Speaker 1: Hello everybody, ladies, gentlemen, brother sisters, comrades, friends, Hello to
Speaker 1: all of you. It is good to be back after
Speaker 1: a little bit of a hiatus. As I finish up
Speaker 1: this semester, the memory serves if I can count fourth
Speaker 1: semester second year of graduate school. Now that I'm done,
Speaker 1: I can get back to making stuff for you guys
Speaker 1: to enjoy.
Speaker 2: Hopefully.
Speaker 1: Also, as many of you know, at least those of
Speaker 1: you who follow me on social media or substack or Patreon,
Speaker 1: there's been some excitement regarding History Impossible recently, or at
Speaker 1: least regarding me. If you follow me on any of
Speaker 1: those platforms, you probably saw that my name, my writing
Speaker 1: found its way into a piece in the New York Times,
Speaker 1: one that was profiling longtime comrade and friend Darryl Cooper
Speaker 1: of the Martin Made Podcast, One that actually did a
Speaker 1: pretty decent job, kept it pretty fair, and they saw
Speaker 1: fit to quote from the piece I wrote for Mary
Speaker 1: and West and turned into a special episode for you guys,
Speaker 1: where I basically went through all of his initial claims
Speaker 1: and essentially contested them while trying to stay as good
Speaker 1: faith as possible on Like a lot of people who
Speaker 1: have continued to critique him in various ways. I'll let
Speaker 1: the piece speak for itself. I recommend you go check
Speaker 1: it out over on the New York Times. You can
Speaker 1: also see what I said about it in on my
Speaker 1: substack or Patreon, which I recommend you, guys subscribe to
Speaker 1: if you haven't already. Both are fine, you get the
Speaker 1: same content there on both, but whichever one you might prefer.
Speaker 1: And I try to put out a lot of stuff
Speaker 1: that you know doesn't necessarily make it onto this show.
Speaker 1: I have recently contributed to my friend David Joseph Vlatzko
Speaker 1: of The Radicalist to his substack the piece that I
Speaker 1: released for you guys earlier this month, or rather last month,
Speaker 1: where I talked about the progressive turn capital p progressive
Speaker 1: turn of the Trump administration. So I recommend you go
Speaker 1: check all that stuff out if you haven't already. In
Speaker 1: terms of other housekeeping, I just want to thank, as
Speaker 1: always everybody for supporting this show on subseac and Patreon,
Speaker 1: including the amazingly generous friends of mine here in History
Speaker 1: Podcasting World, John Andre Saither and Mike Maylebin for their
Speaker 1: long running support of this show. So again, if you
Speaker 1: want to support History impossible. Head on over to Historyimpossible
Speaker 1: dot subsack dot com or Patreon dot com, slash History
Speaker 1: Impossible and become a paid subscriber or donor today. It
Speaker 1: would be unbelievably appreciated. But if you can't afford that
Speaker 1: right now, feel free to just spread the word about
Speaker 1: this show, share it on social media, share it one
Speaker 1: on one to friends of yours that might be really
Speaker 1: into history. So with all that said, why don't we
Speaker 1: get into this new special episode, this second episode in
Speaker 1: this little mini series of sort of pieces that I'm
Speaker 1: doing where I talk about the theme of imperialism. Last
Speaker 1: time we had the theme of imperialism as it relates
Speaker 1: to the like I said, the new Trump administration taking
Speaker 1: on a Rooseveltian that is teddy Rooseveltian turn. And this
Speaker 1: one is a well, it's based on a piece that
Speaker 1: I wrote that came out right at the beginning of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five that looked at the theme of imperialism,
Speaker 1: of soft power imperialism, which was actually something that the
Speaker 1: United States was pretty masterful at doing for a very
Speaker 1: long time, as you will hear, and it how it
Speaker 1: actually can be applied to numerous other examples in history,
Speaker 1: some older than others, and some more recent and surprising
Speaker 1: than others. And it all fits together with a lot
Speaker 1: of the work have done regarding the Israeli Palestinian conflict
Speaker 1: and themes of jihadism and Islamism. So, without further ado,
Speaker 1: let us get into some impossible history about imperialism.
Speaker 3: Well, let me to tell you what you would have
Speaker 3: seen and heard. If we're not being pleasant listening, if
Speaker 3: you're at lunch, or if you have no appetite, now
Speaker 3: is a good time to switch off the radio.
Speaker 4: An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible,
Speaker 4: whatever remains, however improbable.
Speaker 3: EVAs BANDI, you don't know.
Speaker 1: I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace
Speaker 1: is inside.
Speaker 3: I'll feel the laughing dream.
Speaker 1: I feel a laughing light.
Speaker 5: Now we here for hue were guil.
Speaker 4: Some say the world will end empire.
Speaker 3: Some say an from what I've tested of desire, I
Speaker 3: hold those of flavor fire.
Speaker 1: But if it had to perish twice, I think I
Speaker 1: know him of of hate to say that for destruction,
Speaker 1: ice is also great, and look sufficed.
Speaker 3: This is possible.
Speaker 1: Back on November seven, twenty twenty four, disturbing footage began
Speaker 1: to appear in the aftermath of a football, that is,
Speaker 1: soccer match between the Israeli club Macabi tel Aviv and
Speaker 1: the Dutch club AFC Ajax. Unlike your typical stories of
Speaker 1: football hooliganism as they call it over in the UK,
Speaker 1: the fight was not over the outcome of the match.
Speaker 1: Macabi tel Aviv lost for what it's worth, as much
Speaker 1: as it became yet another proxy for the still ongoing
Speaker 1: war between Hamas and Israel, still ongoing as of this recording.
Speaker 1: Many months over six months since these events happened, groups
Speaker 1: of men were roaming the streets, accosting fans of the
Speaker 1: Israeli team and beating them where they found them. One
Speaker 1: Israeli was captured on video pleading not Jewish, not Jewish
Speaker 1: as he was assailed. David de Brewing. I hope I
Speaker 1: am pronouncing his name right. But David de Brewing, writing
Speaker 1: for the Free Press, summarized some of the violence quite
Speaker 1: well in his write up as follows. Quote in video
Speaker 1: of other attacks last night, a victim is struck and
Speaker 1: lies injured on the ground, seemingly unconscious. A father could
Speaker 1: be seen fleeing with his son, A man jumps into
Speaker 1: one of Amsterdam's canals to escape his assailants. In the
Speaker 1: recording where he is forced to say free Palestine, his
Speaker 1: assailants laugh and jeer that he is a cancer Jew,
Speaker 1: a classic slurre in Dutch where both diseases and the
Speaker 1: Jewish ethnicity are deployed as put downs. While the chaos
Speaker 1: unleashed by football hooliganism is well known, especially over in Europe,
Speaker 1: it would turn out that evidence suggested this was something else.
Speaker 1: As more became clear in the day that followed, it
Speaker 1: became obvious that this was a coordinated attack on the
Speaker 1: Israelis visiting the Dutch capital. According to an investigation conducted
Speaker 1: by The Telegraph, it quote emerged that the attacks on
Speaker 1: the Jewish football fans were planned in advance and coordinate
Speaker 1: using WhatsApp and telegram.
Speaker 2: Quote.
Speaker 1: The day before the match, a group chat called Buruthuis
Speaker 1: contained a chilling phrase quote tomorrow after the game at night,
Speaker 1: part two of the Jew hunt. Tomorrow we work them
Speaker 1: unquote put simply in the words of debrewing Over on
Speaker 1: the Free Press.
Speaker 2: Quote.
Speaker 1: According to the accounts of witnesses and victims, it was
Speaker 1: an attack by immigrant Muslim communities against Israelis and Jews.
Speaker 1: Quote a pogram in a European city committed by descendants
Speaker 1: of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa is
Speaker 1: not likely what Adolph Hitler had in mind when he
Speaker 1: declared war on quote unquote world jewry. But it is
Speaker 1: very hard at least for me to believe that he
Speaker 1: would not have been pleased to see those he saw
Speaker 1: as racial untermention doing his work for him. Soon further
Speaker 1: potential context was added that there was some vandalism and
Speaker 1: outright hooliganism from some of the Israeli fans, including the
Speaker 1: ripping down of Palestinian flags, as well as expletives being
Speaker 1: shouted by Israeli fans I e Let the idf win
Speaker 1: and fuck the Arabs, and some assaults were captured on
Speaker 1: video by the Dutch photographer Annett de Graph, which were
Speaker 1: initially misattributed to Arabs attacking Israelis. So there was some
Speaker 1: further context like I was saying, But in addition to
Speaker 1: this not being particularly exonerative of the initial plans for
Speaker 1: a quote unquote jew hunt, much of the supposed context
Speaker 1: was not being repeated as an effort to provide a
Speaker 1: clearer picture of that night's events, or to more accurately
Speaker 1: depict the realities of the divisions that exist, or at
Speaker 1: least perceived to exist between Israelis or Jews and Arabs
Speaker 1: and Muslims, rather bringing up the fact that there had
Speaker 1: been some Israeli fans acting in pretty uncouth, unbecoming ways.
Speaker 1: These additional facts were being repeated by pundits in publications
Speaker 1: with almost too obvious motivated reasoning. Speaking of obvious, the
Speaker 1: delight clearly underlied the performative outrage by professional distorders of
Speaker 1: history like Owen Jones, and was very obvious. It was palpable, honestly,
Speaker 1: with Jones describing Sky News as re editing of their
Speaker 1: footage to more accurately reflect the reality as being the
Speaker 1: real problem, along with quote the violence perpetrated by Israeli
Speaker 1: football hooligans and their hideous racism unquote than the commentator
Speaker 1: Meti Hassan, who the real MENSH representative Richie Torres repudiated
Speaker 1: beautifully when he blasted Hassan for quote unquote just find
Speaker 1: a pogram over an Amsterdam. But asan he seemed like
Speaker 1: he wanted to try and one up the one aboutism
Speaker 1: and quote tweet President, then President Joe Biden saying that
Speaker 1: the President's legacy will be that quote, you and your
Speaker 1: administration that helped kill sixteen thousand Palestinian kids unquote, as
Speaker 1: if that had anything really directly to do with what
Speaker 1: had happened in Amsterdam. Apart from the justifications being made
Speaker 1: by people who participated. There were plenty of other examples
Speaker 1: of this kind of redirection at work in the days
Speaker 1: that followed the attempted pogram, and they revealed the same
Speaker 1: trend that instead of trying to dig out the overall
Speaker 1: complex truth that led to yes, it was a modern
Speaker 1: day pogram attempted or otherwise that's what it was, that
Speaker 1: there was an effort to whitewash a systematic targeting of
Speaker 1: Jews in a Western European country for violence. Now much
Speaker 1: does seem to rest on the use of the world
Speaker 1: pogram to describe what happened, with many of the commentators
Speaker 1: in this camp that I've been talking about seeming to
Speaker 1: believe that a pogram requires a perfectly lopsided situation in
Speaker 1: which the victims Jews in this case, are viciously set
Speaker 1: upon with no attempt at defending themselves, or they themselves
Speaker 1: playing a part in the violence in general. Not only
Speaker 1: does this smack of the problematic trope about Jews not
Speaker 1: fighting back in the Holocaust being one reason so many
Speaker 1: were killed, but it also forgets the fact that one
Speaker 1: of the most savage pogroms against Jews in the early
Speaker 1: twentieth century, the Hebron Riots of nineteen twenty nine in
Speaker 1: what would be Israel, also involve Jews and non Jews
Speaker 1: fighting back against the mob that was obviously targeting them.
Speaker 1: The contrarians in this case seem to be upset that
Speaker 1: the programists were facing victims that did not act like
Speaker 1: the victims of a pogram in the quote unquote correct way.
Speaker 1: The bigger question, however, is why it makes a certain
Speaker 1: amount of sense that some people who already oppose Israel
Speaker 1: on grounds that the IDF is killing members of their family. However,
Speaker 1: there are and have been no shortage of people who,
Speaker 1: for over a year and a half, rush to explain
Speaker 1: away or even defend things like this, like the Dagistan
Speaker 1: attempted pogram or the student incident at Cooper Union in
Speaker 1: New York City. And these people who try to explain
Speaker 1: all this away have zero meaningful connection to the ongoing
Speaker 1: conflict seemingly apart from a vague notion of political solidarity.
Speaker 1: I would call it political avatarism. Has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the realities on the ground. It has vexed a
Speaker 1: lot of people, including me for years now why there
Speaker 1: appears to be an almost reactionary need by a certain
Speaker 1: section of the western left, but increasingly especially it seems nowadays,
Speaker 1: on the right. But that's a whole different story. We're
Speaker 1: not going to get into that. But the point is
Speaker 1: there is this almost reactionary need to stand in solidarity
Speaker 1: with self evidently problematic movements and even defend their actions
Speaker 1: because of things like perceived victimhood or just desserts or
Speaker 1: who knows what that could be something to dive into
Speaker 1: with some greater depth in the future here in history impossible.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: We probably will end up doing that one day, but
Speaker 1: I have still found myself wondering, as a lot of
Speaker 1: other people do too, what happened in order to make
Speaker 1: this kind of defense of something that most people have
Speaker 1: known for decades was objectively wrong and evil into something
Speaker 1: that somehow needs to be debated Like we saw this
Speaker 1: happen in the wake of Charlie Hebdoh and the Pulse
Speaker 1: nightclub massacre, which turned out likely to have nothing to
Speaker 1: do with homophobia. Interesting little side note there too, and
Speaker 1: other things that involve this same kind of extremism associated
Speaker 1: with a very particular religious ideology. But why, that's the
Speaker 1: real question. Why. Many have problematically stated or suggested that
Speaker 1: the spread of Islamic communities in Western countries is leading
Speaker 1: to a sort of subversion of Western values, particularly in Europe,
Speaker 1: though this thinking arguably helped result in the United States's
Speaker 1: own quote unquote Muslim ban back in twenty seventeen. However,
Speaker 1: this is usually filtered through a very particular lens of
Speaker 1: anti immigrant sentiment and perhaps a subconscious throwback to post
Speaker 1: nine to eleven anxieties about terrorism. When one sees growing
Speaker 1: crowds of decidedly nonsvend looking people rushing around the streets
Speaker 1: of Amsterdam looking to hunt down Jews to hurt, it
Speaker 1: might seem to be completely reasonable to feel that way.
Speaker 1: After the migrant crisis in Europe in twenty fifteen and
Speaker 1: the subsequent tensions and crimes that occurred, anti immigration sentiment
Speaker 1: certainly rose and felt very justified to many, regardless of
Speaker 1: political ideology. Again, in the European context, especially as the
Speaker 1: years went on. However, that does not explain the willingness
Speaker 1: of certain classes of people willing to go to bat
Speaker 1: for bad behavior on the part of foreign actors or
Speaker 1: domestic ones acting on behalf of a foreign cause. For
Speaker 1: that matter, what does seem to explain this trend, among
Speaker 1: many factors that have already been examined, is not an
Speaker 1: importation of people, but rather an importation of ideology, in
Speaker 1: other words, an act of subtle soft imperialism.
Speaker 6: Had been bracing for violence ahead of the match, but
Speaker 6: when it came, its scale and nature were shocking. Police said,
Speaker 6: men on scooters hunted down Israeli football supports to beat them.
Speaker 6: One person kicked while prone, apparently unconscious children. This man
Speaker 6: forced to say free Palestine. Safely, there we go, as
Speaker 6: was another from the middle of a river. Good this
Speaker 6: man telling his attacker I'm not Jewish and beaten anyway.
Speaker 4: And we saw a lot of demonstrations. Those people running
Speaker 4: was really really terrifying. They were ready in exactly in
Speaker 4: the places, strategic places with bet.
Speaker 6: With Nike, the Dutch Prime minister, with this reaction from Hungary,
Speaker 6: and it's.
Speaker 5: A terrible energemitic attack, and we will not tolerate and
Speaker 5: we will prosecute the perpetrators.
Speaker 6: And I'm pretty ashamed that it could happen in the
Speaker 6: Netherlands in twenty twenty four. Yesterday, in the build up
Speaker 6: to their match against Iraqs, minor confrontations in Amsterdam's main square,
Speaker 6: then racist anti Arab chance as they made their way
Speaker 6: to the stadium. Amsterdam's mayor though, laying the blame with
Speaker 6: what she called hateful anti Semitic criminals and banning all
Speaker 6: public demonstrations for three days.
Speaker 3: But what happened last night is not a protest. It
Speaker 3: has nothing to do with protest or demonstration.
Speaker 2: It was crime.
Speaker 6: Israel's prime minister monitoring the latest and invoking a dark
Speaker 6: past withal Tomorrow.
Speaker 3: Eighty six years ago was Crystal Knacht, an attack on
Speaker 3: Jews just for being Jews, on European soil. It's back now.
Speaker 3: Yesterday we saw it on the streets of Amsterdam.
Speaker 6: Netanyah who ordered then stood down military aircraft to fly
Speaker 6: Israeli's home. In the end they arrived on commercial flights.
Speaker 4: I wake up my son and we put the Brazil
Speaker 4: flag on our beg because I don't understand that we
Speaker 4: are Italy and we take Ubert to the.
Speaker 5: Ad and we go to the airport for them to
Speaker 5: be running into rivers, to be kicked while defenses on
Speaker 5: the floor, to be trying to suggest and beg people
Speaker 5: to believe that they're not Jewish.
Speaker 2: But that's a very very.
Speaker 5: Sad times result given the last year that we've had
Speaker 5: to explain you.
Speaker 1: Probably one of the most shocking things that I learned
Speaker 1: during my first year of graduate school was that the
Speaker 1: painter Jackson Pollock was a stooge for the CIA. Yes,
Speaker 1: you heard right now. I do not mean to say
Speaker 1: that Pollock, one of the most celebrated modern artists of
Speaker 1: the twentieth century, was an assassin or international superspy for
Speaker 1: our most infamous of alphabet agencies, but rather the success
Speaker 1: of his work was in fact due in part to
Speaker 1: an enormously successful propaganda campaign developed by an organization that
Speaker 1: was a front for the CIA. Obviously, some background is
Speaker 1: in order. You see what we see as a free wheeling,
Speaker 1: earnest and yet somehow ironic epitome of pretension, that is
Speaker 1: modern art that was never going to stand a chance
Speaker 1: without a little boost from Uncle Sam at least, that
Speaker 1: is what figures linked to both the art world and
Speaker 1: the world of covert intelligence. Believed that the height of
Speaker 1: the Cold War. Technically, this effort began during the Second
Speaker 1: World War in an effort to combat the aesthetics of Nazism.
Speaker 1: But once Hitler and his regime shuffled off this mortal
Speaker 1: coil and Stan and his Mega Empire revealed themselves as
Speaker 1: the true nemesies of our age. And unlike most people
Speaker 1: who have written about this subject, I say that without irony,
Speaker 1: when that happened, the effort to promote American values in
Speaker 1: contrast to Soviet ones, by any means necessary, took on
Speaker 1: a stark meaning. As Lucy Levigne wrote in a twenty
Speaker 1: twenty article for j Store Daily, quote modernism in fact
Speaker 1: became a weapon of the Cold War unquote and continuing,
Speaker 1: she writes the following quote. In the battle of her
Speaker 1: hearts and minds, modern art was particularly effective. John Hay Whitney,
Speaker 1: both a president of MoMA, the Museum of Modern Art,
Speaker 1: and member of the Whitney family, which founded the Whitney
Speaker 1: Museum of American Art, explained that art stood out as
Speaker 1: a line of national defense because it could quote, educate, inspire,
Speaker 1: and strengthen the hearts and wills of free men. This
Speaker 1: mission of using modern art to essentially propagandize the world
Speaker 1: with American values was essentially gifted to the United States
Speaker 1: by Soviet propaganda, which repeatedly claimed that thanks to our
Speaker 1: love of capitalism, our nation was quote unquote culturally barren.
Speaker 1: Their contrast, that is, Soviet realism, which at least in
Speaker 1: my opinion, has some kitch charm of its own, was
Speaker 1: not exactly setting the world on fire, but their claims
Speaker 1: about the United States made a propagandistic response relatively easy.
Speaker 1: In nineteen forty six, the US State Department spent almost
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars, which is about eight hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars in twenty twenty four money on paintings by
Speaker 1: the likes of artists like Georgia O'Keeffe and included them
Speaker 1: in a traveling exhibition known as Advancing American Art. This
Speaker 1: traveling exhibition did well in much of Europe, but the
Speaker 1: Americans you saw it were frankly embarrassed. Modern art was
Speaker 1: not the most popular medium for self expression in the
Speaker 1: immediate post war United States. The famous Look magazine even
Speaker 1: wrote a piece called your money bought these paintings, expressing
Speaker 1: outrage that taxpayer dollars funded such a project. Because it's
Speaker 1: important to note that the state departments involved in this
Speaker 1: exhibition was no secret. Politically, the exhibition was a sham
Speaker 1: on both sides of the aisle. Both President Harry Truman
Speaker 1: lambassad the artwork as anything but that is, anything but art,
Speaker 1: and Republican Congressman John Tabor and Fred Busby expressed concern
Speaker 1: that the artists whose work had been tapped had Communist sympathies. Ironically,
Speaker 1: and perhaps every sense of the word, this was why
Speaker 1: the artists, as well as later ones like Jackson Pollock,
Speaker 1: were perfect subjects for the mission of spreading American values
Speaker 1: or perhaps more accurately, American vibes. As Lucy Levigne writes
Speaker 1: in her article quote, the American public's fear of the
Speaker 1: red menace brought advancing American art home early. But it
Speaker 1: was precisely because modern art was not universally popular and
Speaker 1: was created by artists who openly disdained orthodoxy that it
Speaker 1: was such an effective tool in showcasing the fruits of
Speaker 1: American cultural freedom to anyone looking in from abroad. Because
Speaker 1: the state Department's involvement in the Advancing American Art Exhibition
Speaker 1: is what made this a matter of public record and
Speaker 1: admonishment thanks to its use of taxpayer dollars. Again, it
Speaker 1: quickly became clear to America's Cold warriors that doing things
Speaker 1: like this would require congressional approval, and that was a
Speaker 1: hurdle that they just couldn't.
Speaker 2: Bring themselves to accept.
Speaker 1: Like a lot of things in the twentieth century and
Speaker 1: into the twenty first, obviously, this is where the CIA,
Speaker 1: not exactly known for its propensity to ask permission to
Speaker 1: do pretty much anything it has ever done, came into
Speaker 1: the picture. The history of the CIA, an outgrowth of
Speaker 1: the Office of Strategic Services during the Second World War,
Speaker 1: is fascinating enough on its own and has provided enough
Speaker 1: grisk for an untold number of books and excellent film
Speaker 1: like Roberts in Euros two thousand and six epic The
Speaker 1: Good Shepherd. I consider that to be an underrated masterpiece
Speaker 1: of that decade. By the way, so consider that my
Speaker 1: film recommendation for this episode. Now, this is definitely something
Speaker 1: I want to get into and dive with a greater
Speaker 1: depth into in the future. But the important point to
Speaker 1: remember that we should focus on here at least is
Speaker 1: that codified into law in nineteen forty seven. The CIA
Speaker 1: grew up with the Cold War. One could even call
Speaker 1: it its fraternal twin or or perhaps vestigial twin. There
Speaker 1: is no CIA without the Cold War. In other words,
Speaker 1: though one could also reasonably say that there is no
Speaker 1: Cold War without the CIA. There was also no connection
Speaker 1: between modern art, remember not traditionally beloved by the establishment
Speaker 1: or even the broader public, at American values without a
Speaker 1: certain president, and that would be Dwight D. Eisenhower recognizing
Speaker 1: the ideological value in a medium so American in its
Speaker 1: essence as modern art. President Eisenhower served as a speaker
Speaker 1: at the twenty fifth anniversary celebration for the Moment in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty four, and he said the following in this
Speaker 1: speech quote, as long as our artists are free to
Speaker 1: create with sincerity and conviction, there will be healthy controversy
Speaker 1: and progress in art. How different it is in tyranny
Speaker 1: when artists are made the slaves and tools of the state.
Speaker 1: When artists become the chief propagandists of a cause, progress
Speaker 1: is arrested and creation and genius are destroyed.
Speaker 2: Unquote.
Speaker 1: I won't pretend that I don't find that an incredibly
Speaker 1: compelling sound bite, and it just makes me appreciate Eisenhower
Speaker 1: all the more as a president that we've had. Though
Speaker 1: let's pump the brakes on that. I must fully admit
Speaker 1: I have not read nearly enough about any of the
Speaker 1: precedents for that matter, but Eisenhower in particular, to necessarily
Speaker 1: make a claim that he was a good or a
Speaker 1: bad president, I'm not necessarily willing to go that far.
Speaker 1: But it's hard to deny that that's a very compelling
Speaker 1: speech that he just gave, even that little portion of it.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of other things about him that
Speaker 1: I tend to like think the fact that he liked
Speaker 1: poker is one of them too. Anyway, in the case
Speaker 1: of this speech that Eisenhower made, this was as close
Speaker 1: to a public declaration of official policy toward the government
Speaker 1: sponsoring artists to spread the American Way abroad to counter
Speaker 1: Soviet tyranny as American citizens were ever going to get,
Speaker 1: because four years earlier, in nineteen fifty, the CIA had
Speaker 1: established a front organization known as the Congress for Cultural Freedom,
Speaker 1: or the CCF, which was far from Washington, DC or
Speaker 1: as of nineteen sixty one Langley, Virginia, situated in the
Speaker 1: perhaps former cultural capital of the world, Paris, with the
Speaker 1: aim of quote propagating the virtues of Western democratic culture
Speaker 1: unquote through the use of quote an autonomous association of artists, musicians,
Speaker 1: and writers quote in the words of history in Francis
Speaker 1: Stonor Saunders, This office operated for nearly two decades. As
Speaker 1: Saunders continued in her nineteen ninety nine work who Paid
Speaker 1: the Piper, The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Quote.
Speaker 2: The CCF had offices.
Speaker 1: In thirty five countries, employed dozens of personnel, published over
Speaker 1: twenty prestige magazines, held art exhibitions, owned a news and
Speaker 1: feature service, organized high profile international conferences, and rewarded musicians
Speaker 1: and artists with prizes and public performances. Its mission was
Speaker 1: to nudge the intelligency of Western Europe away from its
Speaker 1: lingering fascination with Marxism and Communism towards a view more
Speaker 1: accommodating of the American way. The CCF was not about
Speaker 1: convincing the American public to suddenly like modern art. Rather,
Speaker 1: it was to convince European cultural skeptics of America's ability
Speaker 1: to even create modern art. In the first place, and
Speaker 1: thus sway them away from any possible Soviet influence. In
Speaker 1: other words, the CCF, under the direction of the CIA,
Speaker 1: attempted to woo European fence sitters away from the evils
Speaker 1: of communism by showing them weird, transgressive, and ultimately, here's
Speaker 1: the key word, individualistic art, in other words, the total
Speaker 1: antithesis of collectivist communism. The biggest in best irony, and
Speaker 1: perhaps the one most relevant to the broader story we're
Speaker 1: looking at today, is the fact that these moves by
Speaker 1: the CIA via the CCF were aimed at the European left,
Speaker 1: that is, socialists, leftists, and other parts of the anti
Speaker 1: totalitarian left in Europe, i e. The place that George
Speaker 1: Orwell might have still occupied had he not died in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty. This can be seen in the CIA funneling
Speaker 1: money into the United States's own anti communist leftist publication,
Speaker 1: The Partisan Review, which actually had published Orwell as well
Speaker 1: as TSA.
Speaker 2: Elliott.
Speaker 1: And it's worth noting that Orwell's own classic Animal Farm
Speaker 1: was sponsored and promoted by the British Foreign Office's anti
Speaker 1: communist unit known as the Information Research Department, and according
Speaker 1: to historian Hugh Wilford, my professor in American imperialism as
Speaker 1: it happens in grad school. They quote had exploded the
Speaker 1: Cold War propaganda potential of Orwell's fable, sponsoring the publication
Speaker 1: of several foreign language translations and even producing a cartoon
Speaker 1: strip version for dissemination in South America, Asia, and the
Speaker 1: Middle East. One official noted the happy coincidence that quote
Speaker 1: both pigs and dogs are unclean animals to Muslims unquote,
Speaker 1: and that's the end of the full quote. Now this
Speaker 1: does nothing, in my opinion, at least to diminish Orwell's
Speaker 1: scathing indictment of Stalinism, or to pretend that it wasn't
Speaker 1: effective at spreading its intended message, or to suggest that
Speaker 1: it was a bad thing. I only bring this up
Speaker 1: to point out that the British government recognized the power
Speaker 1: of animal farm and gave it a little boost where
Speaker 1: it counted. And as we will see or have seen
Speaker 1: at this point, cultural imperialism is arguably endemic in the
Speaker 1: modern globalized world, and therefore it is appropriate to make
Speaker 1: qualitative judgments about what is being imported and exported as
Speaker 1: far as ideas go, and frankly, if is not obvious
Speaker 1: I personally think Orwellian in the good sense of the word.
Speaker 1: I should say anti tootalitarian leftism is a good thing
Speaker 1: to spread if we are to make qualitative judgments, and
Speaker 1: in this case I do think we should. But anyway,
Speaker 1: as American journalist and CIA official Thomas Brayden explained when
Speaker 1: he described the program and the thinking behind it and
Speaker 1: the Saturday Evening Post in nineteen sixty seven, he said, quote,
Speaker 1: back in the early nineteen fifties, when the Cold War
Speaker 1: was really hot, the idea that Congress would have approved
Speaker 1: many of our projects was about as likely as the
Speaker 1: John Birch Society's approving medicare. I remember, for example, the
Speaker 1: time I tried to bring my old friend Paul Henrespock
Speaker 1: of Belgium to the US to help out with one
Speaker 1: of the CIA's operations.
Speaker 2: Paul Henreespock was and is a very wise man.
Speaker 1: He had served his country as foreign minister and premier.
Speaker 1: CIA director Alan Dulles mentioned Spock's projected journey to the
Speaker 1: then Senate Majority leader William F. Noland of California. I
Speaker 1: believe that mister Dulles thought the Senator would like to
Speaker 1: meet mister Spock. I am sure, he was not prepared
Speaker 1: for Nolan's reaction. Why, the senator said, the man is
Speaker 1: a socialist, Yes, mister, Dulles replied, and the head of
Speaker 1: his party. But you don't know Europe the way I do.
Speaker 3: Bill.
Speaker 1: In many European countries, a socialist is roughly equivalent to
Speaker 1: a republican. Nolan replied, I don't care. We aren't going
Speaker 1: to bring any socialists over here. The fact, of course,
Speaker 1: is that in much of Europe in the nineteen fifties, socialists,
Speaker 1: people who called themselves left, the very people whom many
Speaker 1: Americans thought know better than communists, were the only people
Speaker 1: who gave a damn about fighting communism. Now CIA stooge
Speaker 1: or no CIA stooge. Braden was spot on in his
Speaker 1: assessment of who was both a the most valuable in
Speaker 1: Europe when it came to the intellectual fight against communism
Speaker 1: instead of the military one, and B who was the
Speaker 1: most vulnerable to such invitations or ascetic provocations or mileage
Speaker 1: may vary depending on how you look at this. This vulnerability, though,
Speaker 1: is key to understanding the central concept of American cultural
Speaker 1: power during the height of the Cold War, most certainly,
Speaker 1: but it is also key to understanding a deeper, far
Speaker 1: more relevant form of empire that actually has history stretching
Speaker 1: back well over a century, and more to the point,
Speaker 1: the primary type of empire and imperialism that exists moving
Speaker 1: into the twenty first This is not to say that
Speaker 1: classic imperialism, for lack of a better term, does not
Speaker 1: still exist and cause untold amounts of damage. Russia's three
Speaker 1: year old war with Ukraine, however you want to define
Speaker 1: NATO's role in it, was without question an act of
Speaker 1: flagrant territorial imperialism. One can also reasonably make the argument
Speaker 1: that there is a form of commercial imperialism, perhaps even
Speaker 1: a sort of neo colonialism, occurring in Africa, especially in
Speaker 1: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, under the auspices of
Speaker 1: massive Chinese corporations. And also we should point out to
Speaker 1: the massive benefit of the United States, especially in the
Speaker 1: tech sector, as documented very poignantly by Siddarth Kara in
Speaker 1: as twenty twenty three book Cobalt Read How the Blood
Speaker 1: of the Congo Powers Our lives. However, the most common
Speaker 1: form of what could be called imperialism in the twenty
Speaker 1: first century is one that exercises a softer touch. Soft
Speaker 1: power is the colloquial term in the history of international relations.
Speaker 1: Common though it certainly is in the twenty first century,
Speaker 1: it is actually a much older practice than a lot
Speaker 1: of people realize. The only difference between soft power now
Speaker 1: and soft power, say, two hundred years ago, is that
Speaker 1: it spreads much faster and easier than it used to,
Speaker 1: thanks to the quantum leap of communications technology that basically
Speaker 1: has occurred in that span of time. However, we should
Speaker 1: not underestimate the power, persistence, and application of soft power
Speaker 1: in our past, even though it was moving at the
Speaker 1: speed of a steamship instead of the speed of light.
Speaker 1: Historian David Todd explores his concept in the context of
Speaker 1: French history with what he calls their quote unquote Velvet Empire,
Speaker 1: a much more informal system of culturally derived power than
Speaker 1: the Napoleonic image. Say that nineteenth century French imperialism tends
Speaker 1: to conjure, David Todd's point is to suggest that this
Speaker 1: approach was no less effective than formal militaristic control, and indeed,
Speaker 1: France developed a stronger global presence through their soft influence.
Speaker 1: As Todd writes, quote, France of the nineteenth century deserves
Speaker 1: to be considered an empire because it combined wealth extracting
Speaker 1: practices with claims to universal dominion, and because it affected
Speaker 1: the economic life of millions of men and women. Todd
Speaker 1: makes the United States comparison explicit as well, pointing out
Speaker 1: that the French Velvet Empire's quote sophistication prefigured in some
Speaker 1: respects the global projection of American smart power with its
Speaker 1: blue genes and sentimental movies. What the French accomplished overseas
Speaker 1: after the Napoleonic era does in fact share more with
Speaker 1: the United States in the twentieth and especially twenty first
Speaker 1: centuries than any other imperial power of the modern era.
Speaker 1: The French Velvet Empire had, as Todd puts it, quote,
Speaker 1: a preference for a soft and concealed style of domination
Speaker 1: and a specialization in the procurement of conspicuous commodities. For
Speaker 1: the French, these conspicuous commodities meant everything from silk to champagne,
Speaker 1: with the latter example's legacy being acutely felt every time
Speaker 1: you make the mistake of calling sparkling wine champagne and
Speaker 1: have a pretentious Twits swooping in to correct you that
Speaker 1: champagne is only champagne when it comes from grapes grown
Speaker 1: in that particular region of France. Now annoying, to be sure,
Speaker 1: but it's also accurate, and more importantly, it's actually evidence
Speaker 1: of lasting cultural power projected very deliberately by French commercial
Speaker 1: interests and allowed, if not megaphoned, by their government. So
Speaker 1: in other words, it worked, and this was not lost
Speaker 1: upon the contemporaries of the French velvet Empire, as Adolaphi Blanci,
Speaker 1: who taught refers to as a disciple of the famed
Speaker 1: French aconymous Jean Baptiste set in promoting what Todd calls
Speaker 1: French champagne capitalism, said of the Crystal Palace exhibition of
Speaker 1: eighteen fifty one the following quote, all the products, wherever
Speaker 1: they came from, looked common and provincial when compared to
Speaker 1: those of France. They possess elegance, grace, and jeen seqois.
Speaker 1: The exhibition of leon silk textiles of plain cloths, cut
Speaker 1: or primped velvets, taffeta satins and plain stout silks, crapes,
Speaker 1: plush scarves, dobbies, pattern fabrics, brocades, church or palace cloths
Speaker 1: is very dangerous for husbands from the morning to the evening.
Speaker 1: Thousands of ecstatic women joint down in their notebooks the
Speaker 1: names and addresses of French manufacturers quote. The point being
Speaker 1: made by Blancie and a century and a half later
Speaker 1: by Todd, is clear the perception of French commodities by
Speaker 1: the mid nineteenth century had become perfectly tied to notions
Speaker 1: of high class and refinement. Post Napoleonic French imperial influence, however,
Speaker 1: soft was secure for the foreseeable future, and all they
Speaker 1: had to do was make the rest of the world
Speaker 1: by into the vision of refinement that they had sold them,
Speaker 1: or were trying to sell them. Rather, David Todd is
Speaker 1: careful to note that the terms empire and imperialism in
Speaker 1: this case are not being used in the typical pejorative way,
Speaker 1: while also acknowledging that the distinctiveness of soft and hard
Speaker 1: imperial power admittedly throws his entire thesis into question. After all,
Speaker 1: should we call global capitalism? And that is what this
Speaker 1: is a form of empire. Empire may be a neutral
Speaker 1: term by definition, but it is hardly neutral in almost
Speaker 1: every instance of it being used, and frankly we can
Speaker 1: thank Star Wars for that as well. As well hundreds
Speaker 1: of years of human history, with its more extreme examples
Speaker 1: like the Third genocidal Pushed to the East or the
Speaker 1: horrors of the Belgian Congo serving as good examples of why.
Speaker 1: The sticking point is the question of coercion, which is
Speaker 1: usually what gives people the reflexive gag when they think
Speaker 1: of empire. After all, is coercion not a feature of imperialism?
Speaker 1: Is it not the central feature of imperialism? Well, the
Speaker 1: thing is not. Necessarily, As Todd writes in his book Quote,
Speaker 1: empires are rarely, if ever entirely coercive. Even the most
Speaker 1: formal of colonial ventures. The British raj in India relied
Speaker 1: extensively on indigenous collaboration, while British settler colonialists have been
Speaker 1: described as prefabricated collaborators of imperial rule. From this perspective,
Speaker 1: informal empire is merely a system of collaboration that leaves
Speaker 1: intact the external layer of sovereignty of foreign colonized statee. Now,
Speaker 1: none of this is to say that empire is ideal,
Speaker 1: especially for those not at the helm of the empire itself.
Speaker 1: This is especially the case if the external power seeks
Speaker 1: to do more than engage in global trade, which tends
Speaker 1: to benefit everyone, though rarely in equal terms or measures.
Speaker 1: Of course, this is to say that intent matters. Shocking
Speaker 1: for me to say that, I know, and if the
Speaker 1: intent is to do more than simply spread the prestige
Speaker 1: and appreciation of your culture through your products and services,
Speaker 1: as the French in part did, and by the way,
Speaker 1: this is obviously putting aside the actual violence that they
Speaker 1: perpetuated in Algeria and into China, of course, But if
Speaker 1: your intent is to do more than just, you know,
Speaker 1: spread prestige, then this is where the self evident problems
Speaker 1: of imperialism very quickly begin to make appearances. A good
Speaker 1: example of this is the spread of European colonists in
Speaker 1: the New World hundreds of years ago. Many indigenous tribes
Speaker 1: had no problem engaging in trade with these strange newcomers
Speaker 1: once communication became less of an issue. But when the
Speaker 1: colonists began trying to force the tribes into communion with
Speaker 1: their god instead of letting them believe in their own gods,
Speaker 1: the reality of the situation likely set in for a
Speaker 1: lot of the indigenous people here. And this is to
Speaker 1: say nothing of the hard power that was used against
Speaker 1: the indigenous peoples of the United States, because we have
Speaker 1: plenty of examples of that too, from the incredibly destructive
Speaker 1: ethnic cleansing of the Trail of Tears to the slaughter
Speaker 1: at Wounded Knee. In other words, soft imperial power may
Speaker 1: not be inherently coercive, but it does not take much
Speaker 1: for it to become so, or at the absolute least,
Speaker 1: be perceived to have become so. This is all to
Speaker 1: say that imperialism has always been way more complicated in
Speaker 1: its use of formal and informal control methods. But as
Speaker 1: time has gone on, with only a few exceptions in
Speaker 1: the twenty first century, much of the imperialism we see
Speaker 1: has more in common with how the French began to
Speaker 1: do things in the mid nineteenth century, hands off, distant
Speaker 1: cultural with a soft velvet touch. And yet we must remember,
Speaker 1: however soft imperial power may be, it is still imperial power.
Speaker 3: Hit calling me a raw song, fucking from a song
Speaker 3: in a b.
Speaker 2: The pas a.
Speaker 3: Song you want this, suppos.
Speaker 1: Me call me? So what does all of this have
Speaker 1: to do with Islamism? To explain a concrete definition of
Speaker 1: Islamism is first in order. We've talked about it a
Speaker 1: fair bit sort of around it actually in a lot
Speaker 1: of ways on history impossible before, specifically in the context
Speaker 1: of talking about Pan Arab nationalism or Pan Islamism. But
Speaker 1: in the most concrete, definitional sense, Islamism is typically a
Speaker 1: militant and political manifestation of a particular kind of Islam,
Speaker 1: one strictly informed by the tenets of Sharia law. If
Speaker 1: one needs a more Western comparison for familiarity sake, it
Speaker 1: is essentially the Islamic version of what people mean when
Speaker 1: they say Christian nationalism. Like the idea of Christian nationalism,
Speaker 1: there really is not one singular expression of Islamism. It
Speaker 1: has variance depending on time, place, and in leadership. Wahabism
Speaker 1: in Saudi Arabia is a form of Islamism, for example,
Speaker 1: So is the ideology of major terrorist organizations, including Hamas,
Speaker 1: which one could more accurately call jihadism because of its
Speaker 1: willingness to engage in violence to achieve Islamist goals. There
Speaker 1: are also far more moderate that is, at least compared
Speaker 1: to groups like Hamas and other jihadist organizations. But there
Speaker 1: are more moderate individuals and organizations who might be classified
Speaker 1: as Islamist as well, including Bosnia's Party of Democratic Action
Speaker 1: or the SDA, or the Turkish politician Murve Safa Kavaki
Speaker 1: and I hope I pronounce that name right. It is
Speaker 1: important to point out these more moderate examples because Islamism,
Speaker 1: like I said, a moment ago, can differ in some
Speaker 1: ways from culture to culture. Bosnia's SDA, for example, is
Speaker 1: certainly informed by religious adherents and conservative values, but it
Speaker 1: is more defined by its nationalistic character, making it more
Speaker 1: particularly Bosnian than it is Islamist. However, Islamism's most visible
Speaker 1: and controversial, to put it mildly, manifestations are very much
Speaker 1: tied to the ideologies that have come from the Middle East.
Speaker 1: Islamism was born from something of an Islamic revival that
Speaker 1: took place in the early twentieth century after the fall
Speaker 1: of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey's turn to a more
Speaker 1: secular approach to governance under the Young Turks. Similar to
Speaker 1: a lot of the secularizing forces that took place in
Speaker 1: Europe and in the United States. Now this created the
Speaker 1: secularization process created a perhaps inevitably a reactionary backlash, and
Speaker 1: many more radical corners of the Islamic Middle East, which
Speaker 1: became characterized by a fundamental zeal and militant adherence to
Speaker 1: the Qur'an and Hadith, also known as Solfism, at least
Speaker 1: in the Sunni context. It also became characterized with knee
Speaker 1: jerk rejections and even hatred of anything associated with the West,
Speaker 1: and as the twentieth century progressed the Jews in Israel.
Speaker 1: This is where things might start to sound a bit
Speaker 1: familiar for longtime listeners of History Impossible, because this was
Speaker 1: the political hotbed for the future Grand Mufti of Jerusalem
Speaker 1: and the father of the organized Palestinian nationalist movement and
Speaker 1: Nazi collaborator, Hajamin al Husseini. As I have covered in
Speaker 1: past episodes of History Impossible, Hajamin cut his teeth on
Speaker 1: this stuff at Al Jar University under the tutelage of
Speaker 1: the early Islamist scholar and ideologue Mohammed Rashid Rita, despite
Speaker 1: the fact that Rita was actually a bit of an
Speaker 1: Ottomanist as late as nineteen oh eight and supporting this
Speaker 1: notion of a pan Ottoman identity for everybody who lived
Speaker 1: within the empire. This did take a turn after around
Speaker 1: nineteen oh eight, because as the years went by, Rita
Speaker 1: became nothing if not a hardcore Islamic revivalist, something akin
Speaker 1: to a twentieth century Egyptian version of Jonathan Edwards or
Speaker 1: George Whitefield, and he quickly developed a following of students
Speaker 1: that included people like Hajamin al Husseini. In the early
Speaker 1: nineteen teens, Rita's teachings, which could be seen in his
Speaker 1: publication al Manar, were likely one of the major origins
Speaker 1: of Hajamin's own anti semitism. In the years leading up
Speaker 1: to the First World War, Almanar was actually publishing article
Speaker 1: after article accusing the Jews of being the puppet masters
Speaker 1: of European finance and empire, as shown by the scholar
Speaker 1: Nevill Mandel. If this was not clear enough, Arab nationalists
Speaker 1: did not need the Nazis, the British Empire, nor even
Speaker 1: the Zionis Project's incursion into Arab lands to become your
Speaker 1: typical and recognizable anti Semites. However, the anti Semitism present
Speaker 1: in Islamism is merely one feature among many, and far
Speaker 1: from the most significant when discussing Islamism in the context
Speaker 1: of empire. This is because at its core, Islamism is
Speaker 1: what we today could frankly call a kind of maga
Speaker 1: ideology in the sense that it fixated and continues to
Speaker 1: fixate on a mythical past where Islam dominated the land
Speaker 1: and all was greater than.
Speaker 2: It is today.
Speaker 1: This, like the essence of maga adjacent rhetoric, in its
Speaker 1: own way, was an understandable view for someone dedicated to
Speaker 1: Islamic greatness to feel in the early twentieth century, especially
Speaker 1: in the nineteen twenties, with the decline of the last
Speaker 1: Islamic empire, that is, the Ottomans to the forces of
Speaker 1: Western secularism. Remember, they were already pretty angry about the
Speaker 1: secularization process that was going on within the Ottoman Empire,
Speaker 1: but any chance that there could be any revival of
Speaker 1: that empire in an Islamic context went away with the
Speaker 1: collapse of the empire itself. So this manifested in the
Speaker 1: outdated and logistically impossible by the nineteen twenties, at least,
Speaker 1: ambition of restoring the caliphate or an Islamic empire. Fantasies
Speaker 1: of rebuilding fallen empires was nothing unique among reactionaries and
Speaker 1: conservatives in the immediate aftermath of the First World War
Speaker 1: and Bolshevik Revolution. Rashid Rida's fantasies were not dissimilar from
Speaker 1: the empire rebuilding messianic delusions of figures like Baron Roman
Speaker 1: von ungern Sternberg, the bloody White Baron that we've talked
Speaker 1: about before. In Rita's vision laid out in his book,
Speaker 1: Al Khilafa al al Imama al Uzma or the Caliphate
Speaker 1: or the Supreme Immamate, an Islamic caliphate, not necessarily a
Speaker 1: Turkish or Ottoman one, but that was the most recent model,
Speaker 1: would be restored, that was his vision, and the authority
Speaker 1: would be delegated by Islamic jurists. The long term goal
Speaker 1: would be a perfect, strictly Islamic society, which would serve
Speaker 1: as a model for further solifist minded reform in all
Speaker 1: corners of the Muslim world, as in Islamic societies like Indonesia, Malaysia,
Speaker 1: and places at the time occupied by the British and
Speaker 1: Soviet empires like Kazakhstan and India. In essence, Rita was
Speaker 1: calling for an Islamic superstate, utopian in form almost like
Speaker 1: that of so called world communism, in which the word
Speaker 1: of Allah would be supreme and the authority of Christians, capitalists,
Speaker 1: and communists would wither away. As historian John Willis has
Speaker 1: written on this quote, pan Islamism was a response to
Speaker 1: the crisis of legitimacy in the international state system in
Speaker 1: the early twentieth century. In this view, pan Islamism was
Speaker 1: part of a wave of international movements, including Bolshevism and
Speaker 1: pan Asianism, that sought to create an alternative to the
Speaker 1: nation state and the post Westphalian international order. Islamism largely
Speaker 1: synonymous with pan Islamism in this context, it should be said,
Speaker 1: has gone through a number of variations since Rashid Rita
Speaker 1: laid his ideas to paper, including Hajjimen al Husseini's own
Speaker 1: interpretation of a restored caliphate operating with Palestine and thus
Speaker 1: obviously Haja Mean at its center, which is something we
Speaker 1: have discussed before on History impossible, but it is worth
Speaker 1: pointing out regardless of where the hypothetical caliphate would be centered,
Speaker 1: there was always one constant, a restoration of the caliphate
Speaker 1: and new moral order on a global scale, enforced by
Speaker 1: the sword being the ultimate goal. Sometimes it would manifest
Speaker 1: in harder, more militant ways, including through the writings and
Speaker 1: teachings of Sayit Kutba, which inspired Asama bin Laden, and
Speaker 1: other times it would take a softer, supposedly more reformist route.
Speaker 1: The militant often again called jihadist route, is well worn
Speaker 1: territory and one that requires very little unpacking for the
Speaker 1: purposes of what we're talking about here. We all know
Speaker 1: what jihadism is and how it manifests, and need little
Speaker 1: in the way of a reminder. Suicide bombings, that's the
Speaker 1: most common thing that people think of, or mass shootings,
Speaker 1: or the invasion of Israel on October seventh, those are
Speaker 1: examples of jihadism and practice. What we are more concerned
Speaker 1: about here in this story is the use of softer power.
Speaker 1: This is because, whether it is soft power or hard power,
Speaker 1: at its shared cross cultural core, Islamism's ideology is an
Speaker 1: expansionist one, one like that of harder jihadism, that will
Speaker 1: not rest until the so called House of Islam triumphs
Speaker 1: over the so called House of war. This principle is
Speaker 1: laid out very concisely by the late celebrated and controversial
Speaker 1: Orientalist historian Bernard Lewis in its excellent book The Crisis
Speaker 1: of Islam. In which he wrote the following quote. In
Speaker 1: Muslim tradition, as recognized in stricter militant forms of Islam,
Speaker 1: the world is divided into two houses. The House of
Speaker 1: Islam Dar al Islam, in which Muslim government's rule and
Speaker 1: Muslim law prevails, and the House of War Dar al Hahab,
Speaker 1: the rest of the world still inhabited and more important,
Speaker 1: ruled by infidels. The presumption is that the duty of
Speaker 1: jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the
Speaker 1: world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim
Speaker 1: rule unquote. This explanation were refers to jihad, that is
Speaker 1: quote the arms struggle for the defense or advancement of
Speaker 1: Muslim power unquote. But it is indeed important to remember
Speaker 1: that the desire for Islamic dominance is by no means
Speaker 1: limited to violent acts. In fact, violence is relatively rare
Speaker 1: by all metrics and generally not supported by most Muslims,
Speaker 1: to say nothing of the rest of the world, i e.
Speaker 2: The House of War.
Speaker 1: This is why the more sophisticated among histories Islamists have
Speaker 1: always understood this and have thus always defaulted to softer
Speaker 1: means of trying to spread their influence. Softer Islamism is
Speaker 1: more political in nature, but no less problematic, at least
Speaker 1: by Western democratic standards. Again, the most helpful analog is
Speaker 1: the aforementioned frequent boogeyman that is Christian nationalism. And when
Speaker 1: I say boogeyman, well, I'm being obviously dismissive. This is
Speaker 1: not to say Christian nationalism does not exist. I'm more
Speaker 1: just saying that it does not appear as strongly or
Speaker 1: meaningfully as examples of Islamism tend to do.
Speaker 2: That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Now, non jihatis, nonviolent Islamism is still relatively extreme politically speaking,
Speaker 1: especially by the standards of you know, liberal democracies, because
Speaker 1: of what its ultimate end goal typically involves, which is
Speaker 1: a restoration of a literal theocratic empire. While the libertarian
Speaker 1: impulse isn't a vacuum the correct one. That is, if
Speaker 1: Islamists in say the Middle East, want to engage in
Speaker 1: a politics that results in the theocratic empire, more power
Speaker 1: to them, since that has nothing to do with us.
Speaker 1: But in practice, especially in the early twenty first century,
Speaker 1: in the world that we live in that is very globalized,
Speaker 1: even with its current seeming fragmentation into a more multipolar one.
Speaker 1: In that context, things are not that simple. In fact,
Speaker 1: we've seen quite the opposite play out, both in the
Speaker 1: United States and more problematically, in Europe. In essence, Islamism
Speaker 1: is something many in the West would typically recognize as
Speaker 1: inherently illiberal and something we would not want to see
Speaker 1: our own religious fundamentalists doing abroad. That is because it
Speaker 1: is a form of soft that is cultural or like
Speaker 1: France in the nineteenth century velvet imperialism. Just as post
Speaker 1: Napoleonic France did not focus on territorial conquests as much
Speaker 1: as cultural influence soft power, Islamists in the modern era
Speaker 1: see very little value in violence, and in fact, they
Speaker 1: often see violence as counterproductive to the ultimate goal of
Speaker 1: Islamic dominance. However, it is important to recognize that this
Speaker 1: notion of Islamic dominance is not necessarily universal. As suggested
Speaker 1: by Bernard Lewis's earlier explanation, submission is perfectly acceptable in
Speaker 1: lieu of conversion. While there are certainly Islamists who might
Speaker 1: believe it would be nice if the West became a
Speaker 1: uniformly Islamic place, that is rarely, if ever, the immediate
Speaker 1: goal or even long term goal in some cases of
Speaker 1: Islamist activist groups operating in the West. In the most
Speaker 1: general terms, the goal of these organizations is to make
Speaker 1: aspects of Islamic inspired dominance and values seem anodyne, if
Speaker 1: not preferable, to what currently exists, that is, liberal democracy
Speaker 1: and free market capitalism. When looking at it this way,
Speaker 1: it becomes less seemingly bizarre that what we see as
Speaker 1: pro social justice, progressive activists and seemingly secular leftists in
Speaker 1: the West link arms with Hamas and other supposedly anti
Speaker 1: colonial groups in hatred of capitalism and liberalism. There is
Speaker 1: very little daylight between these two classes of activists, at
Speaker 1: least as far as they're both concerned. This is something
Speaker 1: of which many Islamist groups like to take advantage, because,
Speaker 1: like any rational actor, they seek any advantage they can use. Now,
Speaker 1: one may wish to make a counter argument that there
Speaker 1: are Zionists and pro Israel organizations that do and have
Speaker 1: done the same, especially with evangelical Christians and politicians who
Speaker 1: align with them, and that is indeed true, but let's
Speaker 1: stay focused. That's not what this is about. In the
Speaker 1: modern era, Islamist groups values and tactics are under the
Speaker 1: protection of speech laws in the West, particularly in the
Speaker 1: United States. However, the speech the expression in which these
Speaker 1: groups engage is not necessarily what matters. It is the
Speaker 1: international associations that tend to give the game away about
Speaker 1: what the goals of these groups entail. As an example
Speaker 1: more directly tied to recent events, namely the Israel Hamas War,
Speaker 1: there is American Muslims or Palace Stein or AMP, which
Speaker 1: was placed under investigation in twenty twenty three by the
Speaker 1: Attorney General's Office of Virginia for possibly funneling money to Ramas,
Speaker 1: which is again, it needs to be stated, designated a
Speaker 1: terrorist group and that is against the law. Similarly, the
Speaker 1: Muslim American Youth Association or the MAYA has its own
Speaker 1: problematic ties. According to a twenty ten report by the FBI, quote,
Speaker 1: the Muslim American Youth Association served as a conduit for
Speaker 1: money to Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation and served
Speaker 1: as a forum where Hamas could promote its ideology and
Speaker 1: recruit new members. The Holy Land Foundation or HLF, mentioned
Speaker 1: in this report is also worth scrutiny in this context
Speaker 1: because its ties to Hamas, which have likely existed since
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty eight, when both organizations were founded, have led
Speaker 1: to legal trouble for the organization in the past. The
Speaker 1: same FBI report lists the Holy Land Foundation as quote
Speaker 1: the financial arm of Hamas within the United States unquote,
Speaker 1: proven by documents seized in a raid on the home
Speaker 1: of a one Ismail Salim Elbarase, who was arrested in
Speaker 1: two thousand and four for his fundraising activities for Hamas
Speaker 1: via the Muslim Brotherhood. It is clear that these organizations
Speaker 1: appear to have missions more dedicated towards supporting the Palestinian
Speaker 1: nationalist cause than to the restoration of a caliphate, though
Speaker 1: it is important to remember that, at least according to
Speaker 1: some radicals following the lead of Hajamin al Husseini, Palestine
Speaker 1: has frequently been seen as the center of that dreamed
Speaker 1: of empire. It is also important to remember that the
Speaker 1: Muslim Brotherhood, an international organization that lives at the center
Speaker 1: of most Islamist causes, was co founded by Hajamen, and
Speaker 1: like any Islamist organization, it yearns for a caliphate as
Speaker 1: one of their stated aims. According to the Muslim Brotherhood
Speaker 1: Review's Main Findings, ordered by the British House of Commons
Speaker 1: in December of twenty fifteen.
Speaker 2: Quote.
Speaker 1: The Muslim Brotherhood was established in Egypt in nineteen twenty eight.
Speaker 1: The founder and first Supreme Guide Spiritual leader Hassan Albana
Speaker 1: called for the religious reformation of individual Muslims, the progressive
Speaker 1: moral purification of Muslim societies, and their eventual political unification
Speaker 1: in a caliphate under sharia law. Albana and others such
Speaker 1: as Hajamin al Husseini argued that secularization and westernization were
Speaker 1: at the root of all contemporary problems of Arab and
Speaker 1: Muslim societies, and that nationalism was not the answer. So
Speaker 1: this goal of a restored caliphate is unlikely to be
Speaker 1: the explicit goal of these organizations or even of the
Speaker 1: individuals working within them. However, Palestine serves as the best
Speaker 1: entry point into Western politics with Islamist organizations. After all,
Speaker 1: there are very few, if any causes relate to the
Speaker 1: Muslim world about which Westerners have even an inkling of awareness.
Speaker 1: Look at the complete and deafening silence of many of
Speaker 1: these activists when it comes to the slaughters that have
Speaker 1: occurred in Yemen at the hands of Saudi Arabia. It
Speaker 1: is fair to say that most Islamist organizations are fully
Speaker 1: aware of this fact. One of the most famous international
Speaker 1: Islamist organizations, though Ishibu Tadir or HT, well known thanks
Speaker 1: to its most famous or infamous defector, Majed Nahwas. Now
Speaker 1: regardless of how one feels about his post Covid populis turn,
Speaker 1: Maja Nahwas has written extensively about his exit from the
Speaker 1: organization and, as he sees it, the threat that Islamism
Speaker 1: imposes to the West. In two thousand and nine, Nahwas,
Speaker 1: a British born Pakistani Muslim, returned to Egypt, where a
Speaker 1: decade before he had helped inculcate what he called in
Speaker 1: one of his columns, Islamist Fever. HT has been around
Speaker 1: since nineteen fifty three, when it was founded in East
Speaker 1: Jerusalem and Jordan, and has since expanded to include members
Speaker 1: in over fifty countries. It sports an estimated membership that
Speaker 1: ranges from tens of thousands to over one million. The
Speaker 1: truth is no one really knows. Like most Islamist organizations,
Speaker 1: it has ties to the Palestinian nationalist movement, but it
Speaker 1: takes a broader view in its vision of a world
Speaker 1: dominated by an Islamic empire. Following the lead of its founder,
Speaker 1: another Palestinian Islamic scholar and early pan Islamist, Taki Audin
Speaker 1: al Nabahani, HT stated aims include not just the usual
Speaker 1: restoration of the caliphate, but also expand that caliphate into
Speaker 1: non Muslim areas, that is, to expand the House of
Speaker 1: Islam into the house of war. As described by Bernard lewis.
Speaker 1: However unrealistic this aim is, and it certainly is that
Speaker 1: it is among the clearest examples of Islamist ideology put
Speaker 1: into supposed practice for a long period of time. That practice,
Speaker 1: while never is shooting outright, the possibility of true violent jihad,
Speaker 1: tends to be more political in nature, as demonstrated by
Speaker 1: former members like Maja Nahwas, especially with most of ht's
Speaker 1: activities in the Western countries where they continue to have
Speaker 1: a presence. The different branches of the organization seem to
Speaker 1: have different specific goals depending on the national demographics of
Speaker 1: Muslims living in the countries in which they operate. For example,
Speaker 1: Denmark has a more significant Arab population and England has
Speaker 1: a more significant South Asian population, so the rhetoric is
Speaker 1: tailored for those populations. However, the underlying ideology, tactics, and
Speaker 1: ultimate goal remain the same across the board. Despite these nuances,
Speaker 1: this mostly includes distribution of propaganda material, usually replete with
Speaker 1: the typical anti Semitism that is the blood of Islamism.
Speaker 1: According to Imran Khan on a two thousand and three
Speaker 1: broadcast of the BBC program Newsnight, this was particularly evident
Speaker 1: with ht's activities in Denmark. Khan described a material as
Speaker 1: follows quote. In March and April two thousand and two,
Speaker 1: Hizzibu tarier handed out leaflets and a square in Copenhagen
Speaker 1: and at a mosque. The leaflet, which also appeared on
Speaker 1: the Danish group's internet site, makes threats against Jews, using
Speaker 1: a quote from the Koran, urging Muslims to kill them
Speaker 1: wherever you find them and turn them out from where
Speaker 1: they have been turned you out. The leaflet also said
Speaker 1: the Jews are a people of slander, a treacherous people.
Speaker 1: They fabricate lies and twist words from their right context,
Speaker 1: and the leaflet describes suicide bombings in Israel as legitimate
Speaker 1: acts of martyrdom. This is largely the extent of what
Speaker 1: HT does. They attempt to radicalize other Muslims into their worldview,
Speaker 1: or remaining essentially non violent in their actual methodology, though
Speaker 1: sheddy no tears and even applauding when violence does occur.
Speaker 1: According to the United Kingdom's Home Office in two thousand
Speaker 1: and five, quote HT is a radical but to date
Speaker 1: non violent Islamist group that holds anti Jewish, anti Western,
Speaker 1: and homophobic views unquote. This assessment only changed in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four with an attempt to get HT classified as
Speaker 1: a terrorist organization in the UK, which was largely in
Speaker 1: response to the group's ramped up activities at the wake
Speaker 1: of the October seventh, twenty twenty three program in Israel. However,
Speaker 1: it is in the United States where HT really shines
Speaker 1: as an example of Islamism's velvet imperial approach. This is because,
Speaker 1: unlike the arched eyebrow and even hostility that the group
Speaker 1: has received from various European governments, including an outright ban
Speaker 1: by the German government, HT enjoys the protections of the
Speaker 1: American rights and, more importantly, something a bit closer to
Speaker 1: mainstream acceptance than its European counterparts. The result was the
Speaker 1: formation of Hizib Uttarier America in the late two thousands
Speaker 1: under the leadership of for profit Argasi University Chicago professor
Speaker 1: doctor Muhammed Malkawi. Many annual conferences were held and often
Speaker 1: canceled at various times in the following decade. The group's
Speaker 1: spokesmen raise a emman claim quote, the call is not
Speaker 1: to bring an Islamic caliphate here to this country or
Speaker 1: anything of that sort. The messages from Muslim countries to
Speaker 1: return to Islamic values. This, according to the chairman of
Speaker 1: the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago's Zaher Shalul,
Speaker 1: is simply untrue in the sense that quote. They are
Speaker 1: very vocal and they target young Muslims in college who
Speaker 1: are attracted to their ideologies. They tend to disrupt lectures
Speaker 1: Friday prayers most of the time they are kicked out
Speaker 1: from mosques unquote. However, their methodology is made very clear
Speaker 1: in this summary from Shiv Malik in his two thousand
Speaker 1: and four piece for The New Statesman.
Speaker 2: Quote.
Speaker 1: In other words, HT doesn't do elbow grease. It is
Speaker 1: no hesbalah with a large network of schools and hospitals,
Speaker 1: nor does it normally condone suicide bombing. Its route to
Speaker 1: power is the peaceful coup in which a general or
Speaker 1: politician seizes control of a state in the name of
Speaker 1: the caliphate, no arms would be used because the prophet
Speaker 1: Mohammed never raised arms to establish his state unquote. Malik
Speaker 1: also points out that quote it seems laughable that HT,
Speaker 1: armed only with the righteousness of its ideas, could overpower
Speaker 1: some of the most ruthless regimes in the world unquote. However,
Speaker 1: while HT itself can reasonably dismiss on the basis of
Speaker 1: widespread influence, especially in the eyes of people to whom
Speaker 1: their fringe status matters most, that is, regular Muslims, fringe
Speaker 1: groups are always smaller than the ideology they spread and
Speaker 1: managed to normalize, and all sorts of radical ideologies have
Speaker 1: a way of flourishing when the societies in which they
Speaker 1: exist undergo their own tumult. This is why the kinds
Speaker 1: of things stated by HT and other Islamist groups started
Speaker 1: to be heard with more frequency after the atrocities of
Speaker 1: ten to seven and the beginning of the most recent
Speaker 1: Israel Hamas war. They've even made their way into the
Speaker 1: news in a totally different way. As of this recording,
Speaker 1: a man in Britain has been arrested for burning a Koran.
Speaker 1: This obviously does not run a foul of typical speech laws,
Speaker 1: and yet this man named Hamit Kuskin was charged with
Speaker 1: an intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress against the
Speaker 1: religious institution of Islam after burning this Qur'an. In other words,
Speaker 1: he ran a foul of a blasphemy law that does
Speaker 1: not apply to the country in which he lives. Of course,
Speaker 1: there have been protests against this, very loud ones, but
Speaker 1: there have been other people within the British government, such
Speaker 1: as add Non Hussein and MP saying that as if
Speaker 1: this is a bad thing. Free speech means protecting the
Speaker 1: right to offend Muslims, to which I would say, at
Speaker 1: least personally, yes.
Speaker 2: It does.
Speaker 1: It means protecting the right to offend literally any group.
Speaker 1: It does not matter if it's Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, atheists, anyone.
Speaker 1: The point being is that this standard of protecting the
Speaker 1: feelings of a religious minority in a country is not
Speaker 1: really what's going on. The standard is something put forth
Speaker 1: by the Hadith. It's a religious law. If someone was
Speaker 1: going to be thrown in prison for burning a Bible,
Speaker 1: I would say the exact same thing, and I think
Speaker 1: at least a principled among us would as well. And
Speaker 1: trying to lump everyone together into some Islamophobic soup is
Speaker 1: arguably just as offensive to liberal secular folks as burning
Speaker 1: a Quran is to devout Muslims.
Speaker 2: This is the trade off, guys.
Speaker 1: The right to be offended and to say so is sacrisanct.
Speaker 1: The right to insist that others do not offend you
Speaker 1: just does not exist anyway, Now that I'm off my
Speaker 1: soapbox that I did not expect to get on for
Speaker 1: this because this was just happening in the news as
Speaker 1: I was recording. I think it's also fair to say
Speaker 1: there's a lot more to say about the American left's
Speaker 1: long tradition with being in the bag we should say
Speaker 1: for Palestinian nationalism, but that is not really what this
Speaker 1: special episode is about. My soapboxing decide. I think this
Speaker 1: notion of changing values that more reflect religious sensibilities than secular,
Speaker 1: democratic ones is as good of a piece of evidence
Speaker 1: as we're going to get for the influence of soft
Speaker 1: imperial power. It might not be framed that way, but
Speaker 1: a lot of the conspicuous consumption that occurred in the
Speaker 1: nineteenth century of French goods was not consciously associated with
Speaker 1: French prestige. It was all about making the people who
Speaker 1: consume them feel a certain way, just as denouncing a
Speaker 1: man burning a holy book is less about creating a
Speaker 1: caliphate in Britain than it is about people feeling good
Speaker 1: about themselves for denouncing supposed bigotry. This is the kind
Speaker 1: of thing that Western activists do not get exercised about,
Speaker 1: and the probability that they would is actually pretty low
Speaker 1: because what I'm trying to appear to is to basically
Speaker 1: liberal values. But Western activists tend to distrust liberal values.
Speaker 1: They tend to distrust the supposed evil of capitalism. That
Speaker 1: hatred of capitalism and liberalism provides one of the easiest
Speaker 1: entry points for a group like HT. One of their
Speaker 1: pamphlets makes this clear, proclaiming that quote Islam will prevail
Speaker 1: over all other ways of life, including Western capitalism and
Speaker 1: the culture of Western liberalism. It is become almost a
Speaker 1: given that these two forces, that is liberalism and capitalism,
Speaker 1: have developed truly nefarious reputations in the eyes of many
Speaker 1: Western radicals. Islamist groups like HT, if it hasn't been
Speaker 1: made clear enough are not unaware of this fact and
Speaker 1: have enough operatives sophisticated enough to avoid talking about the
Speaker 1: more alienating aspects of their ideology, including their misogyny and homophobia,
Speaker 1: while also being careful to use terms like Zionists rather
Speaker 1: than Jews, but only when it matters, and this requires
Speaker 1: circling back to the original question of imperialism. It might
Speaker 1: be kind of obvious to some listening, but I want
Speaker 1: to make sure that we can.
Speaker 2: Just make this all come together.
Speaker 1: This softening of Islamism for the sake of Western audiences
Speaker 1: is not dissimilar to the French imperial approach of the
Speaker 1: nineteenth century in making their products and thus national brand
Speaker 1: so appealing, because like French wine and silk makers of
Speaker 1: centuries past, Islamists and the organizations and influencers following their
Speaker 1: ideological lead, however, unconsciously have been selling a lifestyle an
Speaker 1: image That's essentially what I was saying before when talking
Speaker 1: about the people condemning the burning of a Quran in
Speaker 1: the UK and celebrating the fact that a man is
Speaker 1: probably going to jail for it, or at least was
Speaker 1: arrested for it, while creating a caliphate that enforces strict
Speaker 1: Islamic values is the long term goal. Creating a lifestyle
Speaker 1: via a supposedly moral framework is far more useful to
Speaker 1: Islamist groups. This is because in selling this lifestyle they
Speaker 1: have created a naive rhetorical defense force in the West
Speaker 1: that will make it harder for Westerners to dismiss eighth
Speaker 1: century moral values out of hand for fear of being
Speaker 1: branded as xenophobic or racist. This lifestyle marketing approach is
Speaker 1: catalog brilliantly by the polemicist Brandan O'Neil, and is excellent
Speaker 1: after the pogram seventh of October Israel and the Crisis
Speaker 1: of Civilization, where he tackles what he calls the cult
Speaker 1: of the Kifaya, pointing out that quote cafeya chic is
Speaker 1: all the rage unquote, and using a particularly Tellian example
Speaker 1: of a three thousand British pound version of this traditional
Speaker 1: scarf from Balenciaga, that quote you can't put a price
Speaker 1: on virtue, signaling on quote.
Speaker 2: I love that. By the way.
Speaker 1: O'Neil is savage in his indictment, writing the following quote
Speaker 1: that an item of clothing has become so omnipresent among
Speaker 1: the virtuous set that the activist class covets this scarf
Speaker 1: with such relish that there has been an influx of
Speaker 1: mass produced cafaas into our societies. In the words of
Speaker 1: an article published in The Guardian, points to a performative
Speaker 1: streak in pro Palestine activism that it has become de
Speaker 1: brigueur in certain circles to flout all the laws of
Speaker 1: cultural appropriation and pull on this hot accessory of the West.
Speaker 1: Suggests that the activist set is as keen to say
Speaker 1: something about itself and its own rectitude as it is
Speaker 1: about the predicament of the Palestinian people. And what is
Speaker 1: the activist set trying to say? I kind of made
Speaker 1: it clear what I thought earlier, and to put it
Speaker 1: bluntly again, it is obviously a way for them to
Speaker 1: be fashionable and on the supposedly right side of history.
Speaker 1: This is a win win scenari for many of the
Speaker 1: approval seeking among us. As Brendan O'Neil continues to write,
Speaker 1: quote and what is its usefulness? What holy service does
Speaker 1: this garment play in the lives of the elites? Its
Speaker 1: prime role is as a signifier of virtue. It is
Speaker 1: sartorial shorthand for ethical correctness. It communicates to your fellow
Speaker 1: travelers in the universe of luxury beliefs that you too
Speaker 1: have contempt for Israel and compassion for Palestine, an entirely
Speaker 1: requisite credo for access to the cultural establishment in the
Speaker 1: twenty first century. Wearing the cathaya in public, or in
Speaker 1: posting photos of yourself wrapped up in one, is fundamentally
Speaker 1: a statement of your moral fitness for political high society.
Speaker 1: Far from being an act of solidarity, Cathaya wearing is
Speaker 1: more about raising awareness of yourself and your goodness than
Speaker 1: it is about raising awareness of the Palestinians and their
Speaker 1: challenges unquote. While certain complications to this assessment have manifested
Speaker 1: thanks to the new Trump administration's recent crackdowns on pro
Speaker 1: Palestinian protesters in a lot of cases with a chilling
Speaker 1: degree of what appears to me to be at least
Speaker 1: bordering on First Amendment violations, that is well said at
Speaker 1: least about the cafaya wearing set before all these changes
Speaker 1: started to happen. All this is to say that with
Speaker 1: the kafaya in this particular case, but also more broadly,
Speaker 1: what we're talking about here is that a lifestyle is
Speaker 1: being sold, and while it is being spread primarily by
Speaker 1: the forces of capitalism, the ideology that fuels the anger,
Speaker 1: which fuels the righteousness, and which thus fuels those forces
Speaker 1: of capitalism which are driven by people making purchasing decisions.
Speaker 1: Remember that ideology is not capitalism or liberalism or progressivism
Speaker 1: or leftism, Islamism, and thus it is an imperial force.
Speaker 1: Is this imperial force as powerful or as obvious and
Speaker 1: violent as the British lording over India, or the Belgians
Speaker 1: lording over the Congo, or the Third Reich lording over
Speaker 1: parts of Poland and parts of Yugoslavia.
Speaker 2: Of course not yet.
Speaker 1: As the historian David Todd and other scholars have demonstrated,
Speaker 1: and as discussed earlier in this episode, empire need not
Speaker 1: be created or maintained at the point of a bayonet.
Speaker 1: It can, indeed have a soft velvet touch and has
Speaker 1: next to nothing to do with territorial acquisitions or resource extraction,
Speaker 1: or more to do with sociocultural influence. This was shown
Speaker 1: by the French in their own conspicuous commodities and the
Speaker 1: lifestyle the class that those commodities ultimately suggested. David Todd
Speaker 1: writes about the phenomenon of what he calls nineteenth century
Speaker 1: France's Champagne capitalism, which he defines as quote the power
Speaker 1: base of a sophisticated model of global reale mont or
Speaker 1: a positive influence due to prestige quote and paired with
Speaker 1: the occasional violence in certain corners of the world, something
Speaker 1: that created quote what may be termed an empire of
Speaker 1: taste unquote. It should be clear in the twenty first
Speaker 1: century that a lifestyle is no longer just demonstrated by
Speaker 1: physical commodities or even mere physical appearance, but by the
Speaker 1: essence of the person's beliefs and allegiances, often signaled through
Speaker 1: physical appearance, which can be done with a few swipes
Speaker 1: across a touch screen, a physical commodity.
Speaker 2: In and of itself.
Speaker 1: The old forms of lifestyle commodification, the physical manifestations, are
Speaker 1: now unseemly at best. There better be some kind of authenticity,
Speaker 1: maybe even at least the appearance of humility lurking on
Speaker 1: underneath the surface there, and you better demonstrate that, otherwise
Speaker 1: you are no better than the stuffy, out of touch
Speaker 1: one percent. As Brendan O'Neil summarizes in his polemic quote
Speaker 1: as British political scientist Matthew Goodwin explains where the old
Speaker 1: elite derived its sense of social status from physical manifestations
Speaker 1: of wealth, such as fine clothes, jewelry, foreign travel, servants,
Speaker 1: private carriages, and large properties. The new elite tends to
Speaker 1: distinguish itself from the low status masses by focusing far
Speaker 1: more and projecting their cultural capital rather than their economic capital.
Speaker 1: With prosperity spread far more widely across society than was
Speaker 1: the case in the past, ostentatious displays of riches have
Speaker 1: much less significance instead, says Goodwin. For the sophisticated, financial, secure,
Speaker 1: urban dwelling, university educated new elite, a certain set of
Speaker 1: fashionable beliefs has been become the new signifier of social status.
Speaker 1: In other words, when one, for example, to go back
Speaker 1: to the one I made earlier, makes the argument that
Speaker 1: Islamophobia is a devastating problem, but it is only made
Speaker 1: in response to criticism of Islam or even Jihadism or
Speaker 1: hamas as is more common now, one is giving oneself
Speaker 1: one's very own hyper modern tray chik vibe, just with
Speaker 1: moral signaling rather than with wealth signaling. It is a
Speaker 1: lifestyle and one that only truly benefits two things as
Speaker 1: I suggested earlier, one's own ego and the ideologues who
Speaker 1: aim to spread their beliefs in the first place. To
Speaker 1: bring this back around to imperial analysis, this can also
Speaker 1: be observed in the spread of nineteenth century France as
Speaker 1: Empire of Taste. The most important take way was not
Speaker 1: that this velvet empire made the French rich, as David
Speaker 1: Todd writes it quote was not a purely capitalistic enterprise.
Speaker 1: It pursued profit but also power and prestige unquote. It
Speaker 1: was very much not just about money. But is all
Speaker 1: this Islamism, global capitalism, French luxury. Is it all really
Speaker 1: truly a form of imperialism? Is this empire what I've
Speaker 1: been talking about?
Speaker 4: Not?
Speaker 1: To be fair, many would argue that it's not, both
Speaker 1: because empire is a pejorative term, as covered earlier, and
Speaker 1: because it has a specific meaning and one that has
Speaker 1: been clearly defined throughout history. David Todd does a wonderful
Speaker 1: job preemptively facing off these criticisms in his own work,
Speaker 1: noting that one can simply dismiss the usage of the
Speaker 1: word empire or imperial in the case of the French
Speaker 1: Empire of Taste as quote a metaphor used to convey
Speaker 1: the crushing extent of French culture domination unquote, or even
Speaker 1: a type of rhetoric used to quote a suage wounded
Speaker 1: national pride after the loss of real territorial empires in
Speaker 1: seventeen sixty three or eighteen fifteen quote, before he puts
Speaker 1: those concerns to rest. As Todd writes, quote, it is
Speaker 1: also very tempting to take the use of the word
Speaker 1: empires seriously and highlight what was authentically imperial about French
Speaker 1: economic and cultural domination. Two imperial traits stand out. The first,
Speaker 1: given that all empires are collaborative yet hierarchical enterprises between
Speaker 1: different national or ethnic groups, is the contribution of numerous
Speaker 1: non French auxiliaries to the dynamics of Champagne capitalism. The
Speaker 1: second is the French state's overtly political utilization of Champagne
Speaker 1: capitalism's successes in a bid to assert French supremacy in
Speaker 1: some parts of the world, or merely to proclaim France's
Speaker 1: status as a global overlord. If one was to remove
Speaker 1: any reference to France or at Champagne capitalism in this
Speaker 1: passage and replace them with more neutral general terms, it
Speaker 1: is pretty clear that the broader point can be made
Speaker 1: about imperialism that has little to do with territorial claims,
Speaker 1: resource extraction, or even economic enrichment. Those things could well
Speaker 1: be part of the picture. But what the French understood
Speaker 1: in the nineteenth century and what Islamists understand in the
Speaker 1: twenty first is that influence can come in many forms,
Speaker 1: and the more amorphous and seemingly personal that influence is,
Speaker 1: the harder it is to extinguish. This was also understood,
Speaker 1: as we saw earlier on in this episode, by the
Speaker 1: United States intelligence agencies concerned with the spread of democratic
Speaker 1: capitalistic values abroad to combat the spread of communist ones
Speaker 1: during the Cold War. If one wishes to go further
Speaker 1: back into the past, one need not look any further
Speaker 1: than the attempts to spread Christianity.
Speaker 2: Throughout the world.
Speaker 1: With the faith supporting over two billion adherents, one could
Speaker 1: argue that the Velvet Empire of Christianity is the greatest
Speaker 1: success story for soft imperial power in human history, especially
Speaker 1: because that says nothing about the countless attempts at hard
Speaker 1: power influence that Christian empires have had throughout history.
Speaker 2: To make the.
Speaker 1: Point, while at risk of sounding more pedantic even than
Speaker 1: I usually do. What even is imperialism?
Speaker 2: What is it really?
Speaker 1: It certainly involves the things mentioned a moment ago, territory, resources, enrichment,
Speaker 1: and it certainly has both hard and soft methodologies. But
Speaker 1: in the end, imperialism is about power. It's about influence,
Speaker 1: not power for its own sake, but the power of
Speaker 1: the ideas and values held by those who wish to
Speaker 1: spread those ideas and values in the places where they matter,
Speaker 1: That in turn will bring about all the territory, resources
Speaker 1: and enrichment that one could envision. Those things will come
Speaker 1: to them and be brought willingly.
Speaker 2: By those who have been co opted.
Speaker 1: There are those who crave those things and believe, sometimes
Speaker 1: for good reason, thanks to their own strength, that they
Speaker 1: can be obtained through rudimentary, crude, physical domination. The brutes
Speaker 1: that we can call them. The difference between them and
Speaker 1: the champions of soft power, from the French in the
Speaker 1: nineteenth century to the Americans in the twentieth, to the
Speaker 1: Islamists and the twenty first is that the brutes of
Speaker 1: the world have so little imagination. History impossible has been
Speaker 1: made possible by the kind and generous donations of great
Speaker 1: folks like the following people. I want to shout out
Speaker 1: Bob Downing, Greg Hunter, s O, Skip, Pa Chaco, Molly Pan,
Speaker 1: John Pisano, Anna R P. J. Raider, Matthew m Rice,
Speaker 1: Emily Schmidt, Pierre Vorpuni, and.
Speaker 2: Of course f U.
Speaker 1: I want to thank all of you again for listening
Speaker 1: and for indulging in some mini rants that came.
Speaker 2: Pretty spontaneously while I was recording.
Speaker 1: But like I established with the last set of school
Speaker 1: related episodes that I did involving the air revolt and whatnot,
Speaker 1: there was a bit of polemicism going on in there.
Speaker 1: Like I said, I wanted to pair something academic with
Speaker 1: something polemic, and this is in this case a polemic
Speaker 1: more than anything else.
Speaker 2: For those of you who would.
Speaker 1: Prefer the more academic route, well, good news is we
Speaker 1: have something else coming very soon that will bring to
Speaker 1: a close this trilogy of sorts of episodes that deal
Speaker 1: with the subject of imperialism. We do have a couple
Speaker 1: interviews hopefully coming soon. I made an appearance on WICCTV
Speaker 1: over on YouTube recently, YouTube, Twitch, kick, all of the
Speaker 1: streaming platforms to talk about the concept of the woke right.
Speaker 1: So go give that a look if you are so inclined,
Speaker 1: and as always, please consider subscribing to the History Impossible
Speaker 1: newsletter over on substack History Impossible dot substack dot com,
Speaker 1: and consider becoming a paid member either there or at Patreon.
Speaker 1: Like the fine people I listed earlier, I really appreciate
Speaker 1: all the help I can get for keeping this show,
Speaker 1: this venture of sorts alive. So with all that said,
Speaker 1: thank you again, and please stay tuned for the next
Speaker 1: episode of History Impossible.