Source: Bigstock

I love it when the world catches up to Dave!

Last week proved that my favorite obsessions can go mainstream (I look forward to the day when my newest fetish, “Never leave the house and drink yourself to death,” becomes what all the cool kids do). Two separate videos, both relating to Israel/Gaza, went viral. In the first, commentator Douglas Murray of The Spectator beat the breath out of Piers Morgan with a monologue about how Hamas savages are worse than Nazis. The gist of Murray’s oratory was that the Nazis knew shame. They tried to hide their mass murder of Jews. That doesn’t absolve them; they still followed orders. But they knew, at heart, that what they were doing was wrong, that their mothers would not be proud of their actions.

The Hamas Muslims, on the other hand, are, as Murray pointed out, very proud of their rapes and murders. Gleeful, even. They called their moms during the Oct. 7 massacres and bragged, “I killed ten Jews with my bare hands! Your son’s a hero!”

Cue Freddie Mercury: Mama, just killed a mensch! Put a bullet in his head, stuffed his ass with challah bread!

You know the old saying, “Do what you love and the mommy will follow.”

The other viral clip involved civilian deaths in wartime. During a BBC interview, U.K. Defence Secretary Grant Shapps stated, “We’ve sort of forgotten that in war, very sadly, people lose their lives. When Britain bombed Dresden, 35,000 people lost their lives.” Shapps’ point was that there will inevitably be civilian deaths as Israel eradicates Hamas, but hey, that’s war, mate.

Murray and Shapps are both correct. And they’re making points I’ve been making for twenty-plus years (I’m not claiming plagiarism; I’m certain neither bloke’s got a clue who I am). Yet while both men are correct, their points actually cancel each other out.

I’ll “circle back” to that (right?).

The “Dresden” argument is something I brought up in a Los Angeles Times op-ed I wrote in October 2001. At the time, my pseudonymous character Cal Tinbergen (see his backstory here) was doing the rounds, arguing that the best approach to Afghanistan was to bomb it flat, rather than going in boots-on-the-ground in a futile nation-building exercise. “Cal’s” point was, where there’s al-Qaeda, Dresden the place. If al-Qaeda returns, Dresden it again. Afghans are irredeemable and disposable, so if we could pull a Hamburg and Dresden against Germans, and a Nagasaki and Hiroshima against Japs, why try to act with surgical precision against a nation of ignorant goat-fuckers (Times staffers heavily edited the piece; I was hoping they’d retain “goat-fuckers,” but the Times’ diversity czar didn’t want his hobby ridiculed).

Shapps’ comments in that interview are on point; I only wish more people had taken that view when I was trying to preach a saner response to 9/11 in 2001.

Regarding Murray, he’s also correct. One of my earliest Takimag columns, from 2015, covered the “Nazi/Muslim” question. Specifically, which is worse? Among monsters, who’s more monstrous—Nazis or fundamentalist Muslims?

That 2015 column was an update of one I’d written for another (now-defunct) site in 2010 (this link is not to the site I wrote for; it’s just the only place where that 2010 piece is still online).

In both columns, I cited polls in which Muslims in their own nations, and Muslims in Europe, were asked whether they support “violent terrorism against civilians in the defense of Islam.” These polls are done routinely, and the results in 2010 and 2015 were the same: bad. Among Muslims living in Muslim lands, clear majorities support “violent terrorism against civilians in the defense of Islam.” Of Muslims living in Europe, the figures run from 22 percent to 42 percent.

Of U.S. Muslims ages 18 to 30, support ran 26 percent.

I contrasted that with Professor Peter Merkl’s masterful 1975 study of the 581 founding Nazi Party members. Merkl revealed that of these “OG” hardcore Nazis, only 12.9 percent advocated violence against Jews and only 19 percent expressed “moderate disdain for Jews” (he based his study on a thorough examination of every word these men wrote or spoke during their time building the party, bringing it to power, and ruling the nation).

I also cited a 1991 essay by Hebrew University’s Oded Heilbronner, “Where Did Nazi Anti-Semitism Disappear To?” Anti-Semitism was seen as such a losing issue in terms of public acceptance, the Nazis buried it during the elections of 1932 and 1933.

The contrast is clear: Advocacy of violence against civilians in the name of “defending Islam” is far more widespread among everyday Muslims than advocacy of violence against Jews was among not just everyday Germans but hardcore founding Nazis.

Of course, the Holocaust still happened. But that’s to Murray’s point about Nazis being ashamed of what they did. They knew it was not only wrong, but unpopular. Many of the SS men who executed Jewish children one by one during the Einsatzgruppen phase of the Holocaust turned into drunken wrecks (this is one of the reasons Himmler decided to farm out much of that work to Ukrainians, and to replace shooting with gas chambers in the Reinhard camps). The book The Good Old Days contains multiple contemporaneous accounts of SS men writing home about how ashamed they were of what they’d done. It even includes the proceedings of an SS court set up to imprison SS officers who seemed too “enthusiastic” about the work.

Contrast Murray’s (correct) claim that in all the footage of the Oct. 7 massacres, the one thing you don’t see is a single Pali saying, “Wait, hold up, we’re going too far; we’re soldiers, not rapists,” to Himmler bitching to his SS officers at Posen that average Germans are getting in the way of the exterminations because they don’t want to see their Jewish friends harmed.

Again, this is not to absolve the Nazis. It’s to point out that the Holocaust was a top-down affair in a “follow orders” culture. And even during the Holocaust, you had high-level Nazis like Wilhelm Kube in the Ostland trying (unsuccessfully) to save his Jews, and Werner Best in Denmark trying (successfully) to save his. Best, the top Nazi in occupied Denmark, had a secret midnight meeting with the anti-Nazi resistance to tip them off that the SS were about to begin the roundups. As a result, the Danish Jews were evacuated to safety.

Yet there’s not one moment of Oct. 7 footage that shows any Akbar trying to intervene. And before you give me that claptrap about “Well, the people of Gaza are traumatized! What do you expect?” remember that the polls I cited of Muslims and their love of civilian-killing come from Muslims living safely in their own nations and Muslims living off white-provided welfare in Europe.

So take your “traumatization” and shove it. Forty-two percent of French Muslims advocate terrorism against civilians, and they live in a nation that coddles them like infants. Native French—white people—get tossed into prison by their own government for criticizing immigration. They’re the ones who are being “traumatized.” Yet they’re not committing murders against Muzzies. Muzzies, who have the entire power of the quisling state behind them, are the ones murdering Frenchmen because of cartoons.

Yeah, see, here’s where those Muslim poll results are reflected in actions. The protests against Israel’s Gaza war have primarily come from Muzz immigrants in the U.S. and their retarded U.S.-born college chums (especially BLM types and green-haired septum-pierced white women). But in the Muslim world? There have been no protests against Israel’s actions that equal in size, scope, and death toll, the global protests against white guys drawing Mohammed.

Yeah, dig that, college chicks. Akbar protesters killed more people over a cartoon than over the poor baby-wabies at al-Shifa hospital.

And dig this, conservatives who are starting to get into the whole “maybe siding with Palis is the cool thing to do” craze: Your new hero Norman Finkelstein, recently feted by race-grifter Candace “negative-integer IQ” Owens at Daily Wire, enthusiastically supported the Muslims who killed white people over Mohammed cartoons. This pro-Muslim simp wouldn’t shed a tear if your child were murdered for offending Islam. And I don’t want to make this about me, but it needs to be said: Daily Wire’s Jeremy Boreing is the guy who fired me from Friends of Abe over nonviolent, historically accurate views I expressed regarding the Holocaust thirty years ago. And now Daily Wire hosts a guy who currently believes it’s excusable to murder whites if they draw a cartoon.

I only mention this as it’s the best example I can provide of how the Gaza conflict is corrupting the right.

And BTW, Finkelstein often defends his extremism by pointing out that his parents were Holocaust survivors. And not just a few of you accept that as a logical reason for him advocating the murder of whites.

Funny, but I bet if he used the “my parents were survivors” card to advocate open borders, you’d balk. But as long as he phrases it as anti-Israel, you totally welcome his “whites who draw cartoons deserve death” POV with open arms.

Because he’s been traumatized. Like the Palis have been traumatized. And the Muslims in Egypt and Jordan. And the Muslims living like royalty in France, Germany, and America. All so traumatized! Of course they advocate violence, the poor babies.

But now that we’ve established that Murray is correct regarding the Nazi/Muslim comparison, and Shapps is correct regarding the inevitability of civilian deaths during wartime, let ol’ Dave, the guy who was saying this stuff twenty years ago, explain why those two points conflict.

Hamburg and Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and the Tokyo firebombing, were effective because they were employed against civilized humans. You can beat high-IQ, civilized people into submission, because they can do the math and understand when acceptance of defeat is the best path forward for themselves and their children. You cannot beat wild dogs into submission. Wild dogs—whether driven mad by rabies or “trauma”—do not know defeat. They will keep biting and kicking until their last breath.

Meaning, there’s no way out for Israel. A hundred Dresdens will not stop a people (Palis) overtaken by bloodlust. At the same time, as evidenced by the bloodlust exhibited by well-off Muzzies in Europe, being nice to the Palis won’t help either.

It’s been my buzzword all year, for everything from U.S. racial problems to Gaza/Israel: intractable.

It’s a word feared by people lost in fantasy, be it U.S. rightists dreaming of “national divorce,” Israelis believing that a few Dresdens can solve the Gaza problem, Muzzies thinking that murdered Jewish babies are the key to liberation, or Western mush-heads convinced that a “two-state solution” will satisfy Gazans.

“Intractability” is a nightmare word for humans. It’s the thing we fear most: the terminal-cancer diagnosis, the “make your peace because it won’t get better.”

And I can’t offer any solution beyond grudging acceptance.

Though, I find that heavy drinking can be helpful.

You’re welcome.