August 10, 2017

Jewish elites divorcing Zionism, courting Islamism

One of the most interesting and unstudied shifts in contemporary politics is the gradual distancing away from Zionism by Jewish elites in the West, when some flavor of Zionism used to be obligatory during the last several decades of the 20th century.

But with Muslims growing among the grassroots thanks to mass migration, the liberal base choosing "Islamophobia" as their bigotry boogeyman to battle, and Wall Street wanting to open up Muslim societies to foreign investment, the Jewish elites of the 21st century have little choice but to slink away from Zionism and develop at least a friendly working relationship with Islamism. And with Israel's waning military dominance in the Middle East, the Pentagon-led GOP has less and less need for Jews who are Zionist.

This represents just the latest case of a Jewish managerial elite favoring whichever group is rising in power -- making peace with them so that the middleman minority elite can be left alone to manage entire sectors of the society. The Ashkenazim played this role in the German and Slavic societies for century after century, without any thought of establishing their own ethno-state or supporting such a state at a distance. The Sephardim played a similar role under the Muslim rulers of Medieval Spain and, when they were expelled in 1492, under the Ottomans.

In America, too, most Jews didn't care about Israel during the first half of the 20th century. They wanted to rise up the ranks of the managers of the newly industrialized American nation. Not even the Holocaust made American Jews fixate on Israel as a supposed release valve nation.

It wasn't until the Israeli military began defeating the Arab armies around them, including the mighty nation of Egypt, that American Jews started to feel patriotic about Israel. That is also what brought it to the attention of the federal government, who had decades earlier turned back boats of Jews fleeing the Nazis. Now that the Jewish state could offer something we wanted -- local muscle to apply against our enemies in the oil-rich Middle East -- suddenly the Pentagon wanted to be best buds.

But Israel has not won major battles for decades now, making their triumph during the late 1960s and '70s look like more of a fluke. When a grassroots nationalist army like Hezbollah manages to drive you out of their homeland, Uncle Sam is going to start questioning your ability to serve as one of the "local cops on the beat" (Nixon).

Of course our #1 ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, has not had much better luck at pushing around its neighbors (ISIS in Iraq in Syria, invasion of Yemen, stand-off with Qatar). But at least the Saudis are sitting on a shitload of oil, unlike Israel, and we've been partners with them for far longer. Among the Pentagon brass, this means a weakening concern over Israel, and relatively more emphasis on Saudi Arabia.

The Pentagon is the main power group that controls the GOP; the junior partner is the Cultural Right, including evangelical Christians. And they have made the opposite shift in emphasis -- after September 11th, they've become more suspicious of Muslims generally and of Jihadi Arabia in particular, while growing ever more attached to Israel as the site of the Holy Land and "the only democracy" in the increasingly unstable region.

These diverging trends have created cracks in the Jihadist-Zionist coalition.

So, Zionists can no longer rely on the elites on the Pentagon / GOP side to reflexively have Israel's back. Can they turn instead to the Democrats? After all, the main power group controlling the Dems is the finance sector, and that is overwhelmingly Jewish, along with lesser power groups controlling the Democrats, such as the media and academia. Recall the mismatched demographics of the two parties: GOP elite leans jihadist, while base leans Zionist; Dem elite leans Zionist, while base leans jihadist.

They're bound to find sympathy there, but slowly those Jewish elites are beginning to cool on the idea of kneejerk defense and promotion of Israeli interests.

The main interest of the big Wall Street banks is opening up new countries for investors and central banking concerns. Israel is not that big of a market to break into -- but Iran, with nearly 10 times the population of Israel, is. That's the real reason why the Democrats were so big on removing the sanctions against Iran -- so the financial elites could finally start investing there and selling there, which is of no concern to the Pentagon.

They had to work in a nuclear non-proliferation angle to throw a bone to the Pentagon / GOP, but the main goal reflected the financial elites who control the Democrats. That's also their main worry about Trump pulling out of the Iran deal -- they don't care about nuclear weapons, but about the uncertainty that such moves will create for the investors and bankers who thought they were going to have a nice sanction-free business environment in Iran.

Aside from Wall Street wanting to get along with Iran for investment purposes, even if that displeases their co-ethnics in Israel, the Democrats also face anti-Israeli sentiment from their electoral base. Some are Muslim themselves, while most are liberal white people who are obsessed with eradicating "Islamophobia" from their society. This includes a rising share of younger Jewish liberals.

From these various grassroots factions, the movement to Boycott / Divest / Sanction Israel has grown rapidly, and within another bastion of the Democrats -- college campuses. This movement has mainstreamed the view of Israel as a European colonialist invader that has been exploiting the native population of Palestinians. Since the subjects are Muslim, that makes the state of Israel ipso facto Islamophobic.

The media have to both reflect the interests of the power groups who are their senior partners -- like Wall Street -- as well as resonate with the views of their lay liberal audience. Both of those sources are increasingly hostile toward Israel, or at least losing patience, so the media can no longer present a ceaseless narrative of "Israel has done nothing wrong".

None of these shifts has been completed, and the process is still ongoing. But it is clear in which direction the trends are headed. Whether you're a member of the Jewish elite that controls the banks, the media, academia, or Democrat politics, you have no choice but to distance yourself from Zionism. And the weakening Jewish state offers you little in return nowadays anyway, so that just makes the decision easier.

Note that this change is not away from Israel-first and toward America-first -- far from it! It is back to the rootless cosmopolitan stereotype, where there are no nations, and you simply throw in with whoever happens to be rising in power, wealth, and influence.

These days, that includes radical Islamists and their liberal sympathizers: "Behead those who blaspheme Allah!" = "Fire the Islamophobic bigots from their jobs!" A century ago it would not have included Muslims at all, and in another century, it may go back to not including Muslims. Goy group A, goy group B -- as long as you ingratiate yourself with them, they'll leave you alone to manage the complex society.

Nowhere is this tendency most striking than in the devil himself, George Soros. A recent NYT op-ed laments the punishment that Soros is taking from the government of the Jewish state, which has grown hostile to the world's premier promoter of dissolving demographic barriers between nations. That would erode the Jewish character of Israel, and Soros the progressive globalist has been happy to push for turning it into a melting pot of Jews and Palestinians.

Mr. Soros’s humanitarianism and universalism represent an expression of post-Holocaust Jewish identity that is anathema to the hard-line nationalism of Mr. Netanyahu’s governing coalition, which adheres to the classic Zionist mission that sought to end anti-Semitism and diaspora existence by gathering all Jews in the historic land of Israel. As in this case with Hungary, Mr. Netanyahu is increasingly aligning Israel with illiberal, autocratic states like Russia, Turkey and Egypt. The ultimate cynicism of such alliances is visible in Mr. Netanyahu’s willingness to tolerate the anti-Semitism of the global right-wing nationalist camp if it will bolster the Greater Israel movement.

Don't take the writer's word for it: Soros strongly came out against both Putin and Assad during their joint liberation of Aleppo from the jihadist militias. That proves that Soros doesn't care about Arabs in general, but only those who do not resist globalist interventions and takeover of their societies, and the Islamic radicals who have been trying to overthrow Assad are thoroughly international in scope.

The irony of Soros being opposed to Israel as a Jewish ethno-state, and the Israeli government being hostile toward Soros, is lost on the "Joooz" dead-enders among the Alt-Right. They think powerful globalist Jews must be pro-Israel, and that Israel would promote such individuals as agents of Israeli influence.

Someone writing for one of their blogs tried to get the message out two years ago, pointing out how fruitless and backwards it was for the Twitter troll armies to descend on globalist Leftist Jews with supposed killshots like "How about open borders for Israel, then, huh?" -- when the target is on the record enthusiastically wanting Israel to open its borders, make peace with Palestinians a la the South African whites did with the colonized blacks, and so on and so forth.

As the internal dynamics of the Democrat side lead more and more elite Jews to distance themselves from Zionism, these attacks will become even more outdated. Jewish elites are going back to rootless cosmopolitanism, so why would they bind themselves to a particular state like Israel? That would make them Islamophobic in the eyes of their grassroots base, and it would halt the investments made in Israel's enemies like Iran by the Wall Street banks who are their senior partners on Team Democrat.


  1. "Democrats' latest anti-Israel turn" from a few days ago in the NY Post:

  2. Curious, then, if you have any thoughts on the Yinon Plan. It sounds as though you don't. But from my perspective, who was responsible for the overthrow of the governments of Iraq and Libya and why? Who targeted Syria and why? Who is encouraging the flows of refugees into Europe and why? The answer seems to be those who want to create a Greater Israel. It seems that you would disagree. I'm not saying that you're wrong, as I always find what you write interesting and enlightening, but I would like to have your opinion on what many of us would see as the ABC of the current period.

  3. Because the jihadist and Zionist interests overlap quite a bit, some cases make it impossible to tell which side was behind it. You have to look at cases where one side clearly had a lot to gain, while the other side had little to gain, or would have even been harmed. That tells you which side is consistently behind our foreign policy.

    Iraq, you could say both Saudi and Israel stood something to gain if America got control over it -- a bulwark against Iran, which both Saudi and Israel want to contain. Still, there was no Zionist presence in Iraq after Saddam, vs. a strong jihadist presence -- that means Saudi gained more than Israel did from the Iraq War.

    Libya has no relevance to Israel, but it does to the jihadists who want an international takeover of Muslim societies by Islamists rather than secular strongmen. Again, you could say Israel likes those policies too, but they are for convenience for Israel, vs. being a very high end in themselves for Saudi.

    In Syria, there was no expansion of Greater Israel, vs. direct participation by Gulf jihadists, and spreading their own movement. Now that the jihadists are being routed by Russia / Assad, the US and Saudi are putting all their eggs in the Kurdish basket.

    That included a ceasefire in southern Syria, which Israel vehemently protested, vs. no protest from Saudi -- they don't care if the campaign to destabilize Assad and fend off Iranian expansion takes place farther north in Kurdistan. So Israel was the big loser in the US-Saudi decision to cut losses in southern Syria.

    Yemen War -- clearly Saudi's own interests, Israel gains nothing from it.

    Spat with Qatar -- also only Saudi's interests.

    Those last two have no counterpart in Israel, as though they had invaded Lebanon again like Saudi has invaded Yemen, or as though Israel had escalated a feud with Jordan like Saudi has with Qatar.

    Israel has been getting lesser, not Greater, for over 10 years now. Meanwhile Saudi has expanded their reach into neighboring countries in all directions. That's their peak, and they're on their way to shrinking back into the Arabian Desert, but they have clearly been the one driving things over there.

    Oh, and 9/11 -- that was a Saudi job, not an Israeli job.

    Afghanistan and Pakistan involve Saudi, but not Israel.

  4. Really the only front in the M.E. that is primarily Israeli rather than Saudi is Palestine. But that has nothing to do with "Greater" Israel expanding its influence -- Palestine is already contained within Israel.

  5. There's a media blitz right now about the "white nationalist" march in Virginia. The LA times uses Alt-right and white nationalist interchangeably, which suggests to me that the globalists are busy trying to discredit right populism by associating it with Neo-nazis. And indeed, a decent chunk of the putative populist right might be an astro-turf operation.

    Sad thing is, there are enough sincere Nazi retards for the MSM to take advantage of that it probably isn't necessary to groom Leftists posers for infiltration.

    It's a big country, invariably at least a few people will believe the most inane BS. Although most people want better trade policy, restricted immigration, the reining in of elites, etc. the octopus still is desperately maintaining the facade that such things are the policies of ignorant losers who want a fascist revival. Moreover, the existence of a tiny minority of zealots is used to justify Leftist paranoia about alleged extant sexism/racism/blah blah blah.

    Trying to ascertain the sincerity of a Dick Spencer is pointless; for all we know, he's sincere and is confusing media coverage with possible mainstream acceptance/a platform from which to express his ideas to more people. Real or fake, he's a pain in the ass to the goals of ordinary folk who want America to go back to the it's own pre-1970 levelheaded culture rooted in Anglo levelheadedness, not revive Italo-Teutonic vindictive and utopian fascist culture.

  6. "Moreover, the existence of a tiny minority of zealots is used to justify Leftist paranoia about alleged extant sexism/racism/blah blah blah."

    Still, the protest shows how tone-deaf, socially inappropriate, and embarrassing that small minority is.

  7. The danger is not that the media will use the protest to smear Trump supporters as racists, but rather as snotty Millenials who hate women and minorities. has, as their front-and-center picture, the prissiest looking protester they could find.

  8. Speaking of WNs and Nazi LARPers...

    I normally try not to be too concerned about MUH OPTICS regarding a hostile media but walking around at a right-wing rally so you can wave Nazi flags and throw out Nazi salutes is so utterly, bafflingly dumb. I don't doubt that there are agents provocateur and useful idiots egging things on, after all closeted homosexual Richard Spencer is there and alphabet agency actor David Duke made sure to find cameras to talk about how it's "fulfilling the promise of Donald Trump" but the vast majority just seem like run of the mill idiots who sincerely don't see what the big deal is or know (or worse, don't care) about any damage they may be doing.

  9. At the same time, I don't think the Nazi LARPers have managed to tie themselves visually with the Trump movement (let alone ideologically).

    Some are wearing MAGA red hats, but most are not. And they don't look like the mob at a typical Trump rally -- not middle-aged / old blue-collars, not Bikers for Trump, and not former frat / sorority suburbanites.

    Will the undecided, persuadable Americans connect the white nationalists with people who just left a Trump rally? Probably not.

    Also: no women or children, unlike a Trump rally... or a pussyhat or Antifa rally, for that matter. Not a family-based image, and everyone already associates Republicans and Trump as well with "families".

  10. So two groups of whites LARPIng 1932 Berlin is an attack on blacks according to the MSM.

    Do you have a backup for your blogs archive in case google decides purge all CrimeThought blogs?


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."