This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
...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.
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.
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).
The child wasn't starving; its appearance was due to the disease. And yes, the actual starving is in question.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
And also the posts of jews who do not. But these are usually not counted, for some reason.
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 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 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 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.
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
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
If I called out every time someone spoke excessively collectively of whites and blacks here (mostly blacks) I'd literally be here all day.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
There are standards of behavior beyond not shitting in the street or doing drive-by shootings.
What are the relevant ones?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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)
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 options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.)
More options
Context Copy link
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'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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
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.
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."
Ashkenazi IQ is believed to be 3/4 to 1 SD above the mean. That's enormous.
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 options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's a very fair position.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's lindy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link