@non_radical_centrist comments on "Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 2023

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

Shaming.
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
Recruiting for a cause.
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

non_radical_centrist 1yr ago

Which letter?

Context

DaseindustriesLtd late version of a small language model non_radical_centrist 1yr ago

In the piece I've linked in the previous message.

It's telling that the official US position seems to be the same, yet it is so glaringly impossible to effect change that the topic is barely brought up. The same logic applies to the gag order on Israeli nukes.

I guess that you, like many Americans, have internalized the spirit of denying the nature of your nation's relationship with Israel, so you are not well equipped to physically see some strings of text. It's painful for me to observe such insults to human nature. But okay, I'll just quote it in full.

Until Feb. 17, U.S. President Joe Biden had delayed making the usual post-inauguration ceremonial call to the Israeli prime minister. Washington insiders concluded that the apparent cold shoulder meant Biden had not yet signed “the letter,” which Israel routinely demands of U.S. presidents to ensure the United States doesn’t mention Israel’s nuclear weapons when discussing proliferation in the region or pressure the Israeli government to reduce its formidable atomic arsenal.

As described by Adam Entous in a 2018 New Yorker article, every U.S. president since Bill Clinton has, at Israeli insistence, signed a secret letter upon entering office that effectively pledges the United States will not “press the Jewish state to give up its nuclear weapons so long as it continued to face existential threats in the region.” Whatever policy the United States adopts toward Israeli nuclear weapons, it’s time it stopped this demeaning rite.

The consequence for U.S. policy has been that the United States does not press Israel to give up its nuclear weapons—when doing so would have been the only course consistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy. However, Washington actively assists Israel, both diplomatically by quashing discussion of its nuclear weapons in international forums and materially by looking the other way at nuclear-related Israeli violations of law, including some within the United States.

This included pretending in 1979 that what was almost certainly an Israeli nuclear test in the South Indian Ocean, which was observed by a U.S. satellite, didn’t happen. Former President Jimmy Carter’s White House and its successors classified documents and debunked what was known, but the signal evidence is extremely compelling, as we and others have detailed in Foreign Policy.

Washington has voluntarily blinded itself by pretending not to know anything about Israeli nuclear weapons—and thus corrupted its efforts at coherent and constructive policymaking.

Perhaps the worst result of accommodating Israeli demands for such letters is that the U.S. government has voluntarily blinded itself by pretending not to know anything about Israeli nuclear weapons—and thus corrupted its efforts at coherent and constructive policymaking.

By maintaining this fictional ignorance within the government, when everyone on Earth who has the slightest interest in the subject knows the truth, the U.S. government has promulgated a regulation—described in the U.S. Energy Department’s Classification Bulletin WPN-136 on Foreign Nuclear Capabilities—that threatens government employees with severe punishment if they acknowledge Israel has nuclear weapons. Naturally, the regulation is withheld from public release. The government hides behind a stretched reading of the Freedom of Information Act’s exemption for documents that “would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions,” which the withheld material would not.

At former President Barack Obama’s first televised press conference, the late journalist Helen Thomas asked him whether he knew of any nuclear armed countries in the Middle East. Obama was already primed with the right answer: “With respect to nuclear weapons, you know, I don’t want to speculate,” as if an intelligent person couldn’t be sure. Such presidential statements provide guidance for the rest of the government. At a meeting we attended during the Obama administration, a senior state department official—an intelligent man—covered his embarrassment for following the party line by saying sheepishly, “personally, of my own knowledge, I can’t be sure.”

There is a myth that this charade is required because of a secret 1969 understanding between former U.S. President Richard Nixon and former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. Supposedly, she promised not to test a nuclear weapon and he promised not to press Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or give up its nuclear weapons.

The trouble with this conclusion, so confidently presented by historians and officials, is that Nixon and Meir spoke alone with no aides present, not even the ubiquitous Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and there is nothing in writing that reveals what they talked about. Nevertheless, successive Israeli governments have bluffed U.S. officials into accepting a supposed obligation to continue to protect their nuclear weapons from public disclosure or criticism.

The press occasionally mentions Israeli nuclear weapons, but journalists hesitate to ask a government official about the subject, knowing it is not helpful to a journalist’s career to venture into that territory.

A government that is not able to admit that Israel has nuclear weapons cannot credibly discuss the issue of nuclear proliferation elsewhere in the Middle East.

But the stakes are much higher at a time when nuclear proliferation in the region is a global concern and a growing risk. A government that is not able to admit that Israel has nuclear weapons cannot credibly discuss the issue of nuclear proliferation elsewhere in the Middle East. This leads to more foolishness. The 2010 NPT Review Conference voted unanimously to have a Middle East conference discussing the problems of a ban on nuclear weapons.

The day after his own conference delegate voted in favor of the discussion, Obama trashed the idea: “Our view is that a comprehensive and durable peace in the region and full compliance by all regional states with their arms control and nonproliferation obligations are essential precursors for [a ban’s] establishment. … We strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel and will oppose actions that jeopardize Israel’s national security.” Although this secrecy-driven policy is what the Israelis insist on so they can maintain their ambiguity, it isn’t at all clear that it is to Israel’s ultimate advantage, as the scholar Avner Cohen has argued. It certainly isn’t to the United States’ advantage.

One can imagine this statement’s effect on the credibility of U.S. pronouncements regarding the need to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons. U.S. credibility is critical because recently, the Saudi crown prince and the Turkish president have cast doubt on their NPT pledges not to obtain nuclear weapons, and Iran’s nuclear future continues to be in doubt. The idea of a conference on a nuclear-free Middle East is also not going away—the Egyptian foreign minister said Egypt will bring the issue up again in the NPT Review Conference scheduled for August 2021. Signing the letter would force a repeat of Obama’s performance.

In this respect, the behavior of U.S. officials appears to track with Israel’s famous policy of ambiguity regarding nuclear weapons. But there is a difference: U.S. presidents sign the letter, and the government keeps mum. But ironically, the Israelis find ways, without mentioning the word nuclear, to brag about their nuclear weapons.

They have their own triad: nuclear-tipped land-based missiles (of French design), nuclear-capable aircraft (U.S. design), and advanced German submarines armed with Israeli long-range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. When the last addition to their submarine fleet arrived from Germany in 2016, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of the devastation this submarine could wreak on Israel’s enemies if they were to try to harm the country. You can’t inspire fear if you don’t give adversaries an idea of what you are capable of.

The United States has put itself in a ridiculous position. If Israel wants to maintain ambiguity about its nuclear arsenal—whether for national security or domestic bureaucratic reasons to avoid scrutiny—that is its business. But the United States’ acceptance or rejection of a muzzle on what it can say is now Biden’s business.

The United States is trying to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It cannot credibly or effectively discuss the subject without acknowledging that Israel has nuclear weapons too.

There may have been a time when revealing Israeli nuclear capabilities might have produced a seriously adverse reaction from the Soviets, perhaps assisting nuclear weapon programs in Arab states, but that time has long passed. The United States is now in the process of trying to keep Iran from developing the wherewithal to obtain nuclear weapons. Washington cannot credibly or effectively discuss the subject without acknowledging that Israel has nuclear weapons too.

The letter Israel expects all U.S. presidents to sign supposedly speaks of U.S. protection so long as Israel faces “existential threats”—which raises the question of whether Israel still faces any such threats, especially after the landmark 2020 Abraham Accords and other agreements with key Arab states. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in his Senate hearing, spoke of Israeli security being “sacrosanct” as if it were a David surrounded by Goliaths.

It is time to update Washington’s thinking. Israel is a powerful, nuclear-armed state—stronger than all of its neighbors combined. The United States’ credibility and standing as it seeks to prevent further regional proliferation are more important than indulging Israel in a charade that undermines U.S. interests.

Eetan DaseindustriesLtd 1yr ago

gag order on Israeli nukes.

No need to bring something so obscure, things like anti-BDS laws are something completely surreal that can, unlike question of official recognition of Israeli nuclear weapons, affect normies in their daily lives.

The law came under fire in October 2017 from both Democrats and Republicans[citation needed] as Dickinson, Texas required Hurricane Harvey victims who applied for disaster relief funds to promise not to boycott Israel.

Try to explain to non-American (or to average normie American) compulsory pledge to do not boycott Israel - they will just refuse to believe it is real.

BTW, since this is another Israeli/Zionist thread, I recall you were once wondering about origins of Christian Zionism, about sudden and surprising replacement of traditional Christian attitude to Jews ("children of Satan") with modern one ("our beloved elder brothers").

In Protestant world, important figure was one Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, How he happened to be as influential as he was?

Being a “born again” preacher did not preclude Scofield from becoming a member of an exclusive New York men’s club in 1901, either. In his devastating biography, The Incredible Scofield and His Book, Joseph M. Canfield suggests, “The admission of Scofield to the Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C.I. Scofield.”

That someone, Canfield suspects, was associated with one of the club’s committee members, the Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermeyer. As Canfield intimates, Scofield’s theology was “most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermeyer’s pet projects—the Zionist Movement.”

This man, Samuel Untermeyer. Very important person in his time, far from mere "Wall Street lawyer".

He figures prominenly in many wild conspiracy theories, was supposed to blackmail the president and be the mastermind behind American entrance into WWI.

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/52658-two-us-presidents-among-many-celebrities-blackmailed

About a century ago, the 28th US President Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) was reportedly blackmailed by a noted lawyer Samuel Untermyer of Messrs “Guggenheim, Untermyer and Marshall,” who had tried to extort $40,000 from the American head of state in relation to an affair Wilson had with a fellow professor’s wife, while he was teaching at Princeton University.

The blackmailing lawyer had visited Wilson at the White House on March 4, 1913.

In his book “The History of the House of Rothschild,” author Andrew Hitchcock has shed light on how President Wilson had budged to the blackmailer’s demand of appointing a United States Supreme Court judge on his recommendation if he paid $40,000 out of his own pocket to the woman with whom Wilson had an affair.

Consequently, on June 4, 1916, a Jew Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) was appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Wilson as per his agreed blackmail payment to Samuel Untermyer three years earlier.

Justice Brandeis had gone on to serve the US Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939.

(Wilson's relationship with Mary Hulbert Peck is confirmed historical fact, the blackmail tale originates from Benjamin H. Freedman of dubious reliability.)

Now, back to Scofield. His only biography paints him rather unflatteringly, as typical American huckster and con man, not humble servant of Christ.

Still, the mind boggles how could such, unimpressive and obscure at the time, character be invited into such prestigious group.

The club’s purpose as noted in Article I, Section II of its Constitution, was: The primary object of this Club shall be to promote social intercourse among journalists, artists, and members of the musical and dramatic professions, and representatives, amateurs, and friends of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts: and at least one third of the members shall be connected with said classes.

Since the theatre was taboo and worse in the circles where Cyrus had moved since 1879, we assume and we think rightly, that someone felt that Scofield could qualify in the literary catagory. But, that qualification could hardly have been on the basis of Scofield’s literary output up to that time. There must have been anticipation.

The club’s Literary Committee, when Scofield’s application was presented, included Samuel Untermeyer (1858-1941), a notorious criminal lawyer. Untermeyer’s accomplishments, described in Who’s Who in America9 take up more than two columns. There is not one activity listed which would suggest that Untermeyer could have appreciated either Scofield’s Bible Correspondence Course or his magazine The- Believer.9 Untermeyer’s life was so remote from the circles in which Scofield normally moved, that we must remain amazed that Untermeyer would have given Scofield the “whiteball” rather than the “blackball.”

...

Scofield kept up his membershp in Lotos until his death in 1921. The membership was not referred to in any obituary or eulogy. (The Dispensational community knew nothing of it!)

The selection of Scofield for admission to The Lotos Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion which has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C. I. Scofield. Such direction probably was motivated by concerns remote from fidelity to the person, work and truth of Jesus Christ.

Big if true. If confirmed, nothing else can be said than: well done, well played.

What is this place?

Why are you called The Motte?

New post guidelines

Rules

Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats