Tag: Zion

Obama vs Israel

No wonder America’s Jews are suddenly so conflicted and flirting with some of the Republican presidential contenders:

President Obama is alleged to have stopped an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets, according to reports to emerge from the Middle East at the weekend

The threat from the U.S. forced Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to abort a planned attack on Iraq, reported Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida…. The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

According to the report, ‘Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army’s chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran’s nuclear program.

‘In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel’s security.’

The sources added that Gantz and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets reportedly even carried out experimental flights in Iran’s airspace after they managed to break through radars.

At some point, even the dimmest American Jews are going to wake up to the fact that the gelding of Christian civilization in the West and the racial diversification of the white nations is very unlikely to turn out “good for the Jews”, regardless of how it ends. Some Jews have clearly begun to realize that, as 69 percent of Jews voted for Obama in 2012, nine percent less than the 78 percent who did in 2008. But too many Jews outside Israel still appear to be caught up in the 1970’s notion that they can easily defeat an aggressive Islamic Caliphate that outnumbers them about 70 to 1.

The problem is that while speed, cleverness, and finesse are a force multiplier, they do have limits. And I suspect that far too many American Jews, unlike Israelis, don’t know how close they were to being defeated at times in the Arab-Israeli wars. A mistake here or there, a failure of nerve on the part of a political leader or a general at the wrong time, and it could have been all over. The American Jews only know that the IDF repeatedly won those wars and assume they can easily do so again.

But history is littered with the examples of defeated nations who attacked other nations in the assumption that their victory was certain. Regardless of what happens in the Middle East, it is certain that American politics is going to become less predictable as the Coalition of Diversity that was created, in part, by elite politically active Jews begins to turn against both Jews and Israel. This would imply that they will increasingly seek influence in the Republican Party, thus increasing the growing gulf there between the moderate Republican elite-for-hire and the various conservative and libertarian grass roots.

Go to Israel. Now.

I’ve been saying it for a while, but Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is beating the drum even more strongly:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday urged European Jews to move to Israel after a Jewish man was killed in an attack outside Copenhagen’s main synagogue.

“Israel is your home. We are preparing and calling for the absorption of mass immigration from Europe,” Netanyahu said in a statement, repeating a similar call after attacks by jihadists in Paris last month when four Jews were among the dead.

The cabinet later on Sunday submitted a plan to encourage the absorption
of Jews from France, Belgium and Ukraine, and would discuss immigration
from other European countries at a later date. 

Jews are neither Europeans nor Christians, neither are they Muslims, so they need to get the hell out of the way and stay safely out of the way of the coming wars. Too many of them have caused too much damage to themselves, to Europe, and to the USA by idiotically encouraging third world immigration in a foolish attempt to protect themselves against Christians who never had any intention of harming them.

Sam Huntington’s long-foreseen Clash of Civilizations (PDF) is approaching. Those who are opposed to Christian civilization are going to lose again; even the European seculars and pagans are beginning to understand the importance of Christian civilization. I’ve read one of his book and Netanyahu is a good student of not only history in general, but military history in particular, and he understands that if Europe’s Jews continue to stupidly stand in the way of Europeans defending their civilization against the Muslim onslaught, they’re going to be wiped out again.

That, incidentally, is why France’s prime minister is desperately arguing against the Israeli prime minister’s appeal to Europe’s Jews. Not because he loves Jews more than Netanyahu, but because he is cynically using them as a means of keeping the nationalist leadership that will replace him at bay.

Israel should no more stand in the way of Europe defending herself against Islamic expansion than Europe should interfere with Israel defending herself Islamic aggression. It appears that Netanyahu, for one, understands that strong Christian nations in Europe are considerably better for Israel than a Muslim-conquered Europe.

At the moment, I am editing a book by a brilliant Israeli military historian that will be available later this month to newsletter subscribers. And in thinking about how Man’s strategic thinking has developed, it is becoming increasingly evident that the modern militaries presently lack the theoretical means to grasp how events are taking shape or what to do with them. Forget the bromide about how generals are always fighting the last war, right now, the politicians and their military advisors are mostly caught up in entirely fictional theater based on a geopolitical structure that has very little relation to either the current reality or the global wars of the future.

Next year in New York

A Dutchman believes he has the key to world peace:

A Dutch former cabinet minister reportedly said that world peace would be achievable if Israel’s population was forced to move to the United States. The statement was attributed to Herman Heinsbroek, who served as the Netherlands’ minister of economic affairs in 2002, in an article that appeared Thursday in the online edition of the prestigious financial monthly Quote, based on an interview with Heinsbroek.

“It was a historical error to give the Jews their own country in the middle of Islam,” he is quoted as saying. “You’ve had nothing but war ever since and you’ve had anti-Semitism resurging, too. My idea: Give the Jews their own state somewhere in the United States and 25 years to move their state over there.”

Heinsbroek is also quoted as saying that, if implemented, his solution “will finally create, perhaps, peace in the world.”

Well, it has to be admitted that half the world’s Jews do appear to prefer the East Coast of the USA to Israel anyhow. And it’s mildly amusing to anticipate the outrage this will likely inspire among the very people who are also outraged by the notion that Jews should move to Israel.

Actually, I think it would be a cataclysmic mistake for the West to pull the Jews out of Israel, even assuming that a nuclear power would be entirely amenable to the geographic relocation. If nothing else, Israel is a second front (or to be more accurate, fourth front), in the ongoing Clash of Civilizations between Islam and the West. Does Heinsbroek imagine that Islam will stop aggressively expanding into Europe, Asia, and North America simply because it is no longer distracted by a small piece of real estate in the Middle East? That’s absurd.

Even if you are a confirmed anti-semite, you cannot rationally deny that the continued existence of the State of Israel is absolutely in the interests of the West. That doesn’t mean that Israel’s interests are US interests, much less Dutch interests, but its existence is.

ADDENDUM: With the King of Saudi Arabia now reported dead at the age of 90, I tend to doubt that the Wahhabists are going to become more moderate or that tensions in the Middle East are going to cool significantly any time in the near future.

See, THAT is why they hate you

A Jewish woman in Britain worried about anti-semitism in the UK inadvertently demonstrates one reason many decent individuals in Britain are increasingly inclined to dislike the Jews in their midst:

There may
be only 260,000 of us in the UK but if we don’t lead, how can the rest of
society follow?

It’s just so hard to imagine why so many of the 64 million people in the UK might not want this woman living among them and so graciously deigning to lead them. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if most of them would now like to punch her in the face.

“If we don’t lead, how can the rest of
society follow?” How indeed. Pat Buchanan asked a pertinent question in his article on Unz: “Muslims in the banlieues wonder why insulting the Prophet is a protected freedom in France, while denying the Holocaust can get you a prison term.”

Speaking of the Islamic banlieues, across the English Channel the failure of French diversity and multiculturalism is highlighted by the reaction in them to the ridiculous “unity” march meant to defend the tottering status quo:

The sense of marginalization did not disappear with the massive solidarity march across Paris on Sunday, which drew more than one million people and 40 presidents and prime ministers to Mr. Hollande’s side. For some banlieue residents, it seemed an almost surreal display that had nothing to do with them.

In Vaulx-en-Velin, the only Charlie reference to be seen was a sign for the Charlie Chaplin cultural center across the street from City Hall, which is topped with a drawing of a flag of its sister city, the West Bank town of Beit Sahour.

Residents there ridiculed the “I am Charlie” marches. Some said the terrorist attacks had been staged. While many strongly condemned the attackers for the murders, others insisted the cartoonists had gotten what they deserved….

“I totally feel cut off from France,” said Karim Yahiaoui, 15, who added that he had not left this suburb more than twice in the past year. Over the past few decades, the Muslim community in Vaulx-en-Velin has become increasingly insular. “Many people only believe their own values now, not those of the republic,” said Anne Dufaud, director of the Mission, a nonprofit organization. She has worked in the community for 20 years. When Mr. Hollande led a moment of silence across France last Thursday for the victims of the attacks, two students and a teacher at a local high school, who declined to be identified, said many students refused to stand.

Patrick Kahn, a manager at the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism in Lyon, who operates a weekly tolerance program in the schools of Vaulx-en-Velin, said simply, “The integration policy failed.”

Integration has failed. Diversity has failed. Multiculturalism has failed. What options does that leave?

The tipping point

It appears Netanyahu should have addressed the Jews of Britain, as well as the Jews of France:

More than half of British Jewish people fear Jews have no future in
the UK, according to a new study which also reveals that antisemitic
sentiments are more prevalent than widely believed. British society is at a “tipping point” with Jewish families
increasingly questioning whether to stay in the country, campaigners
claim today.

The warning is bolstered by a new YouGov poll showing
that 45 per cent of Britons agreed with at least one of four
antisemitic statements put to them. Some 25 per cent agreed with the
idea that “Jews chase money more than other British people” while one in
five accepted as true that “Jews’ loyalty to Israel makes them less
loyal to Britain than other British people”. A further 13 per cent
said of those surveyed in the poll commissioned by the Campaign Against
Antisemitism (CAA) agreed that “Jews talk about the Holocaust too much
in order to get sympathy”.

It seems rather obvious that they don’t have any long-term future in the UK. Great Britain is no more the proper home of the Jewish people any more than France, the USA, or China. The diaspora is over and it is absolutely absurd to say that France and Britain and the USA are all part and parcel of a vast globe-spanning home for less than 15 million people.

I tend to think the 45 percent figure cited is far too low. I cannot imagine that four out of five British people genuinely believe that any Jew, particularly one with an Israeli passport, is as loyal to Great Britain as an actual Brit is, unless by “other British people” they were thinking of the mainstream political elite. I daresay most Jews in Britain not named “Milliband” are considerably more loyal to Great Britain than David Cameron or Nick Clegg. But it’s a stupid characterization anyway, as it’s not “anti-semitic” to believe a Jew is primarily loyal to Israel. I should think it’s downright anti-semitic to insist otherwise. Every American living in London I know would be downright offended at the idea that he might be more loyal to the Queen of England than to the Stars and Stripes.

Hell, it’s hard for most of them to go more than a week without reminding an unsuspecting Englishman that “we kicked your ass in 1776 and if it weren’t for us, you’d be speaking German.” On the other hand, some of my English friends do still insist on referring to the US as “the Colonies”.

What I think most people fail to understand is that nationalism is not rooted in hate, but in love. It is love for one’s own people, one’s own kind. The artificial substitution of “country”, as in the sense of “geographical place with a government” for “nation” in the sense of “genetically kindred people”, has confused the issue for a long time.

Nationalism is why “Sweet Home Alabama” strikes a deep chord in everyone who hears it, even if they have never been in the United States and couldn’t find Alabama on a map. It’s a love song by a southern man to his own people, and even if we don’t share that particular love, we understand it, we recognize it. And anyhow, Southern Man need not hate Neil Young to know he doesn’t need Neil Young around.

Citizenship is ersatz nationalism. It is false, it is fake. Unless you understand the difference between citizenship and nationalism, you will not be able to make much sense of the events of the coming decades.

Those anti-semitic Israelis

Is it not remarkable how, when the Israeli Prime Minister said Jews living in Europe should move to Israel, he was not attacked as being anti-semitic in the way everyone else who wishes the Jews well and advises precisely the same thing is?

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has invited Jews from France and the rest of Europe to immigrate to the state of Israel, referring to what he sees as a “rising tide of anti-Semitism” there. The statement comes in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

“To all the Jews of France, all the Jews of Europe, I would like to say that Israel is not just the place in whose direction you pray, the state of Israel is your home,” Prime Minister Netanyahu said in a televised statement on Saturday, referencing the Jewish tradition of facing Jerusalem when praying.

Netanyahu called on lawmakers to alter the existing immigration laws to make it easier for Jews to permanently move to Israel.

So, what do we conclude from this, that Benjamin Netanyahu hates the Jews? I note that absolutely none of my previous critics have remarked upon the fact that I was absolutely correct to have warned the Jews of the changing mood in Europe, and to have urged them leave Europe and emigrate to their homeland. Had the Jews in Paris done so sooner, they would not have been murdered by Muslims as they were in Granada and eventually in every Muslim-controlled city in Spain and the Maghreb.

Reports from the period describe that, after an initial 7-month grace period, the Almohads killed or forcefully converted Jewish communities in each new city they conquered until “there was no Jew left from Silves to Mahdia”

A man cannot have two masters, and the French Prime Minister Valls (who is a Spaniard) was absolutely incorrect to claim that France requires Jews any more than it requires Spaniards, Germans, Russians, or Turks. France without Jews is France. It is the Israeli Prime Minister who is correct. Israel is their home. The various nations of Europe are not, and it is time for everyone to stop pretending that they are. The diversity concept is dead. It has failed, and failed spectacularly.

It is not necessary to love or hate anyone to recognize that a group of people whose foremost concern is “is it good for the Jews” is never going to be entirely acceptable to those whose primary concern is “is it good for the French”. That is straightforward logic, it is simple set theory, and in a time of rising nationalism around the world, from the Islamic State to Germany, non-nationals everywhere would do well to either a) fully convert or b) return to their home nations.

Especially when one of the historical lessons of al-Andalus is that when Muslim and Western cultures clash, the Jews tend to end up as collateral damage. For the European Jews, emigrating to America instead of Israel looks rather like the Medieval Jews fleeing from the Almohads to what eventually became the Spanish Inquisition. And given the economic trend of the last 60 years, I very much doubt it will take another 345 years for Americans to begin doubting the loyalties of the USA’s Jewish residents, as the Spanish Christians eventually came to do.

NB: When considering these large-scale movement of people, try to recall that the significant changes tend to take decades, even centuries, to play out, even though the obvious turning points can often be identified at specific moments in time. As Guy Gavriel Kay’s novel shows, we often tend to look at certain sections of history while ignoring the relevant sections that immediately preceded or followed it, and thereby reach erroneous conclusions.

“A universal and immutable rule”

I don’t quite see how blatantly lying about readily observable human behavior and presenting a completely illogical argument is going to help Jeffrey Goldberg convince anyone that prejudice springs, ex nihilo, out of the irrationality of the human mind.

A few days ago, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, tweeted the following statement: “Germans rally against anti-Semitism that flared in Europe in response to Israel’s conduct in Gaza war. Merkel joins.” Roth provided a link to a New York Times article about the rally, which took place in Berlin.

Roth’s framing of this issue is very odd and obtuse. Anti-Semitism in Europe did not flare “in response to Israel’s conduct in Gaza,” or anywhere else. Anti-Semitic violence and invective are not responses to events in the Middle East, just as anti-Semitism does not erupt  “in response” to the policies of banks owned by Jews, or in response to editorial positions taken by The New York Times. This is for the simple reason that Jews do not cause anti-Semitism.

It is a universal and immutable rule that the targets of prejudice are not the cause of prejudice. Just as Jews (or Jewish organizations, or the Jewish state) do not cause anti-Semitism to flare, or intensify, or even to exist, neither do black people cause racism, nor gay people homophobia, nor Muslims Islamophobia. Like all prejudices, anti-Semitism is not a rational response to observable events; it is a manifestation of irrational hatred. Its proponents justify their anti-Semitism by pointing to the (putatively offensive or repulsive) behavior of their targets, but this does not mean that major figures in the world of human-rights advocacy should accept these pathetic excuses as legitimate.

Anti-Semitism in Europe did not flare “in response to Israel’s conduct in Gaza? It’s passing strange, then, that European anti-semitism should randomly happen to have flared up at the very moment that Israel launched its Gaza offensive. And isn’t it astonishing to be informed that that absolutely no prejudices are the result of rational responses?

Goldberg is a more cartoonish example of an anti-Jewish stereotype of a perfidious Jew speaking with forked tongue than most anti-Semites could produce. His behavior is sufficiently dishonest to generate a perfectly rational distrust of anything he says; it is not a manifestation of irrational hatred to disbelieve an obvious liar.

The amusing thing is that his position can be shown to be obviously nonsensical by simply looking at Jewish prejudices. Israelis quite reasonably point to historical Arab behavior to justify their anti-Palestinian prejudices and policies and Jews frequently point to medieval Christian behavior to justify their anti-Christian biases, so how is it even theoretically possible to claim that Jews do not cause any anti-Semitism? Are they not human? Do they not act? Are they not independent moral agents? Is it truly not even possible that their every act does not meet with universal approval?

The fact is that some prejudices are entirely rational and the logical result of the behavior of those who share identifiable characteristics with the targets of prejudice. The woman who is raped tends to fear men. The white man who was beaten up by blacks at school tends to dislike Africans. A Palestinian whose house was bombed by Israelis is likely to be anti-semitic. These are not manifestations of irrational hatred, they are perfectly rational and understandable prejudices with causes based in human action.

The fact that some prejudices may be irrational does not mean that they all necessarily are, and it is unfortunate that Jeffrey Goldberg should further fan the flames of anti-semitism by providing those who hate Jews with such an egregious example of Jewish intellectual dishonesty.

Israel is not a Christian nation

Someone clearly needs to explain the difference to Sen. Ted Cruz, who is not someone that any sane conservative should be supporting for president:

Cruz, the keynote speaker at the new “In Defense Of Christians” organization’s dinner in Washington DC, had offered the crowd–a number of whom were Christians from the Middle East, including Palestinian Christians–public support for Israel. After doing so, some members of the crowd booed at Cruz, and they persisted until he left the stage, noting their hatred and saying he can’t stand with them if they don’t stand with Israel.

“Tonight, in Washington, should have been a night of unity as we came together for the inaugural event for a group that calls itself ‘In Defense of Christians.’ Instead, it unfortunately deteriorated into a shameful display of bigotry and hatred,” Cruz said in a statement provided to Breitbart News. “When I spoke in strong support of Israel and the Jewish people, who are being persecuted and murdered by the same vicious terrorists who are also slaughtering Christians, many Christians in the audience applauded.  But, sadly, a vocal and angry minority of attendees at the conference tried to shout down my expression of solidarity with Israel.”

Why on Earth is Cruz babbling about Israel and Jews when the topic is “In Defense of Christians”. It’s no secret that Israel is openly prejudiced against Christians and Christianity, although it does not persecute them. And Jews are not Christians; simply becoming acknowledging Jesus Christ as one’s Lord and Savior is enough to legally render a Jew a non-Jew in the eyes of Israeli law.

From Wikipedia: “The Supreme Court of Israel ruled in 1989 that Messianic Judaism constituted another religion, and that people who had become Messianic Jews were not therefore eligible for Aliyah under the law.”

Now, I support Israel and defend its right to exist. But it was downright weird, and totally inappropriate, for Cruz to attempt to transform an event dedicated to the defense of persecuted Christians into public Holocaustianity.

Learning from Zion

I’m certain the many Jews in the American media will have no problem with the USA or any European nations following Israel’s lead in how it handles what it calls “infiltrators”:

With Gaza terrorists showering Israel with rockets, August didn’t bring much good news for Israelis. But every cloud has a silver lining: in August a noted increase was recorded of illegal African immigrants leaving the country.

While there was no specific connection to the war, observers said that many in the infiltrator community were taken by surprise by the intensity of the war – and many of them have apparently decided that Israel isn’t necessarily the best place for them.

A total of 379 illegals voluntarily left Israel in August, more than had left the previous four months altogether. It was also significantly more than had left the country in August the previous year, when 216 illegals voluntarily emigrated.

So far this year, 5,388 illegal Africans have left Israel voluntarily; Israeli authorities who have investigated the infiltrators have repeatedly reported that nearly all of them snuck into Israel looking for job opportunities.

In June, more than 1,000 illegal African immigrants staged a sit-in near the southern border with Egypt, following a protest march against their internment camp in Holot, near the Sinai border, where they are required to stay. The infiltrators called for help leaving the country.

Israel requires illegal immigrants who have been in the country for more than five years to live in Holot. Under legislation passed in December 2013, authorities can detain illegal immigrants for up to a year without trial.

It’s a good idea. But can you even imagine the hysterics that would fill the mainstream media if the US government required all of its illegal immigrantsundocumented workers who had been in the USA for more than five years to live in an internment camp in Death Valley?

In any event, there is precedent. It’s often pointed out that Israel is effectively a Western nation, so let’s see the rest of the Western nations follow suit.

A Hitlerian purpose

I missed this Goldman column the last time around, which is probably just as well. It is historically false, morally bankrupt, and should be deeply offensive to a broad range of people across the political, racial, and religious spectrums:

The essay below appeared in Asia Times Online on April 8, 2008. Apropos of the Ferguson riots it is reprinted below. It should make no-one happy. The crippling failure in American culture, I argue, is our refusal to come to terms with our own Civil War. This failure afflicts the conservative movement. For example: Last June I had the privilege to teach a course at the annual Acton University in Grand Rapids, MI. One of the keynote speakers was Judge Andrew Napolitano, whom I admire and whose remarks in the main I applauded. But Napolitano argued in passing that Lincoln had done a terrible thing by fighting the Civil War: surely, the judge said, he could have found a better way to end slavery than by tearing the country apart. That is utter nonsense for two reasons: the first is that a large part of the South was willing to die to preserve slavery, and the second is that the European imperial powers were already conspiring with elements of the South to expand slavery through Cuba, Mexico and Central America. If Lincoln had not fought the Civil War in 1861, the French invasion of Mexico in 1862 would have established a link with the Confederacy and prevented a Northern blockade.

Perfectly intelligent and well-motivated men like Napolitano ignore the obvious about the Civil War because it is still too horrible to contemplate. More broadly, the conservative movement continues to tolerate a revolting form of nostalgia for the slave era euphemistically called “Southern Traditionalism.” ISI’s middle-brow list of “Fifty Greatest Books of the 20th Century” includes a biography of Gen. Robert E. Lee, labeled “The tragic life of a great Southern traditionalist beautifully chronicled by a great Southern traditionalist.” The ISI list is mostly mediocre, but this is offensive in the extreme.

Below I demand of Americans “a higher threshold for horror.” 

An uncanny parallel links the fate of young African-Americans today and that of the young white men of the slave-holding South in 1865. Both cohorts have lost a terrifying proportion of their number to violence. One third of black Americans between the ages of 20 and 30 passed through the criminal justice system in 1995, according to the Sentencing Project, a prisoners’ advocacy group. Nearly a third of military-age Southern men military age were killed or wounded during America’s Civil War.

It is a measure of the inherent good-heartedness of Americans that they evince a low threshold of horror. Three hundred thousand Confederate dead and millions of ruined African-American lives are too awful to contemplate. Some part of Senator Barack Obama’s appeal derives from America’s revulsion over the destruction of a generation of young black men; electing an African-American president would assuage part of the guilt.

From this great suffering arise two genres of American popular culture, the Gone With the Wind ilk of Civil War epic, and the “Get Rich or Die Tryin’” brand of gangsta tale. Both try to take the edge off the revulsion and placate the dishonored dead by turning them into folk-heroes. That is understandable, but also unfortunate, for America still has a great deal of killing left to do around the world, and might as well get used to it.

“Get Rich or Die Tryin’” would have been a good epitaph for the Confederate dead, who fought for land and slaves, not for “states’ rights” or the sanctity of their soil. Slave-owners along with want-to-be slave-owners had it coming. The Union general William Tecumseh Sherman who said after he burned Atlanta, “I fear the world will jump to the wrong conclusion that because I am in Atlanta the work is done. Far from it. We must kill three hundred thousand, I have told you of so often, and the further they run the harder for us to get them.”

Given the sad history of racial oppression in the South for a century after the Civil War, the only thing to regret is that Sherman didn’t finish the job. I stopped watching the film version of Gone With the Wind after Scarlett O’Hara saved her plantation from the tax-collector. I wanted her to pick cotton until her back broke.

I don’t think it would be a big surprise if there were more than a few blacks and Southerners who read this grotesque nonsense that did not conclude that perhaps it was not Sherman or the American justice system, but Adolf Hitler who didn’t do enough killing. Remember, this is the same individual who asserts that because the Chinese harbor such instinctive respect and admiration for his people, China and the Jews “share a common purpose, to transcend tribalism through a unifying civilization”.

In other words, what Spengler is saying is that the purpose of the Jewish people is to crush all nationalism through slaughter.

But to be clear, it is obvious that not all Jews agree with him, least of all the Israeli who brought it to my attention.