site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   27063 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 2024

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Clark Kent Did Not Assimilate

The Dissident Right Inquisition on Twitter/X is ongoing, whereby certain factions of the DR, mostly surrounding the orbit of Bronze Age Pervert, are accused of being crypto-Jewish, owing to their willingness to be super edgy on every aspect of cultural consensus under the sun except that one question. They will criticize everything except Jewish power and Zionist influence. The fact that a growing number of them have actually turned out to be secretly Jewish puts wind in the sails because that sort of behavior is predicted by DR critique of Jewish behavior: the Clark Kent metaphor of deceptively presenting one identity to the outside world while secretly maintaining a different one under the surface.

Steve Sailer got caught in the crossfire here. In our recent discussion on this Twitter spat, I would have put Steve Sailer as an "execption" to the rule that an edgy DR figure who counter-signals the JQ is probably secretly Jewish himself, but now I increasingly believe Sailer is another instance of this model generalizing after all. Last week, after some token Holocaust worship and virtue signaling against anti-semitism on Twitter, Sailer abandoned his typical methodological thoroughness in an article placing the blame for Wokeness solely at the feet of white Protestants and Quakers (!). This position is not new, it is identical to what (Jewish) DR figures like BAP and Curtis Yarvin have been saying for a long time, and @2rafa has advocated for this position as well:

Peng writes:

…wokeness appears to be a syncretic blend of Puritanism and Quakerism. Woke adherents value elite education and moralizing, seem obsessed with rooting out heretics, adhere to orthodoxy, and display a sense of personal salvation, traits that were all characteristic of Puritans, while also displaying the radical openness and commitment to egalitarianism that characterized the Quakers.

Puritans tended to be intense and Quakers nice. Put them together and you get an intolerant religion of tolerance...

...Peng sees Jewish liberalism as, historically, a triumph of assimilation:

Whereas anti-Semites today like to blame Jews in academia for “cultural Marxism,” the correlation actually runs the other way: Jews gave up their faith and assimilated into liberal Christian values, including sometimes literally converting to Christianity. The Jews that resisted assimilation, Orthodox Jews, are a solidly Republican bloc. A similar assimilation is occurring among Asian Americans, who have swelled the ranks of the same colleges over the past few decades.

The key piece of evidence relied on by Sailer is an analysis of The 100 Most Influential Americans by The Atlantic. Finding only 7 Jews among that list, Sailer concludes that Peng is correct and Jewish association with wokeness is merely an effect of their assimilation with Protestant values.

Keith Woods wrote an excellent response to this article, pointing out the the biggest problem with Sailer's methodology: the question at hand is the cause for the radical change in trajectory of American progressivism in the 20th century. "Progressivism" in America at the turn of the century denoted not just immigration restriction, but demographic reversal, as well as HBD and eugenics. This all changed with the growth of Jewish influence in the 20th century. If you tried to create a "top 100 most influential list" related to this sharp diversion in American progressivism you would walk away from vastly different conclusions than those drawn by Sailer and Peng.

What's the motive?

Jewish participation in these cultural upheavals is not challenged by Sailer, or 2rafa, etc. Rather the most import question surrounds the motive for Jewish support, and even creation, of these counter-cultural movements. Sailer cites Peng briefly, but there's no actual evidence presented that Jewish participation in these cultural movements was motivated by a desire to assimilate to Protestant culture and values. On the other hand, Keith presents very strong evidence that the academic and cultural movements most closely associated with these upheavals throughout the 20th century were motivated by a retention of a Jewish identity and a hostility towards Protestant culture and values.

Keith presents strong evidence that the anthropological movements in the 20th century which enforced HBD denial as dogma, deriving from the Boasian school of anthropology, were motivated by his Jewish identification and opposition to antisemitism:

Boas was committed to the fight for racial equality throughout his life. Together with close friends he formed the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom in 1939, an antifascist organisation designed to “discredit the theories of race being forwarded by the Nazis in Germany”.

One of Boas’s most successful students was Ashley Montagu – born Israel Ehrenberg to a Jewish family in London’s East End – who completed a dissertation under Boas in 1937. Montagu arrived in the United States in 1931, and immediately focused his intellectual work on dismantling what he considered the dangerous idea of biological race, as well as attacking his new home of America for its racist past. His 1942 work Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: the Fallacy of Race, which was based on his dissertation, deconstructed the concept of race as one which developed in the 18th century as a response to slavery and colonialism.

Montagu’s book received mixed reviews from other academics, and he misled other academics on his credentials. In her book The Evolution of Racism, Pat Shipman records that Montagu responded to his academic critics by branding them as “racists” who opposed him because of his Jewish heritage. In an interview later in his life, he explained this early opposition with the sensational declaration that “all non-Jews are anti-Semitic”[9], a statement Shipman used as the title of one of the chapters of her book. Montagu also described childhood experiences of antisemitism in London as formative. It does not seem Montagu ever embraced or assimilated to the American Christian culture after his arrival in 1931, rather, he critiqued the norms of White Christian society as masking oppressive dynamics which brutalised other races and women.

Associating the radical departure from HBD to race denial in the early 20th century to Protestantism also does not make sense given the fact HBD was invented within White protestant culture, and the eugenics movement was also invented there and more advanced than anywhere else in the world. The United States, Germany, Scandanavia all had comparable eugenics programs and the Nazis were not even an outlier in that regard. It's impossible not to Notice that the battlelines between HBD and race denial in the 20th century largely broke between Protestant Darwinists (Madison Grant, E.O Wilson, Charles Murray, Samuel Morton, James Watson, etc.) and Immigrant Jews (Franz Boas, Stephen Jay Gould, Jared Diamond, Eric Turkeimer, etc.). Madison Grant also remarked that Jewish influenced was mobilized against HBD as early as 1921:

It is well-nigh impossible to publish in the American newspapers any reflection upon certain religions or races which are hysterically sensitive even when mentioned by name. . . . Abroad, conditions are fully as bad, and we have the authority of one of the most eminent anthropologists in France that the collection of anthropological measurements and data among French recruits at the outbreak of the Great War was prevented by Jewish influence, which aimed to suppress any suggestion of racial differentiation in France.

Keith does a good job establishing that the motivations of the Boasian School of Anthropology and the Frankfurt school of academics were not motivated by a desire to assimilate to white Protestant culture, but rather by their Jewish identification and deep-seated desire to wage culture war on White Protestant culture.

But I want to talk about two more:

Was Sigmund Freud motivated by a desire to assimilate to White Protestant Culture? This is from Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique:

[Freud] was proud of his enemies—the persecuting Roman Catholic Church, the hypocritical bourgeoisie, the obtuse psychiatric establishment, the materialistic Americans—so proud, indeed, that they grew in his mind into potent specters far more malevolent and far less divided than they were in reality. He likened himself to Hannibal, to Ahasuerus, to Joseph, to Moses, all men with historic missions, potent adversaries, and difficult fates. (Gay 1988, 604)

There is also evidence that Freud conceptualized himself as a leader in a war on gentile culture. We have seen that Freud had a great deal of hostility to Western culture, especially the Catholic Church and its ally, the Austrian Habsburg monarchy (Gay 1988; McGrath 1974; Rothman & Isenberg 1974a).[177] In a remarkable passage from the Interpretation of Dreams, Freud, in attempting to understand why he has been unable to set foot in Rome, proposes that he has been retracing the footsteps of Hannibal, the Semitic leader of Carthage against Rome during the Punic wars.

Hannibal . . . had been the favourite hero of my later school days. . . . And when in the higher classes I began to understand for the first time what it meant to belong to an alien race . . . the figure of the semitic general rose still higher in my esteem. To my youthful mind Hannibal and Rome symbolized the conflict between the tenacity of Jewry and the organisation of the Catholic Church. (Freud, Interpretation of Dreams; in Rothman & Isenberg 1974a, 64)

The passage clearly indicates that Freud was self-identified as a member of “an alien race” at war with Rome and its daughter institution, the Catholic Church, a central institution of Western culture. Gay (1988, 132) states, “A charged and ambivalent symbol, Rome stood for Freud’s most potent concealed erotic, and only slightly less concealed aggressive wishes.” [178] Rome was “a supreme prize and incomprehensible menace” (Gay 1988, 132). Freud himself described this “Hannibal fantasy” as “one of the driving forces of [my] mental life” (in McGrath 1974, 35).

A strong connection exists between anti-Semitism and Freud’s hostility to Rome. Freud’s conscious identification with Hannibal occurred following an antiSemitic incident involving his father in which his father behaved passively. Freud’s response to the incident was to visualize “the scene in which Hannibal’s father, Hamilcar Barca, made his boy swear before the household altar to take vengeance on the Romans. Ever since that time Hannibal had . . . a place in my phantasies” (in McGrath 1974, 35). “Rome was the center of Christian civilization. To conquer Rome would certainly be to avenge his father and his people” (Rothman & Isenberg 1974a, 62). Cuddihy (1974, 54) makes the same point: “Like Hamilcar’s son Hannibal, he will storm Rome seeking vengeance. He will control his anger, as his father had done, but he will use it to probe relentlessly beneath the beautiful surface of the diaspora to the murderous rage and lust coiled beneath its so-called civilities.”

Rothman and Isenberg (1974) convincingly argue that Freud actually viewed the Interpretation of Dreams as a victory against the Catholic Church and that he viewed Totem and Taboo as a successful attempt to analyze the Christian religion in terms of defense mechanisms and primitive drives. Regarding Totem and Taboo, Freud told a colleague that it would “serve to make a sharp division between us and all Aryan religiosity” (in Rothman & Isenberg 1974, 63; see also Gay 1988, 326). They also suggest that Freud consciously attempted to conceal his subversive motivation: A central aspect of Freud’s theory of dreams is that rebellion against a powerful authority must often be carried on with deception: “According to the strength . . . of the censorship, [the authority-defying individual] finds himself compelled . . . to speak in allusions . . . or he must conceal his objection beneath some apparently innocent disguise” (Freud, Interpretation of Dreams; in Rothman & Isenberg 1974a, 64).

If we were to create a Top 100 Influential list regarding, specifically, the radical shift in American culture Freud would certainly make this list along with the other examples discussed, and likewise another example for the intellectual motivation being driven by Jewish identity and a bitter hostility to White American culture. Not an attempt to assimilate to Protestant-Quaker cultural values.

Captain America - American as Apple Pie?

One blind spot in MacDonald's work is the comic-book pantheon: hugely influential on American culture, identity, and values. Looking barely beneath the surface reveals the very same psychology: less overtly malicious, but no less salient.

After all, someone ignorant would perceive Captain America as an Ayran hero. But when I watch this scene from Captain America (2011) I perceive something very different from the rest of the laity. I perceive the significance of the Jewish immigrant-inventor, Abraham Erskine, injecting Steve Rogers with the Serum that empowers him to fight the Nazis. The meaning of the myth does not point to a Jewish attempt to assimilate to Protestant values, it portrays a Jewish self-conceived role of transformation of American values. In the case of Captain America, the Jewish Immigrant lectures the audience before literally injecting the Aryan with a serum to transform him into the "Superior Man" so he goes to fight other White people. The Jewish writers are metaphorically depicting Culture War with Gentiles through these symbols.

Superman is one of many others which clearly fits in with this category, with heroic symbols and combat being a metaphor for Jewish Culture War being waged on white Gentiles.

Clark Kent is not a Jewish assimilation fantasy, he's a Jewish supremacist fantasy.

Clark Kent adopts an alter-ego in his daily interactions with humans by changing his name from Kal-El, meaning "Voice of God" in Hebrew, to the Gentile name Clark Kent. He changes his appearance, puts on a suit, goes to work as a media reporter (!) with everyone else none the wiser to his true identity.

But when Clark Kent tears open the shirt, he affirms that underneath the disguise he was always Superman. He holds sentimental feelings towards humanity as his adopted family, but in his heart of hearts he is a diasporan son of Krypton and he will never be them- he is a superior being and he must protect them and guide them.

This is extremely sophisticated storytelling. It provides perceptive Jewish audiences with a sense of identity, and yes superiority, it is a myth that tells them they cannot assimilate even if they change their name and appearance such that nobody around them knows who they truly are, they will always be Kryptonian underneath the surface. At the same time, there is compelling content for Gentile audiences that internalize the Ethos espoused by the ass-kicking superhero.

The dynamic described above was consciously created and self-aware. This is from a former principal writer of the Superman series from 1971 through 1986:

The unwarranted assumption in the explanations above is that Kryptonians are not Jews. I dissent from that notion. While they are not direct descendents of the Judeans of the Middle East from whom the term "Jewish" comes, I always ascribed effectively Jewish doctrine and ritual to the Kryptonian tradition. In fact, the Kryptonian tradition is congruent with and certainly predates the Judean, so they have at least as much claim to the tradition as any of us.

I give all my characters religions, so I've thought this through - really. The kents are Methodist (as is Clark), Lois is Catholic, Perry is Baptist, Jimmy is Lutheran (no surprise there) and Bruce Wayne and Batman are both Episcopalian (even less of a surprise there). And Superman (like the Siegels, the Shusters, the Weisingers, the Schwartzes, the Maggins and the Luthors) is Jewish.

This is so self-evident that it may as well be canon.

What's interesting here is that Clark Kent is Methodist but Superman is Jewish. This points to a very different dynamic of non-assimilation, and there's an interesting parallel to be made with certain DR edgelords who are Nietzschean on the surface and then crypto-Jewish underneath. These characters are metaphors for things that are real.

The psychology embedded metaphorically in the comic book canon points towards the exact same dynamic which motivated other intellectual movements: Jews retain their identity, if only in cryptic form, and self-conceive as saviors directing the values of humanity.

Conclusion

I'm not one to let Christianity off the hook, I also believe it is necessary but not sufficient to describe the cultural trajectory of 20th century America. But to say that Jews only contributed to it by force of their desire to assimilate is just so preposterous and contradicted by an enormous body of evidence of all forms that I find it hard to believe someone of Sailer's caliber falls victim to it. When Sailer sees someone say something like "IQ is just a measure of how good you are at taking tests, nothing important" that's how I feel seeing Sailer, BAP, Yarvin, 2rafa all say something so implausible like Jewish contributions to 20th century intellectual movements were motivated by their intense desire to assimilate to White American Protestant values.

These people are obviously motivated by their own Jewish identities, and it's correct for the Gentile DR to be inherently suspicious of the crypto-Jewish DR. It is a real problem that these people are unable and unwilling to see an incredibly obvious pattern, psychology, and symbolic coherency underlying these 20th century intellectual movements, it's not simply a prejudice.

Boasian Anthropology, the Frankfurt School, Freud and psychoanalysis, comic book myth creation, in none of those cases is the cultural influence of those movements motivated by an attempt to assimilate to a Protestant/Quaker ethos. In all cases, the individuals involved directly perceived themselves as Jews outside- even above and superior than, White Gentile culture and they all perceived their role as engaging in Culture War against White American values to direct them towards a way they perceived to beneficial for Jews.

I'm just going to register my schadenfreude at Sailer, BAP, et Al. This is probably a prime good usage of "but I didn't think they would eat MY face" meme, n'est pas?

Jewish HBDers, racists, etc send the message that my Aunt Hilda was 100% right about niggers, and probably correct in a limited way about 'Ricans too; but then they do this dance as to why she was completely wrong about Kikes.

But to say that Jews only contributed to it by force of their desire to assimilate is just so preposterous and contradicted by an enormous body of evidence of all forms that I find it hard to believe someone of Sailer's caliber falls victim to it. When Sailer sees someone say something like "IQ is just a measure of how good you are at taking tests, nothing important" that's how I feel seeing Sailer, BAP, Yarvin, 2rafa all say something so implausible like Jewish contributions to 20th century intellectual movements were motivated by their intense desire to assimilate to White American Protestant values.

I feel similarly when people tell me that HBD is obviously true, because "evolution didn't stop at the neck;" then are shocked Pikachu when people start dusting off the conniving greedy Jew stereotype and say "no no no we were just talking about IQ!" Maybe, but before iq tests were invented the differences you purport to notice existed, why can't other metrics exist even if we haven't found how to measure them yet?

I feel similarly when people tell me that HBD is obviously true, because "evolution didn't stop at the neck;" then are shocked Pikachu when people start dusting off the conniving greedy Jew stereotype and say "no no no we were just talking about IQ!" Maybe, but before iq tests were invented the differences you purport to notice existed, why can't other metrics exist even if we haven't found how to measure them yet?

How would you even measure 'greediness'? My experience has been that it's basically just a word used enviously. If I'm a tenant who can't afford rent, then landlords are greedy. If I'm a low-paid worker, then my boss is greedy. If inflation is making food more expensive, then supermarkets are greedy.

Antisemites don't think Jews are greedy because they've observed it, they think Jews are greedy because Jews are rich, and to the envious, rich=greedy.

By contrast, it's pretty easy to notice intelligence effects dispassionately. Even blank slatists notice that Asian kids do well in school.

Holy Thread Necromancy Batman!

How would you even measure 'greediness'?

...it's pretty easy to notice intelligence effects dispassionately...notice that Asian kids do well in school.

There was a time before IQ tests, there was even a time before schooling. Would intelligence still have been noticeable? Sure, but in inchoate ways. You'd notice who was intelligent and who wasn't, but not in ways you could easily measure. Then we'd go on to invent things like testing, apply it to diverse groups, and we'd be able to see this in numbers.

Meanwhile, HBDers like Sailer are peddling that the racists of the 1800s were correct in their inchoate understanding of the racial differences between whites and blacks; BUT those same racists were completely wrong in their inchoate understanding of Jews. Sailer argues for a biodeterminist approach to capability, but a blank-slatist approach to morality: humans all start out with no genetic moral tendencies.

But why would this be the case? Looking around, dispassionately, even Blank Slatists notice that humans have different moral tendencies, and folk traditions would hold that they seem to be genetic in nature, the same folk traditions that HBDers say were accurate about intelligence. Take it from the horse's mouth:

[A]t a contemporaneous meeting of the Washington Special Actions Group, a government crisis task force, Kissinger grumbled, “If it were not for the accident of my birth, I would be antisemitic.” He added: “Any people who has been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong.”

My experience has been that it's basically just a word used enviously. If I'm a tenant who can't afford rent, then landlords are greedy. If I'm a low-paid worker, then my boss is greedy. If inflation is making food more expensive, then supermarkets are greedy.

Moreover, I disagree that greed is not understandable or measurable as a negative trait. Any more than the other six deadly sins aren't measurable or understandable as negative traits.

"Wrath isn't actually bad, the weak call the strong Wrathful out of envy of their strength." (Tbf, this is, like, half of Nietzsche)

"Lust isn't actually bad, incels call the beautiful lustful out of envy because they can't get laid." (Tbf, this is most of the incel discourse)

"Pride isn't actually bad, losers call the proud sinful out of envy because they have no achievements to be proud of."

I should admit I am somewhat taking the piss here, I don't believe that HBD is true in the way it is typically presented. But I find it difficult to argue, using HBD premises, that antisemitism is ridiculous and unscientific.

I think what weakens the 'Jews really are greedy' hypothesis is that every market dominant minority has been accused of being greedy. Chinese in southeast Asia, Indians in former British colonies, Boers in South Africa, Parsis in India, Igbos in Nigeria.

The complaints are exactly the same ones that medieval European peasants and Confucian scholars made about merchants generally. That they were greedy middle-men who didn't charge 'fair price' and who didn't produce anything themselves. Sometimes the targets of these complaints were an ethnic group, sometimes they weren't. But the root of the complaints seem to always be envy, and the fact that humans prefer moralistic condemnation to the cold, impersonal reality of the forces of economics.

I should admit I am somewhat taking the piss here, I don't believe that HBD is true in the way it is typically presented. But I find it difficult to argue, using HBD premises, that antisemitism is ridiculous and unscientific.

Honestly, it sounds like you're just trying to tar HBD by association. What you've written suggests that you're uncomfortable with the reality of racial differences in intelligence, and so you want to associate it with the primitive Jew-hatred of the past.

I think what weakens the 'Jews really are greedy' hypothesis is that every market dominant minority has been accused of being greedy. Chinese in southeast Asia, Indians in former British colonies, Boers in South Africa, Parsis in India, Igbos in Nigeria.

And every poor peasant/slave minority has been accused of being some mix of stupid, lazy, racist, violent. Romans on the Germans, British on the Irish, WASPs on Polish and Italian immigrants, Americans on Mexicans. Does that undermine your arguments about blacks?

Further, there's no logical reason why two different minority groups in different parts of the world can't both be greedy.

You're making the anti-HBD arguments that any Vox thinkpiece by a history professor at a mid-tier liberal arts college would make, which would be dismissed by the HBDers when it comes to intelligence.

Does that undermine your arguments about blacks?

No, because we have actual scientific evidence. There actually are racial differences in IQ, in brain size, in reaction time, in educational attainment and we can measure these things objectively. What anyone thought in the past is irrelevant. The fact that one group of people in the past believed (correctly) that there were racial differences in intelligence doesn't mean that another group of people in the past believing that Jews were unusually greedy or sneaky (without evidence) is correct.

You may want us to talk about the past because making an anti-HBD argument is easy that way, because everyone in the past believed a mixture of true, false and crazy things and its easy to pick and choose. But the only thing that matters is hard evidence. If someone presents actual evidence that Jews are greedy or that all racial groups are equally intelligent then I'll update my beliefs. But if you are (I assume) trying to convince me away from the hard-HBD position, telling me that I'm obligated to hate Jews as a consequence of that belief isn't very convincing.

Come now. I've been around the block. I know better than to try to convince any mottizens of anything, let alone that they're obligated to do anything.

I'm making the point from the first that Jewish or philosemitic HBDers who are shocked, shocked to find the same arguments turned around strike me as tragicomic figures, in the classic leopards eating people's faces party mold.

The stereotype around here is that Jews are misers, something more quantifiable than "greedy". Penny-pinching, huge effort to eke out a bit more profit, etc.

I feel similarly when people tell me that HBD is obviously true, because "evolution didn't stop at the neck;" then are shocked Pikachu when people start dusting off the conniving greedy Jew stereotype and say "no no no we were just talking about IQ!"

TBH, I'm much less predisposed to believe HBD claims about Jews (in either direction) than sub-Saharan Africans (or *nesians), simply because of the shorter timescales. With sub-Saharan Africans there's a fairly-long timescale and lack of Neanderthal admixture; with *nesians there's Denisovan admixture. Neanderthals and Denisovans had almost a million years to diverge, and Out of Africa II was ~70,000 years ago (with additional time if you're comparing to West or South Africans due to divergence within Africa); Jews are what, 4,000 years old at best?

n'est pas

"n'est-ce pas". "n'est pas" is pronounced approximately "nay pah" and means "isn't"; "n'est-ce pas?" is pronounced approximately "ness pah" and means "is it not?"

Jews are what, 4,000 years old at best? 6000 - 8000 ?

It's difficult to assign divergence times on what looks more liike net than a tree.

Got me on the months old correction. Thanks. Still not sure why people are going back to a half assed comment.

I'm always surprised that Neanderthals have gotten such bad marketing, when it would be fairly easy to play them as the lost super race, scientifically.

Still not sure why people are going back to a half assed comment.

Well, I can't speak for @Crowstep, of course (perhaps he uses the "Comments" feed and saw my post?), but in my case it was that I did a search for "stop at the neck" since I wanted to find an old post I'd written that used the phrase, and happened across yours on the way since it was more recent.

I'm always surprised that Neanderthals have gotten such bad marketing, when it would be fairly easy to play them as the lost super race, scientifically.

Well, the thing is that that interpretation only really became coherent in 2010, when it was proven that whites and Asians are Neanderthal in significant part but not whole. Neanderthals were first thought to be our full ancestors (and thus no particular master race, plausibly less intelligent than modern descendants due to intervening selection), and then thought to have been yet another dead branch (and thus the same sort of thing as Australopithecus/Paranthropus robustus, who absolutely deserve the reputation of pop-culture Neanderthals). And, well, to state the obvious, by 2010 "whites and Asians are, as a whole, intellectually superior to sub-Saharan Africans because they have Neanderthal blood; Neanderthals were the real 'Numenoreans'" - which is the claim we're talking about, stated plainly - was something that mainstream journalism and big-budget fiction wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

(To be clear, I'm agnostic on that claim; there aren't any obvious reasons it can't be true, but the well of research on the topic has been so badly poisoned by both sides that it would be foolish to be confident in almost any claim in the area without having done the research oneself. I'm merely stating, descriptively, why it is not part of the pop-culture understanding of Neanderthals.)

You're probably correct. I'm just surprised by the lack of Neanderthal as Atlanteans, and the inverse lack of "only blacks are pure humans."

“Secret” is doing a lot in the OP. In any case, Sailer and BAP have very different views on most of these issues, Sailer is largely a form of civic nationalist, BAP has an incoherent kind of gay misogynist LARP more focused on contempt for women than other groups. Neither attempted to ‘hide’ their Jewishness, Costin wore an IDF t-shirt in college and posted his DNA test results and is open about it, Sailer is adopted but has speculated his birth father (iirc) could have been Jewish on several occasions over the last 20-30 years. In either case I don’t think that Jews shouldn’t participate on the right or in these spaces because some people might deploy related evopsych arguments in favor of antisemitism. As MacDonald and others show, they would do this anyway.

The logic of your argument is exactly what led to a lot of Jewish academics being unwilling to believe the obvious evidence for a lot of this stuff in the mid-20th century, not because they were nefarious manipulators trying to destroy European civilization but often because they didn’t want to be ‘on the side of’ people who justified antisemitism which they were personally afraid of. That doesn’t stop scientific enquiry, though, and the truth is the first duty of the principled researcher, wherever it leads.

It reminds me of ‘tradwife regret’ discourse (see Lauren Southern recently) and associated schadenfreude. But that doesn’t mean modern western gender relations are good, let alone optimal. It certainly doesn’t “disprove” women being socially conservative because hurr durr leopards ate her face lol, girlboss discourse is back because one person tried the hashtag tradlife and it wasn’t all that fun. There’s the famous cautionary tale of Ettore Ovazza, loyal Jewish Italian fascist, shot by the Germans in 1943. Did leopards eat his face? Perhaps, but no moreso than anyone destroyed by a twisted version of a belief system they once supported, and that is a very large number of people. I’m not going to become a leftist just because there are antisemites and misogynists on the right.

Do you think that Jews ought to compromise themselves at all in regards to Jewish identity politics that can be anti christian and anti european? Or is it only on the other side to be tolerant?

For example, they should oppose laws that enforce a story of Jews as oppressed and European Christians as oppressors, and in fact support institutions promoting a narrative that does include some criticism of Jews for their contributions to far left extremism, and antiwhite movement.

It isn't really a complicated issue. There are Jews who are an asset to the right like Stephen Miller who tend to have an identity that encompasess more than the Jewish one. And Jews who do have resentment towards right wingers and Europeans and strong Jewish identity, do exist aplenty, and are not caused by insufficient appeasement, since there is ever abudance of the appeasing right.

Only a minority of Jews are such in their ideology and behavior that it would be wise to accept them. Neocons for example are a subversive force on the right. However, this can theoretically change.

Ironically, Jews would have assimiliated more, if organizations like ADL, WJC, etc, etc were banned. And in fact, Jewish support of multiculturalism and anti-european identity politics and intersectionality is in part related to the more radical Jews wanting the Jews not to assimiliate to whiteness.

Anyway, both Jews as a pattern and non Jewish pro Jewish types, are not even handed people only opposing antisemitism, but are highly biased to an extend that could be described as Jewish supremacist. And paint as antisemitism things through that lense. It would be both moral in general from a more unviersalist point of view, but also good in regards to the right and European-Jewish relations, and more friendship, for Jews and those promoting pro jewish narratives, to water down their wine. To compromise. To accept their own sins, instead of doing the narcisist manifesto.

That didn't happen.

And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

And if it was, that's not a big deal.

And if it is, that's not my fault.

And if it was, I didn't mean it.

And if I did, you deserved it.

Avoiding the narcisist manifesto, does not make them self hating.

When Amy Wax claimed that her father was unduly too critical towards Christians, that wasn't self hateful.

And on much of the right they will find people who are going to accomodate them and aren't going to be promoting some demand of maximalist self hating dogma. The Jews who enjoy a positive reputation among the kind of right that doesn't like Shaprio aren't just Unz, but plenty of non self hating Jews but who have compromised on level of seperate jewish identity politics and do see the interests of europeans as legitimate and identify with a broader category rather than seeing them as a hostile other.

Of course, the issue is that laws currently promoted are Jewish supremacist in nature. And those who support that.

Another issue, is that if you got some hateful Jewish supremacists pushing their agenda, that is going to inflame the passions and anger on the other side. Just like Jews who have compromised and are more moderate and friendly towarsd the right incentivize a more positive reactions.

One's ideology in regards to nativism, immigration, AA and such issues is of course fundamental. And whether a Jew in a european country identifies as being part of that group and sees them as his people.

Jews claiming to be right wing who still retain sufficiently strong liberal views on such issues and are motivated by seperate ethnic identity are going to be treated with more suspicion. And even if their liberal views are somehow unrelated to their Jewish identity, they are a problem. Like I said, neocons should be reasonably excluded because of having sufficiently different and hostile ideology, and have a history of cancelling actual right wingers and conservatives for being insuficiently liberal on racial, and other issues. And more so especially for being insufficiently subservient to Jews and making any criticisms.

Sailer also wrote a short post after the issue discussed critical of the Israel lobby that the uncomrpomising Jewish identitarians wouldn't have promoted. So I wouldn't consider him the same as those types. More of a positive force than a negative. https://www.unz.com/isteve/not-getting-the-joke-2/

Which doesn't make this good article https://keithwoods.pub/p/protestantism-jews-and-wokeness arguing against his thesis a bad thing. Even those who are sufficiently a positive force to not gatekeep them out can promote bad ideas, which would be good to debate and counter.

Anyway, excessive compromise in pro female, pro jewish, pro black, etc direction is a key part of our current situation. This isn't to say purity spiralling in the opposite direction is correct, but appeasement is the wrong move and having those who are excessive pro jewish, pro female, etc, etc compromise is correct in general, but especially for the right. The right will become indistinquishable with the left in fundamental issues, if it listens to women and Jews and LGBT Republicans and pro migration types and pro black types arguing for more appeasement. More compromise. Laws giving their favorite groups preferential treatment. And there is a connection with appeasement to one, leading to appeasement to all and the same intersectional story. While painting anything but that as antisemitic, misogynistic, anti black, racist, etc, etc.

The right has compromised too much in these directions, is losing its own identity as a right and moving too far to the left in the process and needs to fix this overreach and not increase it.

Jews wanting to be a part of the right have an even bigger moral obligation than Jews in general to water down their wine, and compromise from the more extreme positions typical in Jewish community that are part of a progressive Jewish nationalist narrative of Jews as always oppressed, always in the right against especially a European Christian historical, present, and possibly future oppressor. Some level of admitting fault is not only accurate but necessary because if Jews are progressive as a pattern, and as Prager says "the conscience of humanity" why oppose the ADL, and the activities of those Jews who do see with hostility european christian civilization? Since Jews didn't do nothing wrong, then they were correct to be leftists under this perspective and only reacting to "antisemitism" under this false narrative. So why oppose the current leftist trajectory? That compromise I mentioned towards a more moderate position and having a stronger broader identity that sees European rightists as your people would also make it justifiable for European rightists to accept such Jews.

When Amy Wax claimed that her father was unduly too critical towards Christians, that wasn't self hateful.

Sure, I agree with this.

This strikes me as a touch overcooked. BAP is quite willing to go on about "shtetlbillies", and Sailer regularly talks about the perversity of Jewish support for immigration and the failure of high-achieving American Jews to show appropriate noblesse oblige.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats