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 -
Yes, that is exactly what I said.
I think Ignatiev distinguishes between white identity and the white race. Whether you or I find that distinction meaningful is irrelevant to understanding what his meaning is. Lots of non-Jewish white people in the woke movement say exactly the same thing. I have, in fact, heard some white people unironically say the white race should be allowed to go extinct (and a few loons even suggesting more direct and immediate measures), but they are pretty far out on the fringes and not what most of these people mean.
I'm "charitable" in the sense we are supposed to be charitable to views we disagree with here on the Motte, which means not straw manning, eliding context, or characterizing someone as saying something they didn't say. I don't think Ignatiev is calling for the end of the white race, in the sense that white people will no longer exist. And I think you know this and you are being dishonest in claiming you believe that's what he's saying.
If all you said was "Jews have disproportionate power in politics," I wouldn't disagree with you factually, though I'd still want to know what specific remedies you advocate and why you think it is specifically a problem. But come now, SS, you tactically hide your power level but your agenda is not merely JAQing about why so many Jews.
If you are constantly talking about how one particular ethnic group is a threat, how their values are hostile to ours, and how almost every member of that group is driven to behave in a certain fashion, yes, it leads me to strongly suspect that your actual agenda is exterminationist, because if you really believe all the things you say about Jews, it would be irrational not to be.
If you want us to believe that Jews are parasites undermining our civilization and we cannot peacefully coexist with them, but you don't want them dead, you just want to... you know, raise awareness, well, you're either treating your audience like chumps or you're unwilling to follow your own logic to its logical conclusion, and I don't believe for a second it's the latter.
The notion I hide my power level is absurd. I'm very open that I view the dynamic between Jews and White Gentiles to be a very profound, long-standing cultural and political conflict that is even deeply rooted in the Jewish religion itself. Ignatiev is just a figment of that conflict. But what gets annoying is that you won't allow me to simply recognize a political or cultural adversary as such. I have to be an exterminationist hiding my power level. Yes, they are a threat obviously. But acknowledging and engaging a threat is not the same thing as being an exterminationist. I don't think the USG wants to kill all the Iranians even though the USG considers them to be a threat.
I wouldn't even say about Jewish identity what Ignatiev says about White identity. I don't call for the end of Jewish identity but the renaissance of European identity, and that's not simply because I'm hiding my power level. I do accept the reality that Jewish influence in politics and culture is a huge counterforce to any political or cultural effort to achieve that, with Ignatiev only being one of many examples of Jewish academics pathologizing White racial identity while declaring strong opposition to anti-Semitism. But on the other end of the political spectrum you have Ben Shapiro who is also opposed to White identity.
What are we to make of the fact that two figures so politically divergent as Ignatiev and Shapiro still oppose White identity and strongly support Jewish identity?
I mean, in one sense, sure. Everybody who pays any attention to you knows exactly what you are, and your very username is a coded reference to it.
In another sense... well, I did actually take a look a while back, and you do seem to have made a very consistent attempt to retain one last shred of totally-implausible deniability. You always slide around the accusation of being a neo-Nazi - you never deny it, but you've never actually confirmed it either. And in this very exchange, you have slid around the accusation of wanting the Jews dead; you didn't confirm it, and you threw shade at @Amadan for presuming it, but you carefully didn't actually deny it either.
So the scouter on you reads 8950 instead of 9001. Yes, certainly, 8950 isn't very much lower than 9001, but you are still hiding those last few points of your power level for some reason (the most charitable such explanation being that there are legal ramifications to you saying the magic words).
I have denied being a "neo-Nazi", although I accept that in common parlance "anti-Semitic White identitarian" is the operative definition of neo-Nazi, and if that's the definition then sure? National Socialism is a defunct pan-German nationalist movement, I don't identify with it and I don't support German nationalism or any petty European nationalism.
Yes, everybody here does know my views because I don't hide them. The accusation that I secretly want all the Jews killed just because I give cultural criticism towards Jews in a similar nature as Jews like Ignatiev constantly levy against whites is simply your attempt to enforce a social consensus making any criticism of Jews taboo. I reject your social consensus, I have and will engage in critique of Jewish identity in behavior in similar nature and measure as Jews do towards Whites. I'm not hiding any beliefs.
The notion that I criticize Jewish identity and behavior and people like you hysterically yell that I secretly want to kill all the Jews is a byproduct of the exact cultural forces I am criticizing. You can't accept that I just have a political and cultural opposition to their influence in politics and culture, that's impossible in your mind. And instead of arguing against my opposition you attack positions I don't hold and claim I secretly hold them.
Let’s try this in different language, then.
I recently called you an anti-semite. Judging from this post, while you object to being called a neo-Nazi (fair enough, Nazism is a specific ideology), you would broadly accept the labels ‘anti-semite’ and ‘white identitarian’ or ‘white nationalist’.
When I say that you’re an anti-semite, what I mean is that your posts seem to me to have, as an animating principle, a very strong and irrational prejudice against both Jewish people as an ethnicity and Judaism as a religion. I think this is visible in both the subjects you choose to address and the normative valences you put on them. That is, I think that you consistently want to talk about Jews and steer every subject back to Jews, no matter how tangential they are to the topic, and I think that your judgement of anything involving Jews is prejudicially negative.
You constantly want to talk about Jews, and no matter what a Jew does, you interpret it in a maximally uncharitable light. The conclusion I draw from this is that you are anti-semitic. You just hate Jews.
Do I know what specific policy you recommend towards Jews, particularly in the 21st century United States? No, I don't. As Amadan and magic9mushroom have noted, you are strategically very cagey about that, and when you are directly asked, you respond evasively. You constantly suggest that something ought to be done about the Jews, but do not indicate what you think that something ought to be. It's a simple question, one which you surely must have considered, and you squirm to avoid answering it.
In this context I don't think it hugely matters. Maybe you want them all to be killed. It's a possibility. I will say that, at the least, I think that if they were all killed, you would not shed any tears. But maybe you just want them all deported or expelled, or want their property expropriated, or even just a social norm where non-Jews refuse to associate with Jews and treat them with scorn. Those are possibilities too. I don't care that much because even supposing that your 'secret' position is the mildest of these, it's still bad, and it's still motivated by a prejudice that is both irrational and worthy of moral condemnation.
And for the record, this would be the case regardless of the group in question. If you were obsessed with, I don't know, Tibetans, that would be equally as bad. If you had a similar level of both obsession with and hostility to Azeris, that would be just as bad. Jews have no special status. The same goes for Europeans, and if it's necessary, I condemn Ignatiev as well.
Let me then ask you straightforwardly: do you object to being characterised as anti-semitic? Do you disagree with the statement "SecureSignals hates Jews"? Or is that simply an accurate description?
I don't accept your definition of "anti-semitism". "Anti-semitic" is an emotionally-loaded slur intended to denounce and pathologize any criticism of Jewish identity, religion, or culture whether it's rational or irrational, true or false.
So when Gentiles, like me, engage in radical criticism of Jewish behavior and identity that's "anti-Semitic," which makes the criticism intrinsically irrational according to the popular understanding. But there's no similar term for when Jews in Academia or Hollywood engage in radical criticism of Gentile racial identity, culture, and religion.
For example, my criticism of the very broad pattern of behavior of Jews in academia and popular culture engaging in criticism of White identity while also strongly denouncing any criticism of Jewish identity is a rational and true argument. This pattern of behavior is seen across the political spectrum, from secular Communists like Ignatiev, to Conservative religious Jews like Ben Shaprio, to politically heterodox/rationalist-adjacent like @2rafa. They all oppose White identitarianism and support Jewish identitarianism, meaning this pattern of behavior cannot be reduced to communist vs capitalist, liberal vs postmodern, secular vs religious, because this pattern of behavior dominates the entire spectrum of those other categories.
Conservative talk show host Mark Levin, who has been cartoonishly pro-war on the Iran question and extremely vitriolic towards everyone opposed to war with Iran, accused a White man on twitter of having antisemitism in his family's DNA. What's the word for that? If I accused Levin of having subversion in his family's DNA (someone in the Twitter replies did that), that would be "anti-semitic."
Anti-Semitism can be rational or irrational, true or false. All it requires is engaging in criticism of Jewish behavior, culture, and identity, and there's no word for when Jews do the same to Gentile race, religion, or culture. And I do those things, so I accept the label, although I don't accept that label denotes irrationality- that's just a vain attempt to pathologize rational criticism as being crazy-talk. What people call "anti-Semitism" is a rational response to this behavior of Jews in American politics and culture spending decades undermining white racial identity and political interests while strongly promoting Jewish identity and political interests, and especially the geopolitical interests of the state of Israel. Look at this clip of Greenblatt from the ADL:
You really don't think there's a "there" there?
I also don't accept "you hate the Jews" that's just a proto-woke slur also intended to intrinsically attach irrationality to a critical perspective of Jewish behavior and identity. I don't hate Jews, I don't remember who said something along the lines of "when Jews are great they're amazing and when they're bad they're really terrible." That's been my own experience with Jews personally, and I do have an adversarial-level respect for what I see myself as opposing. I see them as political and cultural opposition in how they behave politically and culturally, it's not an irrational hatred although this statement is not going to stop you or anyone else from accusing me of that. Which is why I don't respond to it, those accusations very conveniently derail from the arguments I'm making (by design), so if you just get bogged down in trying to convince everyone you aren't a neo-Nazi or you don't want to kill all the Jews you are just operating within the same consensus that I reject.
Is there a definition of 'anti-semite' that you do accept as applying to yourself?
Would you agree with a statement like, "SecureSignals opposes and dislikes Jews?", absent any comment about whether or not you are rational in doing so?
All right, let's accept this. You would presumably say that you are a rational anti-semite, in that you are rationally opposed to Jews?
This is progress, because this means that our disagreement has now been precisified. We no longer need to argue about whether you are opposed to ('dislike', 'hate', etc.) Jews. We only need to argue about whether it is rational for you to do so.
(I do think there are clear ways to express the idea of a Jew who hates Gentiles - Jewish supremacism definitely exists. You can find Jews who hate non-Jews. But I don't want to get sidetracked. We're talking about you.)
I think it's fair to say that your posting on the Motte displays, at the very least, a pathological interest in Jews. You keep bringing them up all the time, and always do so in the context of opposing or criticising them.
Rounding that off to 'you hate Jews' seems like a reasonable use of language to me. You certainly regard Jews with a great deal of hostility.
Will you respond to the question, "What do you want to do about Jews?"
There's no hidden agenda there. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that everything you've argued in the past about Jews is correct. What follows from that? What policies would you recommend? You've clearly indicated that you regard Jews as opponents - what, then, would you do?
I don't think that's an unfair gotcha. There are certainly groups that I regard as 'political and cultural opposition' to myself, so it would be fair game to ask me, "Olive, what do you want to do about the communists?" If I tried to avoid answering that, or if I treated that question as being inherently in bad faith, it would reflect badly on me. So too with you.
(I want to discredit communism as an ideological position in public debate and defeat communists in elections. There, see, it's easy.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Depends on your definition of "group". There's at least one category of people that's basically just staggeringly negative-sum and appears to exist pretty much solely due to group selection not being strong enough to fully root it out. I'm speaking, of course, of psychopaths. I think "kill all the psychopaths" is a very defensible position; the big problem with doing it is not that we need psychopaths or that they don't deserve it, but that of setting a precedent of gas chambers (because once that taboo's broken people will start arguing for gassing the borderlines and the autistics and the morons, and that's a far-worse idea).
That's fair. I should have clarified that I meant ethnic or racial groups.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But you do hide your views. For example, once again you are carefully tap dancing around the question of whether you do in fact want all the Jews killed.
No one is "yelling hysterically" - we are, rather, noticing, you might say.
Now if I pinned you down and sat on your chest, I am guessing (but this is only a guess ) that your actual preferred solution would be something like disenfranchising Jews, denying them the right to vote or own property in non-Jewish lands, and shipping them all off to Madagascar or somewhere where "Jewish lands" could constitute an impoverished third world incapable of affecting anyone else. So maybe not literally exterminating the Jewish race, just treating them like an invasive species that must be banished elsewhere.
Am I warm?
But you won't even concede that much openly because, you know, it doesn't sound a lot better than just being an outright exterminationist. One way or another, your solution amounts to "Jews cannot coexist with us or be given rights." That sounds pretty bad to the, well, non-Neo Nazi ear, so you waffle on with lots of words about "enforced consensus" and how you don't hide the views you won't admit to. And so you will continue to complain when I point out your intrinsic unwillingness to stop hiding your power level, and I will continue to point out your intrinsic unwillingness to stop hiding your power level.
That seems unlikely to me. SS presumably doesnt believe in magic soil, and so would have no reason to think that it makes a difference long term whether theyre shipped to Israel or Madagascar.
It makes a difference if you want to send them somewhere out of the way. Though if you're saying you think his actual preferred solution is in fact extermination, well, maybe it is. He kind of denies it but not really, so we're just speculating.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Seriously, like @Hadad said, I'm not your dancing monkey. I'm not going to denounce something I have never said. I stand by everything I have said, but I'm not going to play this game where you just invent positions that you claim I hold and demand I denounce them in order to try to convince you I don't hold them.
I'm not asking you to denounce anything. I'm honestly curious to know what you actually want to do about the Jews, and I am also annoyed that you keep dancing around it and then denying that you are hiding the ball.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Demanding he denounce a position he hasn't staked out, no matter how much you might think he believes it deep down, is pretty obnoxious. Would you even believe him if he threw up his hands, said "fine, I don't want to kill the Jews, now hush"? Or would you assume he's just saying that to hide his power level?
I'm pretty sure @Amadan would stop asking SS whether he wants to kill all the Jews if SS ever gave a straight "yes" or "no".
I'm also very sure that if SS gave a straight "yes", he would not be banned from theMotte for that. While a number of Mottizens who want their outgroups dead have been banned, it was never for that per se (usually it's been for refusing to stop insulting other Mottizens who are members of those outgroups and/or for insulting mods who mod others insulting the same outgroups; I presume any attempt to use theMotte to organise murders would also get a ban under "Recruiting For a Cause" although I'm not 100% sure whether there's been an explicit example). Given this, I don't think it's correct to describe us as demanding he denounce exterminationism.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but I'd still ask "Okay, then what do you want to do about them?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I apologise for mischaracterising you on the neo-Nazi point. Guess this must have been on Reddit, and you just haven't bothered to restate it since.
You're also mischaracterising me, though. I'm somewhat anti-Zionist myself, and there are plenty of others on this site that do not draw the accusations you do. The reason you get accusations of wanting to gas the Jews is because you AIUI combine anti-Zionism with having little faith in ability to assimilate Jews and believing Jewish-exploitativity and Ashkenazi-Jewish-intelligence HBD. At that point, there aren't really a lot of options left for solving the problem; I will grudgingly grant that assuming gas chambers is somewhat uncharitable, but the least-horrifying solution I can see with those premises would literally be ghettos. And, well, you're not an idiot and you clearly think about the Jewish Question a great deal, so it would be very strange if you hadn't reasoned that through.
(To boil down my disagreements with those premises, I think Jews are pretty assimilable if you make an effort, I think any form of HBD on Jews is much, much more suspect than HBD on Africans/Austronesians/Everyone Else due to shorter timescales, and given that of the Jews and part-Jews I've notably interacted with (and I am part-Jew myself, though it's a small part) most of them seemed fine (and the one major exception was probably just a case of misplaced righteousness meeting overconfidence in a risky plan) I'm not really feeling the whole "Jews are evil" thing.)
I mean, I suppose I do have to grant that it's possible to hold a bunch of premises that imply a conclusion and then just go "but I refuse to accept this conclusion, fuck logic". Have to, because there are two issues on which I've basically done that and laid down an unprincipled exception for the sake of my sanity. Is this you?
The latter matches my experiences as well. I don't think I knew any Jews growing up, but I ran into a couple at university, and eventually got to know more as an adult, including spending some time at a synagogue and engaging in adult Torah study with them, and the main thing I took away from that experience was, to put it bluntly, how boring and unremarkable they are. Synagogue really is very similar to church, and a very similar culture prevailed - though there were some different holy symbols, a bit more Hebrew instead of the occasional Greek or Latin, obviously no New Testament or Church Fathers or the like but the Talmud and rabbinic writings instead, but the animating spirit felt basically the same.
The mundanity of both Jewish religious ritual and just Jews in general was probably a very powerful inoculation for me against conspiracism. Part of that meant, in contrast to the way certain groups get very bothered about Jewish IQ, noticing that in practice, in everyday life, Jews certainly did not appear noticeably more intelligent than Gentiles. Torah study was interesting but not more insightful than Bible study. There were plenty of Jewish idiots and Jewish midwits, as well as their share of bright people, and I wouldn't say they compared particularly favourably or unfavourably to people in comparable groups in churches, mosques, or temples.
Jews are just - and no offense intended to any Jewish mottizens - not very interesting. Probably the best thing that came out of that engagement was that I made friends with a couple of Jews who are really into theology and we sometimes meet up for chats, but, again, they're not noticeably smarter or for that matter more sinister than the Catholics or Muslims or Buddhists with whom I do the same thing. It's all just quite normal. I understand why I do this, because I'm fascinated by religions of all types, but for people who aren't like me? These people just aren't that special.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You don't hide that. You hide your final solution. You talk and talk about how "Jews are a threat." Okay, what should we do about this threat? (SS posts more random stuff about how some Jew did something, see how threatening they are, and look! Israel!) How do you want to acknowledge and engage this threat?
Gentiles are not at war with Jews. Neither are a nation. If by analogy you think we should be bombing the Jews' infrastructure to deprive them of offensive capabilities, so to speak, how would you propose to do that?
Cool, I am a white person with Russian, German Jewish, Irish, Scottish, English, and Norwegian ancestry and (according to DNA testing, much to my surprise) about 20% random North African, Southwest Asian, and Turkish admixture. How should I identify? Am I Jew because of my Jew blood, even though my entire family is physically and culturally WASP? Do I get to count as white? Which side should I take in the wars to come?
NB: while I'm pretty sure you meant that Jews aren't a country, Jews do fit the primary definition of "nation" pretty well.
(Obviously, Gentiles do not.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link