There’s basically no other content to the politics. All taboos must be broken. There’s no internal safeguard that can explain why any bigotry is wrong, so saying it’s wrong can’t be anything other than censorship.

This is much more consistent than Cruz-Dreher-AIPAC. It will win the young right.

Dreher only cares about any of this because he thinks it will harm Vance’s electoral prospects one day.

But the basic architecture of the ascendant Nazism on the young right is: philosemitic conservatism = wokeness to them. It appears as a censor telling you what you “can’t say.”

So what we see here is rampant essentialism at work.

In the case of Jews, this yields a philosemitic narrative where Jews are ultra-modern and capitalist. This is bad, but you can’t blame them because it’s not their fault.

For Muslims, though, it’s pure hate. They’re premodern barbarians.

If you’re NOT supposed to credit your “common sense” prejudice, there must be some kind of long and complicated reason.

Remarkably, he has one such reason for antisemitism - a kind of exculpatory narrative cobbled together from cliches and Yuri Slezkine.

(He doesn’t have one for any other group.)

Leave aside for a minute that he doesn’t see Orban himself as complicit in the phenomenon.

What’s fascinating here is the way a rightist intellectual goes about trying to convince his comrades not to be racist.

The starting assumption is that any observation you can make about a group is true.

government: here's a treaty! OK, settlers, don't move There

settlers: haha we moved There you can't stop us. hey, send the army to protect us from these Indian raids.

government: sigh, OK fine, guess There is America now. you know that's pretty convenient as it turns out. but don't you move THERE

I think this last point is really your most important one. A certain type of U.S. politician looks at Israel and sees the Frontier - and the parallels between Israel and the 19th-century U.S. are really quite strong right down to the settler-government relationship

his writings are of widely varying quality I'm afraid

A left-wing position: Palestinians have a right to freedom, dignity and self-determination

Candace Owens: I can’t believe they gave the Christ-killers a country

Finkelstein: these two positions are the same

look, SOMEone is snobbing wrong and there needs to be accountability

lol maker’s mark? that’s supposed to be the snob whiskey? he doesn’t even know how to snob right

Aha! Thank you

(Also, obviously, slavery was legal in NYC until 1827. I’m just assuming that these people don’t care about that, but even by their own standards they are being ludicrous here.)

(He lost the petition because the DEIC wanted Jewish trade. So they said Jews could settle and trade, but not hold public office, do retail, or open synagogues. Big win for the years of greatness!)

“a path?!”

this is a sick joke and you should resign in shame and disgrace

he should resign as leader either way - if he can't whip his caucus OR if he masterminded a cave

I think that is a fine response and am very open to this argument that it is preferable. I do remain unpersuaded about the dangers of the other line. Of course, it could be tactically and rhetorically better to pursue this course even if the other one is not dangerous but merely less effective

I too would not make that argument