support.</p>
<p>Among Israel’s first champions are those like Richard
Meinertzhagen, flamboyant English adventurers and Arabists of the type Nietzsche
at one point praises as men who replenish vital spirits within civilization: “<em>exploration is an excuse</em>…” Such men
didn’t particularly like Jews from the diaspora and only changed their mind in
the Sinai and Palestine. The cooperation between such extremely English
adventurers, neo-Richard Burtons, and the early Zionists was important and was
recognized by the Israelis themselves, who continue to see them as great men
and champions of their cause. In this and other ways, Israel is but a foothold
and leftover of the British Empire. This cooperation was stupidly ended by
America during the Suez Crisis.</p>
<p>Israel has become a “spiritual anachronism.” It is a nation
very much of the 1930’s and has been scrambling to find a justifying principle,
or at least some public relations principle, outside of that world that is now
gone. </p>
<p>In the Third World, Israel is hated because it is perceived
as a Western and white colonialist state, not because it is specifically
Jewish. This is the way it has always been perceived and denounced in the third
world and in the Arab world. In fact, the Jews had quite good relations with
Arabs and Muslims before the foundation of Israel, and in history were frequent
collaborators against European civilization as, I hear, at Toledo, at
Marseille, and elsewhere. And it is for this collaboration that the Jews of
Spain in part were punished (the other reason is more interesting, and has to
do with the converso priests’ attempted modulation of the Catholic teachings, a
matter I will treat another time). But modern Israel is hated as a white
settler supremacist state, whatever the attitudes of the diaspora Jews may be
in their own countries.</p>
<p>Here exactly is Israel’s problem. Israel is a European
colonial state dependent on a civilization that now at least in rhetoric abhors
explicit “settler colonialism.” Worse even: the moral foundation of the
“liberal world order,” that is “Western civilization,” after World War Two is
rejection of Nazism and in particular it is founded on the international laws
implicit in the Nuremberg trials. The definition of evil, the opponent, of the
Western world is national socialism; a national socialism that is the dominant
intellectual strain in Israel’s foundation. Israel has been given an exception
under Nuremberg—indeed it is the only state after 1945 to be given such an
exemption. </p>
<p>It’s easy to come up with all kinds of arguments here that
this isn’t true: that, for example, Israel has a supreme court that is quite
leftist and that often checks the executive. That furthermore, such an
institution is anything but Nazi; that Arabs are allowed to serve in parliament,
that they enjoy a higher standard of living than in Arab countries, and so on.
I would add even worse things: the Western rot of globohomo and sexual license,
and many other such things, have hollowed out Israeli society as much as
anywhere else. It’s very far away from its period of healthy nationalist scouts
in shorts planting orange trees and singing over campfires. It’s very far from
a healthy nationalist society, whatever both Israel skeptics like Steve Sailer
believe, and Israel defenders like Hazony proclaim. These are all nonsequiturs.
Israel’s reason for existence continues to be the reason it was founded: it is
a state founded for the sake of <em>racial
survival. </em>As such it doesn’t matter that it experiences cultural decay,
political instability, or that it has grafted on some other institutions,
borrowed from Western liberalism, which it had to borrow primarily for public
relations purposes, and which all Israelis recognize as alien and as part of
what makes them weaker, not stronger. Its spiritual foundation and reason for
existence is national socialist through and through, and it is in the realm of
the spirit that the fight I’m discussing here is taking place.</p>
<p>The problem the well-promoted neo-grifter Yoram Hazony faces,
which I’ve sketched out so far, exists in Israel itself and has existed at
least for twenty or thirty years. The Labor movement that inherited one part of
secular Zionism discredited itself during the Second Intifada. Netanyahu’s strain
is that of Jabotinsky and Abba Ahimeir. There are also religious parties that
want religious policies enacted. Israelis had no more patience with the left or
with approaches to Western liberalism after the Second Intifada. Western
liberalism was firmly rejected in Israel in the 2000’s as much as it was
rejected in Russia in the 1990’s, for different reasons, but ultimately because
both saw it couldn’t solve an existential crisis. But the problem in Israel, as
elsewhere, was deeper than this, and had to do with a spiritual crisis as well:
the public ideology of the state became no longer accepted, or at least, it
inspired no further enthusiasm. </p>
<p>The nihilism that came upon Israel during the Second Intifada
in particular is hard for Westerners to grasp. I remember meeting <em>left-wing </em>Israeli immigrants at the time
who talked like Schmitt and who were relieved that they could talk frankly,
finally, to an avowed nihilist nutcase like myself. Others who weren’t on the
left told me the settlers on the West Bank felt broken and were hoping for a messiah.
In this terrible condition arrived various apologists: Alan Dershowitz was an
apologist for Israel, and sought to make the case that only the New Left could
provide a moral defense of Israel. The tiresome arguments about Israel as a
beacon of human rights are still repeated now, but convince no one. His
argument is totally rejected inside Israel itself, however, and Hazony as well
as the Netanyahu wing is as supreme there as Orban is in Hungary or as
Netanyahu’s friend Putin is in Russia.</p>
<p>What they seem to have settled on eventually was a kind of
“religious Zionism.” I don’t pretend to understand it, and from what I can see
it’s exceptionally poorly thought out, but public principles have to correspond
to feelings, not to intellectual demands, and there’s no feeling like the
desire for survival. Israel is hardly a theological state now, nor could it be
unless it is ruled by judges of the Talmudic law. But public authorities as
well as the people at large seem to have settled on a religious <em>flavor, </em>if not exactly a full or clear religious
justification, let alone a pious religious life, for Israel’s existence. A
religious state looks like Iran; it doesn’t look like Orban’s Hungary, Putin’s
Russia, Salazar’s Portugal, or Netanyahu’s Israel.</p>
<p>It is interesting to think in this connection about the
much-vaunted role of “Biblical religion” in promoting strong government. Israel
has a relatively easy time justifying itself in a religious way, but not as
easy as some think. The unity of the Jewish religion with the Jewish nation has
often been remarked upon. But the question of establishing an actual state is a
little different: the religious authorities in the modern Jewish nation—I speak
now not of modern Israel but of the Jewish nation as it’s existed in known
history since around 600 AD or so—are not the Captains of Spinoza’s “ancient
Hebrew Republic,” not military leaders or kings, but priests, rabbis. The
Karaites, who follow directly the Torah and not the rabbis, used to be many in
number but were almost bullied out of existence by the Talmudic Jews. And if
earnestly pursued, the establishment of a “religious state” in Israel would
empower a council of such rabbis at the expense of actual leaders. It was always
the criticism of traditional secular Zionists—the ones, after all, who founded
Israel not waiting for religious deliverance—that it was precisely the rabbis,
the priests, that had corrupted the Jewish nation to weakness and that made
impossible its ability to establish a state. It was the religious organization
of the Jewish nation that made it powerless according to the founders of Israel
(perhaps it is for this reason that Hazony keeps talking Torah, which is hardly
ever directly read in Jewish religious tradition, and never Talmud, which is to
his people what the New Testament, or even the catechism, is to traditional
Catholics). </p>
<p>The truly religious fanatics in Israel don’t serve in the
military and are resented by the rest of the population: insofar as Israel is a
“religious state,” it is so only in a symbolic way, where religion is used as a
matter of social utility or public relations or as inspiration for identity.
That is so only from the point of view of public government: in private, there
is a religious Orthodox revival worldwide among Jews, and especially in Israel,
and the piety there is genuine. But a religious population, however good it may
be for the preservation of public morality and as a buttress to a strong state,
doesn’t make the state itself religious, nor its reasons for existing.</p>
<p>Putting cat back in the bag is very hard; cats don’t like!
Hazony’s “religious Jewish nation” has been tried before, in the diaspora, and
was rejected by secular Zionists for a reason. It is powerless. Similarly,
Hazony would like to promote a Protestant “religious nationalism” in the
Western nations and in America specifically, a Protestantism that no longer
exists. Even if this militant Protestantism of the past still existed—is he
counting, still on the evangelicals?—its relationship to the main concerns of
nationalists in the West now is unclear. Hasn’t evangelical mobilization
already been tried under Karl Rove? Why does Hazony think that pushing Karl
Rove’s neocon-evangelical alliance is the path forward and is “nationalist,”
when it led to the manifest disasters of the Bush years?</p>
<p>What does religious state have to do, for example, with mass
Third World migrations? Finally supposing the solid Protestant nationalism of
the past could be revived in the West, its relationship to Talmudic Judaism now
and also historically is a complete fantasy—and insofar as an
evangelical-Jewish alliance is promoted it relies on the former’s total
ignorance of the Jewish religion as it’s existed for centuries. But in any case
that “religious nationalism,” such as it was, existed already according to
Hazony and, if so, it was insufficient to confront liberalism. It lost that
struggle. What concretely is Hazony offering that is different from the
failures of the past?</p>
<p>It is not out of perversity that the modern right rejects a
religious approach, but because of traditional religion’s demonstrable
inability to oppose liberalism and communism or indeed to provide any coherent
political organization at all. Again, this is true for Hazony’s nation as well…<em>secular </em>Zionism was adopted out of felt
political necessity. And for all the fears about “Islamic radicalism” the
example of ISIS among many others shows that when given the chance to lead,
it’s politically extremely weak and in fact much weaker than secular Arab
nationalism and Baathism. It’s easy to imagine that a “religious state” must be
very powerful for people who don’t study history of actual states. A religious
state must surely be so certain in itself, so fanatical, that it <em>must </em>be strong? But no. Islamic
radicalism has been promoted by factions in Israel because it is indeed so much
weaker than secular Arab nationalism when given leadership.</p>
<p>For Hazony and his modern Israel, “religious Zionism” is
little more than a pep talk—at most it is not an idea of state or of the
meaning of Israel or of nationalism, but an electoral strategy. It means in
practice next to nothing but an alliance between the racial socialism of the
Jabotinsky wing of Netanyahu and the religious parties in Israel who are needed
for a coalition; and this “alliance” amounts to Likud throwing out the
occasional bone to the religious demands of the Mizrahi and other Jews, who are
genuinely religious in their private and social lives. Without religion the Mizrahi
Jews would indeed come apart as a people, but not for reasons usually said.</p>
<p>The right, the true Right which found its roots in
Nietzsche’s radical philosophy in the early 20<sup>th</sup> Century, never
really thought to look to the Bible to solve the problem of state and religion,
and certainly never thought to look at the dispossessed and stateless rabbinic
Jewish nation as a model. In truth, neither did the Zionists, as I keep
repeating: they rejected that model of existence entirely. The true right of
which I consider myself also part, the Nietzschean new right after 1900, found
inspiration rather in Shintoism, and it is for this reason that they had and
continue to have so much respect for Japan historically. In the person of the
Emperor, Shintoism solved finally and completely the problem of unity of
religious and national political life. The Japanese thinking on <em>sonnoron, </em>of reverence for the Emperor
that reached its peak in the 19<sup>th</sup> Century, and all the practices
that came from this, are the perfect model of national political life and
national identity to a man of the right. </p>
<p>The only thing like it that had existed in our world was the
Roman Emperor, but even that only in certain very brief periods; and also
somewhat in the theory of sovereignty developed by the Byzantines. Otherwise
the entire “Biblical” framework for relationship between religion and political
life has often proven very unstable, whether in European history or Jewish history,
and it has led to political weakness as much as political strength. It has
empowered religious authorities and critics at the expense of secular necessity
as often as it’s given religious legitimacy to the ruler and the state. It’s
been nearly impossible to predict where the Biblical model of political life
will lead, and in our present circumstances it has no relationship whatsoever
to a workable model of sovereignty, and certainly not in the Christian world.</p>
<p>The mention of the Roman Empire brings up the enduring source
of Western self-understanding. The West
has understood itself as Rome or as heir to the Hellenistic project of
Alexander’s followers, which Rome also inherited. Western nationalism didn’t
abandon Roman models in favor of Biblical or “Davidic” ones, as Hazony or his
friends pretend in order to construct a nonsense story about “religious
nationalism.” The Western theory of national sovereignty has roots older than
Westphalia, and emerges in the high Middle Ages in struggle between Pope and
Emperor. It is in “Ghibelline” political thought and in Machiavelli that the
idea of a mobilized people on the Roman model is resurrected in full. European
princes after about late 1200’s or so and especially in Italy began to
understand themselves as Caesars in their own domain: hence the many varieties
of Kaisers and Tsars all over Europe. </p>
<p>The Ghibelline theory of state that is root of modern
national state closely mirrors the Byzantine theory of state and secular
sovereignty, which is ultimately based on Roman law and possibly on
Aristotelian ideas through a different channel. The pretensions of some
sovereigns, like the French, to “Davidic” this or that was window dressing, like
claiming descent in the Trojans and so on. Modern republican nationalism in
France and America understood itself with reference to Roman models of state
and law, or otherwise to Medieval traditions of liberty, common law, and
Germanic tribal law or bonds of fealty. There’s no historical basis for
claiming that principles of Western government, national or not, are to be
found in the Bible, “Hebrew” or not, as much as its spiritual life may have
been. The only religious state in the Thirty Years’ War was the Anabaptist
revolt of Munster (they became the Amish after they were crushed and are now
peaceful, though still LARPing as Jews much like Hazony and other “white
nationalists” admire).</p>
<p>On the personal level, Hazony is a “political theorist” as an
academic and like many people of color has likely felt slighted by having to
study old white men and “them homo Greeks” as the root of Western political
thought. His output, such as I can tell, is directed toward idea of “We Wuz
Kangz”: it wasn’t you see Plato, Aristotle or Cicero who discovered principles
of Western governance, let alone (shiver) Rousseau, Locke or some German (!)
but the “Hebrew Bible.” It was really the Jews, you see, and them philosophers
were possibly also secretly Jews. Leo Strauss or at least some of his followers
have a similar attitude, though slightly more subtle. In this same way, Hazony
has preserved an identity of grievance and a historical mythology of Israel as
just a nation minding its own business that imperial “bullies” have always
picked on out of perversity and sadism. (Serbs and other Balkanoids have a
similar attitude by the way).</p>
<p>Hazony sees the Roman model—to which all Western peoples have
looked up to—as his antagonist and enemy. As in Nietzsche, he understands the
Jews as the eternal and mortal enemies of Rome, that is, of the West. Abba
Ahimeir was an avowed Jewish national socialist and called himself a Fascist.
He was the mentor of the Netanyahu family and also I believe the intellectual
idol for Hazony: like Hazony, Ahimeir modeled his opposition to British
colonialism in Palestine on the ancient Jews’ opposition to Rome. His
organization Brit HaBirionim was named after a group of rebels against Roman rule.
Hazony has himself openly stated, going far back and on many occasions, that
the model he believes in is Roman globalism versus Israeli or Judaean
nationalism, that is, Ahimeir’s conception. With this scheme, which he may
genuinely believe in, he means to oppose the current incarnation of Western
globalism, based on ideas of international law and human rights, through which
Israel could eventually be declared an outlaw state for its unabashed
colonialism, its pursuit of living space, its avowedly racial foundations, and
its plentiful de facto and de jure discrimination of racial and religious
minorities. It is this element in the West, its continuing worldwide or
imperial ambitions, that is Hazony’s <em>external
</em>concern, as much as buttressing a “religious Zionism” idea is his <em>internal </em>concern.</p>
<p>What then to make of all these efforts to modulate Western
nationalism at this turning point? I believe that Zionists of Hazony’s bent,
those of the Netanyahu faction, don’t really care what politics exist in the
West as long as they promote a frame of mind favorable to Israel. In practice,
Hazony would promote open white nationalism if he thought he could, or
whatever—anarchosyndicalism, constitutional monarchism, distributism, ice cream
nationalism, and so on. It doesn’t matter. Maybe they liked my book too, who
knows? People who think Hazony is an existential antagonist who wants to negate
the ethnic basis of America as such are as wrong as those who think he has any
fundamental interest in America’s welfare. He’s fundamentally indifferent. But
I do think white nationalism has been covertly promoted by this faction online
since 2015. I can’t prove it but for those who have been trolling since that
time, it’s been obvious. Israeli nationalism and white nationalism are the same
thing. As I have argued many times, white nationalism isn’t your friend, and
it’s not even white: it’s a small-time ideology unlike liberalism, which is a
form of white supremacism that scares Hazony’s faction. But a broader
acceptance of white nationalist principles in the West would be to Israel’s
advantage. I don’t know what percentage of white nationalist trolls online have
been Israelis or Israeli NGO-based, but it’s been significant since 2015…it’s
Israel, not Russia that has been doing this, if anyone has. And that’s OK. Some
are very good people.</p>
<p>In principle, Western nationalists should be indifferent
maybe to Israel as well. Disengagement from Israel and from the Middle East
should be the path forward: if Israel wants to commit suicide, or if it wants
to set up a neo-Canaanite empire from the Nile to the Euphrates, let it do as
it will. Let that region have its own history. But in practice we face severe
opposition from Jewish organizations in the West and Jewish leadership in the
West. It hardly matters to me if Israelis are “based nationalists” in their own
country (they are not). Their cousins in the West, on who Hazony and Netanyahu
could have some influence, are possibly the most effective anti-nationalist
faction of any, phenomenally aggressive and very well organized. A confident
American nationalism would demand that men like Hazony and his funders first of
all solve <em>this </em>problem for America
before they try to modulate America’s vision of itself or make demands
regarding Israel’s international standing. There is already a war simmering
between the Netanyahu faction and the Jewish left and financial diaspora, and
this is good…we should encourage it. But where possible, in private, American
patriots should lean on Hazony and especially his donors and handlers to call
out, in public, and denounce and disavow the anti-nationalist Jewish leadership
in America and Europe. And these must be called out <em>as Jews, </em>namely Hazony, his funders, and Netanyahu should openly
say that these very destructive organizations and individuals are a shame to
the Jewish nation and are disavowed, and call upon average Jews in the West to
reject them.</p>
<p>But in the end this whole debate…it’s also a matter of
overkill. Hazony’s theory is convoluted overkill to avoid the obvious and
although I went on some tangents here that I thought readers might find
interesting, you don’t <em>need </em>to know
about Biblical or Greek theories of state, nor about medieval history or the
history of Israel, to confront the main problems facing Western nations at this
moment. These are very clear and simple: mass migration, which is <em>the </em>signature matter;
deindustrialization; and engagement in losing wars and interventions. Hazony
&amp; co.’s focus on “religious nationalism” is a nonsequitur in theory; and in
practice, again, an evangelical-neocon coalition has already been attempted
and, with Trump, has been rejected. </p>
<p>Solving these problems doesn’t require a return of “Biblical
statehood.” Somehow secular Japan manages not to have these problems. I don’t
see how a religious theory or indeed any kind of theory is necessary to simply
stop doing idiotic and self-defeating things. You shouldn’t need to convert
America to “traditional Tel Aviv Protestantism” or “CIA-edited Catholicism” to
say, “We don’t want to admit a million Sudanese to groyp our daughters.” To the
extent you need a religious belief, in such matters at least, it’s only to
arrive at the opposite: cultists, for example, like David French have a Gnostic
religious belief in antiracism and the justice of oligarch-funded Sudanese and
Oaxacan rape&#8230;normal people don’t need religion one way or another to see
that’s bad; you simply need to want to survive, and simply need to feel
entitled to secure the means of your survival.</p>
    <hr>
    <p class="C">Library of GigaChad | <a href="/" target="_blank">GigaChad</a></p>
</body>
</html>