Just starting to listen to your conversation now, John, but I am very pleased in the opening moments that part of this conversation focuses on the online nature of so much of the goyper phenomenon.
So much of this conversation these days feels like the immediate pre-Trump days of mainstream reporting around Gamergate where certain (usually niche or industry specific) publications were ringing alarm bells about how casual misogyny was becoming super charged in online spaces while mainstream press took years to even ask “does this manosphere type stuff have a political valence?”
As Ezra notes at the start of the interview, you’ve been tracking this stuff for years and I feel that a large part of my own ability to draw even recent historical connections around this owes a lot to your writing.
This post suggests that all antisemitisms are fascist, although not all fascisms are antisemitic.
I would only disagree with one premise of the post. Antisemitism is not a recent affliction of the Republican Party; it has been mainstream since at least the 1990's. What has changed recently is the frankness of the language. The antisemitism of the 1990's referred to an effete "elite:" not defined by wealth. (Remember the expression: "blue-collar billionaire"?) "Elite" meant "Jew" even back then, with only a slight veneer of deniability.
His take is interesting, because it's a mirror-image of Fuentes's take on "the Jews". In Krugman's telling, Heritage has always represented sectoral elite interests, and its job has always been to offer propaganda that masks those interests with whatever "lie of the day" is popular on the right at any given time. As such, Heritage is attuned to the right-wing Zeitgeist, and employs or funds people who represent it authentically. In other words, Heritage's soul is neither Reaganite nor Groyper, but grift (although Krugman suggests that Heritage is trying to change its sectoral allegiances to be more genuinely in line with Fuentes').
I think Ezra’s take on left wing “anti-semitism” is more than a bit incomplete. Certainly anti-Zionism flows from universalist, liberal impulses. However I think we all know, and have seen, fanatical anti-Zionism cross over into anti-semitism in certain circumstances. These might include when it acts as though Israel is the only extant ethonationalism (disregarding basically all of Eastern Europe and Asia, not to mention Palestinian nationalism!) and when it blames all of the problems of the world on Israel itself, see e.g. Denise Gough on Israel being the death star of the conflict in Sudan and Congo. Ana Kasparian is a good example. Do we really think she’s on Tucker now just because she cares about Israel?
The Nexus project did a good job in defining points where anti-Zionism crosses over into antisemitism (and points where it does not). I wish more people read and used their framework. https://nexusproject.us/nexus-resources/the-nexus-document/
Paused the interview to comment on the way you clearly stated that Klein’s analysis was a little highbrow and said let’s look at this from the bottom up. That is life changing advice for me. Rhetorically and substantively. Can’t think of a host and audience that needs to hear it more. A lesson in humility, rhetoric and I think purpose too. I’m deeply moved and impressed.
In the course of an otherwise bad post, Scott Aaronson (a computer science professor and anti-woke moderate lib) commented that anti-Semitism is something of a universal bad idea -- almost every awful movement eventually reaches for it to explain the machinations of their enemies. https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9285
like the god of the gaps in christian apologetics, bankrupt ideologies converge on antisemitism because it furnishes a *jew of the gaps* to backfill unknowns with intentionality, redirect malcontentment into zealotry, and paper over degenerative contradictions with pious resolve
the figure of the jew has never been about jews as such but an ur-explanatory placeholder and apophenic master key
John, the interview and some commentary on it (I liked post by MJ Rosenberg) appear from my little corner of the world to be rocketing around the Jewish American community at an increasing velocity. You’re likely to be praised and cursed across an untold number of Thanksgiving tables next week. Personally, the interview has helped me engage in a couple discussions I would have been unlikely to have beforehand. I think the point about how the Faustian bargain with the Evangelical Christian Zionists is reaching its expiration date seems to snap people to attention. Thanks for leading the intellectual charge on this daunting topic.
Unrelated to my previous comment, I wanted to respond to something that Ezra said in your conversation—namely, the prospect that the Democrats could win in 2028 but fail to deliver in ways that voters find satisfactory and we end up with someone like Tucker Carlson running and winning in 2032. Whether its Carlson or some other loathsome creep, this strikes me as a very real possibility and one that my friends do not adequately grasp: ridding ourselves of Trump is only half the battle. The MAGA crowd will not vanish back into the woodwork once he's out of the picture. Indeed, they only seem to grow more extreme with each generation, a poinyt noted by you and Ezra and by Rod Dreher in his recent post about his visit to Washington.
Yes! In a perverse way I sometimes want MAGA to win in 2028. The damage the termites are doing in the basement now will really start to be widely felt at that point and they will have nowhere to point the finger but themselves. Not woke, not Biden, nowhere. Their malfeasance will be self evident and hopefully make them toxic for at least a generation. That’s the idea anyway.
This was a great listen. FWIW, I think you very successfully conveyed all of the above, except maybe how these movements coalesce around strongman figures and what Trump represents specifically. But Trump tends to take up so much oxygen in these conversations, and I personally thought it was better that you mostly skirted him.
I'm guessing that you have read the interview that Moishe Postone did with Deutsche Welle about 15 years ago on antisemitism and anti-Zionism. If not, I highly recommend it. He makes a couple of important distinctions that too often go unremarked upon. First, that antisemitism differs from other forms of racism in that it has a "metaphysical" dimension—Jews must be eradicated for the good of all mankind. Second, Postone rejects the idea that anti-Zionism can be fully separated from antisemitism. We seem to embrace self-determination and the formation of nation states for all the peoples of the world but balk at the idea of a nation state for Jews. This is not to embrace the State of Israel as it exists today. (I regard Netanyahu and those around him as war criminals and hope they end up in the dock at the ICC.) It is, rather, to historicize the problem of the nation state and consider the problem of Israel-Palestine within that context. (Along those lines, I am eager to read Daniel Boyarin's "The No-State Solution.")
Some sort of confederation seems necessary. Jews are right to want to be able to exercise the right of return for themselves (and Palestinians should have this right as well) as well as to have a commitment from anyone they govern with that both communities will be committed to the safety of the others.
Just starting to listen to your conversation now, John, but I am very pleased in the opening moments that part of this conversation focuses on the online nature of so much of the goyper phenomenon.
So much of this conversation these days feels like the immediate pre-Trump days of mainstream reporting around Gamergate where certain (usually niche or industry specific) publications were ringing alarm bells about how casual misogyny was becoming super charged in online spaces while mainstream press took years to even ask “does this manosphere type stuff have a political valence?”
As Ezra notes at the start of the interview, you’ve been tracking this stuff for years and I feel that a large part of my own ability to draw even recent historical connections around this owes a lot to your writing.
Genuinely grateful for that.
This post suggests that all antisemitisms are fascist, although not all fascisms are antisemitic.
I would only disagree with one premise of the post. Antisemitism is not a recent affliction of the Republican Party; it has been mainstream since at least the 1990's. What has changed recently is the frankness of the language. The antisemitism of the 1990's referred to an effete "elite:" not defined by wealth. (Remember the expression: "blue-collar billionaire"?) "Elite" meant "Jew" even back then, with only a slight veneer of deniability.
I believe it also tracks with the growing authoritarianism of the GOP as well.
They are also co-opting the public anger towards Israel. This more than anything is fueling the right wing march towards open antisemitism.
I found your conversation with Klein very interesting, and it showcased some media clips I had missed.
Paul Krugman takes on the Groyperification of Heritage today: https://substack.com/home/post/p-178840959
His take is interesting, because it's a mirror-image of Fuentes's take on "the Jews". In Krugman's telling, Heritage has always represented sectoral elite interests, and its job has always been to offer propaganda that masks those interests with whatever "lie of the day" is popular on the right at any given time. As such, Heritage is attuned to the right-wing Zeitgeist, and employs or funds people who represent it authentically. In other words, Heritage's soul is neither Reaganite nor Groyper, but grift (although Krugman suggests that Heritage is trying to change its sectoral allegiances to be more genuinely in line with Fuentes').
I think Ezra’s take on left wing “anti-semitism” is more than a bit incomplete. Certainly anti-Zionism flows from universalist, liberal impulses. However I think we all know, and have seen, fanatical anti-Zionism cross over into anti-semitism in certain circumstances. These might include when it acts as though Israel is the only extant ethonationalism (disregarding basically all of Eastern Europe and Asia, not to mention Palestinian nationalism!) and when it blames all of the problems of the world on Israel itself, see e.g. Denise Gough on Israel being the death star of the conflict in Sudan and Congo. Ana Kasparian is a good example. Do we really think she’s on Tucker now just because she cares about Israel?
The Nexus project did a good job in defining points where anti-Zionism crosses over into antisemitism (and points where it does not). I wish more people read and used their framework. https://nexusproject.us/nexus-resources/the-nexus-document/
This is good. In general I think a lot of terms have been subject to conceptual inflation, including anti-semitism, racism, and yes, genocide.
Paused the interview to comment on the way you clearly stated that Klein’s analysis was a little highbrow and said let’s look at this from the bottom up. That is life changing advice for me. Rhetorically and substantively. Can’t think of a host and audience that needs to hear it more. A lesson in humility, rhetoric and I think purpose too. I’m deeply moved and impressed.
In the course of an otherwise bad post, Scott Aaronson (a computer science professor and anti-woke moderate lib) commented that anti-Semitism is something of a universal bad idea -- almost every awful movement eventually reaches for it to explain the machinations of their enemies. https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9285
like the god of the gaps in christian apologetics, bankrupt ideologies converge on antisemitism because it furnishes a *jew of the gaps* to backfill unknowns with intentionality, redirect malcontentment into zealotry, and paper over degenerative contradictions with pious resolve
the figure of the jew has never been about jews as such but an ur-explanatory placeholder and apophenic master key
John, the interview and some commentary on it (I liked post by MJ Rosenberg) appear from my little corner of the world to be rocketing around the Jewish American community at an increasing velocity. You’re likely to be praised and cursed across an untold number of Thanksgiving tables next week. Personally, the interview has helped me engage in a couple discussions I would have been unlikely to have beforehand. I think the point about how the Faustian bargain with the Evangelical Christian Zionists is reaching its expiration date seems to snap people to attention. Thanks for leading the intellectual charge on this daunting topic.
John, such an important contribution. So proud!
Loved this interview!
Well, I thought this was excellent.
Unrelated to my previous comment, I wanted to respond to something that Ezra said in your conversation—namely, the prospect that the Democrats could win in 2028 but fail to deliver in ways that voters find satisfactory and we end up with someone like Tucker Carlson running and winning in 2032. Whether its Carlson or some other loathsome creep, this strikes me as a very real possibility and one that my friends do not adequately grasp: ridding ourselves of Trump is only half the battle. The MAGA crowd will not vanish back into the woodwork once he's out of the picture. Indeed, they only seem to grow more extreme with each generation, a poinyt noted by you and Ezra and by Rod Dreher in his recent post about his visit to Washington.
Yes! In a perverse way I sometimes want MAGA to win in 2028. The damage the termites are doing in the basement now will really start to be widely felt at that point and they will have nowhere to point the finger but themselves. Not woke, not Biden, nowhere. Their malfeasance will be self evident and hopefully make them toxic for at least a generation. That’s the idea anyway.
John would you agree with Ezra's characterization that you are a hard guy to describe?
sure why not
What needs to be said beyond “Michigan grad”? Go blue!
This was a great listen. FWIW, I think you very successfully conveyed all of the above, except maybe how these movements coalesce around strongman figures and what Trump represents specifically. But Trump tends to take up so much oxygen in these conversations, and I personally thought it was better that you mostly skirted him.
I'm guessing that you have read the interview that Moishe Postone did with Deutsche Welle about 15 years ago on antisemitism and anti-Zionism. If not, I highly recommend it. He makes a couple of important distinctions that too often go unremarked upon. First, that antisemitism differs from other forms of racism in that it has a "metaphysical" dimension—Jews must be eradicated for the good of all mankind. Second, Postone rejects the idea that anti-Zionism can be fully separated from antisemitism. We seem to embrace self-determination and the formation of nation states for all the peoples of the world but balk at the idea of a nation state for Jews. This is not to embrace the State of Israel as it exists today. (I regard Netanyahu and those around him as war criminals and hope they end up in the dock at the ICC.) It is, rather, to historicize the problem of the nation state and consider the problem of Israel-Palestine within that context. (Along those lines, I am eager to read Daniel Boyarin's "The No-State Solution.")
Some sort of confederation seems necessary. Jews are right to want to be able to exercise the right of return for themselves (and Palestinians should have this right as well) as well as to have a commitment from anyone they govern with that both communities will be committed to the safety of the others.
I'm glad NY Times readers , who can be oblivious about the online right (if comments are anything to go by) got a good lesson on this topic from you.
Après Trump,le deluge.