People can have whatever beliefs they want, but when their beliefs tell them to ignore the rights of others and also do harm then they have crossed the line.
Wow. Thanks for the link to such a competent analysis of Israel, Zionism, and Judaism itself. If justice can prevail in this world, this will be required reading for all Jews. Like you, I would've regarded this straightforward analysis as too harsh, if I had read it several years ago. But facts are facts and we all must face the reality. People go astray, both individuals and groups.
That article heavily leverages "the Jews" (eg in "Collectively, Jews...."), which is deep water for drowning in stereotypes.
I don't buy into that religious argument. It is for sure a factor and is weaponized to bolster the movement, but focusing too strongly on it is a distraction, esp for militant atheists. People are people, there are fundamental aspects of human nature that we see everywhere (ie not just "the Jews") that are the prime movers here, not "the biblical virus". It's a thing, but it's not THE thing. imho
My personal takeaway was understanding observable characteristics of psychopaths and narcissists - they are never wrong, never do wrong and if you criticize them then the only explanation for them is that there must be something wrong with you -- "you are an antisemite!", for example.
Also, the collective unconscious or as the author expresses it, "ancestral subconscious",
is a 'reach' for some people to buy into. For others they can palpably sense it.
It explains so much and I believe it is a mistake to ignore it. One need not be religiously observant to connect with a given collective unconscious. Watch a clip or two from "Triumph of the Will" if you want to observe the collective unconscious in action...warning!, you will feel the hair come up on the back of your own neck!
I note that you began your comment reflexively expressing, as I see it, your fear of being labeled an "antisemite". A definite fear factor that has been ingrained widely through years of education, indoctrination, guilting and repetition. You are not alone.
That slur, "anti-semite", has been used **to enable Genocide** through intimidation and silencing. ***You unintentionally reinforced the power of that slur. **
Definitely the understanding of psychopathy/narcissism can help explain what is happening. However there was no Abrahamic faith or biblical virus involved in the Sri Lankan Tamil genocide, yet much of what is happening in Palestine is indistinguishable from that event. I don't take hardly any stock in the theory that the middle east is torn apart by simply a battle of faiths - it's woefully insufficient, on par with "they hate us for our freedom".
My fear and the reason I began my comment that way is more of actually engaging in antisemitism than the smear of having done so.
"Human nature" is too easy. That's why psychology, sociology, philosophy, and world history complicate things with the "nature versus nurture" question.
"Nurture" includes religion. And all three Abrahamic religions have *nurtured* literally "atrocious" holy warrior ideologies. Confucianism doesn't nurture that. Jainism doesn't either. And neither of these latter two have a single genocidal outbreak in their long histories.
If "human nature" doesn't work for you, I'm open to other terms. Evolutionary competition, whatever. It's something more fundamental than "nurture" and many aspects are not even limited to Homo sapiens. "Nurture" is weaponized to tap into it or, as you similarly described, suppress it,.
Yep, I didn't mention Buddhism because of its Chakravartan tradition (which, to be fair, isn't representative of the major Theravadan and Mahayana branches).
I prefer the term "nurture" over the evolutionary frame - doesn't that tilt things back toward your original "nature" thrust? "Nurture" to me connotes human-intentional "cultivation" of the young. Teach them God chooses people and damns others, and the Chosen are "good," and you're raising a lot of Cains.
That's the thing, this tribal stuff pops up all over, it's emergent regardless of "nurture" - it can be either be suppressed or weaponized by "nurture". So it's more fundamental, natural, evolutionary, whatever. And humans don't have the monopoly on it.
Okay, I take your point. But still, the three Abrahamic "tribes," with their geographic spread, are spilling disproportionately more blood in that weaponization - and doing it for explicitly religious reasons, which was the author's point in the OP you minimized to start all of this.
And it all traces back to a handful of metaphysically atrocious claims in the Bible's Torah. Reduce their cultural sway and it seems plausible you'd reduce that "emergence."
Nobody's denying aggressive instincts exist in individuals, tribes, and non-primates, or that they're "more fundamental, natural, evolutionary." Nature produces malign seeds. Cultures can water them or uproot them.
We've gone far enough. I see your point about nature - it's self-evident, really. Equally so, to me, is the role of genocidal "divinely-revealed" religions that exacerbate it. And that's culture.
Well said. If anything it's being cynically used by others who are not religious - especially the US MIC and many NeoCons with their billionaire sponsored think tanks.
Okay, I just read it. Agree its tone is troubling at times, but was pleased to see him widen his net to include the second of the three families in the Abrahamic "family feud." Lots of good evidence in that article too. Thanks for sharing.
I clicked but haven't yet read the link, because I first want to say I think the "Israel" in the title narrows the problem far too much. I give my wider take here:
Sorry. It's called effective writing. I suggest you make more of an effort to tailor your writing according to what's in the head of the reader, not just what's in your own head. How well you can do that depends on how well you understand the minds of the readers you want to reach. Accommodate them. As a caveat, I read only a little bit of your stuff, and maybe that isn't representative. But I'm not interested in putting more effort into it. Sorry.
That's a little more clear, thanks. "The reader" is a complex concept, as you imply. And you're not wrong that I'm struggling with it. Glenn Greenwald often discusses the tense relation between honest expression of unpopular positions and the "audience capture" of the writer that militates against it. His "audience capture" sounds much like your
"accommodate them."
As far as the rest, you win some readers, you lose others. Cups of tea and all that.
Upon reflection, I'm not aiming at a "general audience." For a six-and-counting-post series on a 4000-year-old literary epic? Lol, that's as niche as it gets.
When I first read this article back in Oct of 23 I thought it was kind of harsh.
Then we witnessed behavior above and beyond belief piled on by even worse behavior and then worse still.
https://www.unz.com/article/israels-biblical-psychopathy/
People can have whatever beliefs they want, but when their beliefs tell them to ignore the rights of others and also do harm then they have crossed the line.
Wow. Thanks for the link to such a competent analysis of Israel, Zionism, and Judaism itself. If justice can prevail in this world, this will be required reading for all Jews. Like you, I would've regarded this straightforward analysis as too harsh, if I had read it several years ago. But facts are facts and we all must face the reality. People go astray, both individuals and groups.
That article heavily leverages "the Jews" (eg in "Collectively, Jews...."), which is deep water for drowning in stereotypes.
I don't buy into that religious argument. It is for sure a factor and is weaponized to bolster the movement, but focusing too strongly on it is a distraction, esp for militant atheists. People are people, there are fundamental aspects of human nature that we see everywhere (ie not just "the Jews") that are the prime movers here, not "the biblical virus". It's a thing, but it's not THE thing. imho
I understand.
My personal takeaway was understanding observable characteristics of psychopaths and narcissists - they are never wrong, never do wrong and if you criticize them then the only explanation for them is that there must be something wrong with you -- "you are an antisemite!", for example.
Also, the collective unconscious or as the author expresses it, "ancestral subconscious",
is a 'reach' for some people to buy into. For others they can palpably sense it.
It explains so much and I believe it is a mistake to ignore it. One need not be religiously observant to connect with a given collective unconscious. Watch a clip or two from "Triumph of the Will" if you want to observe the collective unconscious in action...warning!, you will feel the hair come up on the back of your own neck!
I note that you began your comment reflexively expressing, as I see it, your fear of being labeled an "antisemite". A definite fear factor that has been ingrained widely through years of education, indoctrination, guilting and repetition. You are not alone.
That slur, "anti-semite", has been used **to enable Genocide** through intimidation and silencing. ***You unintentionally reinforced the power of that slur. **
Definitely the understanding of psychopathy/narcissism can help explain what is happening. However there was no Abrahamic faith or biblical virus involved in the Sri Lankan Tamil genocide, yet much of what is happening in Palestine is indistinguishable from that event. I don't take hardly any stock in the theory that the middle east is torn apart by simply a battle of faiths - it's woefully insufficient, on par with "they hate us for our freedom".
My fear and the reason I began my comment that way is more of actually engaging in antisemitism than the smear of having done so.
"Human nature" is too easy. That's why psychology, sociology, philosophy, and world history complicate things with the "nature versus nurture" question.
"Nurture" includes religion. And all three Abrahamic religions have *nurtured* literally "atrocious" holy warrior ideologies. Confucianism doesn't nurture that. Jainism doesn't either. And neither of these latter two have a single genocidal outbreak in their long histories.
And yet Sinhala buddhists genocided the Tamils in Sri Lanka: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Genocide#:~:text=Acts%20of%20genocide%20against%20the,land%20grabs%20and%20ethnic%20cleansing.
If "human nature" doesn't work for you, I'm open to other terms. Evolutionary competition, whatever. It's something more fundamental than "nurture" and many aspects are not even limited to Homo sapiens. "Nurture" is weaponized to tap into it or, as you similarly described, suppress it,.
Yep, I didn't mention Buddhism because of its Chakravartan tradition (which, to be fair, isn't representative of the major Theravadan and Mahayana branches).
I prefer the term "nurture" over the evolutionary frame - doesn't that tilt things back toward your original "nature" thrust? "Nurture" to me connotes human-intentional "cultivation" of the young. Teach them God chooses people and damns others, and the Chosen are "good," and you're raising a lot of Cains.
That's the thing, this tribal stuff pops up all over, it's emergent regardless of "nurture" - it can be either be suppressed or weaponized by "nurture". So it's more fundamental, natural, evolutionary, whatever. And humans don't have the monopoly on it.
Okay, I take your point. But still, the three Abrahamic "tribes," with their geographic spread, are spilling disproportionately more blood in that weaponization - and doing it for explicitly religious reasons, which was the author's point in the OP you minimized to start all of this.
And it all traces back to a handful of metaphysically atrocious claims in the Bible's Torah. Reduce their cultural sway and it seems plausible you'd reduce that "emergence."
Nobody's denying aggressive instincts exist in individuals, tribes, and non-primates, or that they're "more fundamental, natural, evolutionary." Nature produces malign seeds. Cultures can water them or uproot them.
We've gone far enough. I see your point about nature - it's self-evident, really. Equally so, to me, is the role of genocidal "divinely-revealed" religions that exacerbate it. And that's culture.
"It's a thing, but it's not THE thing. imho"
Well said. If anything it's being cynically used by others who are not religious - especially the US MIC and many NeoCons with their billionaire sponsored think tanks.
Okay, I just read it. Agree its tone is troubling at times, but was pleased to see him widen his net to include the second of the three families in the Abrahamic "family feud." Lots of good evidence in that article too. Thanks for sharing.
I clicked but haven't yet read the link, because I first want to say I think the "Israel" in the title narrows the problem far too much. I give my wider take here:
https://clayburell.substack.com/p/unsucky-gilgamesh-6-book-3-contd
Clay, if you want to be read by a general audience, I suggest you write with that audience in mind.
Maybe I'm thick, but I'm not clear on your point....
Sorry. It's called effective writing. I suggest you make more of an effort to tailor your writing according to what's in the head of the reader, not just what's in your own head. How well you can do that depends on how well you understand the minds of the readers you want to reach. Accommodate them. As a caveat, I read only a little bit of your stuff, and maybe that isn't representative. But I'm not interested in putting more effort into it. Sorry.
That's a little more clear, thanks. "The reader" is a complex concept, as you imply. And you're not wrong that I'm struggling with it. Glenn Greenwald often discusses the tense relation between honest expression of unpopular positions and the "audience capture" of the writer that militates against it. His "audience capture" sounds much like your
"accommodate them."
As far as the rest, you win some readers, you lose others. Cups of tea and all that.
Upon reflection, I'm not aiming at a "general audience." For a six-and-counting-post series on a 4000-year-old literary epic? Lol, that's as niche as it gets.