this question is about you rather than your podcast.
I’ve noticed a significant difference between the persona you present in this podcast and within its comments, and the persona you present on twitter.
On site podcast you seem to be a very tolerant person, expressing a dislike of colonialism, an appreciation of the Jewish people as well as Arab culture(s). You emphasize that the victory of national identities over familial and ethnic identities is a recent development, and is something to be applauded. Overall you give the impression of a very tolerant person.
On the hand you seem come off as a white nationalist/neo-nazi on your twitter feed. In particular, this comment thread tipped me off to your attitudes,
“Why vote Trump? Because the only thing worse than Nazi Germany was Weimar Germany.”
“There are hundreds of millions throughout the West who, if made safe, would support 14, if not 88.”
To be clear to other readers of this comment “88” stands for “hiel hitler” and 14 is a reference to the kkk. How do you reconcile your sympathies for the Jewish victims of WW2 with your apparent nazi loyalties?
Hi dude, thanks for the question.
The short answer is that I’m a troll on Twitter. The longer answer is to do with the fact that I tend to support self-determination and nationalism in all forms. I am not a Nazi booster by any stretch. If the 14 is a reference to the KKK, I was not aware of it. I thought it was just a slogan white ethnonationalists use. It refers to 14 words, something like “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,” something like that. If it came from the KKK, it is unfortunate that it has been poisoned by the association, because I would support the idea whether it referred to white or black people, Asians, Native Americans, anyone. I do believe that there are hundreds of millions of people throughout the West who are giving up on multiculturalism who, if it were not socially threatening, are near ready to embrace the basic sentiment of racial, ethnic, or cultural self-preservation conveyed by that sentence. The truth is that I have a great deal of ambivalence about it. On one hand, I think it’s clear that multiculturalism is creating rifts in our societies. It is breaking down bonds of social trust, causing alienation and stress, and just generally seems to be causing much more harm than good. On the other hand, I have always nurtured an idea of the United States as a nation where people could throw off the bonds of blood and soil to take part in a community based on common assent to a set of ideas. I think this is mankind’s highest aspiration, but I also understand that it may be my personal fantasy, damaged by new evidence every day. I do object to your characterization of all this as intolerant, though. I like and respect all peoples, but tend to believe that they thrive when they live freely and with self-determination in the strongest and most emotionally-compelling identity group of which they’re a part.
My tone in Twitter is trollish, I play devil’s advocate sometimes, and I frequently try to engage with people on their own terms. I was in a conversation on Facebook with an eco-extremist who said he wants civilization to end. I ended up trading strategies with him on what would be the best way to go about making that happen. Clearly I don’t want to end civilization.
On the other hand, my tone is often driven by real frustration with the cultural left. However, although I enjoy breaking their totalitarian taboos, it’s never my intention to hurt anyone. Oh, and the Weimar comment was a half-sarcastic way of commenting on the degeneracy Weimar Germany, and I figured (obviously correctly) that that would be the most outrageous possible way to do it.
Generally speaking, I dont take Twitter seriously, but I take the podcast very seriously. Thanks for the question, it was a very fair one. I’ll always answer sincere questions with honesty, so please don’t hesitate if my answer doesn’t satisfy you to ask more.
Here’s a step by step of your conversation, with some questions.
ssnsp: “yes true but trump doesn’t like us National Socialists”
Daryll Cooper: “Of course not. At this point, your choices are differing degrees of degeneracy.”
Given the context of your response, it sounds like you’re admitting to be a national socialist. Do you deny identifying as, or being sympathetic to national socialism?
Daryll Cooper: “Real NS’s would be showing up to fight BLM when they’re burning American cities.”
ssnsp: “yes true we need to do that but when you have white joining blm it’s going to be hard for us. 88”
Daryll Cooper: “There are hundreds of millions throughout the West who, if made safe, would support 14, if not 88.”
This exchange implies to me that you want 88 (heil hitler), but that you’d settle for 14 (white nationalism). Here’s the origins of 14 in this context.
“Both slogans were coined by David Lane, convicted member of the white supremacist terrorist organization The Order, and publicized through the efforts of the now defunct Fourteen Word Press which helped popularize it and other writings of Lane. The first slogan is claimed to have been inspired (albeit not by Lane or by Fourteen Word Press) by a statement, 88 words in length, from Volume 1, Chapter 8 of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf:”
I’m sorry if I’m a bit skeptical that you weren’t aware of the number 14’s relevance to white nationalists given the breadth of your historical knowledge.
More than that there seems to be a trend on your twitter that’s inconsistent with claims trolling. You seem to consistently decry immigration, target Jewish journalists, promote traditional authoritarian right politics, promote Donald Trump, promote racial determinism etc. There are even posts that strongly suggest you believe the US invaded Iraq at the behest of Israel, which seems strange to me given your general skepticism of Jewish conspiracy theories and again, the breadth of your knowledge.
I’d be happy to know that all of this is essentially insensitive trolling, and that you’re not actually a white nationalist. I’d really like to know, because I can’t recommend people this podcast in good conscience if you are.
I didn’t make myself clear on a few points. I know that the 14 was used as a shorthand for ethnonationalism by alt right people in the news and on my Twitter feed, I just didn’t know anything about the historical roots.
I’ll work from the top of your comment from here.
The person who said “Trump doesn’t support us national socialists” was referring to himself and I guess his buddies. I don’t know that person. When I’ve spoken to ethnonationalists (Zionists, Arab nationalists, white American nationalists, a black nationalist here in LA, and a few others over the years), I’ve found many of them interesting and reasonable, but LARPing neo-Nazis are ridiculous, so I troll them. That’s why my next comment poked fun at the guy calling himself a NS by telling him that real NSs wouldn’t be behind a computer Tweeting, but doing street combat with their supposed enemies. He gave an excuse, and I said what I think is a true statement, that the breakdown of multiculturalism has led to their being many millions of people in the West near ready to support ethnonationalism (the 14) once again (not surprising given it’s only been out of fashion for a few decades), but not the silly LARPing Nazi crap (hence, “if not the 88”).
I do decry immigration. I am not against it in principle, but I think it’s clear, even just looking at nativist reactions throughout the West, that we’ve reached a point where it has become culturally, economically, and politically destabilizing, and we need a little break to integrate and care for the people we’ve got before reassessing and deciding whether to open the faucet again. One can disagree profoundly, but I nevertheless believe this is a rational position.
I don’t troll Jewish journalists, except for occasionally pointing out the hypocrisy of one’s I’ve known personally to make contradictory moral claims regarding Israeli and American policies (I.e. my many friends who support Bibi and yet think Trump is a vicious animal for wanting to control immigration to the US). I think this is worth calling out, and I believe they’d be doing their jobs as journalists if they called out similar ethnically-motivated contradictions in my own positions. But I don’t troll those people with anti-Semitism, or with those echo marks, or with anything other than their own positions. I don’t troll Jewish journalists as Jews, in other words. Many of my favorite political writers, like Jeffrey Goldberg, are Jewish, and so when I think he’s being incomplete or dishonest due to his investment in the anti-Trump campaign, I let him have it occasionally with the fury of a jilted lover, but not with anti-Semitism (if there is something you’re referring to that you think went over a line, let me know and I’ll consider it).
My politics are considerably more right wing and often more authoritarian than most people in 2016 are comfortable with, that’s true. But this is separate from any questions of race or ethnicity, except insofar as I think that multicultural societies in particular require a stronger hand to prevent democracy from devolving into raw, competitive identity politics (as ours is today).
I do promote Donald Trump. I’m not happy about it, and wish I had a better option than a circus clown, but as I’ve indicated, I think immigration and trade policies are two issues most threatening to our social fabric if they are not reformed. The third is avoiding another bad and unnecessary war. As far as I am able to tell, Trump is the best hope to have my concerns on these issues addressed. Which is unfortunate, I wish it were a better man.
Although I do not reject statistics or studies as racist for subverting a narrative, I do not believe in any kind of racial determinism. I’ve seen, for example, the aggregate IQ numbers, and I’m sure there is something to the claim groups cluster around different means, but I’m not concerned with these intra-group differences (except in a few ways relating to immigration, which we can discuss if you like) because the variation between individuals is significant enough to render the averages useless for conducting my personal life. If anything, I am a cultural determinist, however. To me, the rampant violence in black American communities is a cultural problem, not a racial one (and the cultural problem of course has a great deal to do with the devastation left in the wake of slavery, Jim Crow, etc). The focus on zoology is probably the biggest reason I reject the white nationalists outright; if their claims were about social and cultural norms, and the compatibility of different ones living under the same political institutions, you could arrive at many of the same positions without indulging in the hateful and usually ignorant racial rhetoric. For example, if a person made the case that, given the vast differences in assumptions on questions as basic as gender rights, bringing conservative Muslims into western countries will lead to unacceptable levels of misunderstanding and conflict, I may disagree or not, but I’m not going to call that person irrational or bigoted. It’s a reasonable statement. If that person starts talking about average IQ in the Arab world or something, I have very little interest in that, and I certainly have no interest in it regarding people who are already citizens of our country.
I do not think the US invaded Iraq at the behest of Israel. Israel wields a great deal of influence over American foreign policy in the Middle East, and the neoconservative movement that gave us the Iraq War was overwhelmingly founded by and composed of Israel-boosting American Jews, but the reasons for Iraq (many of which were reasonable enough) are far more complicated than “Israel”.
I hope I’m answering your questions. Let me know. In general, the answer to your final question is that some of what I write is trolling, but much of the stuff you cited is not trolling, for the reasons I’ve tried to explain here. But the stuff that is not trolling I don’t consider to be ethnonationalist in character, let alone bigoted or intolerant.
“He gave an excuse, and I said what I think is a true statement, that the breakdown of multiculturalism has led to their being many millions of people in the West near ready to support ethno-nationalism (the 14) once again”
Based on the premise that national identity should trump ethnic and/or ethnic identity, which you’ve expressed several times, shouldn’t ethno-nationalism be discouraged? It seems to me that you’re not only making the descriptive claim that ethno-nationalism is on the rise, but based on the content of your twitter it seems like you’re making the normative claim that ethno-nationalism should be on the rise, or that you’re glad that it is.
“The focus on zoology is probably the biggest reason I reject the white nationalists outright; if their claims were about social and cultural norms, and the compatibility of different ones living under the same political institutions, you could arrive at many of the same positions without indulging in the hateful and usually ignorant racial rhetoric.”
To me your distinction between “zoology” and “culture” is not relevant in this instance. Ethnicity consists of both cultural and hereditary components. If you believe that muslims, or latinos should be barred from immigrating to the US on the basis their culture, rather than their genetics, that still qualifies as ethno-nationalism.
If the Nazi’s had decided to exterminate Jews on the basis of their collective culture rather than their race, it still would have qualified as an act of ethno-nationalism.
“I do not think the US invaded Iraq at the behest of Israel. Israel wields a great deal of influence over American foreign policy in the Middle East, and the neoconservative movement that gave us the Iraq War was overwhelmingly founded by and composed of Israel-boosting American Jews, but the reasons for Iraq (many of which were reasonable enough) are far more complicated than “Israel”.”
At what point does a simple false belief become an anti-semitic conspiracy theory? When people claim Jews did 9/11, or Jews created ISIS, is that anti-semitism, or is it just wrong thinking? I’m inclined to think it’s the prior in this case but I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt because I’ve really enjoyed your podcast and I appreciate the amount of effort you’ve put into learning about these topics.
It’s more likely that the defense administration decided to invade Iraq at the behest of the Saudi’s, rather than due to any Israeli pressure. We allied ourselves with Saddam in the 80’s, and it wasn’t until that Saddam started expressing territorial ambitions over the gulf states (Kuwait) that he became our enemy.
That Jews were overrepresented in the 1970’s neocon movement seems like a tenuous connection at best.
“But the stuff that is not trolling I don’t consider to be ethnonationalist in character, let alone bigoted or intolerant.”
I don’t think that’s the impression you’ll leave most of your listeners with, if they ever find your twitter feed.
I don’t say that national identity ‘should’ Trump more local identities, only that this is a high and noble aspiration that allows more people to live together in peace. Trying to force a larger identity project on people who are not prepared to accept it simply leads to violence and oppression, and an eventual reaction from the people on the ground. I still hope that the United States can forge a common national identity that allows people to subordinate their ethnic/racial/religious identities with enthusiasm and good faith, but unfortunately the identity politics employed by the left are making that all but impossible, and may have done permanent damage to any future prospects. Since the 1960s, more and more groups have begun to engage in pure tribal politics at the local, state, and federal levels, and this, as we see, has led to reactionary nativist response from the threatened white population. When the majority begins to play identity politics, that’s bad for everyone, and we’d do well to either figure out how to get the project back on track or else work on an exit strategy that doesn’t lead to civil war or Caesarism sooner rather than later.
I understand your objection that the distinction between zoology and culture is irrelevant, but I disagree. There is a long line of thought objecting to the focus on biology, and instead pointing to cultural differences and a greater possibility of assimilation. I subscribe to this view. I disagree that modulating immigration based on immigrants’ willingness and ability to assimilate, or on other factors relevant to political, social, or economic stability constitutes ethnonationalism. It’s perfectly reasonable, in my view, for someone to suggest that there is a difference between importing millions of people from Britain vs millions of people from Afghanistan. Of course there is, and everyone knows this, and anyone who denies it is simply lying. You don’t seem like a liar, so I’ll assume you can accept this obvious fact. Israel knows there is a difference between importing Arabs from neighboring countries and Jews from France, and they don’t bother arguing over such obvious things. Your reference to the Nazis is immaterial. There movement was explicitly an ethnic German nationalist movement. You’re talking about exterminating people, and I’m not sure why, so I don’t think the comparison is apt at all.
At what point does a false belief become anti-Semitism? I guess when it’s motivated by antipathy? It’s a complicated question. The people who believe the Jews did 9/11 hold false beliefs, the people who point out the overwhelmingly Jewish makeup of the neoconservative movement that led us into Iraq are simply stating a fact. If they follow from there to observe that many Jewish neoconservatives quite openly advocate for Israel even to the detriment of the United States, they are again simply stating a fact. If they then conclude that “we invaded Iraq because Israel”, they don’t quite hold a false belief, but they do hold a belief that is very incomplete. We did, partly, invade Iraq because people loyal to Israel. As Tony Blair said, somewhat surprisingly, about his closed-door meeting with Bush at Bush’s ranch to decide whether and how hard to go into Iraq, “As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this.” The disproportionate influence of Israel on US foreign policy is not a secret, and has been studied and reported by mainstream journalists and academics (often at the risk of their careers). But of course there were other factors involved, and I don’t consider the decision to go into Iraq to be indefensible, whatever the Israeli role. There were defensible reasons for going in, although unfortunately those were not the reasons offered to the public. More recently, the leaks of Clinton’s email revealed that she was advocating for an attack on Syria specifically because it would make the Israelis happy. She said it straight out. So it’s not a conspiracy theory any more than it’s a conspiracy theory that we will bend quite a bit to back the British in foreign policy when it comes up. But of course the reasons were complicated, and often people get stuck on the Israeli one. A big reason for this is that people discover that it’s quite obviously true, and yet people are frequently attacked and slandered for pointing it out, leading many to believe that there is something else going on.
I am certain I’ve lost followers and listeners who either can’t take a joke or be exposed to uncomfortable ideas in even a tangential way. On my other podcast, I’ve got interviews lined up with a white nationalist, a black separatist, a far-right Zionist, and other controversial figures. I’ll not shy away from talking to interesting people just because there might be people out there who don’t want to hear it. The podcast will still be here if I talk about something they’re interested in, and I don’t hold it against anyone to skip an episode, or to skip me altogether, if they have certain sensitivities to the various perspectives that are aired.
What’s wrong with securing a future for your people?
“Israel knows there is a difference between importing Arabs from neighboring countries and Jews from France, and they don’t bother arguing over such obvious things.”
Yes, and Israel is explicitly an ethnonationalist state. If you want to distinguish yourself from ethnonationalism, appealing to Israel’s (or Japan’s, or many other countries’) immigration policies is not the way to do it.
“Your reference to the Nazis is immaterial. There movement was explicitly an ethnic German nationalist movement.”
Forget for a second any ethical associations you have with the term “ethnonationalism”; whether it’s right or wrong. Appealing to criticisms of culture as a justification for citizenship policies which discriminate based on ethnicity still qualifies as ethnonationalism. Both appeals to culture, and appeals to biology are equally consistent with ethnonationalism.
“If they follow from there to observe that many Jewish neoconservatives quite openly advocate for Israel even to the detriment of the United States, they are again simply stating a fact.”
Yes, and many Jews were also heavily involved in left politics, thus the many far right conspiracy theories about “cultural marxism” and the frankfurt school. Jews were also heavily involved in the field of economics, thus the many left wing conspiracies about Jewish “neoliberals”.
Jews are disporportionately involved in many academic fields, and that involvement represents very weak evidence of any direct influence on concrete military action.
“We did, partly, invade Iraq because people loyal to Israel.”
The US wasn’t motivated to invade Iraq in any significant degree due to a conspiracy of high powered American Jews’ with Israeli loyalties.
The simplest available explanation of our motives behind the second Iraq war, is that they were the same as those motivating the first Iraq war. Namely, the gulf states were threatened by Saddam, and we had promised them our protection in exchange for low interest debt and a steady supply of oil. Saudi Arabia is one of the largest single holders of american debt, and could trigger mass inflation if they sold a sufficient number of treasury bills.
No doubt Israel also had a hand in motivating the second Iraq war, their having been hit by scud missiles during the first Iraq war, and Saddam having funded Palestinian fighters.
The truth is that Israel is essentially the US’s attack dog. They sell weapons to who we want in order to preserve our image e.g. Indonesia, various right wing regimes in South America, South Africa etc. They attack our rivals for our geopolitical allies, primarily Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states. They played a role in the cold war, due to their being a nuclear power.
“More recently, the leaks of Clinton’s email revealed that she was advocating for an attack on Syria specifically because it would make the Israelis happy. She said it straight out.”
That was just one of her aids, so I wouldn’t put too much weight into it. I don’t doubt she’d invade Syria, though.
US policy as of the last 20 years or so has been an extension of cold war politics. The US still considers eastern bloc countries (Syria, Lebanon, Iran) aligned with Russia to be our geopolitical rivals. That’s what’s motivating any involvement we may have in Syria.
“At what point does a false belief become anti-Semitism? I guess when it’s motivated by antipathy? It’s a complicated question. ”
How do you tell if someone’s anti-semitic? Antipathy is an emotion and I’m not a mind reader. Ultimately we have to infer antipathy based on speech and actions. Inferring anti-semitism from conspiracy theories can be difficult because they often have some truth to them.
Yes Israel plays a role in the US’ middle east policy, and that role is often not a positive one. However, the US wields far more influence over Israel than vice versa, as one would expect from world’s greatest super power, and Israel wields far less influence over the US than many countries do. Israel’s influence is limited by the fact that in the scope of world and history, Israel is a small, unimportant country. It’s sparsely populated and has no natural resources to speak of. In comparison to say, China, Israel has little influence.
Anti-semitism often exhibits itself as a systematic bias towards overestimating the power of global Jewry (you’ve written of this yourself), and it seems to me that you’ve fallen into that trap.
Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories involve assuming the existence of shadowy figures driving the collective power of “world Jewry”. I don’t believe any of that. People have interests. German Americans and Irish Americans were a major political force that almost helped keep us out of the First World War. There is nothing conspiratorial about this.
American Jews were also some of the leading figures behind the anti-war movement, and overwhelmingly polled in opposition to the Iraq war,
The claim that some individual Jewish neocons took part in the decision to invade Iraq is not conspiratorial or controversial, but you’ve overemphasized their influence in a way which is consistent with a larger pattern of anti-semitism (and white nationalism) which can be observed on your twitter feed.
That’s certainly true. I don’t over-emphasize the role of “The Jews” in motivating the Iraq War, because I don’t think there is really such a thing, in a political sense. But just like Bolshevism was not a conspiracy hatched by “The Jews”, it was a conspiracy largely hatched by Jews. And yes, some of their biggest enemies and biggest targets were other Jews. Many people take the fact that these movements are often over-populated with Jews (for the reasons you’ve mentioned, and the ones I’ve mentioned in the podcast, namely that they’re educated, smarter than other people, have a culture of debate and challenging dogma, and often identify with the outsider for obvious historical reasons), and make the implausible leap to thinking there is a giant conspiracy. Obviously there is not. There are people on my Twitter feed who do this (I also follow communists, black nationalists, hard right Zionists, ISIS boosters, etc), and if they say something that I think is funny or interesting, I’ll Retweet it. I don’t play the game of walling off people because they have different opinions.
it’s encouraging that you recognize political diversity within Jewish populations, but still discouraging that you consider the second Iraq war to be “a conspiracy largely hatched by Jews”. That claim is completely ahistorical. It ignores the roles that the gulf states, the american arms industry, and others had in motivating that war. These actors’ influence eclipsed any influence that neoconservative Jewish Americans members of the Bush administration(s) had.
Nobody expects you to wall people off, your listeners expect you to not make inaccurate historical claims with racist undertones.
I don’t know why you’re putting quotes around “a conspiracy largely hatched by Jews”. I don’t think that and didn’t say that.
Oh, I see what you’re saying. That’s not what I meant. I mean that the neoconservative movement was a movement largely created by Jews, and always heavily peopled with them. And the Iraq War was pushed by neoconservatives. But just as with the Russian Revolution, the early party was led almost exclusively by Jews, so that locals referred to the Red Terror of the early 20s as the Jewish Terror, but by the 1930s the composition and motivations had shifted. There were still many Jews in important positions, but it would be completely wrong to say what was happening in the ’30s as being caused by Jews. So with the neoconservative movement, it was largely Jewish in inception, but although Jews still played a disproportionate role in the early 2000s, it would be wrong to say that the Iraq War was caused by Jews.
Ok, I’ll take your word that your description of the second Iraq war as “a conspiracy largely hatched by Jews” was just a misphrasing. I think if you re-read what you wrote, you’ll see how one might arrive that interpretation.
Take a look at one of your tweets.
“Because “saving freedom” in Iraq, Libya, etc, worked out great. I mean, it has, for Israel, but for America, I y’kno”
To start, it’s unclear to me how our role in Libya has helped Israel.
Regardless, the only reason to mention that our Invasion of Iraq has been good for Israel and not the US, is if you believe that the war in Iraq was instigated by actors who prioritized Israel’s welfare over the US’. I can only assume that you believe these actors are Jews.
Again, I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you believe “it would be wrong to say that the Iraq War was caused by Jews” then how are readers meant to interpret this tweet?
That Tweet was part of a long-term war I’ve had w/Ben over his hypocrisy vis a vis policies and positions he supports in Israel vs the US. He routinely calls Trump an evil racist, for example, for saying things that don’t approach the vitriolic racism Ben routinely spews toward Palestinians. You’re right about Libya, though… perils of 140 characters.
I’ll be the first to admit: I would have been one of the Americans during the First Workd War outraged by Irish and German Ameeicans who wanted America to stay out because they were still loyal to their old homelands. Split loyalty is poison in a nation state, and Ben Shapiro doesn’t hide his own, to the degree that it becomes clear his first loyalty, when it comes down to it, is to Israel and fellow Jews over the US. Which is fine, I even respect it, but it drives me crazy when people like him try to dress up their personal ethnic or religious interests as being the duty of “patriotic Americans” to support.
But anyway, you’re conflating a few related, but separate questions:
Do o I think Israel wields disproportionate influence over US policy, often at the expense of American interests? Yes.
Do I think that they are able to do this because many American Jews’ first loyalty is to Israel? Yes, because many, like billionaire Sheldon Adelson and many of my personal Jewish friends (I ended up with a disprortionate number, I’m not sure why, except that they’re intelligent and interesting and I like them more often than not) will tell you this if you ask them.
Do I think that there is a conspiracy, where these people are somehow connected and plotting? Of course not, that’s ridiculous.
I hope it’s clear that I’m trying to address your concerns. WordPress allows me to simply not show your comments, or else I could have contacted you via email to have this discussion. But that’s not what I’m about. Your concerns are legitimate, given my online persona, and you’ve addressed the issue from the start with sincerity and class. If we knew each other in person these questions would immediately evaporate.
We’re living in a highly charged racial environment and reactions to certain things can grow out of proportion to how they were meant or taken at the time. My Jewish friends are all hardcore anti-Trump progressives who or center-right or more on Israel. I troll them all the time about it. We’ll be out with a group and they’ll be complaining about his immigration policies, and I always end up making fun and talking smack to them about favoring the Israeli wall, not wanting Israel to take refugees, etc. I am being serious, I do think they are being hypocritical, but they’re also my friends and it’s in good fun. I’m just not that guy who gets worked up or hates people, etc. When I start getting revved up and trolling them, they say, Here he goes again, and they troll back. (Again, when I say troll, I don’t mean I’m being insincere much of the time, but that my tone and word choice are meant to provoke.)
I appreciate that you’ve chosen not to hide these comments. I’ve put the amount of effort that I have into these comments in the hopes that other listeners will read them. All re-tellings of history are biased, and I think its important that listeners understand exactly how yours are biased.
Recognizing and pointing out the hypocrisy of your Jewish friends, and of Jewish public figures is fine, though it does seem you target Jews more than other ethnic groups.
Their hypocrisy reflects inconsistently applied beliefs. Consistency of belief and action is something to be strived for, if we’re aiming for honesty.
However, it’s my perception that unlike your Jewish friends who are inconsistently progressive and Jewish ethnonationalists, you are just consistently a white ethnonationalist. In my own personal view, the prior is preferable.
You say Ben Shapiro spouts racism against Palestinians. I have no reason to disbelieve you. Yet, it seems to me that we should be encouraging Ben Shapiro to be less racist. Instead, you seem to be taking the opposite tact, of attempting to excuse your own racism by appealing to his, and other Jews’ hypocrisy.
What that has transpired here leads you to conclude that I support white nationalism or racism? I explicitly reject zoology as a basis for social organization. I would think this should be quite clear.
“I’ve put the amount of effort that I have into these comments in the hopes that other listeners will read them.”
Aw, and here I thought you were doing it because the two of us were having a sincere, two-way conversation… =(
at the risk of sounding like a broken record, you’ve made clear you support citizenship policies which discriminate on the basis of ethnicity (not nationality). That alone is sufficient to qualify as an ethnonationalist.
We’re talking about different things. I am a fan of ethnonationalism in general: France should be for the French (to do with as they please, including becoming a multicultural republic if that’s what they decide). The Jews deserved a state. The Kurds deserve one now. But you were talking about white nationalism, which is a non-existent state of affairs. It’s typically an American phenomenon, because whiteness has become an identifier in this country, where the various European ethnicities have more or less been melded together. To manifest it would mean political, social, and economic turmoil, involving removing tens of millions of people or breaking up the country. I don’t support any of this in the US. But that is a separate question from what I think of ethnonationalism in general. In general, an ethnic nation state has proven to be a stable political formation that has permitted its citizens a high level of personal freedom and political agency. Chinese ethnic nationalism is a unifying force in China, white nationalism is a divisive force in the United States.
“But you were talking about white nationalism, which is a non-existent state of affairs. It’s typically an American phenomenon”
I’m addressing ethnonationalists who are white, which includes but is not limited to “white nationalism” as it is understood in the US. It may be that their ethnonationalism is specifically German (national socialist), Greek (golden dawn), or Ukrainian (Svoboda).
“In general, an ethnic nation state has proven to be a stable political formation that has permitted its citizens a high level of personal freedom and political agency.”
European ethnic nationalism has been known to perpetuate genocide, slavery, and war at a scale previously unknown to humanity.
“white nationalism is a divisive force in the United States.”
If that’s the case, why do you support a ban on muslim immigration into the US, as Trump does? To ban muslim immigrants, is to ban the majority of ethnic middle easterners, north africans, and southeast asians from immigrating to the US. To deny the ethnic motivations of Trumps proposed immigration policies would be naive.
My objection is cultural. An immigrant from Australia comes pre-assimilated to American culture, one from Argentina pretty similar, one from Sudan has a gulf to cross. I am very close to the Muslim community in Southern California, and many of my moderate-yet-devout Muslim friends will be the first to say that Europe must stop the flow refugees, and that the US must be very careful. The culture is almost custom-built to resist assimilation. Women, for example, are threatened with physical violence for marrying outside the group, and intermarriage is a vital part of assimilation. Hispanic immigrants have, in the past, proven quite assimilable, but this has broken down in recent years because the rate of immigration and back-and-forth movement has been so great that the community here is always surrounded by recently arrived immigrants. Being surrounded by the culture you left rather than feeling pressure to integrate with your adopted country hinders assimilation. I want a temporary break from almost all immigration, with exceptions made on a case by case basis, so that we can focus on integrating the people we have into a single national culture, which is currently in the process of breaking apart into different identity groups. In 1924, we strongly limited immigration and this had exactly the effect on hoping for now: Jews, Italians, Irish, Mexicans, Southern Europeans, etc came out of their ethnic ghettos, intermarried, and basically became one people. Since 1965, the rate has been so dramatic and disorderly that the new arrivals have largely failed to assimilate and I think another break would allow this to happen.
The point is that I support these policies because it will not be good for anyone, especially the ethnic and religious minorities, if the country continues to bend under the stress of uncontrolled demographic change.
it sounds like you’re admitting to supporting European ethnonationalist groups like the golden dawn, Jobbik, and svoboda. Is that the case?
“In 1924, we strongly limited immigration and this had exactly the effect on hoping for now: Jews”
Did the US make the right decision in turning away so many Jewish refugees, in an effort to preserve its cultural unity?
If so, that would suggest that you believe that these Jews would have been so corrosive to the cultural fabric of the US, that it’s better that a large fraction of them had died.
If not, it begs the question of what differentiates Jewish refugees from Muslim ones. Many of the criticisms you make of Muslim culture with respect to their inability to assimilate were the same criticisms made of Jewish culture in the early 20th century.
“The point is that I support these policies because it will not be good for anyone, especially the ethnic and religious minorities, if the country continues to bend under the stress of uncontrolled demographic change.”
It seems obvious to me that Syrian refugees would benefit from immigrating to the US.
I don’t know a lot about the actual parties, other than that they’re nationalists.
If you can’t think of a difference between German-Jewish refugees and today’s Muslim migrants, I don’t know what to tell you.
It’s surprising to me that you’re claiming ignorance with respect to European ethnonationalist parties, given that you claim to support European ethnonationalism.
“If you can’t think of a difference between German-Jewish refugees and today’s Muslim migrants, I don’t know what to tell you.”
I can think of plenty of differences, between the Jewish refugees of the 1930’s and the Syrian refugees of today. The question is though, which difference is relevant to your position that the Syrians don’t deserve refuge, and that the Jews did.
I know what parties are, and basically what they represent, but I don’t know enough about them to say if I support their platforms. Why is that hard to grasp? I don’t know many specifics about American parties outside of the republicans, democrats, and libertarians either.
Of course its possible that you’re not familiar with European politics. It’s just seems strange to me that you wouldn’t in the very least support the ethnonationalist parties in Hungary, given that you’ve defended Hungary several times on twitter in response to growing criticism of its ethnonationalist policies.
I support Hungarian nationalism, absolutely. Nations have a right to protect and sustain themselves. I just mean that I don’t know the specifics of the platforms of the parties you mentioned, so I wouldn’t want to give a specific endorsement of the parties without that understanding. I’ll be honest, it feels like you want something to be here, and you’re trying to find ways to make it be there. Instead of taking the words from my podcast, which I thought long and hard about and explained in some detail, and then going back through my Twitter feed to find things that you think might contradict those sentiments, entertain the possibility that the world is complicated, and it isn’t mutually exclusive, for example, to have compassion for migrants or refugees while also believing that the solution is not to import them in their millions to other people’s countries. In other words, you’re going through and looking for statements and saying, “But, but what about this right here, you said this!” I’m not a public figure, I don’t have an image to protect. I’m telling you what I think right here in this conversation. If I’ve contradicted myself or if my humor has fallen flat or if I’ve been insensitive or illogical at various points on Twitter, fine, I’m sure I have. But you’re asking me what I think and I’m telling you.
It’s not mutually exclusive to believe that Jewish Americans exercise disproportionate influence over US foreign policy for the benefit of Israel, and that this suggests a level of split loyalty, without believing that this is the only reason, or even the primary reason, that the US acts in the world, or that all or most Jews have anything to do with this, or even that the ones that do are acting purely out of ethnic loyalty to Israel. You’re trying to use 140 character statements to boil everything down into binaries, but that’s not sufficient to capture your thinking on any issue, why would it be sufficient to capture mine?
I don’t know you, but I knew coming into this conversation that your social media presence reflects an image of you that is racist. If that’s not something that bothers you, or if you think your social media presence is isolated from your listenership, that’s up to you.
My hope was to be dissuaded of that impression, and to some degree, I have been. I no longer believe you’re a nazi, for example. However, for the most part that impression is still intact.
I had hoped to be dissuaded because I felt like I learned a lot from your podcast, despite it being affected by your biases. For example, you framed British support for the early Zionists as being primarily due to an act of deception on the part of elite Zionists like Weismann, as opposed to being motivated primarily by the British government’s colonial ambitions (a much more plausible explanation in my opinion). This view is consistent with your habit of disproportionately focusing on the influence of Jews on US foreign policy.
On the other hand, your recountings of the origins of Zionism, its internal factions, and the escalation of the conflict up to the 1948 war were fascinating!
It does seem to me that you’re bigoted, so I hope that one day you come around, because I do think you’re talented! I also wonder how your time in the military has influenced your views.
I think you just have a very expansive view of what a racist is. Apparently it is anyone who recognizes that identity is an important part of human sociability, and doesn’t try to ignore that very obvious fact out of dogmatic piety. Why do I think we ought to recognize the right of the Hungarian people to protect their homeland and sustain themselves in it? Because the Hungarians themselves are going to do so in any case, whatever holy noises come out of the mouths of people like you or me. Continue to ignore this basic fact, continue to insist that whole societies abandon their identities in order to meet the moral expectations of your progressive college professors (who themselves moved to a non-diverse neighborhood as soon as they could afford it, while insisting that the working class people they left behind are racists for resisting illegal immigration), and things will get violent. I consider it neither pious nor rational to ignore perfectly obvious social realities. You can call that racist if you like.
“I consider it neither pious nor rational to ignore perfectly obvious social realities.”
There are plenty of social realities that are nonetheless undesirable, and fixable. Legal slavery was a longstanding social reality; a tradition which spans thousands of years. History is filled with examples of longstanding, racist, social realities, many of which have been rightly eliminated.
It’s one thing to rightly observe that these social realities are hard to change (maybe impossible in certain circumstances), it’s another to try to justify them e.g. your defense of ethnonationalism.
Dude!!! Daryll, I had you pegged for a left winger until I read this thread. That’s really interesting and makes me happy even if I am not a nationalist right-winger type.
So you and others have many times referred to Israel as an ethnonationalist state. However, how do you reconcile this with the fact that Israel’s Jewish population is comprised of an extremely diverse population of Jews from all parts of the world that would be classified as different races according to many anthropologists and North American methods of classifying race. Moreover, Israel gives its non-Jewish citizens the same rights as its Jewish ones and in turn fosters a robust Druze, Arab, and other ethnic minority communities. And even further compounding this ethnonationalist assertion is that most right-wing religious Zionists living in the disputed territories and settling the land in order to secure a greater Israel- and on the surface therefore seem to be the most “nationalist”- are actually motivated in their core by their longing to create a state that will be a vehicle for bringing the other nations of the world into harmony and ushering in an era of universalism where Jerusalem will be home to all the people of the world.
That’s actually a fascinating question – Israel as a unique sort-of-ethno, sort-of-religious, sort-of-cultural state – and I’d actually love to have that conversation more deeply with you one of these days. Maybe in chat on Twitter or FB or something would be a good format. IMO, the Jews achieved something incredible, almost miraculous, in constructing (not from nothing, but as you say, from people who had been culturally, ethnically, politically, and even religiously distinct for centuries) a viable and apparently stable social identity emotionally resonant enough to serve as the basis for a strong society.
A belated thank-you to both Darryl and ‘dude’. This conversation has been really illuminating to read. I’m late to the conversation because I just discovered MM this week.
A couple thoughts:
I don’t know why dude pressed his tenuous points so far, but it might be that although (1) he loves the podcast so much that he feels an almost irresistible impulse to share it with all his friends, (2) he knows that many of his friends would immediately draw very negative conclusions if they took a glance at Darryl’s Twitter activity. If I’m right (and apologies if I’m not), dude worries that these friends would conclude that his (i.e. dude’s) understanding of ‘things’ (the things they worry about to the exclusion of most other things: racial and social justice issues) isn’t as reliable as they’d previously assumed. They might censure him or, worse, quietly/passively ostracize him. At the very least, there would be a reduction in the confidence with which he is at present able to interact with them, a confidence based on his impeccable credentials (which took time to cultivate) as an appreciator of gross and subtle aspects of the struggles for racial and social justice. To regain his present standing with them after a stumble like this would be risky and success would take a lot of work — he’d have to try to break up and recast their thinking around these issues, just as Darryl here tried to break up and recast his. That’s really hard to do and often doesn’t work. So it would be a lot easier for dude — and would be so gratifying, since it would make it possible for dude to share Martyr Made far and wide — if Darryl would would just delete all his tweets etc. as necessary to make his online presence innocuous in sanctimonious, hypersensitive leftist circles.
At any rate, that’s something *I* feel, and dude, I’m sorry if it’s way off-base regarding you. My own sympathies are largely (not totally) with Darryl w/r/t the actual issues you were discussing, but I feel a powerful reluctance to encourage many of my lefty friends to check out Martyr Made because I know what what conclusions they’ll draw from Darryl’s Twitter feed.
I wanted to salvage my confidence in his work, because I did find it valuable and would like to recommend it to others.
However my primary motivation for having this long conversation was the deep sense of disappointment I experienced with this loss of confidence after coming into contact with Darryl’s public persona. I wanted to feel differently.
I now consider his work to be interesting, but fundamentally untrustworthy. I feel similarly about “World Order” by Kissinger, which I’m currently reading.
I used to recommend this podcast, but I don’t anymore. Not because I’m worried about the potential embarrassment, but because I’m worried that listener’s without previous exposure to the history of the conflict will develop an inaccurate understanding of it in support of Darryl’s bigoted world view.
I’d encourage you to read through as much of his twitter feed as you can, and to reflect on how you think his personal views are reflected in this podcast.
Thanks for replying dude.
Regarding evidence from Darryl’s Twitter history that he’s a racist or bigot (or anything else that I don’t want to be associated with): I wasn’t persuaded by the examples you gave above. That is to say, I don’t think any of the quotations you provided indicates racism or bigotry. Do you think there’s a certain gestalt that I’ll eventually get if I read enough of his Tweets, one that’s hard to capture in any single quotation? Or will I just find a lot of quotations like the ones you provided, each of which individually strikes you as evidence of racism or bigotry (but doesn’t strike me that way)?
His twitter is filled with polemics warning against the collapse of western civilization at the hands of barbaric muslims, consistently inaccurate/hypocritical criticisms of individual Jews and/or Israel, expressions of sympathy with the alt-right etc.
See his tweets about anti-semitism being a natural and justifiable result of white identity politics.
It may be that we’re working from different moral premises. I personally feel that state policies created with the intention of segregating ethnicities, are wrong e.g. South African apartheid, Jim Crow laws etc.
More generally, I’m a proponent of universalist ethics and a departure from ethnic tribalism i.e. I believe that the morality of an action should not depend on the ethnicity of the actors. If we accept this premise then law being a reflection of ethics, should also not take ethnicity into consideration, though it might reasonable consider factors which correlate strongly to one ethnicity or another.
As you say, dude, you are a universalist, which means you are a moral totalitarian. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that you have different political views than I do, but clearly the reverse bothers you quite a lot. I’ve even made my views very plain to you, taking the time to wade through your half-baked accusations and attempts to read my mind. It’s interesting, though not surprising, that people who are more aligned with me can be friends and can respect the views of people like you, but that people who hold your beliefs tend to demonize others, read into what you assume are their secret thoughts or meanings, and denounce them as morally decrepit merely for reading history differently and coming to different conclusions than you. Even here, in your last comment, you imply that I support Jim Crow or apartheid-style segregation, which is a blatant lie. I’m sure you believe it’s true, though, because everyone who disagrees with you is an evil racist who wants to murder another six million Jews, hates gays, wants segregation, etc…
Your delusional accusations have been raised and noted. Unless you have something more substantive to contribute, please stop clogging up the board with this repetitive bullshit.
In the tweetstorm you linked to, it seems clear to me from the very first tweet that Darryl is describing the logic of someone else’s worldview and strategy, not his own. I suspect (forgive me if I’m wrong) that you’re thrown off when you see him criticizing the way certain non-alt right-wingers (he specifically names Tom Woods and Rod Dreher) respond to the alt right. But there’s no reason to think that criticizing a group’s critics means you like or wish to protect that group. Darryl’s behavior here can just as easily be interpreted, and I do interpret it, as him hoping to toughen up the non-alt right by calling out their weaknesses and inadequacies. Calling this stuff out doesn’t mean he hopes for the success of the alt right; he may, and I suspect he does, hope that if enough people shout the truth at these non-alt righters, they’ll get their heads screwed on straight and start to put their abilities and resources to effective use, including helping reverse the nascent trend toward white identitarianism, which is partly a symptom of the deep inadequacy of our politics since the Civil Rights era.
I just noticed that Darryl’s sick of this thread, and it’s his forum, so I’ll leave it at that.
Yes, Christian, that’s basically right. In my view, white identity politics has arisen largely as a reaction to identity political overreach by the left in recent years, and it will continue to grow as long as we continue down that path. I don’t want to live in a country rife with ethnic conflict, but that is where many people seem intent on dragging us. My criticism of libertarians like Woods (whom I like) generally has to do with their ignorance of and lack of concern for questions of identity. Americans tend to think in purely individualistic terms, and imagine that everyone else is ready or willing to do the same. In my view, this assumption has led us down destructive paths both domestically and internationally (imagine Rummy’s shock when Iraqis didn’t jump at the opportunity to leave behind tribal and sectarian identities to become rootless Americanized individuals). Democracies and republics with a strong core national identity will eventually break down into calcified competing groups. These might be ideological in other cases (Europe is dealing with religious/cultural questions different from our own due to the influx of Muslims), but for various historical reasons it’s broken down by race and ethnicity in the US.
I point at the election of Trump at say to leftists practicing identity politics, “See? You see what you’re doing?” Asking someone like dude to take any responsibility when politics don’t go his way seems to be asking too much, especially when it’s so much more gratifying to imagine that the people who disagree with you about why things are happening are orcs coming from a place of abject moral poverty.
I attempted to explain my position to him, but I hope it’s also clear that I’m not interested in his or anyone else’s pieties or their attempts to signal them. I live in a society and a civilization that is coming apart along seams of identity that have become fundamental to our politics. It was kind of an annoying political game before, but now the majority populations across the Anglo and European worlds have started to reawaken to themselves, and that can only end in horror if it continues on. Unfortunately, the identity left doesn’t understand that, this far along in the process, screaming and denouncing and cursing and name-calling is no longer going to accomplish anything except to make the rifts deeper and the problems worse.
Also, I’ll get back to your email as soon as I’m done with this episode. Should be by Sunday night.
Re the above: preach.
Re the email: take your time.
Re the episode: can’t wait.
You have to be a “moral totalitarian” to hold any sort of a consistent moral worldview. If one thinks slavery is wrong for example, that begrudges one to end slavery everywhere, without respect for local cultural acceptance of slavery.
You’ve very clearly and repeatedly stated you support ethno nationalism, and citizenship policies which discriminate based on ethnicity. This alone qualifies as support for jim crow style policies, given that immigrants will be afforded different rights based on their ethnicity.
It’s pretty clear that you’re not just describing white identity politics, you’re actively promoting them.
Saw your Camus tweet. Don’t do it, feel better.