666. Pushing upward (XI)
We will leave you alone to die in the cold, in the tracks of our wagons. And quite right too, you see the problem is that people rarely go all the way. I watched a debate between Rabbi Meir Kahane and Alan Dershowitz—now, you are meant to see Kahane as a nutcase, whereas Dershowitz is the reasonable decent man. Yet, as I watched, I just found myself nodding along to the rabbi—yes, yes, yes, quite right, yes, true, yes. Whereas when Dershowitz stood up to combat the “dangerous extremist” I found that my eyes rolled into my head—hurrrr, yeerrr, huurrr, muddle, hurrr, sigh, errr, obvious contradiction, hurrr.
Why is there always discord in the Middle East? Because the place is troubled by ardent reasonable negotiators—men like Jimmy Carter and Alan Dershowitz who appear just as the coup de grâce is about to be delivered and make the “T” sign. “Time out! Time out! Humanitarian intervention!”. Then everyone gets stuck into negotiations and diplomacy—with more accords and agreements and handshakes than you can stick up your ass; and yet “it” goes on. It goes on because nothing exacerbates a problem like negotiation—hypocritical friendly-friendly makey-nicey talk. Diplomats start wars, they muddle everyone up as to what the actual situation is and then covertly provoke people—rather than there being a clean, clear conclusion. Instead, we have the “negotiated settlement”, a suppurated wound that periodically oozes green pus over everyone—until a fresh US-sponsored bandage can be applied.
So, really, the Kahanites—or their contemporary equivalents, the rabbi’s followers are probably in retirement homes in Florida by now—should get on with it and blow up the Dome of the Rock. “But…but that would spark a region-wide, if not global, religious war.” Gigachad. jpg: “Yes.” There is always insufficient conflict, insufficient clarity as to top dog—itself a dynamic situation. To blow up the Dome of the Rock is what Zionists really want to do—so they should do it, and then we will see how it all shakes out; it is the only way to sort out the Muslim-Jewish dispute in the region—perhaps the Christians, if there are any left, will throw their hat into the ring too.
Diplomatists are hypocrites: you will get blood either way, so better to have conflict that dynamically moves us towards what is higher—to more stable equilibria, to purer Islam or purer Judaism (or the extinction of both). Conflict does not have to be violent, although between states and peoples it often is—and it cannot be extinguished. The real Satanic force is the moderate man—proud and self-satisfied, he tells you we can talk our way out of anything.
Hence, in the Gulf War, the coalition should have pressed on into Iraq and removed Saddam; instead, moderate negotiators said: “We have fulfilled the mandate set out by the UN and liberated Kuwait.” The issue then festered for about another decade and then there was another war—an illegitimate one. In 1991, the Iraqis could have said: “We’ve been invaded, yet by a coalition that includes almost every country in the world, and we did invade Kuwait—so yeah, fair enough.” A decade later, the whole “coalition of the willing” and the pretext for war was cooked up by…diplomats.
Never negotiate. People who negotiate end up miserable because they spend their whole lives in little diplomatic manoeuvres tinged with passive aggression and resentment. Better to say: “If you don’t marry me, I’ll throw myself off a cliff,” if that is what you really feel—and also you should mean it and do it (then it will cut down on the number of people who use self-pity to manipulate others). Also, better to say: “You’re a convenient hole for me to cum in,” if that is really the situation and how you see it. “Well, that isn’t very normal/nice/moral.” No, just real—all that ultimately matters. We must move out, and let the ways part.