Amerika

Nationalism works better than the alternative, which is diversity. Egalitarianism, the ideology which currently has humanity enthralled, forbids nationalism because in order to have “equality” we must have diversity. Together these postulates mean that when one nation adopts nationalism, others will follow, because diversity is failing and bleeding them dry.

One candidate for the first crack in the wall comes to us from Israel. The historical home of the Jews, to which they have strong genetic links, Israel returned as a nation in 1947 after the Jews had been exiled from it on a diaspora or wandering aimless lack of a national land since Roman times.

As the ostensible victims of nationalism during WW2, Jews provide a strong argument for the Left that nationalism is dangerous, but this line of thought collapses when it becomes clear that only nationalism will prevent the destruction of the Jewish people. The same applies to all other groups.

Without a nation of its own, a group relies on host majorities. These, which tend to be national, then have to co-exist with the wandering group as one minority in a diverse state. This creates tension between host and wanderers, since both are trying to assert their cultural values, needs, and autonomy over the same nation.

Over time, this tug-of-war exhausts both groups, and they each start to decay. We can see this in the West through the phenomenon of Jewish outbreeding:

Among Americans age 65 and older who say they had one Jewish parent, 25% are Jewish today. By contrast, among adults under 30 with one Jewish parent, 59% are Jewish today.

Looking just at non-Orthodox Jews who have gotten married since 2000, 28% have a Jewish spouse and fully 72% are intermarried.

Among married Jews who report that only one of their parents was Jewish, just 17% are married to a Jewish spouse. By contrast, among married Jews who say both of their parents were Jewish, 63% have a Jewish spouse.

51% of Millennials who have one Jewish parent are Jews of no religion, compared with just 15% of Millennials who had two Jewish parents.

Some estimated intermarriage rates to be as high as 80%:

Dr Daniel Gordis, an author and expert commentator on Israel and Judaism, says that has changed in the past few decades, especially in the Diaspora Jewish community.

Whereas once it was greatly frowned upon for a Jew of any stream to marry a non-Jew, today, among unaffiliated (no synagogue), non-denominational (those who don’t identify with any movement), conservative or reform Jews, it is not the taboo it once was. The intermarriage rates of non-denominational Jews approach 80%, he says.

Others estimated lower rates, but pointed to an overall pattern of intermarriage and conversion that would result in genetic erasure within a few generations:

The national study, undertaken by the Council of Jewish Federations in 1990, reported that 52% of the Jews who married between 1985 and 1990 married non-Jews (and another 5% married converts to Judaism). The exogamy rate climbed dramatically from decade to decade from the comparatively low and stable level characteristic of the periods before the 1960s. Another recent study, by the Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University, also reported recent intermarriage rates for successive decades, in eight communities in various parts of the country. Although the figures are somewhat lower than in the CJF study, the increase over time is equally steep.

A more recent study finds that intermarriage is accelerating:

Fewer American Jews are marrying these days, and among those who do, barely 40 percent do so with Jewish spouses, a study published on Thursday shows.

The study, published by the Jerusalem-based Jewish People Policy Institute, found that only 50 percent of American Jews aged 25-54 (not including the ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi Jews) are currently married. Among those, close to 60 percent married non-Jews.

Within this group of non-Haredi Jewish-American adults, the study found the majority (60 percent) had no children living at home and that barely one-third (32 percent) were raising their children Jewish in some way or another.

Reading between the lines, if the diaspora continues, Jews will cease to exist as any kind of politically powerful force, which means that with rising Leftist anti-Semitism, they will find themselves aliens who are subject to increasing persecution. This will force them to return to Israel, which most avoid simply because of the instability of the middle east region.

As becomes immediately obvious, the problem is most pronounced within Israel’s borders, where a third-world non-Jewish population threatens the first-world Jewish population through continued enmity. Coddled by Leftists in the West, the “Palestinians” are in fact an immigrant population to Israel much like Mexicans are to Texas:

“Before the Balfour Promise, when the Ottoman rule [1517-1917] ended, Palestine’s political borders as we know them today did not exist, and there was nothing called a Palestinian people with a political identity as we know today,” historian Abd Al-Ghani admitted on official PA TV on November 1.

As Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad speaking on Al-Hekma TV said in March 2012: “Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians…”

The Arab historian’s admission corroborates the observations of 19th century travelers to the region, who notably had no specific political agenda when they visited…:

“Outside the gates of Jerusalem, we saw indeed no living object, heard no living sound,” wrote French poet Alphonse de Lamartine about his visit in 1835.

“The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population.
wrote British Consul James Finn in his 1857 description…

“Palestine sits in a sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that withered its fields and fettered its energies. …Palestine is desolate and unlovely…It is a hopeless dreary, heartbroken land,” wrote American author Mark Twain in his description of his visit in 1867.

Jewish people face the same conditions that create white genocide: surrounded by and invaded by the third world, they will be dominated at the ballot box under egalitarian voting, and quickly dispossessed from their own nation and then destroyed by trace admixture and outbreeding in other lands.

If any population on Earth needs nationalism right now, Jews are that population. An ethnic group with accompanying culture and religion — in their view, and the traditional view, the three are inextricably linked — they find themselves targeted by outsiders, including for the relative success of Jews, since success seems universally resented.

When Israel goes minority-majority, elections will resemble those in Detroit or Houston with the minority group voting for its interests against those of the majority:

The report puts the total number of Palestinians in what it calls “historical Palestine” (Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) at the end of 2015 at 6.22 million, compared to 6.34 million Jews.

But Palestinian birth rates of 4.1 in the occupied territories (during 2011-2013) and 3.2 in Israel proper (in 2014) – compared to a rate of 3.1 births among Israeli Jewish women – are expected to bring the populations to parity in 2017.

By the end of 2020, the report estimates, Palestinians in the entire territory will number 7.13 million, compared to 6.96 million Jews.

Here we see the old quality-versus-quantity battle that the first world and third world fight in perpetuity. The first world breeds fewer but smarter children; the third world produces an army, but with few standouts. This guarantees conflict because inequality is certain from these biological and genetic differences.

Reacting to this crisis, Israel adopted a nationalist-style self-determination law that the usual suspects on the Left have called “racist” and “Nazi”:

Israel passed a law on Thursday to declare that only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country, something members of the Arab minority called racist and verging on apartheid.

Largely symbolic, the law was enacted just after the 70th anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel. It stipulates that “Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and they have an exclusive right to national self-determination in it.”

“I think this is racist legislation by a radical right-wing government that is creating radical laws, and is planting the seeds to create an apartheid state,” said physician Bassam Bisharah, 71.

They call it racist because it is a racial preference, however that is a preference for a group to defend itself against the encroachment of other populations which will inevitably seek to dominate it, as that is in their self-interest. All groups act only in their own self-interest alone. If they are not in power, they are subject to it, so they try to seize power.

We see the same thing in America, where elections are determined by demographics. Whenever an area goes minority-majority, it goes permanently Leftist and the founding group in that area is dispossessed. As we see in South Africa, with enough minority-majority power, they are also subject to violence and destructive taxation.

When that happens, you move from tyranny by a minority to tyranny by a majority. Political correctness is a form of minority tyranny, where a group is coddled against being offended, which removes the ability of the majority to defend itself. Then you get tyranny by a majority formed of the prior minorities, who promptly remove the prior majority.

In other words, diversity itself presents a paradox, which is that in the name of fairness it eliminates the majority instead of simply protecting the minority against abuse. This can be illustrated by the paradox of a Jew forced to bake a Nazi cake:

Supporters of anti-discrimination law cite this as a case in point. If you let people refuse service based on a religious criterion (or race, sex, disability, and so on) you create a slippery slope. What starts as a bigoted choice ends in more violent modes of exclusion. Yes, this can lead to weird results such as forbidding a black-owned hotel from barring a Klan member, and a Jewish baker forced to service to a Nazi based on religion. But this is a small price to pay, they say, for a more generalized atmosphere of tolerance.

The generalized atmosphere of tolerance, like democracy itself, slowly erodes and vitiates any identity or power that the majority has for conserving itself against the onslaught of entropy that we all face as living creatures. Nationalism throws away this paradox and says that the Jews bake their own cakes and Nazis bake their own, at the cost of living in separate nations.

The same makes sense for Jews and Palestinians or Jews and Arabs. When each has its own territory, the prospects for coexistence are best. When the two are combined, constant infighting results, and it destroys both parties, leaving behind another mixed group with an adulterated culture and no sense of itself.

For this reason, Zionism and the removal of Palestinians should be an issue at the forefront of nationalist discussion. When we achieve one victory, we can build on it with others; if it happens through the putative victims of nationalism, who then choose nationalism in order to survive, anti-discrimination and civil rights die and nationalism becomes the new world norm.

Tags: mexicans, nationalism, palestinians, zionism