it's wild to be condescendingly lectured about the evils of ''blood and soil'' by someone who lives in an ethnostate that requires would-be citizens to undergo blood testing to check for racial purity
Hazony is a hypocrite, but it is not the fault of patriotic Israelis that their robustly nationalist policies would be considered utterly unacceptable for any Western nation by the West’s misrulers - who increasingly consider them equally unacceptable for Israel. The logical conclusion is that those cretins would be happy to see the whole world subjected to Islam.
Well... it's one way to gain citizenship. I think marriage to a jew or conversion to judaism are also possible routes to entry.
Israel isn't really a "hard" ethnostate in the strictest sense, since it does have a substantial non-jewish population and even the jewish population is also fairly diverse at a racial/ethnic level. At the same time, it was explicitly founded to promote the interests and safety of various jewish denominations and that's been enshrined both implicitly and explicitly at both the policy level and by various Israeli NGOs. But obviously the bone of contention is that any US public figure who advocated for analogous policies in the US (e.g, Christian Nationalism with a dash of Jus Sanguinis), would be defenestrated.
Movements tend to fractionalize over trivial differences. Christians organize denominations based on belief differences. In turn, denominations fracture over differing views. The same is true with Mormons. It seems to be human nature.
I think racialist was a term in Britain well before “racist” was coined in the United States as a term of opprobrium. Not least in debates about how Southern Africa should be governed. Originally it did not have the same negative connotations.
it's wild to be condescendingly lectured about the evils of ''blood and soil'' by someone who lives in an ethnostate that requires would-be citizens to undergo blood testing to check for racial purity
Hazony is a hypocrite, but it is not the fault of patriotic Israelis that their robustly nationalist policies would be considered utterly unacceptable for any Western nation by the West’s misrulers - who increasingly consider them equally unacceptable for Israel. The logical conclusion is that those cretins would be happy to see the whole world subjected to Islam.
I didn't know that!
Well... it's one way to gain citizenship. I think marriage to a jew or conversion to judaism are also possible routes to entry.
Israel isn't really a "hard" ethnostate in the strictest sense, since it does have a substantial non-jewish population and even the jewish population is also fairly diverse at a racial/ethnic level. At the same time, it was explicitly founded to promote the interests and safety of various jewish denominations and that's been enshrined both implicitly and explicitly at both the policy level and by various Israeli NGOs. But obviously the bone of contention is that any US public figure who advocated for analogous policies in the US (e.g, Christian Nationalism with a dash of Jus Sanguinis), would be defenestrated.
People who think we can ever make an alliance with "these people" are kidding themselves.
Anything pro-White is considered "antisemitic", it is not more complex than that.
WELCOME BACK PETER!!!
Great title, subhead and question Peter! Thanks!
https://substack.com/profile/103665181-paul-rothwell/note/c-145491178
Jews need to be ejected from American politics entirely.
Jews need to be ejected from America entirely.
And that's why we all should be for a Jewish State for them to go to
Screw Horazny.
Movements tend to fractionalize over trivial differences. Christians organize denominations based on belief differences. In turn, denominations fracture over differing views. The same is true with Mormons. It seems to be human nature.
There are many fine qualities about Mormons, but their missionary mandates make them dangerously naive about immigration.
I've noticed "racialist" more commonly used in the UK.
I think racialist was a term in Britain well before “racist” was coined in the United States as a term of opprobrium. Not least in debates about how Southern Africa should be governed. Originally it did not have the same negative connotations.
He’s not blood. He needs to get out.
You can never trust them--even the conservatives like mark Levin
Because that guy is a vile Jew. Are you ready to say that yet?
The short answer is, "No."
They're intellectually discombobulated.