WOKE and proud of it....

[Immanuel Can]

A large number of people do not identify themselves as Woke or Anti-Woke,

That's true: but they aren't part of the controversy, then. They would be bystanders, but also perhaps the uncommitted to whom the Left would wish to direct its propaganda, and the conservative side would wish to preserve from being sucked into the narrative.

You accept the designation that you think all the people who disagree with you on any issue would give you.

I don't actually. And nothing I wrote suggests I do.

And this is a strawman

So while it's true that people are fractious and tend to produce divisions, not all divisions are equally-sided. And there is the possibility of a naive devotedness to a "middle way" or "moderation" as the automatic and unthinking solution to every controversy. This, too, is not thought, not reason, not facts and not intelligence. Sometimes, one side is making the problem, and the other is only trying to prevent them doing it.

No, I've seen it lots. There are folks who just assume the middle ground is always the way of reason. But a little thought will show that to be wrong, of course. What would it mean, for example, if one took the "middle ground" relative to something like Nazism?

Sometimes there is a middle way. Sometimes, there's not. The wise person differentiates those cases, rather than always assuming either the binary or the middle road of moderation.

[Immanuel Can]

... And no need to even name the issue(s).

It's Wokism. It's named in the OP.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I read what Immanuel writes and I feel I run into a wall which is unsurmountable.

The term *woke* is simply too broad, too extraordinarily binary, such that it is useless in bringing clarity to the Israel issue.

In regard to this, I cannot see any other way to understand Immanuel's view of Israel vs the indigenous Palestinians and the entire conflict in any other way except that his view is essentially informed by a Christian Zionist perspective. That is, that God deeded the land of Israel to the Jews; that they are attempting to protect what had been deeded; and anyone who opposes this is, to be absolutely frank, in league with Satan. If this is not conceded by Immanuel Can, then IC is not revealing his true hand. We owe it to ourselves, I think, to be capable of seeing what orientation, perspectives and ideology actually inform our views. That is to say the background of them.

And then the entire conversation -- no longer a conversation but a litany of accusations -- is (absurdly) broadened by IC and, as Iwannaplato points out, reduced to a binary stance. In this, I think, IC expresses his desire. The desire being to establish and concretize the binary view because with that view -- a battle-position -- the war as he conceives it can be waged. And this fits into the function of binary narratives as the ideological wars rage.

What turns out to be the most salient truth is that to clarify how one views the conflict, and to describe it in really truthful terms, is rendered impossible. And that is the intended function of driving the consideration of the issues involved into those binary polarizations.

[Alexis Jacobi]

One of the problems we face is how to deal with social and political narratives that are driven by ideological conservatives. Some of those ideological conservatives are political conservatives, others have different affiliations; so for every Franco, Mussolini or Trump, there is a Stalin, Ceaușescu or Kim Jong Un. A common feature of ideological conservatives is the insistence that their point of view is taken as true, which is used to justify indoctrination and propaganda as well as suppression of dissent, if necessary, violently. One problem faced by ideologues is the number of people who are tolerant of others, which ideologues try to counter by exaggerating the threat posed by people they disagree with, or whose lifestyles they object to. And of course ideologues being at best half wits, there is never a shortage of other half wits who will take the bait and scream back. For most people the problem is not one ideologue or another; it is all of them.

This viewpoint also expresses, it seems to me, a similar sort of construction through binaries.

The real truth is that any ideological platform, if it is really and truly believed to be the right one, must necessarily be enforced, and it is obviousl that at the base of enforcement is violence. This violence -- as IC has pointed out time and again -- is far more prevalent and far more consequential on the left side of the political enforcement perspective.

However, in Will's world -- also ensconced within a set of binaries -- it is ideological conservatives that are the problem that must be *overcome* by having, and holding to, the established ideological position. The operative word is *tolerance* and the key phrase is an assertion about *being tolerant of others*.

Will's toleration -- as far as I am aware he has never clarified any particular political orientation or basic commitment -- is not really toleration therefore. How could it be? Recently the political and ideological Right in Europe gained a good deal of ground through absolutely democratic processes. But in the journals of opinion that I read this is not presented as democracy in operation but as something decidedly sinister.

And the Progressive Left, or the radical Leftwing, launches into rioting to express their *toleration*. That is, if the reports I received of events in France (for example) accurately reflect what happened.

So I would take something that Will wrote:

A common feature of ideological conservatives is the insistence that their point of view is taken as true, which is used to justify indoctrination and propaganda as well as suppression of dissent.

And rewrite it:

A common feature of ideological progressives is the insistence that their point of view is taken as true, which is used to justify indoctrination and propaganda as well as suppression of dissent.

[Immanuel Can]

The term *woke* is simply too broad,

It's the chosen term of the Woke. It's how they style themselves. If it's obscure, that's their own fault.

...the indigenous Palestinians...

"Indigenous"? The problem is that "indigenaity" is in the eye of the beholder. Why would we prioritize the more recent Arab residents of the area, who also sold their land to the Jewish settlers at considerable profit then decided they wanted it back, over the ancient Jews who inhabited the same land 1500 years before the Arabs got it?

...Zionist...

So "Woke" is too broad, but "Zionist" works for you? "Woke" is "binary," but "Zionist" is not?

You're rather selective in the labels you chose to affirm and reject, it seems. When you like them, you use them quite freely. When you don't, you accuse others of being unsubtle and "binary." A little consistency might be nice.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's the chosen term of the Woke. It's how they style themselves. If it's obscure, that's their own fault.

But we have an advantage that *they* do not have: we can examine these terms, these binaries, and understand their rhetorical function.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So "Woke" is too broad, but "Zionist" works for you? "Woke" is "binary," but "Zionist" is not?

The term Zionist and Zionism are not in any sense -- in any sense! -- comparable or equatable with the term *woke* and *wokism*.

Once again, my use of the term Zionist coincides, largely but not absolutely, with Miko Peled's use of the term Zionist. I am uncertain if I like much the outcome of Peled's political realizations and philosophy (the creation of a state in which 14-15 million people live together in it) but for the life of me I cannot see an alternative to that outcome.

Zionism is the origin of a vast series of extraordinarily social and political problems that embroil the region. Once this is seen -- I assume in your case to do so would require an internal revolution in how you see things there and possibly *the world* altogether -- I think that the terms *Zionist* and *Zionism* actually function to clarify things.

[Immanuel Can]

It's the chosen term of the Woke. It's how they style themselves. If it's obscure, that's their own fault.

But we have an advantage that *they* do not have: we can examine these terms, these binaries, and understand their rhetorical function.

I don't doubt we do. But Wokies are staunch collectivists. They are enthused about various forms of Socialism and social action. They identify with "movements," mobs and cliques, and allow others to form their opinions for them. They are belongers, conformists, not individualists. That's their strength and their weakness, at the same time: they have numbers, but they lack autonomy, freedom of judgment and the will to dissent from their group.

[Immanuel Can]

So "Woke" is too broad, but "Zionist" works for you? "Woke" is "binary," but "Zionist" is not?

The term Zionist and Zionism are not in any sense -- in any sense! -- comparable or equatable with the term *woke* and *wokism*.

They're both collectivist terms, labels and cliches. In that, they are very much alike. But whereas "Woke" is self-selected by the Woke as a consensual, conformist label they approve, Zionist is merely an external, pejorative term, one used by detractors as a convenient way to obscure important differences.

[promethean75]

There's also a faction of jewish mexicans that split off from the marxist Zapatistas after a religious conversion and became the Zionistas thereafter. They still operate around the Yucatan peninsula in mexico and are funded by Israel.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Indigenous"? The problem is that "indigenaity" is in the eye of the beholder. Why would we prioritize the more recent Arab residents of the area, who also sold their land to the Jewish settlers at considerable profit then decided they wanted it back, over the ancient Jews who inhabited the same land 1500 years before the Arabs got it?

This is in fact the core of the problem that you are going to have to solve, or not-solve, through your own political, legal and moral work.

[Immanuel Can]

"Indigenous"? The problem is that "indigenaity" is in the eye of the beholder. Why would we prioritize the more recent Arab residents of the area, who also sold their land to the Jewish settlers at considerable profit then decided they wanted it back, over the ancient Jews who inhabited the same land 1500 years before the Arabs got it?

This is in fact the core of the problem that you are going to have to solve, or not-solve, through your own political, legal and moral work.

Well, the problem is of your creating, so it's none of mine. I'm not the one who appealed to "indigenaity."

[Iwannaplato]

"Indigenous"? The problem is that "indigenaity" is in the eye of the beholder. Why would we prioritize the more recent Arab residents of the area, who also sold their land to the Jewish settlers at considerable profit then decided they wanted it back, over the ancient Jews who inhabited the same land 1500 years before the Arabs got it?

It must be pleasant oversimplifying everything. I see it's not just woke vs. unwoke.
Yeah, right the main transfers of land were private voluntary sales. No state confiscations. No Israeli Absentee Property Law in 1960. None were expelled in the 1948 war. There were never any massacres that forced evacuation, allowed the land to be confiscated. No Absentee Property Law (1950). No movement restricted enforced by the military that made it hard for Arabs to access their lands, leaving them open for confiscation. No 'development projectss where lands were sometimes "expropriated" for development projects, such as the building of new towns and infrastructure, which were predominantly for Jewish residents. This included the establishment of kibbutzim and moshavim (collective and cooperative farming communities). No expropriation after occupations in 67 and beyond. No isolating Arab farmers from agricultural land, leading to, yes, sometimes sales. Settlers never use violence and harrassment to make Arabs leave their lands. No Zoning and Planning Laws: In both Israel and the occupied territories, zoning and planning laws have been used to restrict Palestinian construction and development, leading to home demolitions and displacement. Palestinians often face significant obstacles in obtaining building permits, leading to the designation of their structures as "illegal" and subject to demolition. None of that happened.
Etc.

No IC wants to explain a complicated situation as something simple. The Arabs sold their lands. Now they want them back. What morons.

And, of course, this will lead to IC thinking I think the Arabs in that area and other areas have handled everything morally or that it's binary the other way. Because he can only imagine binary schemas, with two teams and really it's all simple and obvious.

Toxic shit.

[Immanuel Can]

It must be pleasant oversimplifying everything.

I'm not. I'm pointing out the complexity of any suggestion of who is "indigenous."

Let's take it out of the Israel context, so you foam less. Let's say...North America.

The Iroquois murdered the Hurons, and took their land. Whether any tribes lived on Huron land before the Hurons, we don't know -- they had no history. But the Iroquois murdered the Hurons. Then the French took over from the Iroquois, and then the English took over from the French, and now a variety of other immigrant nationalities claim to own that same land.

Who has right to it? The Hurons, who are all dead? The Iroquois, who killed them? The French and English who displaced them? And what happens to the new immigrants from places like China and India, who now claim to own some of the same properties? Who's "indigenous" to that property, and whose rights should we be affirming?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Will you deal head-on, can you deal head-on and honestly with the picture Iwannaplato presented?

See this is what I mean: seeing and understanding the truth (reality) and responding morally to it, is your task.

And if you cede any ground here — you well understand — you will find yourself in the thick of it.

Stick with God deeded the land in perpetuity.