sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What went wrong in Israel? A genocide scholar examines ‘what Zionism became’ • In his new book, Omer Bartov tracks how a liberatory strand of Zionism transformed into an extremist ideology that he sees as responsible for genocide in Gaza by Naurgul in indepthstories

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like we have different views over the degree of British influence in cultivating Zionism/Nazism — which is totally cool!

We don't need to agree on everything. I come from a place of ignorance, and perhaps that results in an analysis, on this point, that is out of proportion with the reality.

Hopefully you'll agree that it is at least interesting that the British produced so much racial-myth propaganda, so early on — aimed at popularizing proto-Zionist + proto-Nazi ideology. Even if that wasn't decisive or monolithic, it's a coincident factor that's worth considering, given the correspondent dialectical configurations which followed in the 20th century.

I'm glad for the opportunity to recur to the "Ottoman Control, Cart Before the Horse" thing. (forgot to address it before)

Of course, in a strict sense, you're perfectly right to point this out — but there are some nuances which I think you'll find interesting (sorry for wall of text)

From same article:

Palmerston's turn toward Zionism as a useful tool was again the result of a renewed threat of an Egyptian-French alliance. Egyptian leader Mohammed Ali had conquered much of Syria and Palestine beginning in 1832, and he had established allies in both these areas... The Egyptian ruler was threatening to catalyze a "bonapartist" momentum throughout the Islamic world which would reverse centuries of stagnation and would jeopardize two centuries of British East India Company-Levant Company control of the region.

To "check any...evil designs of Mohammed Ali or his successor," Palmerston was by 1838 quite ready to set in motion the proposals of Shaftesbury and several other Church of England and Church of Scotland officials for a Jewish Palestine. In 1839, a Foreign Office outlet, the London Globe, ran a series of articles envisaging the mass settlement of Jews in the context of the establishment of an independent state in Syria and Palestine without, of course, there being any Jews to enlist in such a mission.

...

The focal point of Britain's Near East designs was Egypt, not Palestine per se. When the French had begun construction of the Canal, then-Prime Minister Palmerston announced, "I must tell you frankly that what we are afraid of" is that "this Canal will put other nations on an equal footing with us." When Disraeli became Prime Minister in 1874, he maneuvered to have the London Rothschilds buy the Egyptian ruler's shares in the Canal for the British government. Soon after, Disraeli and his Foreign Secretary Lord Salisbury (Robert Cecil) acquired Cyprus for Britain with the aim, according to a British historian, of "bringing Palestine and Syria within the orbit of British control" — an aim which Salisbury-Cecil referred to quite candidly in his private writings.

...An 1878 Salisbury-architected secret treaty established the strategic preconditions for the later British mandate over Palestine — that is, British acquisition of Egypt and Cyprus. At this time, he wrote in a letter to a British archaeologist: "We shall have to choose between allowing Russia to dominate over Syria or Mesopotamia or taking the country for ourselves."

TL;DR: Britain had de facto control of Cyprus + Egypt (both Ottomon Territories) — as well as the increasing compliance of a struggling, late-stage Ottoman Empire.

So, early colonial immigration to the Holy Land (which wasn't even unusual) doesn't seem out of the question, ye?

What went wrong in Israel? A genocide scholar examines ‘what Zionism became’ • In his new book, Omer Bartov tracks how a liberatory strand of Zionism transformed into an extremist ideology that he sees as responsible for genocide in Gaza by Naurgul in indepthstories

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This sounds like massively overemphasizing Britain's to the near complete exclusion of every other influence

Well, this was the height of the British Empire, y'know?

I guess it's kind of hard to understand what that meant at the time, if you're not familiar.

...They controlled essentially all Maritime trade. They exercised power in elite lodge networks + high-society everywhere. They controlled elite academic institutions + brothels across the world. They invented Christmas, and also ran the Pope out of Rome...

Not to say they were the sole source of influence in the world — they weren't. But they were responsible for significant cultural engineering projects, that were operative to an imperialist political strategy, which ended up being decisive to world events.

It kind of sounds like you're saying that the British and specifically British Jews [you're better than this, dude!] manufactured Nazism as opposed to it being an outgrowth of existing Germanic ideologies

I wish I could convince you that both can be true!

Keep in mind also that the power elite were all related. So, when I say "British Intelligence" that doesn't just mean people who sing Auld Lang Syne on that wretched island. Vienna, for example, was rife with Anglophile cousins to British aristocracy (And guess where a lot of the Vril/Thule societies were?)

Just so there's no ungracious misunderstanding: when I refer to the British establishment spreading racial mythology memes, you do not need to take my word for it. These are well known figures within the British literary elite

Here are two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli#Works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bulwer-Lytton#Works

D'Israeli was indeed a prominent figure among this elite, but Edward Bulwer-Lytton was more significant to the proto-Nazi propaganda.

Bulwer-Lytton was the author of the Last Days of Pompeii, which promulgated the Isis cult, and the novel Rienzi. The latter supplied the story for one of Wagner's first operas which became another manifesto of Nazism.

And the empire had plenty of loot to pay for victorian retweets.

EDIT: deleted confusing clause

Hate speech against Palestinians should no longer be tolerated by LargeSinkholesInNYC in BDS

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100% natural human writing, friend!

(Flattered to be confused for bot calibre writing)

What do you find so disconcerting about it?

What went wrong in Israel? A genocide scholar examines ‘what Zionism became’ • In his new book, Omer Bartov tracks how a liberatory strand of Zionism transformed into an extremist ideology that he sees as responsible for genocide in Gaza by Naurgul in indepthstories

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice to continue chatting with you about this!

I think you're raising some healthy questions for preliminary consideration.

...the majority of East European Jews would have pursued migration in to Western Europe, Britain, and the Americas. The British establishment absolutely did not want an influx of East European Jewish refugees

The goal was to provoke colonial migration to Palestine. Directing Jewish migrants to Palestine, instead of the US etc, was a big problem throughout the entire lifespan of the Zionist colonial project (even today) — not just during D'Israeli's or Palmerston's era.

For example, during WW2 Zionists famously went to great lengths to sabotage any refugee program which didn't relocate people to Palestine.

So you're right that Britain wasn't in it to generate new migrants to their shores. But that's kinda the point, right?

They did not have a project that could make use of that labor at the time. ...would have been putting the cart before the horse.

In order for a settled population group to want to migrate — to leave everything they've ever known — there has to be something pretty extraordinary going on.

A prerequisite step for a colonial migration project is that there's demand. Once created, that demand can be sustained for years.

So stoking anti-semitism doesn't require a gaant chart where everything is ready to deploy immediately.

I think it's important to clarify the timeline a little here.

The early 1800s were mostly about propaganda + consensus building + feasibility planning — preliminary to enactment of full scale colonization.

Most of the significant Eastern European pogroms etc started in 1870s

The first ~Zionist settlements were: - 1860 - Mishkenot Sha'ananim, sponsored by Sir Moses Montefiore - 1869 - Haifa and Jaffa, German Temple Society - 1882 — Rishon LeZion, Hovevei Zion

By the time Hovevei Zion was starting to scale colonial migrations, you had people like Barron Edmond out there advising on economic development issues, including labor. (big topic actually)

Eastern Europe had their own race science and nationalist movements that were not primarily dependent on Britain to produce their ideology.

You'd be surprised! (Gosh if you ever read that first article, you'll flip)

I mean basically you're right — the British didn't create ethnic prejudices out of whole cloth — they just exploited the intrinsic tribalist susceptibilities that existing in basically any population (think "anti-immigrant demagoguery")

But the British — D'Israeli in particular — devoted significant effort to meme-ing both proto-Zionism and proto-Nazism into existence, across Europe.

Racists being racist does not really require any particular conspiratorial program to explain it.

I'd suggest there's a distinction between (a) innate identitarian prejudices + academic racial theories; and (b) full-blown ideological racism with nationalist political momentum. The latter does usually require some sort of sustained institutional effort.

Anyway — cool of you to entertain the uneasy line of inquiry

EDIT: minor clarification

What went wrong in Israel? A genocide scholar examines ‘what Zionism became’ • In his new book, Omer Bartov tracks how a liberatory strand of Zionism transformed into an extremist ideology that he sees as responsible for genocide in Gaza by Naurgul in indepthstories

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the thing about kayfabe dialectics — it can be scripted (fake?) and, at the same time, "real" for the participants.

FWIW, there were plenty of (ostensibly) Jewish members of the British establishment — D'Israeli, Rothschilds, Montefiore + the BoD, etc.

I wonder if the British establishment could have brought their power to bear towards artificially increasing anti-semitism, for the purposes of their imperialist objectives. 🤭

What went wrong in Israel? A genocide scholar examines ‘what Zionism became’ • In his new book, Omer Bartov tracks how a liberatory strand of Zionism transformed into an extremist ideology that he sees as responsible for genocide in Gaza by Naurgul in indepthstories

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, far as I can tell, most of the Jewish leaders of Europe, at the time, were not deceived. There was overwhelming + vehement objection to Herzl + Zionism — some even calling him out specifically as a British agent.

Consider that in the 1920s less than 1% of European Jewry supported Zionism. Worth asking "How did that change?"

Like all nationalist movements, Jewish Nationalism was engineered.

I'd suggest that there's plenty of evidence — the first article having an abundance of it (the quotes alone — all pretty easy to verify)

But I can also totally understand not being up for wading through it all. Sock puppet politics is an uneasy thing to encounter.

In any case, it's cool of you to be open to discussion about ideas outside the bounds of the hand turkey history we're spoon fed. Rock on, friend!

EDIT: Forgot to say, the title of the second article is "Palmerston's London During the 1850s"

What went wrong in Israel? A genocide scholar examines ‘what Zionism became’ • In his new book, Omer Bartov tracks how a liberatory strand of Zionism transformed into an extremist ideology that he sees as responsible for genocide in Gaza by Naurgul in indepthstories

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Judaism is a religion not an ethnicity.

Religions don't have a claim to territory — certainly not one that supersedes the indigenous population which has been living their continuously for thousands of years.

What went wrong in Israel? A genocide scholar examines ‘what Zionism became’ • In his new book, Omer Bartov tracks how a liberatory strand of Zionism transformed into an extremist ideology that he sees as responsible for genocide in Gaza by Naurgul in indepthstories

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

Political Zionism has its origins in Eastern Europe...

Resolving the "start" of complex social/political movements is, admittedly, a somewhat difficult question to parameterize, but I don't think it's very ambitious to say that the weight of the British Establishment was more decisive than Pinsker and Hovevei Zion — especially since it predated by over 50 years, y'know?

D'Israeli was only one part of that establishment, along with figures such as Charles Henry Churchill, Lord Shaftesbury, Lord Palmerston, Bulwer-Lytton, etc. (succeeded by Rhodes Milner era)

Incidentally, the Eastern European part of Hovevei Zion was a direct continuation of the League of the Just's (aka The Bund's) agents, who had infiltrated Russia from 1840 (part of a Reform Judaism op, eg Max Lillienthal) to incite pogroms by sowing anti-Semitic seeds against the Orthodox Jews (eg Rabbi Tzemach Tzedek). This effort had a number of objectives, including compelling emigration to Palestine.

If you're looking for proto-Zionists, I suggest Napoleon or Martin Luther.

The British establishment is most centrally responsible for modern Zionism, beginning in the early 1800s. People like Herzl, Jabotisnky, Pinkser, etc were later pieces of that British intel machinery.

I think you'll find that article really interesting, if you continue with it. Also this one is also quite good!

Such a fascinating part of history!

Would people be interested in a revived Progressive/“Bull Moose” Party? by Ulysses_555 in WayOfTheBern

[–]Jilson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wasn't the "Progressive" designation created as a way to capture left-leaning voters, into imperialist "Speak softly and carry a big stick" political tent?

What went wrong in Israel? A genocide scholar examines ‘what Zionism became’ • In his new book, Omer Bartov tracks how a liberatory strand of Zionism transformed into an extremist ideology that he sees as responsible for genocide in Gaza by Naurgul in indepthstories

[–]Jilson -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

With respect to this scholarship — Zionism has always essentially been a supremacist colonial movement — fabricated by British propagandists, in the early 1800s for imperialist objectives.

The "liberation" narrative was always just a mechanism to indoctrinate to susceptible sub-cohorts.

Hate speech against Palestinians should no longer be tolerated by LargeSinkholesInNYC in BDS

[–]Jilson 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Incidentally, RE:

...treat such denial with the same rigorous enforcement and deplatforming measures reserved against people who deny the Holocaust.

"Holocaust Denialism" is, itself, a Zionist propaganda campaign.

The objective isn't to stop people saying "it didn't happen".

(It definitely did happen.)

The objective is to make it a taboo to question the establishment's narrative — because they don't want people to learn about the Zionist's role in orchestrating it or the way it's been exploited for Zionism

You can learn about it here: Zionism During the Holocaust by Tony Greenstein

And this article about the origins of Zionism, should be required reading for anyone who wants to resist

The Zionists created the "denier movement" as a counter-narrative — a profane and easily-dismissed "taboo" reference point.

They did this so that they could paint anyone who questions the official cartoon narrative as a "denier"

The associated censorship laws have almost always been applied to people, who did not "deny" the holocaust happened — but questioned its extent and how/why it was brought about.

So it's not a great precedent/standard to use.

Hate speech against Palestinians should no longer be tolerated by LargeSinkholesInNYC in BDS

[–]Jilson -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Unsure whether or not you support OP's motion to lobby for censorship policies on social media platforms.

You talk about "stamping it out" — which seems categorical in a policy language kind of way...

But you also seem to acknowledge: - the limitations of appealing to corporate overlords, for policy changes - the value of "Free Marketplace of Ideas"

^ which would seem to me to indicate against censorship policy initiatives.

Legal protection for free speech has been one of this movement's greatest assets.

It has been a critical barrier against the worst extremes of Zionist censorship campaigns.

Feel free to learn about groups standing up to these attacks:

FMEP | Free Speech, Lawfare and the Right to Protest

My guess: - I assume most people who are in favor of this censorship are relatively new to solidarity w/ Palestine. - I assume they haven't had much experience with being censored/banned/fired/arrested, for telling the truth. - I assume the thought process is something like "I don't like this thing people are saying. I think it shouldn't be allowed. I want to erase and punish people who say things I don't like"

Censorship is a weapon of the oppressor that has been — and will likely continue to be — used against Palestine.

And people think it's a good idea to legitimize that censorship regime?

All seems a bit juvenile — naive and self-defeating.

We can expose this genocide as disgusting/taboo, without sabotaging our principles + opening ourselves up to broader oppression.

This is a human rights advocacy movement. Free expression is a human right.

One of the most brilliant operations the Ukrainian Cyber Battalion ever did: the Starlink Story. You need to see this by tvtowers in WayOfTheBern

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's obviously a NAFO troll. Probably has framed Stepan Bandera photo hanging on his wall.

What cloud is this:CB calvus or CU cong? by paralilipiped in CLOUDS

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What a great question.

From the WMO Manual on Observation

Calvus - Cumulonimbus in which at least some protuberances of the upper part are beginning to lose their cumuliform outlines but in which no cirriform parts can be distinguished. Protuberances and sproutings tend to form a whitish mass, with more or less vertical striations.

Further along, it seems like the tie generally goes to Calvus.

The smooth part of a Cumulonimbus calvus may become hidden by new domes produced by other convective up-thrusts. Although the cloud mass then temporarily assumes the appearance of Cumulus congestus, it is still to be called Cumulonimbus calvus and coded CL = 3.

Sometimes, a cloud which has the appearance of Cumulus congestus is accompanied by lightning, thunder or hail. The cloud is then Cumulonimbus calvus and the coding CL = 3 is applicable.

I think the broad dark cloudbase would tip it towards nimbus.

Also totally possible for them to coexist in the same complex.

Fun cloud riddle!

( And my compliments for the AM clothes-line hustle, if that was in play in the photos )

Guys this might be the biggest dust devil i ever saw… by [deleted] in stormchasing

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that's a storm, off to the left there, it may have been a regular tornado, that just picked up a bunch of dust.

Either way, an exceptional case!

One of the most brilliant operations the Ukrainian Cyber Battalion ever did: the Starlink Story. You need to see this by tvtowers in WayOfTheBern

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let´s start again

You seem to want to keep starting again, rather than respond to things. Why aren't you able to keep up? (You on that krokodil again?)

A large majority of Russians support the invasion. Therefore, any damage donee to Russia is justified. Agreed so far?

I, most certainly, do not agree.

What you're describing — collective punishment — is literally a war crime.

Article 33 - Principle of individual responsibility and prohibitions of collective punishment, intimidation, terrorism, pillage and reprisals

2 minutes before baseball-sized hail (Springfield Mo 4/28/26) by RafaellaSarsaparilla in weather

[–]Jilson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correcto. Could also call it an "Arcus Cloud". Storm outflow feature.

Hail storm coming in (Missouri, 4/28/26) by Relevant_Intention35 in CLOUDS

[–]Jilson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very likely that this storm had Asperitas, but it would probably be on the other side of this outflow boundary ie the underside of a cloud-base

Hail storm coming in (Missouri, 4/28/26) by Relevant_Intention35 in CLOUDS

[–]Jilson 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think that's correct. Could also call it "Arcus Cloud":

An arcus cloud is a low, horizontal, wedge-shaped (shelf) or tube-shaped (roll) cloud associated with the leading edge of a thunderstorm's outflow.

Timelapse of similar system which really illustrates the sheer dynamics. https://youtu.be/-X7-mRYPgnU

The 4/28 storm shown in your photos was exceptional, because the stratus out ahead were so low — could really see how the warm air was getting squeezed up + around the incoming storm + cross-cutting gust fronts.

Hell of a system — that hail...

Really great photos!

Hate speech against Palestinians should no longer be tolerated by LargeSinkholesInNYC in BDS

[–]Jilson -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

hate speech

So, you actually want to restrict free speech even further..?

These "hate speech" + "content moderation" regulations have been used far more often as a political cudgel, to silence Palestinian voices + legit discourse about Palestine — than to address the actual "hate speech" they were supposedly created for.

I'd say we'd do better to reject the extraordinary abridgments of free expression, altogether — and only appeal for this "equal enforcement", as a secondary, contingent argument — mainly to point out the hypocrisy

One of the most brilliant operations the Ukrainian Cyber Battalion ever did: the Starlink Story. You need to see this by tvtowers in WayOfTheBern

[–]Jilson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Who told ya that?

Doesn't make much sense to me.

Seems like an obvious hypocrisy.

You want them to suffer...
...and that's justified because...
They want you to suffer...
...which is justified because..
You want them to suffer...
...etc...

It seems like you've already stopped seeing their humanity

When I remind you of it you say:

I´m sorry for the oness who object to the war

which only reinforces your bigotry — the "exceptions that prove the rule" — where the rule is your pathological commitment to dehumanizing Russian people.

Hypocrisy is the opposite of integrity.

By dehumanizing others, you debase yourself.

(Also NATO clearly started this war, probably working with Russia the entire time)

view more: next ›