Very good article about the confidently uninformed and the havoc they create in their wake, as they casually talk about genocide, Zionism, the innocence of Islam etc. And then so aggressive when challenged! The 'well intentioned' harm is real.
Your input is appreciated as always, my friend. I think an understanding of good intention, no matter how harmful the outcome, is important to keep in mind while handling those following groupthink. Giving people that charity can provide a level of safety required for them to finally acknowledge the damage they're causing.
Although the effort to set the record straight on history, religion, politics and morality is well intentioned, it misses the mark. If the notion that antizionist protests are founded in facts and legitimate political points, counterfacts, reason and argument would be a realistic opposition approach. but if racists argued blacks were subhuman, would the response be trying to disprove that or denying it? Or revulsion and naming it correctly as disgusting libel?
No, the trick here is first and foremost to assign the correct name to what is going on: rank Judenhass. No different than the slurs and libels from the Third Reich than those of the Middle Ages accusing us of drinking the blood of Christian babies. And make no mistake about it; there is a reason the protestors carry on the most against the state of Israel as a killer of children. That is no coincidence but continuation of an ancient hatred.
Sadly we ceded long ago the idea that protests against Israel's legitimacy (delegitimizing), demonizing her and applying double standards were political responses objecting to Israel's conduct. Perhaps from our parents generation's eagerness to assimilate and escape the "otherness" carried over the Atlantic from the old country. We proudly divorced ourself in the land of freedom and opportunity from our old fashioned dress, language and customs. So must the Jews of the Weimar Republic, a liberal place in the early 20th century before the rise of Nazism, felt. Loyal Germans.
History should have taught us otherwise. After all, antizionism became the new antisemitism masquerading as the highest moral order in the 1970s given the USSR's successful efforts now taken root mostly in the academy and the American Left of Israel as a settler colonialist project furthering oppression. Genocidal. Divided by apartheid. In the last half cetury those poison seeds around creation of the PLO and Eastern hemisphere embrace of the "Palestinian" identity have borne their foul fruit. The modern, risible take furthering white oppression given Israel's status as the most multi ethnic state in MENA. That's why antizionists freely apply double standards. identity based antipathy cloaked in language USSR pushed in UN in 1970s: zionism is racism.
Judaism is threefold: Torah, Zion (Israel) and people. antizionism the new antisemitism. seeking to strip us of our identity.
Cloaked in the language of highest morality. In the middle ages it was because we were considered heretics to christianity, infidels to muslims. in the 1940s it was racial purity, leading to judenhass. today, its settler colonialism, zionism is racism (an orgsnized campaign by the USSR in the UN to fight the West accelerated adoption in the US academy). but its the same old, same old.
just as viruses mutate, so has this malevolent thinking. masquerading as political, concealing identity based hate.
One typically must be able to identify a problem to fix it. We are not facing a problem of politics, or insufficiently educated opposition albeit those issues may fan the flames. The solution is first and foremost to educate our own people, American Jewry and in particular Gen X and younger. Judaism is indivisible from our ancestral homeland. To deny this is to deny your very identity.
Our Semitism is stamped onto our genes. It is no accident thousands of years after Judea and David thousands of miles away we pray in this ancient language. Our connection to the land is as undeniable as the archaeological record. We must call out antizionism for what it is: rank antisemitism. Zion and we are indisible; this was true before Israel's formation and will remain so unless we forget this essential lesson.
As a Jewish Israeli I know all of that and agree with you, but the purpose of this post wasn't to make any arguments about the situation. The true antisemites can't be reasoned with as they don't care and the people in the mob don't think independently. The goal of this piece was to shake some people into thinking for themselves and open them up to the greater conversations about this issue. I am making no effort to set the record straight here, as it would be pointless with the intended audience of the post. The issue of the day is groupthink, hence my discussion of Lawrence Kohlberg.
That said, maybe they'll see your comment and learn from it.
Allow me to make a qualification: the choice is not between to *be* good or to be seen as good, the choice is between to *do* good or be seen as good. The be good is still self focused, while to do good is focused on outcomes
At the risk of sounding insanely pretentious (my deepest apologies), I view being good as a state of habituation to doing good. I'm not exactly a virtue ethicist but Aristotle's ideas influence how I phrase and see things. The way I see it, to be good is to be one who is has learned to do good naturally and effortlessly for the sake of goodness.
I do think doing good often takes effort, though. This is perhaps why so many idiots are frantically virtue signaling about Gaza - it replaces real effort (like actual volunteering)
This is why I prefer to say “prosocial institution building” instead of doing or being “good.” Especially because prosocial institution building, by definition, requires effort, contribution, participation, and direct accountability. In short, it requires putting skin in the game for getting it right but also getting it wrong. But progressive antizionism is a recalcitrant phenomenon, because it allows its adherents to use Zionism (and often Jewishness) and “White Privilege” interchangeably. So, its adherent can proclaim having skin in the game when in reality they don’t. https://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-baggage-of-whiteness.html
Thanks. You may written posts dedicated to how prosocial imstitute building is at complete odds with current "virtue" networks, but if not, I think it definitely is worthy of a dedicated post.
I was so unprepared to encounter people with disrupted cognitive connections in the modern world that I couldn't understand it for a long time.
Finally, I understood the problem with these people who structure their consciousness like a cult. Your article completely confirmed what I see and hear, but still can't quite articulate. Thank you.
Oh, and one more thing. The format of the article himself is very interesting, engaging, and easy to read. I really appreciate that, too.
It’s all about “virtue signaling” and the confusion of whose virtue? Calling Trump a “dictator” while he arrests an actual one, with the “hands off Venezuela” marching in protest when the Venezuelans are celebrating. Totally confused about Iran since they also backed the Mullahs when Israel was bombing the shit out of their nukes and Trump stepped up to help save the world. And, the Iranians are protesting against the regime.
This is their dilemma. What’s virtuous in their eyes.
Nicely put. I really like the concept of the Cognitive Dissident. I've got to repost this so I can go on record giving you credit for it before I start using it all the time!
Excellent. I’ve discussed much of Anita’s makeup across different domains, in at least a dozen of my essays. “Cognitive Dissidents” is a brilliant title. I look forward to reading more of your work.
What a great summary of this disturbing, confusing and unsettling behavior. I could add destructive. Oddly, in my experience, option #2 creates as much fury as option #3. You can’t just remain neutral, you must agree and agree with passion. Rage is even better. Anything else makes you suspect and it won’t be long before you’re assessed as the enemy. Like being surrounded by a pack of wolves in the wilderness. Standing still may or may not work.
This may sound dramatic, but based on my gradual loss of family and friends in these past years, it’s how I feel.
I’ve been thinking about this very thing for the past week: how does one extend an invitation to a fellow, vote-blue-no-matter-who citizen in order that he or she may be receptive to acceptance of new perspectives, beyond the whole-of-society propaganda under which his or her brain has been spellbound, without confronting the question of previous delusion?
I don't think you can force a change of mind, but creating an accepting relationship that focuses on what you have in common would be a good start. Opening a warm, open invitation to peaceful, productive disagreement and letting it stand has been how I've engaged others. They likely won't take you up on it immediately, but perhaps they would feel safe talking to you should their minds become open to change. The dialogue is usually incremental and within the limits of their courage in the face of uncertainty, and the way you interact with them can foster or stifle that growth. You can't make someone change their mind, but you can always offer a safe, informative place to do so.
Very good article about the confidently uninformed and the havoc they create in their wake, as they casually talk about genocide, Zionism, the innocence of Islam etc. And then so aggressive when challenged! The 'well intentioned' harm is real.
Your input is appreciated as always, my friend. I think an understanding of good intention, no matter how harmful the outcome, is important to keep in mind while handling those following groupthink. Giving people that charity can provide a level of safety required for them to finally acknowledge the damage they're causing.
I sincerely enjoyed your essay. Thank you. I have a deeper understanding of what makes an “Anita” tick.
Thank you so much!
There's a good example of the kind of person described in this essay in a currently viral video from Berlin.
Well, let's pray the poor soul finds some clarity soon.
Although the effort to set the record straight on history, religion, politics and morality is well intentioned, it misses the mark. If the notion that antizionist protests are founded in facts and legitimate political points, counterfacts, reason and argument would be a realistic opposition approach. but if racists argued blacks were subhuman, would the response be trying to disprove that or denying it? Or revulsion and naming it correctly as disgusting libel?
No, the trick here is first and foremost to assign the correct name to what is going on: rank Judenhass. No different than the slurs and libels from the Third Reich than those of the Middle Ages accusing us of drinking the blood of Christian babies. And make no mistake about it; there is a reason the protestors carry on the most against the state of Israel as a killer of children. That is no coincidence but continuation of an ancient hatred.
Sadly we ceded long ago the idea that protests against Israel's legitimacy (delegitimizing), demonizing her and applying double standards were political responses objecting to Israel's conduct. Perhaps from our parents generation's eagerness to assimilate and escape the "otherness" carried over the Atlantic from the old country. We proudly divorced ourself in the land of freedom and opportunity from our old fashioned dress, language and customs. So must the Jews of the Weimar Republic, a liberal place in the early 20th century before the rise of Nazism, felt. Loyal Germans.
History should have taught us otherwise. After all, antizionism became the new antisemitism masquerading as the highest moral order in the 1970s given the USSR's successful efforts now taken root mostly in the academy and the American Left of Israel as a settler colonialist project furthering oppression. Genocidal. Divided by apartheid. In the last half cetury those poison seeds around creation of the PLO and Eastern hemisphere embrace of the "Palestinian" identity have borne their foul fruit. The modern, risible take furthering white oppression given Israel's status as the most multi ethnic state in MENA. That's why antizionists freely apply double standards. identity based antipathy cloaked in language USSR pushed in UN in 1970s: zionism is racism.
Judaism is threefold: Torah, Zion (Israel) and people. antizionism the new antisemitism. seeking to strip us of our identity.
Cloaked in the language of highest morality. In the middle ages it was because we were considered heretics to christianity, infidels to muslims. in the 1940s it was racial purity, leading to judenhass. today, its settler colonialism, zionism is racism (an orgsnized campaign by the USSR in the UN to fight the West accelerated adoption in the US academy). but its the same old, same old.
just as viruses mutate, so has this malevolent thinking. masquerading as political, concealing identity based hate.
One typically must be able to identify a problem to fix it. We are not facing a problem of politics, or insufficiently educated opposition albeit those issues may fan the flames. The solution is first and foremost to educate our own people, American Jewry and in particular Gen X and younger. Judaism is indivisible from our ancestral homeland. To deny this is to deny your very identity.
Our Semitism is stamped onto our genes. It is no accident thousands of years after Judea and David thousands of miles away we pray in this ancient language. Our connection to the land is as undeniable as the archaeological record. We must call out antizionism for what it is: rank antisemitism. Zion and we are indisible; this was true before Israel's formation and will remain so unless we forget this essential lesson.
As a Jewish Israeli I know all of that and agree with you, but the purpose of this post wasn't to make any arguments about the situation. The true antisemites can't be reasoned with as they don't care and the people in the mob don't think independently. The goal of this piece was to shake some people into thinking for themselves and open them up to the greater conversations about this issue. I am making no effort to set the record straight here, as it would be pointless with the intended audience of the post. The issue of the day is groupthink, hence my discussion of Lawrence Kohlberg.
That said, maybe they'll see your comment and learn from it.
Allow me to make a qualification: the choice is not between to *be* good or to be seen as good, the choice is between to *do* good or be seen as good. The be good is still self focused, while to do good is focused on outcomes
At the risk of sounding insanely pretentious (my deepest apologies), I view being good as a state of habituation to doing good. I'm not exactly a virtue ethicist but Aristotle's ideas influence how I phrase and see things. The way I see it, to be good is to be one who is has learned to do good naturally and effortlessly for the sake of goodness.
I do think doing good often takes effort, though. This is perhaps why so many idiots are frantically virtue signaling about Gaza - it replaces real effort (like actual volunteering)
This is why I prefer to say “prosocial institution building” instead of doing or being “good.” Especially because prosocial institution building, by definition, requires effort, contribution, participation, and direct accountability. In short, it requires putting skin in the game for getting it right but also getting it wrong. But progressive antizionism is a recalcitrant phenomenon, because it allows its adherents to use Zionism (and often Jewishness) and “White Privilege” interchangeably. So, its adherent can proclaim having skin in the game when in reality they don’t. https://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-baggage-of-whiteness.html
Thanks. You may written posts dedicated to how prosocial imstitute building is at complete odds with current "virtue" networks, but if not, I think it definitely is worthy of a dedicated post.
A wonderful article and a very accurate title.
I was so unprepared to encounter people with disrupted cognitive connections in the modern world that I couldn't understand it for a long time.
Finally, I understood the problem with these people who structure their consciousness like a cult. Your article completely confirmed what I see and hear, but still can't quite articulate. Thank you.
Oh, and one more thing. The format of the article himself is very interesting, engaging, and easy to read. I really appreciate that, too.
I'm glad you liked it!
It’s all about “virtue signaling” and the confusion of whose virtue? Calling Trump a “dictator” while he arrests an actual one, with the “hands off Venezuela” marching in protest when the Venezuelans are celebrating. Totally confused about Iran since they also backed the Mullahs when Israel was bombing the shit out of their nukes and Trump stepped up to help save the world. And, the Iranians are protesting against the regime.
This is their dilemma. What’s virtuous in their eyes.
They are on the wrong side of history.
Similar quandary years ago when Stalin signed the pact with Hitler. All the little communists had to wait to hear the party line.
No era or demographic is immune and most people are susceptible. The sooner we normalize the facts of the matter, the better off we'll all be.
WOW
Nicely put. I really like the concept of the Cognitive Dissident. I've got to repost this so I can go on record giving you credit for it before I start using it all the time!
Excellent. I’ve discussed much of Anita’s makeup across different domains, in at least a dozen of my essays. “Cognitive Dissidents” is a brilliant title. I look forward to reading more of your work.
Thank you! I look forward to reading your work as well!
What a great summary of this disturbing, confusing and unsettling behavior. I could add destructive. Oddly, in my experience, option #2 creates as much fury as option #3. You can’t just remain neutral, you must agree and agree with passion. Rage is even better. Anything else makes you suspect and it won’t be long before you’re assessed as the enemy. Like being surrounded by a pack of wolves in the wilderness. Standing still may or may not work.
This may sound dramatic, but based on my gradual loss of family and friends in these past years, it’s how I feel.
Too often when reason leaves, passion takes over in the worst of ways. I'm so sorry you've had to endure all of that.
Thank you, that’s very kind.
I feel like I am surrounded by Anitas!
#Pray4Prag
😂
Well done. Thank you.
yes, makes sense. ty!
I’ve been thinking about this very thing for the past week: how does one extend an invitation to a fellow, vote-blue-no-matter-who citizen in order that he or she may be receptive to acceptance of new perspectives, beyond the whole-of-society propaganda under which his or her brain has been spellbound, without confronting the question of previous delusion?
I don't think you can force a change of mind, but creating an accepting relationship that focuses on what you have in common would be a good start. Opening a warm, open invitation to peaceful, productive disagreement and letting it stand has been how I've engaged others. They likely won't take you up on it immediately, but perhaps they would feel safe talking to you should their minds become open to change. The dialogue is usually incremental and within the limits of their courage in the face of uncertainty, and the way you interact with them can foster or stifle that growth. You can't make someone change their mind, but you can always offer a safe, informative place to do so.
Thank you. This is helpful: “The dialogue is usually incremental and within the limits of their courage in the face of uncertainty”.
She needs to learn some critical thinking .