naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
28896 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
Everyone on the right agrees that the establishment is anti-white now, but that it's tactically more acceptable to criticize them for being anti-Semitic.
Regular conservatives are being smart, understand that whenever you can hurt BLM and campus radicals, it's generally a good thing. Anti-whiteness and anti-Semitism and socialism all come from the same source, philosophy of losers.
Anti-semites on the right though prioritize their dislike of Jews, so sit around sulking, even take the Palestinian side.
Sulking is bad and doesn't get you anywhere. Calling out anti-white discrimination on the right has never been more acceptable, so things are moving in the right direction. But it'll have to ride the coattails of philo-Semitism. This is just reality.
According to this argument, this will «open people's eyes to "Jewsish power" in the West» in the sense that it'll teach right-wingers to directly appeal to it, to legitimize their own, by default low-status and illegitimate, political demands. The great mass of whites can be pissed upon by progressives for decades; but if you bludgeon them over the head with their documented support of genocidally anti-Semitic Muslims, suddenly there's a chink in their armor and you can have their policies rolled back.
From normie liberals to leftists describing settler activity as "pogroms", Jews have been vocal opponents of both Zionism and Israel for over one hundred years.
Israeli settlers and soldiers have killed 51 Palestinians in the West Bank this past week, with two villages entirely depopulated after attacks.
Out of curiosity, how would you describe this particular kind of settler activity and why does «pogroms» not apply? In Russian, погром means simply «trashing» or «smashing» or perhaps «wrecking» a community.
Everyone on the right agrees that the establishment is anti-white now, but that it's tactically more acceptable to criticize them for being anti-Semitic.... Anti-whiteness and anti-Semitism and socialism all come from the same source
It's very strange premise by Hanania.... the establishment is anti-white and philo-semitic. And for that matter, the anti-white consensus in the establishment rode the coattails of philo-semitism, so it's far more plausible to say the anti-white consensus and philo-semitism came from the same source than the ahistorical claim that anti-Semitism and anti-White ideology both come from socialism.
ahistorical claim that anti-Semitism and anti-White ideology both come from socialism.
I don't think that's what he's really saying there. The point I believed he was making was that socialism, anti-semitism and anti-whiteness all spring from people who are losers, not because there's a big connection between the three ideas but because extremists of any political stripe tend to be losers who overcompensate for their failures by embracing political causes in a way that tends towards the extreme.
That said I think his post is wrong anyway, so please don't take this as me defending him.
Usually (fellow Cyrillic user here) pogroms in the west are understood as - when the rest of the village gathers their pitchforks and deals nasty stuff to the minority. It doesn't include formal direct use of state power.
I understood them to only involve state power indirectly - a pogrom may be directly the action of independent individuals, but is only really possible if the proper state powers ignore them.
the April 1903 Kishinev pogrom, in which 49 Jews were killed, 92 were gravely injured, and more than 500 suffered other injuries, including the destruction of more than 1,500 homes.
Or in other words, Jews were being scapegoated for economic downturns. In the town itself, there's evidence that public officials also cooperated with the rioters, enabling this tragedy.
I agree that pogroms are supposed to be bottom-up, but they largely are even in this case – the settlers have long been raring to go, and Israel as an ethnonationalist country naturally complies with the people's wishes more than could be expected in the Russian Empire.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
@SecureSignals quotes Hanania but not his cleverest recent tweet. I think DR is irrelevant. Here's something that gets at the heart of the issue:
According to this argument, this will «open people's eyes to "Jewsish power" in the West» in the sense that it'll teach right-wingers to directly appeal to it, to legitimize their own, by default low-status and illegitimate, political demands. The great mass of whites can be pissed upon by progressives for decades; but if you bludgeon them over the head with their documented support of genocidally anti-Semitic Muslims, suddenly there's a chink in their armor and you can have their policies rolled back.
I don't think this can work, nor is this even a novel idea; but have to once again applaud Hanania's poasting power.
Out of curiosity, how would you describe this particular kind of settler activity and why does «pogroms» not apply? In Russian, погром means simply «trashing» or «smashing» or perhaps «wrecking» a community.
We both know that in not-Russian, pogrom describes wrecking a certain kind of community. Compare: чай vs chai.
More options
Context Copy link
It's very strange premise by Hanania.... the establishment is anti-white and philo-semitic. And for that matter, the anti-white consensus in the establishment rode the coattails of philo-semitism, so it's far more plausible to say the anti-white consensus and philo-semitism came from the same source than the ahistorical claim that anti-Semitism and anti-White ideology both come from socialism.
I don't think that's what he's really saying there. The point I believed he was making was that socialism, anti-semitism and anti-whiteness all spring from people who are losers, not because there's a big connection between the three ideas but because extremists of any political stripe tend to be losers who overcompensate for their failures by embracing political causes in a way that tends towards the extreme.
That said I think his post is wrong anyway, so please don't take this as me defending him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Usually (fellow Cyrillic user here) pogroms in the west are understood as - when the rest of the village gathers their pitchforks and deals nasty stuff to the minority. It doesn't include formal direct use of state power.
I understood them to only involve state power indirectly - a pogrom may be directly the action of independent individuals, but is only really possible if the proper state powers ignore them.
More options
Context Copy link
I remember you know Russian. Jews, at least, believe that the archetypal modern pogrom was encouraged by state actors:
Cossack pogroms were also not simply about villagers-with-pitchforks.
I agree that pogroms are supposed to be bottom-up, but they largely are even in this case – the settlers have long been raring to go, and Israel as an ethnonationalist country naturally complies with the people's wishes more than could be expected in the Russian Empire.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link