The New York Times, which I read solely for the purpose of triggering myself and gaging the pulse of mainstream liberalism, recently ran an opinion piece written by Hilik Bar, a deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset and the secretary general of their Labor Party. He echoes, obviously. What I find interesting here, however, is that politicians from the Israel that cuckservatives love so very much operate on a very different paradigm from American politicians: ethnonationalism. In a revolutionary sense—governments of one configuration arrayed against those of another—Israel is not truly a sister republic to the deracinated, civic-nationalist governing ideology of the US, and yet it somehow is. “Israel is our Greatest Ally,” after all.
This contradiction ought to cause heavy cognitive dissonance for cuckservatives—it gives me agita—and Hilik Bar’s article is a case study of exactly what I am talking about. The values of Israel and the United States are widely out of alignment with one another, and yet there is this huge reverence for The Jewish State® among our governing class.
Bar, whose party is considered liberal in Israel and is a member of the Socialist International, writes:
The only way for Israel now to remain both Jewish and democratic—that is, for Israel to remain a democracy and retain its Jewish majority—is to separate from the Palestinians via a two-state solution. Without such a settlement, Israel is drifting ineluctably toward becoming a binational state. And make no mistake: The logic of the binational state means an end to the Zionist project. This threat to Israel is so grave partly because it is happening at a slow enough pace that our leaders can essentially ignore the problem without facing electoral catastrophe. [emphasis added]
There ought to be bells going off here; we have an extremely similar problem. The ethnonationalist sentiment expressed by this Israeli politician is something cuckservatives absolutely do not believe in—the preservation of a country’s majority to ensure its survival as a country. That would be racist and we can't be racist because then Democrats won't vote for us. No cuckservative worth his kosher salt would ever advocate ethnonationalism for Anglo-America, and yet the Israelis they regard so highly hold that very set of beliefs for their own countrymen. This is effectively a surrogate nationalism—the sentiment one ordinarily has for one’s own people being projected onto another. Could you imagine if an American politician said something like this?:
The only way for America now to remain both White and democratic—that is, for America to remain a federal republic and retain its White majority—is to separate from the other races via a multi-state solution. Without such a settlement, America is drifting ineluctably toward becoming a multicultural state. And make no mistake: The logic of the multicultural state means an end to the American project. This threat to America is so grave partly because it is happening at a slow enough pace that our leaders can essentially ignore the problem without facing electoral catastrophe.
Well, maybe Ann Coulter has written this verbatim somewhere, but she isn't an elected official. This is why I cannot help but admire Zionists. They’re shamelessly self-interested, ethnocentric and patriotic towards their own people, history and country—and they should be shameless as there is nothing wrong or pathological about being that way. It rustles me a bit to say this, but I think Anglo-America and Israel would have a lot in common if it weren’t for our leaders being a bunch of self-hating leftists and cuckservatives in comparison. Bear with me for a moment here:
Israel and the United States are both products of settler colonies and the amalgamation of related ethnic groups into one. The United States formed from British colonization and the later immigration of other Europeans, which displaced the native or indigenous pre-Columbian peoples, often violently. Israel was also started by the British under their Mandate of Palestine, which was set up as a “jewish homeland” in accordance with the Balfour Declaration, but on land that was already Arab/Palestinian and had been under Ottoman rule until the end of WWI. Thus the foundations for Israel were also laid by the violence of conquest—a method universally practiced until the establishment of the United Nations, which is a third-world lobbying group chaired by a board of nuclear-armed globalists. Zionist jews essentially colonized the Levant and created Israel as a follow-up to conquest. Jews from all over Europe migrated there and after Israel became independent and fought several wars to not only stay that way but also expand her borders, jews from Middle Eastern countries came in large waves as well. And after the Soviet Union collapsed, so-called Russian jews migrated there. The founder effect of such settlement is that today both the elected left and right in Israel are jewish nationalists.
So a variety of different jewish ethnic groups came together to create an “Israeli” identity on land conquered from non-jews, just as a variety of different European groups came together to create an Anglo-American identity on land conquered from non-Europeans. That is history; that is the reason why Israelis and Anglo-Americans exist. And all countries have a history of war and border adjustments. To be clear, I am not saying we should support Israel over Palestine, or Palestine over Israel, or even care about this conflict. I am simply arguing that the foundations of the Israeli state are quite similar to our own and that people who believe in ethnonationalism for Israel (or Palestine) but not for their own people are problematic.
But the great difference between Anglo-America and Israel is that we as a society feel bad about our own history and existence, and regard (race) realist thoughts about our own survival as an evil heresy. You can blame the ((((Frankfurt school)))) or “Calvinists” or both but the result is still the same. The establishment narrative is one of White guilt—our accomplishments are to be ignored in favor of our supposed original sin, which of course only applies to us. No other people are held guilty of conquest and settlement, or required to apologize. The Arabs are yet to apologize for conquering and destroying Zoroastrian Persia and Roman Africa and Asia. Advocacy for White American identity or maintaining our majority is the serpent in our pozzed Garden of Eden, as far as cuckservatives are concerned.
Meanwhile, most Israelis feel no such shame about the society their ancestors built and which they are responsible for maintaining. To them, their patrimony is willed to them by their god, army and ideology. And to top it off, no foreign goyim in Israel have successfully been allowed to run through their own immigration reform laws to destroy the country's demographic profile. Good for them. My question for cuckservatives, then, is: Why do you support jewish nationalism but not White nationalism? What about immigration from non-White and left-wing countries in Latin America? How is this good for our homeland and the future of our children? The only way they can answer is to dig themselves into a deeper hole.
Hilik Bar concludes by writing:
...I believe we have no choice but to confront these issues. Sleepwalking toward becoming a binational state, Israel faces an internal threat to its existence potentially no less severe than the external one of a nuclear-armed Iran. It must pursue the two-state solution no less fervently than it opposes an Iranian bomb. Only this path can safeguard Israel’s long-term security.
Binationalism is a threat to Israel, but multiculturalism isn’t a threat to the United States (or Europe)? Hmmmm. And it’s potentially as dangerous as Iran? Are you cucks listening to this? Do you think that perhaps the United States’ own long-term security might be jeopardized by the same kind of forces? I believe we “have no choice but to confront these issues” as well. In our own country.
Support for Israel but hostility towards Anglo-America is something the cuckservative must answer for eventually. He will have to explain to his White constituents why Israelis are allowed a homeland and why they are not. It will have to be argued that Israel should be jewish-majority while the United States should not be White-majority, that Israel should defend its borders and we should not defend ours, that Israel gets restrictive immigration policies based on ethnicity/religion and a wall and we should not because reasons. And for those who aren’t severely cucked, this just doesn’t hold up. You can believe in nationalism for all peoples or just nationalism for your own people—I don’t care to debate this here—but to believe in nationalism for another people but not your own? It’s as if you didn’t even lay eggs for the cuckoo bird to replace.
To distill it: Israeli immigration policies favor jews and involve building border walls while American immigration reform proposals consist of amnesty for millions of foreigners who break our laws or amending our laws to make it easier for them to get in. I'd rather not. After Israel made some adjustments a couple of years ago:
While 9,570 citizens of various African countries entered Israel illegally in the first half of 2012, only 34 did the same in the first six months of 2013 – a decrease of over 99 percent. Multiple developments have been credited for the dramatic change. One is the new security fence which covers the 230 kilometers (144 miles) of border between Israel and Egypt. Another is a law which went into effect in June 2012 under which illegal entrants to Israel who do not have refugee status are arrested.
Think about it.