This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No specific news item for this culture war post, but perusing the comments on the various Iran war takes, I'm consistently baffled by people's attitudes towards Israel that I think are willfully uncharitable and blind to the history of the Middle East in general.
First, there's this idea that Israel is the primary/principle cause of all instability in the region, and that if we suddenly removed all the Jews and gave back the land to the Palestinians, we would have peace. This is absurd. The violence in Lebanon between shiites/sunnis/christians, the question of the Kurds, and the Sunni/Shiite Cold (I guess hot now) war are all conflicts that have their origins long before the founding of Israel. Heck if Israel wasn't there to focus hatred on, the Arabs would probably fight among themselves even more.
Secondly, it's extremely impractical, if not impossible to remove 6 million Jews from land they've now lived on for (at least) three generations. A second Nakba to correct for the first Nakba doesn't exactly seem just to me, and it's not like many of those Jews can actually go back to where they were from before emigrating to Israel. The Arab countries forcibly expelled all Sephardic Jews in 1948 after Israel won its independence (also weird how this was totally okay but Israel actions during the 1948 war are "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing". Israel also hasn't actually lost a war yet, and they won in 1948 without any outside help except for some weapons for the Czech Republic, so this would be an extremely hard sell to a population that really doesn't want to leave.
Thirdly, it's not like Israel hasn't tried to find a peaceful solution to the Palestine question or with its neighbors. Rabin actually signed the Oslo accords (before he was assassinated) and it looked like the Palestinians would be able to move towards self governance. Unfortunately, every government the Palestinians have elected have made it their central platform to destroy Israel, so it's somewhat logical that Israel decided that they couldn't self-govern (similar logic to why Israel and Iran are fighting). When I was living in Israel in the summer of 2019 (not a Jew, just doing research), it looked this might be changing, but unfortunately October 2023 changed all that. In terms of its Arab neighbors, Israel has repeatedly given up territory for peace. Of course unfortunately neither Jordan nor Egypt want the West Bank/Gaza (and also refuse to treat second, third and even fourth generation Palestinian refuges as citizens).
Fourthly, there's a (somewhat true) idea that Israel has an outsized influence in US politics. But the US also has an extremely outsized influence in Israeli politics. Up until the mid 1970s, Israel was heavily socialist country that had far more ties to the Soviet Union than the US wanted. Market liberalization similar to what happened under Reagen/Thatcher destroyed the Israeli Kibbutz system economically (among other things, I have a very long essay on my blog about this) that completely destroyed the Israeli left. Netenyahu is the logical result of this.
Fifthly, the claims of Israeli genocide in Gaza seem to be greatly exaggerated and very selective when it comes to comparisons of other actual genocides going on in the world right now (Sudan). I've been hearing claims of genocide for at least ten years now, but somehow there are more Palestinians in Gaza now than there were then? If the Israelis are trying to genocide the Palestinians they're clearly not very good at it (might be more effective to give out birth control). Claims of apartheid are more fair, but are no different from how Palestinians are treated in Arab countries. Why the special criticism of Israel?
Maybe making a Jewish state in the Middle East wasn't a great idea. So what? We live in the world where that's been the case for nearly 80 years and it's not going away without another ethnic cleansing. Israel does cause a lot of chaos and conflict in the region, but 90% is in direct response to its neighbors wanting to destroy it and kill its entire population. Why is the answer to somehow endorse that, rather than admit that maybe its time for the Palestinians to give up claims to land they haven't lived on since WW2, and the population of the Middle East to accept (as their leaders by and large have) that Israel is here to stay.
I used to think there were principled arguments against Israel and that it made sense to distinguish between anti-Zionists and anti-Semites. I found it annoying when Jews would equate opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism. It felt very manipulative, playing the "antisemitism" card when we're talking about objections to a nation's policies... And of course Israel is a country, countries are made of people and run by politicians, therefore Israel is often going to do things one can reasonably condemn.
I still believe there are a tiny number of people whose opposition to Israel is rooted in genuine principles. I think their arguments are mostly pretty unconvincing, but the New Historians, for example (a school of Israeli historians who are generally pretty critical of Israel and the Israeli narrative about its founding, but obviously don't literally want Israel to cease to exist... Benny Morris is the most notable one) are examples of "anti-Zionists but not anti-Semites."
But mostly, especially since the latest Gaza War, I no longer take criticism of Israel at face value. Sure, a lot of stuff Israel does is fucked up, a lot of stuff the US does is fucked up, and I would like all countries in the world to do fewer fucked up things. Kumbaya.
But in most places, definitely including here on the Motte, you can map with nearly 100% consistency someone who is "critical of Israel" or "anti-Zionist" to "really hates Jews." It's just become very obvious that you don't have to scratch an anti-Zionist too deeply to find someone who hates Jews. It's true out in the public amongst the "Free Palestine" demonstrators, it's true here among the posters who suddenly have deep humanitarian concern for Palestinians and Iranians. Do they have similar concerns for, say, Ukrainians and Russians? Or the participants and victims in any other conflict anywhere else in the world? Of course not.
Since October 7, demonstrators attacking anything remotely connected with Israel, whether it's an Israeli-run bakery or just a synagogue (which can always be accused of being "Zionist" because the number of synagogues that aren't full of Israel supporters is infinitesimal) have pretty much given the game away. When you claim you don't hate Jews, you just hate like 90% of all Jews, well, that kinda looks like you hate Jews to me.
So, your lengthy defense of Israel isn't wrong, but it's beside the point. Almost nobody is actually criticizing Israel because they think the Israelis should negotiate differently or if they just did this or that they could have peace. There are no circumstances in which Israel will ever be "okay" with them. They just hate Jews. Simple as.
I'm an anti-Zionist who's part Jew, whose best friend is a larger part Jew, and who considers himself a follower of Yudkowsky/Siskind/Mowshowitz. Anti-Zionism's just not my cause area, especially not here in Oz.
More options
Context Copy link
The whole "Joo hater" thing is just a thought-terminating slur against any reasonable criticism of Jewish behavior. It implies you hate Jews, so you make the criticisms, rather than the genuine problems with Jewish behavior and its consequences forming a rational basis for your complaint. Notably it always acquits Jews of any responsibility from the blowback they receive as a consequence of their own behavior.
Here we are today in a total disaster downstream of all the issues you complain about me raising on this forum, and the "Joo haters" schtick rings more hollow than ever.
I've copped several bans here in my lifetime, for being a jerk and uncivil.
Maybe it's the neurodivergence in me, but civility is not a high value from me. So believe me when I say that I believe in this argument.
Would you agree that a annoying, haranguing rules lawyer who barely scrapes by on the letter of the law, annoying the natives and engaging in disingenuous tribal argument is 'Jewish behavior'? Or, to borrow 4chan parlence, "Okay, Rabbi?"
You are engaging in Jewish behavior. Not that I believe that the definition is valid, or exists, but because you have provided one for me. You can hardly object to your own concept that you've introduced!
You have no grounds to criticize Jewish behavior when you so self-evidentially engage in it yourself!
I don't have a problem with anti-Zionism. I don't have a problem with anti-Semiticism, either! But if you could argue like a white man, instead of resorting to these nebbish forum tricks, I'd be grateful. Post hands, please!
The Jewish Lobby, the ADL, the ultra-warmongering Zionists in our media and our government like Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro, AIPAC, Israel, would you acknowledge that is all Jewish behavior? Maybe the problem people have with Jews is caused by the things they do?
Don't change the subject, particularly not with a gish gallop. I have a problem with you and your behavior. I'll acknowledge these things as soon as you admit you are acting Jewishly with your evasions. I admire your glibness of tongue and skill at lying: an observation that others have made before.
Don't really know what I am evading. Going back to the very first comment, all I was doing was disputing Amadan's claim that nearly all criticism of Zionism is derived from a pre-existing hatred of Jews for no reason. Aamadan's comment implied no space for people's perception of Jews to be influenced by the things Jews do. It's a clear argument attributing responsibility to Jews for the way people perceive them, including the negative perceptions that are basically all true.
I've refuted this several times. At this point it's fair to say you are just lying about what I said.
So in your world there is basically nobody who is critical of Israel or Jews because of the things Israel or Jews do- they just hate Jews. Simple as.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Mr. Hitler is providing the exact map of your tactics, and so I will not engage. That you cannot earnestly engage with anyone and resort to wordcel debate tricks is not a superpower.
Why can't you take responsibility for your own behavior, as you so often rail on the Jews for not doing? Why do you pretend oppression when you constantly act in an obnoxious, Jewish way?
You are spiritually Jewish. It is not an insult. It is an observation, and a very funny one to me.
I think it is highly necessary for White people to start behaving more like Jews, in important respects.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks for raising your hand, bud. Appreciate the support.
What is "Jewish behavior"? What "blowback" do you think the average Jew on the street deserves because of "their" behavior?
You do not distinguish between Israel and Jews except when it's convenient. When it's inconvenient, you are happy to equate Jews=Israel. When it's convenient, you say you are complaining about Israel and that accusing you of antisemitism is a Jewish mind trick.
You complain endlessly about being identified as a Joo-poster, a Jew-hater, it's a "thought-terminating slur," but the one thing you cannot deny is that you hate Jews. It takes some chutzpah (heh) to complain about being called a Jew-hater as you loudly and vocally insist that hating Jews is rational.
The bottom line, the sum total of your presence and reason d'etre, is that you hate Jews. Of course you think your hatred is rational. Everyone thinks they are being rational. No one says "I just hate people for no reason." But you hate Jews and that is the driver behind everything you post. You basically have no other identity or purpose (at least on this forum, maybe somewhere you have a life that doesn't revolve around Jews), but you sure get offended when someone names it.
He is someone who glorifies the Waffen SS and thinks the Holocaust was a good thing, to the extent he admits it happened. He has said so on this forum.
Now he's claiming that it is simply a hollow shtick and a breach of the rules if he be called a hater of Jews.
This is dishonesty to the level of utter contempt for you.
It didn't happen though. How could I think it was a good thing and it didn't happen?
I don't think it's a good thing that millions of Jews were tricked into walking inside gas chambers that were disguised as shower rooms, it is something that simply never happened.
It is significant that Eric Hunt, notable and prominent holocaust revisionist, left the movement and officially admitted that the holocaust happened roughly as described by mainstream history.
He hadn't become "repentant and reformed Nazi", he just found out that holocaust revisionism is not true, and also not helpful at all.
...
Eric Hunt left Revisionism for a bunch of reasons, internal politics of the movements and such. It's a pretty tough job being a high-profile Revisionist, enormous pressure with little or no pay.
But in the past couple years Hunt has disavowed that article and he is a Revisionist again and he stands by his content, including that video I posted.
Keep in mind he was doing this when nobody else was talking about it, and YouTube basically increased their censorship solely because of Eric Hunt, his content was the very first victim of a high-censorship YouTube. Now that a lot of people on X and such talk about it he's found more satisfaction in the impact of his work. Nick Fuentes cited that video I linked by Hunt as being influential on Nick.
So he's a Revisionist and he stands by that work and he takes credit for the proliferation of Revisionism which he should, he did great work.
Interesting. How he answers to his own questions in this article, what is now his explanation what happened to the one million+ deported to the Operation Reinhard camps who were never seen again?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because Holocaust deniers (most of them, with the possible exception of the really low information ones) don't actually think it didn't happen.
Maybe you do really believe there were never gas chambers, and that the numbers are inflated, and there are discrepancies in the accounts of what happened in this camp or that camp. There are always question marks and inaccuracies in the historical record and "Holocaust deniers" excel at cataloging these to argue that the whole thing is a hoax. Like 9/11 truthers, like every other conspiracy theorist, it's not that there aren't questions, and things the public believes because they've become widespread knowledge that aren't actually true, or were taken from one particular account (soap made of Jews, for example, or human skin lampshades). So there are always things you can JAQ about.
But "the Holocaust" - a concerted effort to exterminate Jews - happened, and the strategy of the Holocaust denier is to try to convince people that actually the whole thing was fake because record books at Dachau don't match what someone said in an interview, or what have you. The reality of course is that they know the effort was made to exterminate Jews and they think it was a good thing, but they also know that the public is extremely unsympathetic to this and that Jews benefit from the widespread guilt generated by the Holocaust. So it's a political strategy to try to erode belief that the Holocaust happened, not a historical investigation.
This is why every time we talk about the Holocaust, you immediately jump to the specific things you have canned spiels about, like showerheads in Auschwitz and whether Hitler ever signed an order saying "Kill all the Jews." And try as hard as you can to avoid the obvious glaring holes in the narrative, like where did all those Jews go and how are thousands of people, from Nazis to Jews to German civilians to Allied soldiers, lying about what they saw?
If you were actually interested in historical truth it would be pretty interesting to hear you out, but I can't take any of your arguments seriously because to the degree you might have some interesting research about specifics, I know it's always in service of a very specific agenda and that you selectively omit or fabricate details according to whether the narrative serves that agenda.
No it did not. There has famously never been any written document or order found demonstrating a concerted effort to exterminate all the Jews. Such an order never existed and that was not the German policy.
Some Jews were killed definitely in reprisals etc. But there was no "extermination plan" as claimed, that is a lie as much as the gas chamber story.
You are doing, without a hint of irony or self-awareness, the exact thing that Amadan just criticised you for doing.
You just jumped from "was there an organised attempt to kill all the Jews?" to "was there a specific individual document that said to kill all the Jews?", even though that is not the same question at all, and that is exactly what Amadan just said you would do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, my complaint is that your argument assumes criticism of Jews is motivated by hatred of Jews rather than criticism of actual Jewish behavior.
Are complaints about Black behavior motivated by some unjustified hatred of Blacks? Or are the complaints about Black behavior caused by Black behavior, and the general opinion of Blacks is downstream from that?
Let's apply your argument: The prevailing complaints about Black behavior are almost entirely derived from racism. There's no truth to any of those complaints, maybe <1% have some truth, but the rest of the complaints and stereotypes are just derived from hatred of black people. Of course you think your hatred is rational. Everyone thinks they are being rational. No one says "I just hate people for no reason", but they in fact hate Blacks for no reason and they deceive themselves into thinking there is a rational justification for their sentiment towards Blacks.
My world: the complaints are almost all true, in fact we vastly understate them in an attempt to be tolerant and smooth social cohesion, maybe <1% of the criticisms are false and derived from racism, and negative opinion of Blacks is downstream from that.
So there's not much to say other than you are wrong, my opinion of Jews is downstream from my analysis of these issues, same as Blacks. If you want to call me a "Black-hater" for concurring with prevailing negative opinions and the reasons for them, that's your prerogative but you're just name-calling.
You can call me a Jew-hater all you want, even though it's against the rules of the forum you moderate. I know that "Jew-hater" means "criticizes Jews in any way", I am not here to contend with the semantics of the insults you use to try to dismiss rational and necessary criticism of important issues.
But you can go ahead and think I hate Mark Levin, Randy Fine, Ben Shapiro, Jared Kushner, Jonathan Greenblatt, Bari Weiss, the ADL, AIPAC, etc. simply because they are Jews I hate for no reason, and my analysis of these issues is just me trying to rationalize my pre-existing hatred. It's your prerogative even though it's very stupid and not true.
Is this an admission that you hate Jews and blacks?
Your argument here, as far as I can tell, is not "I don't hate Jews", but "I hate Jews for good reasons".
To wit, let me ask you plainly: how do you feel about Jews?
The last time we discussed this (ironically, discussing whether you flee debates), I put that question to you bluntly, and you vanished and didn't answer.
Would it be fair to characterise the disagreement, as you see it, along these lines? SecureSignals has a strongly negative opinion of Jews and regularly criticises Jews and Judaism. According to Amadan, this is disconnected from any evidential reasoning, but rather SecureSignals has an abiding prejudice against Jews. According to SecureSignals, this negative opinion is justified by the behaviour of the group he dislikes. Is that what you're clashing about?
No, both the "you are an X hater" are only slurs, like calling someone a heretic in Old Salem. I don't engage in affirmation or denial, I reject the tired playbook of trying to jacket someone with an -ist or an -ism or an x-hater. My opinions on Jews are contained in the sum of my writings, if you want to call me a Jew Hater go ahead it's not something I'm going to contend with, you may as well call me a Racist or a Sinner or a Heretic, it's all the same thing to me.
I reject your notions so totally that I'm not going in your little funhouse to argue I shouldn't meet your definition of Jew-hater, please sir don't call me a Jew-Hater I swear I am not! Please! Not playing that game and am never going to, I reject it, it's nothing more than a cheap slur for building consensus that Antisemitism is caused by everything under the sun except for the behavior of Jews.
No, it's not. A slur is an insulting label that can't be assigned a truth value but is simply a boo-light.
You either hate Jews or you don't. If you don't hate Jews, if you are capable of being friends with Jews, you do not wish harm on individual Jews, you just think Jewish culture is hostile to you or Judaism is a wicked religion or whatever, you could say that. You won't say that because you do hate Jews. You hate Jews for being Jewish, which you have constructed as some nebulous pattern of behaviors that applies to 99% of them, or even if it doesn't, accrues guilt to the rest for not denouncing their fellow Jews and refusing to be Jewish.
This "I refuse to play your game" speech is just evasion. You won't honestly and forthrightly state "Yes, I hate Jews" (which you are allowed to do, it's not like you'd be banned for it) because you know that hating an entire ethnicity for being that ethnicity is something even people generally disposed to agree with you about "Jewish influence" would balk at.
You accuse me of uncharitably projecting motives onto you, but the thing is, you make it as obvious as you possibly can (right down to your SS username) what you really think of Jews and what you'd like to do to Jews, while playing a game of denial. "Yes, Jews are my enemies and Jewish behavior is why everyone should hate Jews but how dare you accuse me of hating Jews!"
When someone calls you out on it or tries to get you to actually be honest instead of playing your constant game of ducking and weaving, evading, ghosting, and describing the Holocaust in a Schroedinger state (it both didn't happen and the Jews totally had it coming) you fan yourself in indignation that you would be accused of a "slur" like Jew-hater.
Can the mods please just ban Securesignals already? He flagrantly violates the single-issue poster rule and offers nothing of value to this community. I applaud the efforts at fair-mindedness that have kept him around for so long, but all he does is talk about da joos in a way that makes it hard for me to recommend this place to wven other dissident thinkers. He's hateful and (worst of all) boring dead weight holding the forum down and it's time he was cut loose.
More options
Context Copy link
Have I ever called Greenblatt a "White-Hater"? Do I think Greenblatt just hates every single white person he knows, has no White friends, and every time he meets a White person Greenblatt secretly wishes he could kill him? Obviously I think there's much more nuance to his identity and political perspective, emotional disposition towards Gentiles, in spite of the fact it is clearly oppositional to me, but you will never accept that my disposition is more similar to Greenblatt but on the other side of the conflict than it is to the cartoon villain you have in your head.
I couldn't imagine having a discussion with him and demanding that he either affirms or denies he's a White-Hater, and not only because such an accusation lacks any currency unlike the accusation of being a Jew-Hater. It's bullshit, but you have to resort to those tactics because there is so much actual substance and implications to the criticisms being made you feel the need to play these stupid games I reject.
Not going in your funhouse, sorry- "I have Jewish friends pls don't call me that name!!!" I reject the power of your slur. It's retarded honestly and more retarded than ever given the state of the world and how relevant the criticisms I have made on this forum have proven to be. Calling everybody who criticizes Jews for the consequences of their own behavior "Jew Haters" is losing currency by the hour, you just look ridiculous at this point to be honest.
Poor Jews, so put-upon for no reason, everybody hates them for no reason, and when people criticize them it's almost always because they hate them for no reason. Antisemitism is the fault of everybody in the world except Jews. And if you think otherwise I am going to call you a Jew Hater. Enjoy the last days of that garbage holding any water!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I didn't suggest anything negative about you. I asked a very straightforward question, and then attempted to precisify the terms of the disagreement.
It is not a gotcha, a funhouse, or any kind of trick to ask you to clarify exactly what you are debating about. As for the sum of your posting, yes, I am quite familiar with it, but it is useful, when there is an ongoing disagreement, to occasionally try to back up and clarify what the disagreement is about.
In this case, I think that "Does SecureSignals hate Jews?" is a meaningfully different question to "Why does SecureSignals hate Jews?" You don't appear to me to be disputing that you have a very negative assessment of Jews, which would make the dispute about the latter question.
Don't waste time with this flimflam, please. Stating what you actually think is not a high bar, and is in fact required by the Motte's rules.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Criticisms of black behavior that generalize to "Therefore I hate blacks because all blacks are guilty by association with the worst examples" is rightfully criticized as racial hatred, yes.
Wrong. That's not my argument. You know this.
Is it inaccurate to say that you hate Jews? Am I wrong, incorrect, misrepresenting you?
That is wrong, incorrect, and a misrepresentation.
In this very thread I have criticized several of those people. I have in the past criticized the ADL and AIPAC. As I said, I know you have reasons for hating Jews. I just think those reasons are irrational and not worthy of respect.
My opinion of Black people is not derived from the belief they are all guilty of every behavior by association, nor is it with Jews. But that doesn't erase the consequences of the way they tend to behave and its impact on society.
So it's a fine parallel.
The important distinction is that criticism of Blacks is caused by Black behavior. Likewise criticism of Jews is caused by Jewish behavior, it is not "for no reason" like you claimed in your post.
So, all of them? Most of them? A third of them? With black behavior, I know what you speak of, though it's a clear minority of blacks who do those things. What about Jews? Exactly what percentage of Jews do you think are guilty of subverting Western civilization and trying to destroy white people?
One more time: I know you have reasons. They just aren't rational reasons and you generalize from "Some Jewish groups do things I think are bad for me" to "Jews are inherently my enemies."
Well it only takes a very small percentage that do those things to completely enshittify the place they live doesn't it? Places that ought to be the crowned jewel of my community are no longer safe. Things I grew up doing are no longer safe, places I went to closed down because it. None of those impacts are dependent upon the % of the group that engages in that behavior. Obviously if it were small enough to not have those effects then people wouldn't complain about it.
The % of the Jews that are outright spies and traitors (Shapiro, Fine, Levin, Weiss, Kushner, etc.) is small but big and important enough to have disastrous effects on our country, which we are living through right at this moment. The % of Jews that constructively aid the former with political and cultural support is vastly higher even if they aren't directly engaging in the most destructive behavior- that certainly qualifies as subversion. The % of Jews who oppose and criticize it is extremely small but there are a few.
Yes I do have my reasons, I don't like my country being subverted by foreigners to be led into disastrous consequences for their own benefit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm an isolationist and my problem with Zionist Jews is that whenever a principled non-interventionist like Ron Paul comes along he inevitably finds himself baselessly slandered as an antisemite by human detritus like Ben Shapiro. A binary choice between the bloodthirsty warmongers and so-called "antisemites" is the easiest choice in the world by such a standard.
Not a fan of Ben Shapiro, and I agree, what he says about folks like Ron Paul is an example of the bad faith "antisemitism" card I complained about above. I've also commented previously about how I stopped subscribing to The Free Press because I got tired of Bari Weiss turning it into a pro-Israel mouthpiece where every single headline is about how Israel is fabulous and crushing Iran is in America's interest and has nothing to do with Israel.
That said, while you find it easy to choose between "bloodthirsty warmongers" and antisemites, the problem is that the antisemites are not actually antiwar. They're only antiwar when Israel is winning. If Iran were kicking the shit out of Israel, you wouldn't see them complaining about what a "disaster" this is. Even if Iran had started the war, even when other countries do start a war against Israel, the antisemites are curiously not antiwar then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is largely true here (and even so, people, including me, are crawling out of the woodwork to "erm actually" you) and rapidly degrades in usefulness outside of here.
I live in a blue "coastal elite" city, and the majority of my social sphere has no issue with Jews or Judaism (many people in my elementary and middle school were/are Jewish, and I'm friends with many of them to this day). However opinions on Israel are at all time lows. I have a lot of respect for the Jewish people (the # of nobel prizes speaks for itself) and I genuinely believe the human race would be better off if we were all Jewish (I assume) as their culture heavily prioritizes learning and that clearly works.
But I also think Israel is ran by cartoon villans and their people are understandibly bloodthirsty but also seemingly on a perpetual mission to chimp the fuck out and make America foot the bill. Which I really don't like.
I also dislike the overwhelming amount of human suffering in Gaza/the WB, especially because in Gaza ~50% of the humans there are under the age of 20, so I have a hard time assigning them moral responsibility for the situation.
I think that there is no solution to the I/P conflict, there's too much history, too much bad blood, and both sides are too bloodthirsty and stupid to find a common solution, despite the fact it would be massively EV positive for everyone.
More options
Context Copy link
I think you might be focusing a little too much on those on the Motte?
My experience is that there are three to five groups of people who are loudly anti-Israel in Western countries.
The right-wing anti-semites. This is the most popular group on the Motte, and you describe them pretty accurately. There are plenty of people who hate Jews for reasons that are more-or-less in the ballpark of far-right or neo-Nazi ideas; usually this comes with a racialist theory where Jews are a uniquely malevolent or parasitic group never acting in good faith, who exert disproportionate influence over Western countries. Often this group has a kind of private admiration for Israel, in that the state of Israel behaves towards Jews the way that they would like their country (or countries) to behave towards whites. Outside places like the Motte, and to an extent even here, this group likes to disguise or misrepresent its motives, usually because they realise that their whole platform is very unpopular in the West. Suddenly discovering empathy for poor Palestinians despite otherwise being heedless of Arab lives is an easy tell.
The left-wing anti-semites. I think you combine these with their right-wing counterparts, but I find it taxonomically useful to distinguish them. These are the ones who go all-in on the idea that Israel isn't really a country and settler-colonial states are inherently illegitimate and chant "from the river to the sea" on campuses. Whether the motive here is technically anti-semitism is debatable, particularly because there is a small but real number of Jews in this group, which the rest like to hold up as symbols, even as they go around loudly demanding that institutions divest themselves from all Jewish groups, or from anything related to Israel, or even just harass ordinary Jews who have failed to clearly denounce Israel. I called these group 'anti-semites' because I think they do associate all Jews (who have not clearly disaffiliated themselves from Israel) with Israel and will attack people just for being publicly Jewish; and because as far as can reasonably be discerned their actual position is that Israel should be destroyed.
(2a?) Left-wing bleeding hearts who haven't updated their beliefs for decades. I run into a lot of these in real life. It's probably fair to view them as the moderate wing of the anti-Israel left, or perhaps the anti-semites as the extremist wing of the anti-Israel left. But basically take the group I described in 2 but dial it down to people who really care about Palestinian lives, support a two-state solution, would be mortified at any implication that they're hostile to Jews, and generally ignore the existence of their more extreme counterparts.
The nationalists. This group largely codes right at the moment, but in the past has been more diverse and I think has room for some leftists in it. It's the one that says basically, "Why are we supporting this small, violent country? What's in it for us?" Unlike the first two, I don't think this one is particularly anti-semitic. Undoubtedly it's true that near-unconditional support for Israel has been a pillar of American foreign policy for decades, and it's understandable for parts of the American electorate to ask why, particularly as Israel seems to, whether intentionally or not, keep dragging America into conflicts that it does not seem in America's interests to fight. They stand out among the other groups for being relatively amoral - they do not care who's in the right, they do not care about Palestinian lives or welfare, and they will not litigate the last eighty years of Israel-Palestine conflict with you. They do not care. They will just ask - why are we involved in this mess?
Migrants. This group is fairly obvious. Some are Palestinians themselves, many are Muslims, many are from countries like Syria, Lebanon, or Egypt, and therefore have very explicable reasons for hating Israel. There's a very common belief in the Islamic world that Palestine is a 'nation of martyrs', and though this sometimes annoys other Muslims who feel that their persecution is downplayed or ignored (Kashmiri, Chechens, Rohingya, Uighurs, etc.), but nonetheless it is pretty universally accepted. I posted about one of these in Australia last year. This group is often significant among their own communities but are trapped in those bubbles and often ignored in the wider discourse, though sometimes one makes it into politics and becomes more widely known.
I'm very much a member of group 4, and have stated my views in this regard multiple times here. If Israel decided to turn Gaza into a parking lot tomorrow, my feelings on the matter wiuld be something to the effect of "It's too bad they couldn't work it out peacefully. Oh well, not my problem." I'm even fine with selling Israel the weapons to do the parking lot making with, I'm just tired of them getting them for free with my tax money.
More options
Context Copy link
It's "anti-successful population," of which anti-semitism is a named subcategory.
Or "anti-Western," for a somewhat broad category of West that might include Korea and Japan. "Anti-civilization" would be more accurate but almost none of them actually conceive of themselves that way.
Likewise, self-hating Jew is a common enough subcategory of oikophobia that it has its own wiki page.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, that's most of the ones I onow: "I heard on the news/social media that Israel just killed a kid! Why can't they just stop killing Palestinians and get along?"
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I think that it's anti-Semitism in the same way that white college professors who are anti-white are racist. I think that the basic playbook for Leftist types is to aggrandize themselves by claiming moral superiority over others. Ok, suppose some tribe in some African sh*thole is massacring another tribe. If Leftists make a fuss about it, the message is "we're morally superior to some barbaric tribe in Africa." Which, at some level, they know isn't saying much. It's much more impressive to say "We're morally superior to the Jews!!"
Generally speaking, I agree, although I think a lot of anti-Semites hide in this group. One thing that gives the game away is they are outraged about US military aid to Israel but don't seem to mind that the US spends a lot of resources (both money and personnel) in South Korea, Germany, Bahrain, etc. They are outraged about dual US/Israel citizens but don't really care about dual US/UK citizens. This selectivity suggests that something besides isolationism is motivating their isolationism.
I find this pretty rational geopolitically.
South Korea: US forces are there because it's the only way to give SK credible confidence that the USA will protect them with their nuclear umbrella. SK is one of the few nuclear-latent states that could spin (hah) up a bomb pretty fast. Fun fact, Samsung is one of the few private companies in the world that could probably do it on its own.
This will be a recurring theme, but the USA has (correctly) determined that a world with less nuclear proliferation is very good for the USA. So, it puts troops in SK so they don't make their own bomb to hedge against NK/China.
Germany: similar story. Latent nuclear state who was facing an existential military threat up until the ~1980s. USA likes being one of the only big dogs with big bombs. So you put troops in Europe to keep the hoes from being scared.
Also, the USA very much likes the EU in the cuck chair. It's much easier to keep them there when you can go "no no babe, you don't need MLRS launchers and fighter jets, why don't you pay the pensioners more money and drink some soup? Daddy's got this."
Bahrain: having bases in the gulf is SO useful given that its a geopolitical flash point and choke point. this is pure upside for the USA.
Israel: unsinkable aircraft carrier near Suez, great! Constantly drags USA into conflicts with basically 0 upside for the USA that require the expenditure of massive amounts of exquisite weapons which are expensive and built in tiny qualities. What is the upside here again?
"Live weapons test zone" is probably considered more of an upside by American MIC types than you would think. In particular systems like Arrow and David's Sling (which are both co-developed by major American arms manufacturers) are helpful to the US as they increase our technology and (at least secondhand) experience with ballistic missile interception, which is very important to maintaining the relevancy of the US military pretty much everywhere, as ballistic missiles are now a pretty widespread technology.
The US buying Iron Dome (which is now also being co-produced by American contractors) to fulfill their point-defense needs is an example of that dynamic running full circle.
Ukraine was already providing that?
The USA is literally redeploying missile defense systems from Asia (remember when we were pivoting over there?).
The USA is depleting it's interceptor stocks at phenomenal rates, and while it is gently increasing production, it's nowhere near enough to replenish them quickly, especially given we'll need quite literally an order of magnitude more to 1v1 China, which is a credible threat that again, we were supposed to be pivoting to!
In my opinion, Trump's potentially crowning accomplishment was almost single handedly moving the Overton window to "fuck China" and made it basically a bi-partisan issue. When before the neoliberal ghouls were more than happy to mortgage our industrial base (and thus our civilization) to the Chinese in their relentless pursuit of "line go up". And now he's throwing that away... Why again?
Yes, it is, but when the Arrow missile program was launched in the 1980s that was not really anticipated.
We also haven't been able to test Standards in Ukraine, and we have in Israel.
Just on the Navy front, on some quick Googling, the reports are that we're looking to increase production of the SM-6 and SM-3 to a combined total of 600/year. At 100 SM-3s annually, that would allow us to replace our stockpile of around 400 in just four years. At 500 SM-6s annually, that would allow us to replace our stockpiles of 1500 in three years.
As I pointed out in my other post to you, we're increasing Patriot production to 2,000 year, which is pretty eye-watering as far as interceptors go.
Yes, one of the first things I said about this war was that that was a likely fail state.
Well, I am kicking around some theories, but I'm saving them for a top-level post I will never write at this rate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a great justification for attacking a country which (1) has leadership which regularly leads chants of "Death to America;" and (2) maintains uranium enrichment facilities in deep underground bunkers. Agreed? (I am aware that for a lot of people, it's hard to agree with this since damage to Iran is a win for Israel, but still, come on.)
So I can understand what you mean by "constantly" and "drags" can you please name the three most recent conflicts into which you believe Israel has dragged the United States?
Yes*
*The load bearing assumption is you can actually finish the job and permanently prevent this.
*Also that other latent nuclear countries don't see this and decide they need nukes asap to prevent this from happening to them.
*Also, there's a very credible argument that Iran was actually quite happy playing the game of "ooooh just you wait were totally gonna make a nuke any second now, ooooh baby it's coming" while never actually doing it. Iran could get 80% of the benefit of nukes (so they thought) for 20% of the cost by always being close but never quite getting there. Or at least that was the most rational move for them, although they're religious fanatics so hard to be 100% certain.
shit the bed so hard on security you get Oct 7th'd, resulting in the USA spending large amounts of money and things that go boom to keep you from getting MRBM'd
decide to 12 day war Iran last year, USA gets involved to sucker punch Iran with a (really cool) stealth bomber strike during negotiations. But this was worth it because we destroyed their nuclear program!...
deicide, again, to blow shit up in Iran, sucking in the USA even harder this time, resulting in the current quagmire.
Either that or set the program back significantly.
Or they might see what Iran is going through and decide to avoid the headache.
Given Iran's incessant attacks on Israel through proxies; it's threat to wipe Israel off the map; it's chanting of "death to Israel" and "death to America"'; etc., it's reasonable to think it's pretty likely that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons and would be pretty likely to use them against Israel given the opportunity.
That being said, anything is possible. Possibly the orbits of the planets are not actually ellipses but instead circular with lots and lots of epicycles. But if one of these isolationists consistently cares only about the US connection to Israel, well, there's a reasonable conclusion to be drawn.
This is a good example of what I mean. The US spends a large amount of money and things on various other countries' defense. And yet for some reason, (some of) these isolationists only object when it's Israel.
It was reported in the news that part of the reason the US got involved was lobbying by Saudi leadership. If this turns out to be true (and it seems very likely to be true) I wonder how these isolationists will react.
I can't tell if you're obliquity refering to me as an "isolationist" and then also, amusingly, doing the same thing anti-Semites do where they don't say "it's the Jews" they just do things like (((this))) but instead you're implying I'm an anti-semite.
As an aside, there's a joke here calling someone an (((isolationist))) but I can't quite figure it out.
Anyway. If you want to call me an anti-semite you should, and then we can argue about that :)
I genuinely hope that they do. Especially now that they've showed Iran the "ooooh I'll build one any day now" isn't an option for them.
My priors are that they won't do a good job at this. Given in June 2024 we did this already and claimed massive victory over their nuclear program and that was a lie.
It's true. We will find out over the next 20 year which way this goes.
I think we will have to fundamentally agree to disagree here. I have an incredibly hard time believing that after expending such a ridiculous amount of blood and treasure to get nukes, they'd immediately turn around and attempt to land one on Tel-Aviv in exchange for having the Persian homeland turned into an irradiated wasteland. Further, I have hard time believing the 100s of humans required to execute a nuclear launch would all be fine with their moms/dad's/wives/kids/cousins/friends all getting glassed to MAYBE nuke Israel.
I also think Iran getting a nuke is step 1 of a very long chain even if we assume the entire Iranian military complex's only burning desire is getting nuked in exchange for hurting Israel once. Iran having a handful of nuclear devices means they can make scary noises, but they have to deliver them. And so far all I've seen is Iranian missiles get shot down 100 different ways. And Iran is so compromised by Mossad if they were launching a nuke, they know Israel would know very quickly, and they only get 1 shot. So they need, basically at minimum, hundreds of hardened launch sites, significantly more sophisticated re-entry vehicles, and probably MIRVs. All of which are significantly further down the tech tree than "basic nuclear device".
Yes, and much like Trump used to, I think that it's too much. I remember at one point Trump was making noises about nuclear disarmament.
“You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”
He continued, “We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”
One of the greatest things he's ever said. I doubt he remembers saying it, but he's right.
Then fuck Saudi Arabia as well. Fight Iran yourself if you want to. Don't drag us into it.
I am a single issue geopolitical thinker. China. China China China. Every single thing we do I look at through the lens of "how does this help our rapidly deteriorating relative strength in the Pacific?"
And right now the answer is "it's massively detrimental because we're using up interceptors, airframes, money, and energy that all will be needed to counter a rapidly powering up China"
I don't have strong feelings towards Israel in a vacuum. I don't have a problem with Jews (if all cultures valued education as much as Jews do, the human race would be WAY better off).
I do have strong feelings of America weakening itself for a country that won't help versus China, for a conflict that will literally never end.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Once upon a time, yes. Not anymore. Alas.
:(
Your green party might be the stupidest of all the western political parties that call themselves that, and the Canadian one is left by a woman who thinks wifi causes cancer.
Isn't Elizabeth May out?
She had to come back because her replacement turned out to be too insane even in terms of internal cohesion, nevermind electability.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The U.S. Green Party would like a word- it swings back and forth between generic retard left and nutty woo woo granola conspiracy theorists.
The British one seems pretty batshit, what with being somehow both fanatically culturally-progressive and also Islamist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While they did manage to doom Germany to economic and demographic destruction in the near-future, I don't think it's fair to blame the party. They just carried out the will of millions of voters. And did so very well. So well in fact that they got what they wanted without even being part of the government at the time!
Blame the Germans. They ruined Germany.
Words cannot describe how much the median western voter pisses me off
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe all these solar panels can be converted into a giant Archimedes' Mirror?
If they're CSP rather than photovoltaic, well, they're already halfway there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But when was the last time the UK dragged the US into a war? If the Israelis are causing problems and the British aren't, it makes sense to only be outraged at one of them.
If 25 years ago there were dual US/UK citizens who had the ears of Parliament and the Prime Minister and were advocating for the UK to send troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, I would not begrudge other UK citizens for being suspicious of them and thinking that their arguments are not based on what's good for the UK.
1917? 1941? Grenada? Arguably some/all of the fallout of the post-WWII drama in the Middle East? The British were involved in putting the Shah in charge in Iran, for example.
ETA: and for your dual-citizens question, Murdoch is a popular target for such conspiracies, owning both US and UK media franchises that were involved in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. There are people that are suspicious of him on both sides of the Atlantic, I suppose.
A lot of leftwingers hate Murdoch as a propaganda tool for the right.
More options
Context Copy link
So, ~100 years ago vs under 30 days ago.
Agreed on the drama tho, the British (and French, to be fair) decided to absolutely shit up the middle east/Africa with their borders during decolonization and we've been paying for it since.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Devil's advocate: Germany is far less likely to result in US forces/materiel being lost. If you assume the "Israeli aggression causes all Middle-east ills" line of thought, which I do not, you can even squeeze Bahrain into the same category as Germany, and I believe Bahrain also provides the US with an important naval port.
At the moment, I agree. Although (1) I note that you didn't mention South Korea; (2) at times during the Cold War, there was much more serious concern about a Soviet invasion of Berlin; (3) there are very few US troops actually stationed in Israel; and (4) the US has formally committed to defending numerous countries if attacked, and this does not include Israel.
But how important is it if you are an isolationist? It seems to me the isolationist position is "just buy oil from whomever is in control and develop our own resources to the point where we don't need foreign oil any more."
I don't find NK to be a threat to the South or the troops stationed there, personally, so I'd put it in a similar category as Germany. The SK relationship is (at this point in time) pretty directly anti-Chinese.
Again, doesn't really fly with the isolationist viewpoint, but I could imagine them saying something like "yes, we should be withdrawing from these countries as well, but our relationship with Israel is the most pressing in terms of harm/cost to personnel/materiel."
I wouldn't say that, mind you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was originally going to agree with Amadan but then you reminded me these people existed - however in my experience they tend to act like information less wokes who can't discuss the situation at all or provide any solutions, only suggest that Israel is bad and should go away. In this way they carry water for the actual anti-semites.
@ymeskhout drew an evocative comparison:
More options
Context Copy link
I was thinking particularly of a few people I know in church groups - white people in their 60s who will host viewings of movies about Palestinian issues, or have 'Free Palestine' bumper stickers on their cars, or aggressively recommend books about the issue, and generally seem like they have never gotten past the 90s or early 2000s. I see them get fully behind groups like Kairos Palestine, or boosting people like Munther Isaac.
In my experience these are centre-left voters, think of themselves as multicultural and very sympathetic to Jews and Judaism, and view it as a non-sectarian human rights issue.
I think it is correct that they effectively carry water for real anti-semites (Munther Isaac, for instance, I think is noticeably anti-semitic), but they are largely useful idiots, rather than malicious themselves.
Hmmm yes that makes sense.
I do think you have real room to argue that the water carrying becomes something in truth especially once protesting happens, and sometimes voting - if you vote for the jew-killing party then you share some culpability when they do it, and anti-Israel is a large part of the Dems these days regardless of if they want it. It's not an incidental aspect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd broadly agree with the 1 camp without being anti-Israeli. It's a bit annoying that they've historically been able to conduct themselves in a manner that'd get any equivalent Western nation absolutely pilloried with minimal media/public censure (until they've lost control of the narrative recently) but I believe that in terms of maximizing utilitarian outcomes the world should be more tolerant of actions of that caliber. Plus if in the situation where the Palestinians had a similar level of dominance over the Israelis they'd be acting significantly worse.
I do also feel a certain schadenfraude when it comes to Jewish people who were used to/didn't see the inherent contradiction in the previous social meta of 'Israel is a special case and doesn't get criticized for boundary pushing' and are trying to hammer the anti-semitism meme a bit too hard. Especially when Jewish thinkers/media influence was made to curate an environment where they got given special exemption status instead of a broader laissez faire attitude.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I assume you’re a well-informed poster. You and I and everyone on this board surely knows well that ‘Free Palestine’ groups claim to be anti-colonialist, anti-racist and leftist, plus supporters of the concept of national liberation and also of BLM, for example. Their opposition to Israel’s policies rather obviously stem from this ideology and not from a general hatred of the Jewish people and not from a hard opposition towards the concept of a Jewish state in itself, as they view Israel as a white supremacist, unrepentant, aggressor settler state, and many of their members and supporters are themselves Jews. We can, of course, make all sorts of criticism of them, but this needs to be admitted. I guess we can go so far as to call them anti-white, since they see Israeli settlers and Zionists as white. At the same time, not only is their rhetoric not anti-Semitic, they do not tolerate anti-Semitism either, especially not within their own ranks.
Obviously these groups have existed before October 7th, in fact they have existed for a long time, and their ideological rhetoric against Israeli colonialism was also deployed against the US political system, which they view as structurally racist and neo-colonialist. Back when BLM was more relevant, it was the latter that was getting these activists more media attention, and I can only assume that this made many people forget that these groups are also anti-Zionist, and that accusations of anti-Semitism do not work against them at all, for the simple reason that they genuinely do not see themselves as anti-Semitic and thus do not consider themselves compelled to apologize. It’s similar to the case of the ‘Democrats are the real racists’ narrative, which does not work on Democrats one bit.
To the extent that US political opposition towards Zionism and the Zionist lobby exists outside the leftist, anti-racist, anti-colonialist milieu, I think it’s fair to say that it all stems from isolationism, to the extent that it still even exists. And the common attribute of isolationists is that they wish to isolate the US from other conflict regions in the world as well, not just Israel, so I don’t think accusations of anti-Semitism apply in their case either.
In what ways do they not? Up until being forced by the new administration, elite colleges were quite happy to tolerate anti-Semitism. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan come to mind.
The exception being that any critique of George Soros (or I guess now his son) does get coded as unacceptable anti-Semitic, which is... telling, I think.
Indeed. The truth of the statement doesn't matter. Whether they're anti-Semitic or anti-civilization, neither accusation has an effect; it just slides off the closed ideological defense system.
In a way that agitation against Jews as Jews (that, is based on ancestry and not on Zionist leanings or Israeli citizenship) is a cancellable offense in their eyes, even when black activists do it. That does not mean that those black activists always get cancelled as a result, but anti-Semitic agitation is the one sin they surely can get cancelled for by their comrades.
I think anti LGBTQ is also cancellable these days.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IIRC George Wallace in the 1960s claimed that he was not racist, just that segregation was the natural order of things.
I ask you not to be obtuse. The ‘Democrats are the real racists’ narrative originates from the 2000s.
It was more of an analogy to a common strategy deflection when accused of obvious examples of racism/anti-Semitism, claiming instead to be something adjacent and morally superior. "It's not anti-Semitism, it's anti-Zionism" follows both Wallace's logic "it's not racism, it's the natural order of things" or even Nazi anti-Semitism: "it's not Judenhass, it's about eugenics and Volk".
I don’t think it’s a case of deflection. The DRR/DR3 narrative may be effective when directed at the Republican base because it reinforces their priors but it’s utterly meaningless for Democrats because their belief is that racism is a structural evil whereas Republicans think it’s a personal moral failing. So if you accuse Democrats of racism they won’t even react because they’re full convinced that not one of them is guilty. On the other hand, the racism accusations works against Republicans (as evidenced by them always taking such accusations seriously and publicly denying them) for the reason I mentioned i.e. it is conceivable for Republicans that some of their own are actually racists, which makes them afraid of such accusations.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I tend to disagree with this. For example, it's no secret that Palestinian Arabs living in Lebanon (some have been their for generations) are not allowed to be Lebanese citizens; barred from various professions; etc. And yet campus Leftists don't seem to bother with "Lebanese Apartheid Week." In fact, there are many minority groups all over the world the Left doesn't seem to care about all that much. Heck, I even read that there is actual slavery of black people still going on in 2026 in some places. There is some degree of objection to what China is doing in Tibet and the western provinces, but it's nowhere near the volume of anti-Israel activities.
So it seems pretty clear that, even if one ignores the fact that Jews are actually an indigenous people of the Levant, there is a lot more going on than just generalized opposition to ethnic nationalism, colonialism, and so on.
Kind of interesting since Lebanese-Americans almost code as white in modern progressive terms, because so many were Christians that immigrated fairly early and integrated quickly- Jamie Farr and Casey Kasem come to mind.
More options
Context Copy link
True. At the same time, nobody is claiming that Lebanon is our greatest ally, the only democracy in the Middle East and the bastion of Judeo-Christian culture.
At least partly because the Lebanese state's military power is just pitiful; they can't even stand up to Hezbollah.
More options
Context Copy link
Ok, and? I mean, why is that relevant? If Leftists are against racism, against discrimination, against slavery, and so on, why should it matter if someone argues (rightly or wrongly) that the targets of their criticism are US allies, democratic, etc.?
The general argument I see is that because US policy/tax dollars support these allies, it's more important to call it out over regimes which, while they may be worse, the US has fewer levers of influence to pull.
If this were true, one would expect that Leftists in Europe or Latin America wouldn't have the same tunnel vision. Which they do.
Not to mention the fact that the US gives billions of dollars in aid every year to Egypt. Where are the demonstrations for Egyptian Christians? For that matter, the US has actual troops stationed in the Persian Gulf countries and has (at a minimum) an informal alliance with Saudi Arabia. These countries do all kinds of things that -- in theory -- should get Leftists riled up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Before the Lebanese Civil War (1975), IIRC Lebanon had a reputation as one of the more relatable countries in the region: stable, multicultural, mostly Christian. Incidentally, that civil war was in part downstream of regional Palestinian migration and nationalism.
You're absolutely right. That was before 1975 though, as you said.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I reached the same verdict in the UK when:
Maybe you could claim this is just guilt by association but organised anti-zionism here does not exist as a movement distinct from anti-semitism. In no other area of politics would supposedly very different groups with completely incompatible motives act in lockstep. The National Front doesn't march hand in hand with the Tories, for instance. So I can only conclude they are not, in fact, different. As for the argument that they can't be excluded for strategic turnout reasons, if your hundreds of thousands strong movement needs them that badly to function, then they can't be a minority of bad apples, can they?
And of course theres the issue where effectively every group claiming to be motivated by human rights was demonstrated to be lying back in 2020, but that's more a me thing.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a completely rational and a smart way to think and a completely rational and smart thing to say anywhere in the world except in a forum where we agree to deal with each other's arguments as stated and not the nefarious motives we imagine behind the arguments.
What we agree to do is to apply the principle of charity and to assume good faith. If someone says "I don't hate Jews" and then proceeds to explain why Israel shouldn't exist, I should charitably take their argument at face value… at least at first. And indeed, if someone says "I don't think Israel should exist," I (formerly anyway) would at least hear them out and not assume they were motivated by a desire to fuck the Jews.
Some people will make arguments to the effect of "Israel's original creation was a great crime against humanity, sucks for all the millions of Israelis who live there now, but really the only moral thing to do is for them to leave and go resettle somewhere else." I think the vast majority of these people are in fact antisemites and there is nowhere the Israelis could hypothetically resettle that would actually make them happy. If all the Israelis relocated to Alaska and built a state there, I think most of the "Israel should be decolonized" advocates would suddenly become deeply concerned with the environmental impact of all those Jews in the pristine Alaskan wilderness and the Zionists' lack of concern for any Inuit who might have been displaced (even if the displacement happened before the Jews got there). But, I will concede there are some people who genuinely just think Israel shouldn't exist for moral reasons because it was imperialist powers unjustly moving people around. Their conclusions are ahistorical and their solutions are impractical, to say the least, and the kindest thing I can say about them is that they are useful fools, but sure, there is a niche for the sincere anti-Zionist who is not an antisemite.
It's a small niche.
This principle does not require me to refrain from inferences or conclusions, however. We are not required to assume that no one ever has unstated motives, or that everything everyone says should always be taken at face value even if the evidence suggests otherwise. That is not being charitable, it's being a quokka.
Note that the people I'm talking about will rarely even say something as direct (if unconvincing) as "I don't hate Jews." Instead, they will angrily protest against the label of antisemite and complain indignantly about their motives being interrogated, and then list all the reasons why it's perfectly rational to hate Jews (without ever using the words "I hate Jews").
What you would ask of me, then, is to pretend that they don't hate Jews because they didn't type the words "I hate Jews," and what you are accusing me of is, when I observe someone who always applies unprincipled arguments that only ever apply to Jews, not conclude "Hmm, seems like this guy really hates Jews."
We are, in fact, allowed to infer motives behind arguments. Obviously accusing someone of having unstated motives requires sufficient evidence to justify the accusation. You can't just say "I don't believe your argument is your reason for believing that, I think you just secretly hate Jews."
Fortunately (or unfortunately) the evidence is pretty abundant and the Joo-posters don't exactly make a secret of their real motives, whatever tiny fig leaf they try to paste on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Am I super autistic or just a unicorn or I don’t technically fall under this definition: “ you can map with nearly 100% consistency someone who is "critical of Israel" or "anti-Zionist" to "really hates Jews."
I’m not anti-Zionists. I guess might makes right? I am critical of Israel. I hate the ADL. I hate AIPAC and how they interfere with our elections. I also have many Jewish friends. Tonight I made dinner for an Orthodox Jew from Brooklyn. I get concerned that 75% of the largest political donations in the 2020 election were Jewish. I semi-like Larry Ellisons new media empire because I think it will back the right but still concerned that he’s a Jew and could turn on my interests at a future point.
So yes I get concerned that 1% of the population with super high incomes that will generate half of the richest people in my country and 40% of the Nobel Laureates might have interests that disagree with my interests.
Because the move from critiquing institutions like the ADL or AIPAC to gesturing at “Jews” as a coherent bloc with aligned interests is where the analysis tends to degrade. It collapses a wide range of individuals, incentives, and internal disagreements into a kind of ethnic shorthand that explains too much and therefore explains very little. At that point, it begins to resemble the exact pattern Amadan is pointing to when he talks about criticism of Israel bleeding into garden variety joo poasting. I'm not particularly sensitive to charges of antisemitism but it just makes the conversation tiring.
I think most people here would accept these two things:
So I do think a very high in human capital group with their own interests is something the rest of society should notice.
And yes it was a Jew Scott Alexander who made me aware of AIPACs ability to target political races on a small budget. It’s there very high human capital that gives the group an ability to do things like AIPACs political lobbying. So yes there isn’t some Jewish hive mind working in perfect coordination, but Jews do have tribal interests. As does every tribe.
I’ve never met a Jew I didn’t get along with. I think I likely have more than a few Jewish traits. As an Italian American and as genetic testing has improved it turns out Italians and Ashkenazis share a bunch of common ancestors especially on the mother’s side. They are much more my cousins than Anglos.
I'm not calling you anything personally, nor am I implying you engage in that sort of behaviour. I'm largely indifferent to someone's personal prejudices, be it antisemite, anti-Muslim, anti-Indian, anti-apache helicopter. I'm just echoing Amadan's sentiment that this particular discourse, unless heavily moderated, has an extremely high propensity to collapse into a kind of zero-nuance intellectual junk food, where a single reductive heuristic is made to bear explanatory weight for an otherwise complex world. Take Tucker Carlson for instance, he constantly implies that Israel and Israel alone wanted this war to happen, as if Trump did not have any agency here or that the war doesn't reflect his own ideological commitments independent of Israeli/Jewish influence. It's rhetorically potent and emotionally satisfying, but it obscures more than it clarifies. At that point, it turns into a self fulfilling prophecy and even Jewish moderates grow understandably suspicious of any non-Jewish criticism of Israel, reading it through the lens of prior experience rather than in isolation. In turn, those most immersed in that discourse often do tend to display broadly negative priors, which reinforces the cycle. Kinda how black activists who fixate monolithically on institutional racism and slavery probably do signal anti-white proclivities.
I have no interest in going back in time on this issue. We are not going back to a place when any criticism of Jews are called antisemitism.
If somehow we ranked a groups political power. Jews probably control in the neighborhood of 25% of global power despite having a minimal population. If you could some how measure influence, tech, military, etc. So yes we can criticize Jews.
Isn't that just the old "white privilege"/"male privilege" argument, but repackaged?
Jews and white men are privileged. We do have higher human capital. But the conclusions are different than the wokes. I don’t believe in DEI.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link