1,990 words

Part of what we do here on the dissident Right is talk about the news. When there is a big conversation going on, we want to be part of it. Recently, conflict has again broken out between Israelis and Palestinians. The Internet is aflame with Zionists and anti-Zionists tweeting pictures of dead babies at each other and exchanging accusations of terrorism and genocidal intent. So the question for the dissident Right is, what is our take on this? And more specifically, whose side are we on?

I think there are two kinds of content creators on the dissident Right: intellectuals and propagandists. An intellectual might look at an event and, based on his philosophical framework, try to find the morally and intellectually correct position. A propagandist will look at an event and think, “How do we spin this to our advantage?” An intellectual pursues the truth even if the truth is black-pilling, while the first commandment of propaganda is “Thou shall not black-pill.” This can often lead to disagreements over messaging. But the dissident Right needs both. Without the intellectuals, a purely propagandistic dissident Right would become too Machiavellian, and without propagandists, it might become too unpragmatic. There have already been some articles at Counter-Currents where intellectual arguments have been made on this subject, but I want to look at the present conflict as a propaganda event.

The idea of Israel is ridiculous. For the sake of argument, say the mainstream Holocaust narrative is entirely true: six million were killed, and all the stories about soap made from human fat and masturbation machines actually happened. If Jews need a homeland, why not give them a piece of Germany? If Germany committed the crime, shouldn’t they be the ones to pay the price? Right off the bat, making Palestinians pay for someone else’s crime is absurd on its face. The Jews could have had their own country in many other places, but they insisted on the Levant because, according their holy book, God — which no Jew actually believes in — told them it was their homeland. But when you actually read their holy book, you find out that they actually came from Egypt. So why isn’t Egypt their homeland? If Jews really want to get back to their roots, they should be trying to get back to Egypt, the birthplace of Moses and Abraham. And if you get deeper in the weeds, “Israel” was the name of the Tribe of Joseph’s Kingdom. The Tribe of Judah’s Kingdom was called “Judea.” None of it makes a whole lot of sense.

But Israel exists where it does, and we have to reconcile ourselves to that fact. As a rhetorical device, Israel is a useful concept for White Nationalists. “If Jews can have an ethnostate, why can’t we?” “They put up walls in Israel, but they won’t let us put up walls here.” “They kick out their darkies in Israel. We should do the same.” If some Jewish journo starts kvetching about anti-Semitism, you can always say, “Have you ever thought about moving to Israel?” Israel is the trump card if anyone wants to fearmonger over the possibility another Holocaust: “If things get really bad for Jews, they can always just go to Israel.” These are tried-and-true White Nationalism 101 normie red pills. Thus, Israel as a concept can be a useful tool to have on one’s belt.

One of the questions floating around about the Israel-Palestine conflict is what the correct nationalist position to take on it is. Some would say that Palestinians are trying to break away and form their own country, and thus they have the more nationalist argument.

But there is another faction among nationalists which believes that how another country deals with its own troublesome minorities is none of our business. People bemoan the world not minding its own business when it came to Apartheid in South Africa. Nazis complain about Wall Street Jews dragging everyone into war because Hitler was being mean to his troublesome minorities in Germany. I’m always annoyed by non-Americans wagging their finger at us over our treatment of blacks when they’ve never had to live around them. Someday I would like all Western countries to mass deport their troublesome minorities, and when that day comes, I would appreciate it if the rest of the world minded their own goddamn business while we were doing it. Plus, all this “Israel is mean to their browns” conjures up flashbacks to Bush-era “Saddam Hussein gassed his own people!” rhetoric. Yes, there’s a nationalist case for supporting Palestine, but there is also a nationalist case for “Who cares?”

This is one of the issues with jumping on the pro-Palestinian bandwagon. Strictly from a propaganda perspective, bemoaning the fact that Israelis are mean to their minorities undermines the usefulness of Israel as a rhetorical weapon. It makes it possible to answer the question “Jews have an ethnostate, so why can’t we?” with “Yes, Israel is an ethnostate, and they are also mean to their minorities. That proves ethnostates are bad.” When we say things such as “Israel kicks out their blacks,” the message is of course not that Israel is bad for doing so but that an independent country should have the right to decide who can stay. Taking a hardline pro-Palestine stance drastically reframes things and makes it more difficult to argue, “We want what they have in Israel.” The current conflict is bad publicity for Jews, and thus the schadenfreude among White Nationalists is understandable. But it is also unfortunately bad publicity for ethnonationalism, as Israel is the best-known example of a really existing ethnostate that was deliberately constituted as such.

That’s not to say that one should become an open Zionist. Even if I thought that Israel was entirely in the right and Palestine was entirely in the wrong, I could not bring myself to defend them in any context. They already have multi-billion dollar institutions and vast networks of influencers dedicated to defending Jews and Israel. They don’t need my help. Plus, Jews do not support any one else’s right to a nation, so on principle I refuse to burn calories defending theirs. The same people who say that “Palestine” is not a real thing also say that “white people” are not a real thing. At most, Israel can expect no opposition from me, but they will never have my support.

But I think there is a Machiavellian case for White Nationalists getting behind the pro-Palestine cause, or at least not opposing it.

There’s an Eddie Murphy movie from 1992 entitled The Distinguished Gentleman about a black con artist who fakes his way into becoming a US Congressman because his name is similar to that of a previous representative, who has died. The voters elect the black guy because they think he’s the same as the previous one. It’s a fairly pedestrian fish-out-of-water comedy, but there is one very memorable scene (the following is from the script; the scene in the movie is a bit shorter):

TERRY: Listen, I’d like to do more money for you. I just need to know your positions on a few issues. (O’Connor takes out a pen and leather notecard case) For instance, where are you on sugar price supports?
TOMMY: Sugar price supports? Where should I be, Terry?
TERRY: Shit, makes no difference to me. If you’re for ’em, I got money for you from my sugar producers in Louisiana and Hawaii. If you’re against ’em, I got money for you from the candy manufacturers.
TOMMY: You pick.
TERRY: (writing) Let’s say “for.” Now, what about putting limits on malpractice awards?
TOMMY: You tell me.
TERRY: Well, if you’re for ’em, I got money from the doctors and insurance companies. If you’re against ’em, I got money from the trial lawyers. Tell you what, let’s say against. Now how about pizza?
TOMMY: (indicating his plate) I’ll stick with the salad.
TERRY: Not for lunch, shmuck, for PAC [Political Action Committee] money. A lot of the frozen pizzas use phony cheese. There’s a law pending requiring them to disclose it on their labels. If I vote for the labels . . . then I get money from the dairy industry . . .
TOMMY: And if I vote against the labels, I get money from the frozen food guys.
O’CONNOR: Excellent! And don’t forget the ranchers, because they get hurt if pepperoni sales go down!
TOMMY: (laughing in admiration) A pepperoni lobby. I love this town.

That scene is how many on the dissident Right view a lot of these hot-button issues that are not directly related to white interests. But in our case, instead of money we’re talking about likes, retweets, and the ability expand one’s audience. Palestine? Well, if you’re for it, I can get you likes and retweets from anti-Zionist Bernie Bros and libertarians. If you’re against it, I can get you some likes and retweets from Turning Point USA and the Bronze Age Pervert scene. COVID vaccines? If you’re for them, you can get likes and retweets from respectable establishment types, and if you’re against it, I can get you some retweets from the QAnon crowd. Women? If you’re for them, you can get some likes and retweets from e-thots, and if you’re against them, I can get you some retweets from the manosphere . . . And so on.

So when Greg Johnson asks, “Why, then, are so many other White Nationalists cheering on the Palestinians?”, I think this is why. While “both sides are bad” might be a morally sound position, the unfortunate reality is that it is not a position that is going to make you many friends. Once upon a time, such a position might have scored you points with the New Atheist scene, but in 2023, it’s a message without an audience. On the other hand, there are various networking opportunities with adjacent communities to be had from taking a hard position one way or the other. Keith Woods took a hardline pro-Palestine position before it was fashionable, and he is now being invited to speak on a diverse array of streams and podcasts outside our circles.

One of the dissident Right’s goals is to normalize criticism of Jews. This normalization is currently in its infancy. A few years ago, you could not criticize the Jews in any context, but now there are a few contexts in which you can criticize Jews without getting fired from your job. It is now socially acceptable to criticize the Anti-Defamation League, for example. You can also criticize Jews for being mean to the Palestinians. Take out the morality and relative merits; if the goal is to normalize anti-Semitism and criticism of Jews, the pro-Palestine movement achieving a degree of mainstream respectability would be a positive development.

That is the Realpolitik of the situation, and so I can understand why some White Nationalists feel invested in the success of the pro-Palestine cause. If we are being honest with ourselves, and if we were to rank the reasons why we don’t like Jews, the fact that they are mean to Palestinians would be quite far down the list — but that’s not really the point. The point is that White Nationalists see it as a useful tool for desensitizing people to criticism of Jews. You can say that they are right or wrong for doing so, but it is certainly understandable why people would like to see the Palestinian cause go mainstream.

My position is that it’s none of our business. But not taking a side does not mean you have to check out of the conversation. There are still plenty of propaganda opportunities in this conflict. Jews and neoconservatives have filled social media with genocidal fedposting that would make Mr. Bond blush. And Jewish hypocrisy is on full display as they are expressing the same kind of nationalism that they call everyone else Nazis for displaying.

There are a lot of memes to be made out of this mess.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.

1. Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.


2. Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)


3. Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.


4. Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.


5. Paywall members can “like” comments.


6. Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.