On Antisemitism

Is it even a thing, really?

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed, they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches, they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.-Machiavelli, The Prince

One of the many sins of the Jewish establishment (mostly Western, but Israeli, too) is that it has made an honest discussion of antisemitism very difficult, mostly by pumping out tremendous quantities of low-quality cringe, emotionally manipulative material to leverage in various ways, largely squalid. For instance, the ADL has spent decades supplementing its income as a subcontractor for the Feds by spamming assimilated Jewish American boomers with scary propaganda implying that hillbilly Cossacks, Nathaniel Bedford Forrest’s undead KKK legions, would shortly come riding over the horizon, bearing calipers with which to measure nose size and nooses in order to dispatch those who would come up short (well, long, but you get the drift.)

The fact that prominent 19th century nativists and Southrons were Jewish-the founder of the Know Nothings, the Confederate Secretary of State-did not particularly bother these propagandists, who leveraged the fringe 20th century American Nazis (some of whose more prominent leaders were also…you guessed it) as a boogeyman for their proxy vote harvesting and extortion scheme. Their Fed partners were more than happy to oblige in painting antisemitism as a primarily right wing phenomenon, focusing Jewish political energies on boondoggles such as infiltrating and suppressing the John Birch Society even as the left built up the Palestinian cause and so forth. It took 80 years for the truth about American antisemitism to become part of the mainstream conversation-that it’s mostly a phenomenon of the left and its low IQ, brown imported proxies, and that the genteel WASPs who were its establishment practitioners in the first half of the 20th century largely went extinct or moved leftwards after WW2.

The current conversation about antisemitism is confused not just by grifting in the best traditions of the ADL, but also by feigned ignorance and strawmanning. It’s the easiest thing in the world to look at a phenomenon which spans centuries, point out the ways in which different manifestations of it vary, and make the conclusion that, first of all, it’s not one thing, and second of all, those parts of it which are amenable to change would best be changed by (insert author’s personal agenda here.) For instance, you say you’re against Communism, but which Communism? The Communism of Marx and Engels? The Communism of the French Commune? The Communism of Stalin, or the Communism of the Khmer Rouge? Brezhnevian Communism? Maoism, or the ideology of Xi Jinping? Communism isn’t even a real thing, man, what are you, some rube from Arkansas? Also, have you considered that the best way to prevent people from becoming Communists is to prevent bad economic phenomena, such as inflation and deflation? Perhaps Communism would best be fought by tighter governmental controls on the economy, destroying surplus production to prevent it from depressing prices. Or maybe sponsoring modern art would keep it from being used as a tool for Communist subversion? In addition, we should consider that many Communist critiques of our society are valid, and we could take the feet out from under the Communists by pre-emptively addressing those critiques; for instance, we could deal with their accusations of systemic racism by establishing a system of racial preferences for our melanated underclass, incidentally at the expense of my personal class enemies. That would really show those Communists. The possibilities are endless…

To stick it to the Commies, who don’t exist, it’s imperative that this guy gets an art grant pronto

One particularly interesting critique of the opponents of antisemitism is that they see it as some sort of metaphysical substance which is omnipresent for no particular reason, like the celestial ether. This is read as a self-serving dishonesty on their part, an unwillingness to take responsibility for those actions and behaviors of theirs which actually cause antisemitism. “If I had been kicked out of 109 restaurants, I’d start looking at myself more closely,” and so forth. Perhaps this Fuentes fellow, unpleasant as he is, makes some good points? We should have a difficult conversation.

He’s just asking questions, and doesn’t every question deserve an answer?

The truth is that, as you go through life, you will notice that many people will dislike you. Sometimes, this is because of things you do, or don’t do. Other times, it’s because of things over which you have no control. Many times, whatever you do or don’t do is a pretext for hatred, whose true cause is what you are. If you’re fat, people will have contempt for you as a weak willed slob. If you get jacked, they will resent you for thinking you’re better than them. If you’re poor, they’ll hate you for being a loser parasite. If you’re rich, you must have somehow gotten wealthy at their expense.

People are mostly chimpanzee, and partly angel, but not at all a eusocial species like naked mole rats or ants. Therefore, strife and hatred are an inherent part of the human condition. As it is between individuals, much more so between groups. The French hate the English, the English hate the French, everyone hates the Germans. 2,000 years ago, there were dozens or hundreds of religious groups in Western and Central Europe. The Christians converted them all, by force or bribery, except for the Jews (not for lack of trying). Having eliminated all the other non-Christians, the Christians proceeded to find points of doctrinal differences to kill each other over. The Muslims did the same thing.

Being a distinct and highly visible body, it’s natural that the Jews have been hated and are hated for a cornucopia of reasons. Jews have at various points been too stiff-necked, too hunchbacked, too accommodating, unwilling to convert, disingenuous converts, too reactionary, too progressive, too cruel, too merciful, too capitalist, too socialist, too rich, too poor (Carlyle’s “au clothes!”), too nasal, too Oriental, representatives of European colonialism, agents of Communism, probably Nazi sympathizers (German Jewish refugees were interned en masse in England and transported to Australia under brutal conditions for suspicions of German sympathies during WW2,) killed Jesus and members of the Synagogue of Satan, but also impostor Polish Khazars who have nothing to do with the Jews of the Bible, too weak and effeminate, cruelly oppressing the goyim while ravishing their women, an eternal class of obscurantist religious fanatics clinging to their ancient prejudices while being unprincipled God-cheating merchants to whom everything is for sale, and who wage cruel and unrestricted war on their enemies as though they were the Mongol hordes.

These accusations are not very interesting or unique, any more than WW1 accusations of the Germans being barbaric huns eating Belgian babies or whatever were. It’s standard Chimpanzee Politics 101 stuff. What is unique is the reaction of the Jews, the sick desire to understand the people who hate you, to delve into their critiques, the Jewish self-seduction with a vision of a different reality, one where you meet your enemies halfway and convince them to love you, or at least not hate you. This is a Stockholm syndrome pathology, caused by millennia of living in a sick reality where you survive a pogrom and then have to somehow live side by side with your tormentors, doing business with them. Where are you gonna move, Mongolia? And, after all, this particular goy probably didn’t do anything particularly bad. And if he did, maybe he repented. Etcetera.

This desire to be reasonable, to see things from the perspective of those who hate you and to make concessions to them, only ever goes one way. You think they hate you because they’re miserable in Gaza under Egyptian rule. You occupy Gaza and build them universities and infrastructure, and they respond by attacking you. You think that this is because you’re occupying Gaza, so you leave and they dig up the water pipes you left and turn them into missiles to try to kill your civilians with. You think they hate you because you haven’t given them enough money, supplies, medical aid, so you let them come into Israel to get medical treatment and work, and they use the opportunity to prepare October 7th. You leave and go live in New York or Europe, and get attacked by Arabs who fled the shithole Arab countries they made hellish. While recuperating in the hospital, you ponder your sad fate-this is all the fault of those extremists in the IDF and the settlers. If only they had been nicer and gentler, none of this would have happened. The New York Times agrees with you wholeheartedly, which feels nice and reassuring.

“Peace Now? Yes, I certainly support peace now…after a fashion.”

My counterproposal is to take a page from Machiavelli. Stop seeking your enemies’ love. Seek their fear. Don’t give them an inch, punish them cruelly, expel them. Their fear is worth much love than their love. Paradoxically, this course of action is also likely to gain you grudging respect and admiration from some of your enemies, and make many neutral bystanders get off the fence in your favor. For instance, Nick Fuentes has recently began triangulating, expressing admiration for Israeli competence and open contempt for his own brown biomass followers. The Gulf Arab states have more or less openly come out for the US-Israel alliance against Iran, despite the fact that Israel just spent two years crushing their fellow Sunnis in Gaza, occasionally strikes their proxies in Syria, and shows no sign of stopping. The Russians, who spent decades as a de facto Iranian ally, have been sitting this one out, and in fact went out of their way to avoid stepping on Israeli toes in Syria.

This works fractally, on the regional and local scales. A friend set up a hilltop settlement on the outskirts of Halhul, a terror hotspot in Judea. This is a place which has been a source of attacks on Jews for 50 years, since it was a PFLP stronghold in the 70s. Rock attacks, firebombings, shooting attacks against Jews driving by on Highway 60 nearby were common. For instance, about a decade ago, my brother in law was hit in the head with a rock as he drove down the road at 100 kilometers an hour, and would have likely died if his brother and wife hadn’t taken control of the car and pulled over. For decades, the local Arabs acted as though they were the masters of the land, inflicting violence on Jewish civilians trying to go past them. My friend’s settlement is much closer to the Arabs than the road was, and yet after some desultory efforts to push the Jews back, which ended poorly for them, the local Arabs began individually coming to his farm, politely introducing themselves, and explaining that they personally were good guys and didn’t want any problems, and weren’t at all connected to the bad guys who did, and would be glad to come to an understanding. All this despite the fact that my friends aren’t very heavily armed and have perhaps a squad of IDF soldiers who will show up in case of a serious problem, while Halhul and nearby Hevron are bursting with rifles, machine guns and RPGs.

This is nothing new. The Bible explains to us that some people really dislike Jews, and explains how we should relate to them. After the fall of the Temple, while we were in exile in Babylon, the wicked Haman took a dislike to a particularly haughty Jewish lobbyist, Mordechai, and decided that it would be beneath him to take revenge on Mordechai alone, but rather that he needed to wipe out Mordechai’s entire people. To this end, he explained to the Persian king that these Jews were problematic and that it would be profitable to kill them all and take their stuff. The king agreed, and so did tens of thousands of Groypers throughout his empire. It was only through incredible self sacrifice and divine intervention that the decree was reversed and Haman, along with his Groypers, were delivered into the hands of the Jews. These Jews did not do any soul searching whatsoever, and did not enter into any discourses with their enemies to examine whether there was, perhaps, some truth to their critiques, and whether we could, perhaps, adjust our behavior a bit in order to get them to view us more favorably. No, they killed Haman and 75,000 Groypers, and they had the full support of the same officials who, had things gone a little bit differently, would have been enthusiastically carrying out the king’s decree against the Jews: “And all the rulers of the provinces, and the lieutenants, and the deputies, and officers of the king, helped the Jews; because the fear of Mordechai fell upon them.” In the end, relates the Book of Esther, “ great among the Jews, and accepted of the majority of his brethren,” which tells you that even in those days there were some Shtetlibs who probably weren’t happy with his uncompromising approach to our enemies. Oh, well, you can’t please everyone.

In short, chimpanzee politics being what they are, accommodating your enemies’ critiques is likely to invite more and harsher critiques as well as attacks, and to cause your allies to turn on you. Making examples of your enemies causes them to accommodate you and turn on each other, and makes your allies reaffirm their support. As Bibi said, “the weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.” He should have added, “which lasts only as long as they are strong.”