The Virtue Of Survivalism

Note: Behind the green door I have a post about Double Indemnity, a Bill Wilder classic from the film noir genre, a post about a forgotten post-war classic, The Best Years of Our Lives and the Sunday podcast. You can sign up for a green door account at SubscribeStar or Substack.

In his book The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony argues that the ideal world order is one based on the nation state. All the peoples of the world would have a place to call their home and be governed by their own kind. He defines the nation as a closely related people with a common language and history. Since shared history requires close proximity, he assumes this history happened in a place. He avoids the phrase “blood and soil” but that is his intent.

Of course, the ideal world can only exist in the abstract. He points out that there are thousands of identifiable groups of people without a county of their own. He points to India as having over one thousand languages. Since language is tangled up in blood and history, it is a good proxy for identity. All over the world there are pockets of people living as minority groups. It is unreasonable to think that all of these people should be granted a nation of their own.

He also points out that his definition of a people is arbitrary. Two groups of people could share a language and history, but also find a way to see themselves as distinct from one another. There has to be some limit to this as the logical end point is to reduce all human societies to tiny tribes. Without some lower bound on what constitutes a people, nationalism would “pulverize” exiting states. For a people to be a nation they must exceed some threshold of sustainability.

If on the one hand the ideal is for every people to have their own nation, but on the other hand it is impossible to create sustainable nations for every group of people, how can national claims be properly judged? Hazony’s answer is self-referencing in that he sets the threshold at sustainability. In Chapter XVII of his book, he argues that a people are entitled to a nation if they can sustain it and prudence suggests it is practical or moral to support their claim to national independence.

His first example is the United States. The thirteen colonies had a legitimate claim to independence, despite sharing language and history with England, because it was impractical for England to resist their demands. The great ocean between England and the New World was too large. On the other hand, the Confederacy did not have a rightful claim to independence, because the Union could and did force those states back into the Union. The South could not sustain its independence.

Another example he gives in Israel, which gained independence in 1948, thanks to changing moral perspectives in Britain and America. Hazony claims that the English-speaking world opposed the creation of a Jewish state on the grounds that it would upset the Muslim world. The events of World War II involving the Jews, however, changed this calculation. “The holocaust demonstrated with maximum moral clarity the moral case for Jewish national self-determination.”

Putting aside the veracity of his claims here, the Hazony model for determining the edge cases for national independence comes down to either winning the support of the international community through moral persuasion or gaining your independence and maintaining it against all challenges. The two can be combined to enlist the support of powerful neighbors to take your side, as the American colonists did when they got the support of France in the American war for independence.

When you boil it all down, the Hazony formula for determining who has and who does not have a moral claim to self-determination is quite simple. Your claim is valid if you can make it stick. If circumstances or the actions of larger nations around you prevent you from gaining independence, then your claim was invalid. In his view, the virtue of nationalism lies in its effectiveness. Nationalism is a virtue if it wins your people their independence, but it is not a virtue in and of itself.

If this sounds a little bit like trial by combat, that is because it relies on the same view of man and society as ancient people. From Hazony’s point of view, you are morally indistinguishable from your people. You are a virtuous person if your life is lived in service to your people. Your people deserve respect and support if they are able to gain and keep their independence, by any means necessary. Nationalism is, in effect, trial by combat but between peoples.

This is a way of viewing virtue that is alien to the modern Western mind, as we think of virtue as an end, not a means to an end. You are a virtuous person, for example, if you practice certain habits like charity and conscientiousness, not if you make a lot of money or attain great power. For Hazony, virtue is about your purpose in helping your people attain their freedom as a people. This means anything that you do in pursuit of that collective goal is by definition virtuous.

This may not seem all that interesting, but in the context of the war between Israel and the Arab population in Gaza, it sheds light on what we are seeing from the Zionist supporters of Israel. The reason they do not see the contradiction between their claims about the Palestinians and their behavior toward the Palestinians, is the difference in how they see virtue. It is not simply tribalism that lets them maintain these contradictory views, but an alien moral framework.

From the point of view of the Zionists, Israel has a right to exist because it has gained independence and convinced enough big countries to support them in their fight to maintain their independence. The Palestinians, in contrast, have not been able to secure their independence and even if they were granted it in Gaza and the West Bank, they lack the means to sustain it. Therefore, their moral case for independence is invalid and their war against Israel is immoral.

Despite it being alien to modern people, this view of the world has its appeal, which you can see in the bloodlust voiced by Americans in support of Israel. The calls for vengeance and retribution titillate some ancient part of our brains that was of great value to our ancestors but is now buried under the conditioning in favor of individualism and moral objectivism. The suburban peasant may not be allowed to root for his own side, but he can root for Israel, so he does that instead.

In the end, Hazony may be correct in that the only thing that matters is the survival of your people, so all moral abstractions must be sublimated to it. The West has simply taken a holiday from reality by asserting that there is an objective moral standard for how people should act and how nations should act. In reality, the only thing that matters is winning the battle for survival and the winner can then declare how he won as the only acceptable way for how nations out to live.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory, so if you are a griller, take you spice business to one of our guys.

Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at

126 thoughts on “The Virtue Of Survivalism

  1. “ trial by combat.”
    What business great or small isn’t trial by combat, except it’s money.

    The money line here is the last paragraph, the West’s thought leaders took a vacation from reality and reality has returned.

  2. What nonsense, Z. Whoever this guy is, you insult your own intelligence just by taking him seriously.

    The problem is that when the other guys catch wind of your “survival methods” you end up getting holocausts, progroms, expulsion and ethnic cleansing. And when that happens, these rat faced jews all start talking about mercy, humanity, and trying to guilt trip their foes. As history has shown for the jews. Repeatedly. What works today will almost certainly not work tomorrow. Success today may even increase the liklihood of failure tomorrow.

    We may well see the end of the Israel in our lifetimes. Iran is able to go nuclear at almost any time, and the moslem states around Israel are out breeding them. Their weapons are crude right now but the quality is going straight up, and they are forging bonds with China and Russia.

    If mere survival is virtue…then the monkeys in the third world are our intellectual and moral superiors. It’s huge problem in the west: our academic and intellectual class or complete write-offs. Ironically the jews are the worst in that regard but that may be just my own bias.

  3. Might makes right is very patriarchal when it comes to nationalism. However, we live in a matriarchal world in Western White countries. For women, what gains them likes, attention and status on social media and what improves their mating options are what is important.

    Supporting open borders meets their social media and mating priorities especially given most immigrants are males. Women want to mate with the most dominant, and highest status men. If men stop immigration they will mate with the victor. If men don’t stop unlimited immigration, then women will mate with the victor

    • Z: “In reality, the only thing that matters is winning the battle for survival and the winner can then declare how he won as the only acceptable way for how nations ought to live.”

      My Comment: “Women want to mate with the most dominant, and highest status men. If men stop immigration they will mate with the victor. If men don’t stop unlimited immigration, then women will mate with the victor”


      That’s muh basic thesis: Darwinism is just about completely useless as a tool for analyzing ackshual physical living creatures which are slightly more complex than mere eukaryotes.

      HOWEVER, Meta-Darwinism is just about perfect in elucidating human sociology.

      Once you step back from the fog of the immediate battlefield, and notice instead the overarching war for what it is, it becomes impossible to analyze human behavior without appealing to Meta-Darwinism.


      BTW, speaking of women mating with the victor, has anyone heard from Whiskey since the war began?

      I’m thinking Barnea must have summoned him back to Israel.

      I hope Whiskey didn’t get droned.

    • “Supporting open borders meets their social media and mating priorities especially given most immigrants are males.”

      Open thy legs for the invaders for they are stronger. Or so the signaling goes .Only I’m skeptical they’re even doing that. Social media is as real as Sesame Street and about as serious. Dating sites are notorious for having problems matching up white women with blacks and browns. Sure, the public agitprop would have you believe white women (and Asians for that matter) are swooning in droves for blacks and Hispanics. IRL, though, from what I’ve seen it’s the same kind of woman who already prefers mud and coal.

      • And by “prefers” I mean these are women I would classify as slump busters or “too much alcohol, too dumb to care” pickups. They’re usually not women you should concern yourself over.

  4. I suspect that in my lifetime the concept of ‘might is right’ will make a mercilessly violent return to the collective conscious of the masses who will no doubt be dismayed at having their heads pulled from the feel good clouds where they currently reside.

    • In the end, might has always created right, and when the might disappears, empires break up…of which there are a great many examples…At that point, however, morality rears its ugly head..A reasonably well behaved empire can slide away slowly, like the Roman, Ottoman and British empires..A badly behaved empire will often collapse suddenly, taking the home country down with it, like many empires of ancient times…

      • As the Ottoman Empire was falling apart, the crypto j00z who ran the Ottoman Empire unleashed hell upon the various Christian tribes in the near east [“Never Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste”, (((Rahm Emanuel)))], and Christians from Armenia in the north, through Syria & Lebanon & Palestine, and across to Alexandria, were butchered by the thousands.

        The USA received an yuge surge of Near Eastern Christian immigrants in that era, many of whom resettled near Dearborn, Michigan, and went to work for Mr Anti-Semite Himself, Henry Ford.

        Lots of famous Americans, such as Alan Hovhaness & Michael DeBakey, can trace their ancestry to the time period, as can famous Brits, such as Michael & Patrick Atiyah.

  5. In this physical world, Might makes Right, absolutely. No honest thinking man can really come to a different conclusion.

    I believe there is a platonic or Godly Right that speaks to and creates beauty and truth that is distinct from the worldy fact of Might making Right.

    But I admit I could be wrong, I could just be rationalizing away a very harsh reality.

    • I could be an oddball, but I don’t think might makes right is necessarily ugly. Depends on who wields it, i.e., a noble vs. vulgar spirit.

      That might reek of paganism to certain noses, but in practice it beats being victimized.

      And let’s be honest, if Christianity was always about being crucified, it would’ve died on the cross, too.

      It’s inversions all the way down lol.

      • “I could be an oddball, but I don’t think might makes right is necessarily ugly. Depends on who wields it, i.e., a noble vs. vulgar spirit.”

        Totally agree. Even if it’s a given that power corrupts, I’d still rather have a monarch of naturally fine character than a “democracy” of bugmen.

  6. My theory of what is a nation would be a cocktail with
    -ethnicity (leading haplogroup and other important ones)

    *by language, I mean something serious, which have official grammar, past books published in it, etc. Not at all the populist promote of pidgin (french “occitan” , italian “piemontese”, spanish “aragonese” or “appalachian american” which are just vulgar dialect and worse)

    Would be interesting, for a map-addict like me, to see a world map like this.

  7. Gaza is like a live lobster tank, any time that jewish hunger arises, they wade in Joshua style, swords ablazin’, to vivify ancient stories.

    The gesture of those who broke out of the tank, and the suffering of those entanked victims who have given their lives for our salvation, that gesture should not be wasted.

    Perhaps, Gaia Girl’s inept cousin, Mizrahi Moron, is the cause of the escape. Or perhaps not. The Question is, as always, how can the event be narratized. The best way to narratize is with questions.

    Do you think they let it happen on purpose?
    It seems like they let it happen doesn’t it?
    That opens a convo, makes ya think, doesn’t it?

    House Foreign Affairs Committee says they knew. Bibi was ruling over a divided kingdom that is now unified. Etc.

    The lied about the babies, they lie about this, and about other things

    It leads to stories about 9/11, Lavon Affair, USS Liberty. 911 and Gaze, both have dancing Israelis.

    This is a good time to move people away from them. Just a little wedge.

    All over town, jewish posters about the event are taped up, and stapled to trees. The enemy do not waste events. The moral choice is for us to use this event for us, the purpose of good.

  8. Indeed this is quite the hypothesis from our finest Jewish Moral Philosophers, but what exactly is so special about the scale of the nation-state in his sublimely Jewish ethical perspective? If it all does boil down to might making right, would not a world-state that controls every action of its citizens through tubes and wires inserted into their various orifices be also considered virtuous? Or on the smaller scale how about a gang of basketball-americans that controls the drug trade in their local ghetto?

    Also, Yorham Hizony should be praising Europeans for historically getting with the pogrom right? The Czar had the power to corral the goblins into shtetls and compel them to restrict their covetous nature to potato farming, therefore he was right and moral to do so.

    • There may be a distinction between might making right regarding the establishment and maintenance of nation states, and that same thing vis-a-vis sociopolitical behavior within nation states. Ergo, might making it right to create and maintain a nation state does not make it right to rip the hearts out of living people on altars in Tenochtitlan.

      Also, I think there is a distinction between “right” and “valid.” Hence, the creation and maintenance of a nation state does not confer some sort of absolute moral sanction. Nothing so strong as that. But it does confer justifiability. When a people succeed with their nation state, they can at least make a strong argument that they were justified in doing so.

      • Well not having a better technological option, the ripping out of living hearts served to terrorize the people into submission to the head honcho. And who knows what crazy psychedelics those people were on? Imagine being there …

    • Hazony’s “principle” is one that could be accurately guessed simply from a working knowledge of last names.

      Hazony in brief: Jews do whatever they want, because of muh holocaust(tm) their group interests are sacrosanct. As for the rest of you… abstractly sure have nations or whatever but really whatever happens in the world to the goyim is basically fine because in all intra-goyisch conflicts might makes right. So by definition everything that happens to anyone else is okay.

      Dont like it? then make your own hollywood and your own media and your own internet and get your own well marketed historical catastrophe. Also make your own financial system to finance all these things. Also buy your own politicians to make inconvenient questions about this history illegal.

      Till then there is room for only one genocide that is definitely real and immoral and that spot is full. Now be quiet while we go on ethnically cleansing/genociding our neighbors RIGHT NOW on video. They are weak and their suffering is not muh holocaust(tm) you learned from TV so their national identity is illegitimate and their lives forfeit for standing in the way of our inviolate and expanding national aspirations.

  9. Today’s post strikes me as a bit contrived with Hazony, who just so happens, non-coincidentally, to be Jewish, as the straw man. The subtext seems to be, “C’mon, white Americans (other than Jews) who share a common heritage from the Eurasian peasant in Moldavia to the Dalriadans and Dannan of the Keltic North Sea Coast, let’s do the kinship/nation thing.” But nation and race have become compensatory fictions for “legacy” Americans many of whom are rightfully pissed off about it.

    “The calls for vengeance and retribution” coming from the pro-Palestine crowd may be acted on soon enough with many cheers from the Jew bashers.

    IMO, Jared Taylor has the better view. Paul Revere had his ride more than 200 years ago. It’s a different country and a different world now. Leave me and mine to live our lives together in peace and everyone else, f— off.

  10. “You are a virtuous person, for example, if you practice certain habits like charity and conscientiousness, not if you make a lot of money or attain great power.”

    This statement is generally true, but not for our ruling class, going back to the puritans who founded the country. The old protestant work ethic says your success is proof of God’s favor, which in turn proves your virtue. This is why every high profile successful American, from Bill Gates to your average 90 IQ celebrity, feels it is their God given right to rule over us and constantly lecture us on how we should act, even if they are unaware this behavior had religious origins.

    • As has been elucidated by smarter people than me, even our atheists are christians.

      It is remarkable how the latest pronouncement from Mr. Gates appears in my home page feed almost daily.

      And lately, from HRC also

      And while I’m on the subject, the daily home page appearances of Mr. Biden are invariably about his age related decline

      Is it any wonder I suspect She is going to be the D on the ticket in 2024

    • The powerful do as they will, and the religious make excuses for them.

      American Christianity is an especially repugnant type of idolatry. Its gods are the TV and the W-2. Americans worship Jews not because of a theological misunderstanding but because Jews are the highest-income religious group (recently surpassed by Hindus, the latest objects Republican worship) and TV is *about them*.

      In a rare moment when her hostility became insight, the VP Hillary wanted on her ticket to sway the Jesusland rubes away from Trump was Mark Zuckerberg. She recognized him as the holiest American.

      • “Americans worship Jews not because of a theological misunderstanding but because Jews are the highest-income religious group”

        Let’s politely call that “silly talk”. The americans who stereotypically are pro israel dont personally know or encounter jews at all.

        Jews are known for many things (most of which no one is ever allowed to publicly notice) but they are definitely not known for living in southern rural and suburban communities, working class jobs, and associating with people who think torturing Jesus to death was a bad thing.

        The evangelical christians still doing the pro israel thing (less every year) only know jews as poor suffering put upon proto christians. They believe they have a practical theological disagreement about if the messiah has come or is to come but otherwise wish each other well and share religions and moral values.

        Basically they dont know any jews and have no idea what they are actually like. That’s also how they manage to be pretty much the only gentiles in the whole world who have any affection for the tribe.

        Of course anyone whose only experience with the tribe is TV and movies, that is to say, media they produce about themselves… is going to feel this way. That’s a big part of what TV is FOR.

        Likewise if you dont actually know anything about palestine or know any palestinians or have any info source thats not (((mainstream media))) you mat actually believe that mysterious stateless muslims from nowhere and who live in no real place just decided to behead tons of adorable jewish babies and rape virtuous europeans for literally no reason.

    • I most certainly disagree … those people – Bill Gates, etc. – are convinced they themselves, not Almighty God, are the reason for success. I wonder if they have ever really prayed to God and admitted what true failures they are as human beings? I know I have done that … and I have praised Him for providing and for preparing and strengthening me for the coming challenges. They will fall like crops before the scythe.

      • Here’s how I frame it—admittedly with a broad brush and an extreme example. Let’s say you are a typical Joe Sixpack and you stop by your local “Stop and Rob” for your six pack and buy a Powerball ticket for the multi billion dollar prize.

        You win this prize. You begin to change your lifestyle, and move up to the elite circles of society. After a while, people begin to interact with you and soon you are pontificating on societal events and you have an audience which listens to you (after all, you are rich—so you must be wise). You bask in the glow of false admiration and pretty soon you think you really know something and deserve your accolades. You rub elbows daily with others of your ilk.

        That basically describes many/most of our newly billionaire elites. Gates and Zuckerberg and a dozen others I could look up got lucky and milked their fortune to where they are today. They were smart, definitely, but they were lucky to stumble upon a vacuum and ride their success to the top.

        No one can teach you how to be *lucky*. They can only pretend they were not and worse that they were in the main the primary basis for their good fortune.

  11. “The people of the United States will find that under the pretense of saving the life of the nation and upholding the old flag, they have surrendered their own liberties into the hands of that worst of all tyrants, a body of senseless fanatics.”
    — General Jubal A. Early

  12. Heh. “Blood and Soil.”
    Israel literally has DNA tests for citizenship.

    Shamelessness- chutzpah! is seen as a virtue.

    • So, referring to my earlier post, in the event that a White area is carved out, we can use DNA tests to check for purity?!

      Sweet! We can just refer folks to the Chosen as our template for membership.

  13. Many thanks to Disruptor for the Marcionites, Friday:

    “Marcionites were the largest sect and published the first new testament. But they rejected the old testament god as evil, and thus it could not be Jesus’ father…”
    (this takes into account “Caesar’s Christ”, that the Romans promoted the Jesus faction).

    Since the Afro-Aryans, a.k.a. Semitics, are obsessed with Africa(ns) being the future of Christianity, we could call this the Semite version of RETVRN.

    (It keeps them on top. I see Bernaysian appeal to authority in the Bible as political propaganda shifting back and forth between the Aryan majority and the Afro-Aryan remoras.

    Also know, Christians, I accept the theme of the empty tomb as something whites knew as real- that there is not only an afterlife, but that there is the possibility of afterlife beyond the Wheel and the hells- something their would-be rulers could not know, achieve, nor understand.)

    • I’m agnostic or less about Caesar’s messiah.

      One can easily substantiate the following general knowledge assertions:

      The gospels are post-temple-destruction works. They ex post facto predicted that the temple would be destroyed as a part of the one like a son of man coming.

      Philo Judaicus of Alexandria (circa 15BC to 45AD) was a Jewish philosopher who was integrating Platonic and Greek philosophy into the Jewish stories. Particularly and especially the concept of Logos.

      Philo’s brother was the Roman tax collector for Alexandria. A son of that brother, Tiberius Julius Alexander, was a general in the roman army, who in 70AD, participated in the Siege of Jerusalem as Titus’s second-in-command, destroying the Temple. He became the most powerful Jew of his age, and is ranked as one of the most prominent Jews in military history.

      • Holy smokes, that’s good.

        In the modern age, there were as many as 35,000 juden soldiers in the Nazi German military, with 1500 as high officers. (The juden who created the Holo rumour, whole cloth, was a military clerk at Wannsee, for example.)

        They opposed the Ostjuden communists, their supposed brothers, much as the English opposed the French.

        The advantage to having your people on both sides of any conflict is that no matter who wins, your people win- they are in place to continue to take advantage of that win.

        In stocks, this would be called a “straddle”.

        (More on this, please, a lot more; I see the Book as a political chronicle in a race war from beginning to end.)

        • Thanks bro, for you:

          In 6AD, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Legate of Syria, was carrying out his duties by conducting the Quirinius census. Judas of Galilee, founder of the zealots, was the Jewish leader who led resistance against compiling to the census. He and his followers would burn the houses of Jews who registered.

          In 46AD, as procurator, Tiberius Julius Alexander, nephew of Philo, executed Judas’s sons James and Simon. I speculate, is that the bible character apostle, Simon the Zealot?

          One of Tiberius Julius Alexander son’s Marcus Julius Alexander married Herodian Princess Berenice.

          Later Tiberius Julius Alexander became proconsul of Egypt.

  14. The past few years have shown that the “rules based” world order is a whole load of BS.

    Ben Shapiro says that he doesn’t give a damn about the browning of America. Colour doesn’t matter, ideology does. Ethnic nationalism is bad, I guess. Now that Israel is under attack, it’s crucial that all the Jewish people across the globe stand together in order to ensure the survival of their people. Wait, what?

    China committing a quasi-genocide against its Muslim population – 2 thumbs down and a big angry face. Israel threatens to turn Gaza into glass – 2 thumbs up and a big smiley face. What?

    Nazis are the most evil people in history. Except when they are Ukrainian Nazis fighting against Russia, which is also run by Hitler so they need to be destroyed. What?

    It’s all a big game of who/whom. And always has been. Our people have been playing by their own rules in a fantasy land the whole time. The question is, when will we realize?

    • Like Putin said regarding the “Rules Based Order.”

      “The rules cannot be followed because no one is allowed to know what the rules are.”

  15. Might makes Right but good PR maintains it.

    History is written by the winners and Right is right, until they allow the losers to re-write history.

    Then it’s 1776 or 1066 all over again.

    • “Might makes right” is exactly what I thought after reading the line “Your claim is valid if you can make it stick.” All the lawyering and rhetoric merely serves to precondition the battlefield upon which the inevitable killing take place.

      It’s not the world we want. It’s certainly not the vision of the future we were sold at the end of the Cold War by the integrated perception management complex of corporate media and leftist academia. However, either we face reality and prepare for the inevitable end of the preconditioning process, or we go extinct.

    • Darn near perfect, alaska.
      That’s the meme, the bumper sticker, right there.

      Now we need someone smart to frame the Zman’s summary:

      “This is a way of viewing virtue that is alien to the modern Western mind, as we think of virtue as an end, not a means to an end. You are a virtuous person, for example, if you practice certain habits like charity and conscientiousness, not if you make a lot of money or attain great power. For Hazony, virtue is about your purpose in helping your people attain their freedom as a people. This means anything that you do in pursuit of that collective goal is by definition virtuous.”

      Something immediate and tasty. A dart; once thrown, it sticks. Once heard, it is easily seen and expected.

    • I was saying a variation this the other day to a flabbergasted lefty. What’s the difference between a revolutionary and a traitor? Victory vs defeat.

  16. This is a good piece, and I do believe I agree with Z and Hazony here, although I haven’t read Hazony’s book.

    One of my longstanding mottoes is, “Support secession always and everywhere.” I believe the human race would be better off with a galaxy of small, homogeneous nation states (even city states), than with the current congeries of large, diverse nation states and empires. Toward that end, I disagree with this statement: “All over the world there are pockets of people living as minority groups. It is unreasonable to think that all of these people should be granted a nation of their own.”

    On the contrary, I think any of those peoples who desire independence should be granted it. This would be better for the grantees and the granters than a situation where the would be grantees are social pests in a larger polity because they are unhappy being a minority there. No conflict to speak of exists between same and same; the vast majority of serious strife occurs between same and different. Diversity under one political umbrella, in other words, is the source of most misery.

    • “ This would be better for the grantees and the granters than a situation where the would be grantees are social pests in a larger polity because they are unhappy being a minority there.”

      Perhaps. Certainly here in the US Whites would be better with such separation. But as we see with cities under Black control, how would an entire (new) country be under Black control (sovereignty). Well, we have such examples—take Haiti and compare it to their proximal neighbor, The Dominican Republic. Like night and day.

      The Dominicans spend large amounts of resources keeping the dysfunctional Haitians the hell out of their country. Unless we are willing to round them all up and ship them all abroad as we once wanted to do with the creation of Liberia, then suppression—as was policy prior to the Civil Rights Act—seems the only “solution”.

      I guess a deciding factor here is how diversely spread the minority group is within the general population of the controlling group, which I suspect is why we’ve read so many proposed scenarios describing a future breakup of the US into several different countries based upon groupings of minorities. However, there are always some percentage of minorities remaining within any mapping boundaries. It was exceedingly unpleasant when India parted ways with their Muslim religious minority—no one liked/agreed to the boundaries and millions had to flee their homes.

      • I think, to remove an unwanted ethnicity from your country is really not so difficult at all. Barely an inconvenience.

        • Depends. If one wants Blacks removed, you have resources to repatriate 50M ferals? That then, leaves us with who lives where after a division of the land? And we’ve not even considered Hispanics who are 20-22% of the population.

          That’s the problem with being a minority in your own country—it’s your problem to move, not theirs. 🙁

      • And many of them didn’t make it to their side of the tracks. The Muslims often felt the wrath of not only of Hindu soldiers, but of Sikhs–especially the latter, according to some accounts. Yet the Hindu Gurkhas were credited with maintaining military discipline, protecting communities or shooting reprobates without fear or favor.

      • In future Whiteland, there will be no negroes. Period. If they must be forcibly expelled, so be it.

    • Remember that most people in the nation of France didn’t speak aristocratic French. They spoke in sub-dialects. (One could include Norman England in that nation, as well.)

      The difficulty, here, is that the ladder of opportunities and rewards in nation and empire are different from neighborhood and region.

      To be Pack or Herd, that is the question.

      (The pattern I noticed was that we are the Herd-Who-Hunts:

      Our outlier packs bay at the fringe of the Herd. Eventually, their baying grows until they become the new Herd core; the old Herd is scattered, broken, to exist now as baying packs on the fringes.)

      • p.s.- aghast, I am, to forget to include Krull’s example of Jutland in even as small a nation as Denmark. Switzerland and Wales come to mind as well.

    • “I think any of those peoples who desire independence should be granted it.”

      How very Wilsonian of you. Who, exactly, will do the granting, though? This is the folly of Versailles. Wilson claimed that there was an inherent right to ethnic self-determination — for the Poles, the “Czecho-Slovakians” and the “Jugo-slavs.”

      But not for the Germans or the Irish.

      So in reality what you had was an imperial American army imposing its will on foreigners, telling them who should be granted independence by force of arms.

      Ironically, of course, in the long run the Czechoslovakians and Yugoslavs didn’t even want to live together, they wanted more independence than Prof. Wilson granted them…

  17. It all sounds rather Wilsonian to me: Wilsonian with a “promotion and relegation” system like the English Football League, that is to say. If you’re competitive enough, you are promoted to the Big League of Nations; if not, you’re relegated to the Little League of Nations without premier status.

    I think there’s a lot to be said for promotion and relegation in sports leagues—it keeps interest alive at every level and it blurs the lines between professionals an amateurs so that anybody can aspire to work their way up. There is a smooth continuum between children’s games in the schoolyard, through adult hobbyist clubs, and all the way up to the best athletes in the sport. No matter where you fall on the spectrum, everybody can be a part of the same process. It’s a good way to do things.

    Can nations work the same way? Yes, they can; this is the “Holy Roman Empire” solution, where you have thousands of very disparate political entities all enjoying an appropriate level of autonomy and self-determination. But in order to have this, you need the pope and the emperor enforcing the rules of subsidiarity so that you don’t end up with a mere “might makes right” situation.

    Hazony’s conception needs to be modified, for as it stands, every oppressed minority and disenfranchised faction—in other words, precisely the people for whom the question of nationhood has become existential—are going to find his “might makes right” approach rather unsatisfying, to say the least. Political philosophy exists because of problems like this, and Hazony simply brushes the whole thing aside. He solves the problem by denying it exists.

    What this goes to show is that the whole idea of “nationalism” is meaningless by itself. A nation is not important enough to command a man’s full attention and unquestioned loyalty; for, while nations do exist and do matter, they do not exist absolutely and they are not eternal. They rise and fall like the sports clubs in an open league. When you have the pope to appeal to, then the question of nationhood can be raised, because the nation is the vehicle that ensures the full participation of a select group of individuals within the larger pale of Christendom. Without the Holy Roman Empire, then the nation is just an accidental association of practical interests, a mob.

    More is needed to ensure the good life than just the nation. You really need the whole organic, bewildering menagerie of medieval society. A nation, governed by a king, subordinate to the emperor, referred to God by the pope.

    • I would choose to live in your world over many other choices, certainly over our current world, although I am not a Christian. I respect Christianity and would do my best to be a good subject and not cause trouble.

      In your world, could my nation deny immigration or citizenship to non-whites, even if those non-whites were exemplary Christians?

      • In your world, could my nation deny immigration or citizenship to non-whites, even if those non-whites were exemplary Christians?

        Of course it could. That’s what “nationhood” means. A nation can refuse to accept new citizens for any reason or no reason. The very definition of a sovereign state entails that.

        However, sovereignty does involve reciprocal duties to existing citizens and their jus sanguinis children, whom it does not have the authority to escheat. The sovereign has an indissoluble duty towards them just like spouses have in a (sacramental) marriage.

        The temporal authority is always duty-bound to some determinate group of people, so it’s impossible to argue that unrestricted immigration is either lawful or right. Any government that practices that (such as ours and the EU’s) has forfeited its legitmacy.

  18. Once you remove all the moral and virtue sophistry, it all comes down to your nation has a right to a state only if it can impose its will on the area it claims as a state.

    If Israel didn’t have the IDF and the military backing of the US and Europe, all the moral claims and virtue BS would go out the window and Israel would cease to exist and her people driven into the sea. Saying the Holocaust proves their right to a state is just more BS and sophistry and after the fact rationalization. If Jews were still religious, they would be saying God was responsible for their military victories.

    • In their stories (God’s word) , Jacob (them) used trickery to obtain Esau’s (our ) birthright and blessing.

      The Americans we see slobbering over the collection of their stories, correlates with the Americans we see slobbering over the Jews.

      • Stories and myths are amazing things. In the Biblical story, Jacob is the clever hero who is rightfully taking the birthright from dummy brute Esau.

        But if say an ancient Norse myth told a similar story and substituted Loki for Jacob and Thor for Esau, it would have a very different meaning.

      • Exactly. Exactly. So clever they tricked the King of the gods.

        Trickery and betrayal, over and over and over.
        And it has worked, again and again and again.

        They are thus braced for reprisal. Truly an alien mindset- a successful one, at that- illustrating today’s point.

        White pill: white people, as their wont, are beginning to step back, analyze, and understand these aliens.

        (The Zman simply sees them as a sub-branch, and doesn’t let himself get carried away with their stridency.)

        Beware! Ever the false promises, the false threats. Con men will promise their marks *anything* without regard to whether they can deliver.

      • There are many ways to interpret-iirc Jacob approached esau to sell him his birthright which he did for a bowl of slop. Esau is the Jews in this scenario selling their birthright of the Messiah to those who come to believe in Him in exchange for worldly things. It’s the deal they wanted.

      • It’s nu-males here with nu-paganism sam harris tier talking points that they’ll constantly crap out into any and all threads, dividing the right with streams of ahistorical nonsense and daring christian right wingers (aka: almost all the right wingers) to get a part time volunteer job writing endless essays unraveling all the same old crap hundreds of times over. The same info that anyone with an open mind and a search engine could find in a hour?

        But the numale nupagans soldier on creating pointless but serious diversions and disagreements among theoretically their own side.

        Z should be proud as these types show up more and more in succesful and peaceful right wing forums lately, always curiously more interested in sparking a circular firing squad than adding to the general intellectual moves against our common enemies.

        Are they really edgy 14 year olds that hate their dads? Are they bad actors trying to hammer spikes into what some ADL/SPLC hack has identified as a possible fracture point of the right wing? Are they just more racially focused than that austrian painter guy who was pragmatic enough to at least not aggressively the dominant convictions of the people he wanted to lead?

        World may never know, but it’s refreshing to finally run into a submovement somehow even more fake and gay and functionally sterile than the MGTOWs.

    • Equally, if the Europeans are too fake and gay to stand up for their own religion, race, culture and civilization, they deserve to get dominated by the Muslim invaders in their midst.

  19. In essence Hazony is 100% correct, argue and dislike it all you want but it is an honest assessment of human nature. Might makes right.

    If you can’t enforce your worldview then it will perish. Simple as. Prod, cajole, and convince all you want – there will always be someone who disagrees and if they choose to disagree violently you must rise to the occasion or be subjugated.

    • I’ve not read the book, but I suspect Hazony’s purpose is to build a foundation for a justification/use of your dictum: “Might makes right”. Intellectuals like to beat around the bush with a lot of fancy words for simple and universally understood concepts. 😉

      • Exactly right, Compsci- Hazony is pre-staging.

        The rationalization will be further grounds for future rationalization…I’d say they are preparing for a “backlash”, meaning they are pulling back their fist to strike.

    • The “right” part of “might makes right” is meant to be sarcastic. The point is that human beings are intrinsically amoral and readjust their beliefs to suit whoever is pointing a gun at them or writing their paycheck.

    • “Might makes right”

      Who wins has nothing to do with who is right. If you think these are the same you are just stating that you dont believe there is any such thing as right and wrong. And if you think THAT then youre morally indistinguishable from a leftie. For that matter you may as well join them and troon it out now… because theyre self evidently WINNING and therefore RIGHT according to that philosophy. The winners are always the right side is nothing but a kind of wormish opportunism.

      Robert E Lee was RIGHT although on the weaker side. The second is indisputable historically and if you therefore conclude the first youre not a friend.

  20. So the Crusaders were “right” for several hundred years then? But suddenly they weren’t. The South was “wrong” to seek its independence because it would lose? This assumes a deterministic view of history. How does anyone know this beforehand? This Hazony POV is stupid.

    The truth is a nation must be distinguished from a state. If a nation doesn’t have sovereignty over itself, it doesn’t cease to exist as a nation. Donetsk and Lugansk were separate states but they were part of the Russian nation. Texas was a separate state but part of Anglo America. Finally these entities gained the recognition of the larger nation of which they were a part and were incorporated into them. It’s much harder for small nations adjacent to but separate from larger established sovereign nations to gain their own sovereignty and if they do it’s because of larger geopolitical forces and their existence will always be tenuous. None of this has anything to do with morality but only the principle of Might Makes Right. But it is moral to be loyal to one’s own people.

    • “The South was “wrong” to seek its independence because it would lose? ”

      I did not take it that way. I took it as an ex post facto explanation of why some of these attempts at independence/sovereignty fail. Wrong as in the moral sense I do not believe was intended. Wrong as in doomed to failure was. However, it’s very easy to Monday morning quarterback in these cases.

      • “Wrong as in doomed to failure was.”

        Yes, that’s the way I meant it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Of course, I believe it was also “in the right.” (Some may disagree.)

        • Perpetual Union was never mentioned in the Constitution, so yes—the South had justification and the dispute “settled” by force of arms.

          • Yes, but, the South never wanted a fight. Lincoln was committed to war if the South wouldn’t let him collect his tariffs.

            That is why Fort Sumter was fired on.

          • I find it interesting that when shitlibs screech that “Star Wars has ALWAYS been political,” they always seem to overlook that Lucas’s evil Empire came about as the result of a secessionist Confederacy getting brutally crushed by a “Grand Army of the Republic”…

  21. The fundamental reality of might making right has never changed. Ever. It just gets obscured sometimes, hidden behind facades of rhetoric, when he who has the might presents other rationales for what makes right. While the truth is, the only reason these other rationales possess any legitimacy is because they are stated or supported by he who has the might.

    Of course might doesn’t make right in an ideological or theological or intellectual sense, but for practical purposes, always.

    • Yep. All this fluff is an after the fact rationalization of reality on the ground. Your nation can either impose its will on the area of the “state” or it cannot. If you can impose your will, congratulations, you have a state. If not, well, you better learn to prosper as a minority in a foreign state.

      I just hope White people learn this lesson before it is too late.

  22. “Might makes right” and “political power flows from the barrel of a gun.”

    The post WWII holiday from reality where we believed “international institutions” ruled the day is rapidly crumbling. Led in no small part by the most outwardly vocal advocate of them (US).

    (An excellent example is Mauritian sovereignty on the super military base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Having lost all challenges to keep legal claims to it in international legal bodies, the US is just going to keep it anyway. Too important to US, fook the natives. I don’t even disagree, but flagrantly violating the rules of institutions your own country molded and dominates undermines the moral posturing … rules for the but not for me)

    The powerful do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.

    • The US is the king of moral hypocrisy. It’s a bit difficult when you are within it to see such, but it’s very apparent to those living outside the environment.

  23. Jews have conquered the GAE politically and run it to their benefit. They have been able to infiltrate the West and at this point they have no real opposition in the West to carry out whatever their goals are. How else do you explain the West’s over the top military response to about 1200 people being murdered in a Border skirmish? The West is willing to risk WWIII because 1200 Jews were murdered.

    At least 1200 Americans are killed every six months by illegal aliens in the U.S. I don’t see aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Mexico ready to carry out strikes against the infiltration routes to our Border.

    Notice that the Barry Obamas were hardly an inconvenience for them even though we hear from all of the right people how Barry was a mortal enemy of Israel. In the end Obama did what they wanted. He took out Gaddafi and attacked and tried to overthrow Assad. The big things Israel wanted, Israel got, any Obama protestations not withstanding.

    Their problem is that the policies they implemented to gain and keep control have severely weakened their protectors. The demographics of the Middle East are not promising for Israel. The demographics in the U.S. at some point will no longer favor Israel being our number one priority. The Jews hate the white man as they implement policies that will destroy white society. I guess they thought they would be able to control the ascendant populations. That will prove to be a mistake. One they may not survive.

    • Z references this too, but they’re built to take advantage of current situations, but poor at long term strategy; it’s like “government by used car salesman”, because democracy favors the clever rather than the wise.

        • Yep, which is why such democracies can not tolerate anything less than universal suffrage. The pool of voters must be sufficiently “unwise” for the “clever” (elite) to obtain and maintain power.

  24. His dismissal of the South’s right to secede pretty much gives he game away and, as most have pointed out, boils down to “might is right”. It’s clear he’s trying to avoid moral claims of supporting the right to secede from the bad guys of history by inferring that, because they lost, they weren’t the good guys.

    It’s like the classic Norm quip, ““It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?”

    • I don’t think many realize how brilliant Norm was. His ability to navigate the woke environment while still giving deep jabs is unparalled. My favorite illustration is when he went on the View to apologize for defending Roseanne and Louis CK (along the ground that they deserve Christian sympathy). Every time he said something groveling, he shoved gum in his mouth. Or when he made fun of the trannies. This joke is worthy of reproduction, from memory, and the Smithsonian:
      “So I hear Caitlyn Jenner is considering transitioning back into a man. Did you hear this? This was really shocking to me because I always have remembered her as a woman. I mean, I remember when she won the Olympic Gold medal. I remember her standing there on the podium, with that Gold medal hanging between her big, juicy tits.”
      This is brilliant. He took the logic of the Left and applied it ad absurdum, but how could a lefty attack it? After all, he is using their logic that Jenner was always a woman!
      Also, google “Norm Macdonald Professor of Logic Joke.”
      The man was brilliant. His standup specials are not as good as the bootlegs; you can tell he was meant for the nightclub scene. His takedown of a teacher heckler is legendary, too.

  25. I’ve not read his book, so this is a serious question. If Hazony “defines the nation as a closely related people with a common language and history,” does he accept the need for the U.S., Britain. Australia, New Zealand and the European states to expel all the recent arrivals who don’t meet this criteria?

    Also, as the Jews now have a nation, does he agree it’s time for them to depart from the above nations as well?

    Just curious.

    • The European’s took some real estate by force via the Crusades back in the day. Held it by force of arms and religious fanaticism for about 100 years.

      Better than even chance the Jews are going to hold out for about as long. No one wants to live forever in an armed camp generation after generation surrounded by a much larger mass of people who hate you.

      • I’ve had similar thoughts about the comparison between Israel and the Crusader Kingdoms. One major difference, however, is that Israel has nuclear weapons and the crusaders had nothing similar.

    • You are doing some kind of moral posturing.

      They want you dead.
      They are never going to stop wanting you dead.

      • That’s why I want to expel them.

        Not that I need his permission, but it sounds like Hazony is recommending just that.


  26. Interesting that you quote Hazony. He’s a smart fellow and I’ve read a couple of his books — “The Jewish State” and “The Question of God’s Perfection.” I think he was born, raised, and educated in the USA but then moved to Israel as he is an ardent Zionist. I think he has also served as advisor to Netanyahu (maybe still is, I don’t know).

    Your point about Zionism’s useful idiots among the goyim is true, especially among the evangelicals.

    • Arshad Ali: Went to church this Sunday and the member who gave the sermon/talk (regular pastor was out of town on family business) closed with an appeal to support “God’s people in Israel.” Obviously I bit my tongue and do not know precisely how the rest of the members felt. But this is a small, rural, White church where one gentleman in bible study introduced himself to me as a proud “6th generation hillbilly.”

      There is really no accounting for this unrequited love. Telling these people that modern “American” Jews despise them and most Israelis see them only as a cash cow and would spit in their face wouldn’t move the needle, so I don’t even try. But it bugs the heck out of me.

      • You’re not in a real church if it’s giving sermons worshipping Jews. You either need to correct them or get out while you safely can.

          • I’ve seen enough anecdotal evidence to back up the idea that he was not, in fact, a Jew, in the genetic sense, such as it was. Not sure if it’s worth arguing about, but it’s probably enough to justify not auto-ceding the point.

          • Sandmich, They will steal or glom onto everything else, but somehow they will keep their hands off our God, the highest power?

      • “There is really no accounting for this unrequited love.”

        Not completely unrequited. If you’re a politician you get paid trips to Israel and they make some contribution to your election coffer. There is some quid pro quo. The Zionists know how to play the system. And they are now part of the system — both as politicians and as a hefty chunk of the intelligentsia. The Arabs are nowhere to be found as far as public relations and greasing palms are concerned. And it hurts them. The cultural gap is too wide.

      • Any preacher making political statements during a sermon is making a political speech and not a sermon. Unfortunately, this runs rampant in what passes for a church today.

        It’s funny that everyone and their mother feels the need to have an opinion on subjects on which they are completely ignorant. Really, it’s even worse than that because they are not merely ignorant on the topic, their heads are full of propaganda on the topic. So they have “negative knowledge” They probably don’t even know a distant relative of the truth. If 80% of the “journalists” had names like Muhammad instead of Goldberg, they would almost certainly have the opposite view. The facts on the ground are just completely irrelevant.

        It’s very telling that these sermons are not about historically Christian lands like Europe are being filled with Muslims and other foreigners.

  27. Win the war then establish the moral framework. Seems like that’s what a famous Jew called King David did? He exterminated his enemies then his son Solomon built the Jewish temple.
    As our author stated here, we are allowed to cheer on modern Israel but we are not allowed to have our own interests.
    We act like a colony of Israel.
    Maybe we are?

    • You are but the Zionists are not completely sure about how long they can continue the charade. Maybe forever?

    • The victors write history, no?

      As Z has said in a number of posts, first you win then you write the rules.

  28. “That which works persists” is a cardinal mechanism of evolution that has operated on all life forms for about a billion years now. It is reality as opposed to idealism, and it doesn’t cease to exist because someone thinks it should be otherwise. But our model of civilization allows individuals and small cabals to exert enormous control over “common folk” by various means including brute force, coercion, bribery, and persuasion. And sometimes these power-players become pathogenic (harmfully drunk with power) and this infection can lead to societal extinction in extreme cases. In biology across all species, when infection occurs, the body responds by eliminating the pathogens, and not by destroying healthy tissue forthrightly. The root of the problem is pathogens. We have an explosion of life on Earth because this model of remedy works.

    It really is that simple.

  29. What’s interesting here is that we have two ideals championed by the Elites today in glaring opposition to each other. We have the world-dominating “Globohomo/WEF” and the localism of plucky nation-states, like Israel, Ukraine and Palestine, all making their case for legitimacy. So which is it, Klaus/Ursula/Gates/Blair/Hillary?

    According to our overlords, we US Whites and Europeans are supposed to allow in every bushman and peasant, but Palestine or Israel or Ukraine have some sacred right to distinct nationhood. It’s blindingly obvious that none of the three meet Hazony’s test and all three have violated various foundational UN agreements and resolutions.

    So this leads to the alienation of Russia and China, who correctly observe that it’s all arbitrary and based on force. Now, there is a fundamental, Bronze Age legitimacy to force and conquest. But all the mental gymnastics and pettifoggery really just obscure the issue. Things haven’t changed much from the spear to the Kinzhal.

  30. “You are a virtuous person, for example, if you practice certain habits like charity and conscientiousness, not if you make a lot of money or attain great power. For Hazony, virtue is about your purpose in helping your people attain their freedom as a people. This means anything that you do in pursuit of that collective goal is by definition virtuous.”

    I’d probably be less hostile to money if it wasn’t used so selfishly and self-destructively by my own.

    “The West has simply taken a holiday from reality by asserting that there is an objective moral standard for how people should act and how nations should act. In reality, the only thing that matters is winning the battle for survival and the winner can then declare how he won as the only acceptable way for how nations out to live.”

    Contemplating survival of the fittest on the way to work last week. The question for me: does life adapt, or is it adapted? If adapted, isn’t that the nurture argument? Isn’t that what strict Darwinism amounts to?

    If life adapts, isn’t that the nature argument— it comes from within the organism, not without, in the environment?

    Hence, I favor nature, while admitting nurture plays a significant role. 80/20, etc.

    Very tough to deny life is an intelligence in itself, or an animating spirit, and remain ‘right wing’ imo. Perhaps that has something to do with the problems of natural law and objective, universal morality.

  31. When it comes to Jews, it’s always the same argument: Is it good for the Jews?

    That is their ultimate “truth.”

    For many years, I was baffled that Jews could sincerely say things that are obviously lies or completely contradictory to something they said yesterday. But once you understand that what they’re saying is “good for the Jews” and thus the truth in their minds, it makes sense.

    Hazony’s argument for nationalism is interesting, but I also know that if the opposite argument was “better for the Jews,” that he’d probably writing books making that case instead.

    • Agreed. “Might makes right” was horribly immoral when the “might” was possessed by the Nazis and used against the Jews, but post-1948 it’s somehow different.

  32. I notice that JF Gariepy has led the way on this front by helping his wife to live the survivalist lifestyle in their local forest. I’m sure she’ll be back from her adventure shortly to let us all know what she’s learned.

  33. [Hazony claims that you have a genuine nationalism] if you can make it stick.

    In other other words, might makes right. Very Bronze Age!

    • Yeah. Well, you look at the colonies’ revolt against Britain and then look at the states’ revolt against the Union and you notice that these two groups understood themselves in exactly the same way and justified themselves identically.

      Reminds me of the apocryphal story of a history class at West Point. The final essay question was to say which army in WWII was better, the Soviets or the Germans and explain why. And so the cadets are all struggling with the question and writing, writing, writing. And one cadet gets to that question, scribbles out an answer, and turns it in, and gets the high score.

      The Soviets. They won.

  34. Hazony’s arguments are hogwash. They are nothing more than “might makes right”. So, of course he thinks Israel has a right to nationhood because (aside that he obviously has a built-in bias for Israel) they have the biggest kid on the block (US) running protection for them. When that projection wears thin (which it most surely will in the next few decades due to demographics on both sides) will he still believe his own arguments?

    • I don’t think his argument is nonsense. I think it is exactly right.

      If victory does not make you right, then what could possibly make you right?

      • After Israel is gone, the Jews will whine about it for another 2,000 years.

        They will instantly shift from “might is right” back to their more typical “victim hood is right”

        • In 2023 we have a world in which both are true, from Jews to cross-dressers to negroes, the mightiest among us also fancy themselves as victims. Always crying out in pain as they strike us.

          • The Jew cries out in righteous victim-hood as he genocides you from a position of righteous strength.

    • I don’t think might makes right; might simply makes. The problem is ascribing some moral approbation to victory.

  35. This one made me think (more than usual) 😉
    How is this thinking different than the left/liberal/Democratic party “by any means necessary”?
    I have to think about it some more.

  36. All over the world there are pockets of people living as minority groups. It is unreasonable to think that all of these people should be granted a nation of their own.


    • I am in favor of more countries and self-determination. But I suppose that could lead to ridiculous partitions like “The Republic of the Blond Irish” and “The Republic of the Black Irish”.

      • As silly as this may seem, it is not that far fetched to think this. The irony of this globalist attempt at mixing everyone together is that it has only resulted in more and more separation. Everyone is trying to out-identity everyone else.

    • Because they cannot maintain their independence. You only own what you can hold. That’s a lesson for everyone at all times.

  37. “The Holocaust demonstrated with maximum moral clarity the moral case for Jewish national self-determination.”

    Sounds good. Using that logic, the War on Whitey that is obvious and in progress, gives white people to moral high ground to organize their own whites only, societies.

    What are we waiting for?

    • But we white people must surrender our agency in service to jevvs, because they are The Chosen, and we are their cattle. Right, Hazony? That is, after all, what all the hasbara is about, just another weapon in (((their))) war-waging strategy. Convince us that we are a defeated people (sub-human-kine), and we will fall into line, and provide the support that telegraphs (((their ascendancy)) and right to nationhood.

      Point of order…in the last sentence, ought in place of out, please.

      • They have been succeeding in tricking enough of us,
        therefore they deserve the fruits of that trickery.

        Battle flows from the mind.

Comments are closed.