When I woke up this morning if someone said The Spanish Inquisition I would have thought of the Monty Python sketch and not much more. Now you’ve connected it in my brain to — let’s call it a nexus — through your article which was clearly not aimed at any nexus, and frankly denies that any such nexus could actually exist.
I’m joking here. I think. This latest note was fire and reminds me why I am a paid member. God bless you DC.
It’s usually hard to hate the accountant down the hall, which makes me think of Darryl’s argument about localism.
I live in a place where most people swing left politically, and I’ve heard a few people say that they met a Trump supporter who was really nice. “I liked her!” There’s confusion and vulnerability in allowing the reality of other people to challenge your fantasies. That’s why I appreciate it when Darryl says, “Sorry to disappoint you.”
This is one of the most beautifully written articles I've ever read. Daryl somehow pulls off a devil's advocate inspired good-cop/bad-cop from both sides of the perspective. This is an article that would resonate with user @Uncle-A and Nikki Haley because it portrays both side's perspective so eloquently.
Well see there's a reason I really like Teresa of Avila. She could even be a cousin, who knows? The niece of my great-grandma always said our family--Ukrainian-born all--originally came from Holland so I assume we came from far westerly lands before that.
Darryl, I keep saying it, and maybe it's getting tiresome, but I love you so much. You and Eugyppius are my very most favoritest explainers. Not just the explaining but the elegant simplicity of the prose.
[editing to clarify that *that* generation was all Ukrainian-born. My parents wuz Noo Yawkuhs.]
Best in the business does it again. Thanks for the article!
Would love to hear how closely you and your friend align on Israel’s involvement in the three big ones you mentioned in the article? 9/11 ~ I think you said on Twitter once that elements of their intelligence apparatus probably had foreknowledge but didn’t let us know? JFK ~ circumstantial evidence around Dimona inspections and FARA registration? RFK ~tying up loose ends, and bogus ballistics from that night ?
Personally I think 9/11 was aspects of our government purposely ignoring warnings from the Mossad among others, so of course the Mossad tipped off their friends when they realized our government wasn't going to do anything about it. See Sybil Edmunds and the FBI. Don't think that Israel had anything to do with the Kennedys. Now Epstein on the other hand...
The wait, as usual, was worth it. Thanks for this. I plowed through Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade (well reviewed by John Thornton) and nothing you have said here surprises me. I find it downright silly to question Jewish participation in fields of enterprise not closed to them because of their religion and often open to them precisely because of their religion. Thomas' seemingly pointless digressions into a brother's camel hair business in Istanbul and many such family connections detailed in his massive book finally come together into what you so finely describe, a massive trade network at times dominated by groups interrelated through several features including religion, and not only Jews. If Christianity had required its young men to become literate, history may have been different.
BTW, living in AZ so long I was spooked by the New Mexico Converso/Marrano mystery; unknowlingly practicing a religion of one's ancestors and only the cognoscenti could suss out the truth. All in all, your handling of an extremely prickly topic (I got told I was edging into anti-Semitism for suggesting someone with exquisite Neocon views was a Neocon). You are a model for anyone venturing into these waters.
BTW, I have two of Davis' books on my shelf, both titled The Problem of Slavery in...... both unread, Which one should I start with?
Good overall article Daryl. Though people will accuse you of using nuance, not to enlightened but to obfuscate and manipulate. Of course this is not the case. What many people who obsess over this question fail to realize is that there is not A Faction there are Factions that rule us and everywhere else. (not even mentioning the factions within factions) which hobbles you in any real politic manner, either you don't see the factions or you see only a monolith. Not taking advantage of any schisms that might rise within the coalitions. If you hate the way America is going watch and pray and then take advantage when the political opportunity presents itself because it will. Because coalitions are inherently unstable.
DC: In all of your free time, could you please someday do an article on the Macedonia Risorta and the Committee for Union and Progress? I have read a bit of academic research on the topic which is incredibly interesting, but unfortunately I don't have the time nor knowledge to fully investigate, and I'm pretty sure I know 0 people who could discuss it rationally...
Genuine question, i thought recent historians have admitted that the idea of a savage and torturous inquisition was mostly untrue. I believe the number is that only 3-5k out 150k trials(according to wiki) people were sentenced to death in the inquisitory courts over span of 300 years, and that torture methods that caused physical bodily harm was prohibited. Thus making it the most lenient judicial court in Europe at the time. So much so that criminals would try to blaspheme to be tried under an inquisitory court system rather than secular court. Mob violence seemed to be the biggest killer not the court itself. Another example, the classic iron maiden used to visually denote the savagery of the inquisition never actually existed. Any clarification here?
I think that number is only for the Spanish Inquisition. Plus for every one sentenced to death, many more were merely tortured, humiliated, and stripped of their property. I would say that its barbarism has been overplayed by earlier historians and in the popular mind, but the reaction against earlier exaggerations shouldn’t lead us to downplay it altogether.
It is worth mentioning that torture was an accepted method of interrogation everywhere in the world at the time, so the Inquisition’s victims were not getting anything special. Also, this was a time when the death penalty was handed out for what we would consider extremely trivial offenses - the English executed something like 1-1.5% of every generation for a couple hundred years. Heresy was punishable by burning everywhere, and, if anything, the Spanish and Portuguese may have had better reasons than others, given their suspicion of subversives in the aftermath of the Reconquista.
Heresy was punishable by burning if you were a public heretic trying to spread heresy after the Church had publicly ordered you to desist from spreading heresy. It was a far cry from the (Anglican propaganda based) image in the public imagination of some clerical Cheka sniffing around villages for unorthodox thinkers to immolate (not that I'm accusing of you of claiming that, just clarifying).
Fabulous article as always. I’d love to see a future piece on the Jewish influence on the French Revolution. It seems fair to point out the Jewish leadership in some of the biggest idealogical movements in human history (eg Christianity, Communism). In each case I believe the Jews’ support was driven by a genuine humanitarian sentiment, but these movements were ultimately hijacked - and each turned extraordinarily violent. It’s hard not to see the same patterns in the evolution of the Woke movement.
Clemson’s “professors” have been very likely promoted and awarded with profitable sinecures (like all players in the Russia-gate hoax) — while there are hundreds of “antisemitic” professors “cleansed” from universities for expressing concern about Gaza.
Gaza concentration camp, where now huge scale genocide (500,000) is fully confirmed, Oct 7 hoax about beheaded and microwaved babies disclosed, IDF artillery and helicopter mass killing of its own Jewish population fully confirmed, large scale extreme tortures of Palestinian more and more confirmed, etc., etc.
Expressing concerns ey? Sorry buddy but they are Marxist islamists many with ties to the very people who committed the crimes you say are hoaxed. Are you a student for justice in Palestine? Where is your incontrovertible evidence of genocide? 500,00 you say, where are the photos of mass graves dude?
Fuck where to begin with this, I mean how far did the judge fall? He hit his head for sure. All I can say is don’t do drugs. Are you Russkiy mir by any chance?
Yeah problems arise whenever people try to assign collective guilt. In mainstream America the most common example is treatments of 'white people'. They look back through American history and say look how many bad things were done by white people. And the problem is sure, white people did bad things; but not all white people did them, and most white people had no ability to stop what was done. Just like most American citizens had no ability to prevent the Iraq war, unless you imagine them acting as a unified collective, which isn't the way things work. Most people aren't activists going out to protest all the time or calling their representatives.
Even if they did, would it do any good? The American system is very good at funneling outrage into acceptable channels. Tens of thousands of people protested the second invasion of Iraq, and it steamrolled ahead anyway.
That's a good point. I'm not sure. Makes me think of James Burnham and political philosophy along those lines. We may have 350 million people or so, but in reality a small number are deciding things. There's no easy way for a politician to be sure if what the public broadly thinks, especially in complex situations. Even if they were totally pure and good and wanting to do what the public wanted. Not to let them off the hook but I think it's true.
Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together will apparently be officially translated to English and be released in 2025, according to The Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Center's website. I'll definitely read it and hope DC will give his thoughts on it eventually.
Anyone who points to this idea that Jews controlled the slave trade is either ignorant or is acting in bad faith. Ignorance can be fixed, but anyone else making this false argument is a good way to filter out those who cannot be reasoned with.
On the off-chance Darryl is still checking comments, I have a couple post- October 7 questions regarding the semantics of the debate rather than any underlying facts:
1) Other than the word 'antisemitic' being thrown around way too loosely, I find it has essentially lost whatever meaning it may have originally conveyed (racism against Semitic peoples), in that all parties in the current conflict are Semitic peoples and the anti-Israel position of the left is certainly not coming from a racial angle (and in fact uses the much-clearer 'anti-Zionist'). What would be a better word for the modern day description of people who bear prejudicial animus toward Jewish people? 'Anti-Jewish'?
2) The descriptors 'Jew' and derivatives thereof are the only ones that I am aware of that refer to an ethnic group of people as well as the religion of the majority(?) of those people. I find that this lack of delineation allows for ambiguities during debates on the topic, where one person's intent is usually one category while the other person argues in the other category and the result is a giant mess. Why do you think this distinction has not been made in the modern day when the two groups (ethnic and religious Jews) are no longer essentially identical sets? (My understanding is that for strongly religious Jews they are and will forever be identical sets, but I would think that would be a minority position among modern Jews.)
Thanks for your insight, and of course great continuation of the series in this article.
Called code switching. Allows criticism to be labeled racism, but their own prejudicial opinions to be religious freedom. To be clear, it's not unique to Jews.
When I woke up this morning if someone said The Spanish Inquisition I would have thought of the Monty Python sketch and not much more. Now you’ve connected it in my brain to — let’s call it a nexus — through your article which was clearly not aimed at any nexus, and frankly denies that any such nexus could actually exist.
I’m joking here. I think. This latest note was fire and reminds me why I am a paid member. God bless you DC.
It’s usually hard to hate the accountant down the hall, which makes me think of Darryl’s argument about localism.
I live in a place where most people swing left politically, and I’ve heard a few people say that they met a Trump supporter who was really nice. “I liked her!” There’s confusion and vulnerability in allowing the reality of other people to challenge your fantasies. That’s why I appreciate it when Darryl says, “Sorry to disappoint you.”
It's much easier to hate "them" than it is Bob the accountant.
The internet really magnifies the ability we have to other the other.
Although saying that, we were clearly pretty good at it in ancient times too.. at least Reps and Dems aren't burning each other alive.. yet
This is one of the most beautifully written articles I've ever read. Daryl somehow pulls off a devil's advocate inspired good-cop/bad-cop from both sides of the perspective. This is an article that would resonate with user @Uncle-A and Nikki Haley because it portrays both side's perspective so eloquently.
Well see there's a reason I really like Teresa of Avila. She could even be a cousin, who knows? The niece of my great-grandma always said our family--Ukrainian-born all--originally came from Holland so I assume we came from far westerly lands before that.
Darryl, I keep saying it, and maybe it's getting tiresome, but I love you so much. You and Eugyppius are my very most favoritest explainers. Not just the explaining but the elegant simplicity of the prose.
[editing to clarify that *that* generation was all Ukrainian-born. My parents wuz Noo Yawkuhs.]
Best in the business does it again. Thanks for the article!
Would love to hear how closely you and your friend align on Israel’s involvement in the three big ones you mentioned in the article? 9/11 ~ I think you said on Twitter once that elements of their intelligence apparatus probably had foreknowledge but didn’t let us know? JFK ~ circumstantial evidence around Dimona inspections and FARA registration? RFK ~tying up loose ends, and bogus ballistics from that night ?
Personally I think 9/11 was aspects of our government purposely ignoring warnings from the Mossad among others, so of course the Mossad tipped off their friends when they realized our government wasn't going to do anything about it. See Sybil Edmunds and the FBI. Don't think that Israel had anything to do with the Kennedys. Now Epstein on the other hand...
Classic Darryl: “The story begins in 1492. Let me start several centuries before that, with the Visigoths.” Very good piece.
The wait, as usual, was worth it. Thanks for this. I plowed through Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade (well reviewed by John Thornton) and nothing you have said here surprises me. I find it downright silly to question Jewish participation in fields of enterprise not closed to them because of their religion and often open to them precisely because of their religion. Thomas' seemingly pointless digressions into a brother's camel hair business in Istanbul and many such family connections detailed in his massive book finally come together into what you so finely describe, a massive trade network at times dominated by groups interrelated through several features including religion, and not only Jews. If Christianity had required its young men to become literate, history may have been different.
BTW, living in AZ so long I was spooked by the New Mexico Converso/Marrano mystery; unknowlingly practicing a religion of one's ancestors and only the cognoscenti could suss out the truth. All in all, your handling of an extremely prickly topic (I got told I was edging into anti-Semitism for suggesting someone with exquisite Neocon views was a Neocon). You are a model for anyone venturing into these waters.
BTW, I have two of Davis' books on my shelf, both titled The Problem of Slavery in...... both unread, Which one should I start with?
They’re both great. Thomas book is great too… but it’s a slog at times, for sure.
Good overall article Daryl. Though people will accuse you of using nuance, not to enlightened but to obfuscate and manipulate. Of course this is not the case. What many people who obsess over this question fail to realize is that there is not A Faction there are Factions that rule us and everywhere else. (not even mentioning the factions within factions) which hobbles you in any real politic manner, either you don't see the factions or you see only a monolith. Not taking advantage of any schisms that might rise within the coalitions. If you hate the way America is going watch and pray and then take advantage when the political opportunity presents itself because it will. Because coalitions are inherently unstable.
It's like Randy Weaver said when asked if he had anything against Jews. "Which ones? There's at least eight different kinds."
DC: In all of your free time, could you please someday do an article on the Macedonia Risorta and the Committee for Union and Progress? I have read a bit of academic research on the topic which is incredibly interesting, but unfortunately I don't have the time nor knowledge to fully investigate, and I'm pretty sure I know 0 people who could discuss it rationally...
Thanks again as always for the detailed article
I’m being serious and am commenting with good will and in good faith. I’m not an uncleadolf1488 type respecter either:
The organized jewish community, the diaspora and their behavior have been a disaster for Western Civilization.
I’ll take the “scarlet letter” as a badge of honor. This is my goddamn country after all and I’ll say whatever I believe to be true.
Sometimes the memes and JQ talking points are low IQ and go a little off the deep end, sure.
But in my opinion the undisputed heavyweight champ of them is the 109 meme.
“It’s everyone else’s fault except theirs.” Yeah, I highly doubt that.
As the popular rap song at the moment goes: They not like us.
Genuine question, i thought recent historians have admitted that the idea of a savage and torturous inquisition was mostly untrue. I believe the number is that only 3-5k out 150k trials(according to wiki) people were sentenced to death in the inquisitory courts over span of 300 years, and that torture methods that caused physical bodily harm was prohibited. Thus making it the most lenient judicial court in Europe at the time. So much so that criminals would try to blaspheme to be tried under an inquisitory court system rather than secular court. Mob violence seemed to be the biggest killer not the court itself. Another example, the classic iron maiden used to visually denote the savagery of the inquisition never actually existed. Any clarification here?
I think that number is only for the Spanish Inquisition. Plus for every one sentenced to death, many more were merely tortured, humiliated, and stripped of their property. I would say that its barbarism has been overplayed by earlier historians and in the popular mind, but the reaction against earlier exaggerations shouldn’t lead us to downplay it altogether.
It is worth mentioning that torture was an accepted method of interrogation everywhere in the world at the time, so the Inquisition’s victims were not getting anything special. Also, this was a time when the death penalty was handed out for what we would consider extremely trivial offenses - the English executed something like 1-1.5% of every generation for a couple hundred years. Heresy was punishable by burning everywhere, and, if anything, the Spanish and Portuguese may have had better reasons than others, given their suspicion of subversives in the aftermath of the Reconquista.
Heresy was punishable by burning if you were a public heretic trying to spread heresy after the Church had publicly ordered you to desist from spreading heresy. It was a far cry from the (Anglican propaganda based) image in the public imagination of some clerical Cheka sniffing around villages for unorthodox thinkers to immolate (not that I'm accusing of you of claiming that, just clarifying).
Fabulous article as always. I’d love to see a future piece on the Jewish influence on the French Revolution. It seems fair to point out the Jewish leadership in some of the biggest idealogical movements in human history (eg Christianity, Communism). In each case I believe the Jews’ support was driven by a genuine humanitarian sentiment, but these movements were ultimately hijacked - and each turned extraordinarily violent. It’s hard not to see the same patterns in the evolution of the Woke movement.
Thank you.
Clemson’s “professors” have been very likely promoted and awarded with profitable sinecures (like all players in the Russia-gate hoax) — while there are hundreds of “antisemitic” professors “cleansed” from universities for expressing concern about Gaza.
Gaza concentration camp, where now huge scale genocide (500,000) is fully confirmed, Oct 7 hoax about beheaded and microwaved babies disclosed, IDF artillery and helicopter mass killing of its own Jewish population fully confirmed, large scale extreme tortures of Palestinian more and more confirmed, etc., etc.
In memory of Aaron:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3zHB_-Alxf/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet
Expressing concerns ey? Sorry buddy but they are Marxist islamists many with ties to the very people who committed the crimes you say are hoaxed. Are you a student for justice in Palestine? Where is your incontrovertible evidence of genocide? 500,00 you say, where are the photos of mass graves dude?
I should be sending you checks for your consistent help goosing my engagement numbers
Darryl's alt account confirmed.
An update from Betlehem:
Moazaz Obaided (from Betlehem) -- https://x.com/Kahlissee/status/1810682065202946390
Let's just ignore the current video-streamed genocide:
https://x.com/mhdksafa/status/1811257659653246990
😂
Aaron Mate – Whitewashing Mass Murder
https://www.youtube.com/live/80xw8EpccQ4?si=pwrhaQM95ohbqMFT
Fuck where to begin with this, I mean how far did the judge fall? He hit his head for sure. All I can say is don’t do drugs. Are you Russkiy mir by any chance?
Yeah problems arise whenever people try to assign collective guilt. In mainstream America the most common example is treatments of 'white people'. They look back through American history and say look how many bad things were done by white people. And the problem is sure, white people did bad things; but not all white people did them, and most white people had no ability to stop what was done. Just like most American citizens had no ability to prevent the Iraq war, unless you imagine them acting as a unified collective, which isn't the way things work. Most people aren't activists going out to protest all the time or calling their representatives.
Even if they did, would it do any good? The American system is very good at funneling outrage into acceptable channels. Tens of thousands of people protested the second invasion of Iraq, and it steamrolled ahead anyway.
That's a good point. I'm not sure. Makes me think of James Burnham and political philosophy along those lines. We may have 350 million people or so, but in reality a small number are deciding things. There's no easy way for a politician to be sure if what the public broadly thinks, especially in complex situations. Even if they were totally pure and good and wanting to do what the public wanted. Not to let them off the hook but I think it's true.
Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together will apparently be officially translated to English and be released in 2025, according to The Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Center's website. I'll definitely read it and hope DC will give his thoughts on it eventually.
Anyone who points to this idea that Jews controlled the slave trade is either ignorant or is acting in bad faith. Ignorance can be fixed, but anyone else making this false argument is a good way to filter out those who cannot be reasoned with.
On the off-chance Darryl is still checking comments, I have a couple post- October 7 questions regarding the semantics of the debate rather than any underlying facts:
1) Other than the word 'antisemitic' being thrown around way too loosely, I find it has essentially lost whatever meaning it may have originally conveyed (racism against Semitic peoples), in that all parties in the current conflict are Semitic peoples and the anti-Israel position of the left is certainly not coming from a racial angle (and in fact uses the much-clearer 'anti-Zionist'). What would be a better word for the modern day description of people who bear prejudicial animus toward Jewish people? 'Anti-Jewish'?
2) The descriptors 'Jew' and derivatives thereof are the only ones that I am aware of that refer to an ethnic group of people as well as the religion of the majority(?) of those people. I find that this lack of delineation allows for ambiguities during debates on the topic, where one person's intent is usually one category while the other person argues in the other category and the result is a giant mess. Why do you think this distinction has not been made in the modern day when the two groups (ethnic and religious Jews) are no longer essentially identical sets? (My understanding is that for strongly religious Jews they are and will forever be identical sets, but I would think that would be a minority position among modern Jews.)
Thanks for your insight, and of course great continuation of the series in this article.
Called code switching. Allows criticism to be labeled racism, but their own prejudicial opinions to be religious freedom. To be clear, it's not unique to Jews.