A memory from childhood that sticks out in my mind hit me this morning. It was from when I was 10 or 11 years old.
I came into the living room and my dad was watching CNN. On the screen there was some building, a house I guess, and in the windows and on the roof were all these young, pale folks with dark hair. Mostly men but a few women.
There were soldiers or police in riot gear that were battering down the door, and who then began dragging the people out. The people didn’t really resist or fight back, but forced the soldiers to physically carry them, and yelled what sounded like slogans while they were being carried away.
The scene was from some Israeli settlement in Jeruselam or the West Bank or wherever it is that hardcore Zionist Israeli’s were trying to settle in the mid 90’s. Apparently the government had ordered them to vacate the area, and the soldiers had been tasked with forcibly clearing them from the building. (The Israeli government since then reversed course though and has now supported settlements for many years).
I remember having mixed feelings at the time. I didn’t understand any of it of course, but I remember being affected that these people cared that much about land. It was certainly an impulse far removed from anything I as a young American felt. But at the same time the protestors did not make an impressive sight, and I remember thinking they looked very dorky at best, and sort of being repulsed by the whole spectacle. Note: The title image for this article is actually of a Palestinian being forcibly removed from a settlement, not an Israeli settler (those were all copyrighted for some reason…)
Fast forward to today, and many of the themes involved in that CNN spectacle- the intersection of nationalism, borders, religion, citizen vs government tension, and media- have achieved even greater fluidity and importance.
William S. Lind and Martin van Crevald have long written about the media being destined to become a prime 4th Generation Warfare battlefield. This has been the case for awhile, but the last few months of the US Presidential Campaign through to today have catapulted this concept into the mainstream.
It seems clear at this time that not only was Hillary supposed to win, as far as all the globalist elites were concerned, but that the linked threats of ‘Russian interference’, ‘fake news’, and the ‘Alt Right’ were then going to have been the basis for large scale censorship and reprisals against the opponents of such globalist elitism.
We have seen this exact thing in Europe over the last month. The government of Germany is attempting to bully Facebook into complying with its wishes for large scale censorship, through prosecuting it for ‘hate speech’ (which is ridiculous given that Facebook is as left-wing as the German government). The UK government has just introduced a shockingly totalitarian new law that allows prosecutors to introduce evidence at trials without showing where it comes from or proving it is accurate (generally the idea is that it comes from UK surveillance agencies and should thus be implicitly trusted). Geert Wilders was just convicted of hate speech for saying he would ensure there were ‘fewer Morrocans’ if elected. Countless other EU countries shut down all criticism of Islam and mass-Muslim immigration (see this Gatestone article for a breakdown).
It is possible some version of such crackdowns will come to the U.S. despite Trump’s victory, as the entire traitorous political establishment and media are hyping this idea of ‘Russian interference’ in US politics. Indeed, the Senate just quietly Passed the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act”, which critics allege will allow the US government to shut down websites and create an ‘Orwellian Ministry of Truth’.
As I wrote a couple months ago, it did not immediately occur to me at the beginning that this anti-Russia agitation was a pretext for shutting down free speech, but it is abundantly clear now that that is the case. The ruling governments of countries like Sweden and Germany, and their compatriots who wield power within but do not fully control governments such as the U.S., are using the prospect of conflict with Russia to crush all internal dissent- particularly dissent directed at these government’s sick and treasonous immigration policies.
Despite the obvious threat this represents to Identitarianism and the future of our people, I think we must also recognize it as a victory. We as Identitarians and Preservationists had a highly successful year in 2016, and it is clear that the mainstream elites are terrified of that success.
Two small victories I wanted to point out in that regard involve the demonstration of globalist hypocrisy, and both bring us back to Israel. They are also, to note, based on the same argument I used to defend our community when it was criticized by globalists.
The two examples are nearly the same, but one is taking place in Germany and the other took place in America.
In Germany, the New Observer Online brings us the story:
The Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland (Central Council of German Jews, ZJD) has called for stronger action against the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), saying that Jews need to align themselves to Muslims and Gypsies against Germans who vote for that party.
ZJD president Josef Schuster made the remarks at the Jewish Community Day (jüdischen Gemeindetag 2016) in Berlin. The ZJD is the official representative body of all Jews in Germany.
According to a report in Die Zeit newspaper, Schuster also warned against AfD attempts to woo the Jewish vote by “falsely claiming friendship with Israel.”
This was a reference to the fact that some AfD politicians have dared to point out that all they want is immigration and border control policies which Israel already has.
Schuster and the ZJD—like all Jewish lobbies in Europe and America—fanatically support Israel’s policies, but equally fanatically oppose those same policies when white people want to emulate them.
Speaking at the Gemeindetag function, Schuster called upon “all Jews to raise their voices against right-wing populism.” The AfD is “gaining popularity in Germany,” he said, adding that that “party is based on division and exclusion.”
This is, of course, extremist hypocrisy. The AfD’s policies are nothing like those which Schuster-supported Israel enforces.
The AfD has not said, for example, that it would never allow refugees—unlike Israel; that it would outlaw marriages between Jews and non-Jews—unlike Israel; that it would restrict immigration only to those who could prove that they were genetically the same as Germans—unlike Israel, which as a Jews-only immigration policy; and the AfD has never proposed the drafting of laws to steal other peoples’ land—unlike Israel, which has now illegally seized vast areas of the West Bank for illegal Jewish settlements.
I think it is clear that the anger in the story arises from the fact that the AfD has deftly exposed the utter hypocrisy of the German establishment, which supports Israel’s extremely strict, ethnically-based immigration policies, designed to ensure its own cultural survival, while at the same time calling ‘racist’ any German immigration policy that is not designed to cause maximum rape, murder, and eradication of native Germans.
We see almost the exact same dynamic play out in the United States last week, when Richard Spencer spoke at Texas A&M university and was confronted by a Jewish Rabbi and Zionist Matt Rosenberg.
Now, there are various things that Spencer has said over the years that I don’t agree with, so this isn’t an endorsement of him by any means- but in this exchange Spencer deftly and brilliantly articulated- and in an understated, respectful way- this same hypocrisy.
What was even more shocking about the encounter was that even Left-wing news outlets admitted that Spencer annihilated the Rabbi rhetorically. Of course this is in part because those left-wing outlet are somewhat critical of Zionism themselves, but still, in the overall scheme of things there is little difference between them and Rosenberg.
I will end this post with the following synopsis of the encounter, from a website called mondoweiss.net:
It must have been a terrible embarrassment to Hillel rabbi Matt Rosenberg at Texas A&M University, when he tried to challenge the alt-right Spencer with ‘radical inclusion and love’. Spencer was invited to the University, and Rosenberg was there to challenge his bigotry:
“My tradition teaches a message of radical inclusion and love,” Rosenberg said, in a video picked up by the Forward, and posted by the campus newspaper The Eagle. “Will you sit down and learn Torah with me, and learn love?
– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/losing-debate-israel/#sthash.umr52KZg.dpuf
Spencer gracefully declined the offer to pray, but in return offered an appraisal of Judaism and Zionism that literally left the rabbi speechless. Spencer actually blew Rosenberg’s pink balloon, and Rosenberg didn’t know what to do. Here is what Spencer said:
“Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel?” Spencer said. “And by that I mean radical inclusion. Maybe all of the Middle East could go move in to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Would you really want that?”
Rosenberg was silent.
“You’re not answering,” Spencer said.
“I’m not answering,” Rosenberg said.
“Jews exist precisely because you did not assimilate,” Spencer went on. “That is why Jews are a coherent people with a history and a culture and a future. It’s because you had a sense of yourselves. I respect that about you. I want my people to have that same sense of themselves.”
Shock horror. With all the generalism inherent in Spencer’s appraisal, he was touching upon a very central issue for Zionism, and he connected it to the Jewish culture – it’s the exclusivist vein that Zionism champions in Judaism. Whilst there may be many Jews in the world who seek greater or lesser assimilation, Zionism basically defies, on a national level, the issue of assimilation. Zionism assumed from the outset that Jewish assimilation is not viable and should not really be attempted, and realised its exclusivism (which Jews also blamed the world for upholding) through the Jewish nation-state. The ideology became reality, the Palestinians were and are continually being ethnically cleansed, there is Apartheid. This is the manifestation of what Spencer seeks, ‘white exclusivity.’ This ‘whiteness’ is just as real and valid as Jewish ethnic homogeneity, and those who truly believe in the validity of these constructs are the racists.
In any case, Rosenberg didn’t have an answer. Spencer’s point was, after all, compelling. What’s more, he didn’t throw spiteful words at Rosenberg, he simply took Rosenberg’s ‘radical inclusion and love’ and questioned it in light of Israeli policy and Zionist ideology, and in a rhetoric martial-arts turn of energy, gave him back the ‘’inclusion and love’ by saying how he respects Jews, respects that sense of exclusivity.
You’ve got to hand it to this neo-Nazi, he is a masterful debater. He’s certainly not stupid. And yes, Spencer said the same thing to our website last summer: “I respect Israel as a homogenous ethno-state.”
But the same skills cannot be ascribed to Rosenberg. He has now admitted to not being a great debater anyway:
“I wasn’t on the high school debate team,” Rosenberg told the Forward.
He also thinks such a task, in the future, should be passed on to the “next rabbi”:
“I really didn’t want to get into it. That might have been the wrong decision, but I’ll let the next rabbi deal with it,” he said.
He continues to ‘humble’, or perhaps humiliate himself by saying “I am a simple teacher of Torah”.
Well, that is some failure, huh? But Rosenberg doesn’t offer any actual answers to Spencer’s contentions. Perhaps because he doesn’t really have them. His only attempted punches in the aftermath are generalist accusations of ‘hate speech’:
“We can’t normalize hate speech…It’s a philo-Semitic campus, where people appreciate Jewish culture and Judaism.”
Yes, but didn’t Spencer just say how he appreciated and respected Judaism, in his own way?
The Forward tells us that Rosenberg “said he found Spencer’s attempt to get him to defend Israel erroneous and bordering on anti-Semitic”. Erroneous? Wasn’t Spencer allowed to ask these rhetorical questions and pose these views to Rosenberg? Rosenberg’s attempt at ‘tarnishing’ Spencer with being ‘borderline anti-Semitic’ is perhaps the most pathetic of all. Who does Rosenberg think he’s talking about? Some Jewish Hillel student who went out of line? ‘Borderline anti-Semitic’ is by now a claim that doesn’t even add a scratch to people like Spencer. It would be totally realistic to call Spencer something more precise – borderline Nazi – and even that would be a conservative appraisal.
The more Rabbi Rosenberg lashes out in retrospect against Spencer and the debate he sorely lost, the more he attracts attention to Spencer’s point. Yet he bemoans also this very aspect: “The undue amount of attention given to Richard Spencer and his message was and is troubling to me,” he said.
Yes, Spencer made a point, posing how Rosenberg’s supposedly Jewish, pink, multicultural advocacy of ‘radical inclusion and love’ is incompatible with Israel and Zionism, and Rosenberg was silent because he didn’t want to fall into the trap of ‘defending Israel’, that is, Israel’s intrinsically exclusionist policies, but he didn’t want to attack it either. Rosenberg’s silence represents the prevailing paradigm of Jewish ambivalence about Zionism, where the ‘liberals’ simply seek to paint it over. One scratch under the surface and it isn’t very appealing anymore.
Spencer masterfully put Rosenberg in a checkmate, whilst Rosenberg the amateur player was thinking that he would outplay him with liberal and humanistic bravura.
Here is the exchange between Spencer and the Rabbi