Genesis Of A People

The Siege Mentality:

“We don’t hate anyone.  We just want to see good things come to our race.” –A familiar refrain, coming from a representative of the Klu Klux Klan, 1/30/13

“Those who deny freedom to others do not deserve it themselves.” –Abraham Lincoln, 1860

On the opening page of Adolph Hitler’s “My Jihad”, we find a statement that underlies the logic of all other brands of militant ethno-nationalism–especially those making appeals to blood and soil: “People of the same blood should be in the same Reich.” {37}

Hitler then stated in no uncertain terms: “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.  In standing guard against the Jew, I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.”

In the Postscript to my essay, “Nemesis”, I refer to this pathological obsession with “Deus Vult” as the DGW (doing god’s will / work) syndrome.  It involves the delusion that one is doing god’s work (and thus fulfilling one’s divinely-ordained destiny)…which involves waging war against a demonized OTHER–a dastardly foe by which the in-group feels itself besieged.  Every tribe that succumbs to this kind of Exceptionalism (i.e. Providentialism) likes to think that god (or the gods, as the case may be) is on THEIR side.  Having succumbed to collective hubris, rarely do they aspire the converse: that they are on GOD’S side.  (This was a distinction made by Abraham Lincoln.)

All is done for the glory of the in-group on behalf of [insert deity here].  In carrying out its agenda, the exalted in-group enjoys the imprimatur of god.  It thereby gives itself a blank check to do whatever it sees fit.  Emblematic of this was the message emblazoned on the belt-buckles of Nazi soldiers: “Gott Mit Uns” [God With Us]; which was then invoked to justify the policy of “lebensraum”: making room for the in-group (by purging the homeland of the out-group).  The notion of dominion (entitlement to a certain domain) via a “mandate from Heaven” can be found across the world–as with the ancient Chinese “Hua-Xia” [Our Space].  It’s what Italian fascists dubbed “spazio vitale”; what Japanese Imperialists dubbed “hakko ichiu”; and what the Croatian “Ustashe” dubbed “ciscenje terena” [“cleansing the terrain”].

Judeo-Supremacists now carry out their own version of this deranged ideology in what they lay claim to a tract of land that has–they insist–been bequeathed to them by the Abrahamic deity.  It should go without saying that if it is wrong when one group does it, it is wrong when ANY group does it; and for the same reasons.  (For more on the revisionism of “Israel”, see my essay: “The Land Of Purple”.)

Reliance on the principle of historic rights has fueled some of the most tendentious territorial struggles in history.  Italian fascists claimed Dalmatia (Croatia) because it had earlier belonged to the Venetian Empire.  The Serbs claimed sovereignty over Kosovo based on the victory over the Ottomans in 1389. {27}

It is one thing to tie tribal honor to a contrived legacy; it is quite another to base it on the seizure of a designated tract of land, based on the trumpeting of ancient fables.

We might note the Germanic concept, “Volksgemeinschaft”; as it demonstrates how quickly / easily paeans to ethnic solidarity slide into falls for racial solidarity…which invariably leads to racial supremacy.  Couple with this the mythic notions of “ur-heimat” [connoting an original ethnic homeland] and Providentialism, and the result is a vile cocktail.  It is entirely spurious in every instance.  This goes for whether we consider the fabled Maori homeland, “Hawaiki Nui”…or the fabled Aztec homeland, “Aztlan”.

The notion that the Creator of the Universe dolls out tracts of land according to ancestry is bonkers.  The proposition that a designated tract of land has been reserved for a “chosen tribe” (i.e. a CERTAIN RACE) is downright invidious.  This is the case irrespective of who is doing it.  This has been the case throughout history, regardless of who is doing it.  Indeed, the ideation of “god-chosen” goes back to the Bronze Age.  In ancient Egypt, there was the locution “Setepen-Ra” (meaning: the chosen of Ra).  To justify a deed, one need only say that one is doing the deity’s will (or that whatever one decrees has the imprimatur of the godhead).  For if GOD ordains it, then who are we to question it?

For anti-Semites, “zionist” is just a euphemism for anyone who is of Jewish ethnicity.  Ironically enough, Revisionist Zionists (hereafter, RZs) suppose that to be properly Jewish IS TO BE Zionist.  In other words, both kinds of right-wing ideology engage in this needlessly contentious protean thinking.

Conjuring bigotry where no bigotry exists is the hallmark of the true bigot.  Those who cry anti-Semitism to discredit critics of Israeli policies discredit the charge.

This grossly expanded definition of “anti-Semitism” is primarily meant to silence Jewish critics of Israel, even as Judeo-Supremacists continue to seize Palestinian land, demolish Palestinian homes, and continue to routinely perpetrate crimes against humanity, with impunity.

Those who cry anti-Semitism to discredit critics of Israeli policies end up discrediting the indictment; and vitiating the potency of an important term. (If any perceived slight can qualify, then the charge means nothing.)

Here, alterity is operative.  Non-Jewish residents of the nation-State are seen as “Ger Toshav” (aliens in our midst).  Lebensraum makes perfect sense if THE OTHER is seen as TRESPASSERS.

For those who contend that to criticize Israeli government deeds / policies is to be anti-Semitic, they might take pause and consider the implicit message: To be Jewish is to necessarily be fascistic.  For them, it’s as if bigotry were a precondition for Jewish-ness.  One might call this “inverted anti-Semitism”, as it claims to be the opposite of anti-Semitism even as it (inadvertently) ends up in the same place as (overt) anti-Semitism.  This boondoggle was most flagrant when the Trump administration tried to declare Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and UNRWA anti-Semitic.

The repercussions of false pride are clear, especially in the context of tribalism.  In his “Folly Of Fools”, Robert Trivers explains: “When a feeling of power [i.e. of “chosen-ness” or exceptionalism] is induced in people, they are less likely to take others’ [read: outsiders’] viewpoint and are more likely to center their thinking on themselves. The result is a reduced ability to comprehend how others see, think, and feel.  Power, among other things, induces blindness toward others” (p. 20).  Thus tribalism engenders staunch parochialism, fetters open-mindedness, and severely attenuates the scope of empathy beyond the in-group.  The staunch vested interest a dogmatist has in upholding is sacrosanct “truths” precludes him from engaging in a sober, objective critical analysis.  He is constitutionally predisposed to not be open-minded and impartial.

By the time RZ adopted this collective pathology, the modern (read: hyper-nationalist) sense of “lebensraum” already had a long history—going back to the 18th century.  The ethno-centric tribalism expressed by the likes of Johann Herder and Johann Fichte spoke of nations (demarcated along ethnic lines) reserved the (god-given) right to include all of THEIR OWN people (the in-group, ethnically-defined) within its proclaimed boarders, which entails the license to persecute and/or evict all others, as they saw fit.  Wherefore?  Because it is THEIR DESTINY.

Heinrich Treitschke picked this thinking up in the 19th century.  That culminated in the proto-fascist asseverations of Joseph Mazzini.  In his “On The Duties Of Man”, he wrote: “Let each man among you strive to incarnate his country in himself.”  There were no individual rights, only individual duties (to the nation).  “Rights” only existed in tribalistic terms (i.e. as collective rights).  Each “nation” (ethnically defined) had a right to a consecrated territory devoted to itself (its own people; its own destiny).  This was all couched in the idiom of Providentialism.  (The Creator of the Universe was an impresario of the geo-politics of homo sapients on this third rock from the sun.)

According to this thinking, the in-group has license to proclaim the scope of its territory to the extent necessary to accommodate the (exclusive) in-group, who are entitled to assert sovereignty over anyone else in that domain.  It is only NATURAL for a designated people to live within a certain geographically-contiguous nation-State, to the exclusion of anyone else, so that nobody has to live amongst foreigners…the presence of whom only threatens to sully the pristine culture of the exalted in-group.

At first blush, one might suppose the analogy of Nazi “lebensraum” to be rather harsh?  Note Hermann Göring: “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy.  All you need to do is tell them that they are being attacked; then denounce the peace-makers for lack of patriotism and for endangering the homeland.  It works the same in any country.”  Carl Schmitt put it more concisely: “Tell me who your ENEMY is, and I will tell you who YOU are.”  Such statements are indistinguishable from the mindset of RZs.  Indeed, this is the exact rhetoric encountered in RZ ideology.

Initially, the raison d’être for positing a “national home” for the Jewish people was to provide a refuge from the persecutions they were enduring in Europe.  According to the ham-fisted “Balfour Declaration” (at the conclusion of the First World War, and pursuant to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire), Jews in need of sanctuary would be moved to Canaan (i.e. Palestine) with the condition that “nothing shall be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of the exiting non-Jewish communities already there.”  This was initially a secular enterprise, oriented around SOCIALISM.  RZ upended this initial (estimable) approach, eschewing the communalist spirit of the kibbutz whilst allying itself with dubious parties.

Tellingly, RZ at the time colluded with the earliest impresarios of Nazism; as both wanted Jews out of Europe, relegated to a location faraway, segregated from the rest of the world.  Moreover, RZ backed the precursor to Hamas.  For, in basing itself on religious fundamentalism, it preferred to back ANY alternative to the P.L.O., as it was an icon of that despised beast, secularism.   If Hamas would become the ever-present bugbear, then all-the-better.  After all, every fanaticism is emboldened by a nemesis.

Divisive theological convictions suffuse the terrestrial grievances of RZ ideologues.  Strip away the theology, and the agenda makes no sense.  That is, it would make no sense short of a generic fixation on seizing territory for one’s own ethnic group.  Such a fixation is due to the usual tribalistic hunger for dominion over land, without outsiders getting in the way.  To wit: An obsession with blood and soil.  For this reason, it is a derogation of Judaism to render it synonymous with RZ.  In reality, one no more has to be Jewish to be a Zionist than one has to be a Zionist to be Jewish.

It is, then, a perverse irony that RZ apologists deign to equate Judaism with RZ–as the supposition is that to be Jewish is to subscribe to such an opprobrious ideology.  The upshot of this supposition is that one must be racist (Judeo-Supramacist) in order to be Jewish.  Suffice to say: The insinuation that all Jews are racist in THIS way is–as it were–inadvertently anti-Semitic; as it is ostensibly championing Beth Israel.  (Thus: inverted ant-Semitism.)  Couple this with the fact that RZ is one of the chief instigators of anti-Semitism (furnishing those so inclined with a casus belli), and one finds RZ to be the primary culprit in animus directed toward the world’s Jewish people.

Playing upon insecurities and drummed-up sympathies, one can carry out ethnic cleansing under the auspices of PROTECTION.  Hence the mere existence of an indigenous population of goyim in Canaan provides RZ with a nemesis to be vanquished; as those pesky goyim (i.e. native Palestinians) happen to be in the way of the proclaimed Judaic “lebensraum”.  How is this justified (beyond the usual claims of “Deus Vult”)?  “Someone did it to us; so now we can do it to someone else…as restitution to ourselves.”

The raft of RZ grievances are rendered null if shorn of the deranged theological claims that undergird the attendant ideology.  This grotesque manifestation of the siege mentality enables militant offense to be passed off as defense.  Thus hostility masquerades as “security”; and racism masquerades as self-preservation.  This imbues militarism with unassailable credence.  We should recall Hermann Göring’s dictum that, in ANY political system, one need only plead some dire state of victim-hood, and declare war against the designated menace.  One can then marshal widespread public support for whatever one is doing, no matter how morally dubious.  After all, who would have the gall to side against the designated VICTIMS?  Considering the virulence of this persecution complex, one would think that Othni-El (the first Hebrew Judge) was still fighting off the Aramaeans.

RZ tend to dissemble when it comes to their siege mentality.  Yet, in a rare moment of candor, Alan Dershowitz admitted the neurosis underlying his ideology—which, he conceded was a “Holocaust mentality”.  He described this mentality as the chronic suspicion that he was under persecution.  With this Freudian slip, a craven apologist for RZ admitted that the ideology was predicated on (the perpetuation of) a persecution complex.

It is a gross irony that many of those who rail against “Holocaust denial” (with respect to the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis) are the same people who are THEMSELVES guilty of holocaust denial when it comes to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine perpetrated by their ideological brethren.  (The phenomenon of holocausts is addressed in Appendix 2; where I show that nobody OWNS this term, or the travesty that it describes.)

One can’t help but espouse Judeo-Supremacism after taking seriously passages like 2:1-4 and 61:5-6 in the Book of Isaiah…or 30:7-9 in the Book of Jeremiah…or 20:37-38 in the Book of Ezekiel.  “God didn’t make a covenant with anyone in the world but US.”

And so it goes: The ideologue cannot see in himself the very crime for which he—rightly or wrongly—indicts others.  (“Fine when WE do it, but wrong when anyone else does it.”)  The only reposte to this is “tu quo-que”.

Bullies typically portray themselves as being the ones in danger from some menacing OTHER, when it is they who are the primary source of animus.  Those afflicted with a persecution complex invariably become the persecutors.  Hence Revisionist Zionism was born.

The siege mentality is the hallmark of ethnocentrism, and thus an indication that fascistic thinking is afoot.  There is a method to this hysteria.  For the overstatement of peril (being under siege) is parlayed into a rationalization for aggression.  Thus militancy ameliorates insecurity; and offense is cast as a means of defense.  In this (duplicitous) scheme, supposing one is under siege by X is used to justify bigotry toward X.  (The Nazis used the exact same formula vis a vis socialists, Roma, Poles, Russians, and anyone who was Jewish.)  Drummed-up feelings of victimization are then used as justification for aggression.  It is the bully who often claims that he is under attack.  For he thrives off the antagonism he decries.  The grievance he has created for himself gives his hubris a veneer of moral legitimacy.

RZ is a case in point.  Not since the Second World War has the socio-political exploitation of a victim narrative been taken to such extremes; and used in such a vulgar manner.

It is not for nothing that Moritz Güdemann feared that a day might come when “Judaism, with cannons and bayonets, would reverse the roles of David and Goliath to constitute a ridiculous contradiction of itself.”  It is said that fascism typically emerges wrapped in a flag, carrying a religious talisman.  Indeed, super-patriotism (hyper-nationalism, especially when infused with ethno-centrism) and fundamentalist religionism often go hand in hand, as both stem from some combination of delusion and zealotry.

“We, the good guys, are in a holy war with a nemesis” is a quick way to mobilize support for extreme measures–including the arrogation of power to authoritarian regime.  A paranoid mob can be easily galvanized by the sales-pitch: “Give me power and I will protect you from this menace!”  After all, neurosis and militancy are symbiotic.  There are many ways to be delusive (a.k.a. “unhinged”), and each feeds off of the other.

And so it goes: a positive feedback loop ensues.  WE feel as though we are under siege.  We thus find ourselves in a dire predicament that gives US–and ONLY us–license to put THE OTHER under ACTUAL siege as a countermeasure.  This will, in turn, elicit a hostile response that we can use to (further) rationalize our casus belli.  And on and on.  Reactions to our perceived plight is thus a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And so it goes: The proponent of RZ fuels the very thing he laments.  Such projection is why White Supremacists don’t crow about “supremacy”, they prattle on about a pristinely white nation, then guffaw about a vilified OTHER (non-Anglo-Saxons) making incursions into “our” land; and then cry “white genocide”.  So they circle the wagons.  After all, in their minds, they’re being besieged by foreigners who threaten what they fashion as an ethnically pure homeland.

Similarly, RZs don’t explicitly fashion themselves as Judeo-Supremacists; they see themselves as fighting back against an incursion into “eretz Israel”.  Anyone who doesn’t play along with this scheme is summarily vilified as “anti-Semitic”.  (“Stand in the way of OUR lebensraum, and you’re just trying to reprise the ‘Shoah’!”)  The irony is that proponents of RZ have become the mirror image of the very thing that had victimized their forebears.

Consumed by ancient grievances, RZ today are still preaching the gospel of racial purity and lebensraum…even as they complain about the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis.  They fail to see the glaring hypocrisy: “It’s bad when THEY did it, but it’s fine now that WE are doing it.”  Of course, to be truly anti-fascist, one must be against ALL forms of fascism.  (For more on this, see my essay: “The Many Faces Of Fascism”.)

Those who support the Israeli government’s right-wing policies hem and haw about Khomeinists in Iran and Hamas in the Gaza strip–both forms of deranged Islamic fanaticism.  In a perverse twist of irony, BOTH entities were bolstered by the Israeli government in the early 1980’s (abetting Hamas in its antecedent form, as a countermeasure to the disdained P.L.O.; arming the Iranian regime–including support for its embryonic nuclear program–as a countermeasure to the disdained Iraqi regime).

Bring claims of (divine) Providence into the mix, and this pathology is super-charged.  Divine election / appointment is the ultimate fulcrum for Exceptionalism: whereby the exalted in-group fashions itself to be special in a way that anyone else is not.  So it makes sense that they accord to themselves CATEGORICAL entitlements that are unique to them.  This exclusive status endows the anointed tribe with certain claims—this this case: upon a particular tract of land.   In this divinely-sanctioned scheme, to not be part of the designated group is to be marginalized BY DIVINE ORDINANCE.  This invidious mode of categorization is considered sacrosanct; as the will of [insert godhead or deified figure here] is unimpeachable.  After all, who’s to question god’s will?  (As medieval Roman Catholics used to put it to rationalize their own deranged agendas: “Deus Vult!”  End of discussion.)

We can–and must–fight anti-Semitism and Judeo-Supremacism at the same time.  Each fight is a different facet of the same enterprise; as both ideologies are based on the same deranged principles.  Indeed, their derangements are symbiotic; as one fuels (alt. feeds off of) the other.  (Fanaticism stokes counter-fanaticism: Each a Reactionary mindset pitted against its mirror image.)

The charge that to be anti-RZ is to somehow be anti-Semitic is itself anti-Semitic–as it suggests that to be Jewish were necessarily to be ethno-centric and/or a religious fanatic.  In other words: The charge is based on projection.  What we see in such a scenario is, in effect, the racist accusing the humanist for being racist…DUE TO the latter being against the racist’s own brand of racism.  It’s as if anti-racism were somehow a form of racism. {33}

It should come as no surprise that RZs and anti-Semites aligned on one matter: Jews were a foreign people in Europe, and so didn’t belong there.  (Ethno-centrism goes both ways: bigots on BOTH sides forbid miscegenation.)  Common cause was thus forged between RZ and notorious anti-Semites like Arthur Balfour–who, as British foreign secretary, declared Jews “an alien and hostile people” and sponsored legislation to prevent the U.K. from admitting Jewish refugees.  (Note that the only Jewish M.P. at the time, Edwin Samuel Montague, voted against the dunderheaded “Balfour Declaration”.)

When hegemonic, tribal supremacy typically entails the coerced dispersion of indigenous populations, creating a diaspora.  This can quickly translate to ethnic cleansing.  In the most abominable cases, genocide occurs.  Such an event is sometimes referred to as “holocaustum” (the Latinized version of Koine Greek: “holokauston”), meaning decimation by conflagration.  This is Anglicized to “holocaust”, meaning mass slaughter.  I discuss the global application of this term in Appendix 2.

Note that “diaspora” can refer to any ethnic group that has been driven from its native land; and subsequently spread across the globe.  There is an African diaspora (by far the largest; primarily the result of the slave trade), a Yazidi diaspora, an Armenian diaspora, a Kazakh diaspora, a Tatar diaspora, a Kalmyk diaspora, a Mongolian (esp. Zunghar) diaspora, a Hmong diaspora, a Tibetan diaspora, a Palestinian diaspora, a Polish diaspora (the “Polonia”), a Japanese diaspora (“Issei”), and countless others.  Every one of them involves some degree of tragedy.

The dispersion of an ethnic people is often the result of some sort of purification program undertaken by a (more powerful) group in the exiled group’s native land.  The dominant group views itself as superior, and thus entitled.  Such dispersion is often coerced; and–in the worst cases–the result of an ethnic cleansing campaign (as with the ethnic purging of Arabs from Palestine in since the Nakba in 1948, which is still on-going).  In the most abominable cases, genocide occurs.

The eradication of human life when it is seen an an inferior OTHER is perpetrated by those who exalt the in-group.  There have been many examples of the phenomenon in recent history (as enumerated in Appendix 2).

We might note the disturbing parallels between different brands of fascism (see my essay on “The Many Faces Of Fascism”).  Throughout the 1920’s and 30’s, Adolph Hitler enthusiastically endorsed the idea of establishing a reservation for the Jewish people in the Levant.  In the 1930’s, he sent the notorious SS officer, Otto Adolf Eichmann to meet with Zionist leaders in order to discuss how this might be done.  The proposed program involved the transfer of Europe’s Jews to somewhere–anywhere–in the Levant.  This included the possibility of the Jews forming a State of their own.  The aim was to maximize–and expedite–said emigration.  As late as the spring of 1938, Hitler spoke in support of precisely this program.  It is a perverse irony that anti-Semites (found not only in fascist European countries, but in Russia as well) and Zionists shared the same interests in this singular respect.

Said discussions ended up yielding no fruit–as, pursuant to “Fall Weiss” (the Nazi invasion of Poland of 1939 commonly known as the “Blitzkrieg”), Heinrich Himmler proposed a far more nefarious plan for Europe’s Jewish population.

Even so, some Zionist leaders saw the Nazis as potentially useful partners…EVEN AFTER 1939.  Indeed, in the autumn of 1940, the founder of the terrorist organization, “Lohamei Herut Israel” (“Lehi”; a.k.a. the “Stern Gang”), Avraham Stern sent a message to a senior Nazi official (the ambassador in Palestine). {21}  It began: “Common interests could exist [between Germany and] the true national aspirations of the Jewish people.”  The missive stipulated that in the event “the aspirations of the freedom movement of Israel are recognized, [we will] actively take part in the war on the German side.”  (Note that this was AFTER the concentration camps had already begun operation.)  Stern’s reasoning for this proposal was quite straight-forward.  If the resettlement were undertaken, surely Hitler would get what he wished (no Jews in Germany) while the ultimate goal of hard-line Zionists could be achieved (the in-gathering of all Jews in Palestine).

Stern further stated that such re-settlement would “strengthen the future German position of power in the Middle East”; and added that it would also “strengthen the moral basis [of the Third Reich] in the eyes of the world.”  Indeed, NEITHER the Nazis NOR the Zionists wanted Jews mixing with the rest of mankind.  To wit: They BOTH sought segregation along racial lines. {22}

It is no coincidence that, to the present day, both Aryan Supremacists and Judeo-Supremacists insist on singling out Jews from the rest of the human race.  The fact of the matter is: It is NON-racists who encourage miscegenation, and RACISTS who demand racial purity. {23}

Note that Zionists refer to the aforementioned re-settlement program as the “Aliyah”.  There is nothing unique about this ironic alignment.  American president Harry Truman was an anti-Semite who unabashedly supported the establishment of the modern nation-State of “Israel”.  American president Richard Nixon was an antisemite who (in deference to his psychopathic Secretary of State, Harry Kissinger) supported the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur war.  Today, many of the most anti-Semitic ideologues are fundamentalist Christians who support Revisionist Zionism for their own cockamamie reasons.

And so it goes: Right-wing ideologues often have strange bed-fellows.  We might recall that the earliest RZs promoted the precursor of Hamas as a counter-measure to the despised Palestinian Liberation Organization, as it was associated with those dreaded bogeymen: secularism and socialism.

This queer phenomenon is nothing new.  Recall that it was the American abolitionists who harbored racist views against blacks who recommended that freed African slaves be re-settled back in Africa–an idea that has been appropriately referred to as “black Zionism”.

The opposite of this is: We WANT you to stay; we WANT to integrate you into our society; and we WANT to mix with you (in every sense).  Why?  Because we recognize you to be fellow humans; and THAT is all that matters.

That an ethnic group would countenance claims of ethnic supremacy in order to muster a modicum of self-esteem reveals a deep-seated insecurity.  After all, Judeo-fascism, like ANY form of fascism, is predicated on a collective neurosis.

Victimhood his a fatuous basis for identity.  This is especially the case when that victimhood status is largely self-inflicted.  (There is no greater instigator for anti-Semitism in the world than the heinous policies of the Israeli government.)  Flocking to a piece of land, viciously persecuting and evicting the indigenous population, then complaining that those persecuted / evicted peoples are now resentful as one plants one’s flag on THEIR land?  One cannot be genuinely “under siege” under such circumstances.  One’s proclaimed safe-haven cannot be a predicament that one has created for oneself in the past couple generations–thus claiming to seek refuge in a crucible of peril that was of one’s own making.  (To create an imbroglio that one holds to be one’s sanctuary is nothing short of schizophrenic.)

Alas, the RZ case for blood and soil has a scriptural basis in the Torah.  In Genesis 15:18, we are told that Yahweh promised Abraham’s progeny all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. (!)  Yet the geo-political rational for Zionism in its earliest form was that of refuge.  The idea was to find a land in which the Jewish people of Europe could find sanctuary from the persecution they were incurring.  It has since become an excuse to circle the wagons; and establish an ethno-State in the Levant.  It now serves as a pretext for Judeo-fascism.

This is a tragedy for Beth Israel especially, as it betrays the best parts of the Jewish tradition.  Judaism–especially within the Talmudic tradition–has always been known for inviting critical inquiry and embracing change. It is an open-ended tradition.  It is an ASPIRATIONAL tradition.  Which means it is forward-looking without needing to indulge in cockamamie eschatological musings…or delusive ethnocentric visions.  “Yisra-El” means struggling with god; which entails wrestling with all that our forebears have deemed sacrosanct.

Criticizing certain (demonstrably problematic) social norms that might happen to be prevalent in a certain racial group (due to historical accident) is NOT RACISM; as no social norm is inextricably affiliated with this or that racial group.  (In other words: No racial group is INHERENTLY predisposed to any given social norm.)  In fact, to suggest that such criticism is “racist” is ITSELF racist. (!)  For it insinuates that a certain “race” IS inherently so predisposed; and thus dysfunctional BY NATURE.  

Thus criticism of RZ isn’t racist; as its grievance is, after all, the RACISM endemic to RZ.  (Anti-racism is not itself a form of racism)  Meanwhile, the suggestion that such criticism is anti-Semitic is ITSELF anti-Semitic; as it insinuates that to be properly Jewish is to be fascistic (that the only way to be Jewish is to be a Judeo-Supremacist).  Obviously, criticizing the KKK is not tantamount to bigotry against WASPs.

Being prevalent, those problematic social norms (which are accidents of history) may have deleterious effects on said racial group.  In the event that IS the case, it does not preclude institutional racism (or some other structural inequality) as ALSO part of the explanation for said group’s plight.

The two causes of iniquity are not mutually exclusive.  One comes from within the group; the other is inflicted upon the group.  The case MIGHT be made that structural inequality reinforces / perpetuates the social dysfunction; but they are still two distinct causal explanations.

The exalted in-group is seen as THE ELECT.  “We have been chosen” is the collective version of “I have been chosen”.  It is born of the same conceit–a pathology that is mapped from hubris on the level of the individual to hubris on the level of the group.

The three primary elements of ethnic Supremacy are as follows:

1. A yearning to return to a mythical past (glory days) where the anointed tribe was pre-eminent, and thus enjoyed its rightful place in the world.
2. A belief that members belong to a perennially embattled group, perpetually under siege by a menacing OTHER; and so must fight for their survival…with the ultimate goal of re-taking the designated homeland (wherein an ethno-State shall be established).
3. A willingness to undertake draconian measures to achieve the stated goals.

In his “Nations & Nationalism” (p. 174-177), Eric Hobsbawm articulated this neurotic, tribalistic attitude thus: “If the foreigners with their knavish tricks did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them… Our very co-existence with ‘them’ now undermines the exclusive certainties of belonging to OUR people and OUR country.”  

Hobsbawm then asks: “What, if anything, have such ethno-nationalist reactions in common with the recent  rise of fundamentalism in many parts of the globe, which has been descried as appealing to ‘people who cannot tolerate random and haphazard existence and unexplained conditions; and thus often converge on those who offer most complete, inclusive and extravagant world-views.’  It is seen as ‘always reactive, reactionary’.  ‘Some force, tendency, or enemy must be perceived as potentially or actually eroding, corroding, or endangering one’s movement and what it holds dear.’  The fundamentals that fundamentalism stresses ‘always come from some earlier, presumably primal and pure…stage in one’s own sacred history.’  They ‘are used for setting boundaries, for attracting one’s kind and alienating other kinds, for demarcating.’” {24}

For a case in point, Hobsbawm notes the “markedly Old Testament phase of Likud Zionism in Israel, so different form the aggressively secularist, and even anti-religious, ideology of the movement’s founders.”  He adds that “such parties–as always–like to equate themselves with the sense of collective separateness, hostility to ‘them’; and the ‘imagined community’ which may be almost universally felt in their ‘nation’.”

To rationalize their de-humanization (nay, demonization) of goyim in the Levant, RZ claim that the Palestinians are somehow unqualified to be considered a “People”.  This warrants addressing two oft-made points:

ONE: Palestine qua Palestine was never a nation-State.  The Palestinians have never had their own nation-State–a distinction shared by the Romani, Hmong, and Inuit.  And though the Jains were integral to the Chalukya Dynasty, they never had a kingdom of their own.  Yet no sane person would contend that none of these groups are a legitimate People (simply by dint of the fact that none of them have ever had their own nation-State).  Shall we suppose the Tibetans are only to be considered a people insofar as they once had sovereignty over themselves?

This errant thinking was abetted by the invidious trope: “A land without a People for a People without a land”. Golda Mabovich (a.k.a. “Golda Meir”) perpetuated this lie in the 1970’s. It was actually the title of the 1984 book (then film), “From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters: a landmark piece of RZ propaganda. The invidious proposition is false on BOTH counts. It is historically fallacious; and since the conclusion of the Second World War, it has (thankfully) been factually incorrect.  Yet, to the present day, those who blithely deny the People-hood of the Palestinians continue to mouth it; passing their perfidy off with nary a shrug of the shoulders.

We might bear in mind that modern geographical affiliations are not always what they seem.  The Jains, Romani, Hmong, and Inuit are a People without a Land.  The Basque, Maya, Kurds, Armenians, and Tibetans USED TO have sovereignty over their homeland; yet currently do not.  Are they not a People entitled to their own self-determination?

The Palestinians are not unique in this respect.

Some groups end up establishing a NEW homeland after having been banished from their original homeland.  The Assyrian homeland was in the Nineveh plains up to Hakkari (centered at Beth Khdeda), not in Syria. The Armenians now have a nation-State; but it is in a different place than the (original) Armenia. {38} But this does not take away from every ethnic group’s right to self-determination. Just ask the residents of Hong Kong.

TWO: The Palestinians do not have a unique language; therefore they are not a bona fide PEOPLE.  The same can be said of virtually all people in the Americas, pace Native Americans. The primary languages of Latin America (Spanish and Portuguese) are not unique. So are we to conclude that Latinos are not a people?

And what about North Americans (of the United States and Canada); and (non-indigenous) Australians?  They don’t have their own language either. Shall we disqualify all of them from having a sovereign nation? (So much for New Zealand!) This criterion eliminates the Swiss, Belgians, and Austrians as well.

Outside of the Arabian peninsula, NO Arab country has an autochthonous national language, as–pace Berber–they all use one or another vernacular of Arabic (and/or French) as a lingua franca.

Are we really to suppose that a lack of linguistic novelty is a disqualifying factor for people-hood?  “X are not a people because they don’t have their own language” is a claim one could just as easily apply to Latin Americans or citizens of the United States.  Shall we contend, then, that Quebecois aren’t a people because they speak a tongue borrowed from France?  So much, then, for the majority of “Americans” (qua people identified by geographical designation) being, well, “Americans” (qua people with rights of sovereign nationality).

People-hood is predicated on factors that transcend sovereignty and language; as ethnicity cannot be boiled down to either political power or linguistic convention.  Otherwise, someone needs to notify the Catalonians that the reason they cannot have political autonomy is because they’ve never had political autonomy…and someone needs to notify the Brasilians that they don’t have the right to their own nation–seeing as how they speak Portuguese rather than a novel language.  And don’t forget half the population of Mozambique.  (Trying telling a Brasilian that he’s not REALLY “Brasilian”, he is–in reality–Portuguese, as that is the language he speaks. Good luck.)

The more fanatical proponents of this execrable ideology take very seriously passages like Deuteronomy 7:3-6, in which Yahweh admonishes against miscegenation with goyim–all but explicitly touting racial purity.  (Here, the Abrahamic deity summarily declares that he had elected the Hebrews to be “a special people unto himself, above all other people that are on the face of the Earth.”)  Hence the emergence of organizations fixated on racial purity, such as “Lehava”.

One of the more grotesque mutations of RZ is Christian Zionism–which, in a perverse twist of irony, harbors a patently anti-Semitic theology behind its voracious support for RZ (as the Jews are doomed to perdition in their deranged eschatology).  There is also a host of Christian-Zionist operations–such as Ha-Yovel, Christians United For Israel (CUFI), and Proclaiming Justice To The Nations.  Christian Zionism (a mutant strain of RZ) was pioneered by the Christian fanatic, Anthony Ashley Cooper (Earl of Shaftesbury) in the early 20th century; later instigated in America by Jerry Falwell, then put into overdrive by the likes of John Hagee and other fanatics.

One of the more popular shticks is to equate all Palestinians with militant Salafis (i.e. with Hamas).  Hamas was effectively created by the Israeli government as a counterweight to the secular-socialist Palestinian Liberation Authority.  Proponents of this deranged ideology can then legitimize collective punishment (that is: visit reprisal on all Palestinian civilians for the transgressions of a small subset).  Such perfidy is standard when it comes to perpetrators rationalizing a genocidal mindset.

Collective punishment is the modus operandi of ALL forms of fascism, even as it is often conducted under the aegis of ideologies that do not fashion themselves to be fascistic.  The key is to blame an entire ethnic group for the misdeeds of a small subset of that group.

After the Second World War, the Geneva Convention declared collective punishment a crime against humanity.  Yet many are still inclined to only see collective punishment as iniquitous in certain circumstances (that is: when it isn’t themselves undertaking it).

As usual, ethno-centrism has a symbiotic relationship with religious fundamentalism; as theology (i.e. etiology and eschatology) are THE BASIS FOR the racism.  Those who suppose that RZ has little to do with religion are being ridiculous.  Yes, RZs think primarily in terms of RACIAL demographics; and yes, they speak in terms of Jews and Arabs (rather than in terms of practitioners of Judaism vs. practitioners of Islam).  But they JUSTIFY their own agenda by their own religious tenets (while vilifying the Palestinians in terms of THEIR religious affiliation).  All the while, conditions for any given person’s entitlement is predicated on RACIAL background, irrespective of the person’s fealty to Judaism PER SE.  (Are you Jewish?” is the litmus test; and it has little to do with how stringently one hews to the Halakha.  It’s about ANCESTRY.  Ergo: “Birthright Israel”.)  It is to this semantic swindle that we shall now turn.