Facing some weird antizionism, politicized wrongly, on Substack

NOTE: As regular readers know, I am of course very much a Zionist myself. I am also a political leftist, albeit a skeptical one, including of claims of leftists at times. Finally, I'm a secularist with a graduate theological degree, which gets us to the facts of the matter.

I had decided to follow this Emmanuel Goldstein, which surely is not his actual name, but rather lifted from "1984," per Wiki, after some comments by him on The Dissident, followed by him following me.

I noticed many of his posts were rants without coherence. Then, a May 15 piece about Zechariah 9-14 dropped other masks, namely:

It is important to study chapters 9-14 of Zechariah as a cohesively unified narrative and not as two further-subdivided designations of “Deutero-Zechariah” and “Trito-Zechariah” argued by scoffing “higher critics” denying divine inspiration. ...

The fact all of Zechariah was authored by Zechariah the (grand)son4 of Iddo is provable, but unfortunately for brevity’s sake that’s not a topic for today. The specific canard peddled by the “higher critics” worthy of refuting here is their “Trito-Zechariah” theory positing” chapters 12-14 is completely different from 9-11.” ...

The mainstream realm of bogus “hermeneutical study” paving the way for a racially literalized Zionist-Nazi misapplication of Zech. 13:8-9 necessitates these escalating steps of unbiblically outrageous total disregard for the Hebrew Jewish scriptures inspired by the direction of Almighty God

OK, this secularist with a graduate theological degree isn't standing for that. Beyond this fundagelical being wrong (the piece comes off like he swallowed a fundagelical commentary or a non-KJV version of something like a Scofield Reference Bible), the last paragraph claiming that critical scholarship is all in the service of Zionism is bullshit.

BULLSHIT.  I did not "restack with a note," but instead, independently posted, this, with link:

I am one of those scoffing “higher critics,” and this piece may be the last straw in leading me to unfollow Goldstein again. That’s even more true where, at the end of the piece, he shows himself to be a fundagelical Christian of some sort, and “May be” has now become “will.” His writings on the current situation in the Middle East use language more turbulent than in this piece (seriously) and that last paragraph puts some of them in a new light. I suspect that he’s one of these Messianic Christians, like Joey Dauben of my long-ago knowledge, who does things like Jesus-based Passover Seders even though seders didn’t exist at the time of Jesus and also that, per some scholarship, he might not have been killed on Passover week anyway.

It drew comment from him, to which I doubled down (NOT quoting him here):

I am actually one of “those people” myself. I’m a secularist with a graduate theological degree, undergraduate degree in classical languages. Hebrew today is quite rusty, but biblical Greek not totally so (nor classical or ecclesiastical Latin).

This is not to argue that Zionism is not somewhat distorted. It is to argue that fundagelical Christianity is just as much so, to put it bluntly, without getting into arguments about various types of millennialism, or amillenialism or anything else (per fundamentalist versions of old mainline Calvinists and Lutherans vs modern evangelicals).

And, that's that.

I had, even before the "unfollow" decision, noted that the actual URL is "adversusbabylon." So, is Zionism the "beast"? Or is this guy a fundamentalist Calvinist or Lutheran for whom the papacy is the beast? I discounted that because he has nothing along those lines, at first. But I looked again. Take this piece:

The Jesuits used Freemasonic British intelligence to propagate the “Christian Zionist”/dispensationalist doctrine to the Protestants that “the Jews” must collectively gather in Palestine as a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ

So, he doesn't attack the papacy, but Jesuitical thought? Even though the Jesuits weren't created until after Brother Martin Luther's death, otherwise, that's exactly the type of shit he said. And, having seen the Lutefash eruption in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, while this guy bashes what he calls "fascism," he might actually like certain elements of actual fascism. (Actually, per this piece blathering about dialecticist issues, he's as likely, or more likely, to be a thrown-off Trot, or Hoxha-ist [think about it] as anything.)

And, while he differs from Luther and Calvin in calling the papacy the antichrist, he fuses that with elements of their thought and modern American fundagelicalism:

This second beast/False Prophet, by the way, is the United States (the first beast is the Holy Roman Empire)

And that is followed by this:

All roads lead right back to Rome.

OK, at this point, he is all over the milennialist map. That said, Luther missed a beat, with his antisemitic ravings plus his claim the papacy was antichrist, by not claiming the papacy was under Jewish control. Call this "Jewish incense burners" or "Jewish Mass transubstantiation bells" instead of "Jewish space lasers."

I am trying to relate this to his broader political stances. My best guess, per this piece, is that if you take old time paleoconservative Walter Karp and ran him through some type of libertarian political filter plus a millennialist theological filter, you'd get this guy. And, that's a hugely toxic brew.

And, per the people he recommends? Michael Ginsberg follows 9/11 "truthers." "The Straight Juice" has a "plandemic" type note at the top of their feed as of May 15.)

Beyond that? Per this piece, I don't know what he "is," but he's anti-third party. (And, Ken Silverstein accused ME of political moral purity.)  And, the rest of that piece is scary / batshit crazy, starting with the claim that "Luigi Mangione" (his scare quotes and yes he means them as such) is controlled opposition.

And, other than the above? A few additional notes.

First, posting THIS at this length at this piece:

For simplicity sake—because the philosophical word salads of Marxist and Fascist rabble-rousers are too headachingly atrocious to further sift through and dissect—all you need to know is that Hegelian dialectic is grounded on preservation of the status quo and therefore fundamentally “right-wing,” preserving the core of a reactionary construct perpetually. (this is why Fascism is based on “regular” Hegelianism in contrast to Marxism which inverts it—the two are ideologically opposed in their structural application of the dialectic) If the “standard” trajectory of Hegelian dialectic as represented in Fascism points “rightward,” then an inversion turning it “right side up” therefore points “left” on the political spectrum.

When everything you write yourself is word salad, is pots and kettles.

Second, neither Marx nor Engels was Zionist, nor religiously observant Jews. Lenin has bits of Jewish ethnic heritage, but never claimed to be Jewish either religiously nor ethnically. Stalin was totally NOTA on this. 

Third, back to the Zechariah piece? Calling the Magen David a "hexagram," by appearing to me to play on "pentagram," probably goes past anti-Zionism and into antisemitism.

And with that, I've wasted more than enough time on this dude and will probably block him at some point in the near future. (In case his degree of cyberstalking is more than it first appears to be, I didn't do that immediately.) 

Dude never did answer about his actual religious beliefs, but, yeah, I could see him being in the same neighborhood as the Lutefash.

A secular spiritual experience while hiking and birding

Actually, it’s not the first such experience. Two years ago, high in the San Juan Mountains in Colorado, I came across this rock, with a cascade splashing over it. It reminded me of a similar view at Middle Emerald Pool in Zion National Park, to which I had already, some time after I got back home, attached the Buddha’s likely most famous phrase in a photo poster.

This time, it was just the second half of that phrase.

But, I also invented a word: “humaste.” It’s a secular version of “namaste.” It means something along the lines of “I salute, recognize and accept the human in you because of the human in me.” It’s secular, non-metaphysical, and unlike Gandhi’s use of “namaste” (or “harijan”) it’s not patronizing.

And, I had a third such experience while hiking locally. No need to go to Zion or the San Juans. And, no inanimate rock involved this time.

After getting newspapers done for the week, and more unwinding with having worked over the weekend to finish a graduation special section, I went out to the local town's city lake again, as I had the previous two Saturdays.

Two Saturdays ago, I had hiked a fair chunk of the longest trail, coming from the south, the main access area. This time I hiked the north end. Getting near to where I had come up from the south two Saturdays ago, I saw the spot where I had turned around.

But, I didn't immediately see something else.

Imagine this beautiful lady of a red-tailed hawk (looks too big for a male) standing, STANDING, in the middle of a trail no more than 8 feet or so, 2.5 meters, away when you notice it. Imagine having to zoom OUT with your telephoto zoom because it overfills the frame. Imagine changing angles to get different sun, and work around the grass, and it NOT MOVING other than moving its head to track you. Imagine watching it for 15 minutes, between original photos, walking around side to side, more photos, then talking to it, then even shooting a bit of video, with a clip here, too. I told it "humaste" when it started to hop off in the grass.  

 

I have asked a friend on Shitter, former US Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, if they have any "why" information from their background, since asking "why" is part of human nature. I haven't heard back yet, but will update as available.

An online and in-person non-local friend who's an even more avid hiker than me thought maybe a very close nearby nest was the answer, in a hawk's "stand your ground" world. Possible, I guess, but to me, it doesn't seem likely.

Another online friend, a birder of some sort herself, wondered if it might be due to injury. Possible. I never saw it fly, only ground-hop. 

Red-tailed hawks, like some other raptors, can make a kill that is too heavy to lift back to a nest, something like a large jackrabbit. But, there's no blood on the beak, and as far as I could tell, none on the talons.

In any case, folks, it is possible to be delighted and challenged and, in a non-metaphysical sense, spiritually stimulated by nature, even without diving coral reefs or other higher-dollar adventures. (It wasn't a spiritual experience at the time, and I wouldn't call it that today, but a "bucket list" item? Walking on a glacier years ago at Jasper National Park.) 

I’m trying to work in more non-political stuff on occasion here. And, this, by getting outside of politics entirely, certainly fits the “non-twosider” angle. As part of that, spread the word and idea of “humaste,” please. Also remember that human beings do have free will and that, in some sense, the spiritual blessing of “humaste” has to be in part earned. This isn’t Martin Luther’s sola gratia.

Texas Progressives talk this and that

Off the Kuff talks approval ratings and early polls, because 2026 will be here before you know it.

SocraticGadfly read about Brainworm Bobby swimming in Rock Creek and riffed on Simon and Garfunkel.

Five DAs sue Kenny Boy Paxton over what certainly seems to be politically-driven snooping.

Janis Jack vs the Texas foster care system could go to the Supreme Court.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project posted that all elected officals, & all Houston police officers, take an oath to the Constitution. We must hold all who take that oath to that standard in critical days ahead.

The Observer names the current leader in the "Worst Person in the Legislature" sweepstakes.

Deceleration offers a grim welcome to the dog days of summer.

Franklin Strong illustrates what the latest legislative attack on literature would mean for Texas students.

The Current tracks Republican legislators' obsession with online conspiracy theories.

In the Pink Texas makes the "Snakes on a Plane" joke that was right there for the rest of us

 The TPA wishes Jenny Lawson all the best. We will try to come up with a fart joke or something for the next time.

Cactus Ed Abbey would cringe at the DFW Metroplex

The fact that Metromess exurb Princeton is over 35,000 people shows in a nutshell all the manifold things wrong with much of modern Merikkka. Cactus Ed Abbey was 127 percent right with "growth for growth's sake is the theology of the cancer cell." 

Mushrooming suburbs are bad enough. Mushrooming exurbs are horrible.

Next comes demands for widened highways so these people can commute to Wylie, Allen, Mesquite, Rockwall or wherever they should live.

Then comes the bitching when other folks move out to exurbia after them and they find out they can't pull the ladder up behind them.

After that comes the bitching when their formerly small-town school district gets overwhelmed and needs new buildings, but Joe and Jane Exurb won't vote for a bond issue.

Next comes the cringe when the school district deteriorates because of vouchers, courtesy of the Gov. Strangeabbott and Lite Gov. Dannie Goeb they voted for.

Princeton in specific? I remember, per Wiki, when it was a wide spot in the road of 3K people. That said, it looks like the escapees aren't so White as the long-ago population.

Shit, I remember when McKinney was a small town and Melissa and Anna were wide spots in the road.

Time for a new post about the wrongs of Gordon Bonnet aka Skeptophilia

I had debated about whether or not to add him to my updated blog roll. He's a good writer, which shows through in his pieces. But, as I've noted here before, on issues that generally involve something metaphysical, while he "presents" as a skeptic, he isn't always totally that way in enthusiasm.

And, sometimes, he's just wrong.

April 9: It's news to me that yuccas allegedly aren't native to the US. Rather? Per Wiki, the reality is that many species of yucca, including the Joshua tree, are indeed native. Given that he's been wrong about matters biological before (even though being a retired high school Advanced Placement-level science teacher) this is not surprising.

April 10: He omits French (wrongly, per Wiki, and weirdly per his own ethnicity) from the top eight languages of the world.

May 8: Calling cynicism no better than gullibility is a laugher. It's also a misframing of cynicism. Good cynicism is not universal, it's subject-specific, and like a generalization vs a stereotype, is based on a reasonably honest assessment of a whole class as a class. Like politicians. And, the fact that Bonnet chose C.S. Lewis as source for his examples in this piece is yet another illustration that his skepticism isn't as rigorous as it could be or as he thinks it is.

May 10: No, Pope Leo I (the Great) did NOT NOT NOT convoke the Council of Chalcedon. Per the Wikipedia link in his own piece, Eastern Roman (not yet Byzantine) Emperor Marcian, NOT Leo, called the council. In general, popes were pretty much ignored by all seven of the "ecumenical" councils. I had commented on his Facebook on No. 2, but not 1 and 3, and debated this one, but eventually did so, using my profile page set up for my blogging, not my personal page.

The real issue is that Bonnet, while LOL-ing on Laura Loomer's "woke Marxist pope" missed the real issues, such as Prevost's role in Catholic clergy sexual abuse covering up and more:

I wish all the best to this century's Pope Leo. Like I said, he looks like a great choice, and a lot of my Catholic friends seem happy with him

You need to ask your presumably church-librul Catholic friends about what's at my link. I don't go openly looking to bash the religious impulse myself, either, but I don't cut blank checks to religious facts on the ground, either.

May 16: At least he redeems himself with honesty, per me having wondered once if he was a closeted believer.

In fact, for a skeptic, I have to admit I'm pretty damn suggestible.

There we are.

BUT?

One more goof and I'll drop him from my updated blogroll.

Euphemism creep and immigration — and politicization issues

First, "euphemism creep", or the "euphemism treadmill," per Steven Pinker is a real thing. James McWhorter has also written much about it.

It's when a euphemism replaces a no-longer acceptable term, but soon enough becomes no longer acceptable itself.

Think "handicapped" being replaced by "disabled," then that becoming not acceptable and it being replaced by "differently abled." Some day in the not too distant future, because of the word "differently," that will be replaced as well.

This is a field with enough to mine that I am going to write about this on various spots, including my philosophy and critical thinking blog. But, there as here, I'll use the same starting point — Substacker Corey Hutchins talking about how different media outlets in Colorado struggle (or maybe "struggle" with scare quotes intended) on how to talk about "people who aren't supposed to be here," or if I need scare quotes inside that, "people who aren't 'supposed' to be here."

Or, per old friend Brains, who used it non-disparagingly? "Ill Eagles." 

Here, it's not just ground-level, but, in media, an official style issue, as the Associated Press long ago said both "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" aren't allows.

I agree for sure with the word "alien." That said, quoting Hutchins, I disagree with the AP already trying to get ahead of euphemism creep three years ago.

“We don’t use the terms illegal immigrant, unauthorized immigrant, irregular migrant, alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented (except when quoting people or documents that use these terms),” the AP wrote. “Many immigrants and migrants have some sort of documents, but not the necessary ones.”

As I said in a comment to Hutchins, why not just add "allegedly" in front of "undocumented immigrants"? 

Per that Shitter link, the AP does offer alternatives. But? Most of them are kind of cumbersome, which undercuts the usefulness of language.

Also, per the authors I cited at the top of the page, this issue tends to get politicized. And, it's usually "conservatives" vs "liberals." Setting aside L/libertarians and some Green types who claim to be neither right nor left, the politicized polarity also ignores friendly skeptical non-liberal leftists.

In my first comment, Hutchins noted that I had used the word "roundup" and he had edited it out of his post, when thinking about using it, as dehumanizing. I noted that I've seen "roundup" in places like a "kindergarten roundup" at a local school district.

I also commented, in a short bit lower in his post, about a Denver TV news anchor wearing a tie from a Soviet journalist to make a statement about the Russia-Ukraine War. I first noted the fact that, pre-invasion, Zelensky was already restricting press freedom in Ukraine. I then referenced Gaza. Hutchins didn't refer to either one.

And, with that, it strikes me that he's probably framing this in a politicized sense, and within the conservative-liberal axis, or, within the two-party duopoly axis.

To me, right-thinking (NO pun, intended or unintended!) people in general should step outside that box. And, media shouldn't step into that box in general.

We all should move beyond language that's harmful, but at the same time:

• Recognize the euphemism treadmill is real;
• Avoid politicization;
• Accept we won't please everybody;
• And, per Humpty Dumpty, never let language be the master. 

And, that's that.