Richard Landes’ definitions: own-goal journalism
Richard Landes is a brilliant writer (and a friend of mine), and I urge you to look at this post of his offering some definitions in the cognitive war fought by the press and the left in convincing the West to use its own strengths against itself.
It’s fairly short, but Landes packs a tremendous amount of thought and information into it.
Well, I have to vehemently disagree with at least one of his definitions:
Supersessionism – everyone knows that’s the name of one of the best albums of all time, featuring Al Kooper, Mike Bloomfield and Stephen Stills.
Hence forth I will embrace the term lethal journalism.
geokstr,
That was a fun LP. Kooper went on to create Blues Project which was short lived after an excellent LP and then BST which produced a great debut LP. Then the rest of the band pushed him out to turn BST into becoming a pop hit machine. Bloomfield was a blues guitar star, his playing on East=West was fantastic. And, Stills is and remains one of my favorite musicians, a great guitarist, song writer, and I never get tired of his vocals.
Is he the son of the late brilliant economic historian David Landes?
In his talk about “How the BBC Has Poisoned the Global Public Sphere with its Own-Goal War Journalism” Landes documents “the sad tale of journalistic malfeasance” and where it is leading. I was struck by the positive tone of his closing advice to the Jews of Europe:
“It’s not every generation that gets to defend a civilization. As distressing and demanding as that might seem, it is an enormous privilege. Embrace it. Be bold. Be Balaam’s Ass and open a mouth such that your riders’ eyes will be opened, and they will see the outstretched sword that hangs over their head, and they will cease to beat you for refusing to advance towards destruction.”
I like Richard Landes article a great deal. I find his terminology – “own goal war journalism” – to be confusing. He needs a better phrase to describe what is going on here.
His “supersessionism” probably has some merit although it is quite muddled. Applying terms from Christianity to Islam such as supersessionism or fundamentalism is inappropriate because the environment in Islam is so different that they don’t fit and end up setting up a false moral equivalence between two very different religions.
Very few Christians have ever disputed the legitimacy of the inspiration of the Old Testament nor have they accused the Jews of perverting the record. In fact most Christian Bibles are based on the Masoretic Hebrew text which was compiled and preserved by non-Christian Jews, Masoretes, between the 6th and the 10th century AD. This provides a direct and continuing connection between Judaism and Christianity which is irrevocable.
Islam on the other hand claims that both the Jews and the Christians were originally Muslims who apostatized who deliberately altered their Holy books. When practicing Dawa they will quote the Bible to confuse Christians who are not well informed about Christian theology but because of their theology they have contempt for both the Old Testament and New Testament as perversions of truth and contempt for both Christians and Jews who adhere to the message in those books.
It is impossible to defend Western Civilization without acknowledging the central role of Christianity in uniting warring pagan tribes with varying conflicting beliefs and without a coherent definition of morality into a cohesive civilization with shared moral values. It is Christianity and not Islam which melded Jewish morality with Greek philosophy into the intellectual edifice we have inherited and who preserved, transmitted and improved on the best of classical civilization.
Very good article by Landes but I was a little confused by the section on “supersessionism” until I realized it needed to be punctuated differently. It should read,
“…the conviction that one’s own value system completely replaces — erases and replaces — previous ones. Christianity supersedes Judaism; Islam, Christianity and Judaism; secular progressive left, all monotheisms… but especially Judaism.
Dennis:
It is Christianity and not Islam which melded Jewish morality with Greek philosophy into the intellectual edifice we have inherited and who preserved, transmitted and improved on the best of classical civilization.
No. It was one man, Thomas Aquinas.
i am indeed the son of the brilliant David S. Landes, who passed away two years ago.
on supersessionism and triumphalism, see http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/197151/triumphalist-religiosity.
supersessionism is not an inappropriate word for Islam, which considers itself the one true religion that replaces and erases (and abases) previous forms of monotheism.
Dennis, I’d dispute your history of the impact of Christianity on tribal warrior culture (I am a medievalist), but none of the details about how Muslims claim superiority disqualifies calling their claims supersessionist.
As for Christians and Hebrew scripture, they not only relegated it to a lesser status (“Old” Testament), but their claim was that they understood it better (in translation) than the Jews who had composed it (in Hebrew). The details should not obscure the supersessionist intent, which one finds again among the “rationalist” secular supersessionists.
The Other Chuck Says at 7:15 am
“No. It was one man, Thomas Aquinas.”
Thomas Aquinas was an important scholar without doubt. Have you forgotten the Eastern Roman Empire (which has been renamed the Byzantine Empire by their enemies) who were native Greek speakers?
rlandes Sayat 7:56 am
“Dennis, I’d dispute your history of the impact of Christianity on tribal warrior culture (I am a medievalist)”
What do you dispute?
“As for Christians and Hebrew scripture, they not only relegated it to a lesser status…”
All the Christians I know believe that the Old Testament is fully inspired, in fact, traditional fundamentalists believe that as part of the Bible it is infallible.
“…but their claim was that they understood it better (in translation) than the Jews who had composed it (in Hebrew).”
I’m not sure where this comes from. Well trained ministers take both Greek and Hebrew classes as a standard part of their theology courses.
Supersessionism is a Christian term which means that Christians are the true heirs of the Jewish traditions. If they didn’t believe that their traditions are correct why would they be Christians rather than Jews? Jews mirror that belief in their own beliefs. If not why would they be Jews rather than Christians? Supersessionism can be ugly at times but that ugliness is not necessary. Many Christians do not subscribe to supersissionism since they believe that the Jews are still God’s people and that God still has an important role for Jews in His plans for the future.
Muslims are all supersessionists in the most ugly sense. Islam teaches that the Old Testament and the New Testament were both just like the Koran until Christians and Jews apostatized and changed their holy books. They hold both in contempt. The possibility that either group are still God’s people or that either group has a positive role in God’s plans for the future is unthinkable in Islam.
rlandes,
The prevalent misconception of the 1990-2011 US-led enforcement of Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCR 660 series, particularly UNSCRs 687, 688, and 949 – which is due largely to “Own-goal War Journalism*: reporting your own side’s enemy’s war propaganda as news” – has compelled my hobby horse, setting the record straight on the law and policy, fact basis – the why – of the Iraq intervention.
EXCERPT:
The decision for OIF is a straightforward fact pattern. The why of OIF is readily understood from a free, open, easily accessed on-line law, policy, precedent, fact record.
Simply, Public Law 107-243 obligated the President to “ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”, while UNSCR 1441 mandated “full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions”.
By design of the Gulf War ceasefire, the threat assessment of the Saddam regime was measured with Iraq’s mandated compliance. Any violation of the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire established casus belli, and at the ‘red line’ of Iraq’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441), the Saddam regime was evidentially in categorical breach of the Gulf War ceasefire, including and especially the (WMD) disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687, terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687, and human rights mandates of UNSCR 688, “the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region” (UNSCR 688).
The Iraq Survey Group subsequently confirmed:
Yet, despite the plain evidential justification for OIF, the prevailing conception of the Iraq intervention is a blatantly false narrative. The corruption of our political discourse from the normalization of that false narrative has effected cascading harms.
President Obama rose to his office largely on the basis of the stigmatization of the Iraq intervention by normalized disinformation that discredited President Bush and other advocates for strong-horse American leadership of the free world. Trump adopted the same disinformation for the same purpose.
However, it wasn’t just partisan politics. Once President, Obama programmed the stigmatization of OIF – the false narrative responsible for his presidency – as the operative keystone premise for his fundamental American course change with the Middle East which has broadly undermined, even disqualified the post-WW2 American leadership paradigm. America’s competitors who manufactured the disinformation in the first place have, of course, seized the opportunities set up for them by Obama. They earned them. Consequently, America’s reputation and responsibilities, and those who have relied on both, have suffered.
The prerequisite for re-righting the course of American leadership and fixing the cascading harm caused by “Own-goal War Journalism*: reporting your own side’s enemy’s war propaganda as news” is targeted destruction of the false narrative of the Iraq intervention that has corrupted the political discourse at its premise level. It’s necessary to re-lay the foundation of the political discourse by setting the record straight at the premise level with the bedrock law, policy, precedent, and facts that justified President Bush’s decision.
I don’t know that own goal journalism is the best term for it, unless during my glance at it I took away the wrong impression.
Because “own goal” implies … You are at least formally on the same side and not deliberately seeking the destruction of the form of the society you inhabit, “By any means necessary” as the left is so fond of saying.
I am sure that many here have read this article, as PJ media is often cited. https://pjmedia.com/blog/how-isis-plans-to-sack-rome/
The amusing part is that the jihadists recognize and explicitly propose to exploit an opportunity provided by the same dynamic conservatives have been warning about for some time now.
Dennis, no of course I haven’t forgotten the importance of the Easter Empire in the preservation of what remained of classical Rome and Greece. However, without Aquinas’ reconciliation of Greek thought, most specifically Aristotle, with Christian belief I doubt if much of it would have been preserved, let alone an Enlightenment.
I don’t dispute the importance of Thomas Aquinas. The melding of Greek philosophy and Hebrew morality was well advanced by the time Thomas Aquinas came along. Many great Christian philosophers toiled to prepare the soil which had been tilled and was fallow waiting for the right seeds to be sown.
It may be fine to stress various attempted syntheses of philosophic outlook or way of life with now this revealed faith and again another different revealed faith or yet another. However, on preservation of the so-named (by our forebears) western tradition or inheritance, we may do better to emulate Judah Halevi, who shows his Khazari King questioning four representatives, who each, we can presume, stand for four different distinguishable types. So we would preserve what is different among these types, making each itself and not some non-self other.
Spelling nit: isn’t it spelled “supercessionism”, from “supercede”?
FOAF,
The Oxford English Dictionary says it’s “supersessionism”.
Webster’s gives “supercede” as an alternative spelling of “supersede”, but says this about its usage: “Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error.”
Oxford doesn’t even give “supercede” as an alternative spelling. But it shows the etymology of “supersede” as being a mix of French and Latin: French superceder; Latin supersedÄ“re, which explains the different spellings.
Speaking of own goals, in the conventional sense:
Ten years ago, NBC sent a crew to a NASCAR event in the south. There were one man and two women supposedly of Middle Eastern appearance. They were dressed in arabic garb.
They were followed by a camera crew.
The point was to catch these inbred, gap-toothed dull normals who think a dandy afternoon is to watch hillbillies making left turns and get them to do something racist and islamophobic. Nothing happened.
NBC had bet the cost of the expedition on the certainty they’d have delicious footage for Dateline. They were so certain, they didn’t even have a backup plan to fake it, as they did when they blew up GM pickup trucks which wouldn’t blow up by themselves.
The word got out. The NASCAR community, which is quite large, and those sympathizing with them, discovered what the panjandrums of NBC–and likely the entire Chattering Class–thought of them.
This sneering/smearing has gone on so long, so viciously, and with the game rigged so that defense is impossible. Saying you’re not a racist proves you’re a racist. Then, of course, there are the bitter clingers, and, later, the deplorables.
IMO, Trump didn’t have to have any policies besides Build a Wall to win when he explicitly, implicitly, or even accidentally looked as if he were breaking the politically-correct system. Scores of millions liked that and it’s, imo, one reason more conventional candidates failed.
Somebody said they hoped he’d win. Because, if he loses, you really won’t like who’s next.
Legal gun owners supposedly own two hundred millon guns and twelve trillion rounds of ammo.
See the Battle of Athens, and the Battle of Sugar Point.
It wasn’t necessary to smear the flyover country folks.
But people of absolutely no distinction, talent, or accomplishment made themselves feel good by slagging others who, due to political correctness’ rigging the discussion, were not in a position to defend themselves. But they were in a position to notice it and resent it.
The term “own-goal journalism” seems clunky. It’s not intuitively apparent what it means. “Fifth column” has the same meaning, and it’s commonly recognized (although I have no idea as to its origins offhand).
By now it’s a trite thought, but it does seem the liberal wing of the West long ago stopped believing in nations and national interests, and instead believe in an inevitable post-national world. They just presume that is where we are going and help it along any way they can.
Rarely do they articulate this position. They just ridicule or muscle anyone or any group which gets in the way. Those that do get in the way, for instance Americans who uphold patriotic sentiments or the Constitution, are the enemy.
Radical Islam is effectively an ally to liberals, even though the conflicts between the two are real. But for now both are content working together to defeat conservatives, conservative Christians, and Israel.
Anyway I said that to criticize “own-goal journalism.” Such journalists aren’t scoring goals against their real side, which I called post-national earler and others seem to be calling globalist today.
Related to Landes’s post:
RAND: The Russian “Firehose of Falsehood” Propaganda Model:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
At War on the Rocks, Alex Weisiger and Keren Yarhi-Milo on “What American Credibility Myth? How and Why Reputation Matters”:
http://warontherocks.com/2016/10/what-american-credibility-myth-how-and-why-reputation-matters/
You are right, Ann. To get pedantic for a moment – I thought it was related to the word “cede”, i. e. give up something. But the Latin root word is “sedere”, to sit. So it would literally translate to “sit over” which corresponds to the meaning of the word to replace or supplant.
We could say FOAF, “to sit on top of” in that sense — which as it so happens aptly describes the physical location of al-Haram ash-Sharif, and more particularly the Dome of the Rock which is inscribed inside and out with declarations of supremacy galore. Al-Malik knew well how to make a message stick.
huxley Says:
October 7th, 2016 at 7:22 pm
By now it’s a trite thought, but it does seem the liberal wing of the West long ago stopped believing in nations and national interests, and instead believe in an inevitable post-national world. They just presume that is where we are going and help it along any way they can.
Often repeated, but still true.
There are many people in Christendom, working on the Kingdom of God. But their methods are very different from the Left’s Utopia on Earth, which is more like a hell forged and crafted under Lucifer. A post national world under the control of Lucifer, when people think of totalitarianism, it’s pretty close to that.
Many Christians do not subscribe to supersissionism since they believe that the Jews are still God’s people and that God still has an important role for Jews in His plans for the future.
That’s rather complicated. Unless Christians believe in following Jewish rabbinical traditions, laws, the Torah additions, and the mitzvoh, plus various other Jewish dietary laws, Christianity is already “superseding” the human laws made after the law of Moses.
It was Moses that said that God would bring another prophet to the Jews, raised up from their own ranks, to continue the work.
The State of Israel is already performing God’s test on the wayward disaspora.
Dennis, I’d dispute your history of the impact of Christianity on tribal warrior culture (I am a medievalist), but none of the details about how Muslims claim superiority disqualifies calling their claims supersessionist.
That’s hard to support or justify, since many Russian and Viking kingdoms converted to Christianity, which moderated their excessive war making and conquering. The strange thing is, why would any warrior convert to Christianity when it stops them from getting into wars?
Victoria Coates, WSJ: Rewriting the History of Jerusalem