The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Israel, They Just Aren't That Into You
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following graph shows how American Jews perceive the importance of various things in defining what it means to be Jewish. The figures are computed by taking the percentages who rate a thing as essential and subtracting from it the percentages who deem it unimportant. The percentages indicating a thing to be important but not essential are netted out:

Israel is of middling concern. Distinctly religiously and ethnically Jewish activities, like observing halakha, being around other Jews, and eating gefilte fish are viewed as even less important than caring about Israel is. Secular victimization and the future prevention of victimization are considered to be the central aspects of what being Jewish means.

Questioning the Holocaust hits Jews in way similar to how questioning Muhammad’s existence hits Muslims, questioning the right of whites to have a distinct future hits white nationalists, and questioning the predominance of lowering corporate tax rates hits Conservatism Inc. The Holocaust is fundamental to how American Jews view the world. What happens to Israel is not.

Jay Fink, a regular commenter who is Jewish, recently counseled readers to “keep in mind American Jews are liberals first and Jews second”. The data appear to be bear him out.

 
• Category: History, Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Jews, Polling 
Hide 126 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. As a Jew it always was a pet peeve of mine that other Jews endlessly dwell on the holocaust. To me the Holocaust is more an embarrassment than anything, and should not only not be a focus for Jews but should be buried already. Seriously, it’s like blacks dwelling on slavery. Just get over it.

    Then again, I’m definetly an outlier Jews. Tbh I don’t care about anything on this list except perhaps leading an ethical and moral life, and that has nothing to do with Judaism specifically for me, just a general life guideline.

    • Thanks: Ian Smith
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Jackbnimble123

    My feeling with these things is that it gets put into history when the last people who can remember it die.

    World War 1 has gone that way. World War 2 in on the verge of it. Reparations, and so on, can only come from, and be given to, generations that were actually involved.

    Everyone else seems to disagree with me and think that the older the injustice the better for obsessing over. Perhaps it is easier to represent older injustices without context and so more easily demonise "the other"? Or beatify one's ancestors?

    Irish people, in Britain, are prone to ranting about Oliver Cromwell. They don't seem to be having fun. It is confusing. 400 hundred years of resentment is a lot. I can barely hold onto resentment for 4 hours.

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Jackbnimble123

    In my travels among the Orthodox, they were almost totally uninterested in the Holocaust. Their lives are so intimately bound up in religion, ritual, and family, they just didn't have the time.

    The one time I did engage w/one about the H, he told me that it was God's punishment (excuse me, G-d's" punishment) for the Jews for straying from the holy path. If he were Christian he'd get canceled for that. In fact Abe Foxperson did once slam some Christian preacher for saying that.

  2. I would say liberal and jew go hand in hand 9.99 times out of 10.

  3. The Jews erroneously believe they are safe in the West.
    They are wrong of course, about just about everything.

    The Palestinian Colony was to hedge the bets of the Rothschilds.
    A place to run to, when the Nazi thing happens.

    Communists birth Nazism and Fascism.
    Only Fascism can crush the STUPIDITY of Marxism.

    The spineless “conservatives” have caved to every Jewish nonsense.
    They are WORSE THAN USELESS.

    Fascism is the Future. Face the facts.
    Be the National Socialist. Embrace it.

    )))They((( will call anyone White a Nazi. They are STUPID that way.
    Embrace it. Eliminate your deadliest enemies.

    Crush them. Listen to the lamentations of their women.
    IT IS WHAT IS BEST IN LIFE!

    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Dr. Doom

    👌

  4. Agrees with my observations, but hard to reconcile with American policy.

    Maybe, American policy is driven by boomer donors, who hold different priorities?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @songbird


    Agrees with my observations, but hard to reconcile with American policy.

    Maybe, American policy is driven by boomer donors, who hold different priorities?
     
    That's plausible.

    There's also the military-industrial complex to consider.

    Governments often use foreign policy to distract attention away from embarrassing domestic policy failures. If you're the government and you don't have a clue what to do about the economy of healthcare or housing then a foreign policy crisis (or better yet a war) is just what you want.

    While Israel does to an extent drive US foreign policy you also have to consider that sometimes it's the US using Israel to advance American imperial interests in the Middle East.

    Replies: @songbird, @iffen

    , @SFG
    @songbird

    Probably.

    After all, Jews represent 13%...um, 2% of Americans but 50% of Democratic party donations. (https://www.jpost.com/us-elections/us-jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-democratic-party-468774) Less for the GOP but you remember how powerful Adelson was.

    Also as dfordoom says supporting Israel is a method of force projection in the Middle East, albeit a diplomatically very expensive one.

    I don't really care that much about Israel one way or the other (though I don't think they're responsible for every problem in the world the way many of the Unz writers think they are...it's not really clear Israel, as distinct from American Jewish liberals like the ADL, supports open borders for the USA, for example, and they've had good relations with nationalist European countries like Russia and Hungary), but I hate this left-wing anti-white 'anti-racist' stuff. I am in the extreme minority however.

    The small fraction that doesn't support left-wing social justice initiatives or wars for Israel mostly just sulks and whines on alt-right-adjacent boards like this one. ;)

    Replies: @songbird

    , @Jtgw
    @songbird

    Think about it. The Israel lobby represents a tiny minority of Americans but wields outsize influence. Why wouldn’t the same apply to Jews themselves? Even if most Jews are apathetic about Israel they aren’t the ones wielding influence over policy.

  5. American Jews are so uninterested in Israel they spend millions of dollars in donations and have incredibly powerful political organisations promoting Israeli interests.

    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
    @Kent Nationalist

    Yes-one hesitates to say it, but perhaps some respondents were being a little liberal with the truth. Perhaps they even lie a little to themselves.

    Replies: @animalogic

  6. Of course, another way of looking at that graph is ‘what’s the most important specific concern that implies political activism?’

    Why, it would be Israel. After all, ‘remembering the Holocaust’ doesn’t necessarily require doing much of anything. It would be illuminating to rank ‘Israel’ alongside ‘promoting racial equity,’ working for open borders,’ etc.

    • Replies: @JL
    @Colin Wright

    No, it would be "working for justice and equality", did you even look at the graph?. You missed the salient point that American Jews are liberals first and Jews second. I know some hardcore American zionist Jews who freely admit that Trump was probably the best President ever for Israel, but they could never bring themselves to vote for him. My guess is that this is even more typical as you move down the caring for Israel curve.

    Replies: @SFG, @Colin Wright

  7. @songbird
    Agrees with my observations, but hard to reconcile with American policy.

    Maybe, American policy is driven by boomer donors, who hold different priorities?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @SFG, @Jtgw

    Agrees with my observations, but hard to reconcile with American policy.

    Maybe, American policy is driven by boomer donors, who hold different priorities?

    That’s plausible.

    There’s also the military-industrial complex to consider.

    Governments often use foreign policy to distract attention away from embarrassing domestic policy failures. If you’re the government and you don’t have a clue what to do about the economy of healthcare or housing then a foreign policy crisis (or better yet a war) is just what you want.

    While Israel does to an extent drive US foreign policy you also have to consider that sometimes it’s the US using Israel to advance American imperial interests in the Middle East.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @dfordoom

    Good points. I guess it is also possible that Israel acts as its own lobbying organization kind of like Saudi Arabia, but with the help of an American network of Jews.

    , @iffen
    @dfordoom

    advance American imperial interests

    Albert!

    I've lost my pearls.

  8. It serves no purpose of mine to challange their “memory of the holocaust”. Be as Jewish as you wanna be. My beef is with the governments of Israel and the US.

  9. JL says:
    @Colin Wright
    Of course, another way of looking at that graph is 'what's the most important specific concern that implies political activism?'

    Why, it would be Israel. After all, 'remembering the Holocaust' doesn't necessarily require doing much of anything. It would be illuminating to rank 'Israel' alongside 'promoting racial equity,' working for open borders,' etc.

    Replies: @JL

    No, it would be “working for justice and equality”, did you even look at the graph?. You missed the salient point that American Jews are liberals first and Jews second. I know some hardcore American zionist Jews who freely admit that Trump was probably the best President ever for Israel, but they could never bring themselves to vote for him. My guess is that this is even more typical as you move down the caring for Israel curve.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @JL

    Some of the right-wing ones (who tend to lean Orthodox) will use it as their reason for voting for him. I've known a few myself. Also they don't like the left.

    They are a lot less numerous though.

    , @Colin Wright
    @JL

    'No, it would be “working for justice and equality”, did you even look at the graph?'

    I did see that. However, 'working for justice and equality' is a tad vague -- I could argue I'm for 'justice and equality.'

    But my definition might not be the same as yours. For example, I might see 'justice' as more death penalties for blacks. But specific policy -- allowing unrestricted immigration, combatting the supposed racism of policing in America, supporting Israel -- how would those rank?

  10. @JL
    @Colin Wright

    No, it would be "working for justice and equality", did you even look at the graph?. You missed the salient point that American Jews are liberals first and Jews second. I know some hardcore American zionist Jews who freely admit that Trump was probably the best President ever for Israel, but they could never bring themselves to vote for him. My guess is that this is even more typical as you move down the caring for Israel curve.

    Replies: @SFG, @Colin Wright

    Some of the right-wing ones (who tend to lean Orthodox) will use it as their reason for voting for him. I’ve known a few myself. Also they don’t like the left.

    They are a lot less numerous though.

  11. SFG says:
    @songbird
    Agrees with my observations, but hard to reconcile with American policy.

    Maybe, American policy is driven by boomer donors, who hold different priorities?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @SFG, @Jtgw

    Probably.

    After all, Jews represent 13%…um, 2% of Americans but 50% of Democratic party donations. (https://www.jpost.com/us-elections/us-jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-democratic-party-468774) Less for the GOP but you remember how powerful Adelson was.

    Also as dfordoom says supporting Israel is a method of force projection in the Middle East, albeit a diplomatically very expensive one.

    I don’t really care that much about Israel one way or the other (though I don’t think they’re responsible for every problem in the world the way many of the Unz writers think they are…it’s not really clear Israel, as distinct from American Jewish liberals like the ADL, supports open borders for the USA, for example, and they’ve had good relations with nationalist European countries like Russia and Hungary), but I hate this left-wing anti-white ‘anti-racist’ stuff. I am in the extreme minority however.

    The small fraction that doesn’t support left-wing social justice initiatives or wars for Israel mostly just sulks and whines on alt-right-adjacent boards like this one. 😉

    • Replies: @songbird
    @SFG

    I guess the older generations didn't face the same social pressure to disavow Israel, as they probably interacted with few Muslims and had no social media.

    We should also allow for the possibility that they are fibbing and care more than they say.

    Replies: @Wency

  12. anonymous[279] • Disclaimer says:

    The perfidious “holocaust” narrative is how the juden get to keep control of the west. Without the satanic west, they and their Israevil entity are toast.

    No wonder it figures at the top of the chart.

  13. Does “Leading an ethical and moral life,” include attacking Christianity and Whites?

    Does “Working for justice and equality,” include backing and promoting every radical movement harmful to the host society? Drag queen story hour? Diversity at gunpoint? Reparations?

    • Agree: Realist, Dutch Boy
    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    @Sick of Orcs

    This Holocaustianity is merely a secular substitute for the old Talmud-based hostility to gentiles in general and Christians in particular. Same package, different wrapping.

  14. @Dr. Doom
    The Jews erroneously believe they are safe in the West.
    They are wrong of course, about just about everything.

    The Palestinian Colony was to hedge the bets of the Rothschilds.
    A place to run to, when the Nazi thing happens.

    Communists birth Nazism and Fascism.
    Only Fascism can crush the STUPIDITY of Marxism.

    The spineless "conservatives" have caved to every Jewish nonsense.
    They are WORSE THAN USELESS.

    Fascism is the Future. Face the facts.
    Be the National Socialist. Embrace it.

    )))They((( will call anyone White a Nazi. They are STUPID that way.
    Embrace it. Eliminate your deadliest enemies.

    Crush them. Listen to the lamentations of their women.
    IT IS WHAT IS BEST IN LIFE!

    Replies: @El Dato

    👌

  15. Jay Fink, a regular commenter who is Jewish, recently counseled readers to “keep in mind American Jews are liberals first and Jews second”. The data appear to be bear him out.

    People keep trying to claim that the media is “Jewish Controlled”. Jay’s observation shines a spotlight on the underlying contradiction. The media is “SJW Liberal Controlled”, which is expressed by Anti-Semitism.

    The New York Times has been caught fabricating & circulating Pro-Terrorist propaganda: (1)

    The New York Times posted the photo of a child who allegedly died in Gaza in 2021, in fighting between Israel and Hamas, which rules Gaza and fired thousands of rockets into Israel. But it wasn’t a photo of that child. Hussein Aboubakr Mansour says it was “a random photo from ‘cute Muslim toddlers’ online photo stocks that have been circulating for many years.

    Hamas and @nytimes are literally trolling the world.”

    The same photo was used in 2017 for another child who allegedly died in Gaza, notes law professor David Bernstein. As he observes, the “angelic photo” supposedly of this child published in the New York Times in 2021, was previously used in 2017 for a child with a different name, who supposedly died in that year. As Bernstein notes, “this is what happens” when “the Times ‘reaches out’ to a terrorist-tied organization for information.”

    Based on the observed facts, it looks like “Anti-Jewish American Jews” are running Pro-Islamic, Anti-Semitic outlets such as NYT, CNN, WaPo, and MSNBC.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://libertyunyielding.com/2021/06/01/nyt-tries-to-pass-off-stock-photo-of-cute-muslim-toddler-as-child-killed-in-gaza/

  16. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    Agrees with my observations, but hard to reconcile with American policy.

    Maybe, American policy is driven by boomer donors, who hold different priorities?
     
    That's plausible.

    There's also the military-industrial complex to consider.

    Governments often use foreign policy to distract attention away from embarrassing domestic policy failures. If you're the government and you don't have a clue what to do about the economy of healthcare or housing then a foreign policy crisis (or better yet a war) is just what you want.

    While Israel does to an extent drive US foreign policy you also have to consider that sometimes it's the US using Israel to advance American imperial interests in the Middle East.

    Replies: @songbird, @iffen

    Good points. I guess it is also possible that Israel acts as its own lobbying organization kind of like Saudi Arabia, but with the help of an American network of Jews.

  17. @SFG
    @songbird

    Probably.

    After all, Jews represent 13%...um, 2% of Americans but 50% of Democratic party donations. (https://www.jpost.com/us-elections/us-jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-democratic-party-468774) Less for the GOP but you remember how powerful Adelson was.

    Also as dfordoom says supporting Israel is a method of force projection in the Middle East, albeit a diplomatically very expensive one.

    I don't really care that much about Israel one way or the other (though I don't think they're responsible for every problem in the world the way many of the Unz writers think they are...it's not really clear Israel, as distinct from American Jewish liberals like the ADL, supports open borders for the USA, for example, and they've had good relations with nationalist European countries like Russia and Hungary), but I hate this left-wing anti-white 'anti-racist' stuff. I am in the extreme minority however.

    The small fraction that doesn't support left-wing social justice initiatives or wars for Israel mostly just sulks and whines on alt-right-adjacent boards like this one. ;)

    Replies: @songbird

    I guess the older generations didn’t face the same social pressure to disavow Israel, as they probably interacted with few Muslims and had no social media.

    We should also allow for the possibility that they are fibbing and care more than they say.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @songbird

    I think there's more to it than that -- I think two things are happening:

    For one, Jewish identity is fading among the non-Orthodox young, many of whom are only half-Jews anyway. That "leftist first, Jew second" feeling, while still present among Boomers, is a lot stronger among later generations.

    But second, the Boomers remember an Israel that was perceived as seriously threatened by neighbors who (so the story goes) wanted to drive Israel into the sea and enact a second Holocaust. People my age only know decades of tit-for-tat with Palestinians who, regardless of what flaws and evils you want to assign to them, are very visibly outgunned.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @songbird, @dfordoom

  18. The second most widely held belief among Jews is Leading an ethical and moral life….there are plenty of Jews that do not hold that position.

  19. It’s worth noting that American Evangelicals aren’t really that concerned with Jews for their own sake. It’s just considered necessary for Israel to exist so that Jesus can come back.

    Strange as it is to consider, I would suspect that the importance of Israel would probably rank higher for Evangelicals than Jewish Americans.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Barbarossa


    American Evangelicals aren’t really that concerned with Jews for their own sake. It’s just considered necessary for Israel to exist so that Jesus can come back.
     
    I'm an Evangelical (though not a Dispensationalist, which I consider mostly a Boomer theology that's been losing ground for decades), and I *think* this is mostly a falsehood spread about the Dispensationalists by people outside the movement. Or it's something only believed by a sliver of Dispensationalists (you can find any point of view on the Internet, and there are some real end-times-obsessed souls that fall under the Dispensationalist label, but most of them are not that way). I've never heard a Christian express "bringing on the Apocalypse" as a goal, but I have heard non-Christians (including Jews) say that it's a common Christian goal more than once.

    Most Dispensationalist support for Israel comes down to something more like "Israel is blessed and has been granted to the Jews forever, the Jews are still especially blessed and remain God's Chosen despite rejecting Christ, and God will bless Christians who uphold their duty to protect them and their rights to the land of Israel."

    Also, I think many Republicans support Israel for secular, normie-con reasons (supporting what they see as the civilized, quasi-European state over the Arab Muslim terrorist fanatic Al Qaeda/ISIS barbarians) and some of them just happen to wear the Evangelical label.

    Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink, @Barbarossa, @Hermes

  20. @songbird
    @SFG

    I guess the older generations didn't face the same social pressure to disavow Israel, as they probably interacted with few Muslims and had no social media.

    We should also allow for the possibility that they are fibbing and care more than they say.

    Replies: @Wency

    I think there’s more to it than that — I think two things are happening:

    For one, Jewish identity is fading among the non-Orthodox young, many of whom are only half-Jews anyway. That “leftist first, Jew second” feeling, while still present among Boomers, is a lot stronger among later generations.

    But second, the Boomers remember an Israel that was perceived as seriously threatened by neighbors who (so the story goes) wanted to drive Israel into the sea and enact a second Holocaust. People my age only know decades of tit-for-tat with Palestinians who, regardless of what flaws and evils you want to assign to them, are very visibly outgunned.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Wency

    There's also a third difference: in 1967, Israel was functionally a Western nation, and it appealed to a generation of American Jews based on that fact back in the heyday of Cold War liberalism. It isn't now and hasn't been for a while, between the influx of Jews from the Middle East after 1967 and the post-USSR exodus in the 1990s. (Israel has more Russian speakers than any country outside the former USSR, and Russian organized crime is a side problem for Israel's security agencies to deal with when they aren't busy dickering with Hamas.) Nor do younger American Jews-or liberals more generally-care about that.

    Interestingly enough, a lot of people on Capitol Hill still seem to think of it as the former. This is true particularly of Republicans, of course, but this also applies to older Democrats like Schumer or Biden.

    Replies: @anon

    , @songbird
    @Wency

    I think a lot of Jews are true internationalists, and maybe kind of sympathetic to global government. But, then again, I believe that there aren't a lot of Jewish Americans contemplating a move to Israel, based on comparative advantage - it might be a fall in standard of living - and how many want to fight in the army, or have their kids do so? Maybe, it would be different for Russian Jews?

    Though Nebulafox makes good point, when he mentions demographics. Ashkenazim and Mizrahim are kind of alien groups to each other, and then there are the Arabs. Also, traditionally, Western Jews seem to have had disdain for the ones from Eastern Europe or Russia. And relatively few Jews in Israel came from the West, I think.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @dfordoom
    @Wency


    But second, the Boomers remember an Israel that was perceived as seriously threatened by neighbors who (so the story goes) wanted to drive Israel into the sea and enact a second Holocaust.
     
    Yes. The "plucky little Israel hopelessly outnumbered by murderous hordes" thing. It's incredibly difficult to persuade Boomers to give that idea up. I know because I used to buy into it as well.

    Among younger generations even Jews seem to be sceptical of the "plucky little Israel" idea.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  21. The Holocaust is fundamental to how American Jews view the world. What happens to Israel is not.

    If that is the case, then as far as Israel goes, I shall be satisfied with [i] extricating U.S. soldiers like my son from Israel’s wars, [ii] disentangling U.S. foreign policy from Israel’s, and [iii] abolishing dual citizenship. Israel can then go her way without opposition from me.

    The Holocaust however is a projection of what powerful Jews are trying to do to me and my fellow heritage Americans right now.

    Ones wishes that more Jews would hearken to Mark Levin, the late Barry Farber, and the happily remembered Irving Berlin: whatever part of the Holocaust narrative is fact and whatever part is fiction (for Jews have so tightly controlled the narrative that gentiles have zero reason to afford Jews the benefit of the doubt in the matter), [a] Jews are not the only people that suffered during World War II and [b] the U.S. responded to Pearl Harbor by arming herself and marching to war in 1942 against the Jews’ designated Nazi foe, at no small cost to American life and limb.

    Attacking the U.S.S. Liberty, murdering George Lincoln Rockwell, deposing Richard M. Nixon, and alienating the Panama Canal to secure repayment of Marine Midland’s Panamanian loan, all 20 to 40 years after the war, were serious offenses. Jews cannot treat Americans like that and not expect to pay a price.

    No people deserves less to be punished for the Holocaust than Americans do. This is why the sustained, hysterical, paranoid Jewish effort to punish Americans anyway is so deeply offensive.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Thanks: Angharad
    • Replies: @SFG
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Why not bring up the Hart-Celler Act or modern wokeness? I mean, nobody outside of a right-wing site cares much about the USS Liberty (most people these days weren't even born), and Rockwell was killed by a disgruntled ex-Nazi of Greek ancestry. I doubt anyone has heard of the Panama Canal outside of a history book nowadays, and do you really think you're going to get people exercised about the killing of a Nazi by a rival Nazi? Rockwell was considered a wacko extremist back then. Most people I talk to about the Liberty go, "Isn't that a long time ago?"

    Immigration changed the country. Wokeness is destroying it now. These are things of relevance to people's lives now.

    Ironically I agree about the extrication of US soldiers from Israel's wars and Israel's influence from foreign policy.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  22. @Barbarossa
    It’s worth noting that American Evangelicals aren’t really that concerned with Jews for their own sake. It’s just considered necessary for Israel to exist so that Jesus can come back.

    Strange as it is to consider, I would suspect that the importance of Israel would probably rank higher for Evangelicals than Jewish Americans.

    Replies: @Wency

    American Evangelicals aren’t really that concerned with Jews for their own sake. It’s just considered necessary for Israel to exist so that Jesus can come back.

    I’m an Evangelical (though not a Dispensationalist, which I consider mostly a Boomer theology that’s been losing ground for decades), and I *think* this is mostly a falsehood spread about the Dispensationalists by people outside the movement. Or it’s something only believed by a sliver of Dispensationalists (you can find any point of view on the Internet, and there are some real end-times-obsessed souls that fall under the Dispensationalist label, but most of them are not that way). I’ve never heard a Christian express “bringing on the Apocalypse” as a goal, but I have heard non-Christians (including Jews) say that it’s a common Christian goal more than once.

    Most Dispensationalist support for Israel comes down to something more like “Israel is blessed and has been granted to the Jews forever, the Jews are still especially blessed and remain God’s Chosen despite rejecting Christ, and God will bless Christians who uphold their duty to protect them and their rights to the land of Israel.”

    Also, I think many Republicans support Israel for secular, normie-con reasons (supporting what they see as the civilized, quasi-European state over the Arab Muslim terrorist fanatic Al Qaeda/ISIS barbarians) and some of them just happen to wear the Evangelical label.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Wency

    I’m an Evangelical (though not a Dispensationalist, which I consider mostly a Boomer theology that’s been losing ground for decades), and I *think* this is mostly a falsehood spread about the Dispensationalists by people outside the movement. Or it’s something only believed by a sliver of Dispensationalists

    I have known Protestants who read Hal Lindsay's book, and swallowed it, who then kind of fell off of the edge of reality. Ever read any of the "Left Behind" books? There are Christian schools with a complete set in the school library. It's tedious.

    I’ve never heard a Christian express “bringing on the Apocalypse” as a goal,

    I've heard something close to it. But only from Boomers. Obsession with signs and portents - "red heifer born!" - is something Christians are explicitly told not to do. This is a subset of a subset of a subset: a sliver of Protestant Evangelicals. But they were apparently pretty visible in the 80's and 90's.

    I dunno what kind of hubris leads people to believe they can bring on the Apocalypse, but it's pretty sad stuff. Fortunately the error of Dispensationalism is as you say, fading out.

    , @Jay Fink
    @Wency

    I relate to the Republican reasons to support Israel. The whole secular western state vs. Islamic extremist thing makes me want to side with Israel.

    The problem is when you delve into it further you discover Israel (and the U.S for decades on end) support the Islamics over the secularists in the Middle East. Israel (and American neolibs) have more of a problem with secular Assad than they do Sunni extremists, including ISIS it would seem (who Assad has fought).

    What I have always wondered is this favoritism towards radical Islam random or not? Are the secular countries and leaders more of a threat to Israel by coincidence? Or is there some other reason Israel/USA has such a problem with the Muslim world being secular? This has been going on since at least the Afghanistan/Russia war circa 1979/80 when we sided with what would become the Taliban.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @Barbarossa
    @Wency

    Your point about Dispensationalists is worthwhile. My personal experience has been more on the Catholic/ Orthodox spectrum, although I did attend a Southern Baptist church with my wife at her behest when we were first married. I do know a pretty wide slice of Evangelicals though and I have personally heard plenty of talk of Israel and the End Times and fulfilling prophesy. Evangelicalism encompasses such a wide spectrum that it's not really possible to paint with too wide a brush, so you are certainly correct that I am over generalizing about the motivations of Evangelical support for Israel.

    I've always found it exceedingly strange to walk into churches that have the American flag on one side and the Israeli flag on the other. It also seems strange to me how support for Israel is taken as a given, with very little critical thought or analysis going into it. Especially since Israel is far more of a secular ethnic state far more than it is any kind of biblical religious entity.

    Fr. Elias Chacour, a Melkite Palestinian priest wrote a couple of books ("Blood Brothers" and "We Belong to the Land") on his experience as a Palestinian Christian which I highly recommend for a rarely heard perspective.

    The really ironic thing about the normie-con reasoning on knee jerk support for Israel is that their idea of Arabs is most fitting to our "friends" in Saudi Arabia and their extreme Wahhabism that it is of many of Israel's Shia enemies. The Muslims most dangerous to the West are actually those Israel has made understandings with.

    , @Hermes
    @Wency

    This idea that philosemitic evangelicals don't really love Jews, instead merely viewing them as chess pieces to be shuffled about to bring about the end times, is common among leftists, and not just leftist Jews, but all leftists. I read an article a year or two ago, which I can't find now, by a guy who had grown up evangelical, and had a Jewish friend who mad a casual, offhand, matter-of-fact remark about how evangelicals believe that once all the Jews are gathered in Israel, Jesus is going to kill them all. The author was taken aback, and told his friend that during all his years growing up in the evangelical world he had never heard anything like that, and he's sure that's not what evangelicals believe, but his Jewish friend simply wouldn't believe him. To him, it was just one of those things "everybody knows," that evangelicals want to corral all the Jews into Israel so Jesus can slaughter them.

    In reality, evangelical philosemitism is based mainly on these ideas of God “keeping his promises,” that the Jews are "God's chosen people," and that God’s Old Testament promises about giving that land to the Israelites are still are in force today. See this article by Richard Land, president of Southern Theological Seminary, or this speech by Pat Robertson:

    https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-10-24/why-american-evangelicals-are-huge-base-support-israel
    http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/IsraelLauder.asp

    There's nothing in there about the end times. It's all about how in Genesis 12 God says to Abram “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed,” and about God keeping his promises and the Jews being God's chosen people.

    The most philosemitic evangelical I personally know seems take this idea of the Jews being "God's chosen people" almost to mean that they are specially created, divine beings, like angels.

  23. Questioning the Holocaust hits Jews in way similar to how questioning Muhammad’s existence hits Muslims, questioning the right of whites to have a distinct future hits white nationalists, and questioning the predominance of lowering corporate tax rates hits Conservatism Inc. The Holocaust is fundamental to how American Jews view the world. What happens to Israel is not.

    I say:

    HOLOCAUST word was used in a screwball comedy romantic lark type movie from 1940 and that moron boy baby boomer money-grubber named Springsteen warbled on in a song promoting GloboHomo in a movie with that annoying baby boomer turd named Hanks and the James Stewart movie and the Hanks movie featured Philadelphia and that guy that Hitchcock directed four times with a first name the same as the Virginia Company colony started in 1607 called Jamestown did his best reserved Scottish guy gets emotional acting and don’t all the movie watchers love that Jimmy Stewart.

    ATTENTION ALL JEWS:

    GIVE ALL THAT HOLOCAUST HORSESHIT A REST, WHY DONTCHA?

    I think this is the clip with Stewart using the word now-sanctified by the Jews (((HOLOCAUST))):

  24. HOLOCAUST-HAUNTED JEWS FUND THE ANTI-WHITE ADL AND THE ANTI-WHITE SPLC

    Israel and Holocaust Horseshit and Jews brings up nation-wrecking Mass Immigration and the rancid Republican Party members of the Republican party CHEAP LABOR FACTION.

    I wrote this in April of 2017 and it still stands up pretty good:

    The Cheap Labor Faction in the Republican Party has relied on anti-White groups such as the SPLC to stop debate on immigration, demography and multiculturalism. It is a simple plan that gets Holocausthaunted Hebrews to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars to the SPLC to attack anyone who calls for reductions to legal immigration and/or the deportation of illegal alien invaders.

    The corporate propaganda apparatus — which is controlled by bankers(Rothschild, Goldman Sachs…etc) and transnational corporations(Unilever, General Electric…etc.) — parrots the attacks from the SLPC in their newspapers, radio, television and the internet.

    The treasonous whores in the Republican Party Cheap Labor Faction(Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, John McCain…etc) cloak their open borders immigration whoredom in benevolence and they attack their opponents as nativist bigots. The whores in the GOP Cheap Labor Faction know that the mass media will parrot the anti-White attacks from the SPLC. They know these attacks will stop debate on the subject of mass immigration and multiculturalism.

    The SPLC has Jew donors who want to attack the European Christian ancestral core of the United States using mass immigration as a demographic weapon. The SPLC is given the mass media megaphone to attack those who want immigration reductions as racist or anti-Jew. The GOP Cheap Labor Faction is happy to see patriots who want immigration reductions attacked nonstop in the corporate mass media. The evil, anti-White rodents who run the SPLC are supported by the entirety of the ruling class of the rotting American Empire.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/splc-needs-your-help-to-build-time-machine-to-send-cyborg-assassin-back-to-past-to-kill-dr-john-tanton-as-a-baby/#comment-1848769

  25. Israel does what it is in Israeli interests to do, like any serious nation would. For what it is worth, I respect sincere Israelis, Chinese, Russians, or Muslims-or anybody else-who honestly fight for their side infinitely more than our post-Cold War elites.

    It should go without saying that we are not a serious nation. Though the recent polls about foreign policy show the real impact of 2003 on the American public. I’ve said it repeatedly here: there’s nowhere where elite and lay opinion in the United States diverge more than foreign policy, when push comes to shove.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @nebulafox

    'Israel does what it is in Israeli interests to do, like any serious nation would...'

    The difficulty is that the Israeli 'nation' is located in a land always inhabited by and still inhabited by another people.

    If Palestine had had the same density of indigenous population that California did when my ancestors came there in 1864, there would have been only nine thousand Palestinians.

    It would at least arguably indeed have been 'a land without people for a people without a land.'

    But there weren't nine thousand Palestinians. There were a million. Today, there are five million -- and that's just the Palestinians under Jewish rule.

    I have a right to my car. It's mine. It doesn't follow that I have a right to your car.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @iffen, @Bill Jones

    , @anon
    @nebulafox

    there’s nowhere where elite and lay opinion in the United States diverge more than foreign policy,

    Only if you explicitly include immigration and border security inside of "foreign policy".

    Replies: @nebulafox

  26. It’s A HOLOCAUST Of Love In The Land Of Ten Thousand Lakes!

    How Are The Perch Biting?

    Perch Fight In Tugs And Bass Fight With Sustained Resistance

    97 Degrees Is Too Hot For Minnesota And New England.

    Tweet from 2017:

    Tweet from 2019:

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Charles Pewitt

    It's a good column.

  27. anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wency
    @Barbarossa


    American Evangelicals aren’t really that concerned with Jews for their own sake. It’s just considered necessary for Israel to exist so that Jesus can come back.
     
    I'm an Evangelical (though not a Dispensationalist, which I consider mostly a Boomer theology that's been losing ground for decades), and I *think* this is mostly a falsehood spread about the Dispensationalists by people outside the movement. Or it's something only believed by a sliver of Dispensationalists (you can find any point of view on the Internet, and there are some real end-times-obsessed souls that fall under the Dispensationalist label, but most of them are not that way). I've never heard a Christian express "bringing on the Apocalypse" as a goal, but I have heard non-Christians (including Jews) say that it's a common Christian goal more than once.

    Most Dispensationalist support for Israel comes down to something more like "Israel is blessed and has been granted to the Jews forever, the Jews are still especially blessed and remain God's Chosen despite rejecting Christ, and God will bless Christians who uphold their duty to protect them and their rights to the land of Israel."

    Also, I think many Republicans support Israel for secular, normie-con reasons (supporting what they see as the civilized, quasi-European state over the Arab Muslim terrorist fanatic Al Qaeda/ISIS barbarians) and some of them just happen to wear the Evangelical label.

    Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink, @Barbarossa, @Hermes

    I’m an Evangelical (though not a Dispensationalist, which I consider mostly a Boomer theology that’s been losing ground for decades), and I *think* this is mostly a falsehood spread about the Dispensationalists by people outside the movement. Or it’s something only believed by a sliver of Dispensationalists

    I have known Protestants who read Hal Lindsay’s book, and swallowed it, who then kind of fell off of the edge of reality. Ever read any of the “Left Behind” books? There are Christian schools with a complete set in the school library. It’s tedious.

    I’ve never heard a Christian express “bringing on the Apocalypse” as a goal,

    I’ve heard something close to it. But only from Boomers. Obsession with signs and portents – “red heifer born!” – is something Christians are explicitly told not to do. This is a subset of a subset of a subset: a sliver of Protestant Evangelicals. But they were apparently pretty visible in the 80’s and 90’s.

    I dunno what kind of hubris leads people to believe they can bring on the Apocalypse, but it’s pretty sad stuff. Fortunately the error of Dispensationalism is as you say, fading out.

  28. It should go without saying that we are not a serious nation. Though the recent polls about foreign policy show the real impact of 2003 on the American public. I’ve said it repeatedly here: there’s nowhere where elite and lay opinion in the United States diverge more than foreign policy, when push comes to shove.

    I say:

    The wide gap between the Ruling Class of the American Empire and the voting public on the IMMIGRATION ISSUE might be even bigger than the gap between ruling class and voters on foreign policy.

  29. @JL
    @Colin Wright

    No, it would be "working for justice and equality", did you even look at the graph?. You missed the salient point that American Jews are liberals first and Jews second. I know some hardcore American zionist Jews who freely admit that Trump was probably the best President ever for Israel, but they could never bring themselves to vote for him. My guess is that this is even more typical as you move down the caring for Israel curve.

    Replies: @SFG, @Colin Wright

    ‘No, it would be “working for justice and equality”, did you even look at the graph?’

    I did see that. However, ‘working for justice and equality’ is a tad vague — I could argue I’m for ‘justice and equality.’

    But my definition might not be the same as yours. For example, I might see ‘justice’ as more death penalties for blacks. But specific policy — allowing unrestricted immigration, combatting the supposed racism of policing in America, supporting Israel — how would those rank?

  30. @Wency
    @songbird

    I think there's more to it than that -- I think two things are happening:

    For one, Jewish identity is fading among the non-Orthodox young, many of whom are only half-Jews anyway. That "leftist first, Jew second" feeling, while still present among Boomers, is a lot stronger among later generations.

    But second, the Boomers remember an Israel that was perceived as seriously threatened by neighbors who (so the story goes) wanted to drive Israel into the sea and enact a second Holocaust. People my age only know decades of tit-for-tat with Palestinians who, regardless of what flaws and evils you want to assign to them, are very visibly outgunned.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @songbird, @dfordoom

    There’s also a third difference: in 1967, Israel was functionally a Western nation, and it appealed to a generation of American Jews based on that fact back in the heyday of Cold War liberalism. It isn’t now and hasn’t been for a while, between the influx of Jews from the Middle East after 1967 and the post-USSR exodus in the 1990s. (Israel has more Russian speakers than any country outside the former USSR, and Russian organized crime is a side problem for Israel’s security agencies to deal with when they aren’t busy dickering with Hamas.) Nor do younger American Jews-or liberals more generally-care about that.

    Interestingly enough, a lot of people on Capitol Hill still seem to think of it as the former. This is true particularly of Republicans, of course, but this also applies to older Democrats like Schumer or Biden.

    • Replies: @anon
    @nebulafox

    Interestingly enough, a lot of people on Capitol Hill still seem to think of it as the former. This is true particularly of Republicans, of course, but this also applies to older Democrats like Schumer or Biden.

    Yes, the "plucky little Euro-outpost" meme still is around. I see it in Boomer and older relatives and not just in regard to foreign policies, but world view in general.

    It appears that to be "stuck in the past" is rather a normal thing after the age of 40 or so. I haven't any hypothesis why. But with the pace of social change actually accelerating in the last 20 years, it's a real nuisance and a problem.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  31. @nebulafox
    Israel does what it is in Israeli interests to do, like any serious nation would. For what it is worth, I respect sincere Israelis, Chinese, Russians, or Muslims-or anybody else-who honestly fight for their side infinitely more than our post-Cold War elites.

    It should go without saying that we are not a serious nation. Though the recent polls about foreign policy show the real impact of 2003 on the American public. I've said it repeatedly here: there's nowhere where elite and lay opinion in the United States diverge more than foreign policy, when push comes to shove.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @anon

    ‘Israel does what it is in Israeli interests to do, like any serious nation would…’

    The difficulty is that the Israeli ‘nation’ is located in a land always inhabited by and still inhabited by another people.

    If Palestine had had the same density of indigenous population that California did when my ancestors came there in 1864, there would have been only nine thousand Palestinians.

    It would at least arguably indeed have been ‘a land without people for a people without a land.’

    But there weren’t nine thousand Palestinians. There were a million. Today, there are five million — and that’s just the Palestinians under Jewish rule.

    I have a right to my car. It’s mine. It doesn’t follow that I have a right to your car.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Colin Wright

    This sounds like the type of argument someone makes in a divorce, when they appeal to their own pristine definition of morality, and are shocked when that doesn't become the deciding factor of the case and their spouse doesn't simply give up.

    , @iffen
    @Colin Wright

    and still inhabited by another people.

    Not for long.

    , @Bill Jones
    @Colin Wright

    Everything about that shitty little Country is false. A Holocaust of lies.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  32. anon[353] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @Wency

    There's also a third difference: in 1967, Israel was functionally a Western nation, and it appealed to a generation of American Jews based on that fact back in the heyday of Cold War liberalism. It isn't now and hasn't been for a while, between the influx of Jews from the Middle East after 1967 and the post-USSR exodus in the 1990s. (Israel has more Russian speakers than any country outside the former USSR, and Russian organized crime is a side problem for Israel's security agencies to deal with when they aren't busy dickering with Hamas.) Nor do younger American Jews-or liberals more generally-care about that.

    Interestingly enough, a lot of people on Capitol Hill still seem to think of it as the former. This is true particularly of Republicans, of course, but this also applies to older Democrats like Schumer or Biden.

    Replies: @anon

    Interestingly enough, a lot of people on Capitol Hill still seem to think of it as the former. This is true particularly of Republicans, of course, but this also applies to older Democrats like Schumer or Biden.

    Yes, the “plucky little Euro-outpost” meme still is around. I see it in Boomer and older relatives and not just in regard to foreign policies, but world view in general.

    It appears that to be “stuck in the past” is rather a normal thing after the age of 40 or so. I haven’t any hypothesis why. But with the pace of social change actually accelerating in the last 20 years, it’s a real nuisance and a problem.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @anon

    '...But with the pace of social change actually accelerating in the last 20 years, it’s a real nuisance and a problem.'

    I'd guess this is a constant illusion. ''Boy, things are really changing fast these days!'

    They probably said that in the last decades of the Eleventh Century. Greater familiarity with any era will make one more aware of the rate of change. Of all eras, we're most familiar with our own, so guess what?

  33. @Jackbnimble123
    As a Jew it always was a pet peeve of mine that other Jews endlessly dwell on the holocaust. To me the Holocaust is more an embarrassment than anything, and should not only not be a focus for Jews but should be buried already. Seriously, it’s like blacks dwelling on slavery. Just get over it.

    Then again, I’m definetly an outlier Jews. Tbh I don’t care about anything on this list except perhaps leading an ethical and moral life, and that has nothing to do with Judaism specifically for me, just a general life guideline.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Paperback Writer

    My feeling with these things is that it gets put into history when the last people who can remember it die.

    World War 1 has gone that way. World War 2 in on the verge of it. Reparations, and so on, can only come from, and be given to, generations that were actually involved.

    Everyone else seems to disagree with me and think that the older the injustice the better for obsessing over. Perhaps it is easier to represent older injustices without context and so more easily demonise “the other”? Or beatify one’s ancestors?

    Irish people, in Britain, are prone to ranting about Oliver Cromwell. They don’t seem to be having fun. It is confusing. 400 hundred years of resentment is a lot. I can barely hold onto resentment for 4 hours.

  34. @Sick of Orcs
    Does "Leading an ethical and moral life," include attacking Christianity and Whites?

    Does "Working for justice and equality," include backing and promoting every radical movement harmful to the host society? Drag queen story hour? Diversity at gunpoint? Reparations?

    Replies: @Dutch Boy

    This Holocaustianity is merely a secular substitute for the old Talmud-based hostility to gentiles in general and Christians in particular. Same package, different wrapping.

    • Agree: Sick of Orcs
  35. @Colin Wright
    @nebulafox

    'Israel does what it is in Israeli interests to do, like any serious nation would...'

    The difficulty is that the Israeli 'nation' is located in a land always inhabited by and still inhabited by another people.

    If Palestine had had the same density of indigenous population that California did when my ancestors came there in 1864, there would have been only nine thousand Palestinians.

    It would at least arguably indeed have been 'a land without people for a people without a land.'

    But there weren't nine thousand Palestinians. There were a million. Today, there are five million -- and that's just the Palestinians under Jewish rule.

    I have a right to my car. It's mine. It doesn't follow that I have a right to your car.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @iffen, @Bill Jones

    This sounds like the type of argument someone makes in a divorce, when they appeal to their own pristine definition of morality, and are shocked when that doesn’t become the deciding factor of the case and their spouse doesn’t simply give up.

  36. @nebulafox
    Israel does what it is in Israeli interests to do, like any serious nation would. For what it is worth, I respect sincere Israelis, Chinese, Russians, or Muslims-or anybody else-who honestly fight for their side infinitely more than our post-Cold War elites.

    It should go without saying that we are not a serious nation. Though the recent polls about foreign policy show the real impact of 2003 on the American public. I've said it repeatedly here: there's nowhere where elite and lay opinion in the United States diverge more than foreign policy, when push comes to shove.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @anon

    there’s nowhere where elite and lay opinion in the United States diverge more than foreign policy,

    Only if you explicitly include immigration and border security inside of “foreign policy”.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @anon

    To an extent, I do, and same with trade.

    Most nations have foreign policy far more driven by domestic political concerns than an abstract theory of national interest.

  37. Andy Kaufman was a Jew and I don’t recall Andy Kaufman going on and on about the Holocaust and Kaufman was one of those blue-eyed Ashkenazi Devil Jews that get on the nerves of the Sephardim Jews and I capitalized the H in holocaust to keep the Jews happy and Andy Kaufman had a bit about Mighty Mouse and Kaufman did a character named Vic Ferrari that was his best bit I think and this mouse stuff brings up CHINA LAB FLU because I just read on the internet that the Chinese were engineering little itty bitty mice to have humanized lungs whatever the Hell that means and the evil and treasonous corporate propaganda apparatus in the USA was deliberately downplaying the possibility that the CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY had created this CHINA LAB FLU and somehow or other it got out of control and the damned mass media in a fit of anti-Trump madness deliberately misled the American people about the origins of CHINA LAB FLU.

    Abiotic oil is a concept where the oil is not some squished up giant ferns and squashed and gushed dinosaurs but primordial elements of the earth or something like that and now the sonofabitches at the WSJ are hitting us with this ZOONOTIC word.

    Nicholas Wade in WSJ:

    Dr. Fauci has long suggested that the virus emerged naturally—until the past few weeks, when he started to allow that lab escape is possible and should be investigated. The Jan. 31, 2020, email from Mr. Andersen shows that Dr. Fauci knew from the beginning that experts had serious suspicions about the virus’s origins. There were many other matters on his agenda at the time, but it’s too bad he didn’t ask for an independent panel, one not dominated by virologists, to look into the possibility that Chinese researchers genetically manipulating coronaviruses in low-level safety conditions had sparked a global pandemic.

  38. If there is one thing on this list that Jews are not about it is ‘working for justice and equality’. How high was that for any number of Jewish tycoons and financiers, Representative’s Nadler, Schiff, etc. etc. Any Israeli leader and I support Israel’s hammering of Hamas and Hezbollah. You do what you got to do to survive but don’t tell me its about Justice and Equality.

    Jews will walk over their own grandmothers to gain entrance to ( what were) elite Wasp Universities and if that means a poor Chinese immigrant has to go to Chico State College so be it.

    To paraphrase The Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley “Justice and Equality are for the little people to strive for not Jews. Me first is their rule of rules.

  39. @Wency
    @songbird

    I think there's more to it than that -- I think two things are happening:

    For one, Jewish identity is fading among the non-Orthodox young, many of whom are only half-Jews anyway. That "leftist first, Jew second" feeling, while still present among Boomers, is a lot stronger among later generations.

    But second, the Boomers remember an Israel that was perceived as seriously threatened by neighbors who (so the story goes) wanted to drive Israel into the sea and enact a second Holocaust. People my age only know decades of tit-for-tat with Palestinians who, regardless of what flaws and evils you want to assign to them, are very visibly outgunned.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @songbird, @dfordoom

    I think a lot of Jews are true internationalists, and maybe kind of sympathetic to global government. But, then again, I believe that there aren’t a lot of Jewish Americans contemplating a move to Israel, based on comparative advantage – it might be a fall in standard of living – and how many want to fight in the army, or have their kids do so? Maybe, it would be different for Russian Jews?

    Though Nebulafox makes good point, when he mentions demographics. Ashkenazim and Mizrahim are kind of alien groups to each other, and then there are the Arabs. Also, traditionally, Western Jews seem to have had disdain for the ones from Eastern Europe or Russia. And relatively few Jews in Israel came from the West, I think.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @songbird


    Western Jews seem to have had disdain for the ones from Eastern Europe or Russia. And relatively few Jews in Israel came from the West, I think.
     
    Aren't the overwhelming majority of Ashkenazim everywhere relatively recent (i.e., late 19th or early 20th century) emigres from the Pale of Settlement?

    Out of curiosity, I looked at Israel's Prime Ministers to see which was the first not to be born in the Russian Empire. It was Rabin, PM in 1974.

    Who was the first Israeli PM whose father wasn't born in the Russian Empire? Answer: there hasn't been one yet.

    But I guess these post-Soviet Russian migrants to Israel have intermarried more with Slavs and were far more assimilated. Though does that really make them less Western/Euro, and not more Western/Euro, than migrants from Jewish villages in the Pale?

    Replies: @songbird

  40. @Wency
    @Barbarossa


    American Evangelicals aren’t really that concerned with Jews for their own sake. It’s just considered necessary for Israel to exist so that Jesus can come back.
     
    I'm an Evangelical (though not a Dispensationalist, which I consider mostly a Boomer theology that's been losing ground for decades), and I *think* this is mostly a falsehood spread about the Dispensationalists by people outside the movement. Or it's something only believed by a sliver of Dispensationalists (you can find any point of view on the Internet, and there are some real end-times-obsessed souls that fall under the Dispensationalist label, but most of them are not that way). I've never heard a Christian express "bringing on the Apocalypse" as a goal, but I have heard non-Christians (including Jews) say that it's a common Christian goal more than once.

    Most Dispensationalist support for Israel comes down to something more like "Israel is blessed and has been granted to the Jews forever, the Jews are still especially blessed and remain God's Chosen despite rejecting Christ, and God will bless Christians who uphold their duty to protect them and their rights to the land of Israel."

    Also, I think many Republicans support Israel for secular, normie-con reasons (supporting what they see as the civilized, quasi-European state over the Arab Muslim terrorist fanatic Al Qaeda/ISIS barbarians) and some of them just happen to wear the Evangelical label.

    Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink, @Barbarossa, @Hermes

    I relate to the Republican reasons to support Israel. The whole secular western state vs. Islamic extremist thing makes me want to side with Israel.

    The problem is when you delve into it further you discover Israel (and the U.S for decades on end) support the Islamics over the secularists in the Middle East. Israel (and American neolibs) have more of a problem with secular Assad than they do Sunni extremists, including ISIS it would seem (who Assad has fought).

    What I have always wondered is this favoritism towards radical Islam random or not? Are the secular countries and leaders more of a threat to Israel by coincidence? Or is there some other reason Israel/USA has such a problem with the Muslim world being secular? This has been going on since at least the Afghanistan/Russia war circa 1979/80 when we sided with what would become the Taliban.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Jay Fink

    I think the trouble there is that Assad is aligned with Iran and Hezbollah. Which is not saying he's worse than the alternatives, but Israel sees Hezbollah as one of the biggest thorns in its side while the US consistently sides against Iran for several reasons, Israel only being one.

    It's not exactly scrupulous but from a realpolitik standpoint, I think USG and Israel actually played the Syrian Civil War pretty well. When two groups are fighting a civil war and you don't really like either of them, what do you do? You try to create a situation of unending deadlock and bloodshed, neutralizing either group's ability to project power for the foreseeable future. And 10 years of civil war later, that's still basically the situation there.

    Replies: @anon, @SFG, @Barbarossa

  41. @songbird
    @Wency

    I think a lot of Jews are true internationalists, and maybe kind of sympathetic to global government. But, then again, I believe that there aren't a lot of Jewish Americans contemplating a move to Israel, based on comparative advantage - it might be a fall in standard of living - and how many want to fight in the army, or have their kids do so? Maybe, it would be different for Russian Jews?

    Though Nebulafox makes good point, when he mentions demographics. Ashkenazim and Mizrahim are kind of alien groups to each other, and then there are the Arabs. Also, traditionally, Western Jews seem to have had disdain for the ones from Eastern Europe or Russia. And relatively few Jews in Israel came from the West, I think.

    Replies: @Wency

    Western Jews seem to have had disdain for the ones from Eastern Europe or Russia. And relatively few Jews in Israel came from the West, I think.

    Aren’t the overwhelming majority of Ashkenazim everywhere relatively recent (i.e., late 19th or early 20th century) emigres from the Pale of Settlement?

    Out of curiosity, I looked at Israel’s Prime Ministers to see which was the first not to be born in the Russian Empire. It was Rabin, PM in 1974.

    Who was the first Israeli PM whose father wasn’t born in the Russian Empire? Answer: there hasn’t been one yet.

    But I guess these post-Soviet Russian migrants to Israel have intermarried more with Slavs and were far more assimilated. Though does that really make them less Western/Euro, and not more Western/Euro, than migrants from Jewish villages in the Pale?

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Wency


    Aren’t the overwhelming majority of Ashkenazim everywhere relatively recent (i.e., late 19th or early 20th century) emigres from the Pale of Settlement?
     
    I think this is probably right, but anyway the earlier arrivals have probably been more Westernized, to a certain extent. For example, if your family was living in America for a hundred years vs. Russia.

    There is also probably a kind of elite dimension, to a certain extent. Left earlier might mean that you came from a different class, whether poor or not, (i.e. smarter) than left later.
  42. @Jay Fink
    @Wency

    I relate to the Republican reasons to support Israel. The whole secular western state vs. Islamic extremist thing makes me want to side with Israel.

    The problem is when you delve into it further you discover Israel (and the U.S for decades on end) support the Islamics over the secularists in the Middle East. Israel (and American neolibs) have more of a problem with secular Assad than they do Sunni extremists, including ISIS it would seem (who Assad has fought).

    What I have always wondered is this favoritism towards radical Islam random or not? Are the secular countries and leaders more of a threat to Israel by coincidence? Or is there some other reason Israel/USA has such a problem with the Muslim world being secular? This has been going on since at least the Afghanistan/Russia war circa 1979/80 when we sided with what would become the Taliban.

    Replies: @Wency

    I think the trouble there is that Assad is aligned with Iran and Hezbollah. Which is not saying he’s worse than the alternatives, but Israel sees Hezbollah as one of the biggest thorns in its side while the US consistently sides against Iran for several reasons, Israel only being one.

    It’s not exactly scrupulous but from a realpolitik standpoint, I think USG and Israel actually played the Syrian Civil War pretty well. When two groups are fighting a civil war and you don’t really like either of them, what do you do? You try to create a situation of unending deadlock and bloodshed, neutralizing either group’s ability to project power for the foreseeable future. And 10 years of civil war later, that’s still basically the situation there.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Wency

    ...from a realpolitik standpoint, I think USG and Israel actually played the Syrian Civil War pretty well.


    That makes some sense, but it completely neglects the fact that Assad and his clan are Alawites. They are a branch of Shia Islam, but with some odd syncretic elements.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Alawites

    Why does that matter? They have nowhere to go. The Marionite Christians of Lebanon had some connections outside, many in the US. IMO the Alawites are more kind of like the Yazadi. Not in the religious sense, but in the "people with only one location" sense. Either the Alawites survive in some corner of what is now Syria, or they vanish. At least, that's the impression I have from my reading. Remember what the Sunni Da'esh / ISIL did to the Yazadis not many years ago? They would do that and more to the Alawites.

    So for the Alawites of Syria, every conflict is existential. Especially the recent civil war involving Da'esh / ISIS is an existential crisis, either they survive the war or they die - along with their wives and children. Well,except for the pretty girls who are taken as slaves.

    IMO the Syrian civil war was a major failure of US foreign policy. The Russians come out looking better than anyone else, if for no other reason than they just wanted a secure port, so the status quo ante was /is their main goal.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @SFG
    @Wency

    Yeah. I mean, Israel does what it does for geopolitical reasons. It's a tough neighborhood and they can't afford to get in dumb wars (they'd rather bamboozle the USA into fighting them, though I think their appetite has diminished for that since the Iraq debacle). Same reason they're friends with Hungary and Russia--they're more interested in getting allies than sticking it to the white man (that's an American SJW preoccupation).

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @Barbarossa
    @Wency

    I'd be more likely to say that the U.S. made a mess of Syria. They prolonged the conflict by years, causing a flood of refugees into Europe, and causing untold misery. If they had had their way, some semi-head chopping Sunni group would have taken power, causing even more misery. However, they failed to achieve anything in the end since Assad still holds power. It has probably worked out well for Israel in the short term since it has kept Assad busy for 10 years, but I'm not sure that will translate into long term strategic gains.

    Temperamentally, it seems like Iran should actually be a more natural ally than states like Saudi Arabia. I know there are historical reasons that that is not the case, but our animosity to Iran is mostly irrational. On the other hand, I can completely understand why the Iranians don't like us and don't trust us.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Wency

  43. @anon
    @nebulafox

    there’s nowhere where elite and lay opinion in the United States diverge more than foreign policy,

    Only if you explicitly include immigration and border security inside of "foreign policy".

    Replies: @nebulafox

    To an extent, I do, and same with trade.

    Most nations have foreign policy far more driven by domestic political concerns than an abstract theory of national interest.

  44. @Wency
    @songbird


    Western Jews seem to have had disdain for the ones from Eastern Europe or Russia. And relatively few Jews in Israel came from the West, I think.
     
    Aren't the overwhelming majority of Ashkenazim everywhere relatively recent (i.e., late 19th or early 20th century) emigres from the Pale of Settlement?

    Out of curiosity, I looked at Israel's Prime Ministers to see which was the first not to be born in the Russian Empire. It was Rabin, PM in 1974.

    Who was the first Israeli PM whose father wasn't born in the Russian Empire? Answer: there hasn't been one yet.

    But I guess these post-Soviet Russian migrants to Israel have intermarried more with Slavs and were far more assimilated. Though does that really make them less Western/Euro, and not more Western/Euro, than migrants from Jewish villages in the Pale?

    Replies: @songbird

    Aren’t the overwhelming majority of Ashkenazim everywhere relatively recent (i.e., late 19th or early 20th century) emigres from the Pale of Settlement?

    I think this is probably right, but anyway the earlier arrivals have probably been more Westernized, to a certain extent. For example, if your family was living in America for a hundred years vs. Russia.

    There is also probably a kind of elite dimension, to a certain extent. Left earlier might mean that you came from a different class, whether poor or not, (i.e. smarter) than left later.

  45. Jews are an extremely deceptive people. When they say Israel’s interests are not their own, I think that is self-deception. What “American” Jew would vote for a patriot politician who promises to put America’s interests before Israel’s?

    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Phibbs


    Jews are an extremely deceptive people. When they say Israel’s interests are not their own, I think that is self-deception. What “American” Jew would vote for a patriot politician who promises to put America’s interests before Israel’s?
     
    Your point is taken and of course I am inclined to agree, but I also must admit that U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, Democrat of Vermont, has repeatedly, pointedly, consistently promoted American interests ahead of Israeli interests during his entire career as far as I know.

    So there are exceptions. Sanders may be almost the only exception in Congress, but he is an exception nevertheless.

  46. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wency
    @Jay Fink

    I think the trouble there is that Assad is aligned with Iran and Hezbollah. Which is not saying he's worse than the alternatives, but Israel sees Hezbollah as one of the biggest thorns in its side while the US consistently sides against Iran for several reasons, Israel only being one.

    It's not exactly scrupulous but from a realpolitik standpoint, I think USG and Israel actually played the Syrian Civil War pretty well. When two groups are fighting a civil war and you don't really like either of them, what do you do? You try to create a situation of unending deadlock and bloodshed, neutralizing either group's ability to project power for the foreseeable future. And 10 years of civil war later, that's still basically the situation there.

    Replies: @anon, @SFG, @Barbarossa

    …from a realpolitik standpoint, I think USG and Israel actually played the Syrian Civil War pretty well.

    That makes some sense, but it completely neglects the fact that Assad and his clan are Alawites. They are a branch of Shia Islam, but with some odd syncretic elements.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Alawites

    Why does that matter? They have nowhere to go. The Marionite Christians of Lebanon had some connections outside, many in the US. IMO the Alawites are more kind of like the Yazadi. Not in the religious sense, but in the “people with only one location” sense. Either the Alawites survive in some corner of what is now Syria, or they vanish. At least, that’s the impression I have from my reading. Remember what the Sunni Da’esh / ISIL did to the Yazadis not many years ago? They would do that and more to the Alawites.

    So for the Alawites of Syria, every conflict is existential. Especially the recent civil war involving Da’esh / ISIS is an existential crisis, either they survive the war or they die – along with their wives and children. Well,except for the pretty girls who are taken as slaves.

    IMO the Syrian civil war was a major failure of US foreign policy. The Russians come out looking better than anyone else, if for no other reason than they just wanted a secure port, so the status quo ante was /is their main goal.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @anon

    Not to mention that given the inevitable Russian and Iranian support Assad was going to receive, the degree of intervention that was going to be realistically required to depose him was something the Obama Administration never wanted to accept. They didn't want Iraq 2.0, but they also were too ideologically tempted to "do something", in the wake of the Arab Spring mania.

    And so they ignored people who told them what was what and followed their own meandering policy until 2015. We just armed supposed "Sunni moderates". In effect, that only prolonged the suffering of the Syrians and wasted millions more in taxpayer money.

  47. Many of these “questions” don’t “work” and this may be the epitome.

    If Jews think about questions concerning the “other” and “loyalty” (and they do), only the dumbest would say that Israel is the most important issue, and they are smarter than the average bears.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  48. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    Agrees with my observations, but hard to reconcile with American policy.

    Maybe, American policy is driven by boomer donors, who hold different priorities?
     
    That's plausible.

    There's also the military-industrial complex to consider.

    Governments often use foreign policy to distract attention away from embarrassing domestic policy failures. If you're the government and you don't have a clue what to do about the economy of healthcare or housing then a foreign policy crisis (or better yet a war) is just what you want.

    While Israel does to an extent drive US foreign policy you also have to consider that sometimes it's the US using Israel to advance American imperial interests in the Middle East.

    Replies: @songbird, @iffen

    advance American imperial interests

    Albert!

    I’ve lost my pearls.

  49. @Colin Wright
    @nebulafox

    'Israel does what it is in Israeli interests to do, like any serious nation would...'

    The difficulty is that the Israeli 'nation' is located in a land always inhabited by and still inhabited by another people.

    If Palestine had had the same density of indigenous population that California did when my ancestors came there in 1864, there would have been only nine thousand Palestinians.

    It would at least arguably indeed have been 'a land without people for a people without a land.'

    But there weren't nine thousand Palestinians. There were a million. Today, there are five million -- and that's just the Palestinians under Jewish rule.

    I have a right to my car. It's mine. It doesn't follow that I have a right to your car.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @iffen, @Bill Jones

    and still inhabited by another people.

    Not for long.

  50. lloyd says: • Website

    Questioning the existence of Mohammed doesn’t seem to bother any Moslems. Or perhaps, they don’t know or register there is an alternate history that claims the seventh and eighth centuries never happened. What drives Jihad is lewd images of Mohammed. In that they are the exact opposite of Jews who inflict Jewish vengeance on sceptics of the Holocaust, and their narrative of the Holocaust is filled with lewd images. To my mind, that makes the Moslems more grown up, and aware of the debasing affects of pornography.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @lloyd


    Questioning the existence of Mohammed doesn’t seem to bother any Moslems.
     
    I understand that AE was making a general point and was only mentioning Mohammed in passing, of course, so one does not criticize him; but your observation is interesting nevertheless. Now that you mention it, I do not recall ever seeing a Muslim take exception to a non-Muslim's failure to promote Islam's understanding of Mohammed.

    What drives Jihad is lewd images of Mohammed.
     
    Lewd images of Mohammed are unnecessary and disrespectful. It is not my problem, so I am unlikely to act against such lewd images, but I want no part in them.

    Before 1970, when there were almost zero Muslims in the U.S. except Malcolm X's pseudo-Muslim Nation of Islam, Americans remained blissfully free to treat Islam whimsically and ignorantly, as for instance in the TV sitcom I Dream of Jeannie. Those were better days.

    However, egregiously insulting another people's prophet or hero, in that people's presence, despite that the prophet or hero lived centuries ago, is unkind and unwise.

    One wishes that we Christians would be half as belligerent in defense of our own prophets and heroes.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  51. anon[332] • Disclaimer says:

    That interpretation is a bit optimistic IMO. The holocaust is a reliable source of mass hysteria whenever the Jew state wants to invoke it, a prop for Jew supremacist crime.

    You saw that when Izzies switched from routine extermination to armed attack on civilian populations. The Jew state mobilized their US fifth column by saying, “US Jews, are you OK? Watch out for those antisemites, criticizing our genocidal origin myth and baby-killing rites!!” Then the Izzie fifth column preens in Shoah daydreams, bonds with the Jew state genocidaires, and sends them extra genocide funding.

    Yasha Levine is very good on this Jew propaganda ruse.

  52. @Phibbs
    Jews are an extremely deceptive people. When they say Israel's interests are not their own, I think that is self-deception. What "American" Jew would vote for a patriot politician who promises to put America's interests before Israel's?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Jews are an extremely deceptive people. When they say Israel’s interests are not their own, I think that is self-deception. What “American” Jew would vote for a patriot politician who promises to put America’s interests before Israel’s?

    Your point is taken and of course I am inclined to agree, but I also must admit that U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, Democrat of Vermont, has repeatedly, pointedly, consistently promoted American interests ahead of Israeli interests during his entire career as far as I know.

    So there are exceptions. Sanders may be almost the only exception in Congress, but he is an exception nevertheless.

  53. SFG says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The Holocaust is fundamental to how American Jews view the world. What happens to Israel is not.
     
    If that is the case, then as far as Israel goes, I shall be satisfied with [i] extricating U.S. soldiers like my son from Israel's wars, [ii] disentangling U.S. foreign policy from Israel's, and [iii] abolishing dual citizenship. Israel can then go her way without opposition from me.

    The Holocaust however is a projection of what powerful Jews are trying to do to me and my fellow heritage Americans right now.

    Ones wishes that more Jews would hearken to Mark Levin, the late Barry Farber, and the happily remembered Irving Berlin: whatever part of the Holocaust narrative is fact and whatever part is fiction (for Jews have so tightly controlled the narrative that gentiles have zero reason to afford Jews the benefit of the doubt in the matter), [a] Jews are not the only people that suffered during World War II and [b] the U.S. responded to Pearl Harbor by arming herself and marching to war in 1942 against the Jews' designated Nazi foe, at no small cost to American life and limb.

    Attacking the U.S.S. Liberty, murdering George Lincoln Rockwell, deposing Richard M. Nixon, and alienating the Panama Canal to secure repayment of Marine Midland's Panamanian loan, all 20 to 40 years after the war, were serious offenses. Jews cannot treat Americans like that and not expect to pay a price.

    No people deserves less to be punished for the Holocaust than Americans do. This is why the sustained, hysterical, paranoid Jewish effort to punish Americans anyway is so deeply offensive.

    Replies: @SFG

    Why not bring up the Hart-Celler Act or modern wokeness? I mean, nobody outside of a right-wing site cares much about the USS Liberty (most people these days weren’t even born), and Rockwell was killed by a disgruntled ex-Nazi of Greek ancestry. I doubt anyone has heard of the Panama Canal outside of a history book nowadays, and do you really think you’re going to get people exercised about the killing of a Nazi by a rival Nazi? Rockwell was considered a wacko extremist back then. Most people I talk to about the Liberty go, “Isn’t that a long time ago?”

    Immigration changed the country. Wokeness is destroying it now. These are things of relevance to people’s lives now.

    Ironically I agree about the extrication of US soldiers from Israel’s wars and Israel’s influence from foreign policy.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @SFG

    Well, that's embarrassing.


    Rockwell was killed by a disgruntled ex-Nazi of Greek ancestry.
     
    Somehow, I had acquired the notion that Rockwell was killed by Meyer Lansky. It's bad enough that media gaslight us but, apparently, this time, I gaslit myself.

    Thank you for the correction.


    Why not bring up the Hart-Celler Act ...
     
    That, too.

    ... or modern wokeness?
     
    Because white gentiles bear principle responsibility for wokeness as far as I am aware. That Jews had goaded us is insufficient excuse. Even Jews probably could not have predicted how mad white gentiles would go in the early XXI century.

    Now, I understand that it isn't that simple, but goading by Jewish media can be criticized on its own terms, whereas the Marine Midland affair by contrast was simple enough as far as I know (although, in view of my Rockwell débâcle, perhaps I know too little)—which is why I mentioned it.


    Most people I talk to about the Liberty go, “Isn’t that a long time ago?”
     
    Wasn't the Holocaust even longer ago, though? To the extent to which it isn't mythical, that is.

    Besides, we didn't do the Holocaust. The Tulsa Massacre (which also mostly never happened, as you may be reasonably sure, but to debunk all the left's rapid-fire lies is just too exhausting)—well, length of time ago has not stopped them from hanging Tulsa around our necks.

    I really would prefer to talk about the Jewish dimension of the BlackRock affair, which is much more recent, but the book has not yet been written about that. I probably don't yet have my facts straight on BlackRock.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  54. SFG says:
    @Wency
    @Jay Fink

    I think the trouble there is that Assad is aligned with Iran and Hezbollah. Which is not saying he's worse than the alternatives, but Israel sees Hezbollah as one of the biggest thorns in its side while the US consistently sides against Iran for several reasons, Israel only being one.

    It's not exactly scrupulous but from a realpolitik standpoint, I think USG and Israel actually played the Syrian Civil War pretty well. When two groups are fighting a civil war and you don't really like either of them, what do you do? You try to create a situation of unending deadlock and bloodshed, neutralizing either group's ability to project power for the foreseeable future. And 10 years of civil war later, that's still basically the situation there.

    Replies: @anon, @SFG, @Barbarossa

    Yeah. I mean, Israel does what it does for geopolitical reasons. It’s a tough neighborhood and they can’t afford to get in dumb wars (they’d rather bamboozle the USA into fighting them, though I think their appetite has diminished for that since the Iraq debacle). Same reason they’re friends with Hungary and Russia–they’re more interested in getting allies than sticking it to the white man (that’s an American SJW preoccupation).

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @SFG

    'Yeah. I mean, Israel does what it does for geopolitical reasons. It’s a tough neighborhood and they can’t afford to get in dumb wars...'

    They have chosen a position that is inherently unjust and criminal, and so they have to be unjust and act as criminals. This is an explanation -- but hardly an excuse.

  55. @Charles Pewitt
    It's A HOLOCAUST Of Love In The Land Of Ten Thousand Lakes!

    How Are The Perch Biting?

    Perch Fight In Tugs And Bass Fight With Sustained Resistance

    97 Degrees Is Too Hot For Minnesota And New England.

    https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1400625854103883782?s=20

    Tweet from 2017:

    https://twitter.com/vdare/status/825164781082595331?s=20

    Tweet from 2019:

    https://twitter.com/TOOEdit/status/1131042877599936512?s=20

    Replies: @SFG

    It’s a good column.

  56. @anon
    @nebulafox

    Interestingly enough, a lot of people on Capitol Hill still seem to think of it as the former. This is true particularly of Republicans, of course, but this also applies to older Democrats like Schumer or Biden.

    Yes, the "plucky little Euro-outpost" meme still is around. I see it in Boomer and older relatives and not just in regard to foreign policies, but world view in general.

    It appears that to be "stuck in the past" is rather a normal thing after the age of 40 or so. I haven't any hypothesis why. But with the pace of social change actually accelerating in the last 20 years, it's a real nuisance and a problem.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘…But with the pace of social change actually accelerating in the last 20 years, it’s a real nuisance and a problem.’

    I’d guess this is a constant illusion. ‘‘Boy, things are really changing fast these days!’

    They probably said that in the last decades of the Eleventh Century. Greater familiarity with any era will make one more aware of the rate of change. Of all eras, we’re most familiar with our own, so guess what?

  57. So American Jews have little emotional investment in Israel but a lot in “victim minority” belief. Liberalism and Judaism are synonymous with minoritarianism.
    How important is American identity to American Jews? Would being an American be more or less important to them than the holocaust, liberal ethics, etc.? For me the American revolution, the taming of the west, and the civil war are much bigger historical events than the holocaust. And for American Jews?

  58. @anon
    @Wency

    ...from a realpolitik standpoint, I think USG and Israel actually played the Syrian Civil War pretty well.


    That makes some sense, but it completely neglects the fact that Assad and his clan are Alawites. They are a branch of Shia Islam, but with some odd syncretic elements.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Alawites

    Why does that matter? They have nowhere to go. The Marionite Christians of Lebanon had some connections outside, many in the US. IMO the Alawites are more kind of like the Yazadi. Not in the religious sense, but in the "people with only one location" sense. Either the Alawites survive in some corner of what is now Syria, or they vanish. At least, that's the impression I have from my reading. Remember what the Sunni Da'esh / ISIL did to the Yazadis not many years ago? They would do that and more to the Alawites.

    So for the Alawites of Syria, every conflict is existential. Especially the recent civil war involving Da'esh / ISIS is an existential crisis, either they survive the war or they die - along with their wives and children. Well,except for the pretty girls who are taken as slaves.

    IMO the Syrian civil war was a major failure of US foreign policy. The Russians come out looking better than anyone else, if for no other reason than they just wanted a secure port, so the status quo ante was /is their main goal.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Not to mention that given the inevitable Russian and Iranian support Assad was going to receive, the degree of intervention that was going to be realistically required to depose him was something the Obama Administration never wanted to accept. They didn’t want Iraq 2.0, but they also were too ideologically tempted to “do something”, in the wake of the Arab Spring mania.

    And so they ignored people who told them what was what and followed their own meandering policy until 2015. We just armed supposed “Sunni moderates”. In effect, that only prolonged the suffering of the Syrians and wasted millions more in taxpayer money.

  59. @SFG
    @Wency

    Yeah. I mean, Israel does what it does for geopolitical reasons. It's a tough neighborhood and they can't afford to get in dumb wars (they'd rather bamboozle the USA into fighting them, though I think their appetite has diminished for that since the Iraq debacle). Same reason they're friends with Hungary and Russia--they're more interested in getting allies than sticking it to the white man (that's an American SJW preoccupation).

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘Yeah. I mean, Israel does what it does for geopolitical reasons. It’s a tough neighborhood and they can’t afford to get in dumb wars…’

    They have chosen a position that is inherently unjust and criminal, and so they have to be unjust and act as criminals. This is an explanation — but hardly an excuse.

  60. @Wency
    @Jay Fink

    I think the trouble there is that Assad is aligned with Iran and Hezbollah. Which is not saying he's worse than the alternatives, but Israel sees Hezbollah as one of the biggest thorns in its side while the US consistently sides against Iran for several reasons, Israel only being one.

    It's not exactly scrupulous but from a realpolitik standpoint, I think USG and Israel actually played the Syrian Civil War pretty well. When two groups are fighting a civil war and you don't really like either of them, what do you do? You try to create a situation of unending deadlock and bloodshed, neutralizing either group's ability to project power for the foreseeable future. And 10 years of civil war later, that's still basically the situation there.

    Replies: @anon, @SFG, @Barbarossa

    I’d be more likely to say that the U.S. made a mess of Syria. They prolonged the conflict by years, causing a flood of refugees into Europe, and causing untold misery. If they had had their way, some semi-head chopping Sunni group would have taken power, causing even more misery. However, they failed to achieve anything in the end since Assad still holds power. It has probably worked out well for Israel in the short term since it has kept Assad busy for 10 years, but I’m not sure that will translate into long term strategic gains.

    Temperamentally, it seems like Iran should actually be a more natural ally than states like Saudi Arabia. I know there are historical reasons that that is not the case, but our animosity to Iran is mostly irrational. On the other hand, I can completely understand why the Iranians don’t like us and don’t trust us.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Barbarossa

    Iran's never going to be friendly as long as the mullahs are in charge, but it's ludicrous to pretend that they (or the Russians) are anywhere remotely close to being on the PRC's level as a potential threat, especially when you consider the PRC's ties to American elites.

    Even where Beijing is concerned, I think we're better off revitalizing infastructure and removing corruption at home than searching for monsters to destroy abroad. Do more and talk less.

    Replies: @Barbarossa

    , @Wency
    @Barbarossa

    Assad still only controls 60% of the country, which from Israel's standpoint is a lot better than 100% of the country. Assad is still a lot weaker today than he was before this began, and even 10 years from now that will probably still be true.

    I don't think you can say that Israel's objective was to put the Sunnis in charge. Israel's objective is probably something more like making sure whoever is in charge is weak. However, you don't say this out loud because it sounds bad, so what you say out loud is "I want [weaker party] in charge because... human rights. Therefore I am attacking [stronger party] somewhat, but I'm not going to totally defeat [stronger party] because... hey look a squirrel!" The net effect is you now made the two parties closer to parity and therefore prolonged the civil war.

    Replies: @A123, @anon

  61. @Kent Nationalist
    American Jews are so uninterested in Israel they spend millions of dollars in donations and have incredibly powerful political organisations promoting Israeli interests.

    Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Yes-one hesitates to say it, but perhaps some respondents were being a little liberal with the truth. Perhaps they even lie a little to themselves.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Mulga, I don't disagree with you -- however I do wonder. Is it possible that the richer a US Jew becomes the more inclined they will be to subvert the US in favour of Israeli interests? (The richer you get the more important that bolt-hole becomes?)
    And, further, it's funny how promoting Israel's interests in the US is likely to have such a positive effect on the wealthy tribalists's overall interests.

  62. @Wency
    @Barbarossa


    American Evangelicals aren’t really that concerned with Jews for their own sake. It’s just considered necessary for Israel to exist so that Jesus can come back.
     
    I'm an Evangelical (though not a Dispensationalist, which I consider mostly a Boomer theology that's been losing ground for decades), and I *think* this is mostly a falsehood spread about the Dispensationalists by people outside the movement. Or it's something only believed by a sliver of Dispensationalists (you can find any point of view on the Internet, and there are some real end-times-obsessed souls that fall under the Dispensationalist label, but most of them are not that way). I've never heard a Christian express "bringing on the Apocalypse" as a goal, but I have heard non-Christians (including Jews) say that it's a common Christian goal more than once.

    Most Dispensationalist support for Israel comes down to something more like "Israel is blessed and has been granted to the Jews forever, the Jews are still especially blessed and remain God's Chosen despite rejecting Christ, and God will bless Christians who uphold their duty to protect them and their rights to the land of Israel."

    Also, I think many Republicans support Israel for secular, normie-con reasons (supporting what they see as the civilized, quasi-European state over the Arab Muslim terrorist fanatic Al Qaeda/ISIS barbarians) and some of them just happen to wear the Evangelical label.

    Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink, @Barbarossa, @Hermes

    Your point about Dispensationalists is worthwhile. My personal experience has been more on the Catholic/ Orthodox spectrum, although I did attend a Southern Baptist church with my wife at her behest when we were first married. I do know a pretty wide slice of Evangelicals though and I have personally heard plenty of talk of Israel and the End Times and fulfilling prophesy. Evangelicalism encompasses such a wide spectrum that it’s not really possible to paint with too wide a brush, so you are certainly correct that I am over generalizing about the motivations of Evangelical support for Israel.

    I’ve always found it exceedingly strange to walk into churches that have the American flag on one side and the Israeli flag on the other. It also seems strange to me how support for Israel is taken as a given, with very little critical thought or analysis going into it. Especially since Israel is far more of a secular ethnic state far more than it is any kind of biblical religious entity.

    Fr. Elias Chacour, a Melkite Palestinian priest wrote a couple of books (“Blood Brothers” and “We Belong to the Land”) on his experience as a Palestinian Christian which I highly recommend for a rarely heard perspective.

    The really ironic thing about the normie-con reasoning on knee jerk support for Israel is that their idea of Arabs is most fitting to our “friends” in Saudi Arabia and their extreme Wahhabism that it is of many of Israel’s Shia enemies. The Muslims most dangerous to the West are actually those Israel has made understandings with.

  63. @Wency
    @songbird

    I think there's more to it than that -- I think two things are happening:

    For one, Jewish identity is fading among the non-Orthodox young, many of whom are only half-Jews anyway. That "leftist first, Jew second" feeling, while still present among Boomers, is a lot stronger among later generations.

    But second, the Boomers remember an Israel that was perceived as seriously threatened by neighbors who (so the story goes) wanted to drive Israel into the sea and enact a second Holocaust. People my age only know decades of tit-for-tat with Palestinians who, regardless of what flaws and evils you want to assign to them, are very visibly outgunned.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @songbird, @dfordoom

    But second, the Boomers remember an Israel that was perceived as seriously threatened by neighbors who (so the story goes) wanted to drive Israel into the sea and enact a second Holocaust.

    Yes. The “plucky little Israel hopelessly outnumbered by murderous hordes” thing. It’s incredibly difficult to persuade Boomers to give that idea up. I know because I used to buy into it as well.

    Among younger generations even Jews seem to be sceptical of the “plucky little Israel” idea.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Yes. The “plucky little Israel hopelessly outnumbered by murderous hordes” thing. It’s incredibly difficult to persuade Boomers to give that idea up. I know because I used to buy into it as well.
     
    I bought into it too, uncritically, until as recently as 2013. I didn't care much, but totally bought in.

    I didn't help that I had been randomly paired with a hotel roommate (to explain why would take too long) one night in Winnepeg in 2004. The fellow glared, pointedly locked himself in the room to pray toward Mecca, and intimated (I am not making this up), “Israel!” to me, though he hardly spoke another word. He was a veritable caricature of a Muslim suicide bomber. He was weird.

    But nowadays he has got me muttering, “Israel!” too. So who knows? Maybe he was on to something. I never saw the fellow again at any rate.

  64. @Mulga Mumblebrain
    @Kent Nationalist

    Yes-one hesitates to say it, but perhaps some respondents were being a little liberal with the truth. Perhaps they even lie a little to themselves.

    Replies: @animalogic

    Mulga, I don’t disagree with you — however I do wonder. Is it possible that the richer a US Jew becomes the more inclined they will be to subvert the US in favour of Israeli interests? (The richer you get the more important that bolt-hole becomes?)
    And, further, it’s funny how promoting Israel’s interests in the US is likely to have such a positive effect on the wealthy tribalists’s overall interests.

  65. @SFG
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Why not bring up the Hart-Celler Act or modern wokeness? I mean, nobody outside of a right-wing site cares much about the USS Liberty (most people these days weren't even born), and Rockwell was killed by a disgruntled ex-Nazi of Greek ancestry. I doubt anyone has heard of the Panama Canal outside of a history book nowadays, and do you really think you're going to get people exercised about the killing of a Nazi by a rival Nazi? Rockwell was considered a wacko extremist back then. Most people I talk to about the Liberty go, "Isn't that a long time ago?"

    Immigration changed the country. Wokeness is destroying it now. These are things of relevance to people's lives now.

    Ironically I agree about the extrication of US soldiers from Israel's wars and Israel's influence from foreign policy.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Well, that’s embarrassing.

    Rockwell was killed by a disgruntled ex-Nazi of Greek ancestry.

    Somehow, I had acquired the notion that Rockwell was killed by Meyer Lansky. It’s bad enough that media gaslight us but, apparently, this time, I gaslit myself.

    Thank you for the correction.

    Why not bring up the Hart-Celler Act …

    That, too.

    … or modern wokeness?

    Because white gentiles bear principle responsibility for wokeness as far as I am aware. That Jews had goaded us is insufficient excuse. Even Jews probably could not have predicted how mad white gentiles would go in the early XXI century.

    Now, I understand that it isn’t that simple, but goading by Jewish media can be criticized on its own terms, whereas the Marine Midland affair by contrast was simple enough as far as I know (although, in view of my Rockwell débâcle, perhaps I know too little)—which is why I mentioned it.

    Most people I talk to about the Liberty go, “Isn’t that a long time ago?”

    Wasn’t the Holocaust even longer ago, though? To the extent to which it isn’t mythical, that is.

    Besides, we didn’t do the Holocaust. The Tulsa Massacre (which also mostly never happened, as you may be reasonably sure, but to debunk all the left’s rapid-fire lies is just too exhausting)—well, length of time ago has not stopped them from hanging Tulsa around our necks.

    I really would prefer to talk about the Jewish dimension of the BlackRock affair, which is much more recent, but the book has not yet been written about that. I probably don’t yet have my facts straight on BlackRock.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @V. K. Ovelund

    >Wasn’t the Holocaust even longer ago, though? To the extent to which it isn’t mythical, that is.

    You don't have to approve of the way the event is politicized today to accept that there was a systematic attempt from Berlin to exterminate European Jews during WWII.

    >Now that you mention it, I do not recall ever seeing a Muslim take exception to a non-Muslim’s failure to promote Islam’s understanding of Mohammed.

    In the (Sunni) Muslim tradition, Muhammad was the last and greatest of a succession of prophets going back to Adam and including Moses, Elijah, David, Jesus, etc. Islam thus poses itself as a correction to the incomplete forms of Abrahamic monotheism that comes before it: I suppose that's why it isn't so noxious to them.

    Replies: @SFG

  66. @dfordoom
    @Wency


    But second, the Boomers remember an Israel that was perceived as seriously threatened by neighbors who (so the story goes) wanted to drive Israel into the sea and enact a second Holocaust.
     
    Yes. The "plucky little Israel hopelessly outnumbered by murderous hordes" thing. It's incredibly difficult to persuade Boomers to give that idea up. I know because I used to buy into it as well.

    Among younger generations even Jews seem to be sceptical of the "plucky little Israel" idea.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Yes. The “plucky little Israel hopelessly outnumbered by murderous hordes” thing. It’s incredibly difficult to persuade Boomers to give that idea up. I know because I used to buy into it as well.

    I bought into it too, uncritically, until as recently as 2013. I didn’t care much, but totally bought in.

    I didn’t help that I had been randomly paired with a hotel roommate (to explain why would take too long) one night in Winnepeg in 2004. The fellow glared, pointedly locked himself in the room to pray toward Mecca, and intimated (I am not making this up), “Israel!” to me, though he hardly spoke another word. He was a veritable caricature of a Muslim suicide bomber. He was weird.

    But nowadays he has got me muttering, “Israel!” too. So who knows? Maybe he was on to something. I never saw the fellow again at any rate.

  67. @lloyd
    Questioning the existence of Mohammed doesn't seem to bother any Moslems. Or perhaps, they don't know or register there is an alternate history that claims the seventh and eighth centuries never happened. What drives Jihad is lewd images of Mohammed. In that they are the exact opposite of Jews who inflict Jewish vengeance on sceptics of the Holocaust, and their narrative of the Holocaust is filled with lewd images. To my mind, that makes the Moslems more grown up, and aware of the debasing affects of pornography.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Questioning the existence of Mohammed doesn’t seem to bother any Moslems.

    I understand that AE was making a general point and was only mentioning Mohammed in passing, of course, so one does not criticize him; but your observation is interesting nevertheless. Now that you mention it, I do not recall ever seeing a Muslim take exception to a non-Muslim’s failure to promote Islam’s understanding of Mohammed.

    What drives Jihad is lewd images of Mohammed.

    Lewd images of Mohammed are unnecessary and disrespectful. It is not my problem, so I am unlikely to act against such lewd images, but I want no part in them.

    Before 1970, when there were almost zero Muslims in the U.S. except Malcolm X’s pseudo-Muslim Nation of Islam, Americans remained blissfully free to treat Islam whimsically and ignorantly, as for instance in the TV sitcom I Dream of Jeannie. Those were better days.

    However, egregiously insulting another people’s prophet or hero, in that people’s presence, despite that the prophet or hero lived centuries ago, is unkind and unwise.

    One wishes that we Christians would be half as belligerent in defense of our own prophets and heroes.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Think about how deeply confusing German speech laws would be to an unlettered migrant from the backwoods of Anatolia. The Holocaust-a purely human affair-is as regulated as any religious ritual. Yet gross indecencies against God are OK.

    It's weird, but in my experience, religious scientists tend to be far more comfortable in red American states than blue American states or Europe. It's a funny dynamic with the Muslim immigrants in particular. Many of the ones I interacted with (Aspergery young male STEM graduate students and postdocs, so not a few modest-on Western standards-skeptics) told me they didn't consider themselves "religious" until they moved to Europe or a blue state in the US, and realized that things like a vague residual belief in God or not eating pork made them stand out. Back home, that stuff was so taken for granted that it didn't make you pious, it just was what you did. In red states, despite the dominant religious culture not being their own, they felt more at ease, and many of them ironically became more religious than they were in their native societies.

  68. @V. K. Ovelund
    @SFG

    Well, that's embarrassing.


    Rockwell was killed by a disgruntled ex-Nazi of Greek ancestry.
     
    Somehow, I had acquired the notion that Rockwell was killed by Meyer Lansky. It's bad enough that media gaslight us but, apparently, this time, I gaslit myself.

    Thank you for the correction.


    Why not bring up the Hart-Celler Act ...
     
    That, too.

    ... or modern wokeness?
     
    Because white gentiles bear principle responsibility for wokeness as far as I am aware. That Jews had goaded us is insufficient excuse. Even Jews probably could not have predicted how mad white gentiles would go in the early XXI century.

    Now, I understand that it isn't that simple, but goading by Jewish media can be criticized on its own terms, whereas the Marine Midland affair by contrast was simple enough as far as I know (although, in view of my Rockwell débâcle, perhaps I know too little)—which is why I mentioned it.


    Most people I talk to about the Liberty go, “Isn’t that a long time ago?”
     
    Wasn't the Holocaust even longer ago, though? To the extent to which it isn't mythical, that is.

    Besides, we didn't do the Holocaust. The Tulsa Massacre (which also mostly never happened, as you may be reasonably sure, but to debunk all the left's rapid-fire lies is just too exhausting)—well, length of time ago has not stopped them from hanging Tulsa around our necks.

    I really would prefer to talk about the Jewish dimension of the BlackRock affair, which is much more recent, but the book has not yet been written about that. I probably don't yet have my facts straight on BlackRock.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >Wasn’t the Holocaust even longer ago, though? To the extent to which it isn’t mythical, that is.

    You don’t have to approve of the way the event is politicized today to accept that there was a systematic attempt from Berlin to exterminate European Jews during WWII.

    >Now that you mention it, I do not recall ever seeing a Muslim take exception to a non-Muslim’s failure to promote Islam’s understanding of Mohammed.

    In the (Sunni) Muslim tradition, Muhammad was the last and greatest of a succession of prophets going back to Adam and including Moses, Elijah, David, Jesus, etc. Islam thus poses itself as a correction to the incomplete forms of Abrahamic monotheism that comes before it: I suppose that’s why it isn’t so noxious to them.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @nebulafox

    There's a long history of Jews doing better in Muslim countries than Christian ones back throughout the Middle Ages. I doubt that's what your average social justice Jew has in mind--they're better read than average, but not *that* much better read.

    The thinking, from what I can tell from reading the Forward (I've long since left New York and my leftier friends have fallen out with me for reasons that can be guessed): We were oppressed. We still are oppressed. (Really! We're not even white--see, BIPOC? We're not the bad guys!) We must have solidarity with all oppressed groups (as long as they vote Democrat). Muslims are an oppressed group. Thus we must have solidarity with them. You read liberal Jewish stuff and they're all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Curle, @Triteleia Laxa

  69. @Barbarossa
    @Wency

    I'd be more likely to say that the U.S. made a mess of Syria. They prolonged the conflict by years, causing a flood of refugees into Europe, and causing untold misery. If they had had their way, some semi-head chopping Sunni group would have taken power, causing even more misery. However, they failed to achieve anything in the end since Assad still holds power. It has probably worked out well for Israel in the short term since it has kept Assad busy for 10 years, but I'm not sure that will translate into long term strategic gains.

    Temperamentally, it seems like Iran should actually be a more natural ally than states like Saudi Arabia. I know there are historical reasons that that is not the case, but our animosity to Iran is mostly irrational. On the other hand, I can completely understand why the Iranians don't like us and don't trust us.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Wency

    Iran’s never going to be friendly as long as the mullahs are in charge, but it’s ludicrous to pretend that they (or the Russians) are anywhere remotely close to being on the PRC’s level as a potential threat, especially when you consider the PRC’s ties to American elites.

    Even where Beijing is concerned, I think we’re better off revitalizing infastructure and removing corruption at home than searching for monsters to destroy abroad. Do more and talk less.

    • Replies: @Barbarossa
    @nebulafox

    Yes, I agree about the ill will that the mullahs have for America. However, even this is primarily an American creation. We effectively created the conditions enabling the 1979 revolution by our earlier interventions and support for the Shah. That kind of short term thinking leading to blowback seems to be a specialty of U.S. policy though. Everyone has their special gifts, after all!

    And I imagine that even the mullahs would give the U.S. little to no mind if we would leave them alone. Threats of regime change and economic warfare by sanctions seem to give them a poor view of us. Which also creates a handy external enemy to consolidate their own political power.

    But, as you point out, Iran poses no actual threat to us. I would tend to agree that China is the only world power which is potentially worrying. And much of position now is due to the idiotic levels of naivete with which the U.S. handled them for decades. Current moves are far too little, far too late.

    The only reasonable move in my mind is to accept the multi-polar order, and create a sustainable consolidated base as a regional power, allowing China, Russia, the EU, etc to do the same. China should be contained to a degree, but they cannot be put back into the box at this point.

    But, as you point out, doing things domestically to keep the country from sliding into rot and decadence, would be a pretty productive start. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon, so the slide into irrelevance will likely continue unabated.

  70. SFG says:
    @nebulafox
    @V. K. Ovelund

    >Wasn’t the Holocaust even longer ago, though? To the extent to which it isn’t mythical, that is.

    You don't have to approve of the way the event is politicized today to accept that there was a systematic attempt from Berlin to exterminate European Jews during WWII.

    >Now that you mention it, I do not recall ever seeing a Muslim take exception to a non-Muslim’s failure to promote Islam’s understanding of Mohammed.

    In the (Sunni) Muslim tradition, Muhammad was the last and greatest of a succession of prophets going back to Adam and including Moses, Elijah, David, Jesus, etc. Islam thus poses itself as a correction to the incomplete forms of Abrahamic monotheism that comes before it: I suppose that's why it isn't so noxious to them.

    Replies: @SFG

    There’s a long history of Jews doing better in Muslim countries than Christian ones back throughout the Middle Ages. I doubt that’s what your average social justice Jew has in mind–they’re better read than average, but not *that* much better read.

    The thinking, from what I can tell from reading the Forward (I’ve long since left New York and my leftier friends have fallen out with me for reasons that can be guessed): We were oppressed. We still are oppressed. (Really! We’re not even white–see, BIPOC? We’re not the bad guys!) We must have solidarity with all oppressed groups (as long as they vote Democrat). Muslims are an oppressed group. Thus we must have solidarity with them. You read liberal Jewish stuff and they’re all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @SFG

    I think it's a bit more nuanced than that: pogroms did occur in the medieval Islamic World, and treatment of Jews in medieval Europe depended more on how well they got along with the local powerbrokers than Christianity, per se.

    What was true was that, with the exception of far-off Constantinople (high medieval Byzantium tended to have a similar relationship with local Jewish communities as the emirate of Spain did-unmistakably second-class citizens, but part of the local fabric in a way that was less common in Europe proper), Cordoba was the most advanced urban center in Europe for centuries. Jews were traditionally traders, bankers. Places like Umayyad Spain offered more opportunities, and were friendlier to "outsider" races in the same way that places like that always tend to be. It's funny, but those dynamics remind me of modern Hong Kong or Singapore. You have an unmistakable "native" culture, or in the case of Singapore, cultures. But because of the sheer inflow of business, it's relatively easy to blend into that culture even with a different faith or skin color.

    (Ironically, it'd be England that'd turn out to be harshest, and Germany where the local bishops and peasants would protect Jews from marauding Crusaders.)

    >The thinking, from what I can tell from reading the Forward (I’ve long since left New York and my leftier friends have fallen out with me for reasons that can be guessed): We were oppressed. We still are oppressed. (Really! We’re not even white–see, BIPOC? We’re not the bad guys!) We must have solidarity with all oppressed groups (as long as they vote Democrat). Muslims are an oppressed group. Thus we must have solidarity with them. You read liberal Jewish stuff and they’re all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.

    The thing is, as I'm sure you are already aware of, the New America that American leftists in general insistently push as morally superior to the Old does not buy this narrative. At all. They simply do not have the same over-the-top gentile white Judeophilia.

    That's not to say they all dislike Jews in the Muslim sense, of course: the Chinese, for one, tend to admire Jews. But this admiration is based off them being the wealthiest and most "white" of white people, i.e, precisely the opposite of what traditional Jewish American self-perception is.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @Curle
    @SFG

    “There’s a long history of Jews doing better in Muslim countries than Christian ones back throughout the Middle Ages.”

    I imagine the IQ gap is higher in Muslim countries. Don’t know if that necessarily results in better comparative life, I’d have thought the opposite. That you are better off around smarter people regardless. However, that Hive Mind assumption might not be true IRL.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @SFG


    You read liberal Jewish stuff and they’re all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.
     
    Sounds exactly like the Church of England.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  71. @SFG
    @nebulafox

    There's a long history of Jews doing better in Muslim countries than Christian ones back throughout the Middle Ages. I doubt that's what your average social justice Jew has in mind--they're better read than average, but not *that* much better read.

    The thinking, from what I can tell from reading the Forward (I've long since left New York and my leftier friends have fallen out with me for reasons that can be guessed): We were oppressed. We still are oppressed. (Really! We're not even white--see, BIPOC? We're not the bad guys!) We must have solidarity with all oppressed groups (as long as they vote Democrat). Muslims are an oppressed group. Thus we must have solidarity with them. You read liberal Jewish stuff and they're all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Curle, @Triteleia Laxa

    I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that: pogroms did occur in the medieval Islamic World, and treatment of Jews in medieval Europe depended more on how well they got along with the local powerbrokers than Christianity, per se.

    What was true was that, with the exception of far-off Constantinople (high medieval Byzantium tended to have a similar relationship with local Jewish communities as the emirate of Spain did-unmistakably second-class citizens, but part of the local fabric in a way that was less common in Europe proper), Cordoba was the most advanced urban center in Europe for centuries. Jews were traditionally traders, bankers. Places like Umayyad Spain offered more opportunities, and were friendlier to “outsider” races in the same way that places like that always tend to be. It’s funny, but those dynamics remind me of modern Hong Kong or Singapore. You have an unmistakable “native” culture, or in the case of Singapore, cultures. But because of the sheer inflow of business, it’s relatively easy to blend into that culture even with a different faith or skin color.

    (Ironically, it’d be England that’d turn out to be harshest, and Germany where the local bishops and peasants would protect Jews from marauding Crusaders.)

    >The thinking, from what I can tell from reading the Forward (I’ve long since left New York and my leftier friends have fallen out with me for reasons that can be guessed): We were oppressed. We still are oppressed. (Really! We’re not even white–see, BIPOC? We’re not the bad guys!) We must have solidarity with all oppressed groups (as long as they vote Democrat). Muslims are an oppressed group. Thus we must have solidarity with them. You read liberal Jewish stuff and they’re all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.

    The thing is, as I’m sure you are already aware of, the New America that American leftists in general insistently push as morally superior to the Old does not buy this narrative. At all. They simply do not have the same over-the-top gentile white Judeophilia.

    That’s not to say they all dislike Jews in the Muslim sense, of course: the Chinese, for one, tend to admire Jews. But this admiration is based off them being the wealthiest and most “white” of white people, i.e, precisely the opposite of what traditional Jewish American self-perception is.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @nebulafox

    '...That’s not to say they all dislike Jews in the Muslim sense, of course: the Chinese, for one, tend to admire Jews. But this admiration is based off them being the wealthiest and most “white” of white people, i.e, precisely the opposite of what traditional Jewish American self-perception is.'

    As a footnote, the Chinese also value and are impressed by academic achievement and conspicuous displays of erudition. So they would admire Jews on this score -- and indeed, a stupid Chinese and a stupid Jew can be exasperating in exactly the same way. Both are desperate to demonstrate how intelligent they are.

  72. @V. K. Ovelund
    @lloyd


    Questioning the existence of Mohammed doesn’t seem to bother any Moslems.
     
    I understand that AE was making a general point and was only mentioning Mohammed in passing, of course, so one does not criticize him; but your observation is interesting nevertheless. Now that you mention it, I do not recall ever seeing a Muslim take exception to a non-Muslim's failure to promote Islam's understanding of Mohammed.

    What drives Jihad is lewd images of Mohammed.
     
    Lewd images of Mohammed are unnecessary and disrespectful. It is not my problem, so I am unlikely to act against such lewd images, but I want no part in them.

    Before 1970, when there were almost zero Muslims in the U.S. except Malcolm X's pseudo-Muslim Nation of Islam, Americans remained blissfully free to treat Islam whimsically and ignorantly, as for instance in the TV sitcom I Dream of Jeannie. Those were better days.

    However, egregiously insulting another people's prophet or hero, in that people's presence, despite that the prophet or hero lived centuries ago, is unkind and unwise.

    One wishes that we Christians would be half as belligerent in defense of our own prophets and heroes.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Think about how deeply confusing German speech laws would be to an unlettered migrant from the backwoods of Anatolia. The Holocaust-a purely human affair-is as regulated as any religious ritual. Yet gross indecencies against God are OK.

    It’s weird, but in my experience, religious scientists tend to be far more comfortable in red American states than blue American states or Europe. It’s a funny dynamic with the Muslim immigrants in particular. Many of the ones I interacted with (Aspergery young male STEM graduate students and postdocs, so not a few modest-on Western standards-skeptics) told me they didn’t consider themselves “religious” until they moved to Europe or a blue state in the US, and realized that things like a vague residual belief in God or not eating pork made them stand out. Back home, that stuff was so taken for granted that it didn’t make you pious, it just was what you did. In red states, despite the dominant religious culture not being their own, they felt more at ease, and many of them ironically became more religious than they were in their native societies.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  73. @nebulafox
    @Barbarossa

    Iran's never going to be friendly as long as the mullahs are in charge, but it's ludicrous to pretend that they (or the Russians) are anywhere remotely close to being on the PRC's level as a potential threat, especially when you consider the PRC's ties to American elites.

    Even where Beijing is concerned, I think we're better off revitalizing infastructure and removing corruption at home than searching for monsters to destroy abroad. Do more and talk less.

    Replies: @Barbarossa

    Yes, I agree about the ill will that the mullahs have for America. However, even this is primarily an American creation. We effectively created the conditions enabling the 1979 revolution by our earlier interventions and support for the Shah. That kind of short term thinking leading to blowback seems to be a specialty of U.S. policy though. Everyone has their special gifts, after all!

    And I imagine that even the mullahs would give the U.S. little to no mind if we would leave them alone. Threats of regime change and economic warfare by sanctions seem to give them a poor view of us. Which also creates a handy external enemy to consolidate their own political power.

    But, as you point out, Iran poses no actual threat to us. I would tend to agree that China is the only world power which is potentially worrying. And much of position now is due to the idiotic levels of naivete with which the U.S. handled them for decades. Current moves are far too little, far too late.

    The only reasonable move in my mind is to accept the multi-polar order, and create a sustainable consolidated base as a regional power, allowing China, Russia, the EU, etc to do the same. China should be contained to a degree, but they cannot be put back into the box at this point.

    But, as you point out, doing things domestically to keep the country from sliding into rot and decadence, would be a pretty productive start. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening any time soon, so the slide into irrelevance will likely continue unabated.

  74. @SFG
    @nebulafox

    There's a long history of Jews doing better in Muslim countries than Christian ones back throughout the Middle Ages. I doubt that's what your average social justice Jew has in mind--they're better read than average, but not *that* much better read.

    The thinking, from what I can tell from reading the Forward (I've long since left New York and my leftier friends have fallen out with me for reasons that can be guessed): We were oppressed. We still are oppressed. (Really! We're not even white--see, BIPOC? We're not the bad guys!) We must have solidarity with all oppressed groups (as long as they vote Democrat). Muslims are an oppressed group. Thus we must have solidarity with them. You read liberal Jewish stuff and they're all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Curle, @Triteleia Laxa

    “There’s a long history of Jews doing better in Muslim countries than Christian ones back throughout the Middle Ages.”

    I imagine the IQ gap is higher in Muslim countries. Don’t know if that necessarily results in better comparative life, I’d have thought the opposite. That you are better off around smarter people regardless. However, that Hive Mind assumption might not be true IRL.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Curle

    'I imagine the IQ gap is higher in Muslim countries.'

    Here I'll point out that as a category, 'Muslim Country' is decidedly misleading.

    Turkey is far more like Greece than it is like Morocco, for example. I have no doubt that Pakistan is much more like India than it is like Bosnia. Malaysia almost certainly resembles Thailand more than it does Mauritania, and so on.

    It's a bit like deciding to sort potential football players on the basis of ethnicity rather than size. Maybe the two hundred pound French kid really would make a better defensive tackle than the one hundred and twenty pound Lithuanian.

    Are you sure religion is quite as all-deciding as you imply? Are Filipinos really like Irishmen because they're both Catholic?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  75. @Colin Wright
    @nebulafox

    'Israel does what it is in Israeli interests to do, like any serious nation would...'

    The difficulty is that the Israeli 'nation' is located in a land always inhabited by and still inhabited by another people.

    If Palestine had had the same density of indigenous population that California did when my ancestors came there in 1864, there would have been only nine thousand Palestinians.

    It would at least arguably indeed have been 'a land without people for a people without a land.'

    But there weren't nine thousand Palestinians. There were a million. Today, there are five million -- and that's just the Palestinians under Jewish rule.

    I have a right to my car. It's mine. It doesn't follow that I have a right to your car.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @iffen, @Bill Jones

    Everything about that shitty little Country is false. A Holocaust of lies.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Bill Jones

    'Everything about that shitty little Country is false. A Holocaust of lies.'

    That's one of the things that struck me when I started to pay attention to Israel about twenty years go.

    Others lie -- of course. When the truth is unpleasant, they stick in a lie instead.

    ...but it's crude, and simple, and really, denied or not, the truth is always there, as the implicit substrate. Israel, on the other hand, builds dizzying cathedrals of lies. Great, infinitely complex crystalline palaces of falsehood upon falsehood, lies made plausible by other lies. A whole new universe, in which the lie is the fundamental building block, the DNA of Israel's very being.

    It's a whole different league. It's like comparing Mohammed Ali in his prime to your very angry neighbor in a fender bender come to blows. If there was a Nobel for lying, Israel would sweep it every year. It's like Glenn Gould compared to your six-year old nephew playing 'chopsticks.'

  76. @SFG
    @nebulafox

    There's a long history of Jews doing better in Muslim countries than Christian ones back throughout the Middle Ages. I doubt that's what your average social justice Jew has in mind--they're better read than average, but not *that* much better read.

    The thinking, from what I can tell from reading the Forward (I've long since left New York and my leftier friends have fallen out with me for reasons that can be guessed): We were oppressed. We still are oppressed. (Really! We're not even white--see, BIPOC? We're not the bad guys!) We must have solidarity with all oppressed groups (as long as they vote Democrat). Muslims are an oppressed group. Thus we must have solidarity with them. You read liberal Jewish stuff and they're all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Curle, @Triteleia Laxa

    You read liberal Jewish stuff and they’re all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.

    Sounds exactly like the Church of England.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Triteleia Laxa



    You read liberal Jewish stuff and they’re all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.
     
    Sounds exactly like the Church of England.
     
    LOL. Yes it certainly does. And it sounds pretty much like all the mainstream churches. Christianity is a major driving force of the Poz and of Wokeness.

    It puzzles me that white nationalists and alt-righters just won't accept this reality.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  77. @Bill Jones
    @Colin Wright

    Everything about that shitty little Country is false. A Holocaust of lies.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘Everything about that shitty little Country is false. A Holocaust of lies.’

    That’s one of the things that struck me when I started to pay attention to Israel about twenty years go.

    Others lie — of course. When the truth is unpleasant, they stick in a lie instead.

    …but it’s crude, and simple, and really, denied or not, the truth is always there, as the implicit substrate. Israel, on the other hand, builds dizzying cathedrals of lies. Great, infinitely complex crystalline palaces of falsehood upon falsehood, lies made plausible by other lies. A whole new universe, in which the lie is the fundamental building block, the DNA of Israel’s very being.

    It’s a whole different league. It’s like comparing Mohammed Ali in his prime to your very angry neighbor in a fender bender come to blows. If there was a Nobel for lying, Israel would sweep it every year. It’s like Glenn Gould compared to your six-year old nephew playing ‘chopsticks.’

  78. @nebulafox
    @SFG

    I think it's a bit more nuanced than that: pogroms did occur in the medieval Islamic World, and treatment of Jews in medieval Europe depended more on how well they got along with the local powerbrokers than Christianity, per se.

    What was true was that, with the exception of far-off Constantinople (high medieval Byzantium tended to have a similar relationship with local Jewish communities as the emirate of Spain did-unmistakably second-class citizens, but part of the local fabric in a way that was less common in Europe proper), Cordoba was the most advanced urban center in Europe for centuries. Jews were traditionally traders, bankers. Places like Umayyad Spain offered more opportunities, and were friendlier to "outsider" races in the same way that places like that always tend to be. It's funny, but those dynamics remind me of modern Hong Kong or Singapore. You have an unmistakable "native" culture, or in the case of Singapore, cultures. But because of the sheer inflow of business, it's relatively easy to blend into that culture even with a different faith or skin color.

    (Ironically, it'd be England that'd turn out to be harshest, and Germany where the local bishops and peasants would protect Jews from marauding Crusaders.)

    >The thinking, from what I can tell from reading the Forward (I’ve long since left New York and my leftier friends have fallen out with me for reasons that can be guessed): We were oppressed. We still are oppressed. (Really! We’re not even white–see, BIPOC? We’re not the bad guys!) We must have solidarity with all oppressed groups (as long as they vote Democrat). Muslims are an oppressed group. Thus we must have solidarity with them. You read liberal Jewish stuff and they’re all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.

    The thing is, as I'm sure you are already aware of, the New America that American leftists in general insistently push as morally superior to the Old does not buy this narrative. At all. They simply do not have the same over-the-top gentile white Judeophilia.

    That's not to say they all dislike Jews in the Muslim sense, of course: the Chinese, for one, tend to admire Jews. But this admiration is based off them being the wealthiest and most "white" of white people, i.e, precisely the opposite of what traditional Jewish American self-perception is.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘…That’s not to say they all dislike Jews in the Muslim sense, of course: the Chinese, for one, tend to admire Jews. But this admiration is based off them being the wealthiest and most “white” of white people, i.e, precisely the opposite of what traditional Jewish American self-perception is.’

    As a footnote, the Chinese also value and are impressed by academic achievement and conspicuous displays of erudition. So they would admire Jews on this score — and indeed, a stupid Chinese and a stupid Jew can be exasperating in exactly the same way. Both are desperate to demonstrate how intelligent they are.

  79. @Curle
    @SFG

    “There’s a long history of Jews doing better in Muslim countries than Christian ones back throughout the Middle Ages.”

    I imagine the IQ gap is higher in Muslim countries. Don’t know if that necessarily results in better comparative life, I’d have thought the opposite. That you are better off around smarter people regardless. However, that Hive Mind assumption might not be true IRL.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘I imagine the IQ gap is higher in Muslim countries.’

    Here I’ll point out that as a category, ‘Muslim Country’ is decidedly misleading.

    Turkey is far more like Greece than it is like Morocco, for example. I have no doubt that Pakistan is much more like India than it is like Bosnia. Malaysia almost certainly resembles Thailand more than it does Mauritania, and so on.

    It’s a bit like deciding to sort potential football players on the basis of ethnicity rather than size. Maybe the two hundred pound French kid really would make a better defensive tackle than the one hundred and twenty pound Lithuanian.

    Are you sure religion is quite as all-deciding as you imply? Are Filipinos really like Irishmen because they’re both Catholic?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Colin Wright

    Is there a single one of them where you don't suffer for being a different religion? Or where they don't molest visiting women on the street?

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  80. @Wency
    @Barbarossa


    American Evangelicals aren’t really that concerned with Jews for their own sake. It’s just considered necessary for Israel to exist so that Jesus can come back.
     
    I'm an Evangelical (though not a Dispensationalist, which I consider mostly a Boomer theology that's been losing ground for decades), and I *think* this is mostly a falsehood spread about the Dispensationalists by people outside the movement. Or it's something only believed by a sliver of Dispensationalists (you can find any point of view on the Internet, and there are some real end-times-obsessed souls that fall under the Dispensationalist label, but most of them are not that way). I've never heard a Christian express "bringing on the Apocalypse" as a goal, but I have heard non-Christians (including Jews) say that it's a common Christian goal more than once.

    Most Dispensationalist support for Israel comes down to something more like "Israel is blessed and has been granted to the Jews forever, the Jews are still especially blessed and remain God's Chosen despite rejecting Christ, and God will bless Christians who uphold their duty to protect them and their rights to the land of Israel."

    Also, I think many Republicans support Israel for secular, normie-con reasons (supporting what they see as the civilized, quasi-European state over the Arab Muslim terrorist fanatic Al Qaeda/ISIS barbarians) and some of them just happen to wear the Evangelical label.

    Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink, @Barbarossa, @Hermes

    This idea that philosemitic evangelicals don’t really love Jews, instead merely viewing them as chess pieces to be shuffled about to bring about the end times, is common among leftists, and not just leftist Jews, but all leftists. I read an article a year or two ago, which I can’t find now, by a guy who had grown up evangelical, and had a Jewish friend who mad a casual, offhand, matter-of-fact remark about how evangelicals believe that once all the Jews are gathered in Israel, Jesus is going to kill them all. The author was taken aback, and told his friend that during all his years growing up in the evangelical world he had never heard anything like that, and he’s sure that’s not what evangelicals believe, but his Jewish friend simply wouldn’t believe him. To him, it was just one of those things “everybody knows,” that evangelicals want to corral all the Jews into Israel so Jesus can slaughter them.

    In reality, evangelical philosemitism is based mainly on these ideas of God “keeping his promises,” that the Jews are “God’s chosen people,” and that God’s Old Testament promises about giving that land to the Israelites are still are in force today. See this article by Richard Land, president of Southern Theological Seminary, or this speech by Pat Robertson:

    https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-10-24/why-american-evangelicals-are-huge-base-support-israel
    http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/IsraelLauder.asp

    There’s nothing in there about the end times. It’s all about how in Genesis 12 God says to Abram “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed,” and about God keeping his promises and the Jews being God’s chosen people.

    The most philosemitic evangelical I personally know seems take this idea of the Jews being “God’s chosen people” almost to mean that they are specially created, divine beings, like angels.

    • Agree: Wency
  81. @Colin Wright
    @Curle

    'I imagine the IQ gap is higher in Muslim countries.'

    Here I'll point out that as a category, 'Muslim Country' is decidedly misleading.

    Turkey is far more like Greece than it is like Morocco, for example. I have no doubt that Pakistan is much more like India than it is like Bosnia. Malaysia almost certainly resembles Thailand more than it does Mauritania, and so on.

    It's a bit like deciding to sort potential football players on the basis of ethnicity rather than size. Maybe the two hundred pound French kid really would make a better defensive tackle than the one hundred and twenty pound Lithuanian.

    Are you sure religion is quite as all-deciding as you imply? Are Filipinos really like Irishmen because they're both Catholic?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Is there a single one of them where you don’t suffer for being a different religion? Or where they don’t molest visiting women on the street?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Triteleia Laxa

    'Is there a single one of them where you don’t suffer for being a different religion? Or where they don’t molest visiting women on the street?'

    I've been in five and haven't suffered for my religion.

    My wife has been in two and hasn't been molested on the street.

    So...sucks for you.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  82. @songbird
    Agrees with my observations, but hard to reconcile with American policy.

    Maybe, American policy is driven by boomer donors, who hold different priorities?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @SFG, @Jtgw

    Think about it. The Israel lobby represents a tiny minority of Americans but wields outsize influence. Why wouldn’t the same apply to Jews themselves? Even if most Jews are apathetic about Israel they aren’t the ones wielding influence over policy.

  83. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Colin Wright

    Is there a single one of them where you don't suffer for being a different religion? Or where they don't molest visiting women on the street?

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘Is there a single one of them where you don’t suffer for being a different religion? Or where they don’t molest visiting women on the street?’

    I’ve been in five and haven’t suffered for my religion.

    My wife has been in two and hasn’t been molested on the street.

    So…sucks for you.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Colin Wright

    Which ones?

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  84. @Colin Wright
    @Triteleia Laxa

    'Is there a single one of them where you don’t suffer for being a different religion? Or where they don’t molest visiting women on the street?'

    I've been in five and haven't suffered for my religion.

    My wife has been in two and hasn't been molested on the street.

    So...sucks for you.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Which ones?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Triteleia Laxa

    'Which ones?

    You wanted to know if there was a single one. I mentioned five for one of your categories and two for another.

    Now shove it.

  85. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Colin Wright

    Which ones?

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘Which ones?

    You wanted to know if there was a single one. I mentioned five for one of your categories and two for another.

    Now shove it.

  86. ‘Which ones?’

    I’ve been in Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Morocco.

    My wife has been in Turkey and Morocco.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Colin Wright


    I’ve been in Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Morocco
     
    These are countries where you don't suffer as a non-Muslim?

    Are you high?


    My wife has been in Turkey and Morocco.
     
    Turkey and Morrocco are the worst as a foreign woman. The badness even increases the younger you are than 18.

    You are hilarious.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  87. @Colin Wright
    'Which ones?'

    I've been in Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Morocco.

    My wife has been in Turkey and Morocco.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I’ve been in Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Morocco

    These are countries where you don’t suffer as a non-Muslim?

    Are you high?

    My wife has been in Turkey and Morocco.

    Turkey and Morrocco are the worst as a foreign woman. The badness even increases the younger you are than 18.

    You are hilarious.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Triteleia Laxa

    'These are countries where you don’t suffer as a non-Muslim?

    I'm a non-Muslim. I was there and didn't suffer for my lack of faith. That was your question.

    'Are you high?'

    Not at the moment, no.

    'My wife has been in Turkey and Morocco.

    'Turkey and Morrocco are the worst as a foreign woman. The badness even increases the younger you are than 18.'

    Yet my wife has been there and didn't suffer any harassment. I take it you think the other Muslim countries would be safer still.

    Of course, as a foreign woman perhaps your experience was different. What was it?

    'You are hilarious.'

    You asked questions. I answered them with perfect accuracy (okay -- as I type this, I have had half a glass of wine.)

    You asked whether there were any Muslim countries where I wouldn't suffer for my lack of faith. I named five I've been to where I didn't suffer for my lack of faith. You asked if there were any where a woman wouldn't be harassed. I named two that my wife has been to without being harassed.

    What more could you want? I should lie to bolster your prejudices?

  88. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Colin Wright


    I’ve been in Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Morocco
     
    These are countries where you don't suffer as a non-Muslim?

    Are you high?


    My wife has been in Turkey and Morocco.
     
    Turkey and Morrocco are the worst as a foreign woman. The badness even increases the younger you are than 18.

    You are hilarious.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘These are countries where you don’t suffer as a non-Muslim?

    I’m a non-Muslim. I was there and didn’t suffer for my lack of faith. That was your question.

    ‘Are you high?’

    Not at the moment, no.

    ‘My wife has been in Turkey and Morocco.

    ‘Turkey and Morrocco are the worst as a foreign woman. The badness even increases the younger you are than 18.’

    Yet my wife has been there and didn’t suffer any harassment. I take it you think the other Muslim countries would be safer still.

    Of course, as a foreign woman perhaps your experience was different. What was it?

    ‘You are hilarious.’

    You asked questions. I answered them with perfect accuracy (okay — as I type this, I have had half a glass of wine.)

    You asked whether there were any Muslim countries where I wouldn’t suffer for my lack of faith. I named five I’ve been to where I didn’t suffer for my lack of faith. You asked if there were any where a woman wouldn’t be harassed. I named two that my wife has been to without being harassed.

    What more could you want? I should lie to bolster your prejudices?

    • Troll: Triteleia Laxa
  89. @Triteleia Laxa
    @SFG


    You read liberal Jewish stuff and they’re all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.
     
    Sounds exactly like the Church of England.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    You read liberal Jewish stuff and they’re all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.

    Sounds exactly like the Church of England.

    LOL. Yes it certainly does. And it sounds pretty much like all the mainstream churches. Christianity is a major driving force of the Poz and of Wokeness.

    It puzzles me that white nationalists and alt-righters just won’t accept this reality.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    It puzzles me that white nationalists and alt-righters just won’t accept this reality.
     
    Why do you persist in dealing in imaginaries when it comes to this topic? Someday, can we expect you to name some names?

    It would be hard to name two alt-righters who did not hold more or less the opposite opinion to the opinion you have just attributed to them.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  90. @dfordoom
    @Triteleia Laxa



    You read liberal Jewish stuff and they’re all going on about black-Jewish unity and LGBTQ and the like.
     
    Sounds exactly like the Church of England.
     
    LOL. Yes it certainly does. And it sounds pretty much like all the mainstream churches. Christianity is a major driving force of the Poz and of Wokeness.

    It puzzles me that white nationalists and alt-righters just won't accept this reality.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    It puzzles me that white nationalists and alt-righters just won’t accept this reality.

    Why do you persist in dealing in imaginaries when it comes to this topic? Someday, can we expect you to name some names?

    It would be hard to name two alt-righters who did not hold more or less the opposite opinion to the opinion you have just attributed to them.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund

    They hand-wave it away. They decide, a priori, that the established institution, like the CofE, is working counter to its own interests; which allows them to ignore its agency. They make it a passive receptacle of other forces. This is absurd.

    They also do the same with the attitudes of the majority white population; which allows them to pretend to represent some sort of authentic opinion in their group, rather than a despised extreme.

    I understand why this is psychologically necessary. The problem is that it requires living in a fantasy, which takes its toll. I also believe that this toll is much more dementing than accepting that their ideology is far from the norm within their group.

    It reminds me of Lady Macbeth obsessively washing her hands of blood. She did it because she felt awful, so she needed to find something small, and easy to deal with, to blame.

    Pretending that it was only the mostly imaginary blood on her hands, gave her a sense that what she wanted, was manageable and not "of her".

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  91. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    It puzzles me that white nationalists and alt-righters just won’t accept this reality.
     
    Why do you persist in dealing in imaginaries when it comes to this topic? Someday, can we expect you to name some names?

    It would be hard to name two alt-righters who did not hold more or less the opposite opinion to the opinion you have just attributed to them.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    They hand-wave it away. They decide, a priori, that the established institution, like the CofE, is working counter to its own interests; which allows them to ignore its agency. They make it a passive receptacle of other forces. This is absurd.

    They also do the same with the attitudes of the majority white population; which allows them to pretend to represent some sort of authentic opinion in their group, rather than a despised extreme.

    I understand why this is psychologically necessary. The problem is that it requires living in a fantasy, which takes its toll. I also believe that this toll is much more dementing than accepting that their ideology is far from the norm within their group.

    It reminds me of Lady Macbeth obsessively washing her hands of blood. She did it because she felt awful, so she needed to find something small, and easy to deal with, to blame.

    Pretending that it was only the mostly imaginary blood on her hands, gave her a sense that what she wanted, was manageable and not “of her”.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    They hand-wave it away.
     
    Okay. Between you and @dfordoom, would you please name two U.S. alt-righters of note, who are understood by the U.S. alt-right to be alt-right (so Mike Cernovich for example would not count), who credit either of the propositons you and @dfordoom believe they credit?

    1. That the mainstream Christian churches were not a major driving force of the Poz and of Wokeness.

    2. That institutions like the Church of England were merely passive receptacles of forces that cause them to work counter to their own interests.

    Name names, please.

    @dfordoom is a treasured fellow commenter. I enjoy his remarks immensely, and I have enjoyed yours as well during our brief online acquaintance. Neither he nor you is obliged to answer any particular question I put. However, @dfordoom keeps making a collection of unfounded assertions regarding the alt-right, and today you are joining him. I have been asking @dfordoom for months please to name examples, but he cannot or will not. The simple explanation for this, of course, is that such examples are hard to find, if they exist at all.

    If I am mistaken, then how hard can finding two examples be? Andrew Anglin and Eric Striker are published right here at The Unz Review. Mike Peinovich and Richard B. Spencer are well known. Ryan Dawson, Borzoi Boskovic and Gregory Conte do not hide what they think, and if they don't suit, then one can always trawl the twitter feed of the whimsically named Bronze Age Pervert.

    This is the problem you get when media, police and courts [a] deplatform the alt-right and then [b] helpfully inform you what the alt-right would have said if not deplatformed. The alt-right has big self-inflicted problems and, actually, no longer exists as a coherent movement, but it did exist and was somewhat coherent 2014–17 and many of its leading U.S. personalities are still around.

    When you fail to find examples, will you consider that your and @dfordoom's assertions might be insubstantial and contrary to fact?

    @dfordoom

    Your bluff was called months ago. You have yet to lay your cards on the table as it were. I do not know why, but this is not like you. You can do better than this.

    But I suppose that, if it is really so important to you to propagate fantastical assertions regarding the U.S. alt-right while disregarding all evidence to the contrary, no one can stop you.

    I do not know why it should be so hard to find examples. I have closely followed the work of only half the alt-right figures I myself have named: from the other half, you should be able to collect a sequence of authentic quotes I have never heard without undue difficulty; but if you cannot or will not, then will you consider dropping this pogrom?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen, @anon, @dfordoom

  92. @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund

    They hand-wave it away. They decide, a priori, that the established institution, like the CofE, is working counter to its own interests; which allows them to ignore its agency. They make it a passive receptacle of other forces. This is absurd.

    They also do the same with the attitudes of the majority white population; which allows them to pretend to represent some sort of authentic opinion in their group, rather than a despised extreme.

    I understand why this is psychologically necessary. The problem is that it requires living in a fantasy, which takes its toll. I also believe that this toll is much more dementing than accepting that their ideology is far from the norm within their group.

    It reminds me of Lady Macbeth obsessively washing her hands of blood. She did it because she felt awful, so she needed to find something small, and easy to deal with, to blame.

    Pretending that it was only the mostly imaginary blood on her hands, gave her a sense that what she wanted, was manageable and not "of her".

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    They hand-wave it away.

    Okay. Between you and , would you please name two U.S. alt-righters of note, who are understood by the U.S. alt-right to be alt-right (so Mike Cernovich for example would not count), who credit either of the propositons you and believe they credit?

    1. That the mainstream Christian churches were not a major driving force of the Poz and of Wokeness.

    2. That institutions like the Church of England were merely passive receptacles of forces that cause them to work counter to their own interests.

    Name names, please.

    is a treasured fellow commenter. I enjoy his remarks immensely, and I have enjoyed yours as well during our brief online acquaintance. Neither he nor you is obliged to answer any particular question I put. However, keeps making a collection of unfounded assertions regarding the alt-right, and today you are joining him. I have been asking for months please to name examples, but he cannot or will not. The simple explanation for this, of course, is that such examples are hard to find, if they exist at all.

    If I am mistaken, then how hard can finding two examples be? Andrew Anglin and Eric Striker are published right here at The Unz Review. Mike Peinovich and Richard B. Spencer are well known. Ryan Dawson, Borzoi Boskovic and Gregory Conte do not hide what they think, and if they don’t suit, then one can always trawl the twitter feed of the whimsically named Bronze Age Pervert.

    This is the problem you get when media, police and courts [a] deplatform the alt-right and then [b] helpfully inform you what the alt-right would have said if not deplatformed. The alt-right has big self-inflicted problems and, actually, no longer exists as a coherent movement, but it did exist and was somewhat coherent 2014–17 and many of its leading U.S. personalities are still around.

    When you fail to find examples, will you consider that your and ’s assertions might be insubstantial and contrary to fact?

    Your bluff was called months ago. You have yet to lay your cards on the table as it were. I do not know why, but this is not like you. You can do better than this.

    But I suppose that, if it is really so important to you to propagate fantastical assertions regarding the U.S. alt-right while disregarding all evidence to the contrary, no one can stop you.

    I do not know why it should be so hard to find examples. I have closely followed the work of only half the alt-right figures I myself have named: from the other half, you should be able to collect a sequence of authentic quotes I have never heard without undue difficulty; but if you cannot or will not, then will you consider dropping this pogrom?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund


    If I am mistaken, then how hard can finding two examples be? Andrew Anglin and Eric Striker are published right here at The Unz Review.
     
    Thank you for providing the two easiest examples.

    What these two cannot accept is that what is happening in white majority countries is what white people actually want.

    The first step towards bringing their political programme into reality is recognising this, but they can't seem to bring themselves to see what is completely obvious. Why?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    @dfordoom and @Triteleia Laxa

    If it helps, here is a U.S. alt-right podcast series whose explicit topic is religion.

    I have only ever listened to one episode. It didn't grab my attention, but though its hosts are neither skilled broadcasters nor expert ecclesiologists they are reasonably well-connected with the U.S. alt-right. (I know of these hosts because I have occasionally heard them as guests on other podcasts to which I listen more often.) I could be wrong, but doubt that these hosts will support your assertions.

    You need not listen to this particular podcast series, of course. You need not listen to any podcasts at all. You can choose other examples if you prefer, but this podcast series might afford a place to start if evidence is what you seek.

    , @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    However, @dfordoom keeps making a collection of unfounded assertions regarding the alt-right

    Maybe he takes the same attitude towards defining the "alt-right" as you take towards defining "Jews."

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Your bluff was called months ago. You have yet to lay your cards on the table as it were. I do not know why, but this is not like you. You can do better than this.

    On the contrary, it is exactly like him. Handwaving vague generalities with few or no facts while striking a pose of moderate, moral, superiourity constitutes most of dfordoom comments. There is a certain style to the complacent, middle-aged man of reasonable security, and dford is one example.

    Asking a handwaver for facts is an exercise in futility. Of course, it's only comments...

    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I used to read quite a few alt-right blogs but I gave them up. These days my only exposure to such things is reading Unz Review and even here there are only a few blogs that I read regularly. I prefer to use the term "far right" to encompass all the various factions (the alt-right, white nationalists, etc) at the far end of the political spectrum but you objected to that because you thought I was using "far right" in a pejorative sense. I prefer not to use the term alt-right because to be honest I don't have an obsessive interest in right-wing politics and I can't keep up with all the multifarious factions.

    There do seem to be people on the far right who are very hostile to Christianity. As a general rule however, judging purely by the commenters here, there does seem to me to be a tendency to react with vitriolic seething hostility when Jews are perceived to be doing something that is against the interests of whites but to react with less hostility when Christians do exactly the same things. There's a tendency for some commenters here to give civilisationally destructive behaviour by Christians a bit of a free pass.

    There's also a tendency to condemn all Jews when some Jews engage in civilisationally destructive behaviour but when Christians engage in the same behaviours there's a tendency to blame this on a few bad apples.

    I have no wish to single out any individuals here because I have no desire to get involved in pointless online feuds.

    My initial comment was more than anything else an expression of puzzlement that there isn't more awareness on the far right of the extreme harm that SJW/Woke Christianity is doing.

    Replies: @iffen, @SFG, @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

  93. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    They hand-wave it away.
     
    Okay. Between you and @dfordoom, would you please name two U.S. alt-righters of note, who are understood by the U.S. alt-right to be alt-right (so Mike Cernovich for example would not count), who credit either of the propositons you and @dfordoom believe they credit?

    1. That the mainstream Christian churches were not a major driving force of the Poz and of Wokeness.

    2. That institutions like the Church of England were merely passive receptacles of forces that cause them to work counter to their own interests.

    Name names, please.

    @dfordoom is a treasured fellow commenter. I enjoy his remarks immensely, and I have enjoyed yours as well during our brief online acquaintance. Neither he nor you is obliged to answer any particular question I put. However, @dfordoom keeps making a collection of unfounded assertions regarding the alt-right, and today you are joining him. I have been asking @dfordoom for months please to name examples, but he cannot or will not. The simple explanation for this, of course, is that such examples are hard to find, if they exist at all.

    If I am mistaken, then how hard can finding two examples be? Andrew Anglin and Eric Striker are published right here at The Unz Review. Mike Peinovich and Richard B. Spencer are well known. Ryan Dawson, Borzoi Boskovic and Gregory Conte do not hide what they think, and if they don't suit, then one can always trawl the twitter feed of the whimsically named Bronze Age Pervert.

    This is the problem you get when media, police and courts [a] deplatform the alt-right and then [b] helpfully inform you what the alt-right would have said if not deplatformed. The alt-right has big self-inflicted problems and, actually, no longer exists as a coherent movement, but it did exist and was somewhat coherent 2014–17 and many of its leading U.S. personalities are still around.

    When you fail to find examples, will you consider that your and @dfordoom's assertions might be insubstantial and contrary to fact?

    @dfordoom

    Your bluff was called months ago. You have yet to lay your cards on the table as it were. I do not know why, but this is not like you. You can do better than this.

    But I suppose that, if it is really so important to you to propagate fantastical assertions regarding the U.S. alt-right while disregarding all evidence to the contrary, no one can stop you.

    I do not know why it should be so hard to find examples. I have closely followed the work of only half the alt-right figures I myself have named: from the other half, you should be able to collect a sequence of authentic quotes I have never heard without undue difficulty; but if you cannot or will not, then will you consider dropping this pogrom?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen, @anon, @dfordoom

    If I am mistaken, then how hard can finding two examples be? Andrew Anglin and Eric Striker are published right here at The Unz Review.

    Thank you for providing the two easiest examples.

    What these two cannot accept is that what is happening in white majority countries is what white people actually want.

    The first step towards bringing their political programme into reality is recognising this, but they can’t seem to bring themselves to see what is completely obvious. Why?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Thank you for providing the two easiest examples.
     
    I aim to serve!

    What these two cannot accept is that what is happening in white majority countries is what white people actually want.
     
    I have mentioned that I have followed only half the members of my own list. Anglin is in the half I have not followed, so if you quote him, then the quote will probably be new to me.

    I have followed Eric Striker, though, though he and I disagree about many things. It is true that Striker disbelieves that whites wish to be dispossessed. It would be interesting to hear you and Striker discuss the matter live.

    Until that happens, I will say that to promote defeatism is not Striker's part. There really are a significant number of whites uneasy about their own dispossession. Striker's chief medium is the podcast: he's not an especially good writer, though to his credit, he tries. It is hard to criticize Striker as long as his podcasts are effectively censored. A fair test of Striker would be to permit him fair access to his target audience. Then we would see whether you are right.

    That you are at least partly right, and perhaps mostly right, about the suicidal tendencies of Western civilisation and the race that made her is hard to deny.


    The first step towards bringing their political programme into reality is recognising this, but they can’t seem to bring themselves to see what is completely obvious.
     
    I am no notable alt-right figure (thank goodness), but I at least have just recognised what you suggest needs recognition.

    @dfordoom

    Triteleia has just done in one hour what you have not done in six months: namely, responded to the point. If you like to respond, as well, why, I'm all ears.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa

    If you do not mind telling, am I talking to a man or to a woman? The pseudonym's repeated -a suggests the feminine, but of course 95 percent of commenters here are male as I am, which is why I ask.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  94. @Barbarossa
    @Wency

    I'd be more likely to say that the U.S. made a mess of Syria. They prolonged the conflict by years, causing a flood of refugees into Europe, and causing untold misery. If they had had their way, some semi-head chopping Sunni group would have taken power, causing even more misery. However, they failed to achieve anything in the end since Assad still holds power. It has probably worked out well for Israel in the short term since it has kept Assad busy for 10 years, but I'm not sure that will translate into long term strategic gains.

    Temperamentally, it seems like Iran should actually be a more natural ally than states like Saudi Arabia. I know there are historical reasons that that is not the case, but our animosity to Iran is mostly irrational. On the other hand, I can completely understand why the Iranians don't like us and don't trust us.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Wency

    Assad still only controls 60% of the country, which from Israel’s standpoint is a lot better than 100% of the country. Assad is still a lot weaker today than he was before this began, and even 10 years from now that will probably still be true.

    I don’t think you can say that Israel’s objective was to put the Sunnis in charge. Israel’s objective is probably something more like making sure whoever is in charge is weak. However, you don’t say this out loud because it sounds bad, so what you say out loud is “I want [weaker party] in charge because… human rights. Therefore I am attacking [stronger party] somewhat, but I’m not going to totally defeat [stronger party] because… hey look a squirrel!” The net effect is you now made the two parties closer to parity and therefore prolonged the civil war.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Wency

    The problem in Syria is more conventional national alignment rather than religious.

    Iranian al'Hezbollah is an offensive force and existential threat to Israel. Israel would be willing to work out a deal with Assad and Putin that returned Syria to its status as a 100% Iran free, Russian client state. However, as long as Khameni's offensive arm is present, Israel will continue to defended itself against Iranian aggression.

    If Assad and Putin want peace in Syria, they have to get rid of Khameni. Alas, the madness that is Erdogan presents a challenge to this requirement. Simultaneously dealing with two irrational, expansionary, Muslim leaders is tricky.

    PEACE 😇

    , @anon
    @Wency

    Israel’s objective is probably something more like making sure whoever is in charge is weak.

    Exactly. Let's list the three Arab countries most involved in the 1973 war.

    Egypt - still being paid off by the US as part of the Camp David accords.
    Jordan - essentially a separate peace where King Abdullah II keeps a lid on his country and Israel leaves him mostly alone.
    Syria - not paid off for historical reasons, Alawite minority rulers cannot allow anything like a real republic and are always going to be insecure to some degree.

    Obviously, of the three, Syria is the least stable, and due to ports is very easy to resupply. Therefore perpetual destabilization is one way to ensure ongoing control of the Golan heights and minimize danger from the direction of Damascus.

    Re-read "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli and this all should be obvious, however there is a tremendous amount of gaslighting that must be ignored.

  95. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    They hand-wave it away.
     
    Okay. Between you and @dfordoom, would you please name two U.S. alt-righters of note, who are understood by the U.S. alt-right to be alt-right (so Mike Cernovich for example would not count), who credit either of the propositons you and @dfordoom believe they credit?

    1. That the mainstream Christian churches were not a major driving force of the Poz and of Wokeness.

    2. That institutions like the Church of England were merely passive receptacles of forces that cause them to work counter to their own interests.

    Name names, please.

    @dfordoom is a treasured fellow commenter. I enjoy his remarks immensely, and I have enjoyed yours as well during our brief online acquaintance. Neither he nor you is obliged to answer any particular question I put. However, @dfordoom keeps making a collection of unfounded assertions regarding the alt-right, and today you are joining him. I have been asking @dfordoom for months please to name examples, but he cannot or will not. The simple explanation for this, of course, is that such examples are hard to find, if they exist at all.

    If I am mistaken, then how hard can finding two examples be? Andrew Anglin and Eric Striker are published right here at The Unz Review. Mike Peinovich and Richard B. Spencer are well known. Ryan Dawson, Borzoi Boskovic and Gregory Conte do not hide what they think, and if they don't suit, then one can always trawl the twitter feed of the whimsically named Bronze Age Pervert.

    This is the problem you get when media, police and courts [a] deplatform the alt-right and then [b] helpfully inform you what the alt-right would have said if not deplatformed. The alt-right has big self-inflicted problems and, actually, no longer exists as a coherent movement, but it did exist and was somewhat coherent 2014–17 and many of its leading U.S. personalities are still around.

    When you fail to find examples, will you consider that your and @dfordoom's assertions might be insubstantial and contrary to fact?

    @dfordoom

    Your bluff was called months ago. You have yet to lay your cards on the table as it were. I do not know why, but this is not like you. You can do better than this.

    But I suppose that, if it is really so important to you to propagate fantastical assertions regarding the U.S. alt-right while disregarding all evidence to the contrary, no one can stop you.

    I do not know why it should be so hard to find examples. I have closely followed the work of only half the alt-right figures I myself have named: from the other half, you should be able to collect a sequence of authentic quotes I have never heard without undue difficulty; but if you cannot or will not, then will you consider dropping this pogrom?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen, @anon, @dfordoom

    and

    If it helps, here is a U.S. alt-right podcast series whose explicit topic is religion.

    I have only ever listened to one episode. It didn’t grab my attention, but though its hosts are neither skilled broadcasters nor expert ecclesiologists they are reasonably well-connected with the U.S. alt-right. (I know of these hosts because I have occasionally heard them as guests on other podcasts to which I listen more often.) I could be wrong, but doubt that these hosts will support your assertions.

    You need not listen to this particular podcast series, of course. You need not listen to any podcasts at all. You can choose other examples if you prefer, but this podcast series might afford a place to start if evidence is what you seek.

  96. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    They hand-wave it away.
     
    Okay. Between you and @dfordoom, would you please name two U.S. alt-righters of note, who are understood by the U.S. alt-right to be alt-right (so Mike Cernovich for example would not count), who credit either of the propositons you and @dfordoom believe they credit?

    1. That the mainstream Christian churches were not a major driving force of the Poz and of Wokeness.

    2. That institutions like the Church of England were merely passive receptacles of forces that cause them to work counter to their own interests.

    Name names, please.

    @dfordoom is a treasured fellow commenter. I enjoy his remarks immensely, and I have enjoyed yours as well during our brief online acquaintance. Neither he nor you is obliged to answer any particular question I put. However, @dfordoom keeps making a collection of unfounded assertions regarding the alt-right, and today you are joining him. I have been asking @dfordoom for months please to name examples, but he cannot or will not. The simple explanation for this, of course, is that such examples are hard to find, if they exist at all.

    If I am mistaken, then how hard can finding two examples be? Andrew Anglin and Eric Striker are published right here at The Unz Review. Mike Peinovich and Richard B. Spencer are well known. Ryan Dawson, Borzoi Boskovic and Gregory Conte do not hide what they think, and if they don't suit, then one can always trawl the twitter feed of the whimsically named Bronze Age Pervert.

    This is the problem you get when media, police and courts [a] deplatform the alt-right and then [b] helpfully inform you what the alt-right would have said if not deplatformed. The alt-right has big self-inflicted problems and, actually, no longer exists as a coherent movement, but it did exist and was somewhat coherent 2014–17 and many of its leading U.S. personalities are still around.

    When you fail to find examples, will you consider that your and @dfordoom's assertions might be insubstantial and contrary to fact?

    @dfordoom

    Your bluff was called months ago. You have yet to lay your cards on the table as it were. I do not know why, but this is not like you. You can do better than this.

    But I suppose that, if it is really so important to you to propagate fantastical assertions regarding the U.S. alt-right while disregarding all evidence to the contrary, no one can stop you.

    I do not know why it should be so hard to find examples. I have closely followed the work of only half the alt-right figures I myself have named: from the other half, you should be able to collect a sequence of authentic quotes I have never heard without undue difficulty; but if you cannot or will not, then will you consider dropping this pogrom?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen, @anon, @dfordoom

    However, keeps making a collection of unfounded assertions regarding the alt-right

    Maybe he takes the same attitude towards defining the “alt-right” as you take towards defining “Jews.”

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    Maybe he takes the same attitude towards defining the “alt-right” as you take towards defining “Jews.”
     
    The Jews are an ancient nation. They existed before you and I were born and will continue to exist long after funeral bells have tolled for the both of us. Jay Fink has recently linked a definition. Do you expect me to improve upon that? I am not Jewish.

    It is as though you had asked me to define, say, “winter weather.”

    Besides, I have asked no one to define anything in this thread. Only you have asked that. If you want definitions, no one is stopping you from supplying them, yourself.

    Replies: @iffen

  97. @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund


    If I am mistaken, then how hard can finding two examples be? Andrew Anglin and Eric Striker are published right here at The Unz Review.
     
    Thank you for providing the two easiest examples.

    What these two cannot accept is that what is happening in white majority countries is what white people actually want.

    The first step towards bringing their political programme into reality is recognising this, but they can't seem to bring themselves to see what is completely obvious. Why?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund

    Thank you for providing the two easiest examples.

    I aim to serve!

    What these two cannot accept is that what is happening in white majority countries is what white people actually want.

    I have mentioned that I have followed only half the members of my own list. Anglin is in the half I have not followed, so if you quote him, then the quote will probably be new to me.

    I have followed Eric Striker, though, though he and I disagree about many things. It is true that Striker disbelieves that whites wish to be dispossessed. It would be interesting to hear you and Striker discuss the matter live.

    Until that happens, I will say that to promote defeatism is not Striker’s part. There really are a significant number of whites uneasy about their own dispossession. Striker’s chief medium is the podcast: he’s not an especially good writer, though to his credit, he tries. It is hard to criticize Striker as long as his podcasts are effectively censored. A fair test of Striker would be to permit him fair access to his target audience. Then we would see whether you are right.

    That you are at least partly right, and perhaps mostly right, about the suicidal tendencies of Western civilisation and the race that made her is hard to deny.

    The first step towards bringing their political programme into reality is recognising this, but they can’t seem to bring themselves to see what is completely obvious.

    I am no notable alt-right figure (thank goodness), but I at least have just recognised what you suggest needs recognition.

    Triteleia has just done in one hour what you have not done in six months: namely, responded to the point. If you like to respond, as well, why, I’m all ears.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Perhaps one of us would be happy to talk with Eric Striker, though anonymity is important.

    I also get the role of propaganda. It need not be a dirty word. Positivity is exciting!

    The problem is that Striker, and many others, are not speaking in the vernacular. They start by saying that “whites are being dispossessed”, but almost no one believes that, nevermind cares about it.

    They then try to circumvent this gap in understanding by creating all sorts of conspiracy theories. This only further alienates their potential audience. It also sends their own thought patterns loopy.



    To get people into “white nationalism ” and adjacent ideologies, on a strong form, you need them to see the world in the following ways. If they don’t, talk of “white dispossession ” will make no sense to them.

    1. White people need to see themselves as an exclusive group. One which they prioritise over other aspects of an individual’s complicated sets of identity.

    2. White people need to see themselves as possessing group ownership rights as “white people”. This also needs to be seen to supersede other ownership rights, both individual and group.

    3. White people need to see their group as specifically owning “Europe” and other lands.

    4. White people need to think that what is being done with their possession is bad for them and/or not fair or moral.

    5. White people need to care about all of this a lot. Not merely care enough to answer an opinion poll. 9% of people will kill an elephant unarmed in an opinion poll!

    Opinion polls are good for voting intentions, as voting is almost as easy as giving an opinion, but they are terrible for actions which carry costs.

    Those who say they want to lower immigration, also need to be able to, at least, say they want to put kids in cages.

    As I am sure you can appreciate, almost no one comes close to agreeing with these five points. The interesting question, for me, is what does a politics of “white interest” look like once it has accepted that gap?

    Where do white people feel pain as “white people”? What are they proud of as white people? What do they want for themselves and their children?

    Successful leaders find out where their people are, enter into conversation with them in their own language and try to address their concerns. This process requires humility and other uncommon skills.

    I find that most people who want to be leaders instead start with emotionally charged words, like “white genocide”. Define them in a way which suits their purposes and then scream at anyone who disagrees, accusing them of being guilty of that emotionally charged phrase. It is a form of ranting to oneself. Everyone does it sometimes.

    I am conflicted on whether this can work when you have a lot of power, but, even then, I don’t think so, not that this point is relevant to the position of “white advocates” anyway.

  98. @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund


    If I am mistaken, then how hard can finding two examples be? Andrew Anglin and Eric Striker are published right here at The Unz Review.
     
    Thank you for providing the two easiest examples.

    What these two cannot accept is that what is happening in white majority countries is what white people actually want.

    The first step towards bringing their political programme into reality is recognising this, but they can't seem to bring themselves to see what is completely obvious. Why?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund

    If you do not mind telling, am I talking to a man or to a woman? The pseudonym’s repeated -a suggests the feminine, but of course 95 percent of commenters here are male as I am, which is why I ask.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You're sometimes talking to two people. The pseudonym was considered sexless. There are about 10 links of the chain back to something specifically personal, but the first link is that Triteleia Laxa, the flower, is also known as Ithuriel's Spear.

    Milton is a dead end, even if it has amusing synchronicity.

    Sorry to be vague. Users benefit from adopting masks on Unz, so that they can discuss ideas, which they have to mask in day to day life.

    I'll also get back to you on your other comment in time. It requires some thought.

  99. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa

    If you do not mind telling, am I talking to a man or to a woman? The pseudonym's repeated -a suggests the feminine, but of course 95 percent of commenters here are male as I am, which is why I ask.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    You’re sometimes talking to two people. The pseudonym was considered sexless. There are about 10 links of the chain back to something specifically personal, but the first link is that Triteleia Laxa, the flower, is also known as Ithuriel’s Spear.

    Milton is a dead end, even if it has amusing synchronicity.

    Sorry to be vague. Users benefit from adopting masks on Unz, so that they can discuss ideas, which they have to mask in day to day life.

    I’ll also get back to you on your other comment in time. It requires some thought.

  100. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    However, @dfordoom keeps making a collection of unfounded assertions regarding the alt-right

    Maybe he takes the same attitude towards defining the "alt-right" as you take towards defining "Jews."

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Maybe he takes the same attitude towards defining the “alt-right” as you take towards defining “Jews.”

    The Jews are an ancient nation. They existed before you and I were born and will continue to exist long after funeral bells have tolled for the both of us. Jay Fink has recently linked a definition. Do you expect me to improve upon that? I am not Jewish.

    It is as though you had asked me to define, say, “winter weather.”

    Besides, I have asked no one to define anything in this thread. Only you have asked that. If you want definitions, no one is stopping you from supplying them, yourself.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Besides, I have asked no one to define anything in this thread.

    I won’t accuse you of being willfully obtuse, but it crossed my mind.

    You wanted doom to name alt-rightists. That would be a form of defining. If I could name most alt-rightists, or even the “top” 25%, then that could be reasonably called definition. You claim an ownership interest in the group and seem to resent his generalizations and accusations.

    You generalize and make accusations against “Jews,” yet when asked, you decline to name or define the group. And this is exactly what you asked of doom.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  101. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Thank you for providing the two easiest examples.
     
    I aim to serve!

    What these two cannot accept is that what is happening in white majority countries is what white people actually want.
     
    I have mentioned that I have followed only half the members of my own list. Anglin is in the half I have not followed, so if you quote him, then the quote will probably be new to me.

    I have followed Eric Striker, though, though he and I disagree about many things. It is true that Striker disbelieves that whites wish to be dispossessed. It would be interesting to hear you and Striker discuss the matter live.

    Until that happens, I will say that to promote defeatism is not Striker's part. There really are a significant number of whites uneasy about their own dispossession. Striker's chief medium is the podcast: he's not an especially good writer, though to his credit, he tries. It is hard to criticize Striker as long as his podcasts are effectively censored. A fair test of Striker would be to permit him fair access to his target audience. Then we would see whether you are right.

    That you are at least partly right, and perhaps mostly right, about the suicidal tendencies of Western civilisation and the race that made her is hard to deny.


    The first step towards bringing their political programme into reality is recognising this, but they can’t seem to bring themselves to see what is completely obvious.
     
    I am no notable alt-right figure (thank goodness), but I at least have just recognised what you suggest needs recognition.

    @dfordoom

    Triteleia has just done in one hour what you have not done in six months: namely, responded to the point. If you like to respond, as well, why, I'm all ears.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Perhaps one of us would be happy to talk with Eric Striker, though anonymity is important.

    I also get the role of propaganda. It need not be a dirty word. Positivity is exciting!

    The problem is that Striker, and many others, are not speaking in the vernacular. They start by saying that “whites are being dispossessed”, but almost no one believes that, nevermind cares about it.

    They then try to circumvent this gap in understanding by creating all sorts of conspiracy theories. This only further alienates their potential audience. It also sends their own thought patterns loopy.

    [MORE]

    To get people into “white nationalism ” and adjacent ideologies, on a strong form, you need them to see the world in the following ways. If they don’t, talk of “white dispossession ” will make no sense to them.

    1. White people need to see themselves as an exclusive group. One which they prioritise over other aspects of an individual’s complicated sets of identity.

    2. White people need to see themselves as possessing group ownership rights as “white people”. This also needs to be seen to supersede other ownership rights, both individual and group.

    3. White people need to see their group as specifically owning “Europe” and other lands.

    4. White people need to think that what is being done with their possession is bad for them and/or not fair or moral.

    5. White people need to care about all of this a lot. Not merely care enough to answer an opinion poll. 9% of people will kill an elephant unarmed in an opinion poll!

    Opinion polls are good for voting intentions, as voting is almost as easy as giving an opinion, but they are terrible for actions which carry costs.

    Those who say they want to lower immigration, also need to be able to, at least, say they want to put kids in cages.

    As I am sure you can appreciate, almost no one comes close to agreeing with these five points. The interesting question, for me, is what does a politics of “white interest” look like once it has accepted that gap?

    Where do white people feel pain as “white people”? What are they proud of as white people? What do they want for themselves and their children?

    Successful leaders find out where their people are, enter into conversation with them in their own language and try to address their concerns. This process requires humility and other uncommon skills.

    I find that most people who want to be leaders instead start with emotionally charged words, like “white genocide”. Define them in a way which suits their purposes and then scream at anyone who disagrees, accusing them of being guilty of that emotionally charged phrase. It is a form of ranting to oneself. Everyone does it sometimes.

    I am conflicted on whether this can work when you have a lot of power, but, even then, I don’t think so, not that this point is relevant to the position of “white advocates” anyway.

  102. A123 says:
    @Wency
    @Barbarossa

    Assad still only controls 60% of the country, which from Israel's standpoint is a lot better than 100% of the country. Assad is still a lot weaker today than he was before this began, and even 10 years from now that will probably still be true.

    I don't think you can say that Israel's objective was to put the Sunnis in charge. Israel's objective is probably something more like making sure whoever is in charge is weak. However, you don't say this out loud because it sounds bad, so what you say out loud is "I want [weaker party] in charge because... human rights. Therefore I am attacking [stronger party] somewhat, but I'm not going to totally defeat [stronger party] because... hey look a squirrel!" The net effect is you now made the two parties closer to parity and therefore prolonged the civil war.

    Replies: @A123, @anon

    The problem in Syria is more conventional national alignment rather than religious.

    Iranian al’Hezbollah is an offensive force and existential threat to Israel. Israel would be willing to work out a deal with Assad and Putin that returned Syria to its status as a 100% Iran free, Russian client state. However, as long as Khameni’s offensive arm is present, Israel will continue to defended itself against Iranian aggression.

    If Assad and Putin want peace in Syria, they have to get rid of Khameni. Alas, the madness that is Erdogan presents a challenge to this requirement. Simultaneously dealing with two irrational, expansionary, Muslim leaders is tricky.

    PEACE 😇

  103. anon[159] • Disclaimer says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    They hand-wave it away.
     
    Okay. Between you and @dfordoom, would you please name two U.S. alt-righters of note, who are understood by the U.S. alt-right to be alt-right (so Mike Cernovich for example would not count), who credit either of the propositons you and @dfordoom believe they credit?

    1. That the mainstream Christian churches were not a major driving force of the Poz and of Wokeness.

    2. That institutions like the Church of England were merely passive receptacles of forces that cause them to work counter to their own interests.

    Name names, please.

    @dfordoom is a treasured fellow commenter. I enjoy his remarks immensely, and I have enjoyed yours as well during our brief online acquaintance. Neither he nor you is obliged to answer any particular question I put. However, @dfordoom keeps making a collection of unfounded assertions regarding the alt-right, and today you are joining him. I have been asking @dfordoom for months please to name examples, but he cannot or will not. The simple explanation for this, of course, is that such examples are hard to find, if they exist at all.

    If I am mistaken, then how hard can finding two examples be? Andrew Anglin and Eric Striker are published right here at The Unz Review. Mike Peinovich and Richard B. Spencer are well known. Ryan Dawson, Borzoi Boskovic and Gregory Conte do not hide what they think, and if they don't suit, then one can always trawl the twitter feed of the whimsically named Bronze Age Pervert.

    This is the problem you get when media, police and courts [a] deplatform the alt-right and then [b] helpfully inform you what the alt-right would have said if not deplatformed. The alt-right has big self-inflicted problems and, actually, no longer exists as a coherent movement, but it did exist and was somewhat coherent 2014–17 and many of its leading U.S. personalities are still around.

    When you fail to find examples, will you consider that your and @dfordoom's assertions might be insubstantial and contrary to fact?

    @dfordoom

    Your bluff was called months ago. You have yet to lay your cards on the table as it were. I do not know why, but this is not like you. You can do better than this.

    But I suppose that, if it is really so important to you to propagate fantastical assertions regarding the U.S. alt-right while disregarding all evidence to the contrary, no one can stop you.

    I do not know why it should be so hard to find examples. I have closely followed the work of only half the alt-right figures I myself have named: from the other half, you should be able to collect a sequence of authentic quotes I have never heard without undue difficulty; but if you cannot or will not, then will you consider dropping this pogrom?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen, @anon, @dfordoom

    Your bluff was called months ago. You have yet to lay your cards on the table as it were. I do not know why, but this is not like you. You can do better than this.

    On the contrary, it is exactly like him. Handwaving vague generalities with few or no facts while striking a pose of moderate, moral, superiourity constitutes most of dfordoom comments. There is a certain style to the complacent, middle-aged man of reasonable security, and dford is one example.

    Asking a handwaver for facts is an exercise in futility. Of course, it’s only comments…

  104. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    Maybe he takes the same attitude towards defining the “alt-right” as you take towards defining “Jews.”
     
    The Jews are an ancient nation. They existed before you and I were born and will continue to exist long after funeral bells have tolled for the both of us. Jay Fink has recently linked a definition. Do you expect me to improve upon that? I am not Jewish.

    It is as though you had asked me to define, say, “winter weather.”

    Besides, I have asked no one to define anything in this thread. Only you have asked that. If you want definitions, no one is stopping you from supplying them, yourself.

    Replies: @iffen

    Besides, I have asked no one to define anything in this thread.

    I won’t accuse you of being willfully obtuse, but it crossed my mind.

    You wanted doom to name alt-rightists. That would be a form of defining. If I could name most alt-rightists, or even the “top” 25%, then that could be reasonably called definition. You claim an ownership interest in the group and seem to resent his generalizations and accusations.

    You generalize and make accusations against “Jews,” yet when asked, you decline to name or define the group. And this is exactly what you asked of doom.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    You generalize and make accusations against “Jews,” yet when asked, you decline to name or define the group. And this is exactly what you asked of doom.
     
    I give up. I have named Noah Oppenheim, Les Moonves, Adam Schiff, David Cicilline, Alejandro Mayorkas, Lawrence Bacow, Dana Nessel, Jeff Zucker and Larry Fink, among others; but if these aren't good enough—and if you really believe that I must define a nation before speaking of her—then you must be right:

    I won’t accuse you of being willfully obtuse, but it crossed my mind.
     
    Thanks for the nonaccusation, anyway.

    Replies: @iffen, @A123

  105. anon[149] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wency
    @Barbarossa

    Assad still only controls 60% of the country, which from Israel's standpoint is a lot better than 100% of the country. Assad is still a lot weaker today than he was before this began, and even 10 years from now that will probably still be true.

    I don't think you can say that Israel's objective was to put the Sunnis in charge. Israel's objective is probably something more like making sure whoever is in charge is weak. However, you don't say this out loud because it sounds bad, so what you say out loud is "I want [weaker party] in charge because... human rights. Therefore I am attacking [stronger party] somewhat, but I'm not going to totally defeat [stronger party] because... hey look a squirrel!" The net effect is you now made the two parties closer to parity and therefore prolonged the civil war.

    Replies: @A123, @anon

    Israel’s objective is probably something more like making sure whoever is in charge is weak.

    Exactly. Let’s list the three Arab countries most involved in the 1973 war.

    Egypt – still being paid off by the US as part of the Camp David accords.
    Jordan – essentially a separate peace where King Abdullah II keeps a lid on his country and Israel leaves him mostly alone.
    Syria – not paid off for historical reasons, Alawite minority rulers cannot allow anything like a real republic and are always going to be insecure to some degree.

    Obviously, of the three, Syria is the least stable, and due to ports is very easy to resupply. Therefore perpetual destabilization is one way to ensure ongoing control of the Golan heights and minimize danger from the direction of Damascus.

    Re-read “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli and this all should be obvious, however there is a tremendous amount of gaslighting that must be ignored.

  106. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Besides, I have asked no one to define anything in this thread.

    I won’t accuse you of being willfully obtuse, but it crossed my mind.

    You wanted doom to name alt-rightists. That would be a form of defining. If I could name most alt-rightists, or even the “top” 25%, then that could be reasonably called definition. You claim an ownership interest in the group and seem to resent his generalizations and accusations.

    You generalize and make accusations against “Jews,” yet when asked, you decline to name or define the group. And this is exactly what you asked of doom.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    You generalize and make accusations against “Jews,” yet when asked, you decline to name or define the group. And this is exactly what you asked of doom.

    I give up. I have named Noah Oppenheim, Les Moonves, Adam Schiff, David Cicilline, Alejandro Mayorkas, Lawrence Bacow, Dana Nessel, Jeff Zucker and Larry Fink, among others; but if these aren’t good enough—and if you really believe that I must define a nation before speaking of her—then you must be right:

    I won’t accuse you of being willfully obtuse, but it crossed my mind.

    Thanks for the nonaccusation, anyway.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Thanks for the nonaccusation, anyway. :)

    How could you possibly leave out Bret Stephens? I'm not an anti-Semite, but even I ...

    , @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    On your list trying to define ALL "Jews"


    Noah Oppenheim, Les Moonves, Adam Schiff, David Cicilline, Alejandro Mayorkas, Lawrence Bacow, Dana Nessel, Jeff Zucker and Larry Fink, among others;
     
    How many of them are:

    -1- Israeli Jews?
    -2- U.S. Orthodox Jews?
    -3- U.S. Politically MAGA Jews?

    We note the intentional omission of Benjamin Netanyahu. That should have been an easy name to include.

    Your list is incredibly remote from any interpretation of ALL "Jews". It seems to consist primarily of "Leftist, Elite, U.S., mostly non-observant Jews". If you want more friends and fewer enemies, you could make giant steps forward by selecting a better phrase to describe the group you are complaining about.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  107. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    You generalize and make accusations against “Jews,” yet when asked, you decline to name or define the group. And this is exactly what you asked of doom.
     
    I give up. I have named Noah Oppenheim, Les Moonves, Adam Schiff, David Cicilline, Alejandro Mayorkas, Lawrence Bacow, Dana Nessel, Jeff Zucker and Larry Fink, among others; but if these aren't good enough—and if you really believe that I must define a nation before speaking of her—then you must be right:

    I won’t accuse you of being willfully obtuse, but it crossed my mind.
     
    Thanks for the nonaccusation, anyway.

    Replies: @iffen, @A123

    Thanks for the nonaccusation, anyway. 🙂

    How could you possibly leave out Bret Stephens? I’m not an anti-Semite, but even I …

  108. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    You generalize and make accusations against “Jews,” yet when asked, you decline to name or define the group. And this is exactly what you asked of doom.
     
    I give up. I have named Noah Oppenheim, Les Moonves, Adam Schiff, David Cicilline, Alejandro Mayorkas, Lawrence Bacow, Dana Nessel, Jeff Zucker and Larry Fink, among others; but if these aren't good enough—and if you really believe that I must define a nation before speaking of her—then you must be right:

    I won’t accuse you of being willfully obtuse, but it crossed my mind.
     
    Thanks for the nonaccusation, anyway.

    Replies: @iffen, @A123

    On your list trying to define ALL “Jews”

    Noah Oppenheim, Les Moonves, Adam Schiff, David Cicilline, Alejandro Mayorkas, Lawrence Bacow, Dana Nessel, Jeff Zucker and Larry Fink, among others;

    How many of them are:

    -1- Israeli Jews?
    -2- U.S. Orthodox Jews?
    -3- U.S. Politically MAGA Jews?

    We note the intentional omission of Benjamin Netanyahu. That should have been an easy name to include.

    Your list is incredibly remote from any interpretation of ALL “Jews”. It seems to consist primarily of “Leftist, Elite, U.S., mostly non-observant Jews”. If you want more friends and fewer enemies, you could make giant steps forward by selecting a better phrase to describe the group you are complaining about.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    How many of them are:

    -1- Israeli Jews?
     
    None.

    -2- U.S. Orthodox Jews?
     
    I do not know. You can tell me if you like.

    -3- U.S. Politically MAGA Jews?
     
    None.

    We note the intentional omission of Benjamin Netanyahu. That should have been an easy name to include.
     
    I have no dispute I know with Netanyahu, except in the general sense that he is prime minister of Israel.

    Replies: @A123

  109. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    On your list trying to define ALL "Jews"


    Noah Oppenheim, Les Moonves, Adam Schiff, David Cicilline, Alejandro Mayorkas, Lawrence Bacow, Dana Nessel, Jeff Zucker and Larry Fink, among others;
     
    How many of them are:

    -1- Israeli Jews?
    -2- U.S. Orthodox Jews?
    -3- U.S. Politically MAGA Jews?

    We note the intentional omission of Benjamin Netanyahu. That should have been an easy name to include.

    Your list is incredibly remote from any interpretation of ALL "Jews". It seems to consist primarily of "Leftist, Elite, U.S., mostly non-observant Jews". If you want more friends and fewer enemies, you could make giant steps forward by selecting a better phrase to describe the group you are complaining about.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    How many of them are:

    -1- Israeli Jews?

    None.

    -2- U.S. Orthodox Jews?

    I do not know. You can tell me if you like.

    -3- U.S. Politically MAGA Jews?

    None.

    We note the intentional omission of Benjamin Netanyahu. That should have been an easy name to include.

    I have no dispute I know with Netanyahu, except in the general sense that he is prime minister of Israel.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    To the best of my knowledge none of them are Orthodox Branch, but I would be willing to be corrected if someone offers up evidence.


    I have no dispute I know with Netanyahu, except in the general sense that he is prime minister of Israel.
     
    So is it fair to say there is more than one sub-group within the broad top level category of "Jews"?

    You seem to have:
    • Very few grievances against Israeli Jews and U.S. Orthodox Jews. Many/Most of whom believe in traditional values.
    • Legitimate grievances against a U.S. group that is primarily left-aligned & SJW/Woke.

    If you can find a more precise definition for your foes, you open the door for a wider net of potential allies. Again, I suggest "Elite Jews" as a potentially useful short hand. If that does not work for you, try to find a sub -group for "_______ Jews" that better identifies the specific group being discussed. NYC Media Jews and Hollywood Jews are substantially dissimilar to non-elite Jewish groups.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    Politics is the art of the possible. Otto Von Bismarck, remark, Aug. 11, 1867
  110. @Jackbnimble123
    As a Jew it always was a pet peeve of mine that other Jews endlessly dwell on the holocaust. To me the Holocaust is more an embarrassment than anything, and should not only not be a focus for Jews but should be buried already. Seriously, it’s like blacks dwelling on slavery. Just get over it.

    Then again, I’m definetly an outlier Jews. Tbh I don’t care about anything on this list except perhaps leading an ethical and moral life, and that has nothing to do with Judaism specifically for me, just a general life guideline.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Paperback Writer

    In my travels among the Orthodox, they were almost totally uninterested in the Holocaust. Their lives are so intimately bound up in religion, ritual, and family, they just didn’t have the time.

    The one time I did engage w/one about the H, he told me that it was God’s punishment (excuse me, G-d’s” punishment) for the Jews for straying from the holy path. If he were Christian he’d get canceled for that. In fact Abe Foxperson did once slam some Christian preacher for saying that.

  111. A123 says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    How many of them are:

    -1- Israeli Jews?
     
    None.

    -2- U.S. Orthodox Jews?
     
    I do not know. You can tell me if you like.

    -3- U.S. Politically MAGA Jews?
     
    None.

    We note the intentional omission of Benjamin Netanyahu. That should have been an easy name to include.
     
    I have no dispute I know with Netanyahu, except in the general sense that he is prime minister of Israel.

    Replies: @A123

    To the best of my knowledge none of them are Orthodox Branch, but I would be willing to be corrected if someone offers up evidence.

    I have no dispute I know with Netanyahu, except in the general sense that he is prime minister of Israel.

    So is it fair to say there is more than one sub-group within the broad top level category of “Jews”?

    You seem to have:
    • Very few grievances against Israeli Jews and U.S. Orthodox Jews. Many/Most of whom believe in traditional values.
    • Legitimate grievances against a U.S. group that is primarily left-aligned & SJW/Woke.

    If you can find a more precise definition for your foes, you open the door for a wider net of potential allies. Again, I suggest “Elite Jews” as a potentially useful short hand. If that does not work for you, try to find a sub -group for “_______ Jews” that better identifies the specific group being discussed. NYC Media Jews and Hollywood Jews are substantially dissimilar to non-elite Jewish groups.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    Politics is the art of the possible. Otto Von Bismarck, remark, Aug. 11, 1867

  112. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    They hand-wave it away.
     
    Okay. Between you and @dfordoom, would you please name two U.S. alt-righters of note, who are understood by the U.S. alt-right to be alt-right (so Mike Cernovich for example would not count), who credit either of the propositons you and @dfordoom believe they credit?

    1. That the mainstream Christian churches were not a major driving force of the Poz and of Wokeness.

    2. That institutions like the Church of England were merely passive receptacles of forces that cause them to work counter to their own interests.

    Name names, please.

    @dfordoom is a treasured fellow commenter. I enjoy his remarks immensely, and I have enjoyed yours as well during our brief online acquaintance. Neither he nor you is obliged to answer any particular question I put. However, @dfordoom keeps making a collection of unfounded assertions regarding the alt-right, and today you are joining him. I have been asking @dfordoom for months please to name examples, but he cannot or will not. The simple explanation for this, of course, is that such examples are hard to find, if they exist at all.

    If I am mistaken, then how hard can finding two examples be? Andrew Anglin and Eric Striker are published right here at The Unz Review. Mike Peinovich and Richard B. Spencer are well known. Ryan Dawson, Borzoi Boskovic and Gregory Conte do not hide what they think, and if they don't suit, then one can always trawl the twitter feed of the whimsically named Bronze Age Pervert.

    This is the problem you get when media, police and courts [a] deplatform the alt-right and then [b] helpfully inform you what the alt-right would have said if not deplatformed. The alt-right has big self-inflicted problems and, actually, no longer exists as a coherent movement, but it did exist and was somewhat coherent 2014–17 and many of its leading U.S. personalities are still around.

    When you fail to find examples, will you consider that your and @dfordoom's assertions might be insubstantial and contrary to fact?

    @dfordoom

    Your bluff was called months ago. You have yet to lay your cards on the table as it were. I do not know why, but this is not like you. You can do better than this.

    But I suppose that, if it is really so important to you to propagate fantastical assertions regarding the U.S. alt-right while disregarding all evidence to the contrary, no one can stop you.

    I do not know why it should be so hard to find examples. I have closely followed the work of only half the alt-right figures I myself have named: from the other half, you should be able to collect a sequence of authentic quotes I have never heard without undue difficulty; but if you cannot or will not, then will you consider dropping this pogrom?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen, @anon, @dfordoom

    I used to read quite a few alt-right blogs but I gave them up. These days my only exposure to such things is reading Unz Review and even here there are only a few blogs that I read regularly. I prefer to use the term “far right” to encompass all the various factions (the alt-right, white nationalists, etc) at the far end of the political spectrum but you objected to that because you thought I was using “far right” in a pejorative sense. I prefer not to use the term alt-right because to be honest I don’t have an obsessive interest in right-wing politics and I can’t keep up with all the multifarious factions.

    There do seem to be people on the far right who are very hostile to Christianity. As a general rule however, judging purely by the commenters here, there does seem to me to be a tendency to react with vitriolic seething hostility when Jews are perceived to be doing something that is against the interests of whites but to react with less hostility when Christians do exactly the same things. There’s a tendency for some commenters here to give civilisationally destructive behaviour by Christians a bit of a free pass.

    There’s also a tendency to condemn all Jews when some Jews engage in civilisationally destructive behaviour but when Christians engage in the same behaviours there’s a tendency to blame this on a few bad apples.

    I have no wish to single out any individuals here because I have no desire to get involved in pointless online feuds.

    My initial comment was more than anything else an expression of puzzlement that there isn’t more awareness on the far right of the extreme harm that SJW/Woke Christianity is doing.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    an expression of puzzlement that there isn’t more awareness on the far right of the extreme harm that SJW/Woke Christianity is doing.

    It would hamper recruitment.

    Just like their "Stokely Carmichael" view of women in politics discourages most women, Rosie notwithstanding.

    , @SFG
    @dfordoom

    1. Christianity comes from Judaism, which of course makes it suspect.

    2. A lot of churches have gone woke.

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    ... you objected to that because you thought I was using “far right” in a pejorative sense.
     
    Pardon. That objection was not especially targeted at you. People can use whatever language they like but, for a few years during the mid-2010s, U.S. paleoconservatives found themselves in a transitory circumstantial alliance with U.S. racialist utopian social engineers. Paleoconservatism is objectively as centrist as centrist gets in my opinion, so the term “far right” is a bit vexing to me.

    However, I lack another term for it, and also I understand how the term arose. Also, it is not my part to police an honest man's language. Your words are yours to choose! If you prefer the term “far right,” then please use it.


    I have no wish to single out any individuals here because I have no desire to get involved in pointless online feuds.
     
    Okay. Online feuds are extremely boring.

    I have not been able to put my finger on it yet, but a filtration occurred between 2014 and 2021, during which the original alt-right was gradually replaced by losers. A few of the early, leading alt-right personalities are still around, but somehow—imperceptibly yet fairly rapidly, though continuously without any sharp break—the character of the movement almost entirely changed. Even the word “alt-right” was mostly abandoned by the alt-right by the end of 2019, which is just as well.

    Whether the change was because of FBI penetration (the sensational explanation) or merely because the smart, quick-witted alt-right of 2014 grew up and got jobs, wives, children and mortgages (the mundane explanation) is hard to say, but after the legion of losers filtered in, there isn't much point in the movement any more.

    I didn't help that Richard Spencer, a fascinating original thinker to this day—the man who, along with Paul Gottfried, coined the term “alt-right”—drowned himself in a vat of totally self-inflicted troubles.

    I am unsure exactly where I am going with this, so I'll close here, except to say that I remember the alt-right of 2014–17 and (speaking for myself) don't especially like to see the commenters to which you refer associated to it.

    But that is just me. I do not police language.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Wency
    @dfordoom

    Now, I'm not someone pushing the JQ angle very hard, but I can't help but observe that Jews, unlike Woke Christians, are often senior partners in pushing ahead Wokeness, and they have been senior partners in pushing ahead radical leftism since, well, at least Marx himself. George Soros and his Open Society Foundation probably have more influence in pushing ahead Wokeism than all of Woke Christianity put together.

    Woke Christianity is a very junior partner in the Woke coalition. And Woke Christianity leads with Wokeness, not Christianity -- that is to say, I don't think there are very many people who are unWoke, decide to follow Jesus and that ELCA is the way to do it, and then suddenly become Woke. Rather, people who start out in a traditional denomination become Woke and then sometimes decide to leave it for a liberal denomination (but just as often, they quit religion entirely).

    The main use of Woke Christianity, as a political tool, is to attack traditional Christians as hypocritical bigots, for the consumption of non-Christians. They otherwise aren't all that useful for pushing Wokeism ahead more generally -- half the Woke coalition still can't stand even their adulterated mockery of a religion.

    So some non-Christian Wokeists will say: "See, the Woke Christians say that women can be clergy, that abortion and gay marriage are A-OK, that Jesus was a socialist and a racial activist, etc., so when other Christians disagree with them, they're just bigots who don't read or understand the Bible."

    But just as often, other non-Christian Wokeists disagree with them and argue that the Bible is unsalvageable, that it is entirely homophobic, transphobic, misogynist, and racist.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  113. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I used to read quite a few alt-right blogs but I gave them up. These days my only exposure to such things is reading Unz Review and even here there are only a few blogs that I read regularly. I prefer to use the term "far right" to encompass all the various factions (the alt-right, white nationalists, etc) at the far end of the political spectrum but you objected to that because you thought I was using "far right" in a pejorative sense. I prefer not to use the term alt-right because to be honest I don't have an obsessive interest in right-wing politics and I can't keep up with all the multifarious factions.

    There do seem to be people on the far right who are very hostile to Christianity. As a general rule however, judging purely by the commenters here, there does seem to me to be a tendency to react with vitriolic seething hostility when Jews are perceived to be doing something that is against the interests of whites but to react with less hostility when Christians do exactly the same things. There's a tendency for some commenters here to give civilisationally destructive behaviour by Christians a bit of a free pass.

    There's also a tendency to condemn all Jews when some Jews engage in civilisationally destructive behaviour but when Christians engage in the same behaviours there's a tendency to blame this on a few bad apples.

    I have no wish to single out any individuals here because I have no desire to get involved in pointless online feuds.

    My initial comment was more than anything else an expression of puzzlement that there isn't more awareness on the far right of the extreme harm that SJW/Woke Christianity is doing.

    Replies: @iffen, @SFG, @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

    an expression of puzzlement that there isn’t more awareness on the far right of the extreme harm that SJW/Woke Christianity is doing.

    It would hamper recruitment.

    Just like their “Stokely Carmichael” view of women in politics discourages most women, Rosie notwithstanding.

  114. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I used to read quite a few alt-right blogs but I gave them up. These days my only exposure to such things is reading Unz Review and even here there are only a few blogs that I read regularly. I prefer to use the term "far right" to encompass all the various factions (the alt-right, white nationalists, etc) at the far end of the political spectrum but you objected to that because you thought I was using "far right" in a pejorative sense. I prefer not to use the term alt-right because to be honest I don't have an obsessive interest in right-wing politics and I can't keep up with all the multifarious factions.

    There do seem to be people on the far right who are very hostile to Christianity. As a general rule however, judging purely by the commenters here, there does seem to me to be a tendency to react with vitriolic seething hostility when Jews are perceived to be doing something that is against the interests of whites but to react with less hostility when Christians do exactly the same things. There's a tendency for some commenters here to give civilisationally destructive behaviour by Christians a bit of a free pass.

    There's also a tendency to condemn all Jews when some Jews engage in civilisationally destructive behaviour but when Christians engage in the same behaviours there's a tendency to blame this on a few bad apples.

    I have no wish to single out any individuals here because I have no desire to get involved in pointless online feuds.

    My initial comment was more than anything else an expression of puzzlement that there isn't more awareness on the far right of the extreme harm that SJW/Woke Christianity is doing.

    Replies: @iffen, @SFG, @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

    1. Christianity comes from Judaism, which of course makes it suspect.

    2. A lot of churches have gone woke.

  115. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I used to read quite a few alt-right blogs but I gave them up. These days my only exposure to such things is reading Unz Review and even here there are only a few blogs that I read regularly. I prefer to use the term "far right" to encompass all the various factions (the alt-right, white nationalists, etc) at the far end of the political spectrum but you objected to that because you thought I was using "far right" in a pejorative sense. I prefer not to use the term alt-right because to be honest I don't have an obsessive interest in right-wing politics and I can't keep up with all the multifarious factions.

    There do seem to be people on the far right who are very hostile to Christianity. As a general rule however, judging purely by the commenters here, there does seem to me to be a tendency to react with vitriolic seething hostility when Jews are perceived to be doing something that is against the interests of whites but to react with less hostility when Christians do exactly the same things. There's a tendency for some commenters here to give civilisationally destructive behaviour by Christians a bit of a free pass.

    There's also a tendency to condemn all Jews when some Jews engage in civilisationally destructive behaviour but when Christians engage in the same behaviours there's a tendency to blame this on a few bad apples.

    I have no wish to single out any individuals here because I have no desire to get involved in pointless online feuds.

    My initial comment was more than anything else an expression of puzzlement that there isn't more awareness on the far right of the extreme harm that SJW/Woke Christianity is doing.

    Replies: @iffen, @SFG, @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

    … you objected to that because you thought I was using “far right” in a pejorative sense.

    Pardon. That objection was not especially targeted at you. People can use whatever language they like but, for a few years during the mid-2010s, U.S. paleoconservatives found themselves in a transitory circumstantial alliance with U.S. racialist utopian social engineers. Paleoconservatism is objectively as centrist as centrist gets in my opinion, so the term “far right” is a bit vexing to me.

    However, I lack another term for it, and also I understand how the term arose. Also, it is not my part to police an honest man’s language. Your words are yours to choose! If you prefer the term “far right,” then please use it.

    [MORE]

    I have no wish to single out any individuals here because I have no desire to get involved in pointless online feuds.

    Okay. Online feuds are extremely boring.

    I have not been able to put my finger on it yet, but a filtration occurred between 2014 and 2021, during which the original alt-right was gradually replaced by losers. A few of the early, leading alt-right personalities are still around, but somehow—imperceptibly yet fairly rapidly, though continuously without any sharp break—the character of the movement almost entirely changed. Even the word “alt-right” was mostly abandoned by the alt-right by the end of 2019, which is just as well.

    Whether the change was because of FBI penetration (the sensational explanation) or merely because the smart, quick-witted alt-right of 2014 grew up and got jobs, wives, children and mortgages (the mundane explanation) is hard to say, but after the legion of losers filtered in, there isn’t much point in the movement any more.

    I didn’t help that Richard Spencer, a fascinating original thinker to this day—the man who, along with Paul Gottfried, coined the term “alt-right”—drowned himself in a vat of totally self-inflicted troubles.

    I am unsure exactly where I am going with this, so I’ll close here, except to say that I remember the alt-right of 2014–17 and (speaking for myself) don’t especially like to see the commenters to which you refer associated to it.

    But that is just me. I do not police language.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I have not been able to put my finger on it yet, but a filtration occurred between 2014 and 2021, during which the original alt-right was gradually replaced by losers.
     
    To some extent it happens with all political movements. Especially political movements that are outside the mainstream.

    Look at libertarianism. It started out making some very cogent and valid criticisms of the existing political and economic system. But libertarianism gradually lost touch with reality and started attracting crazies.

    Trotskyism is another example. The alt-right today reminds me a lot of Trotskyites I used to know.

    It's particularly a problem for political movements that fail to gain power. When a political faction actually does gain power it has to confront reality and learn to make compromises. But a movement that remains out of power can easily start to embrace fantasy solutions.
  116. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I used to read quite a few alt-right blogs but I gave them up. These days my only exposure to such things is reading Unz Review and even here there are only a few blogs that I read regularly. I prefer to use the term "far right" to encompass all the various factions (the alt-right, white nationalists, etc) at the far end of the political spectrum but you objected to that because you thought I was using "far right" in a pejorative sense. I prefer not to use the term alt-right because to be honest I don't have an obsessive interest in right-wing politics and I can't keep up with all the multifarious factions.

    There do seem to be people on the far right who are very hostile to Christianity. As a general rule however, judging purely by the commenters here, there does seem to me to be a tendency to react with vitriolic seething hostility when Jews are perceived to be doing something that is against the interests of whites but to react with less hostility when Christians do exactly the same things. There's a tendency for some commenters here to give civilisationally destructive behaviour by Christians a bit of a free pass.

    There's also a tendency to condemn all Jews when some Jews engage in civilisationally destructive behaviour but when Christians engage in the same behaviours there's a tendency to blame this on a few bad apples.

    I have no wish to single out any individuals here because I have no desire to get involved in pointless online feuds.

    My initial comment was more than anything else an expression of puzzlement that there isn't more awareness on the far right of the extreme harm that SJW/Woke Christianity is doing.

    Replies: @iffen, @SFG, @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

    Now, I’m not someone pushing the JQ angle very hard, but I can’t help but observe that Jews, unlike Woke Christians, are often senior partners in pushing ahead Wokeness, and they have been senior partners in pushing ahead radical leftism since, well, at least Marx himself. George Soros and his Open Society Foundation probably have more influence in pushing ahead Wokeism than all of Woke Christianity put together.

    Woke Christianity is a very junior partner in the Woke coalition. And Woke Christianity leads with Wokeness, not Christianity — that is to say, I don’t think there are very many people who are unWoke, decide to follow Jesus and that ELCA is the way to do it, and then suddenly become Woke. Rather, people who start out in a traditional denomination become Woke and then sometimes decide to leave it for a liberal denomination (but just as often, they quit religion entirely).

    The main use of Woke Christianity, as a political tool, is to attack traditional Christians as hypocritical bigots, for the consumption of non-Christians. They otherwise aren’t all that useful for pushing Wokeism ahead more generally — half the Woke coalition still can’t stand even their adulterated mockery of a religion.

    So some non-Christian Wokeists will say: “See, the Woke Christians say that women can be clergy, that abortion and gay marriage are A-OK, that Jesus was a socialist and a racial activist, etc., so when other Christians disagree with them, they’re just bigots who don’t read or understand the Bible.”

    But just as often, other non-Christian Wokeists disagree with them and argue that the Bible is unsalvageable, that it is entirely homophobic, transphobic, misogynist, and racist.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Wency


    Now, I’m not someone pushing the JQ angle very hard, but I can’t help but observe that Jews, unlike Woke Christians, are often senior partners in pushing ahead Wokeness, and they have been senior partners in pushing ahead radical leftism since, well, at least Marx himself.
     
    One problem I see today is an unwillingness to accept that one's political opponents may be acting in good faith. That's very obvious on the Cultural Left - there's an unwillingness to believe that many climate change sceptics may be acting in good faith rather than being corrupt tools of the oil industry. There's an unwillingness to accept that critics of Wokeness might not all be knuckle-dragging racists but that some might in fact be perfectly sincere in seeing Wokeness as dangerous and destructive. There's an unwillingness to believe that conservative Christians might not necessarily be fascists but might have sincere reasons for opposing the Social Justice agenda.

    And you see the same thing on the far right. A complete unwillingness to believe that many liberals and many leftists might in fact be acting in good faith. There's an unwillingness to believe that many Jews might not be motivated by a desire to genocide white people but might hold liberal or leftist views in good faith. And an unwillingness to believe that liberal Christians and white liberals might not be race traitors but might sincerely believe that Wokeness is a good thing.

    Maybe we need to stop assuming that our political opponents are evil and start seeing them as people who might be mistaken but who might also truly believe the things they claim to believe.

    Replies: @Wency

  117. @Wency
    @dfordoom

    Now, I'm not someone pushing the JQ angle very hard, but I can't help but observe that Jews, unlike Woke Christians, are often senior partners in pushing ahead Wokeness, and they have been senior partners in pushing ahead radical leftism since, well, at least Marx himself. George Soros and his Open Society Foundation probably have more influence in pushing ahead Wokeism than all of Woke Christianity put together.

    Woke Christianity is a very junior partner in the Woke coalition. And Woke Christianity leads with Wokeness, not Christianity -- that is to say, I don't think there are very many people who are unWoke, decide to follow Jesus and that ELCA is the way to do it, and then suddenly become Woke. Rather, people who start out in a traditional denomination become Woke and then sometimes decide to leave it for a liberal denomination (but just as often, they quit religion entirely).

    The main use of Woke Christianity, as a political tool, is to attack traditional Christians as hypocritical bigots, for the consumption of non-Christians. They otherwise aren't all that useful for pushing Wokeism ahead more generally -- half the Woke coalition still can't stand even their adulterated mockery of a religion.

    So some non-Christian Wokeists will say: "See, the Woke Christians say that women can be clergy, that abortion and gay marriage are A-OK, that Jesus was a socialist and a racial activist, etc., so when other Christians disagree with them, they're just bigots who don't read or understand the Bible."

    But just as often, other non-Christian Wokeists disagree with them and argue that the Bible is unsalvageable, that it is entirely homophobic, transphobic, misogynist, and racist.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Now, I’m not someone pushing the JQ angle very hard, but I can’t help but observe that Jews, unlike Woke Christians, are often senior partners in pushing ahead Wokeness, and they have been senior partners in pushing ahead radical leftism since, well, at least Marx himself.

    One problem I see today is an unwillingness to accept that one’s political opponents may be acting in good faith. That’s very obvious on the Cultural Left – there’s an unwillingness to believe that many climate change sceptics may be acting in good faith rather than being corrupt tools of the oil industry. There’s an unwillingness to accept that critics of Wokeness might not all be knuckle-dragging racists but that some might in fact be perfectly sincere in seeing Wokeness as dangerous and destructive. There’s an unwillingness to believe that conservative Christians might not necessarily be fascists but might have sincere reasons for opposing the Social Justice agenda.

    And you see the same thing on the far right. A complete unwillingness to believe that many liberals and many leftists might in fact be acting in good faith. There’s an unwillingness to believe that many Jews might not be motivated by a desire to genocide white people but might hold liberal or leftist views in good faith. And an unwillingness to believe that liberal Christians and white liberals might not be race traitors but might sincerely believe that Wokeness is a good thing.

    Maybe we need to stop assuming that our political opponents are evil and start seeing them as people who might be mistaken but who might also truly believe the things they claim to believe.

    • Disagree: iffen
    • Replies: @Wency
    @dfordoom

    Yeah, I mostly agree with you here, and I didn't think I implied otherwise. I think most politically active people at the grassroots level are acting in good faith most of the time. I even think Soros is probably acting mostly in good faith, in that he sincerely believes he is building a better world (and not just for Jews).


    stop assuming that our political opponents are evil
     
    Evil is a more complex question though. There are other sins and other crimes besides deceiving others; good faith alone does little to redeem a man. The human mind is wonderful at rationalization -- the heart can lie to itself but the mind can cover it up. It can handle cognitive dissonance by suppressing details that counteract your own preferred personal narrative, and now suddenly you're acting in good faith again.

    So good faith is overrated, but I don't go in for the demonization either -- I don't really think the right conducts itself noticeably better than the left most of the time, only that it serves a more righteous (or less degenerate) cause.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  118. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    ... you objected to that because you thought I was using “far right” in a pejorative sense.
     
    Pardon. That objection was not especially targeted at you. People can use whatever language they like but, for a few years during the mid-2010s, U.S. paleoconservatives found themselves in a transitory circumstantial alliance with U.S. racialist utopian social engineers. Paleoconservatism is objectively as centrist as centrist gets in my opinion, so the term “far right” is a bit vexing to me.

    However, I lack another term for it, and also I understand how the term arose. Also, it is not my part to police an honest man's language. Your words are yours to choose! If you prefer the term “far right,” then please use it.


    I have no wish to single out any individuals here because I have no desire to get involved in pointless online feuds.
     
    Okay. Online feuds are extremely boring.

    I have not been able to put my finger on it yet, but a filtration occurred between 2014 and 2021, during which the original alt-right was gradually replaced by losers. A few of the early, leading alt-right personalities are still around, but somehow—imperceptibly yet fairly rapidly, though continuously without any sharp break—the character of the movement almost entirely changed. Even the word “alt-right” was mostly abandoned by the alt-right by the end of 2019, which is just as well.

    Whether the change was because of FBI penetration (the sensational explanation) or merely because the smart, quick-witted alt-right of 2014 grew up and got jobs, wives, children and mortgages (the mundane explanation) is hard to say, but after the legion of losers filtered in, there isn't much point in the movement any more.

    I didn't help that Richard Spencer, a fascinating original thinker to this day—the man who, along with Paul Gottfried, coined the term “alt-right”—drowned himself in a vat of totally self-inflicted troubles.

    I am unsure exactly where I am going with this, so I'll close here, except to say that I remember the alt-right of 2014–17 and (speaking for myself) don't especially like to see the commenters to which you refer associated to it.

    But that is just me. I do not police language.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I have not been able to put my finger on it yet, but a filtration occurred between 2014 and 2021, during which the original alt-right was gradually replaced by losers.

    To some extent it happens with all political movements. Especially political movements that are outside the mainstream.

    Look at libertarianism. It started out making some very cogent and valid criticisms of the existing political and economic system. But libertarianism gradually lost touch with reality and started attracting crazies.

    Trotskyism is another example. The alt-right today reminds me a lot of Trotskyites I used to know.

    It’s particularly a problem for political movements that fail to gain power. When a political faction actually does gain power it has to confront reality and learn to make compromises. But a movement that remains out of power can easily start to embrace fantasy solutions.

  119. Trotskyism is another example. The alt-right today reminds me a lot of Trotskyites I used to know.

    Yes, and when did that happen?

    The alt-right has included a Trotskyist strain in since the beginning, but the Trotskyist used to comprise perhaps 15 percent of the whole. Now it seems to comprise 70 percent of the whole, still waxing.

    Also, Trotsky and the original alt-right were both more intelligent than today’s decayed post-alt-right is.

    It’s particularly a problem for political movements that fail to gain power. When a political faction actually does gain power it has to confront reality and learn to make compromises. But a movement that remains out of power can easily start to embrace fantasy solutions.

    The old alt-right implicitly grasped the distinction between [i] brainstorming, [ii] trolling and [iii] strategizing. The new post-alt-right thinks all three are strategizing. The new post-alt-right thinks trolling to be a strategy, which is curious insofar as the post-alt-right has generally ceased to be good at trolling.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Also, Trotsky and the original alt-right were both more intelligent than today’s decayed post-alt-right is.
     
    I wouldn't disagree with that.

    The Trotskyites I used to know were quite intelligent. Totally deluded, but quite intelligent.

    The old alt-right implicitly grasped the distinction between [i] brainstorming, [ii] trolling and [iii] strategizing. The new post-alt-right thinks all three are strategizing. The new post-alt-right thinks trolling to be a strategy, which is curious insofar as the post-alt-right has generally ceased to be good at trolling.
     
    Again I wouldn't disagree with you.
  120. @V. K. Ovelund

    Trotskyism is another example. The alt-right today reminds me a lot of Trotskyites I used to know.
     
    Yes, and when did that happen?

    The alt-right has included a Trotskyist strain in since the beginning, but the Trotskyist used to comprise perhaps 15 percent of the whole. Now it seems to comprise 70 percent of the whole, still waxing.

    Also, Trotsky and the original alt-right were both more intelligent than today's decayed post-alt-right is.

    It’s particularly a problem for political movements that fail to gain power. When a political faction actually does gain power it has to confront reality and learn to make compromises. But a movement that remains out of power can easily start to embrace fantasy solutions.
     
    The old alt-right implicitly grasped the distinction between [i] brainstorming, [ii] trolling and [iii] strategizing. The new post-alt-right thinks all three are strategizing. The new post-alt-right thinks trolling to be a strategy, which is curious insofar as the post-alt-right has generally ceased to be good at trolling.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Also, Trotsky and the original alt-right were both more intelligent than today’s decayed post-alt-right is.

    I wouldn’t disagree with that.

    The Trotskyites I used to know were quite intelligent. Totally deluded, but quite intelligent.

    The old alt-right implicitly grasped the distinction between [i] brainstorming, [ii] trolling and [iii] strategizing. The new post-alt-right thinks all three are strategizing. The new post-alt-right thinks trolling to be a strategy, which is curious insofar as the post-alt-right has generally ceased to be good at trolling.

    Again I wouldn’t disagree with you.

  121. @dfordoom
    @Wency


    Now, I’m not someone pushing the JQ angle very hard, but I can’t help but observe that Jews, unlike Woke Christians, are often senior partners in pushing ahead Wokeness, and they have been senior partners in pushing ahead radical leftism since, well, at least Marx himself.
     
    One problem I see today is an unwillingness to accept that one's political opponents may be acting in good faith. That's very obvious on the Cultural Left - there's an unwillingness to believe that many climate change sceptics may be acting in good faith rather than being corrupt tools of the oil industry. There's an unwillingness to accept that critics of Wokeness might not all be knuckle-dragging racists but that some might in fact be perfectly sincere in seeing Wokeness as dangerous and destructive. There's an unwillingness to believe that conservative Christians might not necessarily be fascists but might have sincere reasons for opposing the Social Justice agenda.

    And you see the same thing on the far right. A complete unwillingness to believe that many liberals and many leftists might in fact be acting in good faith. There's an unwillingness to believe that many Jews might not be motivated by a desire to genocide white people but might hold liberal or leftist views in good faith. And an unwillingness to believe that liberal Christians and white liberals might not be race traitors but might sincerely believe that Wokeness is a good thing.

    Maybe we need to stop assuming that our political opponents are evil and start seeing them as people who might be mistaken but who might also truly believe the things they claim to believe.

    Replies: @Wency

    Yeah, I mostly agree with you here, and I didn’t think I implied otherwise. I think most politically active people at the grassroots level are acting in good faith most of the time. I even think Soros is probably acting mostly in good faith, in that he sincerely believes he is building a better world (and not just for Jews).

    stop assuming that our political opponents are evil

    Evil is a more complex question though. There are other sins and other crimes besides deceiving others; good faith alone does little to redeem a man. The human mind is wonderful at rationalization — the heart can lie to itself but the mind can cover it up. It can handle cognitive dissonance by suppressing details that counteract your own preferred personal narrative, and now suddenly you’re acting in good faith again.

    So good faith is overrated, but I don’t go in for the demonization either — I don’t really think the right conducts itself noticeably better than the left most of the time, only that it serves a more righteous (or less degenerate) cause.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Wency


    Evil is a more complex question though. There are other sins and other crimes besides deceiving others; good faith alone does little to redeem a man. The human mind is wonderful at rationalization — the heart can lie to itself but the mind can cover it up. It can handle cognitive dissonance by suppressing details that counteract your own preferred personal narrative, and now suddenly you’re acting in good faith again.
     
    Yeah, evil gets real complicated. You can act in good faith and your actions can have evil consequences. I guess it's even theoretically possible for someone to act in bad faith but for their actions to have positive consequences.

    I don't think evil is a very useful concept.

    I guess the point I was trying to make is that people's motivations can rarely be reduced to simple good or evil. Most people's motivations are rather tangled and people often do not understand their own motivations. But most people believe they're acting in good faith, even if they have to resort to rationalisations to believe that.

    But it is important to bear in mind that sometimes one's political opponents actually are honest and honourable. They just don't believe the same things that we believe.

    It's also important to accept that sometimes our political allies, even people we regard as being on our team, act on motivations that are a tangled web of self-deception, rationalisations, self-interest and complete irrationality.

    It's also important to realise that one's political opponents are not monolithic. Some might be stupid, some might be very intelligent, some might be power-crazed fanatics, some might be victims of delusions or self-deceptions, and some will be decent intelligent sincere people who simply hold opposing beliefs to our own.

    And our political allies are not monolithic either. Some of them are appalling people who just happen to agree with us on key issues.

    We shouldn't demonise our opponents and we shouldn't idealise our allies.

    I don’t really think the right conducts itself noticeably better than the left most of the time,

     

    I agree.

    I don’t really think the right conducts itself noticeably better than the left most of the time, only that it serves a more righteous (or less degenerate) cause.
     
    I don't agree with that. Of course it very much depends on what you mean by the Right. I don't think
    the mainstream Right serves a more righteous, or less degenerate, cause. I don't think
    that neocons serve a more righteous, or less degenerate, cause. Again it comes down to not seeing political factions as monolithic. There are people on the Right who serve a more righteous, less degenerate, cause. There are people on the Left who serve a righteous, non-degenerate, cause.

    Replies: @Wency, @iffen

  122. @Wency
    @dfordoom

    Yeah, I mostly agree with you here, and I didn't think I implied otherwise. I think most politically active people at the grassroots level are acting in good faith most of the time. I even think Soros is probably acting mostly in good faith, in that he sincerely believes he is building a better world (and not just for Jews).


    stop assuming that our political opponents are evil
     
    Evil is a more complex question though. There are other sins and other crimes besides deceiving others; good faith alone does little to redeem a man. The human mind is wonderful at rationalization -- the heart can lie to itself but the mind can cover it up. It can handle cognitive dissonance by suppressing details that counteract your own preferred personal narrative, and now suddenly you're acting in good faith again.

    So good faith is overrated, but I don't go in for the demonization either -- I don't really think the right conducts itself noticeably better than the left most of the time, only that it serves a more righteous (or less degenerate) cause.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Evil is a more complex question though. There are other sins and other crimes besides deceiving others; good faith alone does little to redeem a man. The human mind is wonderful at rationalization — the heart can lie to itself but the mind can cover it up. It can handle cognitive dissonance by suppressing details that counteract your own preferred personal narrative, and now suddenly you’re acting in good faith again.

    Yeah, evil gets real complicated. You can act in good faith and your actions can have evil consequences. I guess it’s even theoretically possible for someone to act in bad faith but for their actions to have positive consequences.

    I don’t think evil is a very useful concept.

    I guess the point I was trying to make is that people’s motivations can rarely be reduced to simple good or evil. Most people’s motivations are rather tangled and people often do not understand their own motivations. But most people believe they’re acting in good faith, even if they have to resort to rationalisations to believe that.

    But it is important to bear in mind that sometimes one’s political opponents actually are honest and honourable. They just don’t believe the same things that we believe.

    It’s also important to accept that sometimes our political allies, even people we regard as being on our team, act on motivations that are a tangled web of self-deception, rationalisations, self-interest and complete irrationality.

    It’s also important to realise that one’s political opponents are not monolithic. Some might be stupid, some might be very intelligent, some might be power-crazed fanatics, some might be victims of delusions or self-deceptions, and some will be decent intelligent sincere people who simply hold opposing beliefs to our own.

    And our political allies are not monolithic either. Some of them are appalling people who just happen to agree with us on key issues.

    We shouldn’t demonise our opponents and we shouldn’t idealise our allies.

    I don’t really think the right conducts itself noticeably better than the left most of the time,

    I agree.

    I don’t really think the right conducts itself noticeably better than the left most of the time, only that it serves a more righteous (or less degenerate) cause.

    I don’t agree with that. Of course it very much depends on what you mean by the Right. I don’t think
    the mainstream Right serves a more righteous, or less degenerate, cause. I don’t think
    that neocons serve a more righteous, or less degenerate, cause. Again it comes down to not seeing political factions as monolithic. There are people on the Right who serve a more righteous, less degenerate, cause. There are people on the Left who serve a righteous, non-degenerate, cause.

    • Disagree: iffen
    • Replies: @Wency
    @dfordoom


    I don’t think evil is a very useful concept.
     
    Theologically, it's useful and meaningful. In a conversation between people of incompatible religious traditions, I'd probably say it's at least not very meaningful. Though it might still be "useful" as a point of propaganda. Just as dehumanization is "useful".

    I don’t think the mainstream Right serves a more righteous, or less degenerate, cause.
     
    In practice, the main purpose of the mainstream right (i.e., the Republican Party) is to delay and block the left and its degeneracy. It does a crappy job of it, and yet I can't deny that what meager resistance it puts up is less degenerate than actively pushing the degeneracy itself. Which is to say, the Danish military did more (on net) to resist Nazism than the Wehrmacht did.

    Now perhaps the Republicans are more likely to start World War III, but I suppose I just don't assign much weight at all to that probability.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @iffen
    @dfordoom

    I don’t think evil is a very useful concept.

    Even after these many years of being an atheist, I can still look at Nancy Pelosi's face and know that she is Satan's messenger.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  123. @dfordoom
    @Wency


    Evil is a more complex question though. There are other sins and other crimes besides deceiving others; good faith alone does little to redeem a man. The human mind is wonderful at rationalization — the heart can lie to itself but the mind can cover it up. It can handle cognitive dissonance by suppressing details that counteract your own preferred personal narrative, and now suddenly you’re acting in good faith again.
     
    Yeah, evil gets real complicated. You can act in good faith and your actions can have evil consequences. I guess it's even theoretically possible for someone to act in bad faith but for their actions to have positive consequences.

    I don't think evil is a very useful concept.

    I guess the point I was trying to make is that people's motivations can rarely be reduced to simple good or evil. Most people's motivations are rather tangled and people often do not understand their own motivations. But most people believe they're acting in good faith, even if they have to resort to rationalisations to believe that.

    But it is important to bear in mind that sometimes one's political opponents actually are honest and honourable. They just don't believe the same things that we believe.

    It's also important to accept that sometimes our political allies, even people we regard as being on our team, act on motivations that are a tangled web of self-deception, rationalisations, self-interest and complete irrationality.

    It's also important to realise that one's political opponents are not monolithic. Some might be stupid, some might be very intelligent, some might be power-crazed fanatics, some might be victims of delusions or self-deceptions, and some will be decent intelligent sincere people who simply hold opposing beliefs to our own.

    And our political allies are not monolithic either. Some of them are appalling people who just happen to agree with us on key issues.

    We shouldn't demonise our opponents and we shouldn't idealise our allies.

    I don’t really think the right conducts itself noticeably better than the left most of the time,

     

    I agree.

    I don’t really think the right conducts itself noticeably better than the left most of the time, only that it serves a more righteous (or less degenerate) cause.
     
    I don't agree with that. Of course it very much depends on what you mean by the Right. I don't think
    the mainstream Right serves a more righteous, or less degenerate, cause. I don't think
    that neocons serve a more righteous, or less degenerate, cause. Again it comes down to not seeing political factions as monolithic. There are people on the Right who serve a more righteous, less degenerate, cause. There are people on the Left who serve a righteous, non-degenerate, cause.

    Replies: @Wency, @iffen

    I don’t think evil is a very useful concept.

    Theologically, it’s useful and meaningful. In a conversation between people of incompatible religious traditions, I’d probably say it’s at least not very meaningful. Though it might still be “useful” as a point of propaganda. Just as dehumanization is “useful”.

    I don’t think the mainstream Right serves a more righteous, or less degenerate, cause.

    In practice, the main purpose of the mainstream right (i.e., the Republican Party) is to delay and block the left and its degeneracy. It does a crappy job of it, and yet I can’t deny that what meager resistance it puts up is less degenerate than actively pushing the degeneracy itself. Which is to say, the Danish military did more (on net) to resist Nazism than the Wehrmacht did.

    Now perhaps the Republicans are more likely to start World War III, but I suppose I just don’t assign much weight at all to that probability.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Wency


    In practice, the main purpose of the mainstream right (i.e., the Republican Party) is to delay and block the left and its degeneracy.
     
    In practice, the main purpose of the mainstream right (i.e., the Republican Party) is to further the neoliberal agenda, an agenda that in the long run is going to be much more socially destructive than communism. The mainstream right is composed of liberals. They might be right-wing liberals but they are still liberals. They have no desire to delay or block the liberal agenda. Their job is to make the socially destructive neoliberal agenda look slightly more palatable to social conservatives. Their job is to neuter social conservativism.

    The idea that these people have any interest in blocking such socially destructive agendas is, I'm afraid, pure wishful thinking.

    Now perhaps the Republicans are more likely to start World War III, but I suppose I just don’t assign much weight at all to that probability.
     
    I think nuclear war is more likely today than at any stage of the Cold War. The only question is whether it will be a Republican or a Democrat president who starts the nuclear war.

    I understand why many people still cling to the belief that the mainstream right is fighting the good fight but it really is a delusion.
  124. @dfordoom
    @Wency


    Evil is a more complex question though. There are other sins and other crimes besides deceiving others; good faith alone does little to redeem a man. The human mind is wonderful at rationalization — the heart can lie to itself but the mind can cover it up. It can handle cognitive dissonance by suppressing details that counteract your own preferred personal narrative, and now suddenly you’re acting in good faith again.
     
    Yeah, evil gets real complicated. You can act in good faith and your actions can have evil consequences. I guess it's even theoretically possible for someone to act in bad faith but for their actions to have positive consequences.

    I don't think evil is a very useful concept.

    I guess the point I was trying to make is that people's motivations can rarely be reduced to simple good or evil. Most people's motivations are rather tangled and people often do not understand their own motivations. But most people believe they're acting in good faith, even if they have to resort to rationalisations to believe that.

    But it is important to bear in mind that sometimes one's political opponents actually are honest and honourable. They just don't believe the same things that we believe.

    It's also important to accept that sometimes our political allies, even people we regard as being on our team, act on motivations that are a tangled web of self-deception, rationalisations, self-interest and complete irrationality.

    It's also important to realise that one's political opponents are not monolithic. Some might be stupid, some might be very intelligent, some might be power-crazed fanatics, some might be victims of delusions or self-deceptions, and some will be decent intelligent sincere people who simply hold opposing beliefs to our own.

    And our political allies are not monolithic either. Some of them are appalling people who just happen to agree with us on key issues.

    We shouldn't demonise our opponents and we shouldn't idealise our allies.

    I don’t really think the right conducts itself noticeably better than the left most of the time,

     

    I agree.

    I don’t really think the right conducts itself noticeably better than the left most of the time, only that it serves a more righteous (or less degenerate) cause.
     
    I don't agree with that. Of course it very much depends on what you mean by the Right. I don't think
    the mainstream Right serves a more righteous, or less degenerate, cause. I don't think
    that neocons serve a more righteous, or less degenerate, cause. Again it comes down to not seeing political factions as monolithic. There are people on the Right who serve a more righteous, less degenerate, cause. There are people on the Left who serve a righteous, non-degenerate, cause.

    Replies: @Wency, @iffen

    I don’t think evil is a very useful concept.

    Even after these many years of being an atheist, I can still look at Nancy Pelosi’s face and know that she is Satan’s messenger.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen



    I don’t think evil is a very useful concept.
     
    Even after these many years of being an atheist, I can still look at Nancy Pelosi’s face and know that she is Satan’s messenger.
     
    Yeah, I can sympathise. It's difficult not to have that response to many politicians. Across the political spectrum. I struggle not to see Scott Morrison as the Spawn of Satan.

    But I'm still not sure it's a good idea to mix theology and politics. I don't think that ends well.
  125. @Wency
    @dfordoom


    I don’t think evil is a very useful concept.
     
    Theologically, it's useful and meaningful. In a conversation between people of incompatible religious traditions, I'd probably say it's at least not very meaningful. Though it might still be "useful" as a point of propaganda. Just as dehumanization is "useful".

    I don’t think the mainstream Right serves a more righteous, or less degenerate, cause.
     
    In practice, the main purpose of the mainstream right (i.e., the Republican Party) is to delay and block the left and its degeneracy. It does a crappy job of it, and yet I can't deny that what meager resistance it puts up is less degenerate than actively pushing the degeneracy itself. Which is to say, the Danish military did more (on net) to resist Nazism than the Wehrmacht did.

    Now perhaps the Republicans are more likely to start World War III, but I suppose I just don't assign much weight at all to that probability.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    In practice, the main purpose of the mainstream right (i.e., the Republican Party) is to delay and block the left and its degeneracy.

    In practice, the main purpose of the mainstream right (i.e., the Republican Party) is to further the neoliberal agenda, an agenda that in the long run is going to be much more socially destructive than communism. The mainstream right is composed of liberals. They might be right-wing liberals but they are still liberals. They have no desire to delay or block the liberal agenda. Their job is to make the socially destructive neoliberal agenda look slightly more palatable to social conservatives. Their job is to neuter social conservativism.

    The idea that these people have any interest in blocking such socially destructive agendas is, I’m afraid, pure wishful thinking.

    Now perhaps the Republicans are more likely to start World War III, but I suppose I just don’t assign much weight at all to that probability.

    I think nuclear war is more likely today than at any stage of the Cold War. The only question is whether it will be a Republican or a Democrat president who starts the nuclear war.

    I understand why many people still cling to the belief that the mainstream right is fighting the good fight but it really is a delusion.

  126. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    I don’t think evil is a very useful concept.

    Even after these many years of being an atheist, I can still look at Nancy Pelosi's face and know that she is Satan's messenger.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I don’t think evil is a very useful concept.

    Even after these many years of being an atheist, I can still look at Nancy Pelosi’s face and know that she is Satan’s messenger.

    Yeah, I can sympathise. It’s difficult not to have that response to many politicians. Across the political spectrum. I struggle not to see Scott Morrison as the Spawn of Satan.

    But I’m still not sure it’s a good idea to mix theology and politics. I don’t think that ends well.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS