The amount of time leftists spend mulling over Zionism versus other forms of nationalism that they green light is one of many reasons why it's understandable that conclusions of anti-Semitism are come to. On a domestic level black nationalism is normal to support on the left. So living in a city where pledges of allegiance to black people can be seen on banners all over the place, paint it in the middle of a street which was then blocked off so that the words black lives matter painted on the street would not be disturbed by cars, the complete taboo about talking about the enormous amounts of violence, hatred and abuse black people commit in our very city.... But the obsession with denouncing Jewish nationalism is bizarre.
"Replace the world “Jew” with “queer” or “black” or “disabled” and you can get a glimpse of the connection I’ve long noticed between social justice identity politics and Zionism: they both use the same underlying logic of ressentiment."
Zionism is Jewish nationalism. How about leftists critique and denounce black nationalism, Arab nationalism and islamism as much as they do Zionism? How about an honest conversation over how charges of anti-black racism are leveled against anybody who simply holds black people accountable for their violence in the same way they would anybody else, on a domestic level? How about treating the foundation of Pakistan like the catastrophe "the nakba" like they do Israel? 14 million people were displaced and between 200,000 and 2 million were killed in the creation of Pakistan. We also give Pakistan a shit ton of money.
I've noticed leftists have become preoccupied with Hindu nationalism. There are slightly fewer Hindus in the world than there are Muslims. There are 23 countries who are Islam is the officials state sanctioned religion, including Pakistan. There are zero where Hinduism is. There are over five dozen countries were Muslims have created their own homelands and there is a dozen other places where Muslims are killing more people for more homelands. Nobody asks why it is that having zero official Hindu homelands is important to the left. Why we need to eradicate the only Jewish homeland that exists, which is the size of New Jersey. There's one Christian state, the Vatican, which is a fifth the size of Central Park. But Muslims have 23 countries were Islam is the state sponsored religion and another several dozen where It's unofficial and then they're killing in a slew of other places for more homelands. Yes but it's clearly Jewish nationalism that should be condemned and obsessed about. And then Christian nationalism. And Hindu nationalism. But not Islamic nationalism. And on a domestic level black nationalism has destroyed the moral high ground of the civil rights and racial justice movement. It has become the de facto mindset of social justice and anybody who toes the line isn't allowed within 5,000 ft of any progressive organization or movement. But yes let's just obsess about the Jews and never, even in times of peace, demand the same forsaking of nationalist ideology from the Muslim or black community. Because the fact is those loudest on the left to scream about Zionism being literally Satan almost inevitably are the first to themselves condone or even support black and Muslim nationalism.
Numerous European countries have an established state-sponsored Christian church, it's not just the Vatican. Although it's mostly a historical leftover nowadays rather than anything else.
You're either new to my substack or are just a troll. I'm going to assume the latter, as you've flooded this post with comments that prove you barely even read this essay, let alone the many other essays where I've made repeatedly clear that all nationalisms are false consciousness.
There has been leftist criticism of Woke theory on Black and other "BIPOC" (racist term, btw) exceptionalism and nationalism. You just weren't there, or it bypassed your listening.
Go to every classic Marxist-Leninist and old school Left Anarchist. While they'll talk about and critique aspects like colonialism, exploitation, discrimination and oppression, they'll almost never justify ethnic nationalism, and instead favour horizontal internationalism based on class, not ethnicity. If you want the hardest position on that matter, go to a Stalinist (they're basically ethnocidal).
“Rose City Antifa” (a Portland antifascist collective) and their allies relied heavily upon the ADL’s “hate database” to fight the alt-right."
Plenty of progressive organizations embrace Council on American Islamic relations (CAIR). In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the Northwest Film forum in Seattle partnered with them. My question to you is which Jewish organization that actually stands up for Jewish people and will call out hatred when it comes from POC do you support? JVP, JFREJ, Not in our Name, If not Not Know When, etc- do not call out violence or anti-Semitism when it's coming from POC or Muslims. Haven't you noticed that the only groups allowed on the left are ones that don't criticize certain demographics? So Jews can be criticized by every other minority but we are marginalized if we dare criticize the wrongs of them.
And what's with the obsession with ADL versus CAIR. NAACP, NOI, BLM?
CAIR lobied hard during the 2020 elections that politicians do something about what they claim was racial profiling and airports. It was brought up in the presidential debates. The airport check and clerk said that when he was checking in Muhammad Atta and Co he thought to himself that this person fit the exact profile of what an Islamic terrorist would be. Then he shamed himself into believing he was being racist and let it go. So literally 911 happened because somebody was so afraid of being called racist that they let go of their concerns. Yet this is never brought up by the same people who love to babble about how accusations of anti-Semitism are so powerful.
Circa 2010 I kept being silenced when I talked about the fact that Nation of Islam is the most powerful hate group in this country. I was told that Farrakhan had been irrelevant for 30 years. At the same time he was partying with the black congressional caucus, were pictures of him with Obama can be seen, he was getting the key to the city in Louisiana by the mayor, and he was speaking to full House's of college students on campus while Ben Shapiro was getting chased off campus for being racist.
The freakish obsession with the ADL versus scrutiny of lobby groups from other minorities is exactly why The left feels anti-Semitic. The belief that other groups don't have the same cloud or do the same damage is false.
The left has tunnel vision and is obsessed with scrutinizing, seeking out and denouncing wrongdoings of Jews while not doing the same with other minorities whose behavior is as ethically compromised as you can get. Leftists won't stand by us when we are being subject to hate crimes by other minorities but they sure come quick when the tables are turned.
Thanks, as always, for the gift of your writing...... I love how you think about exercise and weightlifting in terms of a spiritual practice for the embodied. They particularly resonate with me at present.....
A lot of nationalism is built upon an ingrained sense of victimhood. A while back I was on a discussion thread about the Irish language, where many believed the British authorities had historically banned from been spoken. I pointed out this was mostly a myth, as speaking Irish was never banned in the modern era. I consequently receive a load of hate and abuse, and accused of been some evil apologist for British imperialism. Of course none of them had any evidence to support their claims, just anger that I had challenged their cherished myths with facts. Similarly, Irish historians who have challenged things like the white slave myth and genocide myth have received plenty of hate from so-called Irish nationalists for threatening their sense of victimhood.
Incidentally, I saw a few weeks ago Trump was musing that if he lost the election then the Jews should be blamed for it. Predictable the media just shrugged it off as Trump being Trump. One can only imagine the mass outrage which would have occurred if Biden or anyone else had come up with that.
Over the last year we've seen the watermelon become a symbol for the Palestinians. The excuse was it's because the Palestinian flag was banned. Yeah in the '90s it was. 30 years ago.
sorry to distract from all the comments about Zionism, but—thanks very much for the shout-out and the kind words! i'm ashamed to admit that i spent a couple of sleepless hours worrying whether this was finally the post that got me too far out over my skis. i'm glad you found something worthwhile in it (and that it wasn't too glib for the author of a new Tarot book).
on the subject of cheating: if i had to go back, i would broaden that out into a larger observation about various forms of dissembling within occultism/ applied metaphysics, beyond just "cheating" among professional seers. normies-in-recovery like me can easily fall into a simplistic true/false binary about how real this stuff is: our first encounter with an obvious instance of grandstanding (or even outright fraud) can shake our confidence in our own experiments, and hinder a willingness to let that both/and indeterminacy unfold naturally. until we get that first holy-fuck moment of seeing the metaphysical elephant for ourselves—and even for a long time after that—it can seem like everybody in the occult space is just winding each other up. for people who are in the biz (and again, no judgment, vaya con dios) it's profitable to front like they're 100% confident in their abilities every single day. if they're getting paid for a class or a reading or a seance, or even just making money off YouTube videos—paying customers expect to be dealing with The Expert, and it's hard for The Expert to admit that sometimes *they* wonder, still, if this stuff is all in their heads. because it's not like doing math or fixing cars: it's a phenomenon that will genuinely behave like it's fucking with you on purpose. and so sometimes it's necessary to project a false confidence in order to make a consistent living.
i just think it's healthy for everyone in the occult space to resist the (occasionally very quantifiable) temptation to always be The Expert, and to foreground the fact that people who have worked with this stuff their whole lives can still only claim 60-70% confidence in what's really happening on any given day. but on the days when the elephant does show up, it will absolutely blow your mind.
and as far as the manuscript goes—it's coming! i should have a preview post to share on that subject very soon.
You mentioned Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell in the footnotes. It's really one of my favorite books (haven't seen the series) along with one of her other books, Piranesi. Clarke knows much more about the occult than I think any other fiction writer I've ever read, and you can actually use both of those books as manuals of magic if so inclined.
What Norell does to the other magicians at the beginning is relevant to this question of "experts." Most of the occult stuff one encounters now is exactly the sort of theoretical drivel that Norell undermined by just doing one clear act of magic. Everyone's an "expert," and they shroud their lack of knowing in obscure language. Watching many of the "witch wars" on social media over the years, it becomes clear that it's all the same sort of posturing as we see with social justice activists vying against each other for social capital. There's there's much more talking about magic being done than there ever is actually doing magic.
it's a brilliant book, and a great lodestar for talking about this stuff... i'm long overdue to re-read it.
funny you say that about Norell because i know exactly what you mean, and it's totally accurate—but i also see some of that Expert in his character as well. i can't remember how the book treats it; in the show (which is definitely worth a watch for the acting and production alone) they play up Norell as a genuinely capable magician who is *also* seduced by status in mundane society. he tries to present himself as the most powerful English magician, and indeed the only legitimate one; he curries favor with the ruling class by being The Expert, and ends up getting way out of his depth in dealing with the Fae. the story does an amazing job of illustrating the dangers in trying to serve two masters by controlling magic instead of channeling it, which is absolutely relevant to contemporary occultism.
such good stuff.
my book project deals a lot with the idea that modern Western culture still (not by accident) maintains a really rich metaphysical understanding, but it's scattered throughout books and media that are sidelined as "entertainment" (also not by accident).
"Ressentiment can never be satisfied, only healed from within. As I’ve stated repeatedly, its only antidote is agency, a full reckoning of our effect on the world and the consequences of our actions. For identitarianisms, this will also require a full reckoning of the roots of their identity and the true sense of self for which identity has become a very poor substitute."
I've been thinking about this for a while lately and this essay made me see two sides of the same coin. To use your terminology, Rhyd, there is the Saturn side, ressentiment which contracts and hardens identities down to their most basic of race, gender and so on. But then there is the Jupiter side as well. I don't know if there is an exact term, but I'll call it doubting. A type of nihilism. Trauma can lead to doubting, like if you are passing through the woods and are attacked by a wolf, you will doubt whether it is safe to take that trail again or even go through the woods at all. This doubt can be seen in the Butlerian gender frameworks where we not only question social gender roles but even doubt the concept of gender and the reality of biological sex at all.
I think it can be good to dig deep and examine what your fundamental identity really is, just as it can be good to question social roles you play, but may not fully understand. With full agency, one can do both and healing requires it. But without agency, there is the risk of going too far into the Saturn side, where you get identitarianism or going too far on the Jupiter side and you end up with gaslighting. Because everyone reacts differently, we end up with a bizarre combination of both.
As for the source of the trauma, I'm sure there has been more than one, but I think the most recent one was the perfect storm of 2007-2008 which saw the simultaneous mainstreaming of smartphones and social media concurrent with the financial Crash. So now you have people who can always be in contact, see the curated feeds showing off the best of everyone else's lives and the introduction of social capital at the same time the financial stability for many people was stripped away. Thus leading to ressentiment and doubt.
Oh this is a brilliant observation. I hope you don't mind if I play with this later.
And yes, the 2007-2008 (or 9) period is where this all turned. It was at that point that all attempted to build a working class resistance to capitalism became replaced with an an attempt to build a political class through identity and ressentiment. I think people like Butler actually thought they were doing something liberating with all this, just like all the anarchists and socialists who refocused on "anti-oppression," social justice, and then later "antifascism" also thought they were doing something liberating. But we now just have more capitalism, more social strife, more wars, and none of that promised liberation.
It dovetails with what tech journalist Cliff Kuang said, "There is a very, almost religious equation of ease of use with social progress." We took that and ran with it and believed in the promise of the internet. 2009 was the year the Like button (like the one below this very post) was introduced. Now instead of having to articulate why we like things, we just hit a button. Which is how we end up with nebulous concepts like "anti-oppression" without having to comment and ask them to define exactly what "anti-oppression" is.
Likes became a new form of social capital, like monopoly money—worthless outside the game. The fact that this iteration of capitalism took in so many anarchists and socialists is kind of disturbing. After all, these are hardly the "Give me all your money if you hate capitalism" types (thus demonstrating they don't know what capital really is).
I also wonder if this is partly why so many have been duped into thinking the GFC of 2008 was somehow caused by 'fiscal irresponsibility' rather than the disastrous programme of neoliberal driven deregulation of the financial service industry. It still amazes me people believe this blatant lie. All the taxpayer funded banker bonuses - rewards for failure - have been forgotten about, and instead replaced by frivolous matters to divide and distract.
Totally. There was so much blame placed upon lower-to-middle class people who'd bought homes during that time, and I remember there also being a racialized aspect to much of that blame. Many black families had been sold on refinancing their homes (including a neighbor of mine) and then lost their homes to the banks in the crash. Yet this predatory lending was then made out to be both their fault and also the fault of the "whites" who had offered them the loans, but never the banks themselves. Nevermind that all racial groups suffered the same problem and were equally duped into these loans.
Except that you clearly do have a problem with Jewish people, because your comments here really are soaked in antisemitism and you don't seem to understand what it even is. You equate Israel and Zionist fanaticism with Jews, both implicitly and explicitly. Most Jews aren't fanatics any more than all Muslims are Jihadists or all Catholics blow up abortion clinics. And then this 'Hitler and his Nazi party did some really terrifying things to Jews some 80 years ago, and we all (hopefully) understand that was awful. But how many dead Palestinian children are required to balance those scales?' Firstly, the rape and slaughter by Hamas last year wasn't eighty years ago, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten about that. Secondly, the Holocaust has exactly zero to do with the bombing of Palestine (which I'm against.) Like, zero. Jews have faced slaughter and pogroms in the Middle East for centuries. They face it still. The Holocaust has got fuck all to do with the slaughter in Gaza. You must know that. To insinuate it has, is to lean on a popular antisemitic trope about how Jews won't shut up about the Holocaust and also use it as an excuse to....insert other favourite trope here. It's gross. Your flippant dismissal of the Holocaust as 'some 80 years ago' as if it should be forgotten already is also gross. Roma people - my people - were also killed. So were disabled and autistic children. We've barely begun talking about that. Also disgusting is the idea (another popular racist trope) that Jews see antisemitism everywhere. It is everywhere. The US may be different, but in the UK and Europe Jews are the group statistically at by far the biggest risk of racist attack and by that I mean actual violence, not micro aggressions. Thirdly, Jews aren't killing Gazans. The IDF is. You do know there are Israeli Muslims and Christians in the IDF right? Yet what you've done in your little essay is draw a direct line between Jews (you know, those people who won't stop talking about that Holocaust thing while complaining about the overwhelming violent racism they face) and the murder of children. Wait....oh look, another antisemitic trope!
Interesting that you accuse me of equating Israel and Zionism with Jews, and yet instead do precisely that -- and I don't.
Absolutely, Israel does not equal Jew, nor does Zionism equal Jew. I've made this repeatedly clear throughout all my essays. To equate them is to make the same mistake as assuming that Christianity means Calvinism.
And you make this mistake throughout your comment. For instance, you claim that I said "Jews see antisemitism everywhere," and yet the actual thing I said was: "For the Zionist, antisemitism is everywhere, just as racism, misogyny, cis-privilege, transphobia, and ableism are everywhere for the social justice activist." And then you claimed that I am blaming Jews for the slaughter and displacement of Palestinians and Lebanese people, yet I never once say those crimes are Jewish crimes, but rather being committed by the State of Israel.
In other words, you replaced all instances of "Zionist" and "Israel" with "Jew," and then claimed I am antisemitic and specifically talking about Jews. I'm not, and I've made this repeatedly clear in my essays.
I haven't read your other essays. This one sounds and reads exactly as I said. And your comments about the Holocaust you haven't even addressed. If you can't see the issues with the things you've said here, that says it all.
"What’s particularly instructive in this person’s accusations is the default to identitarianism. Replace the world “Jew” with “queer” or “black” or “disabled” and you can get a glimpse of the connection I’ve long noticed between social justice identity politics and Zionism: they both use the same underlying logic of ressentiment."
That's exactly why I find media like Quillette or the Free Press hilarious: every week you'll find a couple of articles bashing hard on Woke, their mental contortionism and conceptual acrobatics, and rightfully criticise their racialistic worldview and how dangerous their insistence on abstract hierarchies of oppression is toxic bla bla bla... never mind, next minute you have an article on why Israel is above other peoples and countries regarding any sort of criticism, precisely because... Woke reasons.
I guess the Armenian genocide also permanently justifies whatever Armenia is up to do to keep its two neighbours from continuously trying to carve up its territory, but I'll die without knowing what these people think because to this day I haven't seen a single article on the matter of Nagorno Karabagh. Although I reckon it must be hard to reconcile for them the fact that the (now a Russian ally) rogue Muslim state of Azerbaijan bombed Armenian villages with Israeli weaponry.
Yes, it's maddening. And I've seen this even in the logic of otherwise intellectually careful friends, simultaneously arguing against the cancellation of professors and others on the basis of free speech while also arguing that professors and others who criticize Israeli actions in Gaza should be fired. Everyone's losing their minds right now.
The amount of time leftists spend mulling over Zionism versus other forms of nationalism that they green light is one of many reasons why it's understandable that conclusions of anti-Semitism are come to. On a domestic level black nationalism is normal to support on the left. So living in a city where pledges of allegiance to black people can be seen on banners all over the place, paint it in the middle of a street which was then blocked off so that the words black lives matter painted on the street would not be disturbed by cars, the complete taboo about talking about the enormous amounts of violence, hatred and abuse black people commit in our very city.... But the obsession with denouncing Jewish nationalism is bizarre.
"Replace the world “Jew” with “queer” or “black” or “disabled” and you can get a glimpse of the connection I’ve long noticed between social justice identity politics and Zionism: they both use the same underlying logic of ressentiment."
Zionism is Jewish nationalism. How about leftists critique and denounce black nationalism, Arab nationalism and islamism as much as they do Zionism? How about an honest conversation over how charges of anti-black racism are leveled against anybody who simply holds black people accountable for their violence in the same way they would anybody else, on a domestic level? How about treating the foundation of Pakistan like the catastrophe "the nakba" like they do Israel? 14 million people were displaced and between 200,000 and 2 million were killed in the creation of Pakistan. We also give Pakistan a shit ton of money.
I've noticed leftists have become preoccupied with Hindu nationalism. There are slightly fewer Hindus in the world than there are Muslims. There are 23 countries who are Islam is the officials state sanctioned religion, including Pakistan. There are zero where Hinduism is. There are over five dozen countries were Muslims have created their own homelands and there is a dozen other places where Muslims are killing more people for more homelands. Nobody asks why it is that having zero official Hindu homelands is important to the left. Why we need to eradicate the only Jewish homeland that exists, which is the size of New Jersey. There's one Christian state, the Vatican, which is a fifth the size of Central Park. But Muslims have 23 countries were Islam is the state sponsored religion and another several dozen where It's unofficial and then they're killing in a slew of other places for more homelands. Yes but it's clearly Jewish nationalism that should be condemned and obsessed about. And then Christian nationalism. And Hindu nationalism. But not Islamic nationalism. And on a domestic level black nationalism has destroyed the moral high ground of the civil rights and racial justice movement. It has become the de facto mindset of social justice and anybody who toes the line isn't allowed within 5,000 ft of any progressive organization or movement. But yes let's just obsess about the Jews and never, even in times of peace, demand the same forsaking of nationalist ideology from the Muslim or black community. Because the fact is those loudest on the left to scream about Zionism being literally Satan almost inevitably are the first to themselves condone or even support black and Muslim nationalism.
Numerous European countries have an established state-sponsored Christian church, it's not just the Vatican. Although it's mostly a historical leftover nowadays rather than anything else.
You're either new to my substack or are just a troll. I'm going to assume the latter, as you've flooded this post with comments that prove you barely even read this essay, let alone the many other essays where I've made repeatedly clear that all nationalisms are false consciousness.
There has been leftist criticism of Woke theory on Black and other "BIPOC" (racist term, btw) exceptionalism and nationalism. You just weren't there, or it bypassed your listening.
Go to every classic Marxist-Leninist and old school Left Anarchist. While they'll talk about and critique aspects like colonialism, exploitation, discrimination and oppression, they'll almost never justify ethnic nationalism, and instead favour horizontal internationalism based on class, not ethnicity. If you want the hardest position on that matter, go to a Stalinist (they're basically ethnocidal).
“Rose City Antifa” (a Portland antifascist collective) and their allies relied heavily upon the ADL’s “hate database” to fight the alt-right."
Plenty of progressive organizations embrace Council on American Islamic relations (CAIR). In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the Northwest Film forum in Seattle partnered with them. My question to you is which Jewish organization that actually stands up for Jewish people and will call out hatred when it comes from POC do you support? JVP, JFREJ, Not in our Name, If not Not Know When, etc- do not call out violence or anti-Semitism when it's coming from POC or Muslims. Haven't you noticed that the only groups allowed on the left are ones that don't criticize certain demographics? So Jews can be criticized by every other minority but we are marginalized if we dare criticize the wrongs of them.
And what's with the obsession with ADL versus CAIR. NAACP, NOI, BLM?
CAIR lobied hard during the 2020 elections that politicians do something about what they claim was racial profiling and airports. It was brought up in the presidential debates. The airport check and clerk said that when he was checking in Muhammad Atta and Co he thought to himself that this person fit the exact profile of what an Islamic terrorist would be. Then he shamed himself into believing he was being racist and let it go. So literally 911 happened because somebody was so afraid of being called racist that they let go of their concerns. Yet this is never brought up by the same people who love to babble about how accusations of anti-Semitism are so powerful.
Circa 2010 I kept being silenced when I talked about the fact that Nation of Islam is the most powerful hate group in this country. I was told that Farrakhan had been irrelevant for 30 years. At the same time he was partying with the black congressional caucus, were pictures of him with Obama can be seen, he was getting the key to the city in Louisiana by the mayor, and he was speaking to full House's of college students on campus while Ben Shapiro was getting chased off campus for being racist.
The freakish obsession with the ADL versus scrutiny of lobby groups from other minorities is exactly why The left feels anti-Semitic. The belief that other groups don't have the same cloud or do the same damage is false.
The left has tunnel vision and is obsessed with scrutinizing, seeking out and denouncing wrongdoings of Jews while not doing the same with other minorities whose behavior is as ethically compromised as you can get. Leftists won't stand by us when we are being subject to hate crimes by other minorities but they sure come quick when the tables are turned.
Thanks, as always, for the gift of your writing...... I love how you think about exercise and weightlifting in terms of a spiritual practice for the embodied. They particularly resonate with me at present.....
A lot of nationalism is built upon an ingrained sense of victimhood. A while back I was on a discussion thread about the Irish language, where many believed the British authorities had historically banned from been spoken. I pointed out this was mostly a myth, as speaking Irish was never banned in the modern era. I consequently receive a load of hate and abuse, and accused of been some evil apologist for British imperialism. Of course none of them had any evidence to support their claims, just anger that I had challenged their cherished myths with facts. Similarly, Irish historians who have challenged things like the white slave myth and genocide myth have received plenty of hate from so-called Irish nationalists for threatening their sense of victimhood.
Incidentally, I saw a few weeks ago Trump was musing that if he lost the election then the Jews should be blamed for it. Predictable the media just shrugged it off as Trump being Trump. One can only imagine the mass outrage which would have occurred if Biden or anyone else had come up with that.
Over the last year we've seen the watermelon become a symbol for the Palestinians. The excuse was it's because the Palestinian flag was banned. Yeah in the '90s it was. 30 years ago.
Not sure what that's got to do with my post above ?
Trolling.
sorry to distract from all the comments about Zionism, but—thanks very much for the shout-out and the kind words! i'm ashamed to admit that i spent a couple of sleepless hours worrying whether this was finally the post that got me too far out over my skis. i'm glad you found something worthwhile in it (and that it wasn't too glib for the author of a new Tarot book).
on the subject of cheating: if i had to go back, i would broaden that out into a larger observation about various forms of dissembling within occultism/ applied metaphysics, beyond just "cheating" among professional seers. normies-in-recovery like me can easily fall into a simplistic true/false binary about how real this stuff is: our first encounter with an obvious instance of grandstanding (or even outright fraud) can shake our confidence in our own experiments, and hinder a willingness to let that both/and indeterminacy unfold naturally. until we get that first holy-fuck moment of seeing the metaphysical elephant for ourselves—and even for a long time after that—it can seem like everybody in the occult space is just winding each other up. for people who are in the biz (and again, no judgment, vaya con dios) it's profitable to front like they're 100% confident in their abilities every single day. if they're getting paid for a class or a reading or a seance, or even just making money off YouTube videos—paying customers expect to be dealing with The Expert, and it's hard for The Expert to admit that sometimes *they* wonder, still, if this stuff is all in their heads. because it's not like doing math or fixing cars: it's a phenomenon that will genuinely behave like it's fucking with you on purpose. and so sometimes it's necessary to project a false confidence in order to make a consistent living.
i just think it's healthy for everyone in the occult space to resist the (occasionally very quantifiable) temptation to always be The Expert, and to foreground the fact that people who have worked with this stuff their whole lives can still only claim 60-70% confidence in what's really happening on any given day. but on the days when the elephant does show up, it will absolutely blow your mind.
and as far as the manuscript goes—it's coming! i should have a preview post to share on that subject very soon.
You mentioned Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell in the footnotes. It's really one of my favorite books (haven't seen the series) along with one of her other books, Piranesi. Clarke knows much more about the occult than I think any other fiction writer I've ever read, and you can actually use both of those books as manuals of magic if so inclined.
What Norell does to the other magicians at the beginning is relevant to this question of "experts." Most of the occult stuff one encounters now is exactly the sort of theoretical drivel that Norell undermined by just doing one clear act of magic. Everyone's an "expert," and they shroud their lack of knowing in obscure language. Watching many of the "witch wars" on social media over the years, it becomes clear that it's all the same sort of posturing as we see with social justice activists vying against each other for social capital. There's there's much more talking about magic being done than there ever is actually doing magic.
it's a brilliant book, and a great lodestar for talking about this stuff... i'm long overdue to re-read it.
funny you say that about Norell because i know exactly what you mean, and it's totally accurate—but i also see some of that Expert in his character as well. i can't remember how the book treats it; in the show (which is definitely worth a watch for the acting and production alone) they play up Norell as a genuinely capable magician who is *also* seduced by status in mundane society. he tries to present himself as the most powerful English magician, and indeed the only legitimate one; he curries favor with the ruling class by being The Expert, and ends up getting way out of his depth in dealing with the Fae. the story does an amazing job of illustrating the dangers in trying to serve two masters by controlling magic instead of channeling it, which is absolutely relevant to contemporary occultism.
such good stuff.
my book project deals a lot with the idea that modern Western culture still (not by accident) maintains a really rich metaphysical understanding, but it's scattered throughout books and media that are sidelined as "entertainment" (also not by accident).
"Ressentiment can never be satisfied, only healed from within. As I’ve stated repeatedly, its only antidote is agency, a full reckoning of our effect on the world and the consequences of our actions. For identitarianisms, this will also require a full reckoning of the roots of their identity and the true sense of self for which identity has become a very poor substitute."
I've been thinking about this for a while lately and this essay made me see two sides of the same coin. To use your terminology, Rhyd, there is the Saturn side, ressentiment which contracts and hardens identities down to their most basic of race, gender and so on. But then there is the Jupiter side as well. I don't know if there is an exact term, but I'll call it doubting. A type of nihilism. Trauma can lead to doubting, like if you are passing through the woods and are attacked by a wolf, you will doubt whether it is safe to take that trail again or even go through the woods at all. This doubt can be seen in the Butlerian gender frameworks where we not only question social gender roles but even doubt the concept of gender and the reality of biological sex at all.
I think it can be good to dig deep and examine what your fundamental identity really is, just as it can be good to question social roles you play, but may not fully understand. With full agency, one can do both and healing requires it. But without agency, there is the risk of going too far into the Saturn side, where you get identitarianism or going too far on the Jupiter side and you end up with gaslighting. Because everyone reacts differently, we end up with a bizarre combination of both.
As for the source of the trauma, I'm sure there has been more than one, but I think the most recent one was the perfect storm of 2007-2008 which saw the simultaneous mainstreaming of smartphones and social media concurrent with the financial Crash. So now you have people who can always be in contact, see the curated feeds showing off the best of everyone else's lives and the introduction of social capital at the same time the financial stability for many people was stripped away. Thus leading to ressentiment and doubt.
Oh this is a brilliant observation. I hope you don't mind if I play with this later.
And yes, the 2007-2008 (or 9) period is where this all turned. It was at that point that all attempted to build a working class resistance to capitalism became replaced with an an attempt to build a political class through identity and ressentiment. I think people like Butler actually thought they were doing something liberating with all this, just like all the anarchists and socialists who refocused on "anti-oppression," social justice, and then later "antifascism" also thought they were doing something liberating. But we now just have more capitalism, more social strife, more wars, and none of that promised liberation.
Go ahead, I'd love to see where you take it.
It dovetails with what tech journalist Cliff Kuang said, "There is a very, almost religious equation of ease of use with social progress." We took that and ran with it and believed in the promise of the internet. 2009 was the year the Like button (like the one below this very post) was introduced. Now instead of having to articulate why we like things, we just hit a button. Which is how we end up with nebulous concepts like "anti-oppression" without having to comment and ask them to define exactly what "anti-oppression" is.
Likes became a new form of social capital, like monopoly money—worthless outside the game. The fact that this iteration of capitalism took in so many anarchists and socialists is kind of disturbing. After all, these are hardly the "Give me all your money if you hate capitalism" types (thus demonstrating they don't know what capital really is).
I also wonder if this is partly why so many have been duped into thinking the GFC of 2008 was somehow caused by 'fiscal irresponsibility' rather than the disastrous programme of neoliberal driven deregulation of the financial service industry. It still amazes me people believe this blatant lie. All the taxpayer funded banker bonuses - rewards for failure - have been forgotten about, and instead replaced by frivolous matters to divide and distract.
Totally. There was so much blame placed upon lower-to-middle class people who'd bought homes during that time, and I remember there also being a racialized aspect to much of that blame. Many black families had been sold on refinancing their homes (including a neighbor of mine) and then lost their homes to the banks in the crash. Yet this predatory lending was then made out to be both their fault and also the fault of the "whites" who had offered them the loans, but never the banks themselves. Nevermind that all racial groups suffered the same problem and were equally duped into these loans.
Indeed, a story of victim blaming and divide and rule. As you rightly say, the so-called left have been part of this injustice.
Except that you clearly do have a problem with Jewish people, because your comments here really are soaked in antisemitism and you don't seem to understand what it even is. You equate Israel and Zionist fanaticism with Jews, both implicitly and explicitly. Most Jews aren't fanatics any more than all Muslims are Jihadists or all Catholics blow up abortion clinics. And then this 'Hitler and his Nazi party did some really terrifying things to Jews some 80 years ago, and we all (hopefully) understand that was awful. But how many dead Palestinian children are required to balance those scales?' Firstly, the rape and slaughter by Hamas last year wasn't eighty years ago, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten about that. Secondly, the Holocaust has exactly zero to do with the bombing of Palestine (which I'm against.) Like, zero. Jews have faced slaughter and pogroms in the Middle East for centuries. They face it still. The Holocaust has got fuck all to do with the slaughter in Gaza. You must know that. To insinuate it has, is to lean on a popular antisemitic trope about how Jews won't shut up about the Holocaust and also use it as an excuse to....insert other favourite trope here. It's gross. Your flippant dismissal of the Holocaust as 'some 80 years ago' as if it should be forgotten already is also gross. Roma people - my people - were also killed. So were disabled and autistic children. We've barely begun talking about that. Also disgusting is the idea (another popular racist trope) that Jews see antisemitism everywhere. It is everywhere. The US may be different, but in the UK and Europe Jews are the group statistically at by far the biggest risk of racist attack and by that I mean actual violence, not micro aggressions. Thirdly, Jews aren't killing Gazans. The IDF is. You do know there are Israeli Muslims and Christians in the IDF right? Yet what you've done in your little essay is draw a direct line between Jews (you know, those people who won't stop talking about that Holocaust thing while complaining about the overwhelming violent racism they face) and the murder of children. Wait....oh look, another antisemitic trope!
Interesting that you accuse me of equating Israel and Zionism with Jews, and yet instead do precisely that -- and I don't.
Absolutely, Israel does not equal Jew, nor does Zionism equal Jew. I've made this repeatedly clear throughout all my essays. To equate them is to make the same mistake as assuming that Christianity means Calvinism.
And you make this mistake throughout your comment. For instance, you claim that I said "Jews see antisemitism everywhere," and yet the actual thing I said was: "For the Zionist, antisemitism is everywhere, just as racism, misogyny, cis-privilege, transphobia, and ableism are everywhere for the social justice activist." And then you claimed that I am blaming Jews for the slaughter and displacement of Palestinians and Lebanese people, yet I never once say those crimes are Jewish crimes, but rather being committed by the State of Israel.
In other words, you replaced all instances of "Zionist" and "Israel" with "Jew," and then claimed I am antisemitic and specifically talking about Jews. I'm not, and I've made this repeatedly clear in my essays.
I haven't read your other essays. This one sounds and reads exactly as I said. And your comments about the Holocaust you haven't even addressed. If you can't see the issues with the things you've said here, that says it all.
"What’s particularly instructive in this person’s accusations is the default to identitarianism. Replace the world “Jew” with “queer” or “black” or “disabled” and you can get a glimpse of the connection I’ve long noticed between social justice identity politics and Zionism: they both use the same underlying logic of ressentiment."
That's exactly why I find media like Quillette or the Free Press hilarious: every week you'll find a couple of articles bashing hard on Woke, their mental contortionism and conceptual acrobatics, and rightfully criticise their racialistic worldview and how dangerous their insistence on abstract hierarchies of oppression is toxic bla bla bla... never mind, next minute you have an article on why Israel is above other peoples and countries regarding any sort of criticism, precisely because... Woke reasons.
I guess the Armenian genocide also permanently justifies whatever Armenia is up to do to keep its two neighbours from continuously trying to carve up its territory, but I'll die without knowing what these people think because to this day I haven't seen a single article on the matter of Nagorno Karabagh. Although I reckon it must be hard to reconcile for them the fact that the (now a Russian ally) rogue Muslim state of Azerbaijan bombed Armenian villages with Israeli weaponry.
Yes, it's maddening. And I've seen this even in the logic of otherwise intellectually careful friends, simultaneously arguing against the cancellation of professors and others on the basis of free speech while also arguing that professors and others who criticize Israeli actions in Gaza should be fired. Everyone's losing their minds right now.