Maturin [any]

Genuine question (and I don’t know if you’ve gone down this rabbit hole) but does “el” in the context of Hebrew names refer to the concept of any god generically or was “el” the name of the one monotheistic god (before being combined with the monotheistic god with the other name) and the “els” in the names of the angels meant to be an attachment to the court of the one god in a similar way to “isra-el” being not another god but a kingdom/people bearing the name of the god it served (of course talking about biblical Israel and not the modern state).

And then he writes a whole long-ass argument based on this new definition of antisemitism. They even call it the “new” antisemitism.

But for real, this is an establishment media blitz trying to officially define antisemitism as anti-zionism. It’s not meant to make sense in the previous definitional framework.

Pretty big talk for a 2 day old burner account. Somebody post the fedposting emoji.

Biden has actually been this openly ghoulish for a half a century at this point. Look for that quote from him on the senate floor in the 80s talking about the massacres in Lebanon.

Not saying Vonnegut couldn’t have done better historical research, but Slaughterhouse 5 was not intended as historical analysis and is much more a psychological novel about PTSD and the effects of war on the mind of someone who lived through the brutality taken from his personal experience of being a POW during the Dresden bombing. He picks up what amounts to an early pop-history American source and doesn’t really critically analyze it - just takes at face value its account of the event that he mostly focuses on from his personal, micro-perspective. I don’t know if later in life he was confronted with more accurate accounts of the Dresden bombing and whether he commented on the inaccuracy of his books, but you can understand the literary appeal to a surviver of the Dresden bombing being presented with an official history that confirms what he emotionally felt while in the middle of it. He even presents it that way in the first chapter - describing himself and his army buddy as basically ignorant to the macro history of the event until they crack open a book decades later that describes it that way. When the “author” of the referenced book appears in the story itself, he is presented as one of the most deplorable characters confronted in the book. Essentially a bloodthirsty maniac that is both unapologetic while being aware that his conclusions are unsupportable (feeling the need to get confirmation of his statements of belief from a person that he does not even acknowledge to be conscious or cognizant). All that is to say, if the only thing one takes from Slaughterhouse 5 was that it is “bad history” and somehow nazi-aplogia for exaggerating the extent of death in Dresden, or worse, if someone avoids the book altogether because of the accusation, they are really missing out.

Russel Crowe just can’t seem to catch a break

🌎🧑‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

I see what you mean. Most of my exposure to the hypothesis (other than the aforementioned Zionist tropes) is from Cold War era non-Zionist Jewish sources, and they really didn’t deal too much with the Yiddish thing. I believe the idea of the constant movement of peoples, in those tellings, explained why they ended up north and west of Khazar land for the same reason the Magyars and others ended ups in similar places. The main up-shot of those sources, at least in my reading, kind of goes to your final point, but in a different way. The idea being that the peoples in the Steppe were always a fluid amalgam of people and there were home-grown Jewish influences there that became a cultural seed that developed in groups in the area that sought to neither ally with the Christian world to the west and what was developing into the Persian/other empires and Muslim world to the east. So that reading of it goes that essentially no one has mythic ancestors in any one place because the version of history during any time period where one would posit a homogenous genetic group stayed “pure” from others is, at least with respect to Eurasian and African history, false. As those writers point out from the genetic (albeit, genetics as they existed a few decades ago) perspective, Jews generally are more genetically similar to the populations they live with than Jews from disparate places have genetic commonality with each other. I definitely agree none of this matters with respect to the current genocide of the Palestinians, but the modern politics overshadow the almost mundane aspect that I am more curious about regarding the movement and interactions of peoples from Eastern Europe to Central Asia prior to and after the Rus came into the picture.

Can you elaborate on you second bullet point a little? I’ve definitely not surveyed all academia on the Khazars but almost all criticism of the hypothesis I’ve been able to find is straight up hasbara talking points that simply treats the idea as a heresy without actually engaging in any sort of objective evidence based response. They even call it the Khazar Heresy even though the Jewish religion is indifferent to the “genetic” origins of Jewish groups across the world. The heresy is a heresy against the Zionist religion in that formulation. And from proponents of the Khazar idea, while I’ve seen them use it, in part, as a cudgel against the idea of a Jewish nation emerging from a specific gene pool in the Levant, arguing that this is actually a concession to Zionism seems like accepting Zionist bad-faith counter-framing (which is done by Zionists in bad faith).