How I Learned to Stop Being Reactionary and Love Palestinians
Why right-wingers should support Palestine
Needing little encouragement toward in-fighting and petty boundary maintenance, right-wingers have found yet another ideological fault line to stumble head-first into: Palestine.
Since Hamas’s October 7th 2023 military operation, the rekindling of the Palestinian question has added fuel to the already blazing inferno of right-wing incrimination and nugatory disagreement.
The Jewish response to October 7th — the genocidal bombing campaign which may have killed more than 80,000 Palestinians in Gaza — has left the world in a state of horrified disbelief. For most normal people, openly expressing disgust at Israel’s actions and lending moral support to the Palestinian cause comes naturally. For right-wingers and White nationalists, not so much.
The main problem for “the right” is the sheer tonnage of ideological baggage they are hauling around with them. They are the political Sisyphus permanently pushing their compacted boulder of ideological shibboleths up the mountain, only they never manage to reach the summit.
Carrying ideological baggage is perfectly normal and the weightiest loads for most normal people are anti-semitism and racism. While such ideological albatrosses hang heavy for older generations, younger Whites are throwing off the yoke as they watch countless videos of the Gaza horrors from their new reality as a racial minority. The benefit of coming to nationalist political beliefs early is that you are not burdened by the remnants of the ideological skins you have shed (or think you have shed).
For White nationalists or pro-White conservatives, the problem of racism is inverted in respect to Palestine. The issue is not one of being seen to hate Brown people but being seen to support them, and consequently being labelled a third-worldist (whatever that means). This is particularly acute for British nationalists for whom the Pakistani rape gangs are a central feature of their political consciousness.
The problem here — as is so often the case — is one of a misaligned friend/enemy distinction. The real enemy of White people is not Muslims or non-Whites, it is Jews. The reason Britain has Pakistani rape gangs is because the country is a vassal state of the American empire which is controlled by Jews whose ideological telos is serving the interests of Israel through Zionism. Britain has mass immigration because Jews will it.
Britain cannot have an independent immigration policy, let alone a pro-White immigration policy, until Jewish political power is defeated. Non-White immigration (and its downstream effects) is a weapon used against the native British people, a weapon wielded by Jews. Blaming Muslims for the state of Britain is like blaming knifes or guns for Black crime. You are not attacking the root cause — the Holy of Hollies.
This fault line has been widened by the recent Glastonbury performance of Black rapper Bob Vylan, who caused a media storm by leading crowds in a chant of “Death to the IDF”. More controversial among nationalists were his anti-White song performances featuring lyrics about the gammon not getting their country back.
This prompted some pro-White commentators to question why Vylan — a pro-Palestine activist — is asking us to care about a foreign people while gloating over the demise of the native British in their own homeland.
Such responses expose the problem of reactionary thinking on the right, another form of ideological baggage which sets the friend/enemy lens off kilter. The reason why we should care about Palestinians is that they are fighting our enemy. If they win, our enemy is weakened. If they lose, our enemy is strengthened. Their fight is our fight.
We should also care about Palestinians because it is morally right. We cannot let petty racial reaction turn Europeans into soulless ghouls indifferent to the mass murder of innocent women and children because they are Brown. This is dishonourable, un-Aryan.
Vylan is not stupid. He is just confident in his friend-enemy distinction: non-Whites vs. Whites (and Jews are White). He is of course mistaken but then he is Black so that should be expected. For those who are ideologically anti-semitic, what Vylan says is ultimately irrelevant except for his anti-IDF chant which is clearly unwelcome to our elites and thus should be celebrated. That he is anti-White is politically irrelevant because Blacks are politically irrelevant. The only anti-White hate that really matters is Jewish anti-White hate because they have the political power to enact policy towards that end.
What lies behind this reaction is a form of pseudo-machismo prevalent among many racially conscious right-wingers. Here one is temperamentally precluded from taking any position which would mean allying (or being seen to ally) with non-Whites. This ideology is socially reinforced by the accusations that would ensue if one were to be seen supporting non-Whites — that of being a third-worldist, or that one’s politics are brown-coded.
What motivates this pseudo-machismo is yet more ideological baggage of bourgeois concern for name-calling. Just as the average person strives to avoid the calumny of racist, the White nationalist strives to avoid the calumny of not being racist enough.
The way out of this trap is to engage in both-sidesism, a rhetorical body swerve which invokes a plague-on-both-houses tactical nihilism. Here right-wingers — who generally take a side on every issue from vaccine injury to the best type of milk — remain mysteriously neutral.
Hating both sides has a tactical advantage for the pseudo-machismo enjoyers because the anti-Jewish position is embedded in the neutrality and so any accusations of Zionism are preemptively rebutted. But if you truly hate Jews then why would you be ambivalent about them wiping out the only people who are engaged in a kinetic racial struggle with them?
What this right-wing reaction reveals is a lack of ideological confidence. Those who are fully committed to a political ideology do not care about how they are perceived or what names they are called. When one understands and commits oneself to truth then concerns for optics — whether internal or external — are mute. Bourgeois concerns are a skin which must be shed if we are to build a pro-White movement capable of victory.
Some will criticise anti-semites for their hyper focus on the Jewish issue. They might retort that there are many nodes of power and Jews are but one. If this is true then why does the richest man in the world Elon Musk have to make the pilgrimage to Auschwitz? Why does any pretender to genuine political power in the US have to go kiss the wall?
For those concerned with the fate of the European peoples, being pro-White is not enough. The harsh truth is that White nationalism is an ideologically shallow movement. Hitler’s National Socialism did not win power in Germany simply by being pro-German. They took power because they presented a truthful critique of the Weimar political order and a holistic solution which would ensure Germans were reinstated as sovereign over their own lands, lives and destiny. To ensure the future of Europeans today we must do the same.
To that end, opposing Jewish power must come first, being pro-White second. To get our countries back we must retake them from those who stole them from us: Jews.
The IDF are a bunch of pussies
We do and we have from the time of the Nakba. We are called National Socialists and we knew and know the Jew was and is the only enemy that mattered before it was cool.