Whatever one thinks of the moral underpinnings of conquest, the new moral sensibility that weaponizes history and finds the living guilty of the deeds of their ancestors, a sensibility feeding on ressentiment, to the extent that the accused confess to alleged sins and make amends, ceding land or altering their way of life, in an expression of what Canadian psychologist Gad Saad calls suicidal empathy. Yet the question of legitimacy in any present moment is determined by whether the society in question is good or bad, not whether responsibility for the evil deeds (having accepted that they were indeed evil) escapes the grave. Surely we have matured enough as a species to not hold children accountable for their father’s sins.
All nation-building features demographic transformation. The United States would not exist if it were not for conquest and the reordering of the continent. North America was not empty when the English (and other Europeans) arrived. The shape of the country is the result of expansion and war. Following the Mexican-American War, the United States took control of 500,000 square miles of land. This territory became the present-day states of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, as well as most of Colorado and parts of Wyoming. Some Mexicans still claim the territory belongs to them. But they would have to take it. And the US would—and should—stop them if they try.
Benny Morris, associated with the “New Historians,” a group that reexamined Israel’s founding using declassified archives, has defended aspects of the Arab displacement as historically necessary for the creation and survival of a Jewish state in the context of the 1948 war and continuous Arab hostility. Given the existential nature of the conflict, a stable Jewish-majority state may not have emerged without the large-scale displacement of Arabs living in mandatory Palestine. Morris compares this to other historical cases of violent nation-building (for example, the American Republic vis-à-vis American Indians). To be sure, one can have compassion for those who were displaced—hundreds of thousands of Jews, as well, expelled from Muslim-majority territories across the Middle East and North Africa—but history cannot be changed. Only the fruits of history may be enjoyed or suffered.
Why don’t we see Jews demanding land in Iraq, even though Jews had lived there for centuries? The practical life requires moving on from history. What’s done is done. Attempts to rectify the misdeeds of those who rot in graves only mistreat the living. This is why reparations in America are a non-starter. It’s why white South Africans have a right to their farms—and to use lethal force to defend them. There are generations of white South Africans now. It’s their land. I’d be disappointed if either Jews or Africaners opened public meetings with land acknowledgments. I always cringe when this happens at public meetings in the United States. I’d rather we just get to the agenda so I can enjoy the rest of my day. Frankly, I don’t appreciate the tone of voice. “Historical trauma” is emotional blackmail.
Dwelling on past injustice, even when we agree that an injustice occurred, is the quasireligious practice of conjuring ghosts to haunt the living—a rhetoric designed to motivate the envious to upset present reality with unjust law and policy, and, inevitably, theft and violence. Once valorized as a historical victim in a world where cross-generational reparations—in whatever form they may take, up to and including revenge—are recast as “justice,” the “oppressed” become liberated from obedience to conscience. The individual regresses to the primitive tribalist. The justice that results is retributive.
What is rationally addressed with respect to the modern understanding of justice is the current conflict between Israel and the Arabs, and here what is at issue is, most immediately, Islamic terrorism, and, more systemically, the ambitions of the barbarians who surround the Jewish state. The aims of those who call themselves Palestinian are not really rooted in rectification of an injustice—few today were alive then—but in a pathological hatred for the Jewish people and a burning desire to seize their land. Hamas’ express goal, like the Nazis before them, is to eliminate the Jews. Indeed, in many ways, the Nakba is the fallout from a failed genocide. Arabs would like a do-over. But Arabs have plenty of countries they call their own.
* * *
In light of the recent past, which many living persons have experienced, the one-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict seems the most attractive. The two-state solution is unworkable. Incorporate Gaza and the West Bank into Israel proper. Those Arabs who want to leave can do so (they already have a state called Jordan—the flag is the same, absent the star). Those who want to stay can be integrated with Israel, as were other Arab populations living in Israel during state formation.
The agitators would like you to forget this, but Israel did not expel all non-Jews from its territory. Twenty percent of the population of Israel is Arab. Most Israeli Arabs are descendants of those who remained within Israel’s borders after 1948 and became Israeli citizens. They vote in elections and have political parties and representatives in the Knesset. Arab judges have served on the Supreme Court of Israel. Arabs work as doctors, journalists, lawyers, pharmacists, and professors throughout the country. There are many Arab businesses. That’s not ethnic cleansing. That’s integration. Israel today has vibrant Muslim, Christian, Druze, and Bedouin communities. Israel is a multiethnic, multiracial, and multifaith nation substantially based on civic nationalism. It is a diverse country.
If history matters to people so much, then Israel’s opponents would, if honest, have to acknowledge that Jews have lived on this land for thousands of years, long before Arabs were even a people with a language. Jews are the indigenous people of Israel. King Solomon ruled the United Kingdom of Israel in the tenth century BCE. That was a long time ago. And Jews have had a continual presence there ever since (and long before Solomon and David). Today, as then, Israel is a Jewish state. The government did not manufacture that truth, but merely formally recognized it. Is this ethnonationalism? Sure. Most nations are rooted in ethnonationalism—prioritizing cultural, demographic continuity, linguistic commonality—with a core ethnic group that defines the nation.
* * *
Years ago, I opposed the idea of a Jewish state because of a reactionary stance towards ethnonationalism generally. But after a lengthy spell of reconsidering many of my positions, I could find no moral objection to inclusive ethnonationalism. Swedes can allow non-Swedes to immigrate to Sweden. But Sweden should remain majority-Swedish, and those who find the situation intolerable should go home. Why wouldn’t they deport themselves and return to the culture that suits them? (Who wants to be where they’re not wanted? Answer: colonizers and invaders.) Observers were aghast when, at the big rally of patriots this weekend, Tommy Robinson, when asked what he would do if he were UK prime minister, said he would institute a policy of remigration of Muslims. A great many Brits agree with him.
Many ears hear Robinson’s words and find them racist. But what they really hear is their own hypocrisy (anti-Islamic sentiments are not racist anyway). The English are the indigenous population of that archipelago’s mainland. The ethnic Swedes are an indigenous population of Scandinavia. They have lived there since the last Ice Age. The principle that nations are a people’s vehicle for self-determination is a human right, rooted in natural law. Would anybody suggest that China is a racist state because it wishes to remain majority-Chinese? Of course not. So why are Western nations held to a novel and different standard? White Europeans are only eight percent of the world’s population, yet mass perception uniquely regards them as unworthy of a homeland and cultural integrity. Tolkien’s Hobbits didn’t mind friendly visitors, but I see no evidence they would have invited strangers to live in the Shire.
Significantly, the charge of ethnonationalism is rarely leveled at non-Western nations. There’s a reason for this. Accusations of “islamophobia,” “nativism,” “racism,” and “xenophobia” are weapons targeting Western patriots with the intent to silence them and disorganize the instinct to defend one’s way of life. However, like Satan’s eternal subservience to God, words only have the power we give them. A man may not like the feel of raindrops on his head, but eventually he will be dry again, and the rain will stop. Once a man stops caring about whether he is a racist in the eyes of those who are robbing him of home and hearth, the charge of racism has no effect. Must a privileged man hand over his wallet to the robber who demands it? Perhaps if the robber is armed, or has the state at his back. But then, the privileged man can arm himself, can’t he?
There is a project behind all this. The robber does have a state behind him, or more precisely, a state-in-formation. That state will not suit the Swede or Englishman. Accusations of bigotry are designed to selectively delegitimize national self-determination to reincorporate the peoples of the West into a transnational corporate order. That is the purpose of the regional projects like the European Union—to rob the peoples of that region of their sovereignty and self-determination. The rhetoric of multiculturalism is designed to denigrate their respective ethnic identities. The people who brought freedom to the world are accused of tyranny.
* * *
The Third World is being weaponized by elites against the First World. Antisemitism is a species of anti-whiteness generally. To be sure, it is the more virulent strain, but at its heart is loathing of the Enlightenment values of discipline, progress, and reason, and the wealth that flows from these in action. And Jews had a lot to do with that. Those who loathe the Jews do so because they are envious of Jewish success—and the success of those who have adopted their ways. Rather than seeing Jews as a people to be emulated, the resentful decide that it is not worth the effort and instead take what they won’t work for. Since Western civilization is ultimately founded upon Jewish ingenuity and practicality, the loathing is generalized. Envy and resentment lurk behind the project of cultural disorganization and the managed decline of Western nations.
Those who resent Jewish success cannot allow themselves to attribute that success to Jewish discipline and ingenuity. They have to rationalize their lack of effort and talent. Those who are poor find their rationale in victimhood. And victims must have oppressors. Of course, the sneakiest oppressors are those who pull strings without being seen. Hence, the conspiracy theory that Jews secretly control the United States and, by extension, the world. This antisemitic trope has roots dating back centuries, gaining modern traction through fabricated documents like the early twentieth-century Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which the Hamas charter presents as evidence in making their case. The Protocols is a hoax.
It is not just the Arabs who advance the theory. Those on the far left and far right in the West claim that a shadowy global Jewish cabal manipulates banks, governments, Hollywood, mass media, and foreign policy (e.g., U.S. support for Israel). The Jews have implemented a program of cultural erosion, financial exploitation, or world domination. It is not that these agendas don’t exist. I have documented the reality of globalization in numerous essays on this platform. What is false is the belief that this is the work of Jews string-pulling. Propagandists for transnational corporate power smartly use the existence of antisemitism to deflect from the agenda to establish a new world order. They accuse critics of their ambitions of imagining a Jewish conspiracy behind them to avoid scrutiny. Useful idiots on both the left and the right do their work for them by embracing the trope.
It feels almost silly to note that the theory lacks credible evidence, relies on cherry-picked anecdotes, obnoxious stereotypes, and confirmation bias. However, its effects are nonetheless destructive. The Jewish cabal myth has historically fueled pogroms and ongoing hate crimes. Jewish Americans (around two percent of the population), like other successful ethnic groups, participate in various influential sectors proportionally to their small population. They hold no monolithic control over institutions or global events. Given the influence of other ethnic groups in our society, that Jews would get all the attention is itself an indicator of the deep-seated hatred and loathing.
Hysteria over the Israel lobby is a case in point. Extremes on the left and the riot raise the specter of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. What about the Saudi lobby? Saudi Arabia spends enormous sums on defense relationships, elite access, lobbyists, PR firms, and Washington consultants. China’s influence is enormous, as well. Business lobbying, corporate relations, supply chains, technology markets, university/research ties—all these sway political and policy decisions. Half a million Chinese nationals are studying in the United States. Taiwan has established a massive Washington presence around anti-China alignment, defense cooperation, and semiconductors. Armenia, Cuba, Greece, India, and Ireland all have lobbies. Crickets.
Because Jews are portrayed as evil, Israeli laws and policies are straightaway perceived not merely as exceptional but inherently wicked. For decades, Israel’s security arrangements have been described as apartheid. Arab hostility towards Israel necessitates the arrangements that limit the movement of people in the “occupied” territories. As with Israel’s just retaliation for the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, 2023, Arabs are the authors of their own restrictions in the West Bank. The Nakba occurred in the context of Arab armies attempting to end Israel’s project for statehood. Israel erred when it pulled its soldiers and citizens out of Gaza almost two decades ago. That situation, like so many others, could be resolved if hostilities against the Jewish people stopped. But there are too many recalcitrant Arabs living there. And they do the work of those not living there.
This business about genocide against the Palestinians? There are more Palestinians now than before Israel was established. A lot more. Right before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, the Arab Palestinian population in Mandatory Palestine was roughly 1.2–1.3 million people. Today, in the West Bank and Gaza, there are around 5.5 million. Usually, with genocides, the opposite is true: the numbers go down. On the eve of World War II in 1939, the global Jewish population was about 16.5–16.6 million people. By the end of the war in 1945, the worldwide Jewish population had fallen to roughly 11 million. The Holocaust wiped out about one-third of the world’s Jewish population. There are still fewer Jews today than there were before the Holocaust. If readers are searching for actual cases of genocide, the Holocaust is the paradigm. There is no genocide against Palestinians. There are no concentration camps. If rubble troubles you, just take a look at pictures of German cities after Allied bombing during WWII.
The horror of the collapse of the Jewish population in Poland speaks to the horror of genocide. The Nazis were relentless in their extermination program. However, the Arab population soars after the creation of the state of Israel. Arabs were drawn to Mandatory Palestine with the rise of Jewish affluence. The claim of genocide against the Arabs in Palestine is mythical. Did some Arabs leave their towns and villages during the wars initiated by the surrounding Arab countries? Yes. It is not uncommon for civilians to flee their homes during the war. The security situation made it difficult for them to return home. This, too, is common in such situations. Like every other nation-state, Israel has a right to collective self-defense and to maintain the internal security of its citizens.
The question people need to ask themselves is why the historical perception is so distorted for so many people. Why would anybody not know the chart I first shared is accurate? For those who think Jews control the narrative, they have to ask why Jews would portray themselves as genocidal, when in fact they integrated the Arab population into Israel, except for those Arabs who refuse to join the state of Israel and pose a security threat to the Jewish nation. Somebody else is pushing the genocide narrative. Who do you think that is? This is, in part, a rhetorical question. But I still think the answer is important for educational purposes, since the well-educated make better political choices.
Arabs have been given multiple opportunities to establish their own state on Jewish land. They have instead pursued the ethnic cleansing of the territory that, during the period of Roman imperialism, was renamed Palestine to disempower the Jewish population living there. “From the River to the Sea” is the rallying cry of ethnic cleansing. Short of a state, the Arabs have had enough chances to establish peaceful relations with Israel. They have made it abundantly clear that they will not establish peaceful relations with Israel. A two-state solution would only result in a continuation of hostilities. Enduring peace for the Israeli people requires abandoning the idea of a peaceful Palestinian state on Jewish land. That idea was always a bad one, as President Truman admitted in clips recently put in circulation on the Internet. Those who wanted cheap oil from the Arab states demanded a compromise and pressured Truman into postponing the inevitable. There is no peaceful coexistence with those who seek to exterminate you.
* * *
In moments like these, Christopher Hitchens comes to mind. Among other things, Hitchens was a fierce critic of religion, and Islam in particular. Would Hitchens have toned down his anti-Muslim rhetoric because two teenagers attacked an Islamic Center? Not a chance. Watch this video, and you’ll see what I mean.
I was asked recently what explains antipathy towards the Jews. The subtext was that Jews have brought Islamic terrorism on themselves. I left the insinuation aside and noted that, among many reasons, is the efficacy of Jewish culture in promoting success across the life course. People are jealous of Jewish affluence. However, I did not discuss in my answer why the civilized world has turned against the Jews. But I will address it here: widespread antisemitism among Third World people is useful for aligning those people with the transnational project.
Worldwide, there are roughly 16 million Jews compared to approximately two billion Muslims. But Muslims are not the only problem. Antisemitism is not unique to Islam. The project to transform the world requires conscripting the world’s population into the new world order. Antisemitism provides a common cause. And that means that the security of the Jews is negotiable. The interests and reputation of a relatively tiny population are sacrificed for the sake of the transnational project.
The resurgence of virulent antisemitism in the world disproves the thesis that Jews are behind globalization. It is because of globalization that the world Jewry is exposed to the peril of Oriental culture. The clash of civilizations is brought about by economic integration, opening avenues for mass migration and spreading backwards and destructive ideas and practices. The long history of Jewish survival suggests that they are the last population to pursue collective suicide. Indeed, the very tenacity of Jews in perpetuating their presence in history in the face of obstacles tells us about their collective will to live and thrive.
* * *
Yesterday, two teenagers killed three Muslims at the Islamic Center of San Diego before turning their weapons on themselves. I talk about this phenomenon in my criminology classes when I cover the work of French sociologist Émile Durkheim, relating crime and suicide. Some mass shootings—especially school shootings involving adolescent or young adult males—are closely tied to suicidal intent. A substantial share of mass shooters either die by suicide during the attack or expect to be killed by police, which is known as “suicide by cop.”
Cases involving pairs of young men, such as the Columbine High School massacre, and today’s shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego, fit a pattern researchers sometimes describe as “dyadic” or “peer-reinforced” violence. The typical scenario is two alienated teenagers or young men mutually intensifying fantasies of notoriety, manufactured grievances, and nihilism. Over time, violence becomes a shared project. They seethe over perceived slights, conjuring the spirits of revenge and retaliation. (Durkheim would classify this as “egoistic” suicide.)
Fascination with prior mass shootings, identity crisis (teenagers and young people are prone to this, especially in the absence of status transition rituals), social isolation, and suicidal ideations, the dynamics of male bonding around aggression and status that entrain them—the perpetrators in such cases are not merely homicidal but fundamentally self-destructive. The pair dynamic lowers inhibitions because each participant validates the other’s worldview (if we can even call it that; they are young, their brains are not fully developed, so their gaze remains much like that of a child), and this creates a sense of destiny or performance. I assure students that this phenomenon remains statistically rare, even among troubled young men. That doesn’t bring any comfort to the families affected by it.
But social media accounts yesterday (and I expect the theme will continue today) exploit the San Diego tragedy to call for the critics of Islam to tone down the rhetoric. Even though no pattern of anti-Muslim terrorism has been established, unlike anti-Jewish violence, which is rampant and rising, patriotic resistance to the Islamization of the West is blamed for the killing. The same accounts suggesting stochastic terrorism spew the most virulently antisemitic bile imaginable. I have yet to see condemnation for the massacring of Jews coming from them.
The police have suggested that, in light of some writings, the teenagers were motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry. I detailed the phenomenon of dyadic violence above to open the way for consideration of the possibility that these males found a rhetoric to give their actions meaning. Explanation is not justification. My job is to understand why people do bad things. But if the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) thinks an extraordinary event will shame the critics of Islam into returning to their long slumber, they don’t grasp the depth of Western opposition to the Islamization of their societies. This doesn’t justify mass shootings, but Westerners are justifiably worried about the future of their civilization.
Muslims have become quite adept at exploiting the language of religious tolerance to suppress criticism of Islam. But Islam is an ideology just like Fascism, National Socialism, or Communism. If a pair of teenagers were to target members of the Ku Klux Klan, would the nation amplify the pleas of Klansmen to tone down the rhetoric? Would the demand go up for those criticizing white supremacy to abandon their speech against it? On the contrary, some hope that their speech will move people to take up arms and target racists with violence. “Punch a Nazi in the nose.” “This machine kills fascists.” We know that a great many people hope that antisemitic rhetoric will provoke violence against Jews (and weirdly, they are often the same people who call for violence against Nazis).
freedom and reason 