Is wokism declining?

[Alexis Jacobi]

All the Woke demonstrations, roadblockings and occupations of college campuses right now are against Israel.

This needs to be turned into a question, a series of questions really.

Jews are (to speak generally) front and center in all social concerns, are they not? Certainly those masses of Jews who are no longer strictly religious (and quiescent) turn social activism into a sort-of social/religious activism, isn’t it like that?

Israel and Zionism was associated with true righteousness, no? A Biblical reenactment that was highly romanticized for mass-consumption.

Does it surprise anyone that Israel, having put itself in the •limelight• gets all the focus whereas other criminality (China’s etc.) is quickly forgotten?

Jews are a small tribe with an historical tendency to flow to the centers of influence.

That is one way to explain the so-called •JQ•.

[Immanuel Can]

All the Woke demonstrations, roadblockings and occupations of college campuses right now are against Israel.

This needs to be turned into a question, a series of questions really.

Except that I essentially already made it a question: why?

Got an answer?

Jews are (to speak generally) front and center in all social concerns, are they not?

I find that a bizarre statement. It sounds like something culled from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," or some other such absurd racist text. I find Jews not at all central to most social concerns. I can't imagine why anybody would think otherwise.

Israel and Zionism was associated with true righteousness, no?

How would that argument run? Israel's a secular state first, a Jewish state second, and Jewish Christians are not even granted rights of return. That's pretty far from "true righteousness," wouldn't you say?

Does it surprise anyone that Israel, having put itself in the •limelight•

HAMAS put Israel "in the limelight." It had nothing to do with them, until after that fact.

gets all the focus whereas other criminality (China’s etc.) is quickly forgotten?

China's Socialist. Wokies are Socialist. Where's the suprise? But it has nothing in particular to do with Israel, obviously.

I don't want to go ad hom here. I'm going to speak about the above claims, strictly. And I have to say, they sound like a racist conspiracy-theory. I know that's not the first time you've heard somebody say that. It's just really apparent, at the moment.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

1) I understand the Hamas attack. I neither validate of invalidate it. In a struggle of the sort Israel and world-Zionism began in their indefensible project of conquest the reaction they created is •normal• in my mind.

2) Israel, with US complicity, is a greater villain than terrorist Palestinian fighters. That is realpolitik.

3) The issue of •the leaders•, as you say, opens into a vast issue of giant geo-political concerns. The conflict itself is overshadowed by these.

4) Jews lost that land, and the •right• to it, centuries back. The argument •God gave it to them• is only valid for people who see reality like you. There is no jurisprudential defense of the recent European Zionist reconquest.

Except if one subscribes to amazing sophistry (in this issue: your department).

5) You have shown yourself to be •selectively moral• when and where it suits you. The Israelí political establishment has dhown itself to be predominantly immoral. And the US (and Christian Zionists) along with it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I find that a bizarre statement. It sounds like something culled from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," or some other such absurd racist text. I find Jews not at all central to most social concerns. I can't imagine why anybody would think otherwise.

Sure you do! But you wear bizarre, obscuring blinders.

You, like Accelafine, employ tropes of this sort when it suits you. Jews generally, and Progressive Jews certainly — you can read this in all Jewish histories — are well aware of their leading cultural position in progressive social politics.

Because you •cannot hear for all that you have ears• you have failed to understand what I wrote in the post you quoted from.

This is typical of you. Your zealousness is an obstacle to sound understanding.

[Immanuel Can]

1) I understand the Hamas attack.

You? Do? You "understand" rape, murder, torture, kidnapping and homicidal rage?

Then I guess you're a homicidal maniac. That's confirmed, I guess.

2) Israel, with US complicity, is a greater villain than terrorist Palestinian fighters. That is realpolitik.

Ummm...doubly confirmed. In addition, no grasp of reality.

3) The issue of •the leaders•, as you say,

I didn't say this. Are you high?

4) Jews lost that land, and the •right• to it, centuries back.

How? Does getting killed by Romans mean one's lost one's homeland?

I'm sorry...you're nuts. I'm convinced of it now. I was in doubt before, but I'm not now.

[Immanuel Can]

...their leading cultural position in progressive social politics.

That much is true. But they're finding out right now why that was such a terrible idea. So give them a moment or two to figure it out. I have confidence they will.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Anybody who knows history knows Jews were in the Holy Land for at least 1500 years before the Romans evicted them. And anybody who knows history knows early Israeli settlers bought -- not stole -- deserted land from the local Arabs -- a source of high hilarity to the Arabs, who were only too glad to take good money for dry desert they neither owned nor cared about.

There is no way to separate Hebrew history from Judea.

That the land was abandoned or the Judean inhabitants exiled from it is •tragic history• but it offers no justification at all for the reconquest. Nor does Balfour. Nor that European Jews bought land and lived there beside Palestinian Arabs.

The events beginning in early 20th century and that culminated in the 1948 declaration of statehood were badly grounded.

The majority of problems of today stem from that.

Your position is that of Christian Zionism. It is supported not by ethics, morality nor jurisprudence, but by your assertion that Israel is an •eternal possession• of Jewry.

Well — they are there in any case. Seven million of them. And along with 7 million Palestinian Arabs.

Do you support the South African (democratic) solution?

I wonder what you think of the prospect of the same strategy for Israel? The creation of a democratic state.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You? Do? You "understand" rape, murder, torture, kidnapping and homicidal rage?

Yes. I definitely do understand how humankind acts. And you will now apply your twisting rhetoric to imply that I condone it or perhaps even engage in it.

To understand such action and reaction is different from contribution to it.

I also understand the motives of the Israeli occupation and the violence it entailed. But that does not mean I condone it.

Then I guess you're a homicidal maniac. That's confirmed, I guess.

Go for it, Manny!

Does getting killed by Romans mean one's lost one's homeland?

[Yes, Manny, exactly]

I'm sorry...you're nuts. I'm convinced of it now. I was in doubt before, but I'm not now.

If that characterization helps you in your argumentation keep working it.

However it is rhetorically indefensible.

[Immanuel Can]

...the reconquest...

There was none. You've been sold another conspiracy theory.

Nor that European Jews bought land and lived there beside Palestinian Arabs.

You mean like a "two-state" solution? You don't believe in that? What's your proposal, then?

Your position is that of Christian Zionism. It is supported not by ethics, morality

Your "ethics"? Your "morality"? Or whose? Grounded in what?

But then, you think you can "understand" HAMAS's actions. So I guess you can't know anything about either ethics or morality.

[Immanuel Can]

You? Do? You "understand" rape, murder, torture, kidnapping and homicidal rage?

Yes. I definitely do understand how humankind acts. And you will now apply your twisting rhetoric to imply that I condone it or perhaps even engage in it.

You're a sympathizer with it. You said so yourself. You "understand" drug-addled, amoral, genocidal rage.

I'm sorry...you're nuts. I'm convinced of it now. I was in doubt before, but I'm not now.

If that characterization helps you in your argumentation keep working it.

No need. I think there's no point in even trying to reason with you. It seems you're past any such point.

I'd say, "Thanks for the chat," but honestly, in this case, I can't remember one valuable thing in it. All I can say is, "I'm sorry you wasted my time."

[Alexis Jacobi]

You're a sympathizer with it.

Not quite the right word but close enough. I feel-together = syn-pathize in the sense that I note that in all human struggle, especially when perceived injustice is involved, and when oppression is compounded over generations, that people react similarly.

But paint it as you wish to, Old Boy. That seems to be your chief objective: painting it in a particular way. In this sense you reveal how polarization functions.

You mean like a "two-state" solution? You don't believe in that? What's your proposal, then?

I did once •believe• in it but my present view is that the two populations have no choice that I can see but to amalgamate into a unified state.

However, things seem to be careening out of rational control so it is likely that further disasters are likely in the cards.

[Immanuel Can]

I did once •believe• in it but my present view is that the two populations have no choice that I can see but to amalgamate into a unified state.

However, things seem to be careening out of rational control so it is likely that further disasters are likely in the cards.

So your solution is "death to the Jews," then?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can you explain how the proposition of creating a state comprising both populations is equal to •death to the Jews?•

[Harbal]

Can you explain how the proposition of creating a state comprising both populations is equal to •death to the Jews?•

[accelafine]

The thread is about wokism, not science denying. Make your own thread if you want to 'prove' that global warming isn't happening.

I didn't say it isn't happening. I said it is. But I said what's true: we don't know exactly how fast, or why, or what the human role is in it. And that's exactly what science shows. Anybody who pretends to be more confident than that is not following science, but a popular narrative.

On that note, you should maybe actually read what people post. I talked a lot about Wokism. I just didn't agree with your claim that it had no association with the "global warming" issue. It certainly does.

And I'm right. Greta's the most obvious proof, but far from the totality of it. I could have talked further about the convenient association between Woke aspirations to force Socialism upon the developed West through deliberate destruction of Western economies by way of pretensions of "saving the planet," (see "The Great Reset," by the WEF), or the too-convenient association between selective punishing of the West for "decolonization" (another key Woke trope), while completely overlooking the colonial activities of places like China, as well as their disproportionate contribution to the gasses said to cause global warming...

Wokies are what is going to kill the planet. Because they're determined to make you and I look at things other than the real causes, and to waste all our energies and attention of things that don't matter. That's because their real goal is the destruction of the "capitalist" economies of the West, so that Westerners become desperate and dependent, and Socialism can be installed. It's not about saving the planet. It's about advancing the Woke agenda.

But they'll never tell you that. You can see it, though, from what they focus on: the things that don't matter, and the things that won't help, and away from the only things that matter -- China and India. They don't care about the global poor, except as far as they can pretend to be their "champions" by excoriating the West. But when it comes down to it, they do absolutely nothing to help the developing world, or to change global warming.

It's the same as saying it's not happening. It's still a 'do nothing about it' approach. We're fucked now anyway, so nothing's going to make any difference either way.