Israel

[The_Author]

Experience has shown repeatedly that the Muslims cannot be allies. They are unstable in themselves and always ready to go "great Satan" mode. The Shias are susceptible to Iranian influence and the Sunnis to extremist influence. They are also retarded. Pakistan can be an ok partner on certain ventures. Turkey is too big to be influenced. Syria is already claimed. The Saudis are good but they have their own economic power which can lead to rather hard bargaining, and right now they are being difficult.

If WW3 or the First U.S-Iranian War kicks off, the U.S needs allies in the region, otherwise that region will be commanded and marshalled for war by the adversary. Israel is "small" but it is militarily powerful, so its "potential size" in the event of an immediate U.S green light as part of a war effort is large. History has shown that they can totally fuck any of their neighbors if desired. The fact that they don't do so is a testament to U.S influence in Israel and not the other way around. The U.S is Israel's greatest trading partner, largest foreign aid donor, and basically its only ally since it is surrounded by sand monkeys.

The amount of U.S aid to Israel is relatively large but not absolutely large. People act like it is breaking the bank. The U.S has given them $250B in total to date since 1946. That is like 1/26 of one year's worth of federal expenditure. Yes there is probably an AIPAC tax involved in that, but it isn't a big deal.

Israel is outside of the complexities of Islamic politics. The U.S doesn't have to worry about a wave of this or that strain of Islam, or a rise to power of Shia ethnic groups over a Sunni majority, or whatever. If it is time for Israel to occupy, say Syria, it is a simple enough regime to operate; they are the ruling class and everyone brown needs to shut the fuck up or die. Yet, for this reason, they also cannot occupy any of those nations with any permanence. So they are the perfect WW3 middle east occupier regime.

And they will crow about their superiority and false purity as their culture requires, while serving the real Anglo-American masters of the world, who dominate and exploit the petty customary fixations of every affectatious culture on Earth, because these cultures operate by automatic fixed principles, but the Anglo is the player character who manipulates all NPC protocols of lesser races, such as "Jewish supremacy", to represent himself. He is therefore in fact supreme whether he says so or not.

But to be serious, in my opinion, the U.S should stop playing Cold War II and start actually being a menace to the world, thus using Israel to coerce nations in the region. This not only advances U.S international interests but paves the way for a more militaristic regime, or at least more militaristic mass media sentiments.

[The_Author]

There is a tendency, I believe first highlighted by Jew Howard Bloom, that great powers have a tendency to rest on their laurels. They have much to lose and little to gain by little acts of brinkmanship. But, in fact, since they are Great, they actually have nothing to lose. The loss is only hypothetical, not actual. The actual fact is that greater powers win and lesser powers lose, regardless of how much anyone "has to lose".

So the U.S is worried about unleashing Israel because it would "destabilize the region". But the actual victor of any destabilization is going to be the strongest power. The U.S is the strongest global power, and Israel is the strongest power in the region other than Iran. Therefore the strongest power should wish to destabilize rather than stabilize any scenario that is not as it wishes.

[cats]

Arguments about Israel's position in politics or the admirability of her people and politicians are largely pointless. Israel is an anti-Semitic state.

This has nothing to do with what they say or believe (which is why you should never trust them), but rather what they do. They are in opposition to the great seething horde of Arabs that surround them — who, of course, are also Semites, but of a more primitive kind. In a way that I don't think any Israeli is conscious of, Israel sets itself against the Semitic world.

Hamas, meanwhile, is motivated by anti-White hatred, not anti-Semitism. They see someone with paler skin than them and feel an irrepressible desire to kill and destroy, as most browns do. It would be impossible to wage a war with this much passion against another tribe simply because of a minor difference in Semitic religious doctrine. Religious war is always ethnic war, when enough of the ideological nonsense is brushed away.

This is why you should also immediately disregard any so-called "White nationalist" who jeeringly shares images of women, who are for all intents and purposes White, being raped and murdered by dark sand monkeys. Someone with principles should be disgusted by these images, not because they are truly White or because of some perverted chivalric instinct that whores who attend "music festivals for peace" should be protected, but because it is a slave raising his hand against his master.

I've thought about this question a lot. My current position is that I would pledge my undying loyalty to Israel... If it were a white, Christian Nation.

Getting hung up on which particular sect of Semitic mountain sprite worship the Israelis practice seems stupid and reductive, but I suppose that's what I should expect from someone who thinks Hitler was a Christian.

[Mladorossi88]

Why wasn't he? He was culturally at least. Positive Christianity existed.

[Guest]

@The_Author I don't think your characterization is accurate. The USG has been deploying destabilization strategy worldwide for a long time and the only reason they appear to have cooled it down is because they have achieved control over most of these allegedly sovereign 3rd world states. It is a well established fact that beyond democracies the real deals are made between the intelligence agencies that outlast the regimes. The USG has everything in their grasp already.

[cats]

I'm not going to waste time going into how Hitler's outlook was completely contrary to any and all forms of Christianity and what is Christian and what is German, so I'll just stick to the simple proofs: Hitler would not have surrounded himself with esotericists, neo-pagans, and atheists if he was a Christian, and certainly wouldn't have allowed his personal bodyguard (LSSAH) to be staffed by men who swore pagan oaths, were encouraged to leave Christian churches, and who were not administered by a divisional chaplain because the leader of the SS detested Christianity so much.

[kythustra]

I enjoyed yarvin's latest essay on the relationship between Israel and the present world order. I'm going to quote the parts that I think best summarize the piece.

“Nomos,” as in Carl Schmitt’s great book Nomos of the Earth, is a Greek word usually translated as “law.” I think it does better as “standard”—the standards of the earth.

The difference between a law and a standard is that no power enforces a standard. For example, what we mean by “the Internet” is a standard called TCP/IP. No one forces your computer to speak TCP/IP. There is just no gain in speaking anything different.

The Internet is beautiful because it has (almost) no central government. By what standards should we govern the earth, which also has (almost) no central government?

Standards are beautiful because they enforce themselves without law. And of course, by definition, there is no power above the power of sovereign states, which could in any way enforce a positive law on them—if there was, they would not be sovereign.

If standards are laws, they are natural laws—like the law that 2+2=4. When we speak of natural law, as opposed to the positive law of a supreme power, we speak of a standard that applied by all would benefit all—and from which there is no incentive to defect. TCP/IP would not work if any node on the network had a motivation to disobey it.

Ignore the conspiracy theory that Israel is controlled by the Jews! Idiot. Israel is like everywhere else. Israel is controlled by the State Department.

So, on paper, Israel is controlled by the “rules-based order” of “international law.” Who are the experts in this order? It turns out that the State Department—being so elite and all—knows the rules so well it never breaks them. And of course can tell anyone else how to never break them, too! A tough job, but someone has to do it. Ladies and gentlemen: US foreign policy, keeping the world safe, peaceful, and free since 1919.

Obviously, the “international law” and “rules-based order” of the early 21st century evolved out of the Anglo-American liberal nomos of the 19th and 20th centuries. While our present nomos uses the diplomatic language of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, it twists this language subtly until it describes a unipolar order—ie, an empire—while denigrating its multipolar predecessor as “international anarchy.”

One way to see US foreign policy is as a dogfighting pit posing as a veterinary clinic. Dogs will sometimes get into it at the vet. But at the vet, the standard approach to a dogfight is to break them up. In any context in which break them up is not the standard approach to a dogfight—check your GPS. You may actually be in a dogfighting pit.

In the Global American Empire (GAE), or in any unipolar order, all conflicts can be categorized as four kinds of dogfight:

Dogfights in which America has no dog in the fight.

Dogfights in which America has one dog in the fight.

Dogfights in which America has two dogs in the fight.

Dogfights in which America leaps into the pit itself.

It will readily be seen that the Gaza war is a war of type 3. Our type 3 wars are the worst kind, for obvious reasons. At least the type 4 wars end quickly (or used to lol).

Again, in the old nomos, war is the most important right of a sovereign nation. A nation which follows the old standards makes war when another nation violates its national rights. War is the ultima ratio regum, the last argument of kings—a kind of lawsuit, made not before a judge, but before God, the lord of all battles.

Always, might makes right—victory creates its own legitimacy. As John Adams said, “the government de facto is the government de jure for us.” If you have won control of France, by whatever means, you are the government of France—even if you are, as Gladstone called the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, “the negation of God.” (I want to take Gladstone to Naples in 2023—so he can see the actual negation of God.)

But what is the proper policy for Israel, which is in the war? As the stronger party, Israel needs to impose a just peace

The fundamental problem with Arab-Jewish coexistence in the Holy Land is that the Arabs feel the land belongs to them—and feel the right to drive the Jews off it, in the normal old-fashioned way, by killing them whenever possible.

Possibly even telling the truth, Hamas went so far as to explain that at least many of the massacres in the kibbutzim near Gaza—some of the most liberal, elite kibbutzim in Israel, and of course the ravers at Supernova were not exactly davening haredim—were not even the work of its soldiers. The massacres, Hamas assured us, were done by private citizens of Gaza—soccer moms, and the like. Okay very cool.

Since the Jews also feel that the land belongs to them, a lawsuit is necessary. In a world where the “United Nations” was not a thing, and America had zero dogs in the fight instead of two, this lawsuit would take the form of a war. And the Jews, being stronger, would win this war—even against the whole Arab and Muslim world. Since this is clear to everyone, no violence at all is necessary.

[Guest]

To be honest, it is not clear to me who would win that war if the US remained neutral. The old given of "they have x, y, z technology, therefore they win" is not something that holds up to scrutiny.

[kythustra]

To be honest, it is not clear to me who would win that war if the US remained neutral. The old given of "they have x, y, z technology, therefore they win" is not something that holds up to scrutiny.

What brings you to this conclusion? To me, it seems obvious that israel would wipe gaza off the map if they weren't constrained by the US. Prior to this incident there would have been pushback in israel on the left, but the population has gone war mode.

It's clear that the bombing campaign is designed to minimize human casualties. The ratio of bombs dropped to deaths is 5 to 1. That ratio could flip if israel took losses, and it would cripple gaza, probably sending at least half a million refugees into egypt.

I don't see how they could lose militarily. Maybe if it turns out hezbollah is 5x more capable than expected, they launch a surprise attack, israeli morale drops, US provides no support, and the elites bail out of the country. Seems unlikely.

[kythustra]

The intensity of the bombing campaign may have already peaked. The pace will slow until there are only occasional bombings. I could see this in ~2 weeks to ~2 months. I don't have much knowledge of the military strength of the surrounding arab countries. Unless there's another surprise, I think there are only three possible outcomes in the medium to long term:

- Israel sends an occupation force. They don't intend on governing gaza long term, but they get sucked into it because the US pressures them to provide aid / support. This could continue indefinitely, and does not resolve the conflict in any meaningful way. Probably the worst possible outcome for israel long term, but easiest to digest for all sides short term.

- Israel does nothing. I don't think there would be mass starvation, but it's not impossible. Red hot propaganda for a long time coming out of gaza, arab countries, and sympathetic populations in the west. Would probably lead to a stasis similar to the one prior to this incident. If egypt starts letting in aid from their border, they risk taking on refugees.

-Israel instigates a forced migration into egypt. This is the best possible outcome for israel, because it *actually solves the problem*, but logistically and politically I have no idea how they could pull it off. If they wanted to pursue this option, they would need to move for it *right now* before the fight gets cold. It's much harder to justify forced migration if there is no active threat. Though if hezbollah makes a move, this opportunity may present itself again in the future.

[Guest]

To be honest, it is not clear to me who would win that war if the US remained neutral. The old given of "they have x, y, z technology, therefore they win" is not something that holds up to scrutiny.

What brings you to this conclusion? To me, it seems obvious that israel would wipe gaza off the map if they weren't constrained by the US. Prior to this incident there would have been pushback in israel on the left, but the population has gone war mode.

It's clear that the bombing campaign is designed to minimize human casualties. The ratio of bombs dropped to deaths is 5 to 1. That ratio could flip if israel took losses, and it would cripple gaza, probably sending at least half a million refugees into egypt.

I don't see how they could lose militarily. Maybe if it turns out hezbollah is 5x more capable than expected, they launch a surprise attack, israeli morale drops, US provides no support, and the elites bail out of the country. Seems unlikely.

1.) They got hit where they did as hard as they did, indicating severe problems in their operations (whether it is due to internal conflict or incompetence, both have the same end)
2.) The other side will simply continue fighting unless you kill everyone. If you kill everyone, or are on the way to doing so, other parties may get involved -- especially if the US is staying out of it.
3.) Infiltration, corruption, etc. 
4.) Do they have the capability to kill everyone? I don't think so. There is not a great amount of will in the Israeli people despite their rhetoric. What is their nation *for?* They also do not know. The factional conflict inside only makes this worse.
5.) Every military today shows itself to be far weaker than it appears on paper. Every conflict has demonstrated this recently. Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, China, India, etc.

[Guest]

I'm not going to waste time going into how Hitler's outlook was completely contrary to any and all forms of Christianity and what is Christian and what is German, so I'll just stick to the simple proofs: Hitler would not have surrounded himself with esotericists, neo-pagans, and atheists if he was a Christian, and certainly wouldn't have allowed his personal bodyguard (LSSAH) to be staffed by men who swore pagan oaths, were encouraged to leave Christian churches, and who were not administered by a divisional chaplain because the leader of the SS detested Christianity so much.

True but Hitler also would have likely killed you for being a degenerate furfag

[The Green Groyper]

Israel still hasn’t launched a ground invasion. I genuinely would not be surprised if they’ve been told privately the US will not support it. Or Bibi is getting cold feet. The moment the IDF moves into Gaza, casualties will start mounting not just Palestinians which is already hammering Israel’s global PR, but more dead IDF. The risk of Hezbollah and Iran joining despite the US having two carrier groups just off the coast of Lebanon(the fact the US has that sort of firepower on stand by tells me they think it’s more likely than not regardless of what they tell the public) so Israel may just bomb Gaza for a few weeks to a month or so, send in a limited detachment, take out a few known Hamas leaders and call it a war.

Really Netanyahu is in a no win position here, his political career is probably finished regardless, and so he has zero incentive to worsen things by a risky ground war.

If he doesn’t act, he and Israel look weak, so the bombing campaign will probably continue. While they drag things out and eventually there will be some sort of settlement-hostages turned over in return for a fig leaf UN presence or even a status quo antebellum.

Really it’s in no party’s interest this escalates. It’s not in Israel’s interest because it means even more casualties and showing their enemies how weak they are even more, it’s not the US’s interest because a long urban war in Gaza makes war with Iran more and more likely, and it’s not in Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas’s interests because a full scale war will inevitably result in Hamas actually being destroyed, Hezbollah either destroyed or at least broken, and Iran definitely bombed.

So my prediction is a continuing bombing campaign, information war, and maybe some limited incursions. With no fundamental change to the region.

[Gorgias]

The way I see it, Israel is one thing, American Jewry is another. Yet, is it really possible to separate the two? I don't believe that the "dual loyalty" of American Jews actually exists in any meaningful way.

In light of recent kvetching neurotic mental breakdown, and being the man of honour that I am, Binyamin Shapiro singlehandedly forces me to recant this statement. 

Yeah dual loyalty is definitely a thing for a number of American Jews. Diaspora loyalties can be sliced a number of different ways. Leftist Jews who hate America and hate Israel. Purely Zionist Jews who hate or are indifferent to America and love Israel (sort of the Kevin Mcdonald brand, which exist but which are pretty rare in my experience.) The sort of Cosmopolitan Nationalist Jews like Yoram Hazony who love both America and Israel (these are your dual loyalty Jews.) And the also rare sort of Know Nothing, Lewis Charles Levin types who love America and are either indifferent or hate Israel (a modern example might be someone like Stephan Miller, who, from what I've seen, doesn't really mention Israel except to support Trump and advocate for the Muslim Ban.)

[Gorgias]

@The_Author I don't think your characterization is accurate. The USG has been deploying destabilization strategy worldwide for a long time and the only reason they appear to have cooled it down is because they have achieved control over most of these allegedly sovereign 3rd world states. It is a well established fact that beyond democracies the real deals are made between the intelligence agencies that outlast the regimes. The USG has everything in their grasp already.

The Obama-Biden Democratic establishment policy seems to tend toward giving Iran a preeminent position in the region and letting go of the Middle East. I agree with @The_Author here entirely.

Israel still hasn’t launched a ground invasion. I genuinely would not be surprised if they’ve been told privately the US will not support it....So my prediction is a continuing bombing campaign, information war, and maybe some limited incursions. With no fundamental change to the region.

This is probably true. The Democrats don't want to publicly come out against Israel in the way I described above (they don't want to risk losing big Jewish donors maybe) but in private they're probably telling Israel that they don't want a war with Iran.

[The_Author]

This is being shown now as the U.S advises Israel to delay its offensives so that more hostage negotiations can occur. It is pleading with them to refrain from giving Hezbollah a reason to get involved. Such a reason would be, for example, if Israel targeted Shia communities or if it made the war against Gaza in general rather than only Hamas. This would pressure Hezbollah to make its move, if it ever intended to do anything, before Israel took control of everything. The U.S "advice" to Israel has been to ensure that does not happen by proceeding carefully, and targeting only what is necessary, while delaying offensives. Of course, "advice" from your top trading partner and defense aid donor is not really advice.

It is possible the U.S is buying time. It is known that they are sending materiel to Israel. Maybe they want that to arrive before any major offensives. One can only hope that the U.S stops pussying around and shuts these small players up forever. It is a simple calculation, if the U.S fears Iran, Iran has reason to fear the U.S several hundredfold. Let Israel kill all Palestinians while they're at it, Machiavelli and all that.

[The Green Groyper]

The fact Israel hasn’t gone in already tells me they have either been told not too, or they know it makes war with Iran near certain.

So it’s yet another case of #nothinghappens.

[The_Author]

The fact Israel hasn’t gone in already tells me they have either been told not too, or they know it makes war with Iran near certain.

So it’s yet another case of #nothinghappens.

Delays are a thing though. The U.S is sending them missile defense systems. Those would need to be in place before something were to happen.

[Gorgias]

The fact Israel hasn’t gone in already tells me they have either been told not too, or they know it makes war with Iran near certain.

So it’s yet another case of #nothinghappens.

Delays are a thing though. The U.S is sending them missile defense systems. Those would need to be in place before something were to happen.

I would bet that the delays are caused by America not wanting a war. Obama-Biden establishment doesn't like Israel, they favor Iranian preeminence in the region. War with Iran might be certain but the chad thing to do would be to take on the middle east and not slowly cede the area to Iran.

[The Green Groyper]

War with Iran will force the US to actually conduct a ground invasion. Something the American public has zero stomach for. It would require a draft, or at least a level of propaganda far outstripping anything seen in eighty years. And even then, there would be overwhelming public resistance.

The loss of soldiers, equipment and resources that might be used to fight Russia or China could not be easily replaced, in an occupation that would last decades.

Quite simply, its a nonstarter.