As Anti-Semitism and Anti-Moslem Sentiment Increase in the West, Hard Questions Emerge About Mass Immigration and #standwithisrael

The next hours will be decisive for the future of Israel and Palestinians, as well as for 'the Collective West' and the many lies we're telling (fooling mainly ourselves)

I have so far refrained from weighing in on the current uptick in violence in Israel, but there is no more runway left as reports of more and more despicable acts are pouring in from Europe and the US. Let’s not mince words here, what happens in Israel/Palestine is, above all, a depravity, but what is happening since the Hamas-conducted attacks is—Nietzschean.

Take, e.g., just these two examples:

Source. Note that the images are too big to reproduce in one piece.

Of course, legacy media is all over this, and I shall reproduce here, in part, what the Swiss-based Neue Zürcher Zeitung reported (if only because it has a better track record of journalism, as opposed to ‘doing journalism’; translation and emphases mine):

On X, formerly Twitter, journalist Antonia Yamin reports having spoken to a Jewish resident of the house whose front door had been graffitied with a Star of David in black paint. The resident allegedly told Yamin that the Berlin police had advised her to file an online complaint and to remove the marking herself, as they had no more capacity…

In several German cities, police have banned pro-Palestinian demonstrations citing security concerns. In Berlin and Frankfurt am Main, people gathered despite the bans and also chanted slogans hateful [orig. judenfeindliche] of Jews.

Of course, the juste milieu and establishment condemned these incidents, but there is, as the cited German examples amply illustrates, not a whole lot Western (European) governments can do: ‘police…had no more capacity’, as the NZZ piece held. The situation is a wee bit ‘better’ in terms of state capacity in the US, yet ‘even’ there, questions emerge about the long-term fallout of what currently transpires:

This is the second example I mentioned before, and it comes to you courtesy of ABC7 (Chicago): ‘Man targeted 6-year-old boy, mom in deadly Plainfield stabbing because they are Muslim: detectives’, the report by Michelle Gallardo and Maher Kawash read. It continued like this (emphases mine):

'You Muslims must die': 71-year-old Joseph M. Czuba facing hate crime charges in death of Palestinian boy Wadea Al-Fayoume…A man stabbed a child to death and critically injured a woman in the southern suburbs on Saturday morning because they are Muslim…Wadea Al-Fayoume's father shared one of the last pictures taken of the 6-year-old boy, who, just a couple of weeks ago, celebrated his birthday.

Wadea's life was brutally taken away on Saturday, when he was stabbed 26 times with a military-style knife at his unincorporated Plainfield home just before 11:40 a.m.

Because 6-year-old Wadea was a Moslem, he was stabbed 26 (!) times.

May he and all the others who died rest in peace.

Mass Immigration and the Spectre of Gov’t Failure

Yet, we can no longer avoid asking several (uncomfortable) questions about our governments and our societies, including in particular mass immigration and the limits of assimilationist policies.

On the face of it, ‘Anti-Semitism’ is on the rise yet again esp. in Europe, but I will argue that what we are observing today is not the ‘traditional’ European garden variety thereof. The reason is relatively ‘simple’ as it is disgusting: since Nazi Germany implemented its ‘final solution’, that kind of Anti-Semitism has little grounds across Europe, if only there are so few Jews left. Yes, dear non-Germans of Europe, that would include varying degrees of collaboration on ‘your’ parts, too.

Instead, what we are observing today, and what politicians, most legacy media outlets, and, of course, the members of the juste milieu, are unwilling to accept is—that the kind of ‘Anti-Semitism’ we are observing today is propelled by masses of immigrants from mainly Islamic countries who ‘brought along for the ride’ their enmity of the State of Israel and of Jewish people in particular.

But ever since the ‘immigration crisis’ of 2015, those who mentioned anything that reeked of even the mildest criticism were chastised, ostracised, and are increasingly smeared as ‘far right-wing extremists’, ‘Neo-Nazis’, and the like. Angela Merkel infamously declared: ‘We’ll make it’ (orig. ‘Wir schaffen das’).

There were early warning signs, for sure, such as the ‘groping attack’ on New Year’s Even in Cologne a few years ago, or the more recent uptick in outbursts of violence in German public swimming pools as (Moslem) men found themselves ‘offended’, or ‘triggered’, by Westerners’ bathing suits.

These days, however, with reports of overflowing ‘refugee’ centres, overburdened local governments crying for help for want of resources, and the impending economic downturn, this is a recipe for disaster.

While I personally doubt that a kind of disaster cannot be avoided at this point in time, questions remain about their severity. And this is where it quickly turns ‘ugly’, if only due to the honest, if hard, conversations Westerns will have to conduct before too long.

The Lies About History are Coming Back to Haunt Us

You see, the first documented instance of applying aerial bombardments against civilians to induce ‘terror’—which we today call ‘strategic bombing’—occurred in 1911. Devised by Italian general Edoardo Douhet, this depraved measure was used as Italy was fighting the Ottomans over possession of what is (was) Libya.

WW1 and WW2 in particular witnessed an acceleration and widespread diffusion of ‘strategic bombing’ of civilians who would be, theoretically, protected by the Hague and Geneva Conventions. We note, in passing, albeit with great sorrow, the ‘perfection’ of these ‘tactics’ by esp. US forces after 1945: in (North) Korea, in ‘Indochina’—Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos—, Iraq, (former) Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. It was always ‘civilians’ who suffered.

We note, furthermore, that such ‘collective punishment’ is illegal under the UN Charter and constitutes a war crime, yet the perpetrators are never brought to justice.

The connection between what is happening in the Near East has been drawn out clearly by none other than Celia Farber:

It only “makes sense” when you learn about Dahiya.” Nothing on Israel’s part is pure emotional wrath, nor irrational over-reaction, but rather, well established military strategy, (partly invented by American Curtis LeMay, to evade prison for war crimes.)

Read the rest of Celia’s post:

"No Such Thing As Innocent Civilians?" "Widespread Destruction As A Means Of Deterrence" A 2006 War Strategy Called "The Dahiya Doctrine"

What we are witnessing is—gross, depraved, and certainly not undertaken in the heat of the moment. If you’re telling me that there were no plans available for what is currently transpiring, I will sell you a bridge to nowhere.

In the end, it would appear that there is no way out of this conundrum: calling out the ultimate depravity of what Celia Farber refers to—namely the ‘Eizenkot Doctrine’ of ‘disproportional use of force’—is quite impossible for ‘the Collective West’, albeit not for reasons spoken about clearly.

The Spectre of ‘Post-Zionism’

If you have some time to spare, I recommend reading Scott Ritter’s recent piece (I read it over at Global Research). His insights essentially boil down to the following (my emphases):

Simply put, I was blind to the tragedy of the Palestinian people.

Today I know that the only true victims in the Israeli saga (outside the children from every walk of life who are caught up in the tragic events foisted upon them by adults who claim to be working for a bright and shiny tomorrow, but only deliver death and destruction) are the Palestinian people.

At least Israel’s founding fathers were honest enough to acknowledge this.

The Zionists of today lack the moral character to admit that Israel can only be built and sustained at the cost of a viable, free, and independent Palestine, that Israel will never allow such a Palestine to exist, and that if there is a Zionist Israel, there will never be an independent Palestine.

His entire essay is very well worth your time, even though Ritter falls short of realising what he recommends as a remedy (again, my emphases):

A legitimate Palestinian state delegitimizes the notion of a Zionist Israeli entity which, by definition, can only exist by the perpetual exploitation of the Palestinian people. Benjamin Netanyahu was able to sustain the modern-day version of the Zionist Israeli state by generating fear through the endless cycle of Hamas-driven violence.

Remove the threat posed by Hamas, and Zionist Israel no longer will be able to blind the citizens of Israel and the world to the apartheid-like reality of the present-day Israeli existence. Basic humanity will compel Zionist Israel to shed its Zionist ideology, just as apartheid South Africa shed its ugly legacy of White supremacy. Post-Zionist Israel will be compelled by necessity to learn to coexist with its non-Jewish neighbors peacefully and prosperously, not as a colonial apartheid state, but as equal partners in the experiment of life that will have collectively seized the people who call the Holy Land home.

This is little else but wishful thinking, which clouds so many esp. Westerners to the harsh realities. What brought down the Apartheid régime in South Africa wasn’t ‘basic humanity’ or appeals to their innate ‘basic humanity’. It was loss of esp. US support.

I also think that the removal of Hamas or any other such group—Hezbollah comes to mind, as does ISIS and their ilk—will somehow magically make Zionism disappear.

As I mentioned above, there are (at least) two kinds of ‘Anti-Semitism’. Moslem/Islamic ‘Anti-Semitism’ is grounded in the injustice the Palestinians suffer at the hands of the Zionist Israeli forces since 1946/48. There is no way that Israel somehow moves into a post-Zionist future, for doing so negates the very essence of the State of Israel. In other words, calling for the reversal of decades of Zionism is tantamount to calling for the end of Israel as it exists today. I would even go as far to suggest that doing so denies a future to Israel (which Ritter didn’t spell out like that, but I doubt that a unilateral renunciation of Zionism on part of Israel would ensure its continued existence).

What if…Israel Renounced Zionism, or ‘Islam’ Wins?

What would the consequences of either (or a combination thereof) be?

For one, mass murder and unspeakable atrocities.

Once the dust settles (which might well be radioactive), however, we would likely see two things: where would the surviving Israelis go to? Many hold dual citizenship, but I consider it quite unlikely that Western governments and peoples would be very pleased to see the (return, of sorts) of millions of Jews to Western Europe or North America, for that matter. This might very well entail the resurgence of the more traditional ‘Anti-Semitism’, that can be seen in the deplorable markings in Berlin I mentioned above.

The sad and disgusting truths cannot be ignored:

Israel cannot (continue to) exist without continued ethnic cleansing and/or mass slaughter of Palestinians. No neighbouring Moslem country wants any (more) Palestinian refugees, for their populations might also resent them.

As a result, ‘Palestine’ as a free, sovereign nation-state of ‘the Palestinian people’ will never exist, if only for the existence of ‘Palestine’ is in (also physically) impossible as long as Israel exists.

What, then, are people and governments advocating who stand with either group?

• If Israel ‘wins’, it will bring about the destruction of what remains of ‘Palestine’ and the mass death of countless Palestinians.

• If Palestine wins, it will bring about the destruction of what remains of ‘Israel’ and the mass death of countless Israelis.

The end result will be roughly comparable, with the scale of atrocities being perhaps the only, if minor, difference.

Hence, the most likely result will be a continuation of present trends, if only marred by more bloodshed, virtue-signalling, and agit-prop. In ‘the Collective West’, this will be accompanied by (social) ostracisms and the removal of certain civil liberties, most prominently freedom of speech and association.

Fallout: ‘The Jewish Question 2.0’

In the grander scheme of things, whatever happens in the next days, weeks, months, or years will have a decisive impact on the near-future.

Both admittedly extreme options outlined above will, in all likelihood, mark the emergence of ‘The Jewish Question 2.0’, or the like.

Almost irrespective of the outcome of the current bout of violence, many more Israelis will make plans about where they will (can) go in the event of Israel turning totally genocidal or loosing against the Palestinians?

Many Israelis hold dual citizenship, and the US, Canada, and Western Europe being the most likely premier destinations. This, of course, begs the question: would Jews be welcomed and permitted to live in peace in ‘the Collective West’?

I personally doubt that, for the ‘traditional’ variety of European-style ‘Anti-Semitism’ is related to the size, true or perceived, of the Jewish communities in any given country. That much is known from history, and I suspect that this will be a boondoggle for any kind of ‘populist’, ‘anti-system’ politician.

I also doubt it because for years ‘the Collective West’ has important millions of Moslems—who are currently turning out strongly in the cities of the West to call for the destruction of Israel.

Hence, even if the ‘traditional’ variety of European-style ‘Anti-Semitism’ is to be kept in check, there is exactly zero (in Kelvin) chance that hundreds of thousands of Israelis would be facing peaceful lives in ‘the Collective West’. If anything, the presence of millions of partially rabid anti-Semitic Moslems in the West renders this notion perhaps even worse than the present.

Geopolitics Suggests that ‘the Collective West’ Should Probably Support Israel Out of Naked, Amoral Self-Interest

Mind you, I’m not arguing that ‘the Collective West’ should uncompromisingly support the borderline maniacal ‘war government’ of Benjamin Netanyahoo. What I’m saying is that ‘the Collective West’ is probably better off in the medium turn in doing so, if only because of the millions of Moslems that are already in the West.

Imagine, if you will, what will happen to Moslems in the West after the defeat of Israel?

(I’ll spare you what that would entail, if only you can very well think about it.)

By throwing the Palestinians under the bus, ‘the Collective West’ would be acting in self-interest, plain and simple. It is amoral, for sure, but that category doesn’t apply to geopolitics.

The main consequence of doing so, though, will be the final destruction of the simplistic, moralising WW2 accounts that are largely fictional.

Epilogue: the End of WW2 Remembrance

In 1933, Hitler took power, announcing that his plan was to exterminate the Slavs in the East to find Lebensraum for the German race. Stalin realised this early on, and he instructed his diplomats to cobble together an anti-Nazi coalition to that effect.

Reaching out to London and Paris, as well as to the rabidly anti-Soviet powers in East Central Europe (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary), Soviet diplomats were pushing for ‘collective security’ to counter the Nazi-German threat.

Already, in 1934, Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler. The Soviet deal with France (1935) did not result in many practical consequences, such as joint military planning. Moreover, Britain entered into the Naval Agreement with Germany in the same year (1935). By 1938, Austria was occupied and Czechoslovakia was carved up by Hitler with the collaboration of London and Paris. Tearing up the infamous Munich agreement in early 1939, German troops marched into Prague as Warsaw collaborated with Berlin in the destruction of Czechoslovakia.

When the last-ditch Soviet efforts to conclude a defensive pact with Britain and France stalled in summer 1939, Hitler moved: sending Ribbentrop to Moscow in August, the ensuing Molotov-Ribbentrob pact doomed vast swaths of Eastern Europe to decades of Soviet domination.

All of this is known, in part due to AJP Taylor’s The Origins of the Second World War. Originally published in the 1960s, Taylor, among Britains most venerable professors of modern history, was all but ‘cancelled’.

Surely, Russians are still learning that part of history.

Yet, the German atrocities during WW2 are part and parcel of the moral incentive for ‘the Collective West’ to #standwithisrael. This is wrong, if only morality plays no role in Geopolitics.

While I’m not saying that it should not inform politics, it is a dangerous, double-edged sword, as US Chief Justice Jackson so aptly put it during the Nuremberg Tribunals.

The declining West will shortly have little recourse to such ‘moralising’ appeals; there is a good case to be made that insisting on that kind of morality is little more than self-delusional at this point in time.

Before you howl: Russia also lies about WW2, in particular about the ‘liberation from Nazi tyranny’. Ask any Eastern European about that, and I’m sure they’ll give you a mouthful of opinions, in particular the Baltic peoples, Poles, and Ukrainians.

That said, ‘the collective West’ has a certain interest in supporting Israel, albeit not for the moralising reasons peddled by all victors of WW2.

Perhaps, the current (or the next) iteration of the Middle East on fire will finally do away with these oddities of collective memory and remembrance of WW2.