site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24805 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025

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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As most know, there has been a media battle within the Con Inc ecology. I want to go over some of those developments. If you know the lore you can skip the story so far.

Story so far

On October 27 Tucker Carlson did an interview with Nick Fuentes on The Tucker Carlson show. Sitting at a comfortable 6 million views, it’s one of his most viewed videos. Following that interview, jewish ethnonationalists like Ben Shapiro and Jonathan Greenblatt made the rounds condemning and calling for disavowals. But condemning and disavowing Tucker Carlson is easier said than done.

When the Heritage Foundation released their condemnation video, they distinctly claused out Tucker from their criticism. This, for jewish ethnonationalists, was outrageous. Eliciting remarks from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Ted Cruz, and other jewish ethnonationalist stooges. Tucker needed to be firmly disavowed, and Fuentes was not to be talked to or debated, but ostracized and ‘canceled’. Heritage Foundation president, Kevin Roberts, went back like a beaten dog and put up a second apology video saying as much. Still, it was not enough and condemnation articles, calls to resign and protest resignations rained in.

Despite all this chaos, Roberts kept his presidency, Tucker remained unfazed, and Fuentes was only emboldened by the attention. releasing an hour long monolog on the alleged overbearing fact of jewish ethnonationalist influence in American politics and his position on the modern JQ. The jewish ethnonationalist front had to hit back somehow.

Enter Chuck Schumer, proposing a senate resolution to condemn Nick Fuentes and the platforming of him by Tucker Carlson.

Whilst Fuentes is only emboldened by such attention, it might be different for Carlson. It is, after all, harder for a man of credibility and standing like him to shrug off an official disavowal like that. Though it could not have come from a better direction as far as a right winger is concerned, it is still bad.

The Carlson Rebellion

Missing from the firestorm of outrage and shock from the Fuentes Carlson interview is the simple question of... What exactly is Tucker Carlson doing here? Unlike Fuentes, who lives for this type of spectacle, Tucker is, one can imagine, an actual person with connections and things to lose. So why?

In a recent episode Tucker laid out his answer to the Fuentes Question. Young mostly white men are flocking to the extremes, both left but mostly right, because America sucks. Everything from the housing market, job market, education, media, domestic and foreign policy. It's all anti-white. It's all anti-male. What exactly does anyone expect young white men to do? What confident identity is even available to young white men?

To that extent one can sense Tuckers ire towards the establishment and those who shill for it. How is it possible to allow things to go on like this? To ignore it? Telling young white men to be individual whilst every other group is forming coalitions to outcompete them is suicidal and stupid. Why can't we tell them something else? Something they actually want to listen to. Well, that might lead to another holocaust in the minds of paranoid jews so, no, we can't. Young white men just have to die alone and abused.

Say what you want about Fuentes, but Tucker, at the very least, has a proposition that is open to compromise with the ethnonationalist jews on the right: This individualist free market zionism stuff isn't working anymore. Things, as they currently are, have to change. And if the only response to that reality is calling everyone an anti-semite or a nazi then what is even the point of this?

Carlson and Fuentes are both far less ideologically rigid than they sometimes seem. Tucker’s journey from libertarianism is more known (and because of his age, longer), but Fuentes has changed with time too. He won’t ever become a neocon, but there is a case to be made that he is moderating his antisemitism over time. We will see what happens, I think that as automation and AI and their economic consequences becomes the central question in politics a lot of things will be up in the air.

Carlson sees Fuentes as a future leader of a large segment of the American Right. To the extent possible he wants to channel this in a positive direction. He pushed back on Fuentes attacking "good" people on the right. He used religious arguments to persuade Fuentes' followers that idpol is a dangerous idea (God judges individuals, we should too). He practically begged Fuentes to settle down and get married. Carlson gained goodwill among the Groypers for "platforming" Fuentes. In return, Carlson hopes they heed his words.

He used religious arguments to persuade Fuentes' followers that idpol is a dangerous idea

Yes, this has been the Conservative playbook for decades: say "ipdol is a dangerous idea" while White men are under the yoke of all other groups that defect from that ethos. Carlson didn't even engage Fuentes' response that Jews do not cooperate with that ethos, they say "idpol is a dangerous idea" for whites while they maintain intense identification with their heritage and organize collectively and internationally on the basis of their ethnic identity. Every Fuentes fan has heard "idpol is a dangerous idea" before, and all of them most likely believed it at some point. And then we see irrefutable proof of the consequences of Whites naively cooperating with that ethos while every single other group, Jews in particular, defect and use cultural and political power against us and in favor of themselves.

There's no honor in "gracefully losing" your country by clinging to a fundamentally broken and hostile demand to cooperate in a moral strategy that other groups have no intention whatsoever of following. If they demand you cooperate while they defect, they are just being adversarial against you and you aren't a Moral Person for accepting that.

Right now Jewish people can't agree on whether there's an antisemitism scourge domestically and subversion of Israel's absolute legitimacy internationally, with progressive Jews jettisoning couching all their views in terms of Jewishness, in favor of just progressive ideology (which supports others' idpol, infamously). They're losing their idpol religion, if you will. But the conservative ones, ostensibly individualistic and meritocratic, are ironically doing the opposite.

This idea that THEY are defecting is silly. It's not some monolith.

He practically begged Fuentes to settle down and get married.

But since Fuentes is against gay marriage, this is very unlikely to happen.

A shame. A Fuentes-Destiny marriage would be the win for bipartisanship America needs

What kind of a matrix do we live in when two of the opposite radical points on the political compass have these twinks as faces.

It's the chemicals in the water that Alex Jones warned us about.

Great, my frogs have been gayed and now the yes-chad chuds and the antifa/commies are both gay. The west is trully over.

If Chuck Schumer's resolution passes it would be the first time in US Senate history of such a condemnation of a private citizen for political views.

Young mostly white men are flocking to the extremes, both left but mostly right, because America sucks. Everything from the housing market, job market, education, media, domestic and foreign policy. It's all anti-white. It's all anti-male. What exactly does anyone expect young white men to do? What confident identity is even available to young white men?

The foremost appeal is the force of truth. If you watch Nick's monologue, his criticisms are true. They are rational arguments, and they are anti-fragile in the sense the backlash they provoke strengthens their currency. It's not just due to the housing market, job market, anti-white Culture. It's due to the very real cultural criticism of Jews that Nick gives which nobody else has been willing to say. Jews themselves incessantly criticize White culture and identity through all mediums and institutions they control. And then they become apoplectic when a White man fires back with truthful criticism of Jewish identity and culture.

One thing I have never seen from any of the Jews weighing in on the Tuckercaust is an acknowledgement of the arguments Fuentes is making. They grasp for some other explanation for Fuentes' popularity, but they never restate the arguments Nick makes in that monologue for example and engage them. They simply pathologize the individuals who are being influenced by these arguments. It's why Shapiro would never debate Fuentes. If Fuentes laid out his argument as clearly as he does in this monologue, what would Shapiro even say?

The only path forward would be for Jews to acknowledge the truth of Fuentes' arguments and make genuine efforts to reconcile. They are incapable of that, which is why cancellation and pathologizing the "anti-semites" is their only reaction to this Cultural Criticism going mainstream and it's not going to work.

My guy, can you tell me what it is about the Jews?

I've never been able to figure this out. Take the mask off a bit and tell me why them.

You had me nodding along and then it is abruptly about Jews and I check out.

Yes Jews are in the pile that is causing these problems but they are a rounding error in comparison with say, HR dog moms, or X actual ethnic/racial demographic that supports the spoils system instead.

Did a Jew bully you in school, get your dad fired, close your favorite restaurant?

I don't know where this stuff comes from and I earnestly want to.

White anti-black racism has a straight line from perceived degradation of communities to the feeling, accurate or not.

I don't know where anti-semitism comes from.

To steelman: due to observations of Jewish behaviour, the anti-Semites have rationally concluded that the Jews are attempting (in a disorganised, prospiracy way) to destroy the White race, and displace it low-IQ Third Worlders who would lack the collective human capital to organise against a Jewish elite and Holocaust them.

Given this, it makes sense for a White identarian to prioritise attacking Jews instead of Black people, because without Jews there wouldn't have been mass immigration, the civil rights act, etc anyways.

Having said that, I don't think this is true. I propose a much simpler (albeit uncharitable) explanation: jealousy.

The Jews have better life outcomes than Whites. Both on average, and at the extremes, where they disproportionately occupy positions of power and prestige in the Western world. They also have a higher measured IQ than Whites, and like... I think that's just it (no need for overcomplicated theories about Jewish group evolutionary strategies inferred from Talmud quotations, etc)

Jews do better because they are (on a group-level) smarter, and people don't like feeling inferior. So they become jealous. And They make up complicated stories and theories about why they dislike X that are more flattering to their ego (And ditto for standard Black/Third World "theories" about White overachievement)

Also, I know you don't really care about the JQ either way (nor do I), but it clearly does mean a lot to anti-Semites on the forum. I think this whole pattern of discourse: where an anti-Semite, respectfully and in good-faith, states their opinions and then gets met with Bulverism ("Did a Jew bully you in school?" - seriously?), childish mockery even by actual mods ("Joo posting"), and condescending psychologisations that don't address the object-level argument at all - which has become normal, to be totally against the spirit of the Motte.

The problem is your steelman -- even if you drop the "rationally" -- is rusty and backwards. The anti-Semites start with the Jew-hate for basically irrational reasons, and then come up with rationalizations. That's why the bulverism and mockery; the rational arguments are just window-dressing and the anti-Semites are unreachable by any means.

I believe that this is true for a minority of cases - I'm sure a lot of people on here have seen absolute losers latch on to the jews as the reason why their life sucks, a reason that they can't do anything about and have no power over which thus gives them permission to not do anything about the actual problems in their life. These people exist, they have always existed and if the jews themselves never even existed they would find some other group to blame (maybe Majestic12, the Illuminati, the Freemasons or The Man).

But that just isn't the case for the majority of what I see called antisemitism today. Hell, I'm considered an antisemite - not because I have a terrible life that I blame on the jews, but because I actually sincerely oppose the actions of the state of Israel. I am a left-winger and think that it is wrong to murder children because they were born the wrong ethnicity, even if that ethnicity is Palestinian. Because I think that's directly comparable to the behavior of the nazi regime, this marks me as an anti-semite despite the fact that I'm not a loser (like all other posters on anonymous imageboards, I am tall, good-looking, wealthy, well-endowed, in great shape, have lots of sex, etc). I've actually changed my beliefs because of some of the arguments and discussions I've had on the motte to boot, so I'm fairly certain I am actually amenable to rational arguments.

And I'm not alone. Greta Thunberg qualifies as an antisemite now too for the same reasons, and she then went on to get sexually assaulted while in Israeli captivity - good luck making the case that she's an antisemite because she just has an irrational hatred of jews when The Jewish State detained and assaulted her for trying to deliver food to starving children. Similarly, the most recent case from my home country was this story - https://michaelwest.com.au/antisemitism-st-vincents-heartless-treatment-of-cardiologist-who-asked-a-question/ A cardiologist who has saved countless lives, developed heart transplant surgical techniques and visits an indigenous community to provide healthcare on a regular basis is now prevented from performing his literally life-saving work because of the zionist lobby's efforts to defend the genocide they're undertaking in Palestine. To use an example from the US, Ms Rachel's "antisemitism" very clearly comes from her love of children and opposition to the people currently creating vast numbers of child amputees (and child corpses) rather than some kind of personal failing on her part.

People who learn about and see this stuff get legitimately upset - and the idea that this heart surgeon is "unreachable by any means" doesn't even rise to the level of a joke. Israel has engaged in a campaign of mass murder and openly bribes western politicians to ensure that our tax dollars continue to support what they're doing despite the opposition of the majority of the population. These are real, serious reasons for people to oppose Israel, and Israel goes out of its way to make sure that criticism of their state is classified as antisemitism. I think that this is extremely dangerous, because when you tell people that opposing the murder and mutilation of innocent children is antisemitism you don't stop people from getting upset about what happened to Hind Rajab. Rather, you make people believe that the social proscriptions against antisemitism are an evil that needs to be removed - and while I think that removing those proscriptions are going to cause big problems in the future, I can't bring myself to argue against the idea that a cardiologist should be able to save lives even if he engages in political speech that zionists don't like.

There's nothing antisemitic per se about opposing the actions of the Israeli government. Israel is not the Jewish people nor are the Jewish people Israel, regardless of what Netanyahu or anti-semites would like you to think. But a lot of the accusations against Israel are A Rape on Campus-level incredible, and that includes claims that Greta Thunberg was sexually assaulted by the Israelis. Not because they're such saints, but because they're not utter idiots. I don't know about that particular cardiologist, but I do know doctors have been involved in creating and perpetuating Hamas hoaxes, including the "starving child" who actually was born with a genetic disease, and the bogus X-rays purporting to show infants executed by IDF soldiers. As with A Rape on Campus, you start to wonder why people are believing obvious nonsense. And in both cases, the most likely answer is hatred of the target.

But a lot of the accusations against Israel are A Rape on Campus-level incredible, and that includes claims that Greta Thunberg was sexually assaulted by the Israelis. Not because they're such saints, but because they're not utter idiots.

This is actually extremely credible - have you heard of the Sde Taiman rape protests? Sexual abuse and humiliation is a well-attested and confirmed feature of Israeli incarceration, to the point that when prison guards are arrested for rape there are pro-rapist protests held to ensure they can continue to rape prisoners. Government ministers referred to the rapists as "our best heroes" and led efforts to ensure they were set free. The statistics we have regarding sexual abuse of foreign women in Israel are pretty nasty too - https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/israel-a-new-report-reveals-100-of-thai-agricultural-workers-were-sexually-assaulted/

I don't feel like it is stretching the bounds of credibility to say that a country which sexually abused 100% of their female foreign agricultural workers and had protests to protect their ability to rape prisoners would have sexually abused a female prisoner. For the record, I don't think they rape because they're idiots, but because they believe they are immune from consequences (and for many of them, that's been true so far).

I don't know about that particular cardiologist, but I do know doctors have been involved in creating and perpetuating Hamas hoaxes,

You don't need to say it twice - your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand and no relation to the story itself. This doesn't even reach the level of a counterargument, and even if I simply accept your claims it doesn't refute my point at all. I can understand not wanting to read, but next time please just say that instead of pretending to engage with the argument.

including the "starving child" who actually was born with a genetic disease,

...what exactly makes starving children more morally acceptable if they were born with a genetic disease? The actual starving isn't in question at all, and it has been an explicit Israeli policy going back decades. We can even go back to 2006 when an advisor to the Israeli PM spoke about how they were planning on putting the Gazans on a "diet" by reducing the food they allow in.

This is actually extremely credible

You can say it all you want, it ain't. Even if the Israelis were the ogres you claim, it wouldn't be credible that they'd mistreat someone as visible and with friends as powerful as Greta Thunberg.

The statistics we have regarding sexual abuse of foreign women in Israel are pretty nasty too - https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/israel-a-new-report-reveals-100-of-thai-agricultural-workers-were-sexually-assaulted/

I found the original report this claim supposedly comes from. It has few statistics and says basically nothing at all (it doesn't even make that claim).

including the "starving child" who actually was born with a genetic disease,

...what exactly makes starving children more morally acceptable if they were born with a genetic disease? The actual starving isn't in question at all

The child wasn't starving; its appearance was due to the disease. And yes, the actual starving is in question.

More comments

The anti-Semites start with the Jew-hate for basically irrational reasons, and then come up with rationalizations. That's why the bulverism and mockery; the rational arguments are just window-dressing and the anti-Semites are unreachable by any means.

I mean, I agree. But this argument is fully general for any descriptive position on reality I think is wrong (doesn't what you've said also apply to, e.g. religion?) Their reasons only appear irrational from our perspective. And symmetrically, the rest of the forum are irrational people unwilling to question the mainstream narrative.

So, if we allow people to do this sort of stuff, at best it leads to a one-sided soft-censoring of certain topics (you can advocate for X, but then you get no protection from others by the mods but are still held to the rules yourself), or worse it leads to discussion on a topic becoming totally devoid of object-level content, just both sides explaining why their opponent really said what they said.

Having said that, I don't think this is true. I propose a much simpler (albeit uncharitable) explanation: jealousy.

Smells like cope. Jews are like 2% of the US population and look white, barely anyone would notice their existence if it weren't for the stuff in your first paragraph and general Israel bullshittery.

Jews are like 2% of the US population and look white, barely anyone would notice their existence...

No? As I pointed out, they are hugely overrepresented in basically any kind of elite thing. e.g. they make up ~1/4 of all Physics Nobel prizes. I suppose they might fly under the radar for normies, but if you have any kind of intellectual inclinations, you'd end up noticing Jews (our forum is literally an offshoot of a Jewish blogger)

general Israel bullshittery.

But calling it "bullshittery" is kind of begging the question. The usual logic goes that the Jews are tricking the US government into backing a "foreign" (i.e. non-White) state's interest at the expense of American Whites. But this only makes sense if we have already established the Jews aren't really White and are hostile mimics. Otherwise the "Israel bullshittery" is just a specific kind of White advancing the interests of the White race.

No? As I pointed out, they are hugely overrepresented in basically any kind of elite thing. e.g. they make up ~1/4 of all Physics Nobel prizes. I suppose they might fly under the radar for normies, but if you have any kind of intellectual inclinations, you'd end up noticing Jews (our forum is literally an offshoot of a Jewish blogger)

I think if it was Physics Nobel Prizes and things of that nature, people would easily brush it off. The real problem is their significant overrepresentation in law and media, and how they have used those positions to shape the law and the discourse in ways that, frankly, a lot of people find unamerican. You can love Ben Shapiro and Mike (?) Prager, but 99/100 Jewish law degree holders and media figures is anti-gun. Guns are a major thing that makes America American, if you are a gun control advocate, as most Jews are, that is going to be viewed very suspiciously. If you don't like guns just move to England. London and New York are basically peer cities, or at least used to be.

Another topic would be the military. America has a uniquely masculine military culture still. Most media Jews are uncomfortable with that. But its a very American thing. Again, if thats not your thing maybe America isn't really your thing.

Now, this isn't uniquely Jewish, it is Progressivism. The issue is that progressives dont really like anything that is unique about America and Jews are part of that memeplex. They are also, very prominent and successful as part of that progressive ecosystem, which is why the issues start to fester.

Another thing that I've often thought about this, and related question when people or groups are "accused" of being unamerican. Like, isn't it just an easy fix to do more American stuff? Buy a gun and get trained up on it. Grill some stuff on July 4th and celebrate America. Don't fly flags other than American flags. Don't complain about nice statues of dead guys who founded the country. Speak English, and if you can't really learn it, better hell make sure your kids sound like Tom Cotton or J.D. Vance by the time they are 18. Like, its pretty easy no?

Buy a gun and get trained up on it.

Love to, but the gun control laws of New Jersey -- which were not passed by Jews, the most recent proponent is Irish Catholic -- won't allow me.

Grill some stuff on July 4th and celebrate America. Don't fly flags other than American flags. Don't complain about nice statues of dead guys who founded the country.

The statute-complainers seem to be mostly heritage americans. I'm not aware of Jews refusing to grill, even if observant Jews are rather picky about it. The Jews around here mostly speak English except some of the Haredi, and they're anything but Progressive. I think the local JCC flies an Israeli flag. But I'm pretty sure they fly it lower than the American flag. I'm also sure that if they didn't fly it, it would make no difference; the anti-semites will use any stick they can find and if they can't find one they'll make one up. Further, I don't think "change your domestic politics" is actually a reasonable thing to demand, even if I wish Jewish progressives would.

Love to, but the gun control laws of New Jersey -- which were not passed by Jews, the most recent proponent is Irish Catholic -- won't allow me.

Have you considered... just leaving New Jersey? You clearly hate it there. Why not move to a state like Texas or Florida? That's the big advantage of living in a continent-sized country with strong (by international if not historical standards) federalism.

The usual logic goes that the Jews are tricking the US government into backing a "foreign" (i.e. non-White) state's interest at the expense of American Whites. But this only makes sense if we have already established the Jews aren't really White and are hostile mimics.

No, the usual logic is that the Jews (and their dimwitted Evangelical sidekicks) are causing the U.S. government to back a foreign (no scare quotes) state’s interests at the expense of America. That’s it. It has nothing to do with whether Jews are white and whether Israel is a “white” country.

Israeli meddling may be its own thing, but I'm skeptical of conspiratorial accusations against the Jewish presence in globohomo/woke/$CURRENT_THING-ism. After all, PMC Whites aren't particularly known for their opposition to woke; I suspect that the overrepresentation of Jews in general wokery is primarily a function of their increased presence in the PMC and not reflective of a distinctly Jewish bent towards leftist progressivsim. If you had data showing jews to be significantly more woke than status-matched whites, that would be more convincing.

You've never seen those Twitter posts of jews shit-talking white people, identifying as white when and only when they can derive an advantage from it? I've show you a picture, but for some reason I can't find them on Google. Do you know how annoying it is to dig up any information which has a slight right-wing bias? Every search engine will actively work against you. I will find examples if you really want to see them, though.

Also, old conspiracy theories always mention the jews.

By now, you should have learned that most conspiracy theories were true. Here's some older theories (pre-2000):

Some people are trying to destroy gender and make society uni-sex.

Women are tricked into believing that they should be career-oriented rather than family-oriented. That they should be independent.

The elites are looking into population-control and depopulation programs.

A group that Conspiracy theorists call "the illuminati" wants a one-world-government (Anew world order).

Christianity and Christian values are under attack (this used to be blamed on satanists, freemasonists, and communists, but does it matter what we call those behind it?)

That Homosexuality is pathological and correlates with most forms of sexual deviancy (like pedophilia).

That muslims won't integrate into the western society, but merely lay low until they make up a good chunk of the population, only to then promote their own religious values aggressively while being intolerant of ours.

Most of the conspiracies that I saw on the internet as a child, most of which I doubted were true, are currently unfolding. So why would I not give these skizos of old the benefit of doubt about jews? They were right about basically everything else. Also, many of these issues are old, they all go back to the 50s if not earlier. Even transsexualism is old. For instance, look into Magnus Hirschfeld - an Ashkenazi Jew and sexologist who promoted LGBTQ doing the Weimar Republic.

Personally, I dislike jews because so many of them are dishonest. Ben Shapiro for instance, disgust me. And can you blame people for being angry that "America first" turned into "Israel first"?

Where do you think anti-white thought originate? It is at the very least strongly supported by the media, and there's a lot of jews working for the media.

You've never seen those Twitter posts of jews shit-talking white people, identifying as white when and only when they can derive an advantage from it?

And also the posts of jews who do not. But these are usually not counted, for some reason.

By now, you should have learned that most conspiracy theories were true.

I have learned that a person who yells out at every minute that it is 13:56 might be correct at least once every day, but he can't be relied on to tell the time.

The distinguishing feature of schizos is not that they believe that there's a They who want to do Something (most normies believe some form of that, and it is not surprising or significant that if Jews are highly represented in philosophy and politics in general, they will also be highly represented in evil philosophy and evil politics). It is that the schizo's fixation is all-consuming and all evidence against it is merely more evidence in favor to him.

That's like saying "Not all gay people are promiscuous". A tendency is bad enough.

I think more than 50% of classic conspiracies have come true. Many of the ridiculus counter-examples you're probably aware of were never real theories, but rather satire meant to mock conspiracies. They probably did get "vaccines cause autism" wrong, though. "Q anon" and "flat earth" are also trivially wrong. The chemtrail claims come from geo-engineering, which do occur, and they do add chlorine to tap water. Jews also do inflate numbers in order to victimize themselves further.

I was once told that a great way to humble oneself was to attempt to predict the future. If your world model isn't accurate, your predictions will be way off. Yet many of these "crazy" conspiracy theorist correctly predicted many of the issues which are currently happening. Instead of preventing these developments, people mocked them or claimed that they weren't happening. How many loops do we need? It didn't even take a genius to know that Muslims wouldn't respect western culture, the first person who told me that would happen was about 12 years old.

You're making this out to be about cognitive biases and false positives in thinking, but I think it has nothing to do with that. The reason people don't believe in conspiracy theories is because they've been branded "low social status", so you'll have as much success explaining them as you'll have explaining that being sexually attracted to 16-year-olds isn't unnatural nor pedophilia. It doesn't matter how correct you are. It also doesn't matter how incorrect people are when they say that HBD isn't real, or that mass-immigration is beneficial. Ideologues have a lot in common with religious people

The chemtrail claims come from geo-engineering, which do occur

The median chemtrail theorist says or implies that They are gassing people, with nefarious purposes. Not geo-engineering. That's what I'm getting at.

It didn't even take a genius to know that Muslims wouldn't respect western culture, the first person who told me that would happen was about 12 years old.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the Muhammad boy you know doesn't respect your culture and to repeat what adults are saying about Muslims, but that's not the same thing as knowing.

It doesn't matter how correct you are.

It absolutely matters how correct you are, because if someone actually decides to brave the low status and investigate, and the first thing they notice is that you were blatantly incorrect about the parts of the theory that are the easiest to investigate, many people are going to assume that the low status designation was correct. You have to lead with the parts of your theory that are undeniable. Schizos don't.

The theorists I remember do mention weather manipulation, but their main criticism is that they're spraying toxic chemicals. That the trails which come after planes aren't just regular water vapor, but some kind of chemical, and that these lines covering the sky used to go away faster when they were young. When these conspiracies were booming, you could frequently see the sky almost covered by contrails, which doesn't seem to happen much anymore. There's fewer lines now, and they disappear more quickly.

the Muhammad boy you know

It wasn't a muslim, it was an European who had read the Quran and concluded that muslims migrating to Europe were doing so in order to take it over. That they'd prioritize their religion over our culture and laws. That they'd exploit our good-will. And the prediction was pretty spot on

It absolutely matters how correct you are

Do you know of zero popular beliefs which are trivially wrong? Do you really need an investigation to tell that the vast majority of the best scientists the world has seen are men? Do you need an investigation to recognize that men are generally stronger than women? That A person from Sweden is quite a lot smarter than a person from Africa? That third-world immigrants engage in about 10 times more violent crime than natives?

All you need to know that the current world is completely crazy is a memory of the past. "Sticks and stones may break my bones" is a children's rhyme. We used to teach literal children not to be offended by words, and now we're arresting adults because other adults cannot handle their words. It's pathetic, and every person who knows anything about mental development should be able to see it at a glance. But as universities are far-left, these so-called experts construct a blind-spot against this observation. Neither Education nor Science defend against stupid beliefs, so why would an investigation? Here's the fully sourced chronological story of GamerGate. How many knows it exist? What difference did it make?

People get used to whatever is the case currently, and then they consider it "normal". This proves that the common perception of the world is relative rather than absolute. In other words, if society had entirely different beliefs, then the consensus of scientists would "investigate" and find those beliefs to be true. None of it is rooted in any objective reality, as people largely don't care about objective reality.

And also the posts of jews who do not. But these are usually not counted, for some reason.

If Jews don't count as an identity bloc operating in their own interest then literally no one does. Like yes we know that every random Jewish podiatrist or whatever doesn't work for AIPAC or something, people can quit telling us like we're supposed to suddenly turn around in wonder and say "gee whiz I guess it really isn't literally every Jew, I love Israel now!"

It's a trifling observation that's only significant by way of how little you see it made in reference to any other groups. We can speak collectively of whites, blacks, whatever all day and no one ever feels the need to do this particular dance.

Blacks are even more of a political bloc than Jews. But no one claims the NAACP in engaging in some conspiracy to sell out the country to Wakanda or something.

We can speak collectively of whites, blacks, whatever all day and no one ever feels the need to do this particular dance.

If I called out every time someone spoke excessively collectively of whites and blacks here (mostly blacks) I'd literally be here all day.

Yeah I don't understand why some people blame jews for social justice bullshit. Plenty of non-white people and non-jew white people are all about identity politics.

You can find plenty of thought leaders of any demographics advocating both for and against this stuff, and tactically it seems like a bad move because the anti-Israel component was inevitable and is now incredibly strong.

If this was some sneaky conspiracy it wasn't a genius one.

They are ideologically at the center of it, at least in academia. Feminism, critical-whatever subversive studies, internationalist nonsense. You read enough theory and the early life section becomes old hat.

They use the same feminine tactics, e.g. victim mentality. They're also over-represented in important universities (which now have a strong left-wing bias) and of course, they're big on banking, and the entire financial system is basically one big scam, which has been rather obvious for over 150 years now

But yes, politics in general is rather awful, and most people who make politics a big part of their life are awful.

Anti-semitism is becoming more common and this is a direct consequence of jewish actions, but I think it only adds legitimacy to their victim complex (which may be the goal). At this rate, they might not have to spray paint swastikas on their own synagogues anymore!

Holocaust denial is becoming illegal in more and more countries, even though such a law is in conflict with fundamental human rights. It's easier to get away with criticizing white men than jews (they're less protected), so jews are still in a stronger position. Don't merely judge the strength of a group by how much of a "minority" they are, those who are actually oppressed are never recognized as such

Starting from minute 14 or so, in the linked monolog Fuentes goes into his views on the topic. Largely derived from the facts laid bare in this article.

In the end he asks: 'Why is this so hard for people to wrap their head around'? It's a valid question. As far as Fuentes goes, these are not complicated observations. Yet there are entire books on the topic of anti semitism and how it's irrational, pathological this and that... But like SecureSignals points out, they don't deal with any arguments or observations laid out by the so called anti semites. To that extent, the entire premise of anti semitism as a concept is just a framegame.

It's rather comical that whenever the topic comes up, you end up with people asking an endless series of questions as if this is complicated or hard to figure out. It's not.

I think at best this is a scissor.

I can understand why people start to hate a poor behaving minority or a growing and supplanting immigrant group. I can understand why countries that have been in opposition hate each other like in the Middle East and Asia.

I don't understand hatred of Jews. For a minority group they are generally considered well behaved, they are successful and if you want to be jealous that's an angle - but their aren't a huge amount of them so who cares.

generally considered well behaved

There are standards of behavior beyond not shitting in the street or doing drive-by shootings.

What are the relevant ones?

Take out the word "Jews" and insert the word "Russians" and I think you might get somewhere. This is especially fun given that American Jews overwhelmingly came either during the Russian Civil War (how we got Ayn Rand and most of the neoconservatives), during the Jackson-Vanik era (how we got Max Boot), or after the fall of the USSR (how we got Julia Ioffe).

"Well behaved" is a matter of opinion. Successful? Sure. Is having our politics Russified for the better of the country? I don't think so, and IMO neoconservatism is just Russian imperialism or anti-Russian imperialism waving an American flag. That they overwhelmingly subscribe and contribute to bog-standard anti-American Yankee progressive politics back at home is also not endearing.

How does hate even enter the conversation?

Gradually, you gradually learn to hate people with enough exposure, when a certain group of people is always at odds with your continued survival and always has the same destructive politics that are diametrically opposed to yours. It doesn't help that when AIPAC says jump your political representatives don't even ask how high.

Besides religion? Besides nationalism?

A lot of the things people say about the Jews are said about other groups. Ilhan Omar gets the same charge of dual loyalty, with the same basis.

Complaints about white overrepresentation and privilege? Certain applicable to Jews. In hindsight it was sort of hubristic to expect that the young, especially Third Worlders who have ethnic and religious reasons to resent Jews, were going to just buy into the doublethink that "muh culture of education" would allow an exemption from the usual critiques of wypipo.

The difference is that Jews are disproportionately successful and that combined with the antisemitism taboo is great at shutting these complaints down, which apparently makes it worse.

I'm not the guy you responded to, but the most enlightening explanation I've heard given of right-wing antisemitism is given in this substack article (sorry for the long text-dump, but I think it's very informative)

Anyway, perhaps we should get on with it. The first characteristic of the Far-Right mind is the desire for anthropomorphic theories of socioeconomic reality. What I mean by that is the need to fit the data of reality into a shape that makes sense in terms of a consciously conceived plan to move that reality in a particular direction.

This mindset is commonly given the term ‘conspiracy theorist’, but, on the whole, I think that is usually too generous. A conspiracy theory involves an attempt to tell a story in which the various pieces of data fit into place. Doing so inevitably leads to spiralling layers of complication in which anomalous information can only be accommodated at the cost of creating yet more anomalous data points that can’t be made to fit. Hence this meme:

The typical Rightoid doesn’t bother with any of that. What he does instead is notice some apparently contradictory information, then use innuendo and rhetorical questions to assert that this can only be explained by they planning it. He believes not in conspiracy ‘theories’, but conspiracy deities, shapelessly malleable and borderline omnipotent entities whose mere existence is enough, by their own terms of definition, to explain any kink in the matrix you might observe (and, Heaven knows, the matrix is kinky enough you can do this all day).

To this day, a good portion of my friends are Rightoids. Most of them are good people, and none of them are wholly devoid of positive qualities. The need to anthropomorphise complex social structures exists in them to various degrees of extremity, a product of how frequently they indulge it, but, in all cases, is central to their entire engagement with politics. What I learned after many years is that it’s an act of pure self-harm to try and argue them out of this. You can sit with them, as patiently as you can, for literally hours on end, forcing them to stop changing the subject and actually explain how the different parts of their ‘theory’ fit together, to verbalise each step and watch as it dissolves into undeniable incoherence, and then later the same week they’ll be back with the exact same thing. This is how they want to be. Some people like crackers, and some people like crack. No point in getting aggravated about it (another thing I wish I could go back 10 years and point out to myself).

To recap, the essential quality of the Far Right mind is the desire to explain the world around him in terms of the plan of a conscious intelligence. You therefore need a they; this is the whole point. Once we understand this, it’s pretty obvious why antisemitism exerts this queer magnetic attraction to all who enter the walls of the Far-Right asylum. If you have already decided that someone is behind the curtain driving everything going wrong around you, then who else it is supposed to be? The Yoruba? Inuits? The Jews are an obvious candidate not just because they are genuinely a big deal, but also because there is 150 years of antisemitic literature that you can read explaining how Jews do it and a small army of salesman eager to initiate you into their pyramid scheme. For years, I couldn’t understand why almost any dissident Right article on practically any subject would have at least one comment beneath with a fresh insight like ‘why do they call it the Cathedral, more like the SYNAGOGUE if you ask me!!!!’, but, when you think about it, it’s just good marketing. There’s always someone new who took a fistful of red pills and is looking for the next dose.

You can sit with them, as patiently as you can, for literally hours on end, forcing them to stop changing the subject and actually explain how the different parts of their ‘theory’ fit together, to verbalise each step and watch as it dissolves into undeniable incoherence, and then later the same week they’ll be back with the exact same thing.

Yes. This is why I go so hard on our Joo-posters. Because they do this every damn time. Doesn't matter how calmly and politely you ask them to explain why it's always Da Joos. They'll give you an eliiptical theory of Jewness that doesn't hold together, cobbled together bits of Holocaust apocrypha, and when someone bothers to patiently disassemble it, they curl their upper lip, go silent, and then come back in a couple of weeks repeating the same thing.

This phenomenon isn't unique to Joo-haters. We just got to the point of you disagreeing with yourself. I don't know if we've gotten an elliptical theory, but we've definitely had cobbled together bits of apocrypha. I think we're at the "upper lip curl, go silent" stage, but I have to imagine that when it comes up again (and it will), you'll probably be repeating the same thing.

An obsessive making everything about his obsession and trying to make it the topic regardless of context is on point, though it's not the point you think you're making.

That may be true, in the technical sense that you have affirmed a contradiction. From the principle of explosion, sure, you can probably show that to be true. Of course, you can also show the opposite to be true. And back in reality, you're not really accusing me of being a one-issue poster. That would be bonkers. You're just deflecting, again.

I'm just observing the phenomenon you've just described in this thread. The context is on point. It was your point!

Do you know how crazy you sound?

I did not take the strawberries.

More comments

It's worth noting that 'not being an antisemite' is a historical anomaly. I'm not saying anything for or against the Jews here, just that there's clearly a lot of people they rub the wrong way.

This is a good point, but the things pointed out right now (like overrepresentation in Hollywood and Journalism) ...those are new? What the fuck were they doing other than not being Christian before? Or is it just that they survived when the Druids got wiped out or whatever.

What the fuck were they doing other than not being Christian before? Or is it just that they survived when the Druids got wiped out or whatever.

Basically, yes. When Christianity took over as the state religion in early medieval states, it was not a very tolerant religion. They did not suffer a follower of Freyja or Jupiter to live. Or an atheist, for that matter. Jews were the only religious outgroup which Christians did not feel the need to kill wherever they encountered them (but only on special occasions or when feeling especially holy).

(I think the Druids specifically were already on the shitlist of the (somewhat more religiously tolerant) Romans, possibly due to human sacrifices. Or that might be Roman propaganda.)

There's a chapter about Jewish legal traditions in David Friedman's Legal Systems Very Different From Ours. He describes how the Jews basically got stuck with full on Old Testament Tyrant God, plus a whole bunch of extra rules and laws that Christians have never heard of. And the Jewish response was to take these very specific, very strict, very brutal religious laws and nickel-and-dime them down into irrelevance with what basically amounts to bad faith sophistry. Just the exact polar opposite of a good faith effort to follow the spirit of the law. And I don't necessarily blame them, because the laws are kind of savage. "If your child is disobedient, publicly kill them" was the sample used.

When I finished that chapter, the thought that occurred to me was, more or less: "I suddenly get why all those medieval lords used to confiscate all the Jews property and kick them out. If I had contractual agreements and financial dealings with a group of people, and I learned that their religious/legal system was based around using cheap wording tricks to bamboozle their own fucking God, I certainly wouldn't trust them to keep faith with me. Better to fuck them over first and expell them before they hit me with some 'the contact specified you would be repaid in doll hairs!' level shit."

I already get why all those medieval lords used to confiscate all the Jews' property and kick them out. They really wanted the property.

I had contractual agreements and financial dealings with a group of people, and I learned that their religious/legal system was based around using cheap wording tricks to bamboozle their own fucking God, I certainly wouldn't trust them to keep faith with me.

I'm pretty sure that the last thing that medieval legal systems were based around is good faith following the spirit of the laws, unless "what the lord says, goes" counts as the spirit of the law.

Medieval antisemitism included a number of tropes, some of them straight up falsehood('blood libel' literally was invented to describe the claim that the Jewish religion runs on the human sacrifice of Christian children) and some of them more or less true(Jews really did lend money at high interest rates, really were the main conduit for the trade in slaves out of the Christian world and into the Muslim one, etc).

Islamic antisemitism stems from, among other things, their end times prophecy.

You know, I'm kind of softening on the blood libel bits, WERE they actually sacrificing children.

really were the main conduit for the trade in slaves out of the Christian world and into the Muslim one, etc)

Wait, really? I've never heard that one. Kind of awkward if so.

The medieval mediterranean's main religious groups banned the sale of slaves of their group to other group. Do the math.

There was also a large slave trade from still pagan parts of Europe into the Muslim world mediated by Italian traders(particularly Venetians- this is part of the reason that Venetians have such a bad reputation in older literature), but this was legal. The sale of Christian indentured servants as slaves in the Muslim world was dwarfed by Muslim raiding but when it happened, the perpetrators were Jewish.

What the fuck were they doing other than not being Christian before? Or is it just that they survived when the Druids got wiped out or whatever.

They're not just any tribe that refused to convert. They're the tribe(s). They had the books first. Both Christians and Muslims appeal to the antiquity of Jewish religion to justify theirs (Muslims claim that Allah sends a prophet to all people and yet most all of the "canon" examples cited in the Qur'an are Jewish or draw from Jewish myth)

If you truly are God's chosen prophet/Messiah and you were spoken of in past Scriptures, why do the people who've held those scriptures for centuries reject you? The gentiles will ask.

It's simply a theological and political problem that requires an answer and the easiest answer is to discredit and attack the Jews themselves. As they themselves did to their less monotheistic/faithful brethren.

It's actually "not being a religious bigot" that's a historical anomaly. Europeans were not historically more tolerant of Muslims or pagans or Hindus, etc. The reason antisemitism happened more is because there were more Jews around, not because Jews "did" something to make themselves more unlikeable.

Not to mention all the wars between Catholics and Protestants.

Which remember, only really ended in 1999.

When Jeremy Corbyn (previous head of the UK Labour party and genuinely very antisemitic) was elected as head of the party, I was slightly taken aback to see literally 1/3 to 1/2 of my usual columnists writing articles starting with some variant of "As a Jew, I am horrified to see Jeremy Corbyn...". That's a literal 'literally'. In a country with <1% Jewish people. Later I discovered that it's the same in publishing, and also in finance.

There is also the famous 'white people rule the world' left-wing meme complaining how almost all top CEOs, media people, politicians etc. are white, and then the far-Right got hold of it and pointed out that almost all of those are Jewish and if anything gentile whites are underrepresented.

TLDR: The combination of 'huge Jewish over-representation at the top of most key areas' and 'you will be destroyed if you notice or discuss that over-representation' makes people distrustful. The fact that white people are hounded for far smaller discrepancies makes people resentful.

I don't think Corbyn is antisemitic. I think he's just simple-minded enough to believe the narrative "Hamas are freedom fighters, therefore they are good" and isn't capable of reasoning about it more deeply (not that I think this is a good reason to support Hamas, but that's another topic). It's the same way he was probably exposed to the idea that capitalism is bad because of inequality or something when he was a teenager and therefore decided the USSR is good, and hasn't been able to update his thinking since then.

There is also the famous 'white people rule the world' left-wing meme complaining how almost all top CEOs, media people, politicians etc. are white, and then the far-Right got hold of it and pointed out that almost all of those are Jewish and if anything gentile whites are underrepresented.

As an aside, while it's entirely fair to point out such disparities much if not most of the online right really tell on themselves by being unable to stomach that the reason whites outperform blacks - average IQ differences - is most likely behind their own underperformance relative to Ashkenazis. Watching these people tie themselves in knots trying to avoid this conclusion looks a lot like a progressive journalist reaching for esoteric theories of structural racism to explain why there aren't more black professors at MIT.

that the reason whites outperform blacks - average IQ differences - is most likely behind their own underperformance relative to Ashkenazis

I'm happy to bite that bullet, personally - the evidence is that Orientals and Ashkenazim have higher IQs than average gentile whites, and this explains much of their over-performance.

I do also suspect that there is quite a lot of conscious and unconscious discrimination going on - reading people like Scott and Zvi and the various Jewish columnists I read makes me realise that their Jewishness is sotto voce very very important to them, and my experience in real life backs that up. Humans tend to show ingroup bias unless there is lots and lots of explicit structure / ideology to prevent it, and given that Jewish people often tend also to be highly competent as you say, I wouldn't be surprised if non-Jews had to climb a higher bar to be meritorious in the eyes of Jewish bosses. I don't have any proof for that, of course, but that's why I don't like the taboo around Jewish over-representation. It prevents us from having conversations that we need to have.

TLDR: Ingroup preference can only get you so far if you don't have the raw merit to back it up, but I'd be surprised if some ingroup preference wasn't also in play.

the evidence is that Orientals and Ashkenazim have higher IQs than average gentile whites, and this explains much of their over-performance.

define "much". From what I've seen they have a slightly higher IQ, but also a much higher in-group preference and organization. It's the latter that seems to explain most of their success. This leads to the twitter meme of "check the early life section" where so-and-so famous person is always like "born into a jewish family, he attended an elite school and then quickly got promoted."

From what I've seen they have a slightly higher IQ

Ashkenazi IQ is believed to be 3/4 to 1 SD above the mean. That's enormous.

This leads to the twitter meme of "check the early life section" where so-and-so famous person is always like "born into a jewish family, he attended an elite school and then quickly got promoted."

Ah, yes, like Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Or Larry Ellison. Or Marcus Goldman, going back a few generations. As you may recall, the elite schools used to have to beat Jews off with a stick (or a quota). In-group preference is a lousy explanation for Jewish success.

>one of the most legendary bankers of all time
>name is Goldman

The (((scriptwriters))) getting real lazy on this one; how stupid do they think us goyim are? Almost as bad as a large Swiss bank being founded by a guy named "Credit" and the other one "Suisse."

I didn't realize "Marcus" was Goldman's first name, despite it only being the name of GS’s personal online banking service and all. I guess I just never really wondered what Goldman's first name was or just subconsciously assumed it would be something fancier.

More comments

That's a very fair position.

I don't care about religion (it's all kind of silly) or ethnicity but I've been scolded a few times for holding that idea. Told to check my privilege and so on... Why is it wrong to turn that back around?

It's more about those progressive journalists being consistent. Apply that same lense to yourself.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not on the side of people telling you to check your privilege.

My guy, can you tell me what it is about the Jews?

My vague understanding is that a bogeyman is needed to explain European failure at ethnocentrism. If we're being replaced and taken advantage of by hostile third-worlders, then saying 'we chose this because we are pathologically altruistic' isn't very satisfying to the highly race-conscious. In step the Jews, who 'made us do it'.

The explanation only works in America because the Jewish minority there genuinely is very influential through AIPAC. It completely fails to explain similar levels of outgroup preference in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the countries of Europe. Most countries in Europe have Jewish populations of roughly zero, because a certain 1930s dictator killed what Jews they had, and yet you still see even based conservative Belarus importing hundreds of thousands of cousin-marrying 'specialists' from Pakistan.

I think they're just jelly. Jews openly play and succeed at ethnocentrism and have managed to secure support, concessions, money and other things from the world hyperpower.

From a fargroup and external view, what the Jews are doing is pretty obviously the right call, given that they're surrounded by enemies who want them dead for religious and other reasons and have been rounded up and massacred on an industrial scale because of their identity. Their recent moves are a bit sus, but would be considered OK if the loss in political capital was made up for in other ways (territorial gains, another few decades where the surrounding areas of the ME learn they're not to be fucked with).

Antisemitism is understandable, but it always comes across as sour grapes; what would you prefer, a "fair" world where Jews are just like everyone else who pretends they don't prefer their ingroup? I understand Americans at least, who would rather the Jews not abuse their national founding ethos and culture to secure themselves dominant positions in banking, politics, and culture, but if they're not willing to give up on the "we're a melting pot, for reals, and we allow for freedom of religion" idea then the rest is moot.

My pet conspiracy theory regarding Europe was always that our own continental elite - the ilk of Merkels and Merzes and von der Leyens, and their true power base of dynasties owning supermarket chains, publishing houses and car manufacturers - was shocked into action by the left-based attacks on their core interests in the '90s and early '00s. This was when waves of popular protests empowered by the ascendant internet demanded increasingly cushy labour conditions, tanked transatlantic trade treaties that were meant to secure information-economy revenue streams against the internet gift economy, and often even produced geopolitical embarrassment such as when Germany was forced to keep its involvement in the Iraq war a minimum.

Their political intuitions correctly told them that introducing a large culturally incompatible immigrant underclass would amplify existing contradictions in the "uppity left" to the point that it would tear itself apart and stop functioning as a coherent political force (as indeed it did, with all the anti-elite energy having been successfully redirected into a war between those who are horrified at immigrants and those who are horrified at the preceding group), and they probably bargained that no comparable threat to them could emerge from the right (which anyhow they had good experience and infrastructure to manage).

That seems a bit 4D chess to me. 'Let's import so many dysfunctional third worlders that it destroys our left wing movements'. I think the explanation is smaller scale. Among elites, broadcasting comfort with foreign cultures and a lack of interest in crime or welfarism is an effective form of counter-signalling. 'I'm so rich that I don't need to worry about immigrants suppressing wages or raping my daughter'. Multiply that by the whole western world and you get the situation that we're in now.

Don't forget the ramping up of soc-jus and other woke shit after Occupy, occupy happens and on a dime mainstream media, news channels and mega corpos start flying gay flags and ultra feminist nonsense, leading to at least a century of intra-class culture war between the left and right.

I do not think that Merkel was that cynical. Also, she reigned for 16 years, most of them before she made the decision to let in refugees in 2015.

The Iraq war was unpopular in Germany from the get-go, and was certainly a reason why Schroeder (whose SPD is a very established party, btw) won one election with the promise not to take part in that adventure.

And Merz would gladly personally drown any number of refugees in the Mediterranean sea if it would increase his popularity.

The CDU today is not in a better position than they were ca 2014. So they would have to have been clever enough to make a 5d chess move (and under their own name, no less, instead of letting the SPD win an election and take the full blame for opening the borders), but stupid enough not to anticipate the outcome.

I don't know, I think at least on an intuitive level she was more than cynical enough. There were many adjacent justifications that she could have told herself and her party allies to rationalise it - a real sense of compassion, and the need to get workers to fill low-level jobs in the face of dipping birth rates (which when you think about it really is almost a flip side of "stop leftists from being able to drive a hard bargain for cushy jobs").

Moreover, I think there was another semi-cynical reason in play for Merkel in particular, which was their ongoing conflict with the European South about austerity (a Merkelian pet project if there ever was one). By inviting all the refuges (who came via many of the same Southern countries) to Germany, she simultaneously piled up Germany's karma supplies (in the eyes especially of those who were starting to feel uneasy about the resentment their policy was inspiring in their southern neighbours), created a concrete debt (since per normal asylum rules many of those refugees would have been the responsibility of Spain/Italy/Greece where they first entered the European mainland) and an implicit threat if they keep resisting German demands (Germany doesn't have to take all those refugees off their hands).

There was a similar phenomenon in Burgerland even before the immigration started. The only reason the elite like the left so much now is that they had the FBI spend 70 years beating the shit out of the left until it was free of all the parts they didn’t like.

My vague understanding is that a bogeyman is needed to explain European failure at ethnocentrism.

I agree, but I would go further. A bogeyman is need for blame for all problems of white people, just as feminists blame essentially all their problems on "patriarchy."

feminism:patriarchy::white nationalism:Jews

I feel obliged to point out that there are Jew-inclusive white nationalists.

I feel obliged to point out that there are Jew-inclusive white nationalists.

Yeah, I remember a few years back there was a white nationalist (forget his name) who wrote some very good articles arguing that it was not the Jews but actually competitive altruism that was the source of whites' problems. As I recall, he didn't really get that far and ultimately gave up on his project.

It seems that there is a deep human need to identify an out-group which can be blamed for a group's problems.

Now mods, I don't know what's going to happen here, but in pre-emptive defense of my boy @SecureSignals here I just really want to stress the fact that this dude asked.

Oh, I'd be happy to see @SecureSignals actually answer the question, and he wouldn't be banned for answering honestly. But he's too strategic for that and he's never going to spell out here on the Motte why he hates Jews so much and what he wants done with them. I'm pretty sure he uses places like this to quietly draw in fellow travelers, and saves the ho- scaring shit for more private venues.

To clarify: actually calling for violence (eg "We should kill the Jews") or making statements that are just boo outgroup (eg "I hate Jews because they're sneaky cunning vermin who hate me") would be against the rules. But going into detail about what you believe Jews have supposedly done, or even genetic theories about their natural animosity for gentiles, would be allowed even if the reasoning is specious.

I mean the post I responded to is just a "waaah why do you care" post, not some bold challenge he should feel bad about shirking. It's not even hard to answer. Over-representation in hostile/degenerate institutions and industries, and really outrageously overt meddling in American politics on behalf of their pet ethnostate, boom done. If any other country tried pulling shit like getting BDS laws passed in the US there would be calls to bomb them.

I mean I think Israel is a good idea and most of what they do wrong is forced on them by their adversaries. Add that to not me blaming Jews anymore than any other white group arguing for anti-white policies and then you have me going "I don't get it."

And I don't!

As I'm sure others don't get my distaste taste for low class urban black culture.

And Jew haters really fucking hate Jews. Many do so more than the a guy who watched an illegal Mexican run over his neighbors kid.

It should take more than "those guys are in the academic institutions with the wokeness!!!!" to generate that much anger/hate/distaste.

A few somewhat relevant thoughts I had just now:

Dishonest individuals and groups (that would be most of them) tend to hate those whom they have already harmed. The violence may come first (started for a variety of reasons including opportunism or simple peer pressure or whatever else) and then the mind will rationalize the aggression, which is one of the human brain's specialties. "I'm good, so if I harmed someone, they must be bad. Ergo I should try to defeat them fully rather than atone, lest they, almost surely being evil and such, harm me in return". This may be especially true when the abusers have not overwhelmingly been forced to admit wrongs and apologize or make reparations. See: Germany after WW2 versus the stubbornly jingoistic Turks who even today will mostly try to blame the Armenians and Greeks for the crime of being genocided, ratherthan admit the historicity or evils of the events.

Antisemitism and the scapegoating, abuse and killing of Jews was so central to Nazism's growth and recreation that to renounce the antisemitism would be to admit that the group whom Neo-Nazi wretches sympathize with or descend from was indeed completely wrong to do what they did. It would be mentally difficult to both fully admit the reality of and condemn the Holocaust while supporting everything else the Nazis stood for.

Why Jews, in particular? They are a very small group. People tend to direct and unleash abuse and violence against those who are small or less able or less willing to defend themselves. The Jews were deemed both small and dangerous due to their high IQs and money and political activity. To be both vulnerable and potentially dangerous is a potent mixture for motivating destruction. The nazis also had genocidal plans against the Slavs of Eastern Europe, whom they viewed as being very low in the racial hierarchy, but deemed it more important to kill the Jews first. The Palestinians also try to claim that the Jews are a tiny pest, but a very dangerous pest. The average Gazan believed that only around half a million Jews lived in Israel, prior to October 7th. This lets the ignorant person believe that it's both important and fully doable to wipe them out once and for all.

Yes please. This is not meant to be bait and I am happy to take the discussion into DM if it helps me improve my mental model of those with these priorities.

I don't know where anti-semitism comes from.

It's lindy.

The main issue is that groyperism doesn't actually fix the problems. It feels fun and powerful to point out dual loyalists on Twitter, but this is a tertiary issue at best.

This individualist free market zionism stuff isn't working anymore.

It actually is though. Young white men are being taken advantage of because we aren't individualist and free-market enough. Working-age white men are the backbone of American industry. They are the ones who will rise to the top in the absense of government intervention. What is dragging them down is

  • Taxes, to pay for redisributionist policies like social securty, medicare, and medicaid, and

  • Degree inflation, which drives up the salary of female-dominated professions like education and health-care (which are themselves government-funded!), therefore driving down the demand for husbands.

Young white men do not benefit from socialized government services. It will also not help to drive all of the rich Jews and high-skill immigrants out of the country. That will reduce the number of high-paying jobs available to young white men.

Young white men are being taken advantage of because we aren't individualist enough

Every problem you proceed to mention only remains unsolved because of a lack of White political organization.

taxes, to pay for redisributionist policies

Somalians can exploit welfare because they are collectively organized. Black activists can secure welfare by guilting Whites for the same reason. Whites do not have the collective which allows them to fight back on this front. One White person complaining on the internet is no match for an activist putting out sophisticated propaganda attacks, working as an appendage to a dedicated hundred-person activist network, where they are being paid to literally plan and plot propaganda all day long, after going to school to learn propaganda techniques. There is a total asymmetry here. I don’t think people realize the extent of the power imbalance. What is an “individualist” to do? You, as a hypothetical wise person, may understand the propaganda they are doing, but the average white person has no idea what they are doing, and so they fall for the propaganda. The propaganda acts as a virus that turns each infected person into a carrier of the message, as we saw with BLM. A small activist network of trained agents — yes, even if they are Somalians — will always “outgun” you in the politico-cultural arena and win.

You cannot effectively organize “individualists” together to promote “individualism”, as there is no underpinning evolutionary energy that encourages such a formation. The Somalians are organized instinctively in a way that humans are designed to organize, tribally, using the same instincts of their earlier hominid ancestors. (Ironically, they just sent a billion dollars to Somalia to fund a tribal civil war — go figure). This gives them an enormous motivational and social advantage. A singular individualist can’t compete, and he can’t draw other individualists to his cause, and he can’t recruit funds from a wealthy individualist, or anything like that. But the activist network can make Jeff Bezos’ ex wife donate half a billion to HBCs, because their propaganda works, because they have hundred-person teams coalescing around the same attack strategy.

Would you play chess with one piece? How often do you think you’ll win? Okay, so you have one queen, awesome. You’re against an opponent with all his pieces. Some of them are stupid pawns, but the stupid pawns are taking centralized orders from someone who went to school for chess and plays it all day and studied all of your past games. You’re going to lose every single game, forever. This is the individualist versus a collective. There is no winning anything, ever, in any scenario.

Wait you think white welfare fraud doesn't exist?

I’m just using the example of “taxes to pay for redistributionist policies” of the OP, with special attention to Somalians because of the recent scandal this week. Redistributive economic policy, even in the absence of fraud, is bad for White people, as Quantum notes, as it benefits the Black/Hispanic cohorts disproportionate to the taxes they put in. In regards to welfare fraud generally, it’s not the case that White people do the sort of organized fraud that you find in “collectives”, though of course there are still White people committing welfare fraud.

Is there anyone advocating for this? How successful are they?

Working-age white men are the backbone of American industry. They are the ones who will rise to the top in the absense of government intervention. What is dragging them down is

  • Taxes, to pay for redisributionist policies like social securty, medicare, and medicaid, and

  • Degree inflation, which drives up the salary of female-dominated professions like education and health-care (which are themselves government-funded!), therefore driving down the demand for husbands.

Young white men do not benefit from socialized government services.

Excuse me, please be respectful of The Social Contract.

Also: damn, the comments section of Know Your Meme is so soy nowadays.

Excuse me, please be respectful of The Social Contract.

Sir, that's the UK (though I thought Nicholas was supposed to be French?)

Don’t worry, that article is heckin wholesome and Inclusive. Nicolas and Le Contrat Social, and James and The [US] Social Contract, are also discussed further down.

Nice how they all leave Gen X completely out of it.

What else is new? We don't exist.

The main issue is that groyperism doesn't actually fix the problems.

This individualist free market zionism stuff isn't working anymore.

It actually is though. Young white men are being taken advantage of because we aren't individualist and free-market enough.

The thing that doesn't work but makes a big show out of being on people's side will always win over the thing that doesn't work and makes a big show out of hating them. I'd expect the establishment would learn that lessen given who's president again (although, to be fair, it looks like he did make some things work this time).

Oh, but you said that free market individualism does work and doesn't hate anyone, well, too bad it's not in play. The establishment is not free-market individualist, even establishment conservatives aren't. The only people in favor of it are two dozen autistic libertarians, and everyone else who pays lip service to it does so cynically. Everybody loves the free market when they wan't to ship people's jobs to China or import 7 zillion low-wage workers, but come recession they'll suddenly discover all their friends are too big too fail. Everybody loves individualism, but somehow can't be bothered to criticize literally any other collective identity that people organize around bar one (or I suppose two), and heaven forbid someone suggests treating everyone's favorite ethnostate the way any other country is treated.

People see through this stuff. You can't lament that they aren't buying a solution that would actually help them, but that should be the cause for introspection, not just for criticism of others.

Yep. Step one in making things better for young white men is killing affirmative action, which is directly discriminating against them. Step two getting rid of all the indirect discrimination -- includes that degree inflation, regulations that harm industries with a lot of blue collar jobs (which are disproportionately male), bans on disparate impact (which goes to "white" more than "men"), that sort of thing. Taxes probably come after that. Jews aren't even on the map. Randy Fine ought to resign, but his stanning for Israel isn't having a measurable negative impact on white men in the US.

I have no idea how you could combat indirect discrimination. If you have a clear-headed view on how to do this, please let me know.

I don't see how it's possible. Ban IQ tests for job applications and people will find some other way to discriminate against people they think are stupid (that conveniently lines up with whatever other factor that makes them discriminate). Regulations that harm industries with blue collar jobs will always happen because people with white collar jobs have more power and naturally don't know or care about blue collar people. Bans on disparate impact sound good but the statistics can be gamed by anyone who even knows anything about statistics.

To get people to stop discriminating against men you need to figure out how to get women to stop discriminating against men, which will never happen even if you unplugged the internet and somehow managed to bring back the golden age of marketing so powerful it got people to consider bacon a breakfast food.

IQ tests are not indirect discrimination. "Disparate impact" is not indirect discrimination based on race, it's a reason for implementing indirect discrimination based on race. Banning IQ tests for jobs where IQ matters is discrimination against the intelligent (and indirect discrimination against groups which are more intelligent on average). Some of the indirect discrimination I'm referring to is banning criteria that would result in advantages for young white men.

The thing is, I'm not sure banning it stops it. I'm sure there's been attempts to make a human entirely "free" of bias, either through chemical or electrical means. Even the AI models aren't free from Noticing, as some of the researchers are finding out to their own peril (the data pans out to make certain conclusions unpalatable).

I'm not sure it's possible. In much of the world discrimination in the workplace is just a fact of life, to be acknowledged. It can be overcome, definitely, but I'm not sure it can be done by fiat.

I'm not asking to make a human free of bias. I'm asking to make the law not discriminate against young white men. This is a much smaller request.

But that's my point. It's already illegal in many areas to discriminate against people on the basis of race or ethnicity. You think making it illegal to discriminate against white young men in the Harvard admissions process will suddenly make their applicants lily white? They already sandbag Asians heavily. What would change this would be a purging of the entire Harvard staff, which would defeat the point of Harvard as a place for the rich and powerful to rub shoulders and make connections.

In America, the whole "Hispanic" identity was an invention they created out of whole cloth to make it easier to manage. This was then used to make people racist both for and against the umbrella of people they had filed under the Hispanic identity.

It's already illegal in many areas to discriminate against people on the basis of race or ethnicity.

De jure, but not de facto. De facto it's legal to discriminate against whites and Asian in college admissions.

What would change this would be a purging of the entire Harvard staff, which would defeat the point of Harvard as a place for the rich and powerful to rub shoulders and make connections.

If so, OK. Note that's staff and not faculty -- it's the latter you need to keep Harvard elite. It's probably not even necessary, though; purge the regulatory agencies, have the replacements make some threats, and follow through on a few of them, and the Harvard Corporation will get their admissions department aligned. Same for a lot of other schools. The problem is keeping it up long enough that they realize you're serious.

In America, the whole "Hispanic" identity was an invention they created out of whole cloth to make it easier to manage. This was then used to make people racist both for and against the umbrella of people they had filed under the Hispanic identity.

The category is invented (and somewhat incoherent) but it's persisted because it labels (if imperfectly) a real phenomenon. People had no problem with being racist against Mexicans before it was invented, even "Mexicans" who happened to be from Guatemala or something. And the Mexicans had no problem supporting other Mexicans (though not "Mexicans", as indeed they do not today)

Your assessment of the problems is correct, but you also need to look at what lead to these problems. Who was a (self proclaimed) driving force behind the civil rights act? Of course Jews are not a monolith, but they (rightfully, logically) pursue policies in their own self interest which at times is at odds with those of white Americans.

Randy Fine ought to resign, but his stanning for Israel isn't having a measurable negative impact on white men in the US.

A Jewish ethno-nationalist in American halls of power is exactly the problem.

Who was a (self proclaimed) driving force behind the civil rights act?

Black people? The NAACP? John F. Kennedy? Lyndon Johnson? Hubert Humphrey? Everett Dirksen? Thomas Kuchel? Mike Mansfield?

A Brief History of Jews and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Gee I don't know how about bankrolling the whole thing and providing ideological backing in universities.

Step one in making things better for young white men is killing affirmative action, which is directly discriminating against them.

This would probably improve the lot of most Jews, who stand to take some proportion of the spoils currently reserved for URM.

If Fuentes could stomach doing something that indirectly helps them because it also helps him, that is.

This would probably improve the lot of most Jews, who stand to take some proportion of the spoils currently reserved for URM.

Of course it would, most Jews are white and get no help from the DEI stuff. There's a core of leftist mostly-secular Jewish ideologues who help keep most American Jews on the Democrat's side -- that's the truth behind the Noticing our Holocaust-enjoyers like to engage in. The Democrat's rhetorical support for Palestinians provided an opportunity to peel off Jews who were merely self-interested (which as I said below, is perfectly normal) from the leftist ideologues, and Trump took it. Now people like Fuentes are trying to squander that, and will likely succeed.

And if the only response to that reality is calling everyone an anti-semite or a nazi then what is even the point of this?

Well it worked pretty well, boomers have already had their opinions set by the television.

I read somewhere an argument about how stable systems were inherently unstable in a changing world. They set up the whole ADL/AIPAC/lobbying/media machine to suppress and drown out dissenters. It worked well. But it works by suppressing rather than adapting. Things change, people get increasingly upset about the anomaly of them funding bombs for Israel to blow up random Palestinians, while the usual suspects in the media are still talking about how Israel is the 'most moral army.' That works if you have total media dominance but not if the battlefield is somewhat contested, it backfires if there are videos of Israeli parliamentarians enthusiastically justifying torture, if they go around shooting unarmed protestors or people trying to get food. Trying to stick to the maximalist narrative just further delegitimizes that media power.

They keep mashing the 'suppress' button but the suppression isn't working. The system is designed to be stable, not to change. The goal and methods and mindset is fixed. There is some evidence of adaptation (Team Israel is working to try and manipulate the Tiktok algorithm and LLM training data for instance) but the system as a whole is breaking down.

Over on another forum, a groyper is swearing up and down that groyperism isn't all about The Jews. And here you go ruining it for them.

Hah, do you mean DSL?

Yes.

Why would someone even lie about that? Their whole thing is pointing out Jewish influence. It completely defeats the whole point to not do that.

Presumably because they know that having positions that wouldn't be out of place in 19th century Eastern European peasants marks them as "low human capital", as another figure on the "right" likes to say.

AT and Hanania arent on the right. They are just oddballs.

Delete Hanania and his followers, and the groypers, and the RINOs, and there's not much of a right remaining. As the last election showed.

The fun fact is that there's never been much of a right. The pre-FDR Republicans were either capitalists (Coolidge) or progressives (Hoover). Eisenhower was a general for FDR endorsed by Truman. Nixon was a pre new-left liberal. Reagan was an open-borders capitalist. H.W. Bush was the dream candidate of /r/neoliberal. W. Bush was a "compassionate conservative" whose signature domestic policy was more welfare for old people (Medicare Part D). Trump is an incoherent populist.

I don't like the gropyers. Nick Fuentes is a Mexican gayhomo larping as a whitenat.

But philosemeticism has clearly run its course in the West. The left discarded race blind meritocracy. Now, the right has too. You can't unring that bell. Saying "Jews have a disproportionate amount of influence in the halls of power compared to their population" can't be taboo if everyone is running around saying that about the whites. If Con. Inc demands its audience stop noticing, they'll be ignored. You can't be a nationalist for America and be a Zionist at the same time. You won't fool anyone.

Yes, that means you, Ben Shapiro.

You can't unring that bell. Saying "Jews have a disproportionate amount of influence in the halls of power compared to their population" can't be taboo if everyone is running around saying that about the whites. If Con. Inc demands its audience stop noticing, they'll be ignored.

This hits the nail on the head. The post-Holocaust Jews advocating against racial consciousness knew what they were doing. Noticing begets noticing. HBD or idpol based arguments on Right or Left will always lead to anti-Semitism as long as Jews are tracked as a distinct group in any way.

There's no stable HBD argument that rules out antisemitism. You can't build an argument around 13/52, that simultaneously avoids questions about Jewish over-representation.

There's no stable idpol argument that rules out antisemitism. You can't complain that blacks are under represented in XYZ, without protestant whites eventually noticing that there are almost no protestant whites in XYZ.

Chesterton's Fence.

There's no stable HBD argument that rules out antisemitism.

Does this argument apply to anti-Asian bias? I know there is some animosity between parts of the right and South Asians, but the success of East Asian immigrants in the US hasn't seen anywhere near the animosity that Jews get, especially from "protestant whites."

Yes, but East Asians have mostly flown under the radar (aside from occasional generic Red Scaring about the CCP or Hyundai getting busted for breaking labor laws) due to being underrepresented in politics (and remember that American politics has lots of east coast bias, while most East Asian Americans live on Hawaii or the west coast). Fox News might as well be the Zohran Mamdani and Israel channel whereas I never hear anything about Michelle Wu.

Sarah Jeong exists but East Asian Americans aren't perceived as grievance mongering to the same extent as American Jews or South Asians. It probably also helps that the East Asian FOBs or would-be immigrants (and note that "Asian" immigration has been much more heavily South Asian in the last 20 years than used to be the case) don't speak English and/or are behind the Great Firewall while South Asians are more active on social media (See: the holy war on twitter over H1-Bs).

Yes.

While people have pointed towards a racist coalition of "everyone but the Blacks," it's pretty tough to come up with arguments for why every stereotype about blacks is true and unchangingly based in genetics, while all stereotypes about Chinese are either lies or bias or cultural coincidence.

To be clear, I have never at any point claimed that the various issues with black Americans are wholly and unchangingly based on genetics. In fact I have argued explicitly against such a claim. I have said many times that if enough aggressive and sustained cultural pressure could be placed on black Americans to abandon the practices and frames of mind which make their culture so dysfunctional, I expect that we would see a substantial (though not complete) narrowing of the gap. The problem is that such cultural pressure is simply completely infeasible under any political paradigm that could credibly emerge in this country in my lifetime.

My apologies, I misunderstood your opinions.

the success of East Asian immigrants in the US hasn't seen anywhere near the animosity that Jews get, especially from "protestant whites."

This would be consistent with any purported animosity toward Jews from gentile whites not being primarily motivated by Jewish success per se, but because Jews feature prominently in politics, Hollywood, mainstream media, academia, and at the ballot box promoting anti-white messaging and anti-white policies.

While East Asian Americans lean democrat and gentile white Americans might be annoyed with East Asians for doing things like studying too hard and ruining classroom fun vibes, East Asian Americans are less prominent when it comes to anti-white rhetoric and are quite prominent as allies in at least one domain (affirmative action).

There's no stable HBD argument that rules out antisemitism. You can't build an argument around 13/52, that simultaneously avoids questions about Jewish over-representation.

That doesn't seem right to me, if anything stable HBD arguments would notice the higher average IQ of jews and say antisemitism is combination of invalid jealousy and valid concern about ingroup bias, same as lefty feelings about white people in general are.

That doesn't seem right to me, if anything stable HBD arguments would notice the higher average IQ of jews and say antisemitism is combination of invalid jealousy and valid concern about ingroup bias, same as lefty feelings about white people in general are.

As an actual HBD understander I have to step in here - this is not something that HBD proponents would proclaim. IQ and its heritability is one of the most basic aspects of HBD, the very first thing you learn when you get started. When you start talking about jews through the lens of HBD you start talking about things like ingroup preference(which you did, to your credit, mention), distinctions between verbal and visual IQ, levels of neuroticism, etc. There's some interesting information in there, like the obvious-in-hindsight knowledge that the European portion of Ashkenazim genetics came from Italians, or that several of the genetic diseases that are common amongst jews relate to the same kind of neurotransmitters that are involved in verbal IQ.

I don't care enough about jews to go through all the evidence and declare one way or another that the field supports antisemitism, but I can confidently state that your view here isn't correct. At no point does HBD support the idea that antisemitism is caused by jealousy - if you're being intellectually honest, the difference in population size between Ashkenazim and gentiles means that there's actually a higher population of gentiles at any given level of IQ than there are jews. If you want to bring out the jealousy argument, it would actually be running in the opposite direction. I'm not going to do it because I have better things to do, but it would actually be possible to take population numbers and IQ averages to work out how much jewish overrepresentation in certain fields is due to IQ and how much is due to ingroup preference and kinship networks.

It's really tough to make arguments built around "Noticing" patterns which will be able to stop people from holding all kinds of folk prejudices. If evolution doesn't stop at the neck, why does it stop at morality? If my aunt Hilda was absolutely right about the niggers, why was she completely wrong about the kikes?

The argument that IQ is measurable while morality is not, is just a case of looking for your keys under the streetlight. Pay attention to the race of criminals, but ignore Epstein and Weinstein, ignore the ethnicity of the Bolsheviks and the cultural Marxists, etc.

Encouraging race blindness is the best way for Jews who wish to remain distinctive within larger societies to survive.

The argument that IQ is measurable while morality is not, is just a case of looking for your keys under the streetlight. Pay attention to the race of criminals, but ignore Epstein and Weinstein, ignore the ethnicity of the Bolsheviks and the cultural Marxists, etc.

You forgot to mention them urging Pilate to have Jesus crucified.

The Soviets mostly were not Jewish. I have not heard the claim that Jewish Soviet officials were especially heinous, statistically speaking.

Epstein and Weinstein were, first and foremost, rich bastards. I do not think that once you control for "being a high society member" or "being a Hollywood exec" (which is well explained by HBD on intelligence), there is anything left to indicate that Jewish men have a higher incidence of sex pestery than gentiles.

Jews were over-represented in communist circles disproportionately in Russia and Germany, they even tried to do a failed coo in germany. The jews in power were later purged in communist party.

The Soviets mostly were not Jewish. I have not heard the claim that Jewish Soviet officials were especially heinous, statistically speaking.

During the early parts of Soviet history there were a lot more of them. From the 1917 Revolution to around the late 20s-early 1930s. Which means there were a lot of Jewish party members participating in particularly ugly war crimes during the Red Terror. Some of these had the character of an ethnically and religiously motivated pogrom more than class warfare, especially many of the actions against the Russian Orthodox Church.

Stalin kicked most of them out (along with most of the other ethnic minorities) because he was staring down the barrel of a huge war with other foreign powers and he needed a more Russian centric communist party to get the largely Russian population on board for it.

Now none of this particularly reflects on Jews specifically. Vicious ethnic and religious persecution of various kinds was very common for most of European history. Many other communist revolutions were used as a cover for ethnic and tribal warfare. And in Russia specifically, the government using one designated favorite ethnic minority as a stick to beat everyone else into line was a standard part of government structure.

It doesn't rule out anti-semitism because jealousy may be "invalid" but it's also going to happen. You can't "rule out" antisemitism, any more than you can rule out other such sentiments. Aside from dissolving the identity utterly, but that's not going to happen with most identities, and certainly not with Jews.

The left discarded race blind meritocracy. Now, the right has too.

Well yes, the younger right is. I don't think it's the same cohort changing their mind over time. But I wonder to what degree the young right feels the intellectual drift of the left has forced them to be like the left, grudgingly, or even if the left's diversity machine arrayed against them wasn't around, they'd pursue identity politics anyway. As in even if the country 95% white, we should stoke white consciousness.

I can only speak for myself here, as someone who would broadly call himself aligned with JD Vance (millennial with a similar enough upbringing that I deeply sympathize with his reactionary streak, even if I'm skeptical about whether or not he has a coherent policy solution).

White consciousness would be unnecessary and arguably ridiculous in an America with Reagan era demographics, and I have no desire to live in a world of "affirmative action, but for the chuds" (I work a company that's something like this and in practice it frequently feels like working in Idiocracy.). When concerns about "diversity" or the "underrepresented" meant ADOS blacks it at least had a reason (and no, I'm not some Wignat who thinks that ADOS blacks aren't Americans. They are, if anything, among the most American ethnicities. Equity is probably not possible in my lifetime but if ADOS Americans and American Indians were the only affirmative action demographics it would be an acceptable outcome.), even if I strongly oppose the likes of Kimberle Crenshaw.

The problem now is that (especially if the left and libertarians get their way concerning immigration, and skilled/educated legal immigration is arguably worse here from a political perspective) we don't have mid-late 20th century demographics, and the "underrepresented" could be taken to include the entire world. It's entirely possible (and arguably probable) that white Americans will remain the sin eaters/punching bags for everyone else's problems long after they become merely the largest plurality, and long after it's become the case that white Americans merely fare "average" in terms of outcomes.

In practice, "diversity" is a means for white progressives to render their conservative white opponents demographically irrelevant given that skilled immigrants from pretty much everywhere assimilate into the educated white progressive milieu (and yes, American Jews are largely the alpha pluses of this group but it's fundamentally a gentile white, dare I say Yankee thing).

Beyond that, it's merely a matter of aesthetic preferences. Am I small-minded enough to find it especially grating to be condescended to about "privilege" by the kids of either robber barons, genocidaires, or some other variety of "civil war/political loser" (Allow me to pick on Konstantin Kisin for a second. I'm not going to take the word of someone who left Russia as a preteen child whose father got exiled by Boris Yeltsin's government for excessive corruption to be especially authoritative.) back home? Yes. Would I rather live in a place where people are mostly like me? Yes, and if that makes me a bigot so be it. I'm not a big fan of the Bush family but I don't see how things are going to get better for people like me if we hand Ramaswamy the keys.

I had a tiff with conservative Jew Katya Sedgewick on X, someone I've interviewed and have been mostly supportive of...until Octobers 7th and everything that came after severely scrambled matters.

She says a day or two ago that her primary concern is the fate of Jews in America. That it's existential and no other policy concerns matter in comparison. I point out how blatantly idpol this is and she denies it. I think some conservatives believe Jewish idpol to be necessary in order to repel all the other idpols. The one idpol to rule them all, if you will, as it's as close as one gets to defending liberal individualism and modernity against 99% of idpols, which are anti-that. Jews are a stand-in for a more abstract idea.

So, speaking as someone who's been accused of giving special protection to Jews on the Motte and even being a Zionist myself:

I've been a subscriber to Bari Weiss's Free Press for a while but I'm cancelling my subscription. Why? Because every damn issue is about how Nick Fuentes or Zohran Mandani or whoever said anything negative about Jews or Israel is an existential threat. I have mostly enjoyed the Free Press's coverage on issues, but it became very, very noticeable that they're iconoclasts and contrarians (or at least willing to platform heretical views) about everything except Jews and Israel. On that topic, any synagogue in the country being spray-painted is worthy of a headline, and no article will ever suggest Israel is anything but a victim of calumny.

I get that it is personal for Weiss, but it's like every Jew became unhinged after October 7. To be fair, so did the Left, and now the Right's anti-Semites are crawling out of the woodwork. It's hard to blame Jews too much for feeling like everyone is out to get them more than ever when it really does seem like everyone is out to get them more than ever. But it's also a little hard to feel sympathetic to people like Weiss who think articles mocking everyone else's idpol are hilarious but don't you dare make light of hers.

Being concerned about the fate of your own ethnic or religious group is normal. That's not idpol as it's been during the culture war. The culture war idpol has been "being concerned about the fates of SOME ethnic groups is OK, but about others is pernicious racism". We're never going to make blacks stop caring about black issues or Asians caring about Asian issues, and we shouldn't try. Same goes for Jews, same should go for gentile whites. Sure, ideally, there's many cases where one should put ethnic interests aside, but these need to be reached by political negotiation, not unilateral disarmament.

We're never going to make blacks stop caring about black issues or Asians caring about Asian issues, and we shouldn't try. Same goes for Jews, same should go for gentile whites.

Best I can do is in-group preferences for me, but not for thee.

For a large segment of white Americans, it’s actually “in-group preferences for thee, but out-group preferences for me.” Discussed, amusingly enough, in a Jewish magazine.

It isn’t all just white liberals providing the fun though. White normie conservatives will also do shit like publicly forgiving their son’s black murderer while denouncing those who do some Noticing over the incident.

Being concerned about the fate of your own ethnic or religious group is normal. That's not idpol as it's been during the culture war. The culture war idpol has been "being concerned about the fates of SOME ethnic groups is OK, but about others is pernicious racism".

Isn't that exactly what western Zionists are doing? Jews are allowed to look out for Jews, but Christians aren't allowed to look out for Christians. Imagine a Heritage Foundation report about how over-represented Jews are at prestige schools and professions, and how correspondingly under-represented Protestant Whites are. Do you think the ADL and Bari Weiss would say that was acceptable?

Isn't that exactly what western Zionists are doing? Jews are allowed to look out for Jews, but Christians aren't allowed to look out for Christians.

Zionists? What does this have to do with Israel?

Imagine a Heritage Foundation report about how over-represented Jews are at prestige schools and professions, and how correspondingly under-represented Protestant Whites are. Do you think the ADL and Bari Weiss would say that was acceptable?

The ADL wouldn't, but the ADL is just Jewish-tinged leftism. I don't know about Weiss, I haven't read her lately, but if what amadanb says, probably not -- but that's her self-interest. Personally I don't see why the Heritage Foundation would make such a report -- they're not a Christian organization. But if some Protestant organization were to make such a report, it shouldn't be considered racism or unacceptable; it's just self-interest and should be looked at in that light. Doesn't mean any recommendations they make should be followed, of course; that's actually one of the OTHER problems with the ADL, that they are somehow looked at as the voice of authority rather than a pro-Jewish interest group.

Being concerned about the fate of your own ethnic or religious group is normal.

Or nation. That's another group. And it stands above idpol.

Again, that only works if the smaller groups can come to an agreement. Making your own interest only that of the nation while everyone else is fighting for their own is a great way to get robbed.

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