Language is easily overlooked -- often people pooh-pooh it. But it's one of the most potent forces in human society.
People are being entirely shepherded into a particular lane of public opinion by how various figures are characterizing what we're seeing. I've never seen such a lie campaign launched as this.
Note that none of this characterization happened in a widespread way -- on the whole, people in the media were being fairly circumspect -- until Biden weighed in. Then it was off to the races.
This is very insightful, thanks. Are you familiar with the idea of the "thought-terminating cliche"? I learned the term from the book "Cultish", by Amanda Montell. (btw her latest book "The Age of Magical Overthinking" is also very good.) I think the clearest examples in current events are "Israel has a right to exist" or "Israel has a right to defend itself". I think certain ad hominem arguments like those you mention have the same flavor.
It's funny you mention Montell's _Cultish_, as I ordered it some months ago and it has been sitting on my to-read bookshelf ever since. (I have dozens of books to get to.) But you may be interested to know that "thought-terminating cliché" originated with Robert Jay Lifton, in his watershed work _Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism_. Lifton examined what we today would call brainwashing techniques in midcentury China, and it is in that book that he collated eight aspects of thought reform that indicate that such an environment was in place. It's been said that if six of eight are present, that type of coercive structure is indeed in play, but if you disable three or more, then the mechanism ceases to work.
But to your point about thought termination, I think there is similarity between that concept and the statements that are trotted out to disrupt, smother and otherwise halt conversation around what Israel is doing in Gaza (and other parts of Palestine as well). I see the ones you mentioned as ways of putting the target onto the defensive -- when someone says, " Israel has the right to exist," nine times out of ten the person to whom they're saying that has NOT explicitly said anything to the contrary. Still, the target is obliged to defend against the accusation (and that accusation can take many flavors, up to and including an insinuation that the person wants to annihilate Jewish people). So I see the use of such phrases as a tactic of silencing opposition.
But I agree that they could be seen as thought terminating phrases insofar as they are articles of faith. They are statements that can neither been substantiated or falsified; thus, one must believe in them in order for them to have validity. They do indeed stem thought because they are so superficial and they tend to discourage the believers of said sentiments to delve deeper in what the phrases might mean. What does it mean for a state to engage in "self-defense" if and when that defense turns into abject destruction, torture and execution? It can't be carte blanche, but the phrase itself stops people from exploring nuance and context.
I really have been meaning to get to _Cultish_; now I'll have to push it up my priority list. I appreciate the recommendation.
I was thinking of updating it, but what I'd write would be more introspective and retrospective, in terms of how did we get to this point in time, compared to where we were when this iteration of the Israel-Palestine conflict ignited?
Everywhere online I go by novapsyche, so you can call me Nova, if you'd like. (We're in a season of doxxing -- I'm not terribly interested in giving people a leg up in this department.)
Generally speaking, as I say in my post from January, my background is in American Studies, which is an interdisciplinary field, the backbone of which for me is comprised of social science. So that's my focus and my lens. Although nearly all of my posts here at Substack have been about the Israel-Palestine conflict, before last October I was writing about a variety of things on a different platform (again, mainly to do with sociology and American culture, but also scientific forays and some personal items). I poured a lot of time over the last four years into autodidactic study of SARS-CoV-2 -- I'm not an expert by any means, but I've delved quite a bit into the scienitific literature. Over the last 5-7 I invested a great deal of time studying authoritarianism, which is why my antennae are up right now. This crackdown is no joke.
Language is inherently interesting to me; it's my strongest suit, historically. That's one of the reasons I pay such close attention to patterns of language and propaganda. I've written poetry in the past and served as the editor of several small literary magazines, but these days I'm only writing here, to work on the essay form.
And to have demonic Netanyahu warning us that these demonstrations are antisemitic! This is the central slur they depend upon as it recalls all of the past evil treatment of Jews, culminating in the Holocaust, which is the foundation of their self-image as the ultimate victims. Similar to the claim that people who have been the victims of racism can never be said to be racist themselves, anything Israel does must be acceptable because "Israel has a right to defend itself." I continue to be amazed at the strength of the Zionist lobby and at the intense vitriol from known racists like Rep. Tom Cotton, not someone typically assumed to be a supporter of Jewish causes. I think it's the aggressive support for the American empire and its Middle East based that is their true concern.
All that said, I appreciate your comment. I just . . . felt it's probably hypocritical of me to demonize Netanyahu in the comments when the essay is about the pitfalls of demonization / dehumanization. So, you know.
Re: Netanyahu, I am trying to stay away from news stories about the _possible_ ICC arrest warrant, because at this point it's gossip. Responsible news outlets should wait until actual moves are made. Still, if anyone deserves that fate, it's the gaslighter-in-chief. Almost certainly he knows what he's doing is genocide, and he relishes that fact.
I'm not one for calling people demons, but it is true that Netanyahu is one of the worst people alive and in power today. He's a war criminal who deserves to be brought before the Hague.
(I'm also an agnostic, so I don't believe in demons. But I understand your condemnation!)
Did you know that, when the White House was asked about Netanyahu's statement encouraging even more of a police crackdown -- an unheard-of interference by a foreign head of state -- the WH defended Netanyahu's intrusion?
"QUESTION: I understand everything that you said, but I am asking you – there’s a foreign leader who’s saying that American law enforcement, including the National Guard, ought to crack down on Americans exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. I’m asking you on this particular issue – not on October 7, not on all this that happened. I’m asking you: Do you find this to be appalling by a foreign leader in direct interference in the way Americans conduct themselves?
"MR PATEL: A leader can call on whatever they’d like, Said, but it’s – no one is naïve to the fact that utilization of the National Guard is ultimately a decision up to individual governors.
"QUESTION: I understand, but —
"MR PATEL: And so beyond that, the prime minister is welcome to make whatever comments he’d like. When it comes to what is happening in this country, we’re going to remain focused on that.
And specifically on some of the spread of antisemitism that we’re seeing, this is something that this President takes incredibly seriously. . . ."
So you see the defense and pivot. The WH does this all the time.
There's a lot in your comment I want to reply to, but I don't want to write a tome! I've been guilty of that from time to time. As far as racism is concerned, speaking in terms of social science, there's a difference in power dynamics between those who are doing the discriminating and those on the receiving end. That's why you see the shorthand "Prejudice + power = racism." I don't think it's possible to say that those subjected to racism can't harbor resentments, even unjustifiably broad resentments, but they don't have the power to implement their feelings into actual discrimination (again, generally speaking). Racism , in my view, ultimately derives from a belief in the majority group's superiority, and it's that sense of superiority that is the real danger and source of corruption.
I have been reading about the sense of eternal victimhood that you bring up here in regards to having that relationship to the Holocaust, which I think compounds the problem that was already inherent in Zionism from the beginning, which incorporated both a superiority and inferiority complex in its tenets. There's a lot of loathing projected in those early documents by the movement's leaders, expressing disgust at the image of the Jewish person. The Holocaust, as it is taught, brings in a new dimension, one that is hard to disentangle. But certainly, that sense of victimhood powers that need (one might even say desperation) to defend oneself, even to the point of losing sight of who is actually the aggressor.
Cotton is an opportunist and has many Christian Zionists as constituents, I'm sure. There are many in his neck of the woods. They need Israel to figure into their End Times mythology. While not all evangelical Christians are Christian Zionists, the overlap is large. There are 80 to 100 million evangelicals in the United States. At the very least, Cotton is playing the numbers.
I forgot about the evangelicals. Religious fanaticism has caused so much harm throughout history. I'm an agnostic who tries very hard to believe in an afterlife. I'm chiefly inspired by reading about exceptional near death experiences. I can clearly imagine it. And the fantastic natural world and it's inhabitants are like miracles that we take for granted. Homo pugnax would be more apt.
Thanks for making this very important point about how people are being smeared with loaded words and stereotypes.
Thanks for the boost, Diana!
Language is easily overlooked -- often people pooh-pooh it. But it's one of the most potent forces in human society.
People are being entirely shepherded into a particular lane of public opinion by how various figures are characterizing what we're seeing. I've never seen such a lie campaign launched as this.
Note that none of this characterization happened in a widespread way -- on the whole, people in the media were being fairly circumspect -- until Biden weighed in. Then it was off to the races.
It's really shocking. I've never seen anything like it either.
This is very insightful, thanks. Are you familiar with the idea of the "thought-terminating cliche"? I learned the term from the book "Cultish", by Amanda Montell. (btw her latest book "The Age of Magical Overthinking" is also very good.) I think the clearest examples in current events are "Israel has a right to exist" or "Israel has a right to defend itself". I think certain ad hominem arguments like those you mention have the same flavor.
It's funny you mention Montell's _Cultish_, as I ordered it some months ago and it has been sitting on my to-read bookshelf ever since. (I have dozens of books to get to.) But you may be interested to know that "thought-terminating cliché" originated with Robert Jay Lifton, in his watershed work _Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism_. Lifton examined what we today would call brainwashing techniques in midcentury China, and it is in that book that he collated eight aspects of thought reform that indicate that such an environment was in place. It's been said that if six of eight are present, that type of coercive structure is indeed in play, but if you disable three or more, then the mechanism ceases to work.
But to your point about thought termination, I think there is similarity between that concept and the statements that are trotted out to disrupt, smother and otherwise halt conversation around what Israel is doing in Gaza (and other parts of Palestine as well). I see the ones you mentioned as ways of putting the target onto the defensive -- when someone says, " Israel has the right to exist," nine times out of ten the person to whom they're saying that has NOT explicitly said anything to the contrary. Still, the target is obliged to defend against the accusation (and that accusation can take many flavors, up to and including an insinuation that the person wants to annihilate Jewish people). So I see the use of such phrases as a tactic of silencing opposition.
But I agree that they could be seen as thought terminating phrases insofar as they are articles of faith. They are statements that can neither been substantiated or falsified; thus, one must believe in them in order for them to have validity. They do indeed stem thought because they are so superficial and they tend to discourage the believers of said sentiments to delve deeper in what the phrases might mean. What does it mean for a state to engage in "self-defense" if and when that defense turns into abject destruction, torture and execution? It can't be carte blanche, but the phrase itself stops people from exploring nuance and context.
I really have been meaning to get to _Cultish_; now I'll have to push it up my priority list. I appreciate the recommendation.
So can you tell us your first name and something about your background?
I wrote a little something back in January: https://novapsyche.substack.com/p/by-way-of-a-belated-introduction
I was thinking of updating it, but what I'd write would be more introspective and retrospective, in terms of how did we get to this point in time, compared to where we were when this iteration of the Israel-Palestine conflict ignited?
Everywhere online I go by novapsyche, so you can call me Nova, if you'd like. (We're in a season of doxxing -- I'm not terribly interested in giving people a leg up in this department.)
Generally speaking, as I say in my post from January, my background is in American Studies, which is an interdisciplinary field, the backbone of which for me is comprised of social science. So that's my focus and my lens. Although nearly all of my posts here at Substack have been about the Israel-Palestine conflict, before last October I was writing about a variety of things on a different platform (again, mainly to do with sociology and American culture, but also scientific forays and some personal items). I poured a lot of time over the last four years into autodidactic study of SARS-CoV-2 -- I'm not an expert by any means, but I've delved quite a bit into the scienitific literature. Over the last 5-7 I invested a great deal of time studying authoritarianism, which is why my antennae are up right now. This crackdown is no joke.
Language is inherently interesting to me; it's my strongest suit, historically. That's one of the reasons I pay such close attention to patterns of language and propaganda. I've written poetry in the past and served as the editor of several small literary magazines, but these days I'm only writing here, to work on the essay form.
Thanks for the inquiry!
Thanks! I'll check out your earlier intro.
And to have demonic Netanyahu warning us that these demonstrations are antisemitic! This is the central slur they depend upon as it recalls all of the past evil treatment of Jews, culminating in the Holocaust, which is the foundation of their self-image as the ultimate victims. Similar to the claim that people who have been the victims of racism can never be said to be racist themselves, anything Israel does must be acceptable because "Israel has a right to defend itself." I continue to be amazed at the strength of the Zionist lobby and at the intense vitriol from known racists like Rep. Tom Cotton, not someone typically assumed to be a supporter of Jewish causes. I think it's the aggressive support for the American empire and its Middle East based that is their true concern.
All that said, I appreciate your comment. I just . . . felt it's probably hypocritical of me to demonize Netanyahu in the comments when the essay is about the pitfalls of demonization / dehumanization. So, you know.
Re: Netanyahu, I am trying to stay away from news stories about the _possible_ ICC arrest warrant, because at this point it's gossip. Responsible news outlets should wait until actual moves are made. Still, if anyone deserves that fate, it's the gaslighter-in-chief. Almost certainly he knows what he's doing is genocide, and he relishes that fact.
I'm not one for calling people demons, but it is true that Netanyahu is one of the worst people alive and in power today. He's a war criminal who deserves to be brought before the Hague.
(I'm also an agnostic, so I don't believe in demons. But I understand your condemnation!)
Did you know that, when the White House was asked about Netanyahu's statement encouraging even more of a police crackdown -- an unheard-of interference by a foreign head of state -- the WH defended Netanyahu's intrusion?
"QUESTION: I understand everything that you said, but I am asking you – there’s a foreign leader who’s saying that American law enforcement, including the National Guard, ought to crack down on Americans exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. I’m asking you on this particular issue – not on October 7, not on all this that happened. I’m asking you: Do you find this to be appalling by a foreign leader in direct interference in the way Americans conduct themselves?
"MR PATEL: A leader can call on whatever they’d like, Said, but it’s – no one is naïve to the fact that utilization of the National Guard is ultimately a decision up to individual governors.
"QUESTION: I understand, but —
"MR PATEL: And so beyond that, the prime minister is welcome to make whatever comments he’d like. When it comes to what is happening in this country, we’re going to remain focused on that.
And specifically on some of the spread of antisemitism that we’re seeing, this is something that this President takes incredibly seriously. . . ."
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-april-25-2024/
So you see the defense and pivot. The WH does this all the time.
There's a lot in your comment I want to reply to, but I don't want to write a tome! I've been guilty of that from time to time. As far as racism is concerned, speaking in terms of social science, there's a difference in power dynamics between those who are doing the discriminating and those on the receiving end. That's why you see the shorthand "Prejudice + power = racism." I don't think it's possible to say that those subjected to racism can't harbor resentments, even unjustifiably broad resentments, but they don't have the power to implement their feelings into actual discrimination (again, generally speaking). Racism , in my view, ultimately derives from a belief in the majority group's superiority, and it's that sense of superiority that is the real danger and source of corruption.
I have been reading about the sense of eternal victimhood that you bring up here in regards to having that relationship to the Holocaust, which I think compounds the problem that was already inherent in Zionism from the beginning, which incorporated both a superiority and inferiority complex in its tenets. There's a lot of loathing projected in those early documents by the movement's leaders, expressing disgust at the image of the Jewish person. The Holocaust, as it is taught, brings in a new dimension, one that is hard to disentangle. But certainly, that sense of victimhood powers that need (one might even say desperation) to defend oneself, even to the point of losing sight of who is actually the aggressor.
Cotton is an opportunist and has many Christian Zionists as constituents, I'm sure. There are many in his neck of the woods. They need Israel to figure into their End Times mythology. While not all evangelical Christians are Christian Zionists, the overlap is large. There are 80 to 100 million evangelicals in the United States. At the very least, Cotton is playing the numbers.
I forgot about the evangelicals. Religious fanaticism has caused so much harm throughout history. I'm an agnostic who tries very hard to believe in an afterlife. I'm chiefly inspired by reading about exceptional near death experiences. I can clearly imagine it. And the fantastic natural world and it's inhabitants are like miracles that we take for granted. Homo pugnax would be more apt.
*its