@SecureSignals comments on "Culture War Roundup for the week of March 18, 2024

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 18, 2024

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.

SecureSignals Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine 1mo ago

Candace Owens out at the Daily Wire

This is less than 24-hours after the ADL publicly attacked Candace, and Mediaite reports:

Owens’s departure comes after months of tensions between her and Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro over her promotion of various anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Her promotion of so-called antisemitic conspiracy theories has definitely been noticed on DR Twitter, and she's been engaged in public spats with a certain Rabbi Schmuley. So this isn't really a surprise, but it's a significant development that DR critiques of Zionism are making their way into Right-wing mainstream, as other rhetoric has in the past 10 years.

Candace is breaking from the Zionist right at the same time Tucker Carlson has turned heel on US support for Israel, and even Alex Jones who is notorious for his "the Chicoms are behind everything I love Judeo-Christian values" schtick - his willingness to humor every conspiracy theory to his audience except ZOG - yesterday accused Israel of Genocide.

I have a lot of criticisms of Nick Fuentes and his movement, but there has to be credit where it's due. I remember the Bush years, support for Israel was simply axiomatic and it was unthinkable for anybody to believe any differently. That has changed, and Zionism now faces a pincer movement of critique from both the Left and the Right, with the Right-wing critique of Zionism growing in influence among younger audiences.

Context

Amadan "I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could" SecureSignals 1mo ago

I remember the Bush years too. There were conservative critics of Israel then (but they were from the more overtly anti-Semitic fringe) and there were definitely leftist critics of Israel. That some people who nominally support Israel's right to exist are now uncomfortable enough with what's happening in Gaza to call it genocide is significant, but that's because Gaza is really quite unlike previous escalations.

I notice you are now carefully saying "Zionism" and not Jews. Would it be correct to say that you don't have a problem with Jews, only with Zionists?

SecureSignals Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine Amadan 1mo ago

There was almost no criticism of Israel during the Bush years, particularly on the Right, certainly nothing at all that resembles the discourse on X and TikTok. That did not exist in the Bush years, it's new.

I notice you are now carefully saying "Zionism" and not Jews.

... I'm saying what I mean. i.e. "Candace is breaking from the Zionist right". Not all Jews are Zionists but, importantly, many gentiles are Zionists. Typically people would say "neocon" but I am being more precise. "Candace is breaking from the Jewish right" wouldn't make as much sense there.

Jewish nationalism (re: Zionism) is one aspect of Jewish behavior, and the behavior that's relevant to my comment, I'm not choosing words based on who I have a problem with.

Yes there was. I was there.

X and TikTok and social media in general did not exist in the Bush years. The closest was Usenet and talk radio. So non-mainstream views in general had a harder time being disseminated, but they were definitely out there.

Jewish nationalism (re: Zionism) is one aspect of Jewish behavior

In what way? Because Zionism is a political movement and it's not intrinsic to Jewishness, any more than capitalism or democracy or Christianity are intrinsic to any ethnic group. I'm fascinated to know how a movement that at one time was opposed by most Jews on religious and/or pacifistic grounds is an "aspect of Jewish behavior." Do you just mean it's a movement that is currently embraced by the majority of Jews?

SecureSignals Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine Amadan 1mo ago · Edited 1mo ago

Because Zionism is a political movement and it's not intrinsic to Jewishness

It's not a matter of Zionism being intrinsic to Jewishness, it's a matter of Jewishness being intrinsic to Zionism. Such can be said about other political movements as well. The political movement is a reflection of the people pushing it forward. Zionism is fundamentally built on that piece of literary fiction which is called the Hebrew Bible. The Israeli conflict is eschatological with Bibi and many Zionists invoking Biblical story and prophecy- and prophecies are nothing if not plans and wishes. Zionism is biblical before it is anything else.

This is not to say all Jews are Zionists. None other than Winston Churchill in his 1920 essay ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM. A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE elaborated on the divided opinion of Jewish nationalists on how Jews should politically advance their interests. On the one hand, supporting radical politics in the West which criminalized Anti-Semitism to ostensibly provide security from Jews, and on the other hand Zionism.

The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic resources and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.

International Jews.

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Terrorist Jews.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

"Protector of the Jews."

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin's authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.

The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.

A Home for the Jews.

Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. It has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and a centre of national life. The statesmanship and historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have been made which have irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of the Zionist project, backed by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success of this inspiring movement.

Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.

Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.

We can dispense with your insinuation that the disagreement between Jews at this time regarding the best way to support Jewish interests disproves the Jewishness of Zionism.

Churchill forgot the other option though- Porque no los dos? Throw their weight behind radical political movements in the West which promote diversity, inclusiveness, demographic change in America and Europe, and support their aggressive ethnonationalist conquest of Palestine at the same time. The ADL is perhaps the avatar of the Jewish consensus- just do both. And that has worked until now, the blowback is coming.

It's not a matter of Zionism being intrinsic to Jewishness, it's a matter of Jewishness being intrinsic to Zionism.

Well, yes, Zionism is Jewish nationalism. You might as well say that Indianness is intrinsic to Hindu nationalism. It is both a true statement and one that conveys no additional information or implications. A nationalist movement is by definition closely associated with the nation whose interests it is advancing, even if it also has religious and ethnic overtones.

I did not say Zionism is not Jewish. I said it's not an intrinsic property of Jewishness. You seem to be playing the A -> B = B -> A game here.

I said that Zionism is an aspect of Jewish behavior. You tried to counter this by saying that Zionism is not intrinsic to Jewishness. But my original statement is proven by the fact that Jewishness is intrinsic to Zionism in particular.

You are the one playing that game.

I said that Zionism is an aspect of Jewish behavior.

Which is why I asked for clarification. "An aspect of Jewish behavior" could mean "It is commonly seen among Jews" or it could mean "It's inherent to being Jewish." Those are not the same.

You tried to counter this by saying that Zionism is not intrinsic to Jewishness.

Correct. It is not.

But my original statement is proven by the fact that Jewishness is intrinsic to Zionism in particular.

"Jewishness is intrinsic to Zionism" is not the same as "Zionism is an aspect of Jewish behavior." Those are two different statements with different implications. You are focusing on the former because it's literally true but not meaningful, but trying to make it mean the same as the second, which, in your worldview, advances the notion that Jews are inherently predisposed to act in an entirely self-interested manner to the detriment of non-Jews, justifying your argument that Jews should be treated as a racial enemy and an existential threat. If you want to convince people that Jews should be treated as a racial enemy and an existential threat, put forward better arguments than "Zionism is Jewish" and "Most Jews are Zionists."

What is this place?

Why are you called The Motte?

New post guidelines

Rules

Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats