Let us scoff at and dismiss Jewish moralizing altogether; Survival is its own justification

A terrible strategic mistake our forefathers made was entertaining Jewish moralizing at all. That was a suckers game, where you play by the “house rules” of the synagogue, and the synagogue always wins. Instead, we should just scoff at their cant and pilpul and attempts to make White people feel morally bankrupt.

The tormented intellectual is a weakling, wondering if he’s “morally wrong, or “guilty.” That shit is so fucking gay, and it’s been put on us since childhood. White guilt not for debating, it’s for smashing to pieces. There’s nothing there to fear, and if you kick all the guiltmongers to hell, nothing bad will happen, only good.

Use your intellectual powers to learn about the great machine of the universe — math, physics, chemistry, engineering, computer programming, and how to become more powerful and make money and influence people.

Let us teach the younger generation that moralizing and white guilt is for faggots, perpetrated by frauds, and that survival is its own justification.

White guilt can only exist in conditions of massive economic surplus. You can’t tell struggling people that they should feel guilty about racism/slvaery/jimcrow/holocaust. They will scoff, as they should.

I came to this conclusion when reading a blog post by the Jewish college professor Corey Robin, about Jews arguing over the moral legitimacy of Israel. What especially amused me was their debating about “whether the original sin of Israel is 1967 or 1948.” What? Such an idea of “original sin” is utterly foreign to me. I remember some politically correct liberal male in college saying to me that “the original sin of America is racism.” I said, “I don’t believe in that shit at all, I don’t accept any sin, stick it up your ass punk.”

Power is the only argument you need.

Eric Alterman v. Max Blumenthal
by Corey Robin
Over the years, Eric Alterman has written many articles I’ve disagreed with. I’ve never commented on them publicly because he’s a colleague at Brooklyn College. But in the current issue of the Nation Alterman devotes a column—and then a blog post—to a critique of Max Blumenthal’s new book Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel.

Even if you haven’t read Blumenthal’s book, it’s not hard to see that Alterman is writing out of an animus he can’t get a hold of. His prose gives him away.

Alterman writes, for example, “And its [Goliath’s] larding of virtually every sentence with pointless adjectives designed to demonstrate the author’s distaste for his subject is as amateurish as it is ineffective.” A writer more in control would have seen that it’s not possible for an adjective to be both “pointless” and “designed to demonstrate the author’s distaste for his subject.” Also, that it’s not wise to lambast the use of adjectives with a sentence deploying three of them—and then to follow that up with a sentence using two more.

As it happens, however, I have written about Max’s book on my blog, and Alterman’s portrait bears little resemblance to the book I read.

Where Alterman finds only “juvenile faux-cleverness,” a “case against the Jewish state” that is “carelessly constructed,” reporting that is “technically accurate [!], but often deliberately deceptive,” arguments that are “simplistic and one-sided,” and “a profoundly unreliable narrator” who “nastily and condescendingly mocks” other reporters—more cowbell, baby!—I found a trove of patient and persuasive on-the-ground reporting (Blumenthal spent a year in Israel and Palestine and several additional months in the region), almost all of which Alterman ignores. Had he allotted less space to those adjectives and more to an engagement with the book, Alterman might have come up with a credible critique.

But it was this final passage in Alterman’s column that really made me wonder if we had read the same book:

The most bizarre episode in the book occurs when Blumenthal is granted a rare interview with the deeply admired left-wing Israeli author David Grossman, who lost his son in the 2006 Lebanon war. Grossman rejects Blumenthal’s proposal for “the transformation of Israel from an ethnically exclusive Jewish state into a multiethnic democracy,” not for the obvious reasons—that it is a pipe dream, given the hatred between the two sides—but because of his understanding of 2,000 years of Jewish history, in which restrictions have kept Jews from fully participating in the life of the societies in which they’ve lived. This inspires Blumenthal to lecture him that his own personal experience as the son of a White House “insider”—Clinton adviser and former journalist Sidney Blumenthal—and the experience of other “insider” Jews in the United States leads him to “have a hard time taking [Grossman’s] justification seriously.” The Israeli author and champion of its peace movement soon thereafter ends the interview and asks Blumenthal to please tear up his phone number. Here, our author attributes the response he receives, yet again, to Israeli myopia and lack of understanding of the way the world really works.

In my post, I had singled out that chapter on Grossman for special praise. And because I quoted Blumenthal’s treatment of Grossman at such length, I think it’s useful to reproduce that post here. Readers can judge for themselves whether or not I get Blumenthal right, but I hope it’s clear just how small Alterman has made things. Not only for himself but also his readers. An opportunity for deep moral reflection—about the abyss between Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora, about the power and status Jews have attained throughout the world, about violence and vision—has been missed. We can now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Here’s an edited and revised version of what I wrote.

• • • • •

One chapter, in particular—”The Insiders”—has gotten into my head these past few weeks. It’s a portrait of David Grossman, the Israeli writer who’s often treated in the US as something of secular saint. Less arresting (and affected) than Amos Oz, the lefty Grossman was to Jews of my generation a revelatory voice, particularly during the First Intifada. But in the last decade, his brand of liberal Zionism has come to seem more of a problem than a solution.

I’ll admit I was skeptical when I first started reading the chapter because Grossman is not a typical subject for Max. He’s cagey, elusive. Max knows how to fell Goliath, I thought to myself, but can he get inside David? Turns out, he can.

Max begins his treatment of Grossman by articulating the conundrum of many lefty Israelis: like other liberal Zionists, Grossman thinks Israel’s original sin is 1967, when the state seized the West Bank and Gaza and the Occupation officially began. But that position ignores 1948, when Jewish settlers, fighters, and officials killed Palestinians or expelled from their homes (the Nakba) in order to create the State of Israel itself.

But Max sets the table in an unexpected way. Instead of directly confronting Grossman with the standard anti-Zionist line, Max allows the voices of the Israeli right to speak instead. It makes for a fascinating conversation of difficult contrapuntal voices.

Despite his outrage at the misdeeds committed after 1967, Grossman excised the Nakba from his frame of analysis. Of course, he knew the story of Israel’s foundation, warts and all. But the Nakba was the legacy also of the Zionist left, as were the mass expulsions committed in its wake, and the suite of discriminatory laws passed through the Knesset to legalize the confiscation of Palestinian property. Were these the acts of an “enlightened nation?” By singling out the settlement movement as the source of Israel’s crisis, Grossman and liberal Zionists elided the question altogether, starting the history at 1967.

Though the Zionist left kept the past tucked behind the narrative of the Green Line, veterans of the Jabotinskyite right-wing were unashamed. In September 2010, when sixty actors and artists staged a boycott of a new cultural center in the West Bank–based mega-settlement of Ariel, earning a public endorsement from Grossman, who cast the boycott as a desperate measure to save the Zionist future from the settlers, they were angrily rebuked by Knesset chairman Reuven Rivlin.

A supporter of Greater Israel from the Likud Party, Rivlin was also a fluent Arabic speaker who rejected the Labor Zionist vision of total separation from the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza. (He appeared earlier in this book to defend Hanin Zoabi’s right to denounce Israel’s lethal raid of the Mavi Marmara against dozens of frothing members of Knesset.) Contradicting the official Israeli Foreign Ministry version of the Nakba, which falsely asserted that Palestinians “abandoned their homes…at the request of Arab leaders,” Rivlin reminded the liberal Zionists boycotting Ariel of their own history. Those who bore the legacy of the Nakba, Rivlin claimed, had stolen more than the settlers ever intended to take.

“I say to those who want to boycott—Deer Balkum [“beware” in Arabic]. Those who expelled Arabs from En-Karem, from Jaffa, and from Katamon [in 1948] lost the moral right to boycott Ariel,” Rivlin told Maariv. Assailing the boycotters for a “lack of intellectual honesty,” Rivlin reminded them that the economic settlers of Ariel were sent across the Green Line “due to the orders of society, and some might say—due to the orders of Zionism.”

Greater Israel had become the reality while the Green Line Israel had become the fantasy. But with the election of Barack Obama, a figure the Zionist left considered their great hope, figures like David Grossman believed that they would soon be released from their despair.

That line about Rivlin being a fluent Arabic speaker is a nice touch. But that line “those who bore the legacy of the Nakba, Rivlin claimed, had stolen more than the settlers ever intended to take” hits hard.

Max managed to get an interview with Grossman in 2009 at a difficult moment in Grossman’s life. Grossman’s son had been killed in the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, and he wasn’t giving interviews. But Max got one. He opens his account of that interview on a sympathetic note:

Grossman had told me in advance that he would agree to speak only off the record. But when I arrived at our meeting famished and soaked in sweat after a journey from Tel Aviv, he suddenly changed his mind. “Since you have come such a long way, I will offer you an interview,” he said. But he issued two conditions. First, “You must order some food. I cannot sit here and watch you starve.” And second, “No questions about my son, okay?”

Grossman was a small man with a shock of sandy brown hair and intense eyes. He spoke in a soft, low tone tinged with indignation, choosing his words carefully as though he were constructing prose. Though his Hebrew accent was strongly pronounced, his English was superior to most American writers I had interviewed, enabling him to reduce complex insights into impressively economical soundbites.

Max then moves the interview to politics, and you can feel his frustration with Grossman slowly mounting.

At the time, Grossman was brimming with optimism about Barack Obama’s presidency. Though the Israeli right loathed Obama, joining extreme rightists in the campaign to demonize him as a crypto-Muslim, a foreigner, and a black radical, liberal Zionists believed they had one of their own in the White House. Indulging their speculation, some looked to Obama’s friendship in Chicago with Arnold Jacob Wolf, a left-wing Reform rabbi who had crusaded for a two state solution during the 1970s before it was a mainstream position. If only Obama could apply appropriate pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu, still widely regarded as a blustering pushover, Israel could embark again on the march to the Promised Land, with the peace camp leading the tribe.

“This is the moment when Israel needs to see Likud come into contact with reality,” Grossman told me. “For years they have played the role of this hallucinating child who wants everything and asks for more and more. Now they are confronted with a harsh counterpoint by Mr. Obama, and they have to decide if they cooperate with what Obama says—a two-state solution—or continue to ask for everything.”

Grossman seemed confident that Obama was willing to confront Netanyahu, and that he would emerge victorious. “A clash with a strong and popular president is not possible for Israel. Israel can never, ever subjugate an American president,” he claimed. “I see Netanyahu reluctantly accepting the demands of Obama to enter into a two-state solution. [Netanyahu] will pretend to be serious about it, but he will do everything he can to keep the negotiations from becoming concrete. He will drag his feet, blame the Palestinians, and rely on the most extreme elements among the Palestinians to lash out in order to stop negotiations. My hope is that there is a regime in America that recognizes immediately the manipulation of the Likud government and that they won’t be misled.”

By the time Max poses a question about the US flexing its muscles to change Israeli policy, you know what Grossman is going to say, and the combination of naïveté and cynicism on display is exasperating.

I asked Grossman if Obama should threaten Netanyahu with the withholding of loan guarantees in order to loosen his intransigent stance, as President George H. W. Bush had done to force Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (Netanyahu’s former boss) to the negotiating table. He rejected this idea out of hand. “I hope it shall be settled between friends,” Grossman responded. “The pressure Obama applies should be put in a sensitive way because of Israeli anxieties and our feeling that we’re living on the edge of an abyss. The reactions of Israelis are very unpredictable. It will take simple and delicate pressure for the United States to produce the results they are looking for. But whenever American presidents even hinted they were going to pressure Israel, they got what they wanted. Netanyahu is very ideological, but he is also realistic and he is intelligent, after all. He will recognize the reality he is in.”

Max doesn’t say anything, but you can see his eyes rolling in frustration and impatience (mine certainly were). Now he’s ready to get personal, to zoom in on the empty silence at the heart of Grossman’s position.

For Grossman and liberal Zionists like him, the transformation of Israel from an ethnically exclusive Jewish state into a multiethnic democracy was not an option. “For two thousand years,” Grossman told me when I asked why he believed the preservation of Zionism was necessary, “we have been kept out, we have been excluded. And so for our whole history we were outsiders. Because of Zionism, we finally have the chance to be insiders.”

I told Grossman that my father [Sidney Blumenthal] had been a kind of insider. He had served as a senior aide to Bill Clinton, the president of the United States, the leader of the free world, working alongside other proud Jews like Rahm Emanuel and Sandy Berger. I told him that I was a kind of insider, and that my ambitions had never been obstructed by anti-Semitism. “Honestly, I have a hard time taking this kind of justification seriously,” I told him. “I mean, Jews are enjoying a golden age in the United States.”

It was here that Grossman, the quintessential man of words, found himself at a loss. He looked at me with a quizzical look. Very few Israelis understand American Jews as Americans but instead as belonging to the Diaspora. But very few American Jews think of themselves that way, especially in my generation, and that, too, is something very few Israelis grasp. Grossman’s silence made me uncomfortable, as though I had behaved with impudence, and I quickly shifted the subject from philosophy to politics. Before long, we said goodbye, parting cordially, but not warmly. On my way out of the café, Grossman, apparently wishing to preserve his privacy, requested that I throw my record of his phone number away.

Like Blumenthal, you leave the interview feeling uncomfortable. Both at that anguished and abject confession that Jews “finally have the chance to be insiders”—This is what all that brutality against the Palestinians was for? This is what Jews killed and were killed for? To be insiders?—and at Blumenthal’s reply that Jews outside Israel are insiders too. If being an insider is the best defense of Israel Grossman can come up with, what happens to that defense when it confronts the fact that Jews can be insiders outside of Israel? That’s the question that Max is asking and that Grossman doesn’t answer.

With this exchange, Max reveals the chasm between Israeli and American Jews and the surprising provincialism of some of Israel’s most prominent writers (as a piece by Laura Brahm earlier this year suggests, that provincialism may be more endemic among liberal Israelis than we realize). But he also exposes the deeper impasse of the eternal outsider—from whom the most ancient cries of justice, justice were heard—come in from the cold. Whether in Israel or at the highest levels of American power, Jews have become insiders. Whether we’re in Israel or without, that’s what Zionism means for us: we’re on the inside. The people of exile, the wandering Jew, has come home.

I’ve been sitting with that bleak exchange for days.


About Rob

Come with me if you want to live
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Let us scoff at and dismiss Jewish moralizing altogether; Survival is its own justification

  1. JODAFO says:

    I didn’t read the blog post(will later) but your part was awesome.

    • mindweapon says:

      Thanks JODAFO. The Corey Robin cut and paste was just to show an apparent weakness among the Jews, at least a portion of them, and that is that they seem to beileve their own moralizing. I don’t think Netanyahu or the settlers give a shit about Jewish moralizing except as a weapon against the Gentiles, but it looks like liberal, Marxist Jewish intellectuals really take that shit seriously.

      Our strength is in not taking moralizing seriously. I don’t need ten commandments! Only one. What is good for our race is good, everything else deserves destruction. Of course we can talk about what is actually good for our race within narrow bounds, but that one commandment is all the morality I need.

      • Maureen Martin, Aryan Street says:

        This is why Bob Whitaker’s rhetoric is so devastating to our enemies. Getting into an intellectual argument is called tailgating because it puts you in THEIR frame. So, very simply put, if someone calls you a racist, you can spend a half our trying to prove you aren’t a racist or trying to prove why it’s okay for you to be racially aware, or you can say, “you’re just saying that because I’m White.” and walk away. Or, to deviate from Whitaker, you can just laugh at them or you can call them an anti-White or a hater, then walk away. The idea is not to be drawn in to a bs argument because we have a right to survive and don’t have to justify it to anyone.

        2 Tim 3:3-9 Especially verse 7.

      • mindweapon says:

        C’mon, Maureen, if you’re going to quote the Bible, paste the full quote in. Don’t make us lazy readers look it up!

      • Trainspotter says:

        I agree Maureen. Personally, I enjoy intellectual debate, but it must be done with the sort of mindset that MW is discussing. When dealing with enemies, the key is to understand that THEY are on trial, not you. Never justify or appeal, only accuse and condemn. For example, there is not a single charge that they can level against whites that does not apply equally well, if not more so, to non-whites. Just flip it right back at them, calling them out for the hypocritical anti-white liars and scum that they are.

        The only time it pays to get into more detail is for the benefit of an honest reader, not for the benefit of the anti-white. In fact, nothing at all should be written for the benefit of the anti-white. It is only an illusion that you are discussing anything with him at all, as in truth you are speaking to honest white readers who may happen upon the exchange. The anti-white is merely the foil, the debate simply a platform. The anti-white is there to be humiliated, nothing more. That’s his role.

        For most people, the BUGS approach is probably best, but for those who want a little more leeway, always remember: accuse and condemn, accuse and condemn, accuse and condemn. Only bring up extra facts if you want an honest white reader to see it, there is nothing to prove to the anti-white. You are the judge, they are on trial, and they are guilty.

      • Mr. Rational says:

        Trainspotter, you just pegged the reason I respond to trolls on sites like SBPDL.  Not for the trolls, but for the lurkers.

      • Peter Blood says:

        No apologies. Attack attack attack!

      • Maureen Martin, Aryan Street says:

        I figure it better not to post it as some aren’t interested.

  2. Clytemnestra says:

    LOL. I like your KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) style where it comes to commandments, MW.

    It is surprising how much the MSM is into nuance and complexity when applying the KISS strategy would resolve any nonsense within days rather than spending years aggravating it. Like enforcing immigration laws. Don’t want to separate families? KISS says they can reunite in their homelands. Round ’em ALL up and send ’em home.

    Want the so-called “Dreamers” to have an education? So why pass laws that give them “in state tuition?” KISS offers One Standard Tuition Fee For Everybody. No more in-state, out-of-state, out-of-country tuition fees. And no more paying for state colleges out of state property and sales taxes. KISS.

    But I agree with Just The One Commandment, MW. If Whites would just embed that commandment into everything they do, they wouldn’t have one centimeter of the problems that we are experiencing today.

  3. TabuLa Raza says:

    Jewish good- whatever is bad for Whites.

    Run that in reverse- Demon est Deus inversus

  4. BlackSun says:

    Your comments really cut to the heart of the matter. Let them squawk about morality all they like – we don’t need to justify our existence to them, we just need to ensure that we do survive despite their best efforts. It’s one thing to have moral discussions with people who are open-minded but confused – they can be reached. With Jews and other sworn enemies, it’s a waste of time and effort that could be spent more productively elsewhere.

    • mindweapon says:

      Yes and a big problem is that White kids go to college expecting good faith intellectual debate and learning, and instead get political correctness and Marxist indoctrination and you better go along . . . or you don’t get to share in the bacchanalias and the sex orgies.

      Of course now we have the Gospel of Roissy at heartiste.wordpress.com and hopefully these naive college boys will know how to deal with college girls and with political correctness — to mock and laugh with amused mastery.

  5. Wolzek says:

    When your opponent engages in an argumentum of morality, you don’t necessarily have to crush their argument specifically. Use logical reasoning to show that morality should simply be dismissed in favor of survivalism.

    ‘Yours is an argumentum solely of morality.
    Hate it or love it, survival is the law of nature.
    Survival trumps morality, always and everywhere. Without exception.
    Because existence itself precedes morality. Not the other way around.
    Moralization is only possible for those who exist.
    Those who survive, retain the capacity for future moralization.
    Those who cease to exist, lose the capacity for moralization, forever.
    It is impossible for a dead people to be a moral people.’

    At this point you’ve got them in a ‘trap’ of sorts.
    If they are unable to ‘refute’ such argumentum they will drop the morality play, allowing you to battle on other terms.

    If they attempt to continue the morality play, they will almost certainly imply that ‘maybe immoral people don’t deserve to live’. Again, continue on with the logic that, life precedes morality, morality can’t exist without life to entertain its’ notion. At the same time paint them into a corner with your own morality play.

    ‘You’re implying that because I consider morality secondary to survival, that I/we don’t deserve to live. What you are doing is using logical fallacies to justify my-death/white-genocide. By your own moral standards targeting specific ethnic groups for harassment or extermination is immoral. But you have just now done exactly that. Meaning that by your logic, your own death would be morally justifiable.”

    Always attack. Never defend. When you get hit with labeling fallacies which are easy to explain quickly, correct them. Make them look stupid. Like ‘Bigot’. “A bigot is someone who is set in their opinions or views and refuses to change. This conversation has proven you a bigger bigot then I.” If they hit you with a libelous label which can’t quickly be refuted, don’t run from it. OWN IT. When someone calls you ‘a racist’ reply in a tone that sounds ‘sincere’, “Oh! Why thank you for the compliment!” You can extend it with “Are you one too?”. If they had attempted to ‘justify’ white genocide earlier in the conversation, you get to point out they are ‘racist’ too. ETC.

    Whenever you can, refute with logical reasoning and facts. Whenever you can’t, then attack, mock, and ridicule. Never show in any way, any signs that their libelous statements make you feel uncomfortable or nervous. Attempt to remain calm and collected in appearance, and laugh off all of their statements. They REALLY hate it when they fail to evoke an emotional reaction. The only thing worse than that, is when the only reaction they get is you smiling and laughing at all of their provocations.

    • Maureen Martin, Aryan Street says:

      You sound like Craig Cobb. He’s good but a little wordy still.

      Online I have thanked the genociders for using their real names and informed them that we are taking names. (we ARE)

  6. Attila says:

    Arguing is used by them as a diversionary tactic- to weaken and make you scatter your forces. I usually don’t engage and say something like “I don’t want to waste my time arguing with you” or something similar. The conversation needs to be nipped in the bud for tactical (energy savings) reasons. Only a fool argues with a fool.

  7. MOISHE (NOT) says:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s