An Alliance with Whom?!?

I’m more than a little surprised and baffled by Richard Spencer’s suggestion that those on the Alternative Right might form some kind of alliance with right wing elements in Israel. I’m quite certain that if he took some time to consider the issue more carefully he would find that such hopes are based on little more than specious arguments about “common interests” that don't exist and wishful thinking.

When talking about alliances, the first thing we must ask is whether the group you’re thinking about joining together with has anything to offer you and what the cost of calling them your friends may be. Spencer differentiates between American Leftist Jews, whom he sees as the enemy, and his potential partners among the far Right Likudites:

Your average eastern seaboard liberal Jew, who takes his marching orders from the New York Times and reads Phillip Roth in his spare time, will likely never want to have anything to do with the far Right -- even if his life depended on it. Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman are a different story…

Israelis might learn to prefer… an isolationist regime, which would give them a free hand, as opposed to the ever-meddling Democrats and Republicans.

For the sake of argument, let’s momentarily pretend that there will come a time when Israeli far Right decides that all they really want from the United States is to be left alone (!), instead of financed and protected from international censure. At the same time, they trust ethnically conscious whites to simply stay out of the Middle East. I suppose gaining the support of the most right wing 1 percent of the world's Jews would have a few benefits. On the other hand, Western traditionalists might instead seek an alliance with those who find Zionist excesses repulsive: that is Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Latin America, the world’s one billion Muslims, Leftist Jews and even China and North Korea (in other words, the rest of the planet). I don’t think Netanyahu’s support is worth it.

The United States, along with Britain, France, Russia and China, are the only countries with veto power on the UN Security Council. According to John Mearsheimer, "since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members." In other words, America spends more international political capital defending the Jewish state than the other four main UN powers use on all other issues combined. We must ask, when they have a country this slavishly devoted to them, why on earth would the Israeli Right risk throwing their support behind a new revolutionary movement that has to hold symposiums on whether or not they’re anti-Semitic and-best case scenario-in Spencer’s words “wouldn’t likely express strong opinions about who wins or who loses in various land disputes in the [Middle East]?" What more could we give them that they don’t already get from the United States and why would they prefer a neutral America to the present arrangement? Another consideration: what political sense does it make for us to ally with the only political movement on the planet less popular than authentic Western conservatism? Zionism is a sinking ship, both demographically and in its relations with the rest of the world. Their only friends are those that make up the American establishment, who just happen to be our main adversaries.

The suggestion that Likud might throw themselves into our arms because they fear “[the] next generation of Latino politicians will likely make Obama seem like Eisenhower,” in other words that they stay up at night worrying about a Mestizo march through the institutions, is completely risible. The Israel Lobby correctly understands that if it loses its power over the American government it’ll be because of opposition from American whites who've thrown off the shackles of political correctness or, even less likely, Leftist Jews, not a politically apathetic group with an IQ of 90 which will make up a third of the population in a few generations. 

It has been argued that conservative whites should at least back Israel in order to defend the idea of the ethno-state. The fact of the matter is one could support the Palestinians or Turks by the same reasoning. Beijing and Moscow seem capable of opposing the most blatant cases of Zionist expansion and aggression without having their ethno-nationalist regimes collapse under the weight of their own contradictions.  There's no reason that a conservative Western Europe or America wouldn't be able to do the same. 

There’s one final issue that needs mentioning, something I'm surprised nobody has brought up. It seems that some paleoconservatives and white nationalists have internalized the Left’s worst stereotypes about themselves. “We basically want the same thing as Zionists, so we can work with them.” I believe most WNs and traditionalists simply want to be left alone, not to seize some land in the third world, slaughter/expel the natives, and form an ethno-state there and then for the next 60 years continue living in a never ending state of war in order to expand in a sea of one billion hostile and aggressive Muslims in search of some all elusive “security,” all the while being financed and protected by foreign taxpayers and soldiers. Western Rightists shouldn’t be comparing themselves to Israelis, but pointing out how reasonable, humane and moderate their goals are compared to those of mainstream Zionists.