Very interesting. It chimes with something I wrote the other day to a Palestinian, whom I follow over on Instagram, about the Colombia protesters et al:
They're fetishizing you as Palestinians. You effectively exist for them not as people but as props for making them feel righteous and superior. They don't care for you any more than do racist violent settlers: for them you fulfill a similar emotional role. It's very similar to the judeophile (someone who loves Jews) who might actually be an antisemite in disguise: you can spot possible cases like this when they say similar things to antisemites, just say they're positive. In all these cases - including the antisemite - what's really important is that it makes them feel better about themselves.
Ha! I said almost the exact same words to a black friend during the BLM/George Floyd moment.
Modern Leftists have a rotating cast of Victims they cast in the lead role in their Passion Plays—most often black people (who are potent symbols for the upscale virtue signaler) and gays, but then occasionally foreigners, who have to be helpless empty vessels in need of a savior, but usually also brown-skinned, as this is our anti-Mark of Cain, the mark of the holy Victim. Worshipping the Other means the Other becomes a blank screen for the worshipper to project his/her needs and fantasies onto.
The Victim walks the Via Dolorosa so the audience of worshippers know when their mass has started and that it's time to assemble, and so they can publicly perform their compassion and wash the feet of the Victim in their tears.
Leftism is a mutated form of Christianity, sprinkled with Marxism, with politics as its church.
I'm never forgiving the red-black alliance. Hamas is more obviously evil than a Saturday-morning cartoon villain trying to steal the World's supply of oxygen. No decent person could support such an organization, but at least the Islamists are actually fighting for what they believe in, depraved though it is. The Leftoids are fighting for people who would enslave, rape, and murder them as well in a heartbeat, just because they hate white people, America, Western civilization, and Jews more than they love anything else.
I only wish we could sell these fuckers on the auction block to the Ummah. They'd deserve it, and we'd be relieved of an undue, treasonous national burden.
The Atlantic article about the Columbia protests mentions students forming groups like “Lesbians Against Genocide" and “Hindus for Intifada." Somehow, I don't think Hamas would be so reciprocally supportive of gay rights and polytheism in its Islamist theocracy. Extremist Muslim and Arab protesters are motivated by religious doctrine and national ties, which is easily understandable if not excusable. But for Americans with no connection to the region to call for intifada requires a deeper explanation, one that reflects poorly on the institutions that taught them and our cultural "elites" more broadly.
Bit of a nitpick, but I think some of what you're labeling irredentism is really more of revanchism.
Irredentism is about reuniting a supposedly unjustly divided society or ethnicity within a single nation-state, whereas revanchism is about refusing to ever accept a loss of territory. So technically I think it should say "Muslim revanchism, meanwhile, is based on a theological injunction not to relinquish lands previously conquered by Islam" and "In practice, Arab irredentism and Muslim revanchism typically go hand-in-hand"
Thanks for the feedback! I did a bit more digging on this, and while it's something of a gray area, I think irredentism, more broadly defined, would apply here. According to Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/irredentism): "Somewhat questionable cases include those without a direct ethnic component but rather based solely on historical claims, such as Argentina’s invasion of the British-populated Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) in 1982 or Serbian claims to Kosovo, which was the birthplace of Serbian nationalism but later was populated overwhelmingly by ethnic Albanians. However, these territories could also be considered 'unredeemed,' and therefore, these cases can fall under the category of irredentism."
Muslim irredentism, as I'm using the term, is similarly based on historical claims (which are underwritten by religion). From a Muslim irredentist perspective, Israel is an "unredeemed" part of the Muslim world. While Islam is not a "nation" as such, it is often seen in supra-national terms by its adherents. For example, the Islamic State's attempt to re-create the caliphate was an extreme manifestation of a popularly held desire for Islamic political unity. According to a Gallup survey of Muslim countries (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29761018), "two-thirds of respondents said they supported the goal of 'unifying all Islamic countries' into a new caliphate." It is fair to presume that the ideal reconstituted caliphate would include a "free Palestine."
Revanchism, defined as a movement to recover lost territory, would also apply here. However, revanche comes from the French word for "revenge" (see https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/revanchist.php), which indicates a "dream not of changing the world but of changing places with the victors of the last war" (Ivan Krastev). Muslim support for Palestine is indeed motivated by a desire to reverse Israel's War of Independence (or the Nakba, as supporters would frame it), but this is often part and parcel of a broader ambition to restore the Muslim world's historic borders and achieve unity within them (irredentism, broadly defined). Again, this is something of a semantic gray area, and I appreciate you getting me to research and think about it some more.
Irredentism is a desire to unite "unredeemed" lands/peoples of a nation that don't match the state borders.
Revanchism is the desire to reclaim lost lands that a state once held.
They can go together but not necessarily. The easiest examples are Nazi Germany. They wanted Polish lands that they had once held and contained a sizeable minority of Germans. That is both revanchsim and irrendentism. They also wanted the Sudetenland, containing ethnic Germans, which was purely irredentism. Then there was Alsace-Lorraine, which was mostly just revanchism, at least for Lorraine which was largely French speaking.
Thanks for your comment. Another commenter left a similar message, to which I responded. I also slightly updated the original post and added a footnote to address this point. Essentially, I am using a broader definition of irredentism that includes claims based on historic, not just ethnic, ties (see https://www.britannica.com/topic/irredentism). Thus, for example, Serbian designs on Kosovo are irredentist, even though Kosovo (considered an unredeemed part of "Greater Serbia") is now majority Albanian.
The Arab and Muslim maximalist position on Israel is certainly revanchist in that it seeks to reverse territorial losses incurred in war. But it is also irredentist insofar as it views Israel as "irredenta" (defined as "a territory historically or ethnically related to one political unit but under the political control of another") rightfully belonging, for historic and religious reasons, to Arabs or the Ummah more broadly.
Yeah I was actually replying to the comment that said you used the wrong word. I think in the case of Israel, its both irredentism and revanchism. The commenter replying to your use has the concepts a bit wrong, at least as I understand them.
Very interesting. It chimes with something I wrote the other day to a Palestinian, whom I follow over on Instagram, about the Colombia protesters et al:
They're fetishizing you as Palestinians. You effectively exist for them not as people but as props for making them feel righteous and superior. They don't care for you any more than do racist violent settlers: for them you fulfill a similar emotional role. It's very similar to the judeophile (someone who loves Jews) who might actually be an antisemite in disguise: you can spot possible cases like this when they say similar things to antisemites, just say they're positive. In all these cases - including the antisemite - what's really important is that it makes them feel better about themselves.
Ha! I said almost the exact same words to a black friend during the BLM/George Floyd moment.
Modern Leftists have a rotating cast of Victims they cast in the lead role in their Passion Plays—most often black people (who are potent symbols for the upscale virtue signaler) and gays, but then occasionally foreigners, who have to be helpless empty vessels in need of a savior, but usually also brown-skinned, as this is our anti-Mark of Cain, the mark of the holy Victim. Worshipping the Other means the Other becomes a blank screen for the worshipper to project his/her needs and fantasies onto.
The Victim walks the Via Dolorosa so the audience of worshippers know when their mass has started and that it's time to assemble, and so they can publicly perform their compassion and wash the feet of the Victim in their tears.
Leftism is a mutated form of Christianity, sprinkled with Marxism, with politics as its church.
I'm never forgiving the red-black alliance. Hamas is more obviously evil than a Saturday-morning cartoon villain trying to steal the World's supply of oxygen. No decent person could support such an organization, but at least the Islamists are actually fighting for what they believe in, depraved though it is. The Leftoids are fighting for people who would enslave, rape, and murder them as well in a heartbeat, just because they hate white people, America, Western civilization, and Jews more than they love anything else.
I only wish we could sell these fuckers on the auction block to the Ummah. They'd deserve it, and we'd be relieved of an undue, treasonous national burden.
The Atlantic article about the Columbia protests mentions students forming groups like “Lesbians Against Genocide" and “Hindus for Intifada." Somehow, I don't think Hamas would be so reciprocally supportive of gay rights and polytheism in its Islamist theocracy. Extremist Muslim and Arab protesters are motivated by religious doctrine and national ties, which is easily understandable if not excusable. But for Americans with no connection to the region to call for intifada requires a deeper explanation, one that reflects poorly on the institutions that taught them and our cultural "elites" more broadly.
I’m so thankful we’ve imported these people into our country; nothing but up side.
Bit of a nitpick, but I think some of what you're labeling irredentism is really more of revanchism.
Irredentism is about reuniting a supposedly unjustly divided society or ethnicity within a single nation-state, whereas revanchism is about refusing to ever accept a loss of territory. So technically I think it should say "Muslim revanchism, meanwhile, is based on a theological injunction not to relinquish lands previously conquered by Islam" and "In practice, Arab irredentism and Muslim revanchism typically go hand-in-hand"
Love the piece!
Thanks for the feedback! I did a bit more digging on this, and while it's something of a gray area, I think irredentism, more broadly defined, would apply here. According to Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/irredentism): "Somewhat questionable cases include those without a direct ethnic component but rather based solely on historical claims, such as Argentina’s invasion of the British-populated Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) in 1982 or Serbian claims to Kosovo, which was the birthplace of Serbian nationalism but later was populated overwhelmingly by ethnic Albanians. However, these territories could also be considered 'unredeemed,' and therefore, these cases can fall under the category of irredentism."
Muslim irredentism, as I'm using the term, is similarly based on historical claims (which are underwritten by religion). From a Muslim irredentist perspective, Israel is an "unredeemed" part of the Muslim world. While Islam is not a "nation" as such, it is often seen in supra-national terms by its adherents. For example, the Islamic State's attempt to re-create the caliphate was an extreme manifestation of a popularly held desire for Islamic political unity. According to a Gallup survey of Muslim countries (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29761018), "two-thirds of respondents said they supported the goal of 'unifying all Islamic countries' into a new caliphate." It is fair to presume that the ideal reconstituted caliphate would include a "free Palestine."
Revanchism, defined as a movement to recover lost territory, would also apply here. However, revanche comes from the French word for "revenge" (see https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/revanchist.php), which indicates a "dream not of changing the world but of changing places with the victors of the last war" (Ivan Krastev). Muslim support for Palestine is indeed motivated by a desire to reverse Israel's War of Independence (or the Nakba, as supporters would frame it), but this is often part and parcel of a broader ambition to restore the Muslim world's historic borders and achieve unity within them (irredentism, broadly defined). Again, this is something of a semantic gray area, and I appreciate you getting me to research and think about it some more.
I just like the fact that I learned two new words today. Both incredibly useful. Thank you!
I think you have the concepts slightly conflated.
Irredentism is a desire to unite "unredeemed" lands/peoples of a nation that don't match the state borders.
Revanchism is the desire to reclaim lost lands that a state once held.
They can go together but not necessarily. The easiest examples are Nazi Germany. They wanted Polish lands that they had once held and contained a sizeable minority of Germans. That is both revanchsim and irrendentism. They also wanted the Sudetenland, containing ethnic Germans, which was purely irredentism. Then there was Alsace-Lorraine, which was mostly just revanchism, at least for Lorraine which was largely French speaking.
Thanks for your comment. Another commenter left a similar message, to which I responded. I also slightly updated the original post and added a footnote to address this point. Essentially, I am using a broader definition of irredentism that includes claims based on historic, not just ethnic, ties (see https://www.britannica.com/topic/irredentism). Thus, for example, Serbian designs on Kosovo are irredentist, even though Kosovo (considered an unredeemed part of "Greater Serbia") is now majority Albanian.
The Arab and Muslim maximalist position on Israel is certainly revanchist in that it seeks to reverse territorial losses incurred in war. But it is also irredentist insofar as it views Israel as "irredenta" (defined as "a territory historically or ethnically related to one political unit but under the political control of another") rightfully belonging, for historic and religious reasons, to Arabs or the Ummah more broadly.
Yeah I was actually replying to the comment that said you used the wrong word. I think in the case of Israel, its both irredentism and revanchism. The commenter replying to your use has the concepts a bit wrong, at least as I understand them.