Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

/416/ Aufhebonus Bonus (Patreon)

Published:
2024-06-06 07:00:03
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

Content

On your questions & criticism regarding pro-Palestine protests.

[Patreon Exclusive]

In this episode we focus on the discussion generated by our episode that came out in early May on the protests on US campuses. We discuss the issues along a few axes:

How do ideas of victimhood relate to the material reality of international politics?

What really are the aims of the protesters and how likely are they to achieve them?

Are we cynical in our approach or conclusions?

How do the protests relate to populism and the end of the End of History?

What is the proper basis of nationhood?

How do these protests relate to the millennial Left?

We also deal with your points on Civil War, the state funding of culture, and whether Joe Rogan is a good male role model.

Readings:

Vulnerability as Ideology, Peter Ramsay, Northern Star

The victimological imagination, Matthew B. Crawford, Substack

Files

Comments

Pier Paolo Tamburelli

Again on "idealism" and "putting back thinking on its feet" If the war is to claim the monopoly of victimhood, then one of the actors should deliberately act with such an idea in mind. But you cannot "act" as a victim, given the victim by definition does ot act, it simply "suffers" (here l dont know if "suffer" is the right word, l would mean something less sentimental, more like the Italian "subire"). So l dont see what action can correspond to making sure that some political body maintins control of victimhood, certainly not bombing and so creating another victim. It makes no sense: "You are stealing my monopoly of victimhood, so I.... raze your cities to the ground" ???? Or put it this way: l doubt there can be a practical, "pro-active" theory of victimhood; "victim" is a way to instrumentalize the past, but it is simply a tool that does not work in the present. So the "idealism" critique is that this theory does not explain the logic that drives the actors on the field. So it is no explanation. This might reveal the utter nonsense of what is happening in Gaza, where no single player on the field seems to have a real advantage in mind for its behaviour and it so hard to understand what Israel, Hamas abd USA want to achieve with what they are doing. This might say something about the terminal state of western and arab elites.

Brian Gonnella

This was a pretty good defense of the ideas raised in the last Palestine episode, but I was wondering if the attraction of populist-leftist milieu in the west to the Palestinian liberation could be attributed more to the mass appeal of nostalgia in the current era than the fight for the position of international victim? Nostalgia in the west for both the good ole days of the New Left solidarity with the decolonial struggle on one end and the State's (or Biden's personal) nostalgia for the Israel of 67 on the other. Not to mention nostalgia in the Global South for the decolonial era--of which Palestine was apart, but denied resolution at the buzzer that was the end of the Cold War--nostalgia for Pan-Arabism in the Arab "street" etc, etc It seems to me that the animation over the issue is linked in part to this historical entanglement in a bigger way than the fight for the position of the victim, but maybe thats too simplistic.

Richard R

"That's a noble cause!" lol. The humor always keeps me coming back, even when I'm exploding in rage.

jkjkjkj

I think the idea that Israel's purpose to the US is purely one of being a tip at the end of the spear for American empire like South Vietnam was ignores that America's relationship to the Middle east is badly compromised at every level by Israel. Israel is the biggest negative the US has in terms of Public opinion in the middle east. it is, by its nature, an impediment to good relations with the MENA states and moreover, america does what it can to ensure that the MENA governments are sufficiently neutral on Israel to alleviate any serious risk to Israel's security (backing the ousting of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt being a good example). Indeed the entire supposed imperial security infrastructure seems built around ensuring Israel's acceptance and security, to the detriment of a dozen or so much more useful regional partners. This points more to me that there are ideological/personalitic reasons for supprt for Israel (which is very clear in the case of Biden) along with lobbying and blackmail. This is boring but actually extremely important for the left to understand, but ultimately their fetish for cold war nostalgia and anti imperial theatrics will trump their analysis and productivity.

Andrew Mountford

I just don't understand why the bunga boys won't countenance the MIC as part of material politics. The US is spending $2tn on 'defence' this year.

SeaWorldOrBust

Late to the party on this one but, having previously defended Phil's stance on the Israel-Palestine discourse in the west, I'm actually less convinced the more he expands on it, and am beginning to get the impression he is more interested in the discourse itself, rather than the conflict it concerns, which strikes me as perhaps mildly retarded. I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that the Israel-Palestine conflict occupies an outsized space in the western political conscience relative to its material significance in part because of it's historical role in defining notions of victimhood which have in turn helped to define that political conscience. However it doesn't follow from this that the concept of victimhood bears no connection to material reality, nor that its utility in analysing that material reality is inherently compromised by its historical use by liberal imperialists. It can't simply be ignored that the Gazans *are*, by any reasonable standard, victims of Israeli aggression in a very real, material sense. Indeed, it is precisely this inescapable reality which is causing such consternation for an ideological consensus predicated in no small part on the question of victimhood. That isn't to say that this somewhat vulgar, one-dimensional Subject->Object relation is necessarily the best framework through which to understand the conflict — it has to be said that it is notably undialectical — but there's very obviously *some* truth to it, however simplistic, which it is simply absurd to deny. One suspects that Phil's consistent refusal to take these narratives seriously owes more to his own (admittedly somewhat understandable) cultural distaste for the kind of people who tend to be invested in them, rather than any particularly robust objection to the narratives themselves. If he objects so much to the victimhood framing, perhaps he should articulate an alternative framework. It woudn't necessarily be that hard, though I fear it may not be as libidinally satisfying as shitting on ones cultural enemies.