Your note about the term "conspiracy theory" being too generous is apt. What is clear with the really hardcore antisemites, as seen in this comments thread, is how any pretensions to intellectual rigor quickly give way to emotional flailing.
Recently I was looking up something to do with Jews and the ancient world, found what seemed like an informative article, then realized the author was consistently lower-casing "jews." The spite and rage that motivates antisemitic reasoning always float to the surface, providing a clear tell that you're dealing with a crank.
Although most antisemites are male, there's something hysterical and womanly about the phenomenon. Hardcore antisemitism combines male autistic tendencies, like the need to systemize, with feminine histrionics (apparent also in the personality of Hitler). As Richard Hanania wrote in his piece on women's tears, "someone without the emotional stability to even participate in the marketplace of ideas isn’t going to have the traits necessary to contribute much to it."
As I love to say, Judaism is a bride gathering cult employing a very specific symbol language to moralize a certain dysgenic racial type and ensure that type has access to breeding stock.
I recently came across the idea that autism(extreme systematizing) and schizophrenia (extreme over attribution of agency) are opposite ends of a personality dimension. I don't know if this idea is correct but if it is I think antisemites lean toward the schizo end of the spectrum.
I'd say it has elements of both. You begin with the need for a "conspiracy deity" (or devil, really) to anthropomorphize the complexity of social reality. Social reality is then systematized--sometimes in a seemingly rational way--to meet this fundamentally irrational need. The mind craves consistency, so the antisemitic system needs to account for why, say, Jewish communists, capitalists, Zionists, anti-Zionists, atheists, and Haredim are all fundamentally aligned toward some shared, malign goal.
If there is a goal that all Jews of conflicting ideological and religious stripes share, you'd think it would be "not getting murdered." Yet somehow alleged Jewish control of both capitalist and communist countries was unable to prevent the Holocaust. The antisemitic response to this world-historical revelation of Jewish powerlessness is, of course, to deny the Holocaust ever happened. If reality doesn't align with the system, then reality needs to be altered to fit the system, not the other way around.
Your last few posts have been really good (I mean maybe they all are, I just have only had the chance to read those). Pointing out how toxic and stupid antisemitism is, when one has become a rightoid late in life, is one of those things that one comes to realize is necessary and yet often shirks from so as not to come across like a schoolmarm, drip, eternal flip-flopper... but it's true. And of all the treatments of antisemitism out there, and its relationship to Rightoid behavior, yours is quite closest to the best.
Good point. You can't fight woke with antisemitism and only bad things can come from trying. We all should push back against it when we have the energy.
True -- but also! I think we can say that in many ways, fighting antisemitism with (what one might call) 'woke' can be a sticky wicket, too. While they are not inaccurate or unwarranted, strictly speaking, I strive to avoid many of the cliches in the anti-bigotry toolbox for reasons of rhetorical efficacy.
A lot of Double-Talk & this statement "they see left-wing anti-Israel activism and conclude that it is so perverse, so irrational, so devoid of anything resembling a genuine and sincere interest in improving the general lot of mankind" in itself denies that PROTESTING AGAINST GENOCIDE is indeed VERY Sincere in trying to improve the lot of Mankind! Other than that it advocates for Voting for Kamala Harris w/ NO Regard to the FASCIST History & the making of the #CorporateUniparty & turning our Republic into a FASCIST PLUTOCRACY (Princeton-2014) over the Last 40 Years! Troll like Gobbledy Gook!
7 decades of pro-Palestinian advocacy has done nothing but make the situation of the Palestinians worse. If it was motivated by empathetic altruism, then this would invite a rethink, but since it is motivated by callous altruism, you just keep doubling down on the same thing. For more on your poisonous and destructive mindset, see the following. It's never too late to repent. https://graymirror.substack.com/p/clearpill-yourself-on-gaza
Pro-Palestinian advocacy has hardly made the Palestinian situation worse. The situation has gotten worse due to local dynamics in the Levant, not because of Western activists.
This really deserves separate treatment, but I think that being egged on by western supporters plays a significant role in the stupid and self-destructive decisions Palestinians make (not so much Hamas, but definitely the PLO/PA, though Hamas only act the way they do because they have the PLO running interference for them), and it also very obviously feeds into the Israeli victimhood syndrome that also contributes to Palestinian lives getting worse.
In the case of the current war, it's very obvious what empathetic altruism to the Palestinians dictates: pressure Egypt to accept civilian refugees from Gaza. Egypt is more dependent on western aid than Israel, and, unlike Israel, is unambiguously in violation of international law, so this is really a no brainer.
Are you really one of those Israeli right wingers who think “ethnically cleanse / banish the Palestinians and have an Arab country take this mess off our hands” is a workable solution to the problem? Israel has been trying to do this since 1948 with increasing levels of violence and it hasn’t worked! The notion that Egypt will solve Israel’s occupation problem is, sad to say, a fantasy
You are mixing two things up. Egypt is obligated under international law to accept refugees from a war in a neighbouring country. Israel is obligated to allow/facilitate the return of these refugees once the war stops.
Egypt has a legitimate right to ask for support in logistics and credible guarantees from Israel, but it has no right to do what it has actually done. It seems obvious that international pressure would have been better spent here than pressuring Israel to fight in some different way, when no-one even can articulate what that way should look like. The reason it wasn't is because the Palestinian movement is composed of a mixture of generic callous altruists and mad irredentist fanatics.
I think people would be very willing to say how Israel could have fought the Gaza conflict differently. But in general your seeming desire to point the finger at Palestinian nationalist dysfunctionality feels evasive. The Palestinian movement has and has had very little power in the overall conflict. What would be different today if their behavior had been different over the last couple of decades? The PA has been pretty cooperative and what is the situation on the West Bank? Does Palestinian nationalism even have the “option” for sanity given the pressures they are under and the seeming lack of feasible options?
I must admit I'm skeptical. I think opening the floodgates to Gazan refugees is too Nakba-coded for an Egyptian leader to accept, and that if one did he wouldn't be long for this world.
And I don't necessarily mean via a popular revolution. The threat would conceivably come from within the ranks of the dominant Egyptian institution, the Army.
There is a tension between empathy for Palestinians as individuals and sympathy for the Palestinian national cause.
There are various obstacles, but the Sinai is pretty big and Egypt already controls entry in and out of the Sinai because of Bedouin smugglers. It would have taken maybe two months tops to put into place all the necessary logistics. The main point, though, is that if Egypt was put under real financial pressure, it's in no position to refuse, apart from the fact that it is legally obligated to do so.
But even if you think that that's an optimistic analysis, you can *try*. Obviously, what they have been trying hasn't worked at all in any way, but it doesn't stop them from doing it.
For such an approach to be attempted, I'd argue it would take Trump (or a Trump-like figure) in the WH, not institutionalists like Biden and his camarilla. I guess such institutionalism is where we find the connective tissue with the pro-Pal activists, but IMO it's a tenuous connexion.
I would also argue that, since October 7th, the WH has taken a page out of Bibi's habitual playbook: manage the situation and do nothing beyond what your immediate political interest demands of you.
Lastly, attempting to financially browbeat Egypt into doing something that would likely stretch its political system to the breaking point could backfire: what if the Gulf states step in to shield it from Western pressure, for instance?
CIA trained Palestinian shootings are a result of the activism. KGB involvement back in the day is such activism. Hamas buying gopros is for mating with said activism.
"Palestine" doesn't control the Gaza Strip nor the West Bank. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip (or controlled it until recently, anyway), whereas Israel directly controls most of the West Bank (areas B+C), and indirectly controls the rest (area A).
Is this a “bigotry of low expectations” thing? Being ostensibly pro-Palestinian is actually anti-Palestinian? And shedding a tear for the hellacious loss of lives in Gaza is actually callous?
If the Pro-Palestinian folk are actually anti-Palestinian, what is the best thing going for Gazans, then? Who is in their corner?
That's a good question. There are individuals who are genuinely concerned about Palestinians and try to help them, but no institutions, still less countries.
Shedding a tear would be a big improvement. It's not very productive, but at least it's not actually harmful.
You fail to recognize that the source of antisemetism is the recognition that Jews (being powerful and cohesive) act as particularist entity while expecting other groups to act universalist.
Probably not kill it totally, but little is a bigger show of them being given a special status in the civil rights government. Even my normie friend seeing that stuff remakes “maybe the antisemite has a point” despite being normally rabidly pro liberal and anti fascist and such
Every ideology has a point. Ideologies don't spread because of coherence with the truth they spread because they meet the needs of those who adopt and propagate them.
Liberalism 'has a point' here or there, but it's retarded and makes no sense. It spreads because it's the most adaptive ideology for upscale people in modern society. Antisemitism is the most adaptive ideology in Right Wing echo chambers, so if you want to decrease it, you need to get rid of those spaces. The ADL is correct about this.
This is not a response to you, but for the benefit of anyone reading this, I don't think laws restricting antisemitic speech are effective at all. What I mean by getting rid of those spaces is directing young men away from them to environments where they will not be encouraged to indulge the negative elements of their personality.
In the wider world, such laws are bad because in general it's good to be criticised frequently when that criticism is constructive.
It's Judeomasonry, technically. And shooting up random synagogues accomplishes nothing tangible but terrorizing Jewry at large, which some would find admirable.
However, blowing up Davos, Wall Street or all of NYC, Capitol Hill or all of DC, the Judeomasonic HQs or all of San Francisco, and other dens of Judeomasonry, would accomplish much more.
The question of antisemitism in the Muslim world is a complex one. It's certainly true that antisemitism was imported into the Muslim world in the early 19th century, and it's important to understand how and where for a full picture of the history. But I'm not sure it's terribly important to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict. Egypt is a much more antisemitic country than Iran, but geopolitics and broad religious alliances are more important. See Hussein Aboubakr Mansour's Substack for a proper discussion.
As I said, Aboubakr is really the guy to go for this, but in general, I believe the folowing is the case:
1) In traditional Islam, the status of Judaism is basically the same as Christianity. In as much as they differentiated, it was usually in favour of Jews, because Christians were associated with geopolitical rivals.
2) Islam is a pretty rough violent religion with frequent spasms of perseuction. This affected Jews, but not because they were singled out.
3) Antisemitism spread from Europe to Germany along with other harmful ideologies like Marxism, accelerated by the desire to motivate the masses against Zionism.. Some Muslim sources were found to support this imported ideology, which is now strongly embedded in the Muslim world.
I have to disagree with practically all of your points here: Nationalistic (or "Right-wing") antisemitism isn't qualitatively different from any other anti-[insert ethnic group here] sentiment. It may be unique on the scale, but it's not unique in its characteristics from, say, Anti-Irish, Anti-Russian, Anti-French or Anti-Dutch sentiment. During the Anglo-Dutch wars, English propaganda literature wrote that "Holland is a Low Country indeed", basically, if you replaced "Dutch" by "Jews", you could have made your classical antisemite tract out of it.
It is often forgotten the Holocaust targeted Slavs as well; if you count the Non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust as well, the death toll increases to 14 million. Now, there is a religious dimension as well, but again, Anti-Jewish sentiment in the religious sense is not different from Anti-Christian, Anti-Muslim, Anti-Buddhist or Anti-Pagan sentiment. In both cases, these are the result of political circumstances.
In Pre-1933 Germany, Jews were a model minority, akin to Palestinian Christians in Israel and Chinese people in Western countries. Those characteristics made antisemitism appear credible in German politics of the time in ways which are not really relevant in Germany today. Indeed, the contemporary German Far-Right (at least that part who aren't Neo-Nazis) are starting to profess support for Israel and Zionism. By contrast, conflation of antisemitism and opposition to Zionism in US politics, not by defenders of Israel, but by the likes of Nick Fuentes, is a consequence of a combination of divergence of American and Israeli interests on one hand, and the insistence among many American Jews (even those who oppose Zionism) to support Leftist causes in the US. Yes, I am saying that Nick Fuentes represents a Roman Catholic American kind of antisemitism which will probably not replicate in European countries like Germany or Russia, which are both denouncing antisemitism in favour of something akin to a philosemitism.
Bottomline is, Jews as a group have interests which to some degree is measurable. In this regard, Jews are not special compared to other ethnic groups. Thus, antisemitism will appear in societies and circles where being opposed to Jews is politically and economically expedient. Unlike what you say, it is rational, albeit in a rather nasty kind of way.
It's not about whether it's unique or not. Antisemitism is an ideology that you can either subscribe to or not, if you don't believe that then take it up with the inventors of antisemitism.
It's an ideology. You can dislike Jews without being an antisemite. This is my whole argument. I agree with you that anti-Jewish sentiment should not be conceptualised any different from hatred of another race or ethnic group
I argue that practically all antisemites operate under a higher ideological framework (of which antisemitism is merely a component which may be temporary) of which antisemitism is a consequence, not a goal.
Say, you want to redistribute wealth from Non-ethnic Germans to ethnic Germans in 1930s Germany. By implication, that is antisemitic, but it's not the main ideology, it's a consequence of that ideology.
Practically all antisemites can be understood as such. Hate porn is not exclusively directed against Jews, but may be targeted against any ethnic group.
If the left is anti semitic for tangential reasons ("make chaos"), and the right is also anti semitic for tangential reasons ("conspiracy"). Aren't both of them equally anti semitic, or in fact, not anti semitic? Maybe there is no anti semitism, rather ignorance that finds convenient outlets?
I think there is a libertarian right, that is not conspiracy theory based, but rather common sense "small government" based.
Isn’t the left/right distinction you have identified better explained by assuming that the right is honest about its prejudices being rooted in ethno-religious hatred while the left is dishonest? In the latter case, the left seeks to disguise its prejudices as concern for others, the Palestinians, whose crimes the left conveniently ignores.
Obsessive ranting about Israeli violence against Palestinians alongside silence on Palestinians violence against their own people and the violence of other pro western regimes against their own people such as in Egypt. There’s also the silence on genocide against Christians in Armenia and their comparative disinterest in the Rwandan genocide. There’s a lot of evidence of asymmetric and hypocritical concern which if it’s not disguised antisemitism needs a really convincing alternative explanation given that we already know that leftists have a tendency towards dishonesty in politics.
The Left evaluates conflicts based on 3 heuristics. First, which side is more white (bad) or brown (good). Second, which side is more successful and rich (bad) or messed up and poor (good). Third, which side is on team America (bad) or against America (good). I'm putting the matter a bit harshly, but I could easily rephrase that in a way that 90% of Leftists would accept without demurring.
Israel-Palestine is currently the only conflict when all 3 heuristics point in one direction. When there was a South Africa, they obsessed about that. Obviously, to any sentient and decent person, it would have been better to reform Apartheid while preserving white rule rather than giving the country to the ANC so they could trash it, but that just isn't how Leftists think.
On SA you lost me at "reform Apartheid". There was no practical manner to do this. It had to be elections and the ANC won, and yes, they trashed the country.
In the UK people like Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins who have attempted to highlight the Muslim sexual exploitation of 100s of thousands of white girls have had to desperately display pro Israel support to effectively stay alive because in the UK only whites can be racist, and thus islamophobic AND anti Semitic. Which is one helluva place to find yourself. And "jewish "people like David Aaronovitch (who described the aforementioned Muslim sexual abuse as generated by" British culture" )and his ilk want to keep them penned there. If the far right (whose casual use should actually be enough to disqualify anyone really but..)and now" rightoid "can't "give up the bad habit "then you my friend have joined them in reversal to type.
David Aaronivitch is half-right. The proliferation of racially-based grooming gangs is the product of the conjunction of dysfunctional low-class white culture in which family breakdown, drug abuse and promiscuity is endemic, and Pakistani culture of extreme misogyny and contempt for racial outsiders. You can attack the problem from either end, but I say do it from both.
Tommy Robinson, to his credit, spent the riots chilling out on the beach. The true leaders of the English working class are the English nobility. There will be no other.
" Dysfunctional low class white culture in which family breakdown, drug abuse and promiscuity is endemic ".Family breakdown is high but drug abuse would not be high and any level of "white promiscuity "rarely involved 11 year olds. Statutory rape is statutory rape, but the Muslim males were never charged because of the Daily Mails" institutional racism "fabrication and the perception that it would boost the electoral prospects for the BNP in the areas most affected by mass Muslim rape.If Tommy Robinson could have affected anything that a UK government wanted he would have been deleted one way or another. And of course David Aaronovitch is your guy
I’m not oblivious to Aaronivitch being of half Jewish descent. Peter Oborne famously made the same argument on Newsnight, so I guess that’s 1-1. However, I would recommend Roger Scruton’s novel ‘The Disappeared’ which illuminates the problem in both its aspects rather than emphasising only one for imagined political gain.
"I may, perhaps, be accused here of abandoning the commitment I made in the first article to analysing antisemitism as a historically defined body of ideas and not as an amorphous spiritual malady, "
How can a person e so smart and so dumb? This brilliant insight, which encapsulates the concept of antisemitism perfectly, is to be found in a series of articles that situates antisemitism ONLY in modern history.
The fact is that when Jews were hounded out of England in 1290, that was antisemitism no less than what happened in Vienna in 1896 and you have not demonstrated their difference.
What will kill anti-Semitism’ or confine it completely to a small segment of ‘lunatic fringe’ subcultures? Frank and open dialogue concerning relations between Jews and non-Jews, including Jewish over representation in certain political and social movements, both historically and contemporary. Double standards for in-group snd out-group, and pursuit of tribal objectives couched in universalist rhetoric.
Jews won’t have an open dialogue, by and large. They’ll talk about The Holocaust and ‘canards.’ This is the problem. It take two to tangle and animosity between groups historically often exists for good reasons not, ‘just because they’re different.’
I think that is broadly correct as a description of contemporary Jewry, but there are plenty of cases where Jews have engaged in such dialogue, and every time this happens antisemitic arguments get shown to be crap.
Good article, but neglects burden of history. 100 years ago you could talk about "Judeo-Bolshevism" with a straight face and have numerous, real examples, and a theory for all the agents in the situation that actually makes sense (under communism no discrimination blah blah blah). There is nothing like that today and so anti-Semitism is extraordinarily unpopular on the right.
I predict that anti-Semitism is not a stable equilibrium on the right. You can see this Candace Owens, who is now blaming Satanic nazis masquerading as Jews instead of Jews. I think it will go the way of Holocaust, a relic of a different world.
Your note about the term "conspiracy theory" being too generous is apt. What is clear with the really hardcore antisemites, as seen in this comments thread, is how any pretensions to intellectual rigor quickly give way to emotional flailing.
Recently I was looking up something to do with Jews and the ancient world, found what seemed like an informative article, then realized the author was consistently lower-casing "jews." The spite and rage that motivates antisemitic reasoning always float to the surface, providing a clear tell that you're dealing with a crank.
Although most antisemites are male, there's something hysterical and womanly about the phenomenon. Hardcore antisemitism combines male autistic tendencies, like the need to systemize, with feminine histrionics (apparent also in the personality of Hitler). As Richard Hanania wrote in his piece on women's tears, "someone without the emotional stability to even participate in the marketplace of ideas isn’t going to have the traits necessary to contribute much to it."
As I love to say: antisemitism is the wokeism of imbeciles
Woke and antisemitism are both imbecilic. Antisemitism is the low agreeableness version of imbecility.
As I love to say, Judaism is a bride gathering cult employing a very specific symbol language to moralize a certain dysgenic racial type and ensure that type has access to breeding stock.
I recently came across the idea that autism(extreme systematizing) and schizophrenia (extreme over attribution of agency) are opposite ends of a personality dimension. I don't know if this idea is correct but if it is I think antisemites lean toward the schizo end of the spectrum.
I'd say it has elements of both. You begin with the need for a "conspiracy deity" (or devil, really) to anthropomorphize the complexity of social reality. Social reality is then systematized--sometimes in a seemingly rational way--to meet this fundamentally irrational need. The mind craves consistency, so the antisemitic system needs to account for why, say, Jewish communists, capitalists, Zionists, anti-Zionists, atheists, and Haredim are all fundamentally aligned toward some shared, malign goal.
If there is a goal that all Jews of conflicting ideological and religious stripes share, you'd think it would be "not getting murdered." Yet somehow alleged Jewish control of both capitalist and communist countries was unable to prevent the Holocaust. The antisemitic response to this world-historical revelation of Jewish powerlessness is, of course, to deny the Holocaust ever happened. If reality doesn't align with the system, then reality needs to be altered to fit the system, not the other way around.
Your last few posts have been really good (I mean maybe they all are, I just have only had the chance to read those). Pointing out how toxic and stupid antisemitism is, when one has become a rightoid late in life, is one of those things that one comes to realize is necessary and yet often shirks from so as not to come across like a schoolmarm, drip, eternal flip-flopper... but it's true. And of all the treatments of antisemitism out there, and its relationship to Rightoid behavior, yours is quite closest to the best.
Good point. You can't fight woke with antisemitism and only bad things can come from trying. We all should push back against it when we have the energy.
True -- but also! I think we can say that in many ways, fighting antisemitism with (what one might call) 'woke' can be a sticky wicket, too. While they are not inaccurate or unwarranted, strictly speaking, I strive to avoid many of the cliches in the anti-bigotry toolbox for reasons of rhetorical efficacy.
Wow, quoted by Richard Hananiah!
https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1828118202225725523
That makes sense. He’s one of the worst people alive.
I can tell you what you are doing, the endgame, and how it all fits together if you’d like.
A lot of Double-Talk & this statement "they see left-wing anti-Israel activism and conclude that it is so perverse, so irrational, so devoid of anything resembling a genuine and sincere interest in improving the general lot of mankind" in itself denies that PROTESTING AGAINST GENOCIDE is indeed VERY Sincere in trying to improve the lot of Mankind! Other than that it advocates for Voting for Kamala Harris w/ NO Regard to the FASCIST History & the making of the #CorporateUniparty & turning our Republic into a FASCIST PLUTOCRACY (Princeton-2014) over the Last 40 Years! Troll like Gobbledy Gook!
7 decades of pro-Palestinian advocacy has done nothing but make the situation of the Palestinians worse. If it was motivated by empathetic altruism, then this would invite a rethink, but since it is motivated by callous altruism, you just keep doubling down on the same thing. For more on your poisonous and destructive mindset, see the following. It's never too late to repent. https://graymirror.substack.com/p/clearpill-yourself-on-gaza
Pro-Palestinian advocacy has hardly made the Palestinian situation worse. The situation has gotten worse due to local dynamics in the Levant, not because of Western activists.
Western activists are just vibing.
This really deserves separate treatment, but I think that being egged on by western supporters plays a significant role in the stupid and self-destructive decisions Palestinians make (not so much Hamas, but definitely the PLO/PA, though Hamas only act the way they do because they have the PLO running interference for them), and it also very obviously feeds into the Israeli victimhood syndrome that also contributes to Palestinian lives getting worse.
In the case of the current war, it's very obvious what empathetic altruism to the Palestinians dictates: pressure Egypt to accept civilian refugees from Gaza. Egypt is more dependent on western aid than Israel, and, unlike Israel, is unambiguously in violation of international law, so this is really a no brainer.
Are you really one of those Israeli right wingers who think “ethnically cleanse / banish the Palestinians and have an Arab country take this mess off our hands” is a workable solution to the problem? Israel has been trying to do this since 1948 with increasing levels of violence and it hasn’t worked! The notion that Egypt will solve Israel’s occupation problem is, sad to say, a fantasy
You are mixing two things up. Egypt is obligated under international law to accept refugees from a war in a neighbouring country. Israel is obligated to allow/facilitate the return of these refugees once the war stops.
Egypt has a legitimate right to ask for support in logistics and credible guarantees from Israel, but it has no right to do what it has actually done. It seems obvious that international pressure would have been better spent here than pressuring Israel to fight in some different way, when no-one even can articulate what that way should look like. The reason it wasn't is because the Palestinian movement is composed of a mixture of generic callous altruists and mad irredentist fanatics.
I think people would be very willing to say how Israel could have fought the Gaza conflict differently. But in general your seeming desire to point the finger at Palestinian nationalist dysfunctionality feels evasive. The Palestinian movement has and has had very little power in the overall conflict. What would be different today if their behavior had been different over the last couple of decades? The PA has been pretty cooperative and what is the situation on the West Bank? Does Palestinian nationalism even have the “option” for sanity given the pressures they are under and the seeming lack of feasible options?
I must admit I'm skeptical. I think opening the floodgates to Gazan refugees is too Nakba-coded for an Egyptian leader to accept, and that if one did he wouldn't be long for this world.
And I don't necessarily mean via a popular revolution. The threat would conceivably come from within the ranks of the dominant Egyptian institution, the Army.
There is a tension between empathy for Palestinians as individuals and sympathy for the Palestinian national cause.
There are various obstacles, but the Sinai is pretty big and Egypt already controls entry in and out of the Sinai because of Bedouin smugglers. It would have taken maybe two months tops to put into place all the necessary logistics. The main point, though, is that if Egypt was put under real financial pressure, it's in no position to refuse, apart from the fact that it is legally obligated to do so.
But even if you think that that's an optimistic analysis, you can *try*. Obviously, what they have been trying hasn't worked at all in any way, but it doesn't stop them from doing it.
For such an approach to be attempted, I'd argue it would take Trump (or a Trump-like figure) in the WH, not institutionalists like Biden and his camarilla. I guess such institutionalism is where we find the connective tissue with the pro-Pal activists, but IMO it's a tenuous connexion.
I would also argue that, since October 7th, the WH has taken a page out of Bibi's habitual playbook: manage the situation and do nothing beyond what your immediate political interest demands of you.
Lastly, attempting to financially browbeat Egypt into doing something that would likely stretch its political system to the breaking point could backfire: what if the Gulf states step in to shield it from Western pressure, for instance?
CIA trained Palestinian shootings are a result of the activism. KGB involvement back in the day is such activism. Hamas buying gopros is for mating with said activism.
Absent support from the “international community”, would Palestine still even control Gaza and the West Bank?
"Palestine" doesn't control the Gaza Strip nor the West Bank. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip (or controlled it until recently, anyway), whereas Israel directly controls most of the West Bank (areas B+C), and indirectly controls the rest (area A).
Israeli maximalists would have liked to controlled A, B, and C, and probably would have done so absent intervention.
And what would that have brought? The last time Israel did that, it ended in the 1st Intifada.
Is this a “bigotry of low expectations” thing? Being ostensibly pro-Palestinian is actually anti-Palestinian? And shedding a tear for the hellacious loss of lives in Gaza is actually callous?
If the Pro-Palestinian folk are actually anti-Palestinian, what is the best thing going for Gazans, then? Who is in their corner?
That's a good question. There are individuals who are genuinely concerned about Palestinians and try to help them, but no institutions, still less countries.
Shedding a tear would be a big improvement. It's not very productive, but at least it's not actually harmful.
You fail to recognize that the source of antisemetism is the recognition that Jews (being powerful and cohesive) act as particularist entity while expecting other groups to act universalist.
I obviously recognise that this is part of antisemitism.
The easiest way to kill antisemitism as a malady is to make the ADL publicly implode. Can elon do it?
Nope. It would be good to this anyway, but it won't kill antisemitism.
Jewish leaders killing the ADL and its ilk, and actively fighting against the ultravictim fetishism would be a good start.
Probably not kill it totally, but little is a bigger show of them being given a special status in the civil rights government. Even my normie friend seeing that stuff remakes “maybe the antisemite has a point” despite being normally rabidly pro liberal and anti fascist and such
Every ideology has a point. Ideologies don't spread because of coherence with the truth they spread because they meet the needs of those who adopt and propagate them.
Liberalism 'has a point' here or there, but it's retarded and makes no sense. It spreads because it's the most adaptive ideology for upscale people in modern society. Antisemitism is the most adaptive ideology in Right Wing echo chambers, so if you want to decrease it, you need to get rid of those spaces. The ADL is correct about this.
Imagine being so disgusting that you have to lobby to get laws passed to stop people from criticizing you.
This is not a response to you, but for the benefit of anyone reading this, I don't think laws restricting antisemitic speech are effective at all. What I mean by getting rid of those spaces is directing young men away from them to environments where they will not be encouraged to indulge the negative elements of their personality.
In the wider world, such laws are bad because in general it's good to be criticised frequently when that criticism is constructive.
It's Judeomasonry, technically. And shooting up random synagogues accomplishes nothing tangible but terrorizing Jewry at large, which some would find admirable.
However, blowing up Davos, Wall Street or all of NYC, Capitol Hill or all of DC, the Judeomasonic HQs or all of San Francisco, and other dens of Judeomasonry, would accomplish much more.
Why all the focus on Western antisemitism, when Muslim antisemitism is an actual military threat right now?
The question of antisemitism in the Muslim world is a complex one. It's certainly true that antisemitism was imported into the Muslim world in the early 19th century, and it's important to understand how and where for a full picture of the history. But I'm not sure it's terribly important to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict. Egypt is a much more antisemitic country than Iran, but geopolitics and broad religious alliances are more important. See Hussein Aboubakr Mansour's Substack for a proper discussion.
To what extent was it ‘imported’ as opposed to being a fundamental part of the religion itself?
As I said, Aboubakr is really the guy to go for this, but in general, I believe the folowing is the case:
1) In traditional Islam, the status of Judaism is basically the same as Christianity. In as much as they differentiated, it was usually in favour of Jews, because Christians were associated with geopolitical rivals.
2) Islam is a pretty rough violent religion with frequent spasms of perseuction. This affected Jews, but not because they were singled out.
3) Antisemitism spread from Europe to Germany along with other harmful ideologies like Marxism, accelerated by the desire to motivate the masses against Zionism.. Some Muslim sources were found to support this imported ideology, which is now strongly embedded in the Muslim world.
Appreciate the reply, I'll have a look at Aboubakr's publications.
I have to disagree with practically all of your points here: Nationalistic (or "Right-wing") antisemitism isn't qualitatively different from any other anti-[insert ethnic group here] sentiment. It may be unique on the scale, but it's not unique in its characteristics from, say, Anti-Irish, Anti-Russian, Anti-French or Anti-Dutch sentiment. During the Anglo-Dutch wars, English propaganda literature wrote that "Holland is a Low Country indeed", basically, if you replaced "Dutch" by "Jews", you could have made your classical antisemite tract out of it.
It is often forgotten the Holocaust targeted Slavs as well; if you count the Non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust as well, the death toll increases to 14 million. Now, there is a religious dimension as well, but again, Anti-Jewish sentiment in the religious sense is not different from Anti-Christian, Anti-Muslim, Anti-Buddhist or Anti-Pagan sentiment. In both cases, these are the result of political circumstances.
In Pre-1933 Germany, Jews were a model minority, akin to Palestinian Christians in Israel and Chinese people in Western countries. Those characteristics made antisemitism appear credible in German politics of the time in ways which are not really relevant in Germany today. Indeed, the contemporary German Far-Right (at least that part who aren't Neo-Nazis) are starting to profess support for Israel and Zionism. By contrast, conflation of antisemitism and opposition to Zionism in US politics, not by defenders of Israel, but by the likes of Nick Fuentes, is a consequence of a combination of divergence of American and Israeli interests on one hand, and the insistence among many American Jews (even those who oppose Zionism) to support Leftist causes in the US. Yes, I am saying that Nick Fuentes represents a Roman Catholic American kind of antisemitism which will probably not replicate in European countries like Germany or Russia, which are both denouncing antisemitism in favour of something akin to a philosemitism.
Bottomline is, Jews as a group have interests which to some degree is measurable. In this regard, Jews are not special compared to other ethnic groups. Thus, antisemitism will appear in societies and circles where being opposed to Jews is politically and economically expedient. Unlike what you say, it is rational, albeit in a rather nasty kind of way.
It's not about whether it's unique or not. Antisemitism is an ideology that you can either subscribe to or not, if you don't believe that then take it up with the inventors of antisemitism.
It's not so much an ideology as it's a sentiment, and sentiments can be subservient to ideology.
It's an ideology. You can dislike Jews without being an antisemite. This is my whole argument. I agree with you that anti-Jewish sentiment should not be conceptualised any different from hatred of another race or ethnic group
Who decides the point at which "dislike "metamorphosises into the 'ideology' of anti Semitism ?
I argue that practically all antisemites operate under a higher ideological framework (of which antisemitism is merely a component which may be temporary) of which antisemitism is a consequence, not a goal.
Say, you want to redistribute wealth from Non-ethnic Germans to ethnic Germans in 1930s Germany. By implication, that is antisemitic, but it's not the main ideology, it's a consequence of that ideology.
Practically all antisemites can be understood as such. Hate porn is not exclusively directed against Jews, but may be targeted against any ethnic group.
Ok, so we differ, and I'm right as to the facts.
If the left is anti semitic for tangential reasons ("make chaos"), and the right is also anti semitic for tangential reasons ("conspiracy"). Aren't both of them equally anti semitic, or in fact, not anti semitic? Maybe there is no anti semitism, rather ignorance that finds convenient outlets?
I think there is a libertarian right, that is not conspiracy theory based, but rather common sense "small government" based.
The Left isn't antisemitic at all because antisemitism is a particular ideology, not anything negative directed at Jews, as I explain here: https://nonzionism.substack.com/p/what-is-antisemitism
Isn’t the left/right distinction you have identified better explained by assuming that the right is honest about its prejudices being rooted in ethno-religious hatred while the left is dishonest? In the latter case, the left seeks to disguise its prejudices as concern for others, the Palestinians, whose crimes the left conveniently ignores.
What is the evidence the Left are doing this?
Obsessive ranting about Israeli violence against Palestinians alongside silence on Palestinians violence against their own people and the violence of other pro western regimes against their own people such as in Egypt. There’s also the silence on genocide against Christians in Armenia and their comparative disinterest in the Rwandan genocide. There’s a lot of evidence of asymmetric and hypocritical concern which if it’s not disguised antisemitism needs a really convincing alternative explanation given that we already know that leftists have a tendency towards dishonesty in politics.
The Left evaluates conflicts based on 3 heuristics. First, which side is more white (bad) or brown (good). Second, which side is more successful and rich (bad) or messed up and poor (good). Third, which side is on team America (bad) or against America (good). I'm putting the matter a bit harshly, but I could easily rephrase that in a way that 90% of Leftists would accept without demurring.
Israel-Palestine is currently the only conflict when all 3 heuristics point in one direction. When there was a South Africa, they obsessed about that. Obviously, to any sentient and decent person, it would have been better to reform Apartheid while preserving white rule rather than giving the country to the ANC so they could trash it, but that just isn't how Leftists think.
On SA you lost me at "reform Apartheid". There was no practical manner to do this. It had to be elections and the ANC won, and yes, they trashed the country.
Think bigger.
Fair comment.
What you dignify as heuristics I call prejudices. Best be clear about these things.
You’re right about South Africa. What happened in Rhodesia was even worse.
Read any Leftist drivel about 'Empire', it's the exact same.
In the UK people like Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins who have attempted to highlight the Muslim sexual exploitation of 100s of thousands of white girls have had to desperately display pro Israel support to effectively stay alive because in the UK only whites can be racist, and thus islamophobic AND anti Semitic. Which is one helluva place to find yourself. And "jewish "people like David Aaronovitch (who described the aforementioned Muslim sexual abuse as generated by" British culture" )and his ilk want to keep them penned there. If the far right (whose casual use should actually be enough to disqualify anyone really but..)and now" rightoid "can't "give up the bad habit "then you my friend have joined them in reversal to type.
David Aaronivitch is half-right. The proliferation of racially-based grooming gangs is the product of the conjunction of dysfunctional low-class white culture in which family breakdown, drug abuse and promiscuity is endemic, and Pakistani culture of extreme misogyny and contempt for racial outsiders. You can attack the problem from either end, but I say do it from both.
Tommy Robinson, to his credit, spent the riots chilling out on the beach. The true leaders of the English working class are the English nobility. There will be no other.
" Dysfunctional low class white culture in which family breakdown, drug abuse and promiscuity is endemic ".Family breakdown is high but drug abuse would not be high and any level of "white promiscuity "rarely involved 11 year olds. Statutory rape is statutory rape, but the Muslim males were never charged because of the Daily Mails" institutional racism "fabrication and the perception that it would boost the electoral prospects for the BNP in the areas most affected by mass Muslim rape.If Tommy Robinson could have affected anything that a UK government wanted he would have been deleted one way or another. And of course David Aaronovitch is your guy
I’m not oblivious to Aaronivitch being of half Jewish descent. Peter Oborne famously made the same argument on Newsnight, so I guess that’s 1-1. However, I would recommend Roger Scruton’s novel ‘The Disappeared’ which illuminates the problem in both its aspects rather than emphasising only one for imagined political gain.
Is that net that you've constructed big enough to contain 2 billion Muslims.
"I may, perhaps, be accused here of abandoning the commitment I made in the first article to analysing antisemitism as a historically defined body of ideas and not as an amorphous spiritual malady, "
How can a person e so smart and so dumb? This brilliant insight, which encapsulates the concept of antisemitism perfectly, is to be found in a series of articles that situates antisemitism ONLY in modern history.
The fact is that when Jews were hounded out of England in 1290, that was antisemitism no less than what happened in Vienna in 1896 and you have not demonstrated their difference.
I wrote a whole article about this.
TL,DR. This word-o-rhea is tedious and unfocused.
What will kill anti-Semitism’ or confine it completely to a small segment of ‘lunatic fringe’ subcultures? Frank and open dialogue concerning relations between Jews and non-Jews, including Jewish over representation in certain political and social movements, both historically and contemporary. Double standards for in-group snd out-group, and pursuit of tribal objectives couched in universalist rhetoric.
A frank and open dialogue will reveal that this is mostly bullshit. In fact, it basically already has.
Jews won’t have an open dialogue, by and large. They’ll talk about The Holocaust and ‘canards.’ This is the problem. It take two to tangle and animosity between groups historically often exists for good reasons not, ‘just because they’re different.’
I think that is broadly correct as a description of contemporary Jewry, but there are plenty of cases where Jews have engaged in such dialogue, and every time this happens antisemitic arguments get shown to be crap.
Conflicts or discord between groups aren’t one-sided affairs. Can we agree on that much?
I wrote that at great length in the prequel to this article.
Good article, but neglects burden of history. 100 years ago you could talk about "Judeo-Bolshevism" with a straight face and have numerous, real examples, and a theory for all the agents in the situation that actually makes sense (under communism no discrimination blah blah blah). There is nothing like that today and so anti-Semitism is extraordinarily unpopular on the right.
I predict that anti-Semitism is not a stable equilibrium on the right. You can see this Candace Owens, who is now blaming Satanic nazis masquerading as Jews instead of Jews. I think it will go the way of Holocaust, a relic of a different world.