I find it particularly surprising how many young western progressives’ concern for the suffering of the Palestinian people can lead to condoning, or at least a failure to condemn Hamas; a far-right theocratic death cult. It seems trivial to me to separate these two and to even recognize Hamas as the chief barrier to the security and flourishing of the Palestinians.
Yet many western supporters feel the need to “sane wash” Hamas’s terrorism as something of a just liberation movement. That includes ignoring Hamas’s strategic use of Palestinians as human shields and their celebration of the resulting civilian deaths as martyrs for use in their propaganda.
Why can’t western Palestinian supporters separate out Hamas for condemnation?
The simple fact is the holocaust and Nazi crimes in general is the only ones we remember are the Jews, even though the Nazies killed a lot more assorted Untermenchsen than the Jews. We remember the Jews because unlike gypsies or slavs Jews are genetically superior and have power.
"In a society in which the oppressor/oppressed dialectic possesses the only moral valence, deciding who can be in the oppressed bucket is the most pressing moral debate. And the people tearing down signs of Israeli hostages are saying "We refuse to put Jews in the divine victim category." And Jews are saying back, “we refuse to be seen as oppressors”. Not this time. And that pushback by an accused oppressor is new, and explains why we have our first intra-civil war."
This is what I've been paying attention to, as the Palestinians utilize the West's Oppressor/Oppressed morality merely as a means to an end, what other groups are also going to take advantage of this reality that the west subscribes to?
Are we going to see folks that are opposed to the US utilize this during an election cycle to re-spark the riots of the Floyd/BLM? I feel that the Pro-Palestine side is somewhat aware of this fact but what is the potential for this to spread elsewhere, to other supposed disenfranchised external groups that want to push their own agenda? We've seen this very recently with the Sikhs/Indians in Canada where India seems to have carried out an assassination/murder on a Canadian "citizen" and Canada didn't bat an eye. If the west continues this decay are we to expect other external players to continue to utilize our own failings and morality to enact their desires and push their own ends?
Great article and podcasts as always Erik! You're leading the way with truly thought provoking content.
Agree with this piece overall, very insightful, but one statement stands out to me as obviously wrong:
“Indeed: One thing we learned as a result of this conflict is that the people who run our institutions were willing to be targeted as men, they were willing to be targeted as whites, but they aren’t willing to be targeted as Jews.”
Uhh no. There’s no movement that killed and raped over a thousand men or whites in one day, followed by women or non-whites in academia celebrating or justifying the attack.
As meta-politics or philosophy, you've written a reasonable narrative. As political economy, it's... unpersuasive. I would say: many people are willing to do many things when there are no costs. "The current thing" has been a relatively cost-free exercise indulged in by people with too few material needs and too much time on their hands. It has been manipulated by people with too many status/material wants and very little knowledge/recognition of human nature. People within the dynamics were never fooled (see Dave Chappelle on Juicy Smolié, as he calls him) but only along for the ride. Hamas doesn't think they're freedom fighters. Ukrainians don't think they were or will be living in a liberal democracy. Men growing their hair out to win in women's sports aren't chopping off their dangly bits.
Some others are willing to go along for the crowd kudos, and other others are not, for a wide variety of reasons, good and bad. Someone is always paying real costs and only the easily led (gosh maybe I am just as bad as Simon Legree), the not-quite-as-cunning-as-they-think-they-are (I'll apologize & they'll leave me alone), the vulnerable (can't afford to lose this job / these connections) and the suicidal (I don't deserve this but I deserve bad things) go along with a top-down narrative they suspect or know to be false.
The tide was already turning in more recent years, as the universe of Current Things continued to cast about for ever more sacred cows to gore, because: "Everyone is conservative about what they know best." Parents started seeing the real costs for their kids; parents and girls started seeing the real costs for girls' sports and safety; corporations started seeing the real costs of DEI/ESG/and so forth; etc.; and now the face-eating leopards have come for the Jews.
Have all these things been used by sociopolitical entrepreneurs in all sorts of attempts to increase their own assets (power, money, celebrity)? Oh yeah, absolutely. But they're effectively driving very little; they're only opportunists. It's overused but: Soft times make soft people. Soft people make hard times. Hard times make hard people. <-- And we now, especially the Jews right now, are here.
I find it particularly surprising how many young western progressives’ concern for the suffering of the Palestinian people can lead to condoning, or at least a failure to condemn Hamas; a far-right theocratic death cult. It seems trivial to me to separate these two and to even recognize Hamas as the chief barrier to the security and flourishing of the Palestinians.
Yet many western supporters feel the need to “sane wash” Hamas’s terrorism as something of a just liberation movement. That includes ignoring Hamas’s strategic use of Palestinians as human shields and their celebration of the resulting civilian deaths as martyrs for use in their propaganda.
Why can’t western Palestinian supporters separate out Hamas for condemnation?
Banger
Democrat Derangement Syndrome against Jews, based on lies and hate.
Fed by prior Dem Derangement Syndrome against Trump, based on lies and hate.
It had been fed by the mis-labeled Bush Derangement Syndrome, based on lies and hate.
Dem DS has often been supported by high IQ Jews supplying rationalizations to the market wanting arguments to confirm their hate based beliefs.
The simple fact is the holocaust and Nazi crimes in general is the only ones we remember are the Jews, even though the Nazies killed a lot more assorted Untermenchsen than the Jews. We remember the Jews because unlike gypsies or slavs Jews are genetically superior and have power.
"In a society in which the oppressor/oppressed dialectic possesses the only moral valence, deciding who can be in the oppressed bucket is the most pressing moral debate. And the people tearing down signs of Israeli hostages are saying "We refuse to put Jews in the divine victim category." And Jews are saying back, “we refuse to be seen as oppressors”. Not this time. And that pushback by an accused oppressor is new, and explains why we have our first intra-civil war."
This is what I've been paying attention to, as the Palestinians utilize the West's Oppressor/Oppressed morality merely as a means to an end, what other groups are also going to take advantage of this reality that the west subscribes to?
Are we going to see folks that are opposed to the US utilize this during an election cycle to re-spark the riots of the Floyd/BLM? I feel that the Pro-Palestine side is somewhat aware of this fact but what is the potential for this to spread elsewhere, to other supposed disenfranchised external groups that want to push their own agenda? We've seen this very recently with the Sikhs/Indians in Canada where India seems to have carried out an assassination/murder on a Canadian "citizen" and Canada didn't bat an eye. If the west continues this decay are we to expect other external players to continue to utilize our own failings and morality to enact their desires and push their own ends?
Great article and podcasts as always Erik! You're leading the way with truly thought provoking content.
Agree with this piece overall, very insightful, but one statement stands out to me as obviously wrong:
“Indeed: One thing we learned as a result of this conflict is that the people who run our institutions were willing to be targeted as men, they were willing to be targeted as whites, but they aren’t willing to be targeted as Jews.”
Uhh no. There’s no movement that killed and raped over a thousand men or whites in one day, followed by women or non-whites in academia celebrating or justifying the attack.
Nailed it.
As meta-politics or philosophy, you've written a reasonable narrative. As political economy, it's... unpersuasive. I would say: many people are willing to do many things when there are no costs. "The current thing" has been a relatively cost-free exercise indulged in by people with too few material needs and too much time on their hands. It has been manipulated by people with too many status/material wants and very little knowledge/recognition of human nature. People within the dynamics were never fooled (see Dave Chappelle on Juicy Smolié, as he calls him) but only along for the ride. Hamas doesn't think they're freedom fighters. Ukrainians don't think they were or will be living in a liberal democracy. Men growing their hair out to win in women's sports aren't chopping off their dangly bits.
Some others are willing to go along for the crowd kudos, and other others are not, for a wide variety of reasons, good and bad. Someone is always paying real costs and only the easily led (gosh maybe I am just as bad as Simon Legree), the not-quite-as-cunning-as-they-think-they-are (I'll apologize & they'll leave me alone), the vulnerable (can't afford to lose this job / these connections) and the suicidal (I don't deserve this but I deserve bad things) go along with a top-down narrative they suspect or know to be false.
The tide was already turning in more recent years, as the universe of Current Things continued to cast about for ever more sacred cows to gore, because: "Everyone is conservative about what they know best." Parents started seeing the real costs for their kids; parents and girls started seeing the real costs for girls' sports and safety; corporations started seeing the real costs of DEI/ESG/and so forth; etc.; and now the face-eating leopards have come for the Jews.
Have all these things been used by sociopolitical entrepreneurs in all sorts of attempts to increase their own assets (power, money, celebrity)? Oh yeah, absolutely. But they're effectively driving very little; they're only opportunists. It's overused but: Soft times make soft people. Soft people make hard times. Hard times make hard people. <-- And we now, especially the Jews right now, are here.