I recently realized that Darryl Cooper is not only the most popular writer on Substack but also a widely influential figure online. Curious about his appeal, I decided to listen to him, and accidentally I fell right into his account of Jewish history and Christianity (I don't know if that's all he does). Despite approaching it with good faith, particularly when he opened with the phrase “as a Christian,” I found the experience painful and couldn't go on past 20 mins or so. Within 20 minutes, he arrived at the astonishing claim that “the central conflict in all the Gospels” was about the Jews finally accepting the Gentiles. This is simply false. I have no idea where Cooper derives his theology from, but it bears little resemblance to any serious reading of the texts. The Gospels are not structured around this all. Their central conflict concerns the identity of Jesus himself—his claim to messiahship and divine sonship—and that is what culminated in his crucifixion. If this is his approach to all topics, then the man is creating a whole alternative reality that is parasitic on this one. That's not at all different than what leftist scholars have been doing for decades.
It was only 20 mins but the whole thing was bizarre. His understanding of Christian theology is that god basically designed for himself a pedagogical journey so he might experience those little dramas of those little humans. So God basically is Faust, in it for the experience!! It's so stupid you feel its some stupid Hollywood kitsch.
What I find heartbreaking is that the man had the heart to call himself a Christian as he was quite blatantly sacrificing the very heart of Christian theology (who is Jesus?), unequivocally throwing it out, in order to replace it with what is clearly obsessive antisemitism.
This is happening in most museums I visited in the UK, Spain, and Germany. The informational plaques are often just exercises in narcissistic resentment talking about the white gaze, constructing whiteness, orientalizing, and all the cacophomisms that are clearly American in origin.
This was from the Thyssen museum in Madrid. Just read the bolded words
Currently, the Kurpfälzisches museum in Heidelberg has a special exhibition on Orientalism and the construction of whiteness. As a historical corrective, they staged portraits of a bunch of black people in European 16th-century attire to de-orientalize them. If I were black, I would have been very insulted.
There is a beautiful conflict that has been playing out between bourgeois Arabs whose path to white liberal status goes through the trauma of Western colonialism and others whose path to the same status goes through guilt over Islamic imperialism and terrorism.
Both paths ultimately involve achieving the same goal: elite liberal status, which is the contemporary form of whiteness. One strategy hinges on victimhood, the other on guilt. Still, both end up reinforcing the same liberal orthodoxy—essentially playing into the larger framework that privileges these narratives in the first place. They’re both trying to prove their worth to the same ideological gatekeepers but from different sides of the historical ledger.
Some less sophisticated ones are confused and alternate between both strategies. They don't quite get it.
I have a lot of reservations about the New Atheists, especially with their atheism as a socio-cultural and political project, but their atheism remains a thousand times more preferable and acceptable than the radical Feuerbachean atheism of Žižek and Marxist thinkers. 🧵
The former, while locked in a truly cartoonish understanding of religion and of the self, remains infinitely more honest and safer. It is very cartoonishness is indeed a testimony to its sincerity.
Its superficiality makes it much safer, like a child who thinks he built his treehouse all on his own and doesn't know that the work was actually done by his father. What the child thinks is of secondary importance to the fact that the treehouse is sturdy and safe for the child.
Israel should never concede real advantages in exchange for mere promises which their fulfillment is left to circumstance and good-will. The world of states is not determined by legal commitments or moral principles but by interest.
What determines the policy of the United States in the Middle East is not any moral or ideological considerations but how American interests in the region are conceived by Washington.
The only other considerations that historically qualified these considerations have always been the Jewish and later the Evangelical votes for the D and R respectively.
I have been engaged in pro-Israel circles for over a decade, watching them losing, and sadly only forseeing them to lose even more. The complete denial of the reality of what is the Palestinian Cause actually and the dogmatic insistance on making it /1 newyorker.com/news/annals-of…
exclusively an Islamist/Jihadist issue, a rude intruder on pristine Western political life, the only instance in which the American liberal Jewish establishment actually links up with hawkish conservatives, is both the result of complete mystification of reality as well as /2
the ideological refusal of aknowledging the reality of the tent in which one made their bed. Making it a foreign import of an exotic type of fascism from faraway lands, can make us comfortably delinate identity boundaries in which the forces of civilization and Western glamor /3