This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Erik Prince was on Tucker Carlson. It was nearly two hours, and I enjoyed most of it. They talked about Ukraine, the CIA, republicans, Afghanistan, drone warfare, surveillance, smartphones, and much more.
https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1792963714779426941
https://rumble.com/v4wl5or-erik-prince-cia-corruption-killer-drones-and-government-surveillance.html
Also youtube, somewhere.
I wanted to transcribe this part, and talk about it. Approximately 1:09.
I have not been shy about voicing my thoughts on citizenship, so to hear them echoed in some part on a platform like this was interesting and unexpected.
What other societies is he talking about? I am most familiar with the Reconquest, where the mohammadeans were driven out of Iberia over centuries. That fits pretty well with what Prince is saying. I'm less familiar with the partition of India, by religion, then the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan. This seems less relevant. What else is there? And what would that look like in the USA and Europe?
There's plenty to talk about from this conversation. The parts on drone warfare were particularly interesting to me, but didn't seem to fit with the rest of this post. And I'm out of time, so I post this as-is without any further commentary.
"What it would look like" in Europe would probably be the forced population swaps between Greece and Turkey after World War I, or the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II. There already exists a model for this in Europe, it's happened before. But nothing like this happens without state force and a willingness to resort to violence, which means nothing of the sort will happen as long as people continue to believe (as they do in Europe) that they just need to vote harder to solve the problem.
There is no public desire on a large-enough scale in the modern US or Europe for the kind of forced population movements that the alt-right wants. Which means that voting or no voting, it is not going to happen any time in the immediate future. It is not going to happen through voting because the people who want it are outvoted. It is not going to happen outside of voting because the people who want it to happen are outnumbered and outgunned by the people who do not want it to happen. Personally, I doubt that it will ever happen. Attitudes towards these things have simply changed enormously since 80 years ago and the number of non-whites in the US and Europe is growing too slowly to cause some sort of shocked paradigm shift among white people.
Today.
I honestly think in 20-30 years Europe has a very good chance of radicalizing. At some point the costs of immigration will be too high for the college educated living in expensive neighbors not to notice the issues.
Then again San Francisco exists so perhaps I am wrong.
Honestly if I were a billionaire the best way to turn people against immigration is probably funding programs sending elites to study in different areas. And notice the different quality of life in high and low trust societies. Then some gentle nudges discussing why that is so.
When I was in SF, the derelicts who were making the place unlivable were far more likely to be black-looking (i.e. presumably ADOS blacks) than any of the immigrant groups people are complaining about. If I had to guess, I would say the second-largest subgroup were white American druggies.
More options
Context Copy link
San Francisco is a churning hub of naive liberals turning into centrists in their mid careers and retreating to hide in suburbs somehow free of homeless and blacks. If you want to turn San Francisco liberals away from immigration, don't send them on junkets, force them to find a replacement tenant before they can physically leave their degrading rental properties in the 'diverse' city.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agree, a reversal of immigration is impossible. That's why its imperative to fix our broken immigration and asylum systems, because immigration is one of the few policies that can never be undone.
Almost all disasters are temporary. It took Europe only 10 or 15 years to recover from WWII. Countries like Poland have more or less completely recovered from Communism in 30 years.
But immigration can never be recovered from. It is one of few things that will permanently change a country.
You can recover from immigration. Race riots are a GREAT way to let someone know they aren't welcome and should make all effort to shape up, fight, or get out. The same forces that compels police to stand aside and let masses of muslims rape white children will cause the police to stand aside as Hamlet Towers is burnt to the ground: can't arrest all of them with our small police and the prisons are full. Europeans are seen as weak pussies because 60 years of German-Franco-Anglo peace has been sustained by an incompetent enemy and football. Violent migrants thinking weak peoples will stay weak and docile in the face of islamist violence should remember that the Europeans did in fact have superior martial arms and valor to take their lands, and the Europeans can do so again with enough motivation.
Race riots have to be pretty fucking bad for people to go back to Africa or Pakistan, especially the way things are going now in some of those countries. Frankly, I don't know that you can make it bad enough except on pain of death. And, of course, people will react to that.
Even worse, you run the risk of radicalizing the biggest - by mass - obstacle to this sort of thing: Good Whites who want to fight Nazis. It's not gonna be a stretch if you're actively ethnically cleansing via violence.
They don't have to go back, they just need to be smacked into submission and change their ways or reveal their own desire to fight against whites and have their evil exposed. Good whites are the ones now edging towards race riots and I can't blame them. Europe is where a race riot is likely to start next, and the arabs who crow about breeding out the europeans and stealing the spoils for themselves are in for a rude awakening.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe. Or maybe two world wars killed off the most valorous Europeans, leaving only the weaker and more docile to have kids. Then consider the demographic changes wrought by two or more centuries of emigration, where the majority of the most cantankerous, adventurous, and ambitious relocated to America. Finally, add in modern birth rates, and it begins to seem somewhat likely that the present-day stock of Europeans is rather different than their forebears of 200–500 years ago.
More options
Context Copy link
Certainly it worked in the US in the 1960s. But you need the connivance of the state to allow the riots to run unchecked.
More options
Context Copy link
Tower Hamlets, the place is called Tower Hamlets (and no it's not a complete shithole, the bourough includes Whitechapel which yes is pretty bad but also all of Canary Wharf which is the No 2. main finance center in London).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link