Peaceniks vs Martyrs + Repost of John Cleese (1987), "The Advantages of Extremism"
The following essays were also suitable for my Jew-centric blog, but I felt they were more suited on my primary blog since they apply to global politics. Cleese’s comments on extremism have nothing to do with the Israel-Islamist conflict.
1. Peaceniks vs Martyrs
There are two groups yelling "ceasefire" today: the peaceniks and the martyrs.
Peaceniks are led by pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, pro-Bedouin, pro-Druzim and pro-human voices who believe in unity through pluralism. They favor compromise, not sacrifice. They care about people, not states and flags. You’ll find discussion over both one-state and two-state solutions at their rallies. They welcome Israeli, Arab, and Western flags. This ideology has existed since the founding of Israel under different names. Peaceniks are known for volunteering, nuance and unique artistry.
Martyrs also protest with signs reading "ceasefire," but the unspoken caveat is "until next time." Their words and track record show zero interest in lasting peace. Rather, they use ceasefire as a time to re-arm. They fully reject the Israeli flag and often Western flags too. Yes, the U.S., U.K., Canadian and other Western flags are typically absent from U.S. and U.K.'s martyr protests. Most Arab states banned such protests altogether, seeing past the facade. They see martyrs chant and wave signs glorifying intifada, a term that, to most, evokes the murder of civilians. [To me, intifada specifically evokes the murder of working-class civilians, since the intifada was marked by bombings of fast-food restaurants, buses, nightclub lines, and other places associated with working-class civilians. The political and upper class have cars, eat fancy and skip the lines for clubs. Tthey're the least likely to be affected by bombings, shootings and stabbings inspired by these calls to violence, so callously thrown out in between claims of wanting peace.]
The modern martyr-ceasefire movement began in the 1960s, under KGB influence, and is marked by repeated ceasefire violations. Supporters include entities like Mixmag, a music tabloid that banned Zionist (read: Jewish) symbols, Western flags and even calls for hostage release from their events. The absence of dialog does not scream "peace." It screams fascism.
The new pope resembles the first group: the Peaceniks. He has called for the release of hostages. Since this pope promotes actual peace, martyr keyboard warriors ignored him. Martyrs have no interest in peace that includes “Zio-Jews.” These are people who can’t even acknowledge those kidnapped from a music festival are innocent, unless responding to criticism that their vision of “peace” is one-sided and Islamofascist. Instead, they frame hostage-taking as solely Israel and the West’s fault, taking zero accountability. The martyrs only cared for the previous pope because he made vague statements about genocide and disregarded putting blame on Gaza.
Sadly, the art community increasingly reflects the martyr archetype, not peaceniks. It is a tragedy. This point should be repeated, because how can anyone who goes to music festivals feign peacefulness while siding with those who filmed themselves murdering unarmed festival goers? Apparently, any action a fellow martyr takes is justified. Think of the Judgement of Solomon, when Solomon announced that a child should be cut in two, so that each mother should have half. The real mother, the peacenik, unable to bear murder, immediately offered it to the other woman, to save the child's life. The martyr mommies agree to the proposal, because murder is included in “by any means.”
Martyrs often turn their narcissism into virtue signaling. The narcissistic martyrs act sanctimonious even about thoughts of peace! They've canceled not just Israeli artists, but even Arab artists who call for peace with Israel. They cancel fundraisers. They protest for their twisted version of peace outside of children’s hospitals and special needs centers. This is the group that calls dibs on ethical standards, like, “I’m more for peace than you! I’m for peace times infinity!”
In my experience, peaceniks are involved. Martyrs are less often stakeholders in conflict, yet they pose as saviors. They interpret every cancellation they provoke as proof they’re doing good, when it’s really just proof they promote violence.
It’s critical to distinguish the two groups. Not everyone who says they “come in peace” means it. When a group says, repeatedly and explicitly, that they will never accept peace if Jews have any sovereignty, we must stop labeling them as peaceful. They are martyrs.
Before I give John Cleese’s explanation of why martyrs and extremists are more popular than peaceniks and moderates, I’ll get into some history of the two terms I’m using.
2. Origins of Terms
I would love to prove that “peacenik” originated in Jewish culture, but like many slang terms, it resists definitive attribution. I could just say, “I came up with the term frate (friend-date),” and if nobody finds an earlier use, I get credit. Still, I got it from a friend. That said, there's strong circumstantial evidence supporting the idea that it was first adopted, and possibly coined, within Jewish circles.
“Peacenik” first appeared in print on Feb 1, 1962, in The Village Voice in an article titled "Peace Strike Under Way" by Michael Smith. Smith was likely Irish, aka, not Jewish. However, The Village Voice was deeply shaped by Jewish influence: two of its three co-founders (Dan Wolf and Norman Mailer) were Jewish, as were many early staff and contributors like Nat Hentoff, Linda Solomon, Jules Feiffer, and Richard Goldstein. At the very least, the term was first printed in a very Jew-y paper, in a very Jew-y neighborhood.
The suffix -nik, used earlier in words like beatnik, derives from Yiddish and Slavic languages. It entered American English through Jewish immigrants and their cultural productions. Given the makeup of the Voice and the timing, it’s highly plausible that Jewish writers popularized “peacenik,” especially considering its early dual use in both American and Israeli contexts. In Israel today, it's still a common term for left-wing liberals who oppose militarism. In Israel it’s sometimes proudly ironic.
Martyr, by contrast, has a longer, more layered history. The word derives from the Greek martys, meaning "witness," which was used in legal contexts. This passed into Latin as martyr, where it retained the meaning of a person who bears witness, particularly to faith. The Christian usage of the term transformed its meaning: early Christians who died rather than renounce their beliefs were called martyrs because they were considered witnesses to the truth of Christ, even unto death.
This religious framing of martyrdom became dominant during the early centuries of Christianity, with the term becoming widespread and deeply associated with Christian sainthood and moral virtue. Over time, it expanded to include anyone who suffers or dies for a cause, including political or ideological ones.
Judaism, in contrast, does not sanctify suicide or the pursuit of death, even in the name of a cause. Jewish law is explicit in its value of life, and while individuals who died for their beliefs might be honored, Judaism does not idealize or romanticize martyrdom. The association of the term with Jews has historically been external, applied by Christians to Jews who were murdered, not a label Jews typically chose for themselves.
Today, martyrdom is most strongly associated with Islamists and their allies, where the term shahid (which also means “witness”) has taken on the meaning of someone who dies for jihad. Western media and activist movements absorb this usage, without nuance, reinforcing a narrative that glorifies dying for a cause while minimizing the implications for the victims of such violence. For some activist groups, such as the Queers for Palestine (could you imagine “Queers for Hitler”?), the stated cause ( creating a caliphate) is forgotten for a personal cause (veganism or whatever, it doesn’t matter).
In the current cultural landscape, martyr is (bizarrely and) increasingly used with sympathy by faux-progressives, far right Christian groups (ex Darryl Cooper, Stew Peters) and Islamists to describe Arab militants killed in conflict, despite the violent contexts. This includes members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other violent terrorist groups. This creates a strange ideological alliance: conservative Christian martyr-sympathizers aligning, knowingly or not, with Islamist glorification of suicide attacks. [See “REPOST: 1939 Article Debunking Fake Talmud Quotes Still Circulating in 2025” for more examples of this combo.]
This veneration of martyrdom is antithetical to Darwinism, which teaches that harmful traits or behaviors—such as suicide bombings and using your own children as suicide bombers—should die out. But the concept of martyrdom insists that death, far from being an end, is a message. People say things like, If you kill a terrorist, their children will become terrorists. You rarely hear the same logic applied to fallen soldiers. I'd argue that it’s not genetics or inevitability at work—it’s the glorification by the living that fuels repetition. If anything, Darwinism is still in effect. It’s just unpopular among ideologues who prefer myth to evolution.
Peaceniks believe in creating a peaceful culture by acceptable means only. Martyrs believe in creating their utopia, no matter what that may be, by any means necessary. Their words echo this. When a martyr says they do not want peace, listen to them. Do not let them later pretend they want a ceasefire because they are losing a war they started.
3. REPOST: John Cleese, "The Advantages of Extremism" (1987)
You should absolutely watch the full video above. It’s short and features one of the best comedic minds of all time. But if you can’t, here’s the full transcript:
"Seriously though we've heard a lot about extremism recently. A nastier, harsher atmosphere everywhere. More abuse and bother boy behavior. Less friendliness and tolerance and respect for parents.
All right, but what we never hear about extremism is its advantages. Well, the biggest advantage of extremism is that it makes you feel good—because it provides you with enemies.
Let me explain...
The great thing about having enemies is that you can pretend all the badness in the world is in them and all the goodness is in you. Attractive, isn’t it?
So, if you have a lot of anger and resentment in you anyway—and you therefore enjoy abusing people—you can pretend you're only doing it because these enemies of yours are such very bad persons. And if it weren’t for them, you’d actually be good-natured and courteous and rational all the time. So if you want to feel good—become an extremist.
Okay, now you have a choice.
If you join the hard left, they'll give you their list of authorized enemies: almost all kinds of authority, especially the police, the city, Americans, judges, multinational corporations, public schools, various newspaper owners, fox hunters, generals, class traitors, and of course—moderates.
Or, if you’d rather be an extremist on the hard right, no problem! You still get a lovely list of enemies, only they're different ones: noisy minority groups, unions, Russia, weirdos, demonstrators, welfare spongers, meddlesome clergy, peaceniks, the BBC, strikers, social workers, communists, and—again—moderates.
Now, once you're armed with one of these super lists of enemies, you can be as nasty as you like—and still feel your behavior is morally justified. You can strut around abusing people and think of yourself as a champion of truth—a fighter for the greater good—and not the rather sad, paranoid schizoid that you really are."
4. Break the Cycle
You see this distinction between peaceniks and martyrs in your own community. You see people who pose as peaceful, but really are part of a greater grift. Maybe they’re telling you about the boundless opportunities of crypto, quietly discussing how the globalist Jews are forcing you onto a fiat currency. Maybe they’re telling you the world is about to end due to global warming, and it’s everyone’s fault except China, India and the major manufacturers. What comes next?
How do we handle this situation, if it’s barely changed since the 1960s?
Share your thoughts in the comments! Dialogue is still allowed here. I care about nuance and noncomformity more than chants.
