A call for a return to isolationism via the Israel/Palestine war
The opposite of love is not hate but indifference
I previously covered the Israel/Hamas war, arguing that Israel was jammed into the side of the Arab world, much like Taiwan with China and Pakistan with India, to further longterm globohomo goals using divide-and-conquer, balance-of-power strategies. This post focuses on the propaganda used by each side in this war, what they are trying to accomplish and how, and argues for viewing politics through a prism of Western re-assertion of self-interest: specifically, a return to isolationism and end to U.S. hegemony. It is a rephrasing of the arguments made here, here and here that almost all modern wars have been unjust. This is a politics/culture post which doesn’t interest me as much these days, but many are stuck on the topic1 and hopefully it may offer some illumination.
“The first sentence of Nietzsche’s war practice, “I only attack things that are victorious,” is less powerful than the second, “I only attack things where I would find no allies, where I stand alone.”” - Ernst Junger in his commentary on “The Worker”
The propaganda surrounding the Israel/Hamas war has been fascinating to watch. There is an essentially naked display of tribalism by all sides except for white Christian America, which is prohibited from forming or expressing group solidarity. Instead, they do it by proxy by allying with one of the other parties, in this case either Israel or Hamas representing Jews and Muslims, respectively. These sides utilize intense propaganda primarily with appeals to victimhood - Israel with the hundreds of kidnapped citizens, especially those of women and children, while Hamas with photos of bombed, dead children - because appeals to victimhood are what the West responds to given it is steeped in extreme egalitarianism and is increasingly ruled (at least in its energy) by menopausal, childless women.
Both sides are spending so much energy with this victimhood propaganda because America is still the world’s sole superpower (for the moment) and it has a significant ability to impact the outcome of this conflict.
This topic is to some extent a distraction and a red herring. Emerald Robinson is correct when she stated back in October,“It's simply astonishing to see the number of Americans who can't stop talking about the Hamas invasion of Israel while 8 million illegal aliens swarm across their own border [per year]. Look how easily your attention was diverted. Look how quickly you forgot your own nation.” Although that’s changed a little bit in February/March as election season heats up. As discussed repeatedly, including recently about the pro-Palestinian campus protests, unless the media covers something it does not exist for most people.
In this post we will first review the Muslim approach to the conflict, then the Jewish approach to the conflict, then the West’s approach to the conflict, concluding that historic American’s best interests are served by a return to isolationism - a total withdrawal, let the world fend for itself.
As a preamble, not everyone within a particular group is the way described herein. To organize and understand the world one must generalize while hopefully keeping an open mind that any particular person has their own perspective and viewpoints that may differ from group opinion. There are plenty of people on each side who would prefer to maintain the status quo, fearful of change in any direction, and some even go against the grain with their own unique perspectives. However, everyone has an element of pull toward group solidarity when (1) that individual is categorized by others on a group basis and (2) that group's interests are perceived as threatened. That degree of pull is impacted by lots of influences, one's personality, disposition, outlook, religious beliefs, culture, ideology etc.
The Islamic approach: cohesive
Let’s take a look at the psychology of politicized Muslims in America and in Europe. Many are vocal that they want to conquer Israel “from the "[Jordan] river to the sea” with all that entails. Both the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel and Iran regularly calls both for the destruction of the “Great Satan” and the “Little Satan” (U.S. and Israel, respectively).2
But they are quiet that they generally seek increasing group power and self-assertion in the West itself. Islamic immigration into non-Islamic lands follows a clear and repeatable pattern, which one can read about here (the below percentages for identified countries are higher now).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness (U.S., Australia, Canada, China, Italy, Norway).
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs: Denmark, Germany, UK, Spain, Thailand.
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. France, Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Trinidad and Tobago.
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons). Guyana, India, Israel, Kenya, Russia.
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning: Ethiopia.
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare. Bosnia, Chad, Lebanon.
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels: Albania, Malaysia, Qatar, Sudan.
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide: Bangladesh, Egypt, Gaza, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Palestine, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, UAE.
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim. Afghanistan, Saudia Arabia, Somalia, Yemen. Of course, peace never comes. Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons…[Pakistan recently ordered the 1.7 million Afghans under its control around the Durand Line to leave the country within 48 hours as an “ethnic cleanse”, but no one cares as both countries are Muslim.]
Essentially as they make a foothold into non-Muslim lands they increasingly seek self-assertion and then domination. This is because Islam separates the world into dar Al-Islam (territory of Islam) and dar Al-Harb (territory of war); even Lee Kuan Yew, the great master of nation building, thought Muslims uniquely refused to integrate:
In the book, Mr Lee, when asked to assess the progress of multiracialism in Singapore, said: “I have to speak candidly to be of value, but I do not wish to offend the Muslim community. “I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration - friends, intermarriages and so on, Indians with Chinese, Chinese with Indians - than Muslims. That’s the result of the surge from the Arab states.” He added: “I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam.” He also said: “I think the Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but they are distinct and separate.”
In a tribal conflict within the Middle East they want short-term allies (Christians, liberal women, gays, trannies etc) on their side, and while it is ultimately about subjugation and not oppression, the latter is a propaganda tactic to further the former. This is both understandable and smart, as it is natural to advance one’s tribal interests using any methods available - something those in the West, so steeped in individualism, are not used to.
Despite their public protests, the Islamic world doesn’t care about the Palestinians except to the extent they can be used to promote their wider interests. If they truly cared at least one Muslim state would be accepting Palestinian refugees. But host Islamic countries that already have a large population of Palestinians as in Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan have major problems with them as they consistently try to undermine and overthrow their governments; none of them want any more.
The Islamic world’s strategy, then, is to feign outrage as thousands of Palestinians are killed in order to translate fake outrage into desired political objectives. The more Palestinians who are killed by Israel, the more photos and videos of dead babies and bombed hospitals there will be the better because it inflames the Islamic world against Israel and its supporters in Europe and America which furthers their long-term strategies for Islamic domination.3 This is why they secretly consider, according to unreliable Gaza ministry figures, the tens of thousands of dead so far in Gaza to be a good thing. This is the dead baby propaganda strategy (the Israelis tried this strategy too with the “beheaded babies” and “roasted babies in ovens” propaganda, which failed). It’s a great strategy because it works for its intended purpose of turning world opinion against Israel and Jews, which the Jerusalem Post referred to as a “trap” set by Hamas. Trump warned in mid-March that the world opinion had turned against Israel.
The desire by both the left and far right to view Muslim nations as victims due to it being brown and technologically backwards betrays a lack of understanding of history. While Islamic countries have been conquered economically and militarily by the West since the 19th century (something I will cover in a future post), there has been no serious attempt to contract the religion since the Crusades. On a historical level Islam has only expanded, never facing any serious contraction except from southern Spain’s Reconquista. See the historical spread of Islam below:
This expansion is currently headed deeply into Europe based on both immigration and much higher birthrates compared to the native population.
comments on the process taking place within Britain here. And see Houellebecq’s famed Submission novel about a white professor who converts to Islam out of a lack of other options.
IQ and China fetishist blogger Spandrell argues here and here that unless the West develops a new religion, Islam is simply going to conquer it. Like Houellebecq, he also reluctantly suggests conversion:
Western elites are hell-bent in allowing unrestricted immigration into Europe and America. Even if they're all ISIS operatives. Muslims are not deemed to be a threat to the progressive establishment the same way that white-nationalism is, and they're mostly right about that.
Given present demographic trends, at this rate large swathes of the West will be Muslim in 20 years time; and again the progressive establishment will do nothing about that; because doing something about that would strengthen the hand of white-nationalists, and that directly threatens the power of the progressive establishment….
A characteristic of Islam is that it requires of the faithful to take power once it has the numbers to achieve it. A 50% Muslim country, let alone an 80% one, wouldn't remain progressive for long. Eventually the Muslims will take over. The question is who is going to be part of that. You could remain defiant, and become a jizya-paying white minority, to be squeezed and bullied forever. Or you can convert early and join the fun before the Arabs get too uppity. Ever seen the pictures of the Ottoman sultans? They're whiter than me. Ever seen the Istanbul elite? They're whiter than you.
Maybe an Islamic world conquest won’t be so terrible. It’s masculine, patriarchal, traditional, although it is also primitive and brutal. It certainly beats what globohomo is offering with gay marriage thrown in your face, child trannies, the inversion of every societal value out of spite and neoliberal feudalism. And its pessimistic take on human nature - treating people basically as aggressive, wild cattle that need to “submit” or face physical punishment - seems to be more in line with reality than exoteric Christianity’s optimistic take of the masses’s freedom-to-choose.4
Now, a counter to the argument about Islamic conquest is that Saudi Arabia is behind the scenes deeply allied with Israel and perhaps even controlled by them (definitely controlled by the central bank owners, though). This is why you end up with stuff like Saudi Arabia entering the Miss Universe pageant, Saudi arresting Israel critics, and the legalization of female drivers with more liberalization upcoming. Likely other Islamic leaders are as well such as Hamas and Iran (see footnote 1) and much of the rest of the Islamic world. And this may be so; but it is a leadership that hides behind closed doors with these actions, ashamed; there is no significant liberal block within Islamic society calling for integration within the globohomo order (except perhaps in Iran), unlike what we will see with Jews below. Also note that the West is increasingly trying to skinsuit imams within their lands, as
explores here.The Jewish approach: split
There is a fundamental split with respect to the Jewish strategy which is not reflected in the simpler Islamic conquest strategy. This split is between nationalist, Zionist religious Jews and globalist, anti-Zionist secular Jews.
The nationalist, Zionist religious Jewish perspective
The religious right-wing Jews want to reinstate greater Israel which encompasses the following territory:
You can see this perspective reflected in Jared Kushner’s recent comments (which are interesting given his influence on Trump) where he hopes to displace Gazans in order to develop beachfront property. His opinions are within the mainstream of Orthodox Judaism. The way he speaks is also interesting, with an understated but extreme arrogant tone even though he is middling IQ and only accepted into Harvard because of Daddy’s $2.5 million donation.
Given this religious position one can see the changes in Israel’s territory versus that of Palestinians over time, reflecting both victories in 1967 and following the expansion of Israeli settlers into the West Bank:
Now, a society/civilization never sits still. There is always momentum behind it one way or another: it must always be seeking to expand, otherwise it will contract and die. Such is the nature of viewing a civilization as a Spenglerian living being. Christianity has been on a retreating, dying path for a long time now. Demographics matter just as much as territory changes and both the ultra-Orthodox Jews and Muslims have far more children than secular leftist Jews, meaning the future will likely belong to them.
In order to effectuate the Greater Israel strategy these right-wing Jews try to tell the world how ethically they are behaving, how they try to minimize Muslim civilian casualties5, that if Muslims win then Israel would be destroyed, and lean heavily on the United States for support. In addition Israeli leadership likely knew about the impending attack and let it happen (see Netanyahu’s prior comments about how countries could be led to war) so they would have a casus belli to destroy Gaza. That Israel leadership could allow the attack to happen should not be a surprise as the Jewish population within Israel was the most forced-vaccinated in the world, demonstrating deep animus toward the population.
The central bank owner’s ambivalent relationship with the Jewish population has been covered previously; they’re fine with sacrificing the Jewish masses as necessary for broader goals. Regardless, I had the misfortune of watching Fox News for the first time in many years at the start of the conflict and it was wall-to-wall coverage about Israel’s plight. They were trying to drum up support for another Middle Eastern war among the masses — in between commercials plugging evangelical end-of-the-world books and diabetes, obesity and boner pills, anyway.
The goal of the right-wing Jews, then, is to use this Gaza war as an opportunity to further the Greater Israel project using whichever strategies are necessary as they continue to outbreed and outcompete secular leftist Jews for power and control.
The globalist, anti-Zionist secular Jewish perspective
On the other hand, left-wing Jews are highly ambivalent about Israel and many of them openly side with Muslims; see this Slate article which describes some of this energy, or this one about Kamala Harris’s Jewish stepdaughter raising $8 million for Gaza. There are many such examples. Their loyalty is not to an ethnic or religious state but to the vision of globohomo itself; i.e. they have adopted the vision of the central bank owners as their own, to mix the world into a “one world” low IQ soup controlled by our financial overlords followed by a de-population agenda. Their arguments for “equivalence” and “proportionality” are calls for perpetual extension of the conflict, although Israel has decisively lost the propaganda battle and the U.S. is not supportive of the war’s continuation.
Guido Giacmomo Preparata argued that the point of Israel’s creation and continued existence is to generate perpetual conflict which globohomo benefits from/controls:
“To isolate each conflict, the targeted territorial portion had to be severed from its adjacent district, and bled white by prolonged strife waged in the name of political, religious, or ethnic diversity. Thus the Anglo-Americans have always acted: in Europe by spinning everybody against Germany (1904-45); in the Near East, by jamming Israel in the heart of the Arab world (1917-present); in the Far East, by planting thorns in the side of China: Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan (1950-present); in Central Asia by destabilizing the entire region intro tribal warfare with the help of Pakistan to prevent the Caspian seaboard from gravitating into the Russian sphere of influence.
Most importantly, in such trying games of conquest, results might never be expected to take shape quickly, but might take a matter of weeks, months or even decades. Imperial strategems are protracted affairs. The captains of world aggression measure their achievements, or failures, on a timescale whose unit is the generation.”
Under this perspective Israel’s existence is needed to provide globohomo leverage over the oil producing countries of the region; if they act out of hand they can be overthrown and destroyed like Qaddafi and Saddam.
The vast majority of these leftist Jews do not understand the bigger picture, but they feel this perspective on an emotional level for reasons that are complicated and debatable. To this group Israel serves as an unprincipled exception to the globalist vision of dissolving nations and intermixing all peoples to live in poverty as slaves, presided over by a tiny oligarchical banking elite, and therefore they approach it with great ambivalence.6 If Israel was destroyed these leftist Jews might not really care except to the extent their lives become in danger and they need a place to flee.
General Jewish agreement on open U.S. borders
Let’s tie Islam’s ongoing demographic conquest of the West in with the Jewish strategy. In the modern era both leftist and rightist Jews were and remain strong proponents of allowing millions of anti-Jewish Muslims and other non-whites into the West.7 They correctly thought they could use unlimited immigration as a wedge strategy against white Christian America for greater power and influence as these immigrants and their children vote overwhelmingly Democrat and for open borders. However, this has had a second order effect of younger white and Christian Americans losing interest in supporting Jews and Israels from the right.
Nor is the summoned Islamic and intersectional Golem controllable from the left (regardless of Bill Ackman’s temper tantrums), which will be discussed further below. Jewish author Stephen Steinlight had warned about unlimited Islamic immigration back in 2001 when switching approaches could have made a big impact, a message which went unheeded. Jews would either have to wake up and dramatically reverse course on open borders and unlimited immigration within America (as they have supported closed borders and no illegal immigration into Israel) or risk being swallowed by the non-white multitudes. Their best path forward would be to make peace with historic America, understand their role in the Rothschild central bank scam and try to keep America a functional, healthy Christian society, as argued previously. Will they attempt to do so? Highly unlikely, but I doubt such an attempt would be successful at this late stage regardless.
The Christian approach: broken and confused
Those in the West are caught between these two perspectives. Because whites and Christians are forbidden from pursuing their group interests directly and have been for generations (learned helplessness), they try to further their interests via supporting proxies - which is a poor strategy and doesn’t work. Look at how the Christian world has responded to Christian Armenia being ethnically cleansed recently (hundreds of thousands of people or more) from Islamic Azerbaijan’s invasion which absorbed 1/3 of the country: crickets. No commentary at all. Why? Because Christians are forbidden from expressing group solidarity8, and also because the media simply didn’t cover it and for most people if the media doesn’t cover it it doesn’t exist. Instead you have broken men like Aaron Bushnell lighting himself on fire protesting a conflict which he has no ethnic or religious interest in.
There is a generational divide at play: the increasingly non-white youth generally support Hamas and Islam while older, whiter generations support Israel.
The generational divide
Less than half of U.S. youth under the age of 15 are white according to census data. These youth have been brainwashed in school and university into intersectionality politics9; everything is viewed through the prism of oppressor and oppressed. Intersectionality politics derives from Critical Race Theory which was derived from Critical Legal Theory and which itself came from the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, an ideology heavily pushed by Jewish intellectuals. Critical Race Theory is simply anti-white racism steeped in intense and complex victimization jargon.
As such, they see Muslims as victims of a “white” powerful Israel and, due to the laws of intersectionality, the former must be promoted at the expense of the latter (“the last shall be first” deriving ultimately from Christianity).
The solidly leftist, non-white youth are highly pro-Hamas as a result. Here they are solidly leftist:
The trend is clear that popular opinion is turning against Israel with each successive generation:
Corresponding to America increasingly turning non-white:
One might note that neither Hamas nor Islam generally looks fondly upon the homosexuality and transgenderism that American leftist youth embrace - but that is irrelevant. These youth aren't pro-homosexual, pro-feminist, or progressive, although that’s how they think of themselves. Instead, they have anti-values; whatever tears down what is white, male, Christian, powerful, etc they consider to be a good thing; it is a toxic combination of Nietzschian ressentiment and the egalitarian ratchet effect. This is why you end up with videos like this one where drag queens, who would be (correctly) brutally suppressed under an Islamic regime, tell young children during story hour to repeat “Free Palestine” (clickable image):
Kaczynski commented on these anti-values when he argued that leftists have no self esteem. There is thus no conflict between favoring Islam due to intersectionality and their own feelings because those impulses stem from the same cause.
Meanwhile older generations side with Israel due to the messaging they received from youth about the Holocaust while Christians, especially evangelicals, feel sympathy for Israel because of the religious connection. But younger whites and Christians increasingly feel bitter toward Israel due to the destruction of western civilization which has been presided over by a hugely disproportionate number of Jews. Because of this, and also because of the failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the media propaganda to push war with Muslims is not having the effectiveness that it had in prior wars. It is subject to the law of diminishing returns. But Islam is rapidly spreading through Europe and to a lesser extent America as well. It is a tribal djinn religion of conquest, authoritarianism and anti-technology. Interestingly, Islam and Judaism have much more in common than either with Christianity.10
Putting this all together, it is not really enough to be reflexively pro- or anti-whatever the mainstream media is pushing because that still feeds into the dialectical action → reaction → synthesis that globohomo utilizes. Instead, start with the baseline: under what approach do I, my family, friends, and extended tribe benefit both in the short term, the medium term, and the long term? This should be the North Star orienting any political question. Sometimes the answers are clear, sometimes the answers are not so clear, and sometimes what is best in the long-term isn’t necessarily what is best in the short or medium-term, or vice versa. For example, many on the far-right are cheering on the Palestinians (“the enemy of my enemy is my friend”) which is perhaps a short or mid-term benefit but a long-term detriment given the ever-expanding Islamic conquest of Europe - unless they want to eventually convert to Islam, in which case this strategy makes perfect sense.
Elon Musk had an interesting tweet on identity politics recently, agreeing with the argument that Jews do not deserve sympathy from majority America because they pushed anti-white tribal policies for so long:
More here, here and here. Candace Owens joined in as well, barking at her employer Ben Shapiro. Musk later apologized after Jews pressured major corporations to withdraw advertising on Twitter and he had to go on an apology tour in Israel and then another one to visit concentration camps in Poland with Shapiro. Owens was recently fired by Shapiro and then went off on attacking him.
In this case, perhaps the best strategy for natives in the West is to simply say: the Middle East is not our problem, let them fight their forever tribal wars, we are done being the world’s policeman and withdrawing our forces and all foreign aid. Deal with your own problems, we have our own to deal with, especially as we are ruled by vicious central bank owning enemies. This is the point
made where he encouraged whites not to join the U.S. military. Things are so bad for the military that they are begging discharged anti-vaxx dissidents to rejoin and looking to enlist illegals. declared his neutrality in the Israel/Hamas conflict here. But his is a small minority view; it is blackpilling that so few of majority Americans approach politics with a “cui bono?” mentality.Of course globohomo likes and promotes Middle Eastern conflict which maintains dollar hegemony from the petrodollar system; it needs Middle Eastern conflict using Israel as leverage like it does with Taiwan/China, India/Pakistan and Ukraine/Russia. The petrodollar system is about dominance, control, and greed, as the U.S. has all the resources it needs to maintain an autarky but instead set out to conquer the world. And it seems natural for the Western world to focus on Jews given Paul’s strategy to turn gentiles into noahides by incorporating the Old Testament as a cornerstone of Christian belief.
The benefits of isolationism
The intensity and sophistication of the propaganda war waged against the hearts and minds of America is fifth-generational warfare in action. It wasn’t so long ago that people generally understood that intervention worldwide was a huge net negative for themselves and a huge net positive for tiny, sinister oligarchical powers. 90% of Americans were against entry into both World War 1 and World War 2 prior to globohomo engineering it’s entry via the power of propaganda and false flag attacks. Heroes like Charles August Lindbergh and his son’s American First Committee11 represented this pro-America isolationist position, but it’s been a very long time since such ideas have been allowed to flourish in mainstream discourse. This shows how very far the West has fallen.
Given the way things are playing out demographically and technologically - as Europe will turn Islamic due to demographic trends within another couple generations - those in the West may ultimately be faced with being second-class dhimmis to a worldwide, low IQ Islamic caliphate (after which Christians will eventually be wiped out, just as they have been all but wiped out in the Middle East) or alternatively being noahides to globohomo central bank Rothschild control. These are both poor futures unless they reassert their own ethnic and religious identities and are proud to pursue their interests without resorting to proxy battles: and those interests are served by an end to imperium.
Ultimately, everyone pursues their own personal and group interests and anyone who pretends to be altruistic is either deeply confused/brainwashed or lying, either to themselves or to you. Focus on what is good for those you care about without falling for psychological operations by other groups, who are merely trying to con you for their own benefit. This is Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction. Do you want to send your hard-earned money for endless foreign wars, paid for by future generations, your taxes and inflation, where $95 billion was just authorized by the Senate yet again to so-called “fund” Ukraine, Israel and Gaza?12 Do you want yourself or your friends or relatives to fight and die to advance the central bank owner goals half a world away? Do you favor a future of non-white Islamic domination? If not, step back and think things through to try to advance your own interests. American interests are best served by an end to American worldwide hegemony as Team America: World Police and a return to autarky isolationism. Stop invading and inviting the world; stop funding the world. End it all. This would certainly have a devastating impact on the value of the U.S. dollar and to the American quality of life which would no longer be able to export inflation or print fiat loldollars to infinity, but no matter; it should be done and it is the morally correct thing to do. There was never a reason to conquer the world other than unquenchable Faustian greed at the expense of the Golden Rule.
This doesn’t mean this line of argument will win out in the political realm; it very likely won’t as this world is arguably controlled by a malevolent Demiruge. But no matter; the argument stands on its own merits for your weighing. Maybe it sucks and I’m wrong. Think for yourself.
Thanks for reading.
As
stated, “This is Day 202 of Israel’s war on Hamas, or its liquidation of Gaza, depending on your perspective. I haven’t said too much about it publicly. I said a few things about it when it began. That didn’t go well. No one was listening. The propaganda from both sides was already deafening. I described the Hamas attack as mass murder. My pro-Palestinian readers didn’t like that. I described Israel as a typical mass-murdering nation-state, no different than the United States of America, Germany, France, Spain, The Netherlands, the Soviet Union, the British empire, the Ottoman empire, the Holy Roman Empire, or any other mass-murdering nation-state or empire. My pro-Israeli readers didn’t like that. Neither side wanted to hear about history. The history of asymmetric warfare, or terrorism, depending on your perspective. The history of nation-states and empires. They wanted to hear a story about monsters. About the monsters on the other side.”Although both are servants of the Western intelligence apparatus which created them: Israel created Hamas (also see here) and the Mullahs were installed in Iran. As Guido Preparata has stated, "First they topple Mossadegh (1953), then they handle Iran to Khomeini (1979), much like the Brits handed Russia to the Bolsheviks; it's a game. Persians in [the west] steeped in conspiratorial literature [will] tell you modern Iran is entirely ruled by the US within these Orwellian configurations."
goes into some of the details about Iran here.Hamas deliberately operates out of civilian areas, especially hospitals and schools. Their command centers are underneath hospitals (including released drone footage of tunnels under al-Shifa hospital) and they launch rockets from within or next to these locations.
Esoteric Christianity in the form of gnosticism has a decidedly pessimistic take on human nature, both in terms of believing this world was created and is maintained by a malevolent demiurge as well as separated human souls into three categories: hylics/materialists, psychics, and pneumatics depending on the level of development of their soul. Most people are hylics, much fewer are psychics, and very few are pneumatics. Each type of development has a different relationship with religion and with government and society, and applying one type to another just doesn’t work.
Which they don’t care about, but they do care about not unnecessarily inflaming the much larger Islamic world for strategic reasons, plus continued U.S. support is contingent on minimizing those casualties.
For whatever reason globohomo forced Israel (along with Australia) to be the most force-COVID vaxxed country in the world.
During the critical period leading up to the 1965 Immigration Act that transformed the demographic reality of America, for example, per MacDonald, “Anti-restrictionist attitudes were held by the vast majority of the organized Jewish community—‘the entire body of religious opinion and lay opinion within the Jewish group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left,’ in the words of Judge Simon Rifkind who testified in Congress representing a long list of national and local Jewish groups in 1948. Cofnas advocates the ‘default hypothesis’ that because of their intellectual prowess, Jews have always been highly overrepresented on both sides of various issues. This was certainly not true in the case of immigration during the critical period up to 1965 when the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws were overturned—and long thereafter. I have never found any Jewish organization or prominent Jews leading the forces favoring the 1924 and 1952 laws—or those opposed to the 1965 law at the time it was enacted. Joyce (2021) shows the continuing powerful role of Jews in pro-immigration activism in the contemporary U.S., and, as noted above, there is substantial Jewish consensus on immigration into the present.”
Even tepidly pro-white congressman Steve King was hounded out of office by the media for no reason in 2021.
Although some, like the Indians and Chinese, adapt intersectionality cynically to the extent it promotes their group interests.
Both Islam and Judaism are religions which regulate to minute detail every aspect of a believer’s life with their respective Sharia and Halakhah systems. Both traditions contain detailed legal and ethical instructions for both religious and social life. Unlike Christianity, which relies on councils or synods to rule on doctrine, ethics and behavior, the laws and beliefs in Islam and Judaism are derived through a process of debate. In fact the two religions are so close in terms of their structure that the tenth-century rabbinic leader Saadia Gaon unselfconsciously referred to Jewish law as shar’ia, the prayer leader in a synagogue as an imam and the direction Jews faced when praying as qibla. Both religions emphasize correct action (orthopractic belief) versus the Christian focus on prayer/repentance for salvation and an emphasis on correct belief (orthodoxy). Per Israel Shahak, Jews view Christianity as idolatrous but not Islam.
This is why Trump the Peaceful used the term America First.
I write so-called because the vast majority of those funds will be funneled through Ukraine, Israel and Gaza back into the hands of the transnational security elite, as Julian Assange said so eloquently when describing the forever-war in Afghanistan:
Personally, I am very biased against Muslims, Jews and Globohomo. I would defend America against the rule of all of them.
I agree too, Christianity has not been sufficient as a bulwark against any of these forces taking over America. I think we need a new religion for that, a new religion of the Americas.
Wonderful work, as usual. Some of your best, in the year or so I've been reading.
The central problem for AINO is that its leaders care not a damn about America or Americans. They cannot be expected to ever be drawn to isolationism since for them it has no benefit. Their benefit comes from the wealth of globalism, and when it comes to generating the loldollars (which is the thing they do care absolutely the most about), no isolationist strategy can compete with even a diminished and weakening version of globalism. Indeed, it was when the love of the loldollars displaced other values as Value #1 that this road we are on was preordained.
I don't think it's just nostalgia when I say that there was a time when America was ordered on other values. When its leaders cared about some things more than they cared about the loldollars. It was a long time ago, but it happened. The root cause of our present state of affairs is not necessarily more complicated than love of money, and its displacement of other values.