deBoer declares that nations are nothing but imagined communities, but demands justice for Palestine. How does one provide justice for an imaginary community?
Perhaps deBoer means justice for individual Palestinians. If so, doesn’t justice demand that the October 7th murderers pay for their crimes? And what does justice demand for those who abetted and those who are still abetting the murderers?
Marxist “ruthless criticism of all that exists” is a one way street. Applying Marx’s critiques of capitalism to his (sparse) outline of his utopia is, apparently, off limits.
For example, in discussions with self-identified socialists, I’ve pointed out that the Marxian formula for distributing goods (“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”) necessarily entails far more “exploitation” as Marx himself defined it than does capitalism. (Workers who produce more than they need are exploited in the Marxian sense, and such workers must be in the majority if society is to survive and flourish.) The response is typically some version of “Marx’s critiques were meant to be applied only to capitalism.”
Marxist morality is WHO/WHOM all the way down...whichever Oppressed group wears the halo today, from the proletariat to the Palestinians, deserves anything and everything, an Eden constructed from your money and assets, plus a Praetorian Guard of language commissars to make sure they never hear or read a bruising word; and whoever is the Oppressor group du jour, from the kulaks to the Israelis, needs to be ruthlessly criticized on all fronts, all their claims and achievements must be delegitimized, they must be stripped, mocked and led on a metaphorical donkey to a (metaphorical?) guillotine.
This is not just their conception of morality but also their conception of Justice.
This is an excellent essay that hits on a lot of the same criticisms I've made of FdB (in my head). He writes very well, and he has cogent and thoughtful ideas about culture, education, and intra-left politics. But on certain topics, especially foreign policy, his ideas are worse than useless. His Ukraine articles were awful apologias for Russian imperialism, and his articles on Israel/Palestine were similarly bad to the point that I only read bits and pieces. The final straw for me was his mocking and dismissive comments about Oct 7th and his skepticism that widespread rapes occurred. (Why are there so few eyewitnesses, Freddie? Maybe because they were murdered or kidnapped!)
An especially important point of your essay here is the vital role of stability and order, and the degree to which leftists dismiss it. You often read left-wing critiques of US post-war policy towards Germany, including reintegrating former Nazis into the West German government, using former Nazi scientists in NASA, etc. and those things did happen - de-Nazification was far less thorough than most of us would think to be ideal. And yet, in fact, the de-Nazification of West Germany was extremely successful - the fascists who remain in Germany are mostly in the former East Germany. So however amoral US policy was, the ultimate effect was morally good and led to a more peaceful world (no WWIII). Too often, that outcome is simply taken for granted and discounted.
I broadly agree but would add that the degree of (neo-)Nazidom in former East Germany is overstated. Yes, it's a real problem, but it's become a cudgel that other Germans use to disparage the East (the poorest and most hard-bitten part of the country) and claim moral superiority, as if there are no far-righters in other parts of the country too. The way the former East is treated and spoken about by a lot of West Germans (including TV celebrities) is arrogant and ignorant, and echoes the attitude to "flyover states"/"deplorables" in the US.
Yes, I don't mean to overstate the problem. I mostly just mean to point out that the capitalist and democratic West Germany (allied with the USA) did a better job of de-Nazification than the communist and autocratic East Germany, despite leftist claims to the contrary.
How much was the de-Nazification of West Germany facilitated though by the implied threat that if the West Germans would be thrown to the communist wolves if they were too un-cooperative with the US and UK?
Another great piece Lorenzo. Thank you. I wrote , in my more tabloid style, why the Marxists marching for the destruction of Israel have lost, if they ever had it, the right to lecture the rest of us about our moral choices. I link it here if anyone is interested. Happy New year to you. https://open.substack.com/pub/lowstatus/p/fish-fingers?r=evzeq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The Left is correct in its understanding of how important the fight in Israel is now.
IF Israel triumphs it’s a loss for Progressives and the Left, the Bloodier and more ruthless it is the worse it is, if brute force works THEN their model is invalid.
Their fortunes wane now, but fortune is fickle.
IF Israel fails or falls it’s an enormous win, as 9/11 was for Muslims and the Arab street. THEN will unleash the floodgates all over the West.
> Please note Israeli collapse of will is quite possible. At no time was South Africa in danger or falling to the ANC, nor was Rhodesia falling to the rebels.
Israel can quite succumb to external pressure especially from America (🇺🇸 as not just the Left but the State Department want Israel gone ) and internal pressure from the Israeli liberals.
Netanyahu may be PW Botha (of South Africa) or he may be Mannerheim of Finland. At present the Israeli peace Left is in remission, the Israeli Liberals still smarting from their wounds and freshly buried dead. Time will restore the devotion of the Left, drain the money of the Liberals, and the Will of the Israelis. A restoration of Strong Democratic Party leadership in America (however unlikely) would lead to fatal consequences for Israel.
I’m no Christian or Zionist.
I’m American. However as it falls out this fight determines rather a lot; will the Left and Globalists go down taking many of us in America with them?
Or a less destructive dissolution?
On Israel; all America needs to do is not betray an ally in need, that is all. That is rare indeed.
In fact the only allies we’ve not betrayed- at least to destruction- are England and Israel.
I’m watching the plan and open intention and same methods being applied to Israel that were applied to South Africa. That’s openly stated you know, they call Israel an apartheid state, BDS, one man one vote, etc.
The comparison isn’t mine.
Pray why is noticing ridiculous?
As far as Israel has no place to go... 🤣
NO 💩
That’s not ridiculous either, there’s also 200+ million Americans with no place to go...
There’s a long history of people with no place to go and they went there... for example the Early European Farmers* about 2300 BC had some migrants called Yamna aka Indo Europeans and...
HNY. There’s no place to go on earth, defend what you got or die trying.
Very interesting. Especially about your point about Strong Democrats being fatal for Israel. I think Reagan betrayed England when America didn’t stand with the UK during the Falklands War I. An interesting historical moment given the Thatcher/Reagan relationship. Still. Wilson refused to get England involved in Vietnam. So there’s that!
Well, different interests that aren’t fatal to the other party aren’t quite the level of betrayal I’m referring to - South Vietnam a good example.
The public policy of the Foreign Affairs community in America prior to 10/7 was “one state” and gives Gaza and WB the vote - probably via the Israeli Supreme Court. Well that’s the end , but that’s just means, the End is we toss them to the wolves.
I mean betrayal to death.
*PS unless I’m misinformed by History, the USA 🇺🇸 provided vital logistical support to the Falklands expedition, which is more important than public statements. It’s like Portugal in WW2 - far more useful as neutral than ally (bases, Azore , etc).
So much in this short essay. By coincidence I am currently reading the wondrous novel by Mikhail Sholokov 'And Quiet Flows the Don' set prior to and during that great civil war which kicked off the Bolshevik horror called the Soviet Union. In one passage, the main protagonist Grishka has a conversation with a secret Bolshevik infiltrator in his Cossack regiment who eventually confides: "True, war has gone on since the beginning of time and will go on so long as we don't sweep away the evil government. But when every government is a worker's government they won't fight any more. That's what's got to be done. When the Germans and the French and all the others have got a workers' and peasants' government. What shall we have to fight about then? Away with frontiers, away with anger! One beautiful life all over the world. Aah..." Garanzha sighed and twisting the ends of his whiskers, his one eye glittering, he smiled dreamily. "Grishka, I would pour out my blood drop by drop to live to see that day."
So simple, so clear, so many drops of blood around the world pouring into a river inspired by those sentiments. It always astonishes me that many so-called intellectuals can't identify the simple pattern you lay out, and walk away quickly from such a delusion. Similar to the Moslem delusion that if all the people's of the world were subjugated to Allah through blood and rape they would create a peaceful world.
I too enjoy Freddie's writing and have had a similar reaction to his professed "Marxism"—it is as preposterous in 21st-century America as being an alchemist or a Pythian Sybil, and much more the social equivalent of wearing an A for Anarchy button on your leather jacket, as a way to signal how much more radical and edgy you are compared to the other kids.
I've caught him a few times referring to "international law" or "liberal standards" etc and have to wonder how this squares with the Marxist-Leninist belief that such things are "bourgeois impositions/fantasies" or whatever foul jargon they slander their opponents with when they need to masquerade as defenders of human rights and civil liberties.
A century past the Soviet Revolution it is pretty much proved at this point that Marxism appealed very little to its supposed historical protagonists, the Proletarian workers, who refused to renounce God, family and country for Marx's magic beans, but it appealed intensely and quasi-religiously to its true benefactors, disaffected secular intellectuals, who see the "Revolution" as their chance to fulfill all their power fantasies and become omnipotent philosopher-kings.
Didn't we just live through a century where every supposed Marxist intellectual gleefully cheered on multiple massacres, from Sartre and the Algerians to Sontag and the Viet Cong to Foucault and the Ayatollahs and Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge (the list is endless!)? The fact that these people aren't condemned to wander under a cloud of shame like the intellectuals who pimped for Hitler—and that their preposterous Marxist fantasy world hasn't been laughed into History's dust bin—just goes to show you that in the still very Christian West, you can literally get away with murder as long as you say "I did it for a better world!" or "I only wanted to center the marginalized!"
> I've caught him a few times referring to "international law" or "liberal standards" etc and have to wonder how this squares with the Marxist-Leninist belief that such things are "bourgeois impositions/fantasies" or whatever foul jargon they slander their opponents with when they need to masquerade as defenders of human rights and civil liberties.
Well since the UN was captured by Marxists that's not really a practical problem for them.
Fascinating and to my mind compelling. I wonder if the problem is that there is no proof that Marxism, which has never worked before, can NEVER be made to work in the future. Doesn't that slender crack leave the door open for Marxists, no matter how improbable their dream is?
I have no idea why I only occasionally have a like button available to click, and this is one of those instances where I feel the lack. Planning to reread it later, but definitely appreciated it the first time.
There is no two state solution. The Israelis have had the Palestinian Arabs administering de facto neighboring states and have gotten nothing but grief for their troubles. The Palis have turned down every offer for statehood.
They never had a state before, existing as an appendage to various empires. That wasn’t a concern for the “Palestinians” until the Jews got a state. The PLO, the terror group which started all this crap, was a 1960’s concoction of neighboring Arab states to de legitimate and destroy Israel. It wasn’t an organic movement. Arafat was an Egyptian. Its goal was and its successors’ goal remains to wipe out the Jews and get rid of Israel. That is an untenable relationship and Israel is now going to finally smash all these homicidal garbage organizations to smithereens. The stupidity and anti-semitism of the West in funding these terror organizations, which attack the West as well, is indicative of how the failed and insufficient ideology of Marxism has been allowed to propagate by people who know better.
Excellence piece. The gap between deBoer's is indeed wide. As a further point, he completely misunderstood the nature of Labour’s antisemitism issue - 'the allegations against Corbyn were very weak tea indeed' - but felt obliged to weigh in anyway. It's not that he gets stuff wrong; we all do that. It's that when he's wrong he's confident.
To me it’s that when he’s wrong, it’s always in a way that he unflinchingly skewers in others. Freddie frequently criticizes the social justice left for failing to actually consider the expressed preferences of the minority groups they profess to speak for, yet on Palestinian issues he treats it as totally irrelevant that a firm majority will accept nothing short of genocide. Just a complete abandonment of his critical faculties.
I couldn't agree more. But Freddie understands the evolutionary and historical evidence too yet still begs to differ. Why? A charitable interpretation is that we see and understand the world differently. Evidence that you and I find utterly convincing, Freddie doesn't find persuasive, and vice versa. My contention, consistent with a charitable interpretation and epistemic humility, is that this has nothing to do with intelligence, education, credentials, or, often, good faith. If I am right about this, there is no reason for us to expect otherwise. Humanity's task is to find a way to get along despite the fact that our dreams, values, and priorities often stand in diametrical opposition. Yuval Levin frequently writes about this theme, I believe persuasively. Something has to give, but I don't know what.
"A charitable interpretation is that we see and understand the world differently. ... this has nothing to do with intelligence, education, credentials, or, often, good faith. If I am right about this, there is no reason for us to expect otherwise." I have come to the same conclusion in regard to religious belief (which this Marxism really is) and the (probably evolved) desire for transcendence. That is, we have evolved parallel mental capabilities seeking transcendence and logical analysis and answers to the universe as we (try to) perceive it. At any given time/place one side may or may not be dominant over the over. And as with a range of intellectual capabilities, we have a range of depth in our desires for transcendence desires. Some of us seem to have a much lower level (or kind?) than many others. Can you marvel at the complexity of the universe without relying on a divine source for moral guidance, that in turn must be worshipped at high cost to other considerations?
Do you happen to have a ready link for Levin's viewpoint? I find some of his writing to be rather long winded, but recognize he has a first rate mind.
"Something has to give, but I don't know what." Taking a long term evolutionary view, I wonder if we might eventually evolve away from the need for illogical levels or types of "transcendence" because that no longer is adaptive for cooperation compared to rational analyses and tradeoffs. Or if it is essential that people need hold common beliefs in nonlogical ideas to demonstrate the required level of trust for superior group cooperation.
No. He never dealt for one second with Hamas atrocities. He was denier of rape. Beheading. Burning bodies. His writing was full of hatred for Israel and its defenders. He crossed a line. It was clear.
ehhhhhh, that's kind of like calling him a misogynist for his views on trans. I can kind of see it, but I prefer to apply the "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" heuristic.
Trans and Israel are 2 examples of issues where FdB is a fucking idiot, but not necessarily a hateful person.
He's anti-mainstream left because he sees the mainstream left as hopelessly distracted by identity politics to the point where Wall Street loves wokeness because they see it as posing zero threat to the entrenched interests of the wealthy.
Think of him as a Berniebro who didn't like the way Bernie's 99% vs. 1% class politics got derailed by Hilary stans calling him racist and sexist - "would breaking up Wall Street banks end racism?"
So he's pretty good on the antiwoke stuff, but then on certain topics he engages in the exact same thought-terminating cliches that he otherwise specializes in dissecting.
He'll stand up on the free speech stuff, because he's been attacked as a far-right fascist in the past for criticizing BLM. So he knows if the woke crowd agrees to get Twitter or Substack to "ban Nazis", then it's only a matter of time before he gets banned and his self-professed Marxism won't save him.
You know I was willing to consider that initially. But day after day after day with increasing vitriol. He called those of us who pushed back ‘rabid right wingers’ which is wrong and disgusting. If his writing had a ‘voice’ it was a mocking sneer. I understand you may have a different POV but I see this as Marxist Soviet style antisemitism.
I respect that. Just not for me. I don’t know anything on his views on trans. Somehow missed his writing on that. The stuff I liked the most was on mental health and how our society romanticizes mental illness. I personally think Marxism is ridiculous.
Would you say Marxism is also what leads FdB to argue biological females need to 'take one for the team' and make space for transwomen in female spaces?
This is really good. Though I’d have thought being pragmatic when it comes to NATO expanding along Russias borders also matters because unless NATO intends to fully contribute to any outcome the sabre rattling has proven itself a giant mistake. Similarly we stand back and leave Israel to it. Who knows if the IDF will be enough to thwart such dreadful evil?
(Small point but marriage is better for men to flourish within than women. Women stand no physical chance ina world of men, as Hamas recently barbarically proved, and so marriage is at best a distinct compromise for them).
Thing is, most of those eastern European countries that have been tyrannised and dominated by Russia for decades couldn't join the West fast enough once they got the chance. They have extremely good reasons for wanting to integrate economically and politically with the West and be part of a defensive alliance - simply put, they want to continue to exist and not go through what Ukraine is going through now and what they themselves went through in the past.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine is about Russia more than it is about Ukraine. He couldn't allow Ukraine to become a thriving Western-oriented democracy because then Russians might start wanting that too. He's terrified of being deposed in a color revolution and ending up like Gaddafi. So he couldn't allow Ukraine's positive example to stand, lest it catch. It's about destroying democracy in Ukraine (or trying to) to prevent democracy from taking root in Russia. https://open.substack.com/pub/wolfstar/p/russias-murder-suicide
deBoer declares that nations are nothing but imagined communities, but demands justice for Palestine. How does one provide justice for an imaginary community?
Perhaps deBoer means justice for individual Palestinians. If so, doesn’t justice demand that the October 7th murderers pay for their crimes? And what does justice demand for those who abetted and those who are still abetting the murderers?
The assumption is that only Western nations are imagined communities.
Marxist “ruthless criticism of all that exists” is a one way street. Applying Marx’s critiques of capitalism to his (sparse) outline of his utopia is, apparently, off limits.
For example, in discussions with self-identified socialists, I’ve pointed out that the Marxian formula for distributing goods (“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”) necessarily entails far more “exploitation” as Marx himself defined it than does capitalism. (Workers who produce more than they need are exploited in the Marxian sense, and such workers must be in the majority if society is to survive and flourish.) The response is typically some version of “Marx’s critiques were meant to be applied only to capitalism.”
The Rules apply to the Ruled, not Rulers. Vae Victas.
Marxist morality is WHO/WHOM all the way down...whichever Oppressed group wears the halo today, from the proletariat to the Palestinians, deserves anything and everything, an Eden constructed from your money and assets, plus a Praetorian Guard of language commissars to make sure they never hear or read a bruising word; and whoever is the Oppressor group du jour, from the kulaks to the Israelis, needs to be ruthlessly criticized on all fronts, all their claims and achievements must be delegitimized, they must be stripped, mocked and led on a metaphorical donkey to a (metaphorical?) guillotine.
This is not just their conception of morality but also their conception of Justice.
How do we know they recognize the difference between metaphorical donkeys and guillotines and real ones?
we will only know in retrospect!
Tell a leftist the Mohawk or Iroquois Nation is artificial or illegitimate, see how he reacts.
All good questions.
This is an excellent essay that hits on a lot of the same criticisms I've made of FdB (in my head). He writes very well, and he has cogent and thoughtful ideas about culture, education, and intra-left politics. But on certain topics, especially foreign policy, his ideas are worse than useless. His Ukraine articles were awful apologias for Russian imperialism, and his articles on Israel/Palestine were similarly bad to the point that I only read bits and pieces. The final straw for me was his mocking and dismissive comments about Oct 7th and his skepticism that widespread rapes occurred. (Why are there so few eyewitnesses, Freddie? Maybe because they were murdered or kidnapped!)
An especially important point of your essay here is the vital role of stability and order, and the degree to which leftists dismiss it. You often read left-wing critiques of US post-war policy towards Germany, including reintegrating former Nazis into the West German government, using former Nazi scientists in NASA, etc. and those things did happen - de-Nazification was far less thorough than most of us would think to be ideal. And yet, in fact, the de-Nazification of West Germany was extremely successful - the fascists who remain in Germany are mostly in the former East Germany. So however amoral US policy was, the ultimate effect was morally good and led to a more peaceful world (no WWIII). Too often, that outcome is simply taken for granted and discounted.
Thank you. “ Too often, that outcome is simply taken for granted and discounted.” This is a particularly powerful point.
I broadly agree but would add that the degree of (neo-)Nazidom in former East Germany is overstated. Yes, it's a real problem, but it's become a cudgel that other Germans use to disparage the East (the poorest and most hard-bitten part of the country) and claim moral superiority, as if there are no far-righters in other parts of the country too. The way the former East is treated and spoken about by a lot of West Germans (including TV celebrities) is arrogant and ignorant, and echoes the attitude to "flyover states"/"deplorables" in the US.
Yes, I don't mean to overstate the problem. I mostly just mean to point out that the capitalist and democratic West Germany (allied with the USA) did a better job of de-Nazification than the communist and autocratic East Germany, despite leftist claims to the contrary.
How much was the de-Nazification of West Germany facilitated though by the implied threat that if the West Germans would be thrown to the communist wolves if they were too un-cooperative with the US and UK?
Another great piece Lorenzo. Thank you. I wrote , in my more tabloid style, why the Marxists marching for the destruction of Israel have lost, if they ever had it, the right to lecture the rest of us about our moral choices. I link it here if anyone is interested. Happy New year to you. https://open.substack.com/pub/lowstatus/p/fish-fingers?r=evzeq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
A heartfelt post very on point.
The Left is correct in its understanding of how important the fight in Israel is now.
IF Israel triumphs it’s a loss for Progressives and the Left, the Bloodier and more ruthless it is the worse it is, if brute force works THEN their model is invalid.
Their fortunes wane now, but fortune is fickle.
IF Israel fails or falls it’s an enormous win, as 9/11 was for Muslims and the Arab street. THEN will unleash the floodgates all over the West.
> Please note Israeli collapse of will is quite possible. At no time was South Africa in danger or falling to the ANC, nor was Rhodesia falling to the rebels.
Israel can quite succumb to external pressure especially from America (🇺🇸 as not just the Left but the State Department want Israel gone ) and internal pressure from the Israeli liberals.
Netanyahu may be PW Botha (of South Africa) or he may be Mannerheim of Finland. At present the Israeli peace Left is in remission, the Israeli Liberals still smarting from their wounds and freshly buried dead. Time will restore the devotion of the Left, drain the money of the Liberals, and the Will of the Israelis. A restoration of Strong Democratic Party leadership in America (however unlikely) would lead to fatal consequences for Israel.
I’m no Christian or Zionist.
I’m American. However as it falls out this fight determines rather a lot; will the Left and Globalists go down taking many of us in America with them?
Or a less destructive dissolution?
On Israel; all America needs to do is not betray an ally in need, that is all. That is rare indeed.
In fact the only allies we’ve not betrayed- at least to destruction- are England and Israel.
Let’s not add to our real offenses.
Israel is going nowhere. There is no place for it to go. It’s not going to lose will. You can’t compare to South Africa. That’s ridiculous.
I’m watching the plan and open intention and same methods being applied to Israel that were applied to South Africa. That’s openly stated you know, they call Israel an apartheid state, BDS, one man one vote, etc.
The comparison isn’t mine.
Pray why is noticing ridiculous?
As far as Israel has no place to go... 🤣
NO 💩
That’s not ridiculous either, there’s also 200+ million Americans with no place to go...
There’s a long history of people with no place to go and they went there... for example the Early European Farmers* about 2300 BC had some migrants called Yamna aka Indo Europeans and...
HNY. There’s no place to go on earth, defend what you got or die trying.
Gonna add; I think Israel will make it, against all ill intentions.
Very interesting. Especially about your point about Strong Democrats being fatal for Israel. I think Reagan betrayed England when America didn’t stand with the UK during the Falklands War I. An interesting historical moment given the Thatcher/Reagan relationship. Still. Wilson refused to get England involved in Vietnam. So there’s that!
Well, different interests that aren’t fatal to the other party aren’t quite the level of betrayal I’m referring to - South Vietnam a good example.
The public policy of the Foreign Affairs community in America prior to 10/7 was “one state” and gives Gaza and WB the vote - probably via the Israeli Supreme Court. Well that’s the end , but that’s just means, the End is we toss them to the wolves.
I mean betrayal to death.
*PS unless I’m misinformed by History, the USA 🇺🇸 provided vital logistical support to the Falklands expedition, which is more important than public statements. It’s like Portugal in WW2 - far more useful as neutral than ally (bases, Azore , etc).
So much in this short essay. By coincidence I am currently reading the wondrous novel by Mikhail Sholokov 'And Quiet Flows the Don' set prior to and during that great civil war which kicked off the Bolshevik horror called the Soviet Union. In one passage, the main protagonist Grishka has a conversation with a secret Bolshevik infiltrator in his Cossack regiment who eventually confides: "True, war has gone on since the beginning of time and will go on so long as we don't sweep away the evil government. But when every government is a worker's government they won't fight any more. That's what's got to be done. When the Germans and the French and all the others have got a workers' and peasants' government. What shall we have to fight about then? Away with frontiers, away with anger! One beautiful life all over the world. Aah..." Garanzha sighed and twisting the ends of his whiskers, his one eye glittering, he smiled dreamily. "Grishka, I would pour out my blood drop by drop to live to see that day."
So simple, so clear, so many drops of blood around the world pouring into a river inspired by those sentiments. It always astonishes me that many so-called intellectuals can't identify the simple pattern you lay out, and walk away quickly from such a delusion. Similar to the Moslem delusion that if all the people's of the world were subjugated to Allah through blood and rape they would create a peaceful world.
I too enjoy Freddie's writing and have had a similar reaction to his professed "Marxism"—it is as preposterous in 21st-century America as being an alchemist or a Pythian Sybil, and much more the social equivalent of wearing an A for Anarchy button on your leather jacket, as a way to signal how much more radical and edgy you are compared to the other kids.
I've caught him a few times referring to "international law" or "liberal standards" etc and have to wonder how this squares with the Marxist-Leninist belief that such things are "bourgeois impositions/fantasies" or whatever foul jargon they slander their opponents with when they need to masquerade as defenders of human rights and civil liberties.
A century past the Soviet Revolution it is pretty much proved at this point that Marxism appealed very little to its supposed historical protagonists, the Proletarian workers, who refused to renounce God, family and country for Marx's magic beans, but it appealed intensely and quasi-religiously to its true benefactors, disaffected secular intellectuals, who see the "Revolution" as their chance to fulfill all their power fantasies and become omnipotent philosopher-kings.
Didn't we just live through a century where every supposed Marxist intellectual gleefully cheered on multiple massacres, from Sartre and the Algerians to Sontag and the Viet Cong to Foucault and the Ayatollahs and Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge (the list is endless!)? The fact that these people aren't condemned to wander under a cloud of shame like the intellectuals who pimped for Hitler—and that their preposterous Marxist fantasy world hasn't been laughed into History's dust bin—just goes to show you that in the still very Christian West, you can literally get away with murder as long as you say "I did it for a better world!" or "I only wanted to center the marginalized!"
Happy New Year!
> I've caught him a few times referring to "international law" or "liberal standards" etc and have to wonder how this squares with the Marxist-Leninist belief that such things are "bourgeois impositions/fantasies" or whatever foul jargon they slander their opponents with when they need to masquerade as defenders of human rights and civil liberties.
Well since the UN was captured by Marxists that's not really a practical problem for them.
Marxists have no principles or beliefs except for Power and its uses, whether they know it or not.
Wonderful comment.
thanks!
Fascinating and to my mind compelling. I wonder if the problem is that there is no proof that Marxism, which has never worked before, can NEVER be made to work in the future. Doesn't that slender crack leave the door open for Marxists, no matter how improbable their dream is?
Unfortunately yes. But it is not a reasonable crack to follow, as the evolutionary evidence lines up with the historical experience.
It’s power, the power of abstraction.
We deserve to suffer for suffering them, no doubt the Bi-Polar teacher Freddy actually agrees.
I have no idea why I only occasionally have a like button available to click, and this is one of those instances where I feel the lack. Planning to reread it later, but definitely appreciated it the first time.
Maybe because (in your case at least) even the Like Button looks like a nail and .... :-)
But when rereading, be sure to examine the footnotes as they seem to be as meaty and informative as the text.
Amazing piece, although it's a lot to digest but I get the gist. Thank you 🙏
There is no two state solution. The Israelis have had the Palestinian Arabs administering de facto neighboring states and have gotten nothing but grief for their troubles. The Palis have turned down every offer for statehood.
They never had a state before, existing as an appendage to various empires. That wasn’t a concern for the “Palestinians” until the Jews got a state. The PLO, the terror group which started all this crap, was a 1960’s concoction of neighboring Arab states to de legitimate and destroy Israel. It wasn’t an organic movement. Arafat was an Egyptian. Its goal was and its successors’ goal remains to wipe out the Jews and get rid of Israel. That is an untenable relationship and Israel is now going to finally smash all these homicidal garbage organizations to smithereens. The stupidity and anti-semitism of the West in funding these terror organizations, which attack the West as well, is indicative of how the failed and insufficient ideology of Marxism has been allowed to propagate by people who know better.
Excellence piece. The gap between deBoer's is indeed wide. As a further point, he completely misunderstood the nature of Labour’s antisemitism issue - 'the allegations against Corbyn were very weak tea indeed' - but felt obliged to weigh in anyway. It's not that he gets stuff wrong; we all do that. It's that when he's wrong he's confident.
To me it’s that when he’s wrong, it’s always in a way that he unflinchingly skewers in others. Freddie frequently criticizes the social justice left for failing to actually consider the expressed preferences of the minority groups they profess to speak for, yet on Palestinian issues he treats it as totally irrelevant that a firm majority will accept nothing short of genocide. Just a complete abandonment of his critical faculties.
I couldn't agree more. But Freddie understands the evolutionary and historical evidence too yet still begs to differ. Why? A charitable interpretation is that we see and understand the world differently. Evidence that you and I find utterly convincing, Freddie doesn't find persuasive, and vice versa. My contention, consistent with a charitable interpretation and epistemic humility, is that this has nothing to do with intelligence, education, credentials, or, often, good faith. If I am right about this, there is no reason for us to expect otherwise. Humanity's task is to find a way to get along despite the fact that our dreams, values, and priorities often stand in diametrical opposition. Yuval Levin frequently writes about this theme, I believe persuasively. Something has to give, but I don't know what.
"A charitable interpretation is that we see and understand the world differently. ... this has nothing to do with intelligence, education, credentials, or, often, good faith. If I am right about this, there is no reason for us to expect otherwise." I have come to the same conclusion in regard to religious belief (which this Marxism really is) and the (probably evolved) desire for transcendence. That is, we have evolved parallel mental capabilities seeking transcendence and logical analysis and answers to the universe as we (try to) perceive it. At any given time/place one side may or may not be dominant over the over. And as with a range of intellectual capabilities, we have a range of depth in our desires for transcendence desires. Some of us seem to have a much lower level (or kind?) than many others. Can you marvel at the complexity of the universe without relying on a divine source for moral guidance, that in turn must be worshipped at high cost to other considerations?
Do you happen to have a ready link for Levin's viewpoint? I find some of his writing to be rather long winded, but recognize he has a first rate mind.
"Something has to give, but I don't know what." Taking a long term evolutionary view, I wonder if we might eventually evolve away from the need for illogical levels or types of "transcendence" because that no longer is adaptive for cooperation compared to rational analyses and tradeoffs. Or if it is essential that people need hold common beliefs in nonlogical ideas to demonstrate the required level of trust for superior group cooperation.
Yes. Freddie deBoer is a Jew hater.
Haven’t seen any evidence of that. His seems to be a more general blindness.
No. He never dealt for one second with Hamas atrocities. He was denier of rape. Beheading. Burning bodies. His writing was full of hatred for Israel and its defenders. He crossed a line. It was clear.
ehhhhhh, that's kind of like calling him a misogynist for his views on trans. I can kind of see it, but I prefer to apply the "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" heuristic.
Trans and Israel are 2 examples of issues where FdB is a fucking idiot, but not necessarily a hateful person.
Are there any issues where FdB isn't an idiot?
He strikes me as one of those people whose anti-mainstream because the mainstream isn't going insane fast enough for him.
He's anti-mainstream left because he sees the mainstream left as hopelessly distracted by identity politics to the point where Wall Street loves wokeness because they see it as posing zero threat to the entrenched interests of the wealthy.
Think of him as a Berniebro who didn't like the way Bernie's 99% vs. 1% class politics got derailed by Hilary stans calling him racist and sexist - "would breaking up Wall Street banks end racism?"
So he's pretty good on the antiwoke stuff, but then on certain topics he engages in the exact same thought-terminating cliches that he otherwise specializes in dissecting.
In other words he's annoyed at the mainstream left because they're not destroying the economy fast enough for him.
Also it appears that, like Bernie, he's not capable of actually standing up to the woke stuff.
He'll stand up on the free speech stuff, because he's been attacked as a far-right fascist in the past for criticizing BLM. So he knows if the woke crowd agrees to get Twitter or Substack to "ban Nazis", then it's only a matter of time before he gets banned and his self-professed Marxism won't save him.
So he's at least willing to criticize BLM.
You know I was willing to consider that initially. But day after day after day with increasing vitriol. He called those of us who pushed back ‘rabid right wingers’ which is wrong and disgusting. If his writing had a ‘voice’ it was a mocking sneer. I understand you may have a different POV but I see this as Marxist Soviet style antisemitism.
He's called me a transphobic Nazi fwiw.
I unsubscribed. I was sad. I enjoyed a lot of his stuff. But I won’t pay money for this crap. Do you still pay for his substack? Just curious.
I do still pay, because I don't want to build myself an echo chamber
I respect that. Just not for me. I don’t know anything on his views on trans. Somehow missed his writing on that. The stuff I liked the most was on mental health and how our society romanticizes mental illness. I personally think Marxism is ridiculous.
Would you say Marxism is also what leads FdB to argue biological females need to 'take one for the team' and make space for transwomen in female spaces?
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-think-you-should-be-kind
I never considered the issue from that interesting perspective, perhaps because I was (wrongly?) trying to generalize. Here's a link to Levin that I think brilliantly speaks to the issue:https://www.aei.org/op-eds/communities-need-freedom-but-freedom-needs-community/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Hope you like it.
This is really good. Though I’d have thought being pragmatic when it comes to NATO expanding along Russias borders also matters because unless NATO intends to fully contribute to any outcome the sabre rattling has proven itself a giant mistake. Similarly we stand back and leave Israel to it. Who knows if the IDF will be enough to thwart such dreadful evil?
(Small point but marriage is better for men to flourish within than women. Women stand no physical chance ina world of men, as Hamas recently barbarically proved, and so marriage is at best a distinct compromise for them).
Thing is, most of those eastern European countries that have been tyrannised and dominated by Russia for decades couldn't join the West fast enough once they got the chance. They have extremely good reasons for wanting to integrate economically and politically with the West and be part of a defensive alliance - simply put, they want to continue to exist and not go through what Ukraine is going through now and what they themselves went through in the past.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine is about Russia more than it is about Ukraine. He couldn't allow Ukraine to become a thriving Western-oriented democracy because then Russians might start wanting that too. He's terrified of being deposed in a color revolution and ending up like Gaddafi. So he couldn't allow Ukraine's positive example to stand, lest it catch. It's about destroying democracy in Ukraine (or trying to) to prevent democracy from taking root in Russia. https://open.substack.com/pub/wolfstar/p/russias-murder-suicide
Bravo 👏