Israel-Palestine

*

There is a skit in the 2000s sitcom Peep Show where the two protagonists, Jez and Mark, ask themselves whether they are “Israel or Palestine”—rather like whether you are “Mac or PC”. The fastidious Mark, watcher of Top Gear and reader of Anthony Beevor’s Stalingrad, chooses Israel—the turbo-trance pot-smoking would-be “musician” and all-round Mark alter-ego, Jezza, chooses Palestine.

This pretty much sums up how the wider West treats the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s like Celebrations versus Cadbury’s Roses—or, indeed, like Labour versus Conservative, because the two political positions map on to the positions taken by the characters.

You, as the viewer, are meant to laugh and say—“Yes, it reminds me of that party at Paul’s where it all got ‘a bit political’ and really awkward, because Simon brought up that tweet by Jeremy Corbyn and wouldn’t stop talking about it.”

The third option, the missing option, remains what does it have to do with us, anyway?

Whether you are “Mark or Jez” on the Israel-Palestine question really reflects how far and in what dimension you esteem victimhood. Because both parties in the conflict are evaluated in terms of how far they are victims—with the idea being that the bigger victim is in the right.

Rather like a decadent Roman, we toss the odd grape (perhaps a bunch, in fact) to those we deem “victims”—so the Ukrainians, looking more like victims than the bully-boy Russians, are tossed whole missile systems with which to defend themselves.

For us, it masquerades as a moral stance, but it actually amounts to a sentimental viewpoint that can be easily manipulated—and what Zelensky does is, in effect, hold up a lil pwuppy to American viewers, for which he is then rewarded with weapons systems.

Hence, until the 1970s, Israel received axiomatic support, especially from the left, because they were obvious victims—no nation for thousands of years, then the pogroms, then the holocaust. If anything, the right, which still then retained aristocratic elements, was sceptical about Jews—per the traditional Christian stance.

This reversed in the 1970s, when the Palestinians became more like victims—and I think that is an objective truth. Hence the right supported Israel, on the grounds that they were less like victims and stronger—even Julius Evola expressed some late admiration for the way the Israelis had shed their cosmopolitan city-Jew status and become fighters for, in effect, blood and soil.

And that’s where we are today. Notice that both positions—“Mark” and “Jez”, right and left—are formed from admiration for victimhood. It’s a question of “who is the real victim here?”. So it’s a status game, basically—about how we can show more or less noblesse oblige for the Semitic races.

What does the conflict have to do with Britain? Nothing—nothing at all. We are a post-colonial state, there is no “strategic interest”, no “great game” at play here—do you really think Rishi Sunak is some master strategist engaged in a Bismarckian ruse to strengthen our reach into Asia through the Middle East?

To ask the question is to answer it. The only interest Britain has in the region is that Christian pilgrims should have access to the holy sites, that tourists should be able to visit without difficulty, and that archaeologists can go there and do research—a state of relations that we have with dozens of other countries without any interest in their domestic travails.

So it’s the false dichotomy we need to break: “Are you Israel or Palestine?”. Actually, I’m for Britain—I’m for us, I’m for our interests; not Israeli or Arab interests—not a game of whether I sympathise more or less with people who are in a competition to be “the ultimate victim”, to preen myself for being on side with “the real victim”. I don’t think it’s a good idea to be a victim, actually—I don’t think there’s anything noble in it at all.

Yet Sunak said we support “the absolute right of Israel to self-defence”. Absolute. No conditions—if the Israelis nerve gas the Palestinians or dropped an atom bomb on them we’d be behind them (remember, absolute right—no conditions). People say things and don’t consider what they’ve actually said (or maybe they know all too well).

Well, we are involved because:

i. there are still some British politicians who are like broken toys who say “strategic interest, strategic interest” over and over again and like to pretend we have an empire;

ii. we’re a de facto part of the American empire, so we have to do what they do;

iii. there are large and influential Jewish and Muslim populations in Britain—so they make it an issue;

iv. the population itself is decadent and so thrives on competitions to determine who is “the real victim”—to put a Ukrainian flag or a Palestinian flag in your profile is analogous to “are you Mac or PC?”, it amounts to a consequence-free consumer choice (a self-preening game).

**

The situation in America is that the Jews exercise a vast influence there, so that they, in effect, control the state.

Trump issued a complaint that the US taxpayer funds Palestine (funds Hamas)—and that is true. But he tells a half-truth because what the US taxpayer gives to Palestine is chump change compared to what they give to Israel.

It also shows what Trump is—not a truthful man, because the crucial truth to tell is about Jewish influence and not US support for Palestine. He chooses the safe option, though.

Indeed, the Israeli state couldn’t exist without American taxpayer largesse and all the gee-whizz weapons systems from them (oh, and the technology the Israeli secret service stole from the Americans—including nuclear technology; which, I presume, it continues to steal).

Rather like Britain, the US has no interest in this area—and its support for Israel causes it to be locked, along with the wider West, in a struggle against Islam (with repercussions for actual strategic interests, such as oil).

And that is because of the influence the Jews and the Freemasons, tiny minorities, exercise on the American state—it means thousands of Americans have died for Israel’s interests, and millions have paid mucho cash to allow her to exist at all. And it has only negative outcomes for America.

***

Meanwhile, the Jews themselves do not reciprocate—as I discovered when I went to Israel and Palestine. I found American Jews who voted for Obama in America, supported him—and backed the most extreme right-wing parties in Israel (who would expel or murder the Palestinians). Immigration for the Americans, to weaken them—total racial hegemony for Israel, to strengthen their racial interests (“greatest ally”).

In fact, the Jews are notorious liars and, indeed, I sat through lectures where they complained about how British forces captured Israeli militants (terrorists, actually) and held them hostage and put them in front of trains to deter attacks—terrible, terrible (not that IDF tactics are any different).

And yet they pretend to be our ally though they hate us—blew up our soldiers in the King David Hotel (an act initiated by a man who later became Israeli PM—and, indeed, Netanyahu later attended an event to celebrate the bombing, to celebrate the murder of British soldiers. Remember).

Indeed, like a shot, as you can see from online pictures, even after we liberated them from the German camps, the Jews began to move to Palestine and put swastikas in the middle of Union Jacks because already “the British are the Nazis, because they won’t let us move (to start a perpetual regional war)”. And that’s how the Jews see all Europeans—as “the Nazis”, and that’s why they intend to murder us.

The problem is that Europeans are decadent, and debased on the spiritual level—hence they fall for the Jewish enchantment: sodomy, usury, commercial pornography—all sterile activities, all dominated by the Jews (the LGBT movement being founded by a Jew). Satan is the father of lies, Satan is sterile—the Jews serve him, only lies on their lips.

The Europeans are controlled by the Jews through their own vices, and also through Masonry—which founded modern America as a Satanic enterprise, based on treason, the worst sin, from the start.

Without a warrior-aristocratic class with a spiritual orientation, Europeans are vulnerable to predation by groups like the Jews—and we lost that caste long ago (with only decadent remnants left, like Churchill, who were in debt to the Jews and sold out their own people for the filthy lucre).

****

Hence I say: O Alkaid, destroyer-of-nations, come down! Down, down, down to earth—O Alkaid. There is a slate here on earth, O Alkaid—clean it. Let the nations of Satan fall, let the United States fall—let Israel fall, O Alkaid! Let the reign of Satan fall, O Alkaid! Let the reign of Satan fall, O Alkaid! Let the reign of Satan fall, O Alkaid!

I offer my blood, O Alkaid—to the last drop, O Alkaid!

I offer my blood, O Alkaid—to the last drop, O Alkaid!

I offer my blood, O Alkaid—to the last drop, O Alkaid!

Verily, I offer you my blood, that Satan may fall—that the United States and Israel may fall.

Verily, I offer you my blood, that Satan may fall—that the United States and Israel may fall.

Verily, I offer you my blood, that Satan may fall—that the United States and Israel may fall.

I am the servitor of the circle—I am the warrant and the deed ****.