Nationalism in Israel and the West

This categorization, by Ellison Lodge,  may be a little unfair to Buchanan and perhaps a little too generous to Michael Savage, but it succinctly captures the mixed positions on nationalism in Israel and the West:

If one were to try to sort out views on nationalism in Israel and the West, it could be neatly split into four categories:

1) Those who support ethno-politics for Israel but not for Europeans and the West. (neoliberals and neoconservatives like Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Kristol et al.)
2) Those who oppose ethno-politics for Israel and the West (Noam Chomsky, Max Blumenthal et al.) [and politically correct libertarians]
3) Those who support ethno-politics in the West and in Israel (Lawrence Auster, Diana West, Michael Savage)
4) Those who oppose ethno-politics for Israel but support it for the West (Pat Buchanan, Kevin MacDonald)

Like the author, I would include myself in category #3. I have no problem with Israel promoting ethno-nationalist policies or taking a hardline stance on immigration (these are things any sane nation should do), but I think Israel should have to do these things on its own dime, and we don’t need overseas partisans of Israel (e.g. Bill Kristol or Joseph Lieberman) trying to prevent Western nations from pursuing much-needed immigration enforcement and reduction.  That said, unlike Larry Auster, I don’t think one’s position on Israel should be the deciding factor in assessing his political views.  Frankly, I don’t care whether another Westerner is pro- or anti-Israel; I do, however, care whether he’s pro-Western.  Lodge says it best:

The idea that the fate of European or American Civilization is somehow tied up in Israel, as Geert Wilders & Co. often claim, has absolutely no basis in reality; the same goes for the ahistorical, made-up term “Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Read the rest of Ellison Lodge’s article here.

 

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

23 thoughts on “Nationalism in Israel and the West

  1. AndrewT

    If “Judeo-Christian tradition” is just an illusory boogeyman, how, pray tell, is “The West” any better? One term implies that two religions, though distinct, are historically related and share much in common (which they do), the other term implies that many different nations in a broad region of the world share certain things in common such as Socratic philosophy, a Christian heritage, and yes, race (which is also true).

    The fact that “Judeo-Christian” is a recently coined term is not a reason to reject it. Every word is similarly “made up”.

    Lew Rockwell is not a politically correct libertarian, far from it. There are countless sane and educated people that prioritize individual liberty ahead of ethnopolitics, without implicitly or explicitly denying the right of nations to preserve ethnic cohesion as long as it does not threaten liberty. Rockwell is such a libertarian. He dropped the term “paleolibertarian” because since the 90s his following has become mostly Internet-based, and for libertarianism to really have any significant influence and become a mass movement, it must be inclusive and big-tent. Arcane labels like “paleolibertarian”, as technically correct as they may be, don’t help the development of a mass movement. Even Sam Francis once urged The American Conservative to focus less on cultural issues in the interest of growing a populist movement.

  2. Kirt Higdon

    What’s the category for those who don’t want the money of US taxpayers or US arms going to any other country, regardless of that country’s ethno-politics? I believe that’s the position of the Paul clan and it’s certainly mine.

  3. Woden

    “Frankly, I don’t care whether another Westerner is pro- or anti-Israel; I do, however, care whether he’s pro-Western.”

    Ditto. I would also probably put myself in ‘category 3′.

    Sadly most ‘mainstream’ conservatives are probably in category 1 and seem to be more concerned with Israel’s survival than their own country’s.

    Good post.

  4. Weaver

    Andrew,

    I consider myself a Middle American Radical.

    Bede,

    MacDonald is wrongly portrayed as a member of #4 as well Buchanan. Good post though. I’m in Category 3.4 (between 3 and 4, with 3.5 being fully neutral towards Israel).

  5. Matt Weber

    I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Israel. I’ve tried before with Auster’s fans to get a clear definition of what ‘support for Israel’ entails, but I never got it. As it is, I can understand why someone would oppose the foreign aid or just not be all that invested in what happens in the region, but people who go on and on about every little thing Israel does either to laud it or demonize it strike me as nutters. I wouldn’t run such people out of our nonexistent movement over it.

  6. Ernest

    I think it is a good post. As hard as it can be to categorize Mr Lodge does a pretty good job IMO. Somebody in the comments added the following category:

    There is a fifth category – people who are in favor of ethno-politics in the West and care not a wink for what happens between the Israelis and Palestinians.

    I think I would align with some combination of 3, 4 & 5.

    Although to be number 3 I wholeheartedly endorse this comment:

    Pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish isn’t the real issue. The real issue should be the CONDITIONALITY of our position. If Jews are for us, we can be for the Jews. But if Jews are against us, we should be against Jews. There’s nothing more to be said.

    Japan’s a nice country too but when it attacked us, we had to bash it. After the war, with peace and with Japan on our side of the Cold War, we could be friends again. Same with Germany. Nice country but when it started WWII and then declared war on us, we had no option but to kick its butt. After the war, with the peace and with West Germany on our side of the Cold War, we could be friends again.

    So, I don’t care if Jews are an advanced people and if Israel is nice country. IF Jews are against us, we should be against Jews. Period.
    Politics and alliances must always be conditional. Never shake hands with people who spit in your face.

    Andrew said/quoted:

    “The race obsessed fringe”

    I don’t know if you are just a sock puppet, a shit stirrer or totally oblivious? Maybe something else?

    Perhaps because of the Black Caucus, NAACP, LaRaza, MEChA, LULAC, the Hispanic Caucus, the ADL, CAIR…and the literally thousand(s) of race based political, lobbing & social groups or maybe because of the invasion, Affirmative Action, African-American studies, Latino studies, Diversity Depts, ‘fair housing’, raced based college quotas, ‘social justice’, the 1965 Immigration Act, Black Liberation theology and a multitude of other anti-White, anti-Western promoted BS.

  7. Bede Post author

    Andrew,

    Regarding Ramaindo and Rockwell’s kowtowing to political correctness, check out:

    http://www.vdare.com/misc/080514_pendleton.htm

    The “West” is Europe and those of the European Diaspora. Although there are different tribes in Europe (the Celtic tribes, the Germanic tribes, and the Slavic tribes) they are all closely related, and they are more closely related to each other than to others. Cavalli-Sforza puts the genetic distance between various European tribes at 0 – 3. On the other hand, the distance, for example, between the English and Japanese is 59 times greater than a European distance of 1, and between the English and Sub-Saharan blacks, 109 times greater.

    http://www.isteve.com/RealityofRace.htm

    A recent study on clustering of Ashkenazi Jews:

    http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2010/06/04/new-study-on-jewish-genes/

    Still, if certain Ashkenazi Jews can show that they are truly pro-Western (care more about the survival of Western nations than the survival of Israel) then I, or one, would welcome such people.

  8. Thaddeus

    I fail to see why, after enduring both leftist Jews and righting Jews (Neocons) steadily undermining the West and European-American traditions for at least a hundred years, via Marxist, feminism, enforced non-white immigration, as well as via every other manifestation of the Frankfurt School, we should sit back obligingly while they enjoy their own country, funded by our tax dollars, supported by our military, and to which all U.S. politicians must give allegiance. Israel is THE reason why the Arab world is against us and hates us, and if we hadn’t carved a Jewish state out of Arabian land and kept propping it up for a half century, then the Arabs wouldn’t give a fig about North America (apart from the usual attempts at religious conversion, just as Western missionaries promote conversion for their faiths). Israel is the source of the majority of our problems today.

    And as a moral matter, if we are against any injustice in the world, then we must surely be against the truly abominable actions of Israel against the Palestinians whose lands they stole. But if we turn a blind eye to this injustice, they we had better turn a blind eye to every other injustice in the world. (And I’m not saying we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to all world injustices; perhaps we should, but we must be consistent, and acknowledge that Israel’s state-sanctioned terrorism is no more moral than any other state’s terrorism.)

  9. Thaddeus

    Bede, you say,

    if Ashkenazi Jews can show that they are truly pro-Western (care more about the survival of Western nations than the survival of Israel) then I, or one, would welcome such people.

    But the problem is that these people can pretend to be “truly pro-Western” while actually undermining our culture. Certainly that’s what the Neocons do. They don’t say that their first allegiance is to Israel; they claim the opposite, but their policies help Israel and hurt America.

    Let’s even leave Israel out of it for a moment. Whenever the tribe involves itself in media and culture, it always changes the values of the culture toward its own ends. The film Hollywoodism shows how they did this in the movie industry, for example, but it’s true in all of the arts. And I do not even characterize it as a “conspiracy,” because it isn’t. It’s simply that they have innate values that are profoundly different from the innate values of traditional Europeans and European-Americans. And simply by following their own impulses and values, they create a culture that is anti-traditional-West (e.g., the promotion of homosexuality, of feminist women, of totalitarian egalitarianism, of an anti-beauty aesthetic in the arts, etc.)

  10. Filmer

    Andrew, the problem with the word Judeo-Christian is that when most people use it they don’t really mean Judeo-Christian, they really mean Christian, and just tack on the Judeo for the sake of political correctness.

  11. Filmer

    I think people like MacDonald have sense enough to know they are being inconsistent. They frequently point out the inconsistency of category 1. I think they just use terminology like “racist” and “apartheid state” because they know how powerful those charges can be. It is just rhetoric.

    I think it is very counterproductive myself. It empowers the PC police by using their terminology and their tactic of feigned outrage.

  12. Captainchaos

    Filmer,

    “the problem with the word Judeo-Christian is that when most people use it they don’t really mean Judeo-Christian, they really mean Christian, and just tack on the Judeo for the sake of political correctness.”

    Most can’t or have no inclination to actually think. Take Andy as a prime example. You must be prepared to concede that a sizable number of (White) individuals DO in fact sincerely deploy the self description “Judeo-Christian” and all that implies – such that they believe Jewish ethnic interests enjoy a divinely privileged position in the normative economy of life. For them, serving Jews in some form or fashion is the sine qua non of moral rectitude. Dispensationalists – such as Andy – come to mind. Now, for any sane man – and I take it you are a sane man, Filmer – the above can only be recognized as cult-style brainwashing. I mean, it is not hard to track the development of this latest and arguably sorriest permutation of the Christian religion. It started in earnest just around the time, oh, Jerry Falwell and his ilk started receiving lavish gifts from (Jewish) Zionists.

    Do you think the term “Jew-tool” might be an apt description of such like, Filmer?

  13. Captainchaos

    “I think people like MacDonald have sense enough to know they are being inconsistent.”

    Implicit in this assessment is a rather dark and uncharitable estimation of MacDonald’s moral constitution. Do you believe MacDonald wishes to erect an apartheid state on the North American continent in which Whites keep non-Whites terrorized and subdued by such tactics as showering the children of the latter with white phosphorous? If you thought the matter through, then that is clearly your imputation. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt (such as it is) and assume you didn’t think the matter through.

    “It empowers the PC police by using their terminology and their tactic of feigned outrage.”

    If you wish for Whites to gain physical and politically sovereign separation from non-Whites (including Jews – Jews are not White), yet you pretend this is not the case, or speak in such a way that would lend that impression, then you yourself “empower” “PC”.

    P.S. Who says White boyz can’t deconstruct better than the Jews? Yet more evidence of our racial superiority.

  14. Weaver

    CC,

    Apartheid means “a piece for everyone”. It was an attempt at breaking up SA not eternal segregation – good land was to be given to the Zulus and other tribes. The good land was not all reserved for the whites.

    There’s really need for a different word here.

  15. Captainchaos

    Weaver,

    When engaging a debating opponent it is not wise to turn your flank to him with a sign attached which says, “Hit me.”

    I have much powder – and dry. Yet there is something to be said for restraint and for preserving a level of discourse at this site woven from the threads of noble lies. It is every bit in my power to tear it all to shreds. But I won’t.

    I comment here because this is a point of confluent currents of the Right. There is utility in preserving that. However, the Jews and their extended phenotypes do well and truly wish to put a Final end to our race. And that, I will never let go unanswered. (Nicholas Stix’s allegation here of David Duke’s genocidalism was particularly precious in a pot-kettle-black sort of way given the genocidalism that is essential to Judaism. There is no rapprochement between Whites and Jews that is possible or desirable from the standpoint of White dignity, sovereignty, indeed survival. And that is that. We must have separation. Oops, did I say that out loud? But it was intended as parenthetical, you see.)

  16. Weaver

    CC,

    You misunderstand my comment. It’s not good to tar the Israelis with the word “apartheid”. The word isn’t deserving of use as a pejorative.

    We’ve seen what the enlightened alternative to apartheid has been for SA and Rhodesia. The Afrikaners do not deserve to be demonised.

  17. Weaver

    What goes on in Israel isn’t of my concern, but the Palestinians don’t have a state. And they haven’t been given good land; they’re in a very different situation from the black tribes in SA.

    What goes on there is again not of my concern, but defending the word “apartheid” is. The Afrikaners were destroyed largely by Britain and America, and we can begin at least to leave them alone by ceasing to demonise them.

  18. Captainchaos

    The Afrikaners planted the seeds of their own destruction in not doing all the work which needed doing themselves. They allowed massive negro immigration to flesh out the ranks of their cheap labor market. Our failings are not in our stars, not in the Joos, but in ourselves. Until we face that squarely, ain’t nothin’ gonna change.

    No one ever said this would be easy, would be painless. No more excuses, no more slouching into unmanly degeneracy (having negroes do your work for you).

    As Solzhenitsyn said, “Live not by lies.”

    Here, a definition of “apartheid” which is not bullshit: racial supremacist rule over the Other for the purpose of economic exploitation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>