To aid your point, he was killed by (a small cabal of) senators because he threatened their political power, not because of his economic reforms. They left virtually every reform he pushed through untouched after the Ides of March.
Ceasar's biggest fault was that he was too successful. As far as dictators go, he wasn't particularly more power-hungry than any other Roman leader of his time, nor do I believe he had any real monarchic ambitions. Rome was a culture that promoted both success and visibility and he excelled in both, but the ruling men didn't give him his due partially out of fear for what he
could do, which made him push for recognition even more, which made his opposition push back even more, etc. etc.
This is probably because the Senate recognized that his economic reforms were both moderate and necessary. Not one of them could actually muster an opposition to any specific point of the land reform bill.
The land reforms and grain policies of the Gracchi also stayed, so the idea of hating a man but not his ideas wasn't new. But I also believe that Caesar's opponents weren't in a position to argue much of anything after his death, especially once his successors came along.
3 years of Jew criticism being more tolerated does not mean it's not transgressive
Of course, it's still controversial online, in person, and especially in politics. I should have clarified that it's no longer transgressive in the kinds of online communities adjacent to the dissident counternarrative videos who would rather continue the hackneyed wink-wink nudge-nudge jew jokes and huff their own farts than legitimately engage in discussion. Not that there is any discussion, because the communities they cultivate quickly become hostile echo-chambers.
Something being transgressive or not has no bearing on whether it's correct or not.
Exactly. Saying jews are responsible for every major conflict since the Napoleonic Wars would probably get you (unjustly) arrested in many supposedly-free nations, but that doesn't mean its true. Yet many in dissident circles believe that if an idea is censored or taboo, than it must be true, because why else would it be censored?
Characterizing people who disagree with you as lunatics that think Jews have superpowers only makes you look childish and overly emotional.
It isn't a problem of disagreement and I wasn't trying to characterize anyone holding similar views as lunatics. One look at my profile should tell you that I'm amendable to the idea that jews have historically had an outsized, often negative, effect on the politics, culture, and economies of western nations relative to their small population.
My issues with these creators are threefold: First, their premises are weak, especially given their grand, all-encompassing conclusions. They often finger a handful of jews in a majority non-Jewish organization/movement, citing their representation and a few choice quotes as evidence of a Jewish conspiracy while disregarding the autonomy of the non-Jews or the forces in play well beyond the scope of human action, along with many other factors. It's purely motivated reasoning and oversimplification.
Second, they hold their own explanations very highly, considering anyone who disagrees as arguing in bad faith or as a subverted fool. It's one thing to be incurious and intellectually lazy, its another thing to flaunt it. That's why I make a comparison between them and progressive academics who can only look at things through a racial lens; They've found the hammer, and so everything looks like a nail.
Thirdly, these creators and their ideas would go a lot farther if they kept their own opinions to themselves while poking holes in progressive narratives. Guys like the Leather Club or Atlas might turn away people who would otherwise be open to questioning the popular view of history because they can't help but out themselves as a Groyper who believes we have to nuke Israel and throw Jewish grandmothers down wells to save the west. This criticism is mainly about optics, but often the inability to hide their PL causes creator's audiencecs to stagnate and become associated with the kind of online viewers who obsess over the same things, creating just another gay boy's club. You must rein in the more extreme parts of your ideology to attract normies. Even Hitler knew this.
One aspect that fascinates me and may be granted by me not being a yank. Is that regardless of the goals, reasons and development of the American Civil War you can see the stillborn birth of an ethnicity happen. Had the South Won or Reconstruction happened differently and the distinction between Yankee and Dixie would be something real if quite shallow, like the difference between Czech and Slovak or Slovene and Croat. Yet because of how things went while Southerners did develop a distinct culture it never got to evolve into ethnicity and because the US is victim to external and internal migratory waves that culture has been eroded by both sublimation of it's cultural practices into the broader American culture or by replacement be it of population or simply of those cultural tenants by the broader culture.
Regional culture has diluted in the US overall due to public schooling, Hollywood, television, urbanization, suburbanization, and migratory waves essentially eroding any substantial differences between white populations, with exceptions found in isolated areas with little movement of people in or out.
It was a multi-faceted process. Part a deliberate effort by the government encouraging a national identity around the early 20th century, part members of ethnic groups feeling compelled to either for economic/social advancement or a fear of ostracization/discrimination for their ethnicity/nationality, part long-term exposure to national culture.
