(And Why That’s Totally Normal)
Trigger warning: If this piece triggers you, you probably misread it. The point here isn’t to bash Jews, Hamas, Hitler, or any specific group. It’s about how human groups work—period—and why we judge some of them by rules we don’t apply to others.
Let’s start with the comparison that will make half the internet reach for the block button: the structural similarities between the ethno-nationalism of Hitler’s Germany and the ethno-nationalism that underpins Zionism and modern Israel.
Both forms of nationalism emphasise ethnic/cultural group primacy in defining the nation.
Both prioritise national sovereignty and self-rule over international constraints.
Both involve forceful reactions to opposition (though intent, scale, and context differ profoundly).
Both seek to preserve the dominant ethnic group’s character in the homeland.
Both justify territorial claims based on national needs and historical ties.
Both root national identity in ancestral land and peoplehood (“blood and soil” in one case, “return to Zion” in the other).
Both employ powerful historical and cultural myths to unify and mobilise their people.
Both start from the premise that their group is, in important ways, distinct and struggles to fully assimilate elsewhere.
I am NOT saying Jews are like Nazis. That would be obscene, ahistorical, and morally deranged. The conclusion is the opposite of what the knee-jerk reaction assumes. (Despite the clickbait title 🙂)
Now do a simple mental exercise: run exactly the same list again but replace “Jews/Nazis” with literally any other group you can think of.
Japanese nationalism? Check—ethnic primacy, sovereignty obsession, ancestral ties to the islands, forceful defense of territory, cultural myths of uniqueness.
Kurdish nationalism? Check—peoplehood, homeland dreams, resistance to outside interference, willingness to fight viciously for self-determination.
Polish nationalism? Check—deep historical narrative, fierce independence, demographic anxieties, myths of endurance through centuries of partition.
Hungarian, Armenian, Greek, Tibetan, Irish—pick your flavour. They all hit most of the same notes.
Every human group, given the chance, wants roughly the same things: sovereignty, security, cultural continuity, a homeland where its language and traditions aren’t marginal, and the ability to decide its own future without outsiders dictating terms. This isn’t pathology; it’s the default setting of human social organisation. Anthropologists have documented it everywhere.
Psychologists call it in-group preference. History calls it Tuesday.
There is, however, one conspicuous exception in the modern world: a significant slice of the First World political Left. This subgroup often appears actively hostile to every single item on the list when it’s applied to their own societies. Open borders, deconstruction of national myths, celebration of demographic replacement, reflexive deference to supranational bodies, and a habit of labelling any assertion of group interest as “far-right” or “racist.” Gad Saad calls it suicidal empathy; others call it civilisational fatigue or pathological altruism. Whatever the label, it’s an outlier.
The real question isn’t why some groups want nationhood and self-determination—of course they do; literally everyone does. The question is why we’ve allowed a peculiar Western ideological current to convince itself that these perfectly ordinary aspirations become evil the moment a European-descended majority expresses them.
Calling the desire for sovereignty and cultural continuity “racist” in the West, while quietly accepting (or even cheering) the exact same desire in every other corner of the planet, isn’t moral clarity. It’s a double standard dressed up as virtue.
And it’s not just inconsistent—it’s counterproductive. It alienates people who could otherwise be allies in building decent, functional societies, and it hands rhetorical gifts to the actually dangerous extremists. (Racism does not even exist - so it is illogical.)
European democracies (and the broader West) don’t need to demonise nationhood. They need to persuade the radical cosmopolitan Left that self-determination and heritage preservation aren’t sins—they’re the global norm. Poles get it, Japanese get it, Kurds get it, Israelis get it. The sooner we stop pretending that only white Westerners are uniquely forbidden from wanting the same things everyone else takes for granted, the healthier our politics will be.
[TO BE CLEAR: This racism dog whistle is the reason why Groyperism is flourishing.]
How we pursue those goals—peacefully or violently, inclusively or exclusively—is a separate and vitally important conversation. But the goals themselves? They’re human. They’re normal. And pretending otherwise just breeds resentment and confusion.
So, the first order of business is really curing the left. Any ideas?
