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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link