The New Social Dialectic American Podcast

@weiss1163770 @mdubowitz Romans says God made them all. But to suggest that Jews have tied their identity solely to the state of Israel is utterly preposterous. They can point to God just as well as you can regarding additional loyalties.

Great point, but God gives humans free will so we have to distinguish between the works of God and the works of mankind. Israel is a state just as Luxembourg or Madagascar and I care about them equally since I am not a citizen of any of them, why say God made one and not the others?

Jews are entering the most dangerous period since WWII. Prepare accordingly — mentally, politically and physically. Arm yourself. Have a Plan B. Fight for the future of America and Israel — the only places where Jewish freedom has endured, but where neither is guaranteed.

i wish i could schizopost this confidently.

@weiss1163770 @mdubowitz not even to mention, your response fails to address the contradiction i pointed out.

@weiss1163770 @mdubowitz nothing is created by men.

@Rothmus Idk new Mexico sucks pretty bad. Liked all the other ones though

“10 worst states to live in” and they’re some of the best states to live in if you have a family

My Lebanese grandma used to say the same thing: Palestinians sold their land to the Jews and came and took our country (Lebanon).

@weiss1163770 @mdubowitz Does that imply you have loyalties beyond America?

@mdubowitz Never should have tied your identity to the continued existence of one country, fatal mistake.

@ThugatronPvP @ConceptualJames HaShem's covenant is eternal - as Joshua says, they all come to pass - they may yet need to come to pass, but they will. The Israelite's failure to cleave to HaShem as He requires does not forfeit his eternal covenant - because definitionally it is eternal.

@ConceptualJames Joshua told the israeli in the OT / Torah that God fulfilled every promise made to them. Delivered them everything. Since then they betrayed God & turned from Him, temples destroyed etc. Jews have NO theological or ancestral claim to the land. God cursed them to wander.

People who don't accept Sharia don't recognize waqf and therefore don't recognize the claims made by Palestinian Arabs about their claim on the land or the "Nakba," and they're under absolutely no obligation to. Indeed, they shouldn't, perhaps mustn't.

Incidentally, that's exactly the amount by which the money supply was inflated by printing money during COVID.

Yes, Goyim. We’re trying to poison you with goyslop. The solution is to only shop at Jewish stores and give us your money. That will save you from ZOG.

@estherzelda0514 you could stop being delusional about the state of politics, but that's easier said than done.

Yeah, so what are the majority of American Jews, who are liberal, supposed to do about it? Vote for Republican Christian theocracy and validate their own antisemitic George Soros obsession that is just Temu Rothschild conspiracy theories? Wow, I can trade one party that is not sufficiently controlling their populist antisemitic fringe for a party that is also not sufficiently controlling their populist antisemitic fringe and wants to abolish science and plant a flag for Evangelism in my uterus.

@Lord_Dwarf_Bard @GreenTextRepost it's not your fault.

@GreenTextRepost "My daughter is either going through a phase or is actually having psychological distress over her gender. Time to openly mock and humiliate her into conforming, that always works."

submit by anon

Palestinians commemorating the “Nakba” is like Saudi Arabia commemorating 9/11 because of the 15 Saudi hijackers who died.

@gignomenon @RichardHanania yeah that doesn't help with my question - appreciate the sanctimony though.

Sure, I'm happy to help: rather than listening to what people say about people and become a victim of emotional manipulation, instead go to the source directly to determine whether or not Bret's arguments are generalizations and use your own thinking brain to make your own decision

This is absolutely beautiful. Weinstein can’t defend his nonsense on the merits. I thought he was genuinely schizo. But he doesn’t respond to Tracey by saying “yes Epstein is alive.” He knows he can’t defend it. At some level he knows he’s full of it.

@AZionLion @AmiriKing 1st point: retarded 2nd point: maybe valid. 3rd statement: retarded.

@AmiriKing He was the instigated the moment he decided to use the n word. Actions have consequences. Furthermore, the day before he decided to post on X his INTENT to do harm. Game over, racist

CHUD UPDATE: Here are some fun facts that you’ll see developing: - The entire exchange was live-streamed on PumpFun - The stream shut down at the first gunshot due to an automated AI response system - The stream is being subpoenaed THE FACTS ACCORDING TO OVER 100 WITNESSES WATCHING THE STREAM: - Chud told the guy ‘I hope your day gets better. God bless’ - Chud had already walked away. Was about 70-100 yards away - The man went out of his way to run up on Chud while his back was turned - HE confronted Chud - HE punched Chud in his face - CHUD DIDN’T INSTIGATE ANYTHING 👈🏻 Some of you are about to look absolutely stupid.

Fact: “The ratio of civilian to fighters killed in the Gaza War is better than most other comparable situations.” @GadSaad That precision of the statement is key. Civilian (noncombatant) fighter (combatant participating in the hostilities). Actually one of the lowest of urban warfare history against anything comparable. Lower than any comparable battle/war (very few even close to the situation but those like battles of Manila, Seoul, Mosul or Iraq/Korean War). Yes 1:1. Yes, Hamas (and other fighters participating in the war) had over 35,000 militants. @joerogan @joeroganhq I’m more than happy to discuss where the numbers come from, any comparable situation, why all the destruction in Gaza, what else could have been done, no genocide, and more based on a decade of research and now 7 (about to be 8) trips into Gaza to directly observe the IDF during their operations against Hamas.

@usuallycringe @RichardHanania what am i supposed to do with this contradiciton

The moderator saying to Tracey “make your comments more general” has me shouting at my phone screen. The whole problem is that these dogshit Weinstein types get away with vague generalization slop without ever being challenged on specifics, and the moderator is trying to shut that down! Kill myself!

@mbenn92 @RichardHanania what am i supposed to do with this contradiction

@RichardHanania Tracey is over generalizing every critique he has of Bret and using that as a weapon to humiliate him in a ‘debate’ format in which it isn’t possible to give a short and timed explanation to provide merit to his thinking. You’ve got it completely backwards.

I recently did an interview when I was in Jerusalem and dropped a concept I've been working on for a bit (with a podcast of my own forthcoming). That concept is this: The Israel Question My case is that before WWII and the Holocaust and the re-establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, almost everywhere in the world, and certainly Europe, was consumed with something called "The Jewish Question." After WWII, the Holocaust, and the re-establishment of the state of Israel, the Jewish Question rightly became unaskable* because its intrinsic evil was deeply recognized (*except in Islamist states). Because of these two things: 1) The Jewish Question becoming unaskable in civilized society; and 2) The state of Israel being re-established, I insist that the Jewish Question got relocated to something I call "the Israel Question." All the "just asking questions" crap we hear today is just asking the Israel Question. So what is it? We start with the Jewish Question. What is "the Jewish Question"? The Jewish Question is "what do we do with the Jews, on the presumption that we don't want them?" It is intrinsically antisemitic and shouldn't have taken the Holocaust to show how bad it is. Why is that presumption part of the question, which has historically been framed merely as "what do we do with the Jews?"? The reason is simple: if your answer to "what do we do with the Jews?" is roughly "let them be part of our society with freedom to be themselves," you wouldn't ask the question about what to do with them at all. The question wouldn't just be unasked because there's a ready answer; it would be moot and irrelevant. There's no need to ask the question at all unless you see Jews as a problem to begin with. Thus, the question rests on that presumption ("we don't want them (here)") and is intrinsically antisemitic. So that's the Jewish Question: What do we do with the Jews, on the presumption that we don't want them (here)? Different people proposed different answers throughout history. The Romans didn't want them in "Palestine" anymore and chased them into Diaspora in AD 70-74, for example. Martin Luther suggested horrible things in the 1530s after he kinda went nuts in his latest years. Karl Marx suggested you make them not Jewish anymore, and preferably Communist, and the problem solves itself because they're not Jewish anymore but Communist comrades. Hitler suggested first to relocate them all to Madagascar and, upon recognizing that's ridiculous and impossible, the "Final Solution," which was to find and murder ALL of them, in order to rid Europe of them entirely. Again, my case is that we don't ask the Jewish Question anymore in civilized parts of the world because we recognize it as being not just antisemitic but a gateway to hell. The Jewish Question is anathema in modern civilized societies. Roughly at the same time as humanity finally started that realization baldly in the face, the state of Israel re-established itself in its historical homeland. Not only is this good on its own, but it also provides a failsafe should the morality slip and the Jewish Question arise in earnest again. With Israel, and its IDF and thus the ability to defend themselves at need, Jews can make aliyah and escape any society that decides to ask the JQ and thus reopen the gates to hell within its own borders. And good luck dealing with the IDF, as history has shown. Thus arose a replacement question, a proxy for the Jewish Question that could be asked even though the JQ was off the table: the Israel Question. What is the Israel Question? Simple: "What do we do with Israel, on the presumption that we don't want it (not just there, but anywhere)?" The Israel Question seems distinct from the Jewish Question, and on technicality (but not in substance) it is. This allows the Israel Question to pose itself as a high-minded, fully socially acceptable geopolitical topic of debate instead of the rank antisemitism that it's actually serving. The Israel Question is "just asking questions" about the state of Israel and its role in the world (on the presumption that we don't want it, thus the relentless impossible standards Israel is held to under its gaze). It's very high-minded. It's just global politics, you know. The Israel Question takes forms like -whether Israel destabilizes the Middle East by its mere presence, -if Israel is really legally entitled to be there at all, -if Israel defending itself against its hostile neighbors is a form of implicit aggression that causes secondary problems like mass migration, -whether Israel should be forced to share its land with people who want to kill Jews because they are Jews and do impossible things to make it work even when it cannot work by definition, -whether Israel is really defending itself or just starting random wars, -if Israel's military (IDF) or intelligence service (the Mossad) secretly controls other countries including its putative allies, -whether Israel is really a good ally or an ally at all to the countries with which it is in alliance, -if Israel has secret ambitions to illegally conquer foreign lands for its own and force, coerce, blackmail, or trick other nations to do its dirty work in the process, -if Israel deserves any kind of aid packages, moneys, or alliances and if it actually deserves to exist if any such things help its security, -and on, and on, and on. See, these questions aren't about JEWS. They're just high-minded geopolitical questions about Israel and its role in the world. But these "just asking questions" questions are the Israel Question in disguise: ultimately, what do we do with Israel, on the presumption that we don't want it? The Israel Question, and its "just asking questions" disguises, again, simply don't exist without the presumption of not wanting Israel. If your answer to "what do we do with Israel?" is "treat it like any other sovereign nation," there's no impetus to ask the Israel Question at all, and many of its disguises are moot too. All of them are moot once the impossible standard lurking beneath them is exposed, and that impossible standard is the hidden Israel Question. The thing is, the Israel Question is just the Jewish Question by proxy, though. The question is ultimately "what do we do with the one place Jews can unequivocally defend themselves, presuming we don't want such a place?" (Again, if that presumption isn't there, there's no reason for the question and thus no question to begin with.) In other words, the Israel Question is still "what do we do with Jews, presuming we don't want them?" with only the slightest caveat in possibility but only very rarely in intention. Of course, the presumption of the Jewish Question is called "antisemitism," as we already discussed, which makes the Jewish Question itself antisemitic. Similarly, the presumption of the Israel Question is called "anti-Zionism," as should be obvious, which makes the Israel Question itself anti-Zionist. But the Israel Question is the Jewish Question by proxy, so the underlying anti-Zionism is antisemitism by proxy too. We spend a lot of time these days seeing not just the reinvigoration of the anathema Jewish Question itself but far more the Israel Question, which would rob the JQ of its failsafe, which the Jews call making aliyah. And we're supposed to tolerate it and pretend it's just high-minded policy discussion about big geopolitical matters that are detached enough not to be immoral, or, in some cases, people fool themselves into believing that first. We flatter ourselves with high-minded platitudes like, "of course anyone should be able to question the activities any state at any time" or "of course people should be allowed to criticize and question a government," as though those are actually what the Israel Question is about. Yes, "of course," those things are on the table, and every Israeli debates them daily, but not on the presumption that Israel's existence is not actually wanted. This is why the formal definition of antisemitism is correct to name holding Israel to an impossible standard or one beyond that any other nation would be held to when discussing matters of its sovereignty, existence, security, or role in the world. It is right to name what amounts to the Israel Question as antisemitism because it is antisemitism, only thinly veiled. We should learn to recognize the Israel Question for what it is, both for the evil, potentially genocidal antisemitism it actually expresses and for its presentation as a hidden presumption tucked underneath seemingly high-minded, fair-game "just asking questions" questions. The rise of the Israel Question is the rise of the Jewish Question by proxy, and the response to the Jewish Question we have all understood as moral bedrock for civilized societies is "never again." Thus, the response to the Israel Question is also "never again." In light of its undeniable and rampant rise, it is therefore wholly appropriate and necessary to take the bold, righteous, and courageous stand of our time. Join me in saying, then, NEVER AGAIN IS NOW!