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 -
Contra Nick Fuentes, Hitler, Nazis on Antisemitism: An essay from a strongly-Zionist authright.
Over the past several years I’ve come to terms with accepting the reality of HBD and its implications on my political views. Put simply, HBD is the most straightforward way to explain the vast differences in societal development we see at a global level: Countries with lots of White people in them seem to usually be pretty nice places to live. Countries with lots of Japanese people, Taiwanese, Koreans, or Jews tend to also be pretty great. Countries with lots of Muslims and Blacks tend to be hellscapes with horrific amounts of violence, corruption, nonsensical cruelty, incest, pedophilia, poverty, genocides and immense institutional dysfunction.
The left-leaning, mainstream-media-liberal explanation for these observations in the disparity between group outcomes seem to… not notice it at all. When mainstream media liberals are reluctantly forced to explain these differences in outcomes they will blame a “bad environment” or blame white people for the legacy of colonialism. These hypotheses both reject the agency that minorities have over their own wellbeing and ignore the vast amount of data in intelligence research and group differences in psychology that predict the bad outcomes that we observe.
I think that understanding HBD just means that you realize that bad people CAUSE bad environments, not the other way around. The implications of HBD on immigration politics is undeniable: If you value living in a low-crime society with a high standard of living for the middle class, you don’t want Blacks/Muslims/Indians in your country. And you should support policies that send blacks/muslims/Indians who are already here back to their country of origin.
While it’s obviously social, romantic, and career suicide for any individual to openly admit that they understand HBD (i.e. admit that they’re racist), the Right at the very least tends to adopts policies that people who are openly racist would support. The right tends to support stricter immigration laws, harsher penalties for violent criminals, and to support law enforcement in their goals of catching and deporting people who are here illegally. As a HBD understander, I like these policies.
While many metrics paint the western world as the most divided it has ever been, there is something that the right and left both seem to find agreement on recently: hating Jews. Young people in particular and especially in academia are supporting antisemitic beliefs in America at record rates probably not seen since 1930’s - not only about Israel the state but also about Jews the people.
If you couldn’t tell from the title of the post: I like the Jews. They’re intelligent, hardworking people who are high in conscientiousness and very low in violent crime. I believe that western society has benefited tremendously over the last several hundred years from the millions of Jewish entrepreneurs, scientists, and researchers living among us. Ashkenazi Jews have disproportionately high IQ, and everyone in a society benefits when there are more smart people in that society. Smart Jews make more money than goys, and pay more in taxes as a result. Jewish-owned businesses make lots of great middle class jobs for the rest of us. The tax revenue from those high earning Jews can go to investing in roads, schools, healthcare, food stamps, social security, public housing, and other government benefits that make Western countries so great to live in. I want to live in places with lots of Jews, and I think that you should too.
Quite frankly, I don’t really respect the opinions of the modern liberal when it comes to social issues. Once you understand HBD, liberals become obviously wrong on most every social issue, and (when it comes to immigration) they’re wrong in ways that are fundamentally undermining the ability of every western civilization to continue to exist 30 years from now. So it isn’t surprising to me to see that Antisemitism is rising on the political left - The left is “wrong about every social issue” so of course they’re wrong about hating the Jews, too.
But the right also has alarmingly high rates of antisemitism. And this makes me especially sad because I would otherwise call the political right my ideological allies on every other issue. The rising popularity of Nick Fuentes obviously is the most noteworthy example, and of course being an intellectually curious person I have listened to several hours of Nick talk about Jews. His main criticisms seem to be over the US’s support of Israel, as well as the undue influence that Jews have over US policymaking. And most critically, Nick believes that the Jews are using that influence to try to tear down the West.
My criticism of Nick Fuentes starts thusly: Nick’s beliefs don’t have internal consistency. If Nick is correct that the status-quo of Western Institutions is to be extremely pro-Israel and Pro-Jewish, then why would the Jews want to destroy those western institutions?? Why would the Jews want to replace the pro-Jewish status quo with a “from the river to the sea” Pro-Palestinian one? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Moreover, Nick’s opinions about Jews make testable predictions: if you suspect that Jews are secretly hoping for a Muslim takeover in America, you could actually, you know, check the voting records. Even in heavily-democrat NYC, only 33% of Jews voted for the democratic candidate Mamdani. If Fuentes were right about Jews, this number should be much much higher.
Re: Fuentes on Israel: If you look at the data since 1947, the US has in fact given more money to Israel than any other country to the tune of $300 billion (as measured on 2024 dollars) over the past 79 years. This averages to $3.8billion per year on average. That sounds like a lot, but honestly it’s small potatoes compared to our current annual defense spending of $850 billion. $3.8 billion a year so that the US can test our weapons systems in actual warzones and maintain the stability of our only ally in the Middle East seems like a worthwhile investment to me. I personally hope Israel uses that money to turn Palestine into a parking lot.
For the most part, I agree with Nick’s “America First” agenda. So you could convince me to axe the “give free stuff to Israel” from the US’s budget. But Nick getting so nonsensically angry over such a small line item on our nation’s balance sheet is just wildly disproportionate. I don’t really care about giving a small amount of money to Israel.
What I do care about is that the government of every Western country is stealing money from the productive White/Asian/Jewish middle class (via tax dollars) only to give that money to dozens of immigration non-profits. These nonprofits use this money to import hundreds of thousands of people from the most dangerous, violent, and backwards countries in the world. When those room-temperature-IQ people move into your neighborhoods, they are given free cars, free food, free housing, which the “refugees” then use to commit fraud, steal, and continue to be the violent, stabby creatures that they are. Our governments are forcing the productive middle class to pay for 3rd worlders to come and rape our women, and Nick Fuentes is mad about some random $4 billion/yr going to Israel?? Who gives a shit about Israel, Nick.
Nick, of course, blames the hoard of third world migrants on the Jews that are living in Western countries. The evidence for this is that there’s a disproportionate number of Jews that work for the institutions that are destroying this country. As an HBDer, this is easy to explain: there exists group differences in intelligence between the races, and Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence is very high. So you should expect Jews to be overrepresented in all positions of economic, scientific, or political prestige - even overrepresented within the institutions that are doing work that you hate.
The most plausible explanation for the vast amount of cultural decline in our country over the past 15 years is NOT some secret cabal of Jews conspiring to destroy the countries that they share with us. It seems much more likely that outside actors who actually have a vested interest in watching the US and Europe collapse are to blame: the Qatari, Saudi, Emirati oil money are buying their way into influencing Western academic, political, and social capital in a way that undermines Western values and promotes Islamic ones. Likewise, the Chinese Communists are no doubt using all of the psychological warfare tools at their disposal to accelerate the collapse of the American Empire. The Chinese definitely want to see America be as multicultural as possible and promote identity politics to create more divisions within us.
Islam is at war with the West, and they have been for thousands of years. The difference is now the West is losing this war, and we are losing badly. If Western Civilization can muster the courage to actually declare war against Islam, as they have declared war on us, the Jews will be overrepresented in the political, military and cultural institutions that are fighting for western civilization. The Jews helped us beat Hitler. The Jews helped us beat the Soviet Union. The Jews can help us beat China. The Jews can help us beat Islam, too.
Tl;dr: Nick Fuentes is wrong. Happy Hanukkah. Be nice to Jews, and definitely don’t put them in gas chambers.
Because Jews tend to push multiculturalism and communism. George Soros infamously uses his high IQ and great abilities to create an 'open society' - more blacks and browns, get criminals out of prison, basically eroding nation-states, including Israel tbh.
Jews certainly are quite clever and capable. The polio vaccine for instance is a Jewish innovation.
But just being clever and capable isn't always a good thing, it only shows a capacity to do good things. They can use their wits for bad ends. They can invent communism (Marx), push communism (Trotsky and many others), leak nuclear secrets to the communists because they sympathize with communism (Goldbergs), invent and push anti-racism. Who was the main proponent of blank-slatism? Franz Boas, Jewish. White anthropologists and political theorists generally tended to have a balance between scientific racism and antiracism, political left and right. Jewish intellectuals, financiers and so on lean heavily to the left. It's not just 'overrepresentation' but a clear political slant, like blacks have a clear slant. There's no similar Jewish overrepresentation pushing right wing ideas, opposing diversity, pushing back on excessive tolerance - there's Stephen Miller and that's about it. If only Jews voted in the US, Democrats would win every time. Even in 2024, a full year after October 7th, Jews still voted overwhelmingly for Kamala Harris over Donald 'Grand Marshal of the Salute to Israel, bomb the shit out of them, block immigration from Muslim countries' Trump.
Mariana Pfaelzer, Jewish, strikes down California's Proposition 187 that sought to discourage illegal immigration. Noel Ignatiev, Jewish, makes a whole career about abolishing whiteness (and Israel too). Horace Meyer Kallen writes books against the idea of the melting pot, he's one of the earliest proponents of multiculturalism. Just the other day, we had a Jewish US senator, Sarah Stalker, talking about how she feels bad for being white, wants white kids (and especially white men) to feel bad for their privilege in society.
See also my post about the 2020 election donors and their general leanings - Jews to the left, or Jews to Israel, whites tending more towards small-government or right-wing values: https://www.themotte.org/post/205/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/37000?context=8#context
There's no monolithic bloc here, there's a smaller pro-Israel faction and a larger pro-diversity/LGBT/communism faction that are in a partial conflict.
Does anyone really believe this? Is it hip to wear a burka? Do we see the power of Allah valorized in the media? What about those blockbuster anti-Shiite films that show Sunnism as the true path? Where is the US's Islamophobia czar to match the antisemitism czar? Where is Biden's personal imam? Are Trump's children marrying sheikhs? Is the US giving Saudi Arabia billions in military aid every year? Are US states legislating against BDS of Islamic countries?
The oily lands are just doing garden-variety corruption, not full-scale cognitive warfare. Islam is only really prominent in the US because of the 1965 immigration law, Hart-Celler... you guessed it! Celler's Jewish while Hart is white.
In contrast, what we get is Holocaust education, Biden's personal rabbi, Trump's children marrying Jews, endless film/game/book franchises about evil Nazis.
We've got the US secretary of state, Pompeo, saying: "There is no more important task of the Secretary of State than standing for Israel and there is no more important ally to the United States than Israel. There is much more work to do."
We've got Nancy Pelosi saying things like: "If this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid…and I don’t even call it aid…our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are"
Nobody says this about the Arabs! AIPAC is enormously more powerful and influential than Qatar or the UAE. It's easy to see how Israel might exploit the US with leadership this suffocatingly lovesick.
The Israelis notoriously sell US tech to China, they never show up to help the US in any US wars, yet they receive US Patriot batteries and air cover to defend them from those in the Middle East who hate them. They send fake intelligence about Iraqi WMDs to motivate the US into destroying their enemies. The first Twin Towers bombing was motivated by anti-Israel sentiment, as was Osama Bin Laden to a large extent.
Israel has done more damage to US interests than any other ally, yet they get the best treatment of any US ally. The US should just test its weapons at home! 'Testing' US weapons against incompetents in MENA is only going to provoke dangerous overconfidence when it comes to fighting whites or East Asians.
No, Islam is militarily very weak. US nuclear forces could reduce the Islamic world to ash within half an hour. A tiny force of Wagner can easily coup a few weak Muslim African countries and take the gold. Only politically is Islam capable of harming the West, they're terrible at fighting with their armies and have no navies to speak of. Only via political means do they show up, take up space, go around forming rape gangs, being criminal, abusing welfare, reproducing at speed, starting terror attacks. You don't NEED terrorism if you are good with armies.
Only because of political ideas like tolerance and antiracism and white guilt that Jews tend to push (often honestly and without regard for the interests of their coethnics) is this political mismatch possible. We could just take a leaf out of Algeria's book and send the Muslims back, whether they grew up here or not, what are they going to do about it in the face of total military inferiority? The answer is not to rely on Jews to get us out of a problem that Jews got us into. For whatever reason they tend to come up with and promote many terrible ideas in the political and economic spheres, the answer is to direct them to STEM only and out of politics.
You mean the Rosenbergs? I remember reading about them in a social studies textbook in school. It used true facts to portray them as victims of the red scare and antisemitism, and conveniently left out the part where they were, you know, guilty.
More options
Context Copy link
America is not the only country.
American Jews support the American left (for now, although they are shifting right). Jews everywhere else are right wing. Especially the Israeli Jews. Of course, even that is overstating the Jewish influence. Wokeness was an invention of Anglo-Americans, primarily. American Jews vote left because they associated the American right with Jim Crow and segregation, with its obvious parallels to the way Jews were treated in Europe before and during WW2, plus the fact that they are a highly educated, urban population. Not because they have a sinister plan to undermine western civilisation.
You can't blame the pathological altruism of the Anglosphere on such a tiny group. We did this.
Secular, Conservative and Reform Jews support the left. Modern Orthodox Jews support the right, although they only do so noisily in Israel. Haredi and Hasidic Jews support whoever the Rebbe sells their votes to, which in both the US and Israel in 2025 is mostly the right. (In 20th century Israel the auction was more blatant and sometimes the left was the high bidder).
The reason why American Jews are left-wing is that they are less likely to be Orthodox. I rounded up some statistics here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's interesting that, throughout your (well-written) essay, you consistently refer to Jews as being an entirely separate ethnic group from Whites. This is not how they're treated in mainstream discourse, or in most Jewish writing. Officially it's a religion, not an ethnic group, but generally they're seen as a type of White people, at least in modern mainstream western society. (Other societies of course had different rules)
My opinion is that Jews are a sort of "Schrodinger's race" in modern American society. Sometimes they're a separate ethnic group, sometimes they're not. Conviently, it seems to go back and forth depending on whichever interpretation is the best for them. When it's time for the special ethnic groups to get their own special recognition, they of course deserve deep honor and respect for their unique history and culture- they're not one of those shitty bland stale whites who have no culture. But when it comes to break out statistics by ethnic group, they usually blend in with the general "white" category. It would make organizations like the Ivy League or Big Finance look absolutely ridiculous if they had to disclose how importunately higher they were hiring Jews than any other ethnic group.
My opinion is that... it's a bit of both. To some extent, it's like you say, they just have high IQ because of HBD reasons. I also think that, some extent, they have a great culture which emphasizes education and family in a very positive way. I admire and respect their accomplishments.
On the other hand... they are also clearly a culture that "takes care of their own, first" and is not shy to throw elbows when necessary. In medieval Europe, that meant taking on the niche of moneylenders when that was a major religious taboo for everyone else, and pretending not to understand why that made them hated. In modern Israel, it means taking advantage of the war in Gaza to accelerate land grabs in the West Bank, which seems to have no end accept to take all Palestinian land and create a Jewish ethno-state. In the US, it means families network together at synagogues, then use extreme measures to help each other get into prestigious colleges and high-paying jobs. That is not just "having a higher IQ," that's pure cronyism and nepotism.
As a generic White person, I feel like my people were taken advantage of in our naivety and gullibility. It's time for us to wake up and embrace ethnic tribalism just like everyone else is. Seeing the numbers for how disproportionately Jewish some of the more important job sectors are should ring massive alarm bells in everyone else.
The very successful American Jews are mostly non-practicing; they’re probably not any more liberal than non-practicing urban Christians on the east coast, but they’re definitely not networking at the synagogue.
More options
Context Copy link
This "schrodingerism" goes even deeper. At face value, Israel is absolutely an archetype of your cookie-cutter ethnonationalist state. Their declaration of independence from 1948 officially calls it as a Jewish state. It also gives a lot of authority to religions, for instance Israel does not recognize secular marriage, thus effectively banning any gay marriage- as no faith in Israel officiates such unions. And on the other hand you have your modern leftist progressives shilling for it anyways.
In a sense this is remarkable achievement of Jews and their version of nationalism - Zionism. Their early leaders ranged from your cookie-cutter 19h century progressives like Theodore Herzl, socialists like David Ben Gurion, as well as "fascists" - or ultranationalists if you will - like Menachim Begin, a proud member of Irgun and youth leader of Betar movement. And yet the latter two both served as prime ministers of Israel. Despite ideological differences, all of them were able to work together toward the national project of Israel: Herzl was an example of your educated international elite, making diplomatic deals with power brokers of his time. Ben Gurion was your charismatic labor leader organizing Jews all around the world. Not many of Jewish refugees and young settlers had any experience with agriculture and hard labor, and yet Ben Gurion motivated them toward creating Jewish working class in order to form a complete nation - as opposed to some sort of Oligarchy like South Africa, where elite Jews rule over native Arabs in some sort of apartheid - with his slogan of one more acre, one more goat. And of course Begin was your enforcer, willing to do the dirty work during wars and times of conflict.
As I said, the whole thing is remarkable example of modern ethnogenesis and state building, that puts all other romantic national awakenings in 19th century Europe to shame - including reviving liturgical Hebrew as an official modern language by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda and of course carving patch of foreign land as their own. It would be as if some forgotten tribe of Romans in Romania and Greece created a modern Roman Republic somewhere south of Rome in Italy, using Latin as their official language.
As with many other things, there is a lot of admiration even when it comes to enemies of Zionism, Israel and Jews. They really achieved something unique, including ability to unite disparate ideologies that ultimately ended up benefiting their national cause. I'd say that people like Fuentes would salivate if they could create something like US version of Christian nationalism akin to Zionism.
Israel recognizes foreign marriages, including gay marriages.
Yes, but they do not perform them in their land as marriages in Israel are officiated by religious authorities. A very ingenious way to solve the problem if you ask me.
Most Israelis marrying outside Israel are heterosexual secular Jews who don't want a religious marriage for one of any number of good and sufficient reasons, or who the official Rabbinate refuses to marry for reasons which I am sure the Rabbis find very persuasive. I have met multiple couples in such marriages, including one case where the Israeli Rabbinate considered a British-born Reform Rabbi insufficiently Jewish to marry an Israeli Jew.
That Israel recognises foreign marriages, including foreign marriages between Israeli Jews, and therefore including same-sex marriages, is a load-bearing part of the social contract between secular and religious Jews in Israel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Every ethnic group and every culture does this. Hell, every individual does this. Humans as a species like being around people that a similar to each other. This is a human thing, not a Jewish thing. Surely many Christians are set up with work opportunities, internships due a "a friend your dad knows from Church". But the difference is that only Jews get vilified for this behavior.
I'm not sure I buy the hypothesis that Jews are tend to lend themselves to cronyism or nepotism than average. I think that both Cronyism and Nepotism imply that the people who are benefiting from those "-ism's" aren't otherwise qualified for the opportunity that they're being given. In a community of Jews, the average IQ is 115+. There's going to be a lot of people in this community who actually are extremely qualified to work in a variety of complex jobs.
If there were a "Society for White Engineers", I would definitely also join it :)
well, part of my post was that generic White people don't do this, at least not in modern times. Do you disagree with that? It's also laid out in the article linked in the comment above yours. The older White guys in management positions are patting themselves on the back for "doing their part" by hiring other ethnicities over their own. And there is no "White person church."
In practice, there are many churches for high status white people. They’re just boomerlibs.
More options
Context Copy link
This ties into the Nick Fuentes issue where he is crudely outlining these sorts of arguments. In addition to the lack of (or deliberate multi-generational suppression of) ingroup ethnic solidarity, White men in positions of seniority have pulled a 'Fuck you, got mine' and pulled the ladder up behind them, leaving the field to 'minorities' (a group that includes women somehow). Basically, throwing the next generation of young white men to the wolves in order to ensure that their own positions are unchallenged until retirement.
Its not fair competition, its DEI discrimination, combined with 'you need to compete with the best from the entire world'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What would the West "actually declaring war against Islam" actually look like? and how is "Islam" at war with the West? I'm not disputing that Islamic terrorism is a problem and that poorly integrated migrants is a very bad idea. But the majority of the Arab world is aligned with the US and has armies supplied by the US. Even the largest Arab county in opposition Algeria is because of secular socialism. Other powerful Islamic countries like Turkey and Indonesia are hardly enemies of the West and full of Western tourists, that doesn't look like a war to me. If it's because of migration, I agree Europe's policies are horrible but they invited the migrants that's hardly a war.
So why do you think Islam is at war with the west and what policies do you think we should pursue when you say we should "muster the courage to declare war on Islam?"
I don't want Western governments to actually invade any desert countries. I'm not an idiot, I don't want another war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody wants that except for Northrup Grumman shareholders.
I want my government to forcibly expel people from the countries who are a net liability to every country that they enter (See the chart on page 21 of this pdf if you want to see the data). This means ZERO muslim refugees from Africa and the Middle east. It means deporting blacks/muslims who are already here by the millions. It means giving ICE a blank check to arrest violent Hispanics and send them back to El Salvador. Seriously, give ICE almost unlimited money. Each minority deported will save the American taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars, and their children/descendents even moreso. Unquantifiable amounts of damage letting muslims reproduce in our country. Give ICE 10x their current budget. It's the best investment this country can make. This means shutting down all of the non-profits I hinted at in my original post. It means revoking millions of H1B VISA's and other refugee VISAs. It means arresting philanthropists who are attempting to bring in these undesirables and hold them accountable for the damage that they are causing to the country.
When I say "declare war on islam" I mean actually designing our immigration infrastructure to keep and acquire people who are capable of contributing to a safe, stable western society. Muslims have proven over and over again they're incapable of this.
These are normal authright opinions, I think.
/images/17658588701348522.webp
So "declare war on Islam" means treating Muslims roughly the same way you want to treat all nonwhite immigrants in the US? That isn't a standard sense of the term "war".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd like to write a more substantive response to your post, but I have a question first.
Are you sure about this? I am not entirely sure your understanding of HBD is the same as mine. While I don't mean to attack you, your post doesn't really seem to show any understanding of HBD beyond the idea that IQ exists and has measurable differences on outcomes. What, exactly, does HBD mean to you?
More options
Context Copy link
Bari Weiss was near center of a huge media controversy at Columbia, in which a group of Jewish students organized under "The David Project" and demanded the firing of a Palestinian Professor Joseph Massad. Bari Weiss and Bronze Age Pervert (yes that BAP) were peers and part of the David Project group writing articles to the Columbia Spectator calling for Massad to be fired and reforming the Middle East Studied department against the Palestinian perspective.
After Columbia, Weiss went to Israel where she did an internship under Yoram Hazony at the Shalem Center, a right-wing Zionist think tank in Jerusalem, and she worked for Haaretz and The Jewish Daily Forward. She then wrote for the Wall Street Journal and under Bret Stephens, who is now the inaugural editor-in-chief of SAPIR: A Journal of Jewish Conversations.
When Bret Stephens left for the NYT he took Weiss with him. Then Weiss resigns from NYT in 2020 to start The Free Press, which only in October of this year was acquired by Paramount Sykdance, owned by the Ellison family, for $150 million, and she was named editor-in-chief of CBS News.
The Ellison family has extremely close connections with Israel and Netanyahu personally, as friends and financiers and business partners.
This brings us to the question of how did Weiss become the editor-in-chief of CBS News? Did she win the meritocratic contest for this position owing to her outstanding Jewish verbal IQ? Or is her promotion to this position of power an example of Jews colluding to acquire power over and steer the national narrative in favor of their own interests?
At the risk of consensus-building, from the perspective of anyone aligned with Fuentes on the JQ it is so obviously the latter. And I am very curious what somebody, like you, who opposes Fuente's anti-semitism would say about this? Either you insist Weiss's career was propelled by her merit and IQ, or you acknowledge that her most important credential that earned her station was being a Jew connected to other Jews who was perceived as the best fit for pivoting the network to steer the national narrative in favor of Jews. So it's "meritocratic" in the sense that she was judged to be the best person for this job, "the job" being steer the national narrative in the interest of Jews.
If you insist the former, she has control over CBS news because of her IQ, you are just living in a different world from the "anti-semites" and your critique of their perspective will fall on deaf ears because, from their perspective, you are ignoring plain reality. The idea that Weiss has editorial control over CBS news because of her merit, I don't see how anyone could believe that. But if you admit that the elevation of Bari Weiss is an example of Jews engaging in the behavior that "anti-Semites" accuse them of, then you have a harder task of conceding some ground, which never happens in any mainstream criticism of Nick's Anti-semitism but still explaining why he's wrong.
Saying "Bari Weiss being promoted to this position of power is an example of Jews colluding to steer the national narrative in favor of Jewish interests" will get you called an Anti-Semite, it will get you fired if you say it out loud, but it's also true. That's the strength of Nick's appeal, it's not because of the economy or housing market or dating market. It's because we all see this thing that is happening with Ellison, CBS, Bari Weiss, and our interpretations of what is happening are true. That is the strength of the appeal.
The Weiss question is interesting because, in my view, it's an area where even those who criticize Fuente's anti-semitism should concede some ground and admit there's some truth there. But will they? I don't think so, and giving Nick that sort of monopoly over true and important interpretations of political and cultural developments is what is empowering him most of all.
Funny anecdote reported by WSJ:
I wonder why Nick is so popular when he is the only prominent media figure directly naming the elephant in the room! Acknowledging this stuff isn't just being edgy, or being hateful, it is fundamentally required for understanding ongoing political and cultural conflict in the US.
This is correct. Jews do what Whites are culturally not allowed to do: leverage their ingroup bias to help one another in society. You can understand why they do this but this is going to make them unpopular.
Any acknowledgement of this begs the question: should Whites be doing the same? Obviously Jews don't want this and progressives don't want this understood as a (justifiable) tit-for-tat behaviour.
White people were doing that, then stopped because they established a successful high-trustsociety, but noticed how everyone else was struggling to keep up. So they stopped. Maybe the implicit rule is that whoever's on top can't have in-group bias, but everyone else can? But then you get into the argument over whether Jews are on top or oppressed, and the answer seems to be based entirely on who the answerer is most pissed at this week.
Problem, of course, is that the high-trust society is over, because everyone burned through the surplus trust faster than it could regenerate. There's a Socialism analogy in there, somewhere, but probably pointless.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have complained myself, as a former Free Press subscriber, about Bari Weiss's editorial direction. You are not wrong that she obviously sees herself as a defender of Jewish and Israeli interests (and she equates the two when it's convenient and differentiates when it's not). That said:
Your problem, as someone more obsessed with Jews than Jews are, is that you seek simple and totalizing answers ("Jews!") to everything.
Certainly when looking for a new CBS editor in chief, Ellison was going to pick someone with pro-Israel credentials, and almost certainly someone Jewish. But he was also looking for someone aligned with the new (Trump) regime yet not in obvious bootlicking way. Weiss's Free Press had over the past few years earned a reputation for delivering good journalism that was critical of liberal orthodoxy and "wokeness" (i.e., had a bit of a following on the right) without being an outright MAGA publication. And putting Weiss in charge after her unceremonious ejection (technically she resigned, but) from the NYT was putting a thumb right in the eye of people both Ellison and Weiss despised.
So the answer is yes, Jews, but that's not the whole story. You would hardly expect Ellison to put a pro-Palestinian leftist in charge, would you? That actually excludes a pretty good chunk of the media elite. Weiss was probably on the short list for a number of reasons, Jewish being just one of them.
I seriously don't see how that addresses anything @SecureSignals has said. Like, yes, Bari Weiss is more than just «a Jew», she's a specific person, with individual connections, traits, skills and credentials that have differentiated her in the pool of admissible candidates. Certainly she couldn't be substituted with someone like Norman Finkelstein on the mere account of his ethnicity. The issue here isn't even Bari per se, it's the criteria defining the nature of the pool. It's the same issue as the negatively-defined criteria of DEI preferential treatment, which people are much more comfortable rejecting.
I wouldn't count "critical of wokeness without being outright MAGA" as a problem with the nature of the pool, in the sense you seem to mean. That's probably going to be the best you'll get if you're going through journalists--exactly what should the pool have been instead?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That seems to broadly concede the point, doesn't it?
Imagine, say, the NYT was taken over by a Norwegian billionaire who had really strong opinions on what should be done with Norway's national fund. It's kind of a regional issue that most non-Norwegians don't have much of a stake in and he therefore carefully vets his hires for top editorial positions to make sure they have the correct stance and strong ties to his faction. Naturally, this means that they are all Norwegian.
Probably these picks have strengths beyond being Norwegian! They write well, they're bright, they're personable. Some of them have a good reputation and industry awards. You can't get a job in the new NYT just by being Norwegian, and being Norwegian is only one of the reasons they were on the short list.
But when you get right down to it, the editorial team got hired because they were Norwegian.
It seems to me that those of us who are not Norwegian have a right to ask whether this counts as illegal discrimination, and if not why not. We also have a right to ask clearly, in public, what it means for our information ecosystem that one of the main sources of information is now being run largely by and for Norwegians, without getting fired for anti-Norwegianism. Yes, it's more complicated than that, but that doesn't mean you can't draw a pretty clear conclusion.
(Apologies if it turns out we are in heated agreement.)
Right, I don't disagree that rich Jews tend to stick together. I am not surprised Ellison hired a Jew. Obviously if he explicitly stated "I'm not considering any non-Jews" that would be illegal, but--he probably would consider a small handful of non-Jews.
In your Norwegian example, I would find the choice of a Norwegian unsurprising, and while I guess if I were in the industry I'd grumble about it, I wouldn't be overly exercised about it if non-Norwegians weren't being shut out.
Unless, of course, I subscribe to some dark conspiracy theory that, since the cold dark days of å dra på viking, Norwegians have been ever raiding and warring against Europeans and to this day seeking to undermine the purity of Anglo-Saxon stock.
Then maybe I'd be obsessed with posting about Da Noorse.
Isn't there a reasonable spectrum in between? Like, you're really not supposed to act like this, not in the West. If everyone I hired was a white English national I'd get it in the neck for God's sake, we've had decades of trying to root out any in-group preference at this point, with massive collateral damage in the process. You don't have to be a dark conspiracy theorist to object to someone buying a major news organ and stuffing it with their co-ethnics to influence public opinion towards their ethnostate, you just have to be a regular person. And if you're a would-be journalist with all the same talents or better but you're shut out purely because you don't give a shit about the Norse it's even worse!
There's also the issue that this kind of thing is literally what dark conspiracies are. "Norwegians are buying major newspapers to control the coverage of Norwegian issues" is a conspiracy theory in its own right, even if NOG never comes into the story once. Again, there are points on the spectrum in between 'this is ok' and 'Vikings have been ruling over us for a thousand years, ever since Harard secretly conquered Britain in 1065'.
Yes. If a Jew hires only Jews, I would expect him to be sued for discrimination. But the fact that a lot of Jews rise to elite ranks doesn't require more than the usual amount of networking between people who know each other (we talk a lot here about Jews and Indians helping each other network, but I've seen Mormons, Catholics, and evangelicals do the same thing), and Jewish success being disproportionate for reasons we've also discussed.
What I expect is that Ellison was inevitably going to hire some strongly pro-Israel, which made it highly probable it would be someone Jewish.
We do seem to be in furious agreement, right up to the bit where your train of logic ends: 'and therefore it's annoying but basically fine'. I get that you can't make an 'ought' from an 'is' but I don't want to be ruled over and shut out of good positions by a cabal of people who don't like me much, especially when nobody else gets to play the same game.
(Yes, it happens to some degree with other groups too but a) rarely quite with such chutzpah and shamelessness, and b) if you make up a big majority of the local population then at least your news output or whatever is aligned with them and not so many people are getting shut out).
I mean, some UK MPs have Jewish backgrounds but I don't see them advocating for particularly ethnocentric positions. The highest profile Jewish MP, Zack Polanski, is an example of the opposite.
Regarding getting shut out of good positions, if that's been your professional experience then I can't say otherwise, but I've literally never heard of this happening in the UK (not to say it's never happened, but I would think it's exceptionally rare). There simply aren't enough Jews for them to be regularly hiring each other over everyone else.
More options
Context Copy link
Didn't Trump just roll back disparate impact protections?
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, ideally I'd like everyone to abandon tribal identity and self-interest. I just do not agree with SS that Jews doing it is more harmful to me than anyone else.
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
Why is this almost certain? There's no shortage of Christians with pro-Israel credentials.
I think the Venn diagram of successful non-jews in the media with pro-Israel stances is pretty small. I can't think of many.
Another point in Weiss's favor is that she courts controversy -- and this being media, that's usually a good thing. Hell, when was the last time anyone talked about CBS this much? I'm not seeing a lot of downsides (yet) to Ellison's choice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Bari Weiss’ father was a regional head of AIPAC and nationally-influential Zionist. After Ellison’s takeover, all four major CBS hires have been Jewish, which is statistically improbable even if Jews are 10x over-represented in the field: a 0.3% probability, assuming such an over-representation. (Weiss, Gutman, Weinstein, Dokoupil). If you include Ellison himself in the list, it’s about a 1 out of 1000 chance that all five key positions just happen to be Jewish. (Again assuming 10x over-rep, otherwise it’s like 1 out of 100 million chance)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If Mearsheimer is correct that Jewish groups were essential in bringing America to war with Iraq (let’s say they were half the cause), then they are responsible for half of the 3 trillion dollar cost of the war plus 2,250 American lives. This should factor into your ad hoc economic calculation regarding the value of our alliance with Israel or the Jewish people. You mention Qatar as “undermining Western values” and promoting our collapse, but Qatar has pledged 1 trillion dollars to America and Israel has pledged 0 dollars. I do not see a rise in Islamic influence in America, which is regrettable because I think conservative fashion norms are good for society. We also have more immigrants who come in from Israel than we do from Qatar, by like, a factor of 100. It’s our own lack of nationalism and in-group preference that has caused us to bring in low-performing immigrants, and Qataris deserve no blame for that, as they had no influence in America when this occurred.
Don't forget the cost of aid to Egypt, the cost of the failed military operation in Yemen, the bombing of Iran and the conflict in Syria!
More options
Context Copy link
I would say the blame for the 2nd Iraq war lies squarely with the US electorate who voted for GWB because they were fed up with Clinton getting BJs.
Of course, I also reject the OP's framing that one should consider the net worth of each minority and get rid of the ones who turn out negative. Presumably, most of the Motte would consider it deeply unfair if someone opined that it is fine to treat men as violent criminals, because the vast majority of violent criminals are men. Likewise, the fact that most of the people who lobby for Nethanyahu's vision of a Greater Israel are Jews does not mean that we should oppose Jews because they are Jews.
Except that GWB wasn't campaigning as an interventionist and a neocon in 2000, he was doing the opposite.
From "Stop Voting For Nincompoops" by Eliezer Yudkowsky:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the way to thread the needle is that we can eject people who are net negative, and who had to opt-in to our society. Because of the way that our governments are currently set up, being in a governments territory requires that you pay taxes and follow their laws; you can't decide that you do not wish for the government's services in exchange for not being subject to its rules (or rather, you can try, at which point armed men come from the government to put you in a small room until you agree to follow the rules once more).
Immigrants of all flavours (by definition) come from another country; they choose to proclaim that they will follow the government's rules; they are choosing to follow the rules of that government, rather than being stuck with them.
This kind of plays into the idea of noblesse oblige - if you are demanding the loyalty of a group, you owe them your loyalty in return. In the military, it's very common that the front-line troops always eat first; the officers can order them into situations where they are almost guaranteed to die, so the officers owe it to them to see that they are treated as well as possible. The same applies to governments; the government can enlist citizens to die, claim an increasing portion of their wealth, and take their freedom or their life for crimes against it. The least the government can do is put the people who are obligated to support it first; if they aren't, that becomes a problem that the people have the right to seek redress against (and if they don't have the right, the next step is often them clearing out space for someone who will give them that right).
If we followed this chain of logic:
Either way, we shouldn't ignore the issue; we currently screen men more heavily than women when they want to be involved with children because a large number of men who want to work with children have pedophiliac tendencies. It sucks if you're just a guy who enjoys spending time with kids, but it has proven enough of an issue that we put boundaries on it. Likewise, if you're an earnest student of Chinese origin who wants to fully embrace the greatness of the USA, it sucks that you may be barred from positions that require a security clearance; but again, we've seen that this is a large enough issue to society that collectively we have to stop it.
If wealthy Jewish socialites are disproportionately favouring other countries above the US, we may need to put additional screening on them being permitted to be government lobbyists or owning media platforms. Which again, isn't fair to the people who don't do this, and don't desire to do this - but if it's consistently a problem, we can treat it in the same way men or Chinese students are already being treated.
One thing that I want to make clear is that despite this screed, I don't actually think that the Jews are secretly or openly advocating on behalf of Israel; I think there are a lot of people who are determined to make the Jews the source of all evil, and they are looking for a justification to hunt them down. That being said, we don't have the data; it's verboten to actually go after the people who are favouring other countries above their own citizens. We need to actually start treating it as a crime so we can see if there is a "Jewish Problem" or simply a "leader problem."
More options
Context Copy link
Male testosterone is necessary for warmaking capacity, entrepreneurial culture, and keeping totalitarianism in check. It brings many positive advantages that more than outweigh its negative ones. The problem with high crime, low IQ populations is that they do not provide very many benefits, but bring great costs.
If men got Thanos-snapped away, it’d be quite difficult for women to survive for more than a few days/weeks.
If blacks and/or Arab Muslims got Thanos-snapped away, it’d be an immediate improvement in quality of life for the rest of the world.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There were many Jews who opposed the Iraq war, and indeed the polling showed they were more likely to oppose it than the average American. But the issue remains that within the group are a wealthy and influential block who rally around being Jewish, recruit within the Jewish general population, and tie their religious identity to defending the “Jewish State”. For decades they have accused anti-Zionists of anti-semitism because of course criticizing Israel is criticizing the Jews. These bad apples have hidden themselves amongst an orchard of perfectly good apples, using them as human shields, and if current standards of warfare apply to the culture war, then it is acceptable to malign 15 innocents if it leads to successfully critiquing 1 bad actor.
More options
Context Copy link
Your position is enlightened, self-consistent and humane. It is also turning my country into an alien hellscape.
I'm not even being sarcastic, but this isn't working. Enlightened humanism with respect to immigration has been a slow-rolling disaster for Europe, as well as for the principles that you appeal to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you are slightly but not significantly confused.
Note that this doesn't conflict with the larger point about immigration: the Flynn effect works over generational time, and I will not dispute that emmigrants from war torn states where blood feuds over cows have been evolved into law[2] are less likely to contribute to the success of recieving nation than emmigrants from industrial states who are leaving their homes because starting engineers in the US make 2~3x (PPP)[3], and I do find it plausible that Western nations will be more successful if they focus on importing engineers rather than carving out asylum categories for people who are fleeing blood feuds [4].
[1] The Flynn effect in Korea: large gains. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.022 [2] The Evolution of Blood-Money for Homicide in Somalia, by Paolo Contini. Journal of African Law, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1971), pp. 77-84. https://www.jstor.org/stable/744600. See also https://www.academia.edu/25376232/EARLY_LEGAL_SYSTEMS_IN_SOMALIA. [3] https://www.levels.fyi/t/software-engineer/levels/entry-level/locations/korea-south [4] https://www.euaa.europa.eu/coi/somalia/2025/country-focus/1-profiles/15-individuals-involved-blood-feudsclan-disputes-and-other-clan-issues
More options
Context Copy link
The thing about all this is even the Jews themselves don't believe it. They watch It's a Wonderful Life or Harry Potter or Star Wars, and see characters like Potter and the goblins and Watto and say "That's me! Yes, they're not technically Jewish, but it's an antisemitic stereotype!" You literally cannot put a greedy, sleazy character in a story without the Jews saying you must be talking about them. Why do the Jews never look at George Bailey or Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker and say "That's me! Yes, he may not be canonically Jewish, but he's obviously just a stand-in for a Jew in this fictional setting."
For what it's worth, they're hardly alone in this. The Russians watch LotR and see the orcs and say "That's me!" They even play horde in WoW.
Not everyone wants to be a hero. Heck, I myself play Diablo, see Zoltun Kulle, and say "That's me!"
Everyone who's anyone plays horde in WoW. Come on now.
It's kinda amusing--my innate distaste for Orcs was so strong that when I played Warcraft 3 as a youngster, I was annoyed that I couldn't skip the Orc campaign, so I just stopped playing the campaign entirely. (Which was ridiculous, since as it turns out, the Orc campaign is really good!).
What was always especially odd to me is that as I've grown up and encountered people who identify as orcs (nobody in my circles growing up did), they're not people I'd have identified as orc-ish at all. Like Russians do not look anything like orcs to me, and I found it astonishing they would interpret Lord of the Rings as such. Maybe the very lower class, prison sort kinda look like orcs, but one could say that just as well of the British lower class, or probably any lower class. And Grubby was (and still is) one of my favorite pro gamers, and he's the Warcraft 3 Orc God. Grubby looks about as opposite of an orc as a human could possibly look.
As an adult, the whole theme has become even more amusing: Warcraft 3 obviously got the term "orc" from Tolkien, but Tolkien wasn't the first to use the term, either! The first, to my knowledge, to use it was William Blake, who used it in a similar but slightly different sense: Orc is not what we'd call the orcs themselves, but is rather a spirit of destructive rebellion that possesses humans. He uses it to refer to the Americans in America, A Prophecy, where he gives um... a very unflattering description of Americans, basically burning down everything beautiful in the world and infesting it with fire and plagues in their war against the angel Albion.
To get back to Tolkien, here is his explanation of where the word came from and early thoughts on The Problem of Orcs:
(1) Various letters of 1954
(2)
(3) Draft of unsent letter
(4)
(5) Notes on 1956 review by Auden of LOTR
(6) Letter of 1957
And this is where we get the "racist Tolkien!" stuff from:
(7) 1958 letter to Forrest Ackerman about his proposed film treatment of LOTR (I will never not be tickled by the idea that Forry and his entourage turned up on Tolkien's doorstep full of misguided enthusiasm to do an animated version)
(Z is screenwriter Morton Grady Zimmerman. And Tolkien's criticisms of him seem even more applicable to McKay and Payne)
(8) Draft of unsent letter, 1958
(9) Letter of 1965
Bonus note on origin of "warg": (10) Letter to Gene Wolfe (yes, that Gene Wolfe) 1966
I have to give his description of Forry turning up, it's too good to leave out:
(11) Letter of 1957:
(12) Letter of 1957
("Cobb" was Roy Cobb, 19 year old cartoonist who was a junior artist at Walt Disney Studios)
It's always amusing to me to hear Tolkien talk of his own work. He does not seem entirely self-aware of what he's doing, in contrast to Blake, who, despite being less intelligent, is in some sense much more clearheaded. I know that sounds rich given Blake's galaxy-brain prophecies, but he at least is under no delusion that he is discussing archetypes which do have some degree of correspondence with real-world thoughts and behaviors, and is not ashamed to make those connections explicit, rather than try to waffle around with "Oh no, I never do symbolism or allegory! I think that's so crass" like Tolkien does.
Like there's this interview I watched recently where Tolkien is disavowing symbolism and the interviewer is like "Come on, man, the Tree of Gondor is so obviously symbolic of the state of Gondor" and Tolkien's like "oh, well, yeah, obviously, but I didn't mean symbolism like that." Ok, well what do you think symbolism is, man? If I had to read between the lines, I think he had unpleasant interactions with not-particularly-intelligent fans trying to read his work like Pilgrim's Progress or something ("by Orcs, did you mean the Russian communists?!"), which he found so off-putting that he overcorrected in disavowing the notion entirely.
More options
Context Copy link
Seeing as I'm off on a Tolkien tangent, and with the third season of Rings of Power lurking out there in post-production, here are some of his comments about the proposed film version of LOTR:
1957 letters to Rayner Unwin
(1)
(2)
(3) 1958 letter
(4) 1958 letter to Forrest Ackerman with commentary on the film treatment
Bonus "why didn't the Eagles just fly the company to Mordor?" answer
Just imagine what he would have thought of McKay and Payne's shrunken distances so Khazad-dum is only a stroll away from Eregion! Or the magic teleporting so people cover vast distances in hours not days! Or, of course, the layout of the Numenorean ships where they can stow all the horses, troops, supplies, etc. below in the vast, TARDIS like holds.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They do, however, say that about Superman, who's the furthest thing from those stereotypes.
I don't think the fictional characters you identify with really say that much about you. At most it says how you'd like to be perceived, or how you fear others do perceive you. Wasn't there a thread a week or two ago about how real identity comes from what you do, not how you feel?
Well, they say a lot of things about that movie, especially in response to what everyone else thinks the movie was about
They've said that about the comics for the better part of a century. It's not exclusively about the movie.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Jews are the ones correctly interpreting these things in both cases. The Harry Potter goblins were a representation of Jews written by a Gentile. Superman is a representation and self-conception of a Jew written by Jews.
The Grinch and Scrooge are metaphors for Jews written by Christians telling a story of their Conversion to Christianity through Christmas.
Fictional characters you identify with say a lot about you, and they also say a lot about how you perceive your outgroup. The "Dumb Blonde" stereotype has no basis in reality, it's a Hollywood trope written from an adversarial perspective. The "Jock vs Nerd" trope, in which the socially maladjusted Nerd always wins, is telling a similar story.
Jews have a fine-tuned sensitivity, and mastery, over writing and interpreting these characters. They are very good at using them to criticize their outgroup, and they are very good at detecting when fictional characters are being used to criticize them (and most of the time they are not being paranoid they are correct). Whites are not very good at detecting when a fictional character was written in order to criticize themselves from an adversarial perspective. Jews are very good at detecting that.
There's a certain strain of leftist that strains to attach antisemitism to Rowling, but her depiction of goblins was straight out of folklore, not Rowling expressing her covert Jew-hatred. Or are you going to adopt the leftist frame that akshually, goblins were metaphors for Jews even in the Dark Ages?
(No, they were not. Metaphors for many other things, but not Jews.)
... have you even read Dickens or Doctor Seuss?
Is your theory that every gentile who writes about an ugly, greedy monster is actually writing about Jews, even if subconsciously? That says more about you than some hypothetical ur-Jew floating in the collective gentile consciousness.
I've seen someone unironically assert this on Tumblr, in the context of calling the anime Goblin Slayer antisemitic. Because goblins are always and everywhere an antisemitic caricature, a deliberate stand-in for Jews, and always have been, thus anyone who uses goblins as an antagonist element is a deliberate antisemite.
I've seen this claim too, but I don't remember ever seeing it before Rowling became a bete noire and people were trying to pin antisemitism and racism et al on her.
I once got lectured by a Jewish person that "lizard people" (i.e., the myth about secret aliens controlling the world) is an antisemitic meme. And I'm like... do you really want to insist on that association?
I think Jews see all conspiracy theories as latently antisemitic because of bitter experience - most conspiracy theorists and conspiracy-focused political movements will eventually graduate to Jewish conspiracies and old-fashioned anti-semitism. This process appears to be happening to Zoomer MAGA as we speak.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's possible to see the Grinch as a Jewish-to-Christian conversion story, I suppose. But A Christmas Carol is certainly a story of a Christian redemption, no Jews involved.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Harry Potter goblins are the gnomes of Zurich. I'm equally fed-up with people pointing and yelling about anti-Semitism because they so desperately want to be offended and wrap themselves in the mantle of persecuted martyrdom, or they so desperately need caricatures to feed the conspiracy theory about Jewish World Domination Plot.
Scrooge is a metaphor for Christianity. This is so wildly off the bat that you must never have read the book. Dickens popularised the secular Christmas. The three Ghosts are not Christian saints or representative figures, Scrooge never darkens the door of a church, and secular charity is about as religious as this new festive feasting and partying Christmastide gets. Tell me Mr. Fezziwig's ball is in fact midnight Mass, I dare you.
Dickens wrote Jewish characters who were offensive to Jewish readers. Scrooge is not Jewish.
Central to Scrooge's hatred of Christmas is being stuck in school with his books while his peers are out celebrating Christmas. This was a common-enough Jewish experience that Hannukah was elevated to its current status to precisely solve this problem for Jewish children. Mr. Fezziwig's ball represents Scrooge being pulled into the tradition as a "Christmas convert" just like the Grinch. They are both isolated figures, outsiders, resentful of the Holiday, but then they are won over. Ebeneezer is a Hebrew name, while it wasn't that uncommon for Christians, his business partner Jacob Marley had a fully Jewish name. Fagin is Jewish in Dicken's Oliver Twist although Dickens edited out direct reference to Fagin as a Jew.
The point isn't "Scrooge was Jewish" it's that these stories were created to represent cultural "victory of the Christmas Spirit" over the "anti-Christmas spirit." It's a mode of propagating culture, to craft fictional characters that resist it (and are inspired by prevailing stereotypes of non-Christians) but then they end up converting in the end. It moralizes Christmas and demoralizes outsiders who would oppose it, because if they do they are a Scrooge or a Grinch- someone who has not accepted a conversion necessary for their very soul.
Superman is not literally a Jew, he's a Kryptonian, but what the character represents is a different question entirely.
There is an alternative reading where Scrooge represents Puritan austerity (which was specifically opposed to the secular aspects of Christmas celebrations, with Cromwell's major-generals sending their most pious soldiers out to confiscate overly-rich Christmas dinners) and the Weberian "Protestant work ethic". The arguments Scrooge uses on the pleasant portly gentlemen were real political positions used by real right-liberals as the basis for important legislation at the time Dickens was writing, and the real people saying these things saw themselves as pious Protestants and justified their positions in Weberian terms.
Given the social context Dickens was writing in, the anti-Weberian reading seems more plausible than the antisemitic reading, although the nature of great fiction is that both are present in the text, and it is almost certain that both were present in Dickens' brain.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Superman/Moses thing is pretty obvious right off the bat, and Superman's creators were Jewish.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is that this whole «human capital» philosophy that treats humans as interchangeable stuffing of different grades in the American pie is premised on some extremely degenerate assumptions about human nature at this point.
I notice you don't mention China except as something to beat, while extolling «Japanese», «Taiwanese» and «Asians». It's peculiar because of course Taiwanese are Chinese, most American [East] Asians are Chinese, and indeed, they're doing very well! Low crime, high SAT, sizable tax contribution, and as I've said in my last long post, when an American Jew (Zuckerberg) wants to build an American Superintelligence Lab, 20 out of 30 research scientists turn out to be Han Chinese. In fact, 18 of them even hold PRC citizenship. This is about how it looked at the absolute peak of Jewish dominance in the American cognitive elite.
And yet, and yet – the US is having a decade-long meltdown about strategic competition with China. Even these researchers are suspected as potential spies who'll leak our precious inventions (their own work, largely) to the Red Dragon. There's a lot of vitriol directed at the Chinese, smoothed over with unconvincing noises to the effect of «no no I don't hate Han people, love my Hapa children, much beautiful ancient culture, wow very friendly very nice, I hate the CCP [also nuke three gorges dam]». Well, but the CCP is made of 100 million Chinese people, it has a sky-high approval rating (no it's not fake), and it genuinely represents their collective will to be a successful race, a superpower with hegemonic potential, rather than an assembly floor and source of high-skilled labor for Americans (including Jews).
White people like (presumably) you, people who buy into this «human capital» doctrine, are simply people. Chinese and Jewish people are a people, and in their own cultural frame even the People – a distinction which is a bit better articulated than in many other cultures, but in no way an abnormal way of thinking. They are ethnocentric. Goys and barbarians are not part of the people, and the people will coordinate to achieve collective gain in zero-sum games with barbarians and goys. That's table stakes for a self-aware successful culture.
What kind of war against Islam are you envisioning? It's pretty funny because militarily, Islam is not a threat to the West at all and has no potential to become a threat. It is, of course, a moderate but real threat to Israel, which is why pro-Israeli actors will hype up the Islamic threat to try and have you fight their wars. The Saudi money works, if it does, because your ruling class is hilariously corrupt and disinterested in the long-term prosperity of the populace. The main danger scenario is illustrated by the case of the UK, with slow population replacement by a mix of different immigrant groups and the low-status people (low human capital, so much less interesting for «the UK» than Jews or Asians) converting to Islam out of desperation. To stop this, you don't really need high-IQ Jewish generals and nuclear scientists, you need to learn to think of yourselves as «a people» that have intrinsic worth not denominated in tax returns or exam scores. But that's at odds with those very «values» you hope to have the Jews protect for you.
All of this is very mush-headed. There's no need to antagonize any ethnic group or reject cooperation, but there is a necessity to acknowledge that major nations represent essentially ethnic interests that are partially shared by their diasporas, and there is not a single non-Western nation that is straight up invested in propping up the West for «values» or whatever. Including Israel. All alliances will be alliances of convenience.
Yeah I noticed that as well with separating out Taiwanese.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe it's downstream of deep Christian roots but this is not how we, the liberals, want things to be. There is no contradiction between liking chinese people and disliking one institution that they are currently forming(of course as you note the CCP isn't even the only largely Han Chinese ethnic government), any more than there would be with liking German people and opposing the Nazis. The Chinese people have had previous governments, and so have us westerns. Not only are there obviously previous American presidencies that I oppose, in many ways I oppose the current one. And yet I love my people, I love America and Americans. I love our optimism, the puritan work ethic, the celebration of success. Many of these same great qualities I recognize in the Chinese people I have met.
To the degree that Fuentes strikes a cord against Israeli/Jewish influence it's because it's deep in our marrow that ethnocentrism is evil. And that's why he will ultimately fail. He makes Americans feel uncomfortable dissonance about their gut deep opposition to ethnic centrism and the obvious ethnocentrism of israel, Israel itself being made up of the world's most famous victims of ethnocentrism, But that same energy he's using to drum up resentment of israeli influence is what he opposes. It's why he has to ride the line of praising the jews for serving their ethnic interests as he opposes them. In his preferred world view there is absolutely nothing wrong with scheming in your ethnic interest. I don't think he will be able to turn the Americans in this way, I don't think that's in our souls.
Your post is passive just descriptive. Do you endorse ethno nationalism or just observe it? In my favorite post of yours you once said
What is that monster we sustain? What is it that you hope to see vanquish it and take its place? Could it truly be this cynical ethno nationalist? And if not what?
I will answer thusly.
My default moral intuitions aren't that different from modal American ones 50 or so years ago. Russia is a multiethnic society, clearly defined by one ethnos and culture (mine, to a first approximation), which does not possess the instinct or inclination for clannish diasporic behavior. We are more ethnocentric than modern Westerners but not by far. We assimilate easily in Western societies, find them an upgrade to our own, and generally agree with the way of the West, whereas the ways of The Rest are seen as unfair and backward, if demonstrably adaptive on the personal and sometimes collective level. Ethnocentrism specifically has been investigated in a toy model I like, by one Artem Kaznatcheev and friends, in Canada in 2013, and the conclusion was that it “…eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates”. Intellectually, then, it appears necessary to develop a system that can defend that superior humanitarian way, and the unpalatable conclusion is that in practice it amounts to something not unlike ethnocentrism – aggressive policing of defectors, attention to proxy metrics of defection, operational presumption of non-assimilation, and rejection of comforting lies about universality and natural attractiveness of preferred values. Western experiment with mass immigration and “race-blind meritocracy” is clearly a cheap hack motivated by Western cognitive biases, myopic financial considerations and such, not any concern for long-term preservation of the Way. Similar thoughts are common for sympathetic peoples on the periphery of Western civilization, which is why we see Slavs, assimilated Jews, Moldovans and so on disproportionately represented among the European right.
On a more philosophical level, I don't know. Ethnocentrism is a crude but effective means to preserve the intrinsic direction of a people, it increases the activation energy for changing course, and lets the direction be explored further. Moral intuitions aside, I'm not convinced that the Western direction is truly superior; it would be premature to say so.
I'm pretty open to the idea that diversity is good — real diversity, not this consumerist Western appreciation of cuisines, not the lukewarm respect for ethnic varieties of ideas the West already accepts. Why is diversity good? I consider great men of history to be scientists, and civilizations to be ongoing longitudinal natural experiments – about the limits of human nature, society, what kinds of minds should be incentivized to develop, what notions of goodness are viable and lead to more adaptive behavior, better instrumental outcomes and, in the limit, to greater collective and individual flourishing. Some experiments achieve negative results, invalidating the hypothesis for observers, but it's always a pity if this happens for contingent reasons like a natural disaster, or an opportunistic alliance, or luck of the draw in relative timing of access to some preexisting technology. I am distraught at being unable to know how failed civilizations could have developed to their “mature” stage, given a couple more millennia of literacy and a handful of extra IQ points, or passing a good reform, or contacting a powerful idea earlier; where would they have met their ceiling. When possible, one should run experiments in controlled conditions, after all.
The West is a beautiful experiment, plausibly the most successful that has ever been proposed. Its core thesis, stripped of the ever-changing scaffolding, is something like “human nature inherently has the spark of God's love and wisdom, therefore individual freedom is good and barriers to its realization are at worst prejudices, at best training wheels and must be systematically removed”. It's been working very well. But this near-genocidal desire to universalize the way smells less and less like sincere proselytism, and more like anxiety, fear of the hypothesis getting falsified. The truth is, the West has no clue as to what made or makes it work, beyond currently-commoditized pieces like capitalism (but whence capitalism? If “because freedom”, why does it port to societies that don't adopt the rest of the package?) Americans sometimes boast of “nation-building” Germany and Japan, developing “institutions”, and that reveals the hollowness and vulgarity of the doctrine. Germany and Japan, seriously? Japan got destroyed in the first place precisely because it got competitive, while remaining philosophically largely alien; Germany was actively advancing a divergent branch of the Western thesis. And today, both these nations are deeply troubled. Nation-building in less performant societies has a dismal track record. The West doesn't really know what to teach others so that it sticks. Really, what made the West into what it is, what was the generative function behind those generically adaptive innovations? Christendom (adopted Middle Eastern teaching, effectively dead now)? “HBD” in the sense of high IQ and conscientiousness – OK but why did it happen, just deep time migration patterns, cold winters, founder effects? What's the lesson here, pray to RNG? Galton-style Social Darwinism, Gregory Clark's Anglo class eugenics (grotesquely replaced with education-mediated assortative mating, also largely dead, and their practical implications made taboo in the resultant society)? “High trust” and non-kin cooperation by default (as covered here, a giant exploit for people who practice kin cooperation, and thus a mere bootstrap phase)? Science? Everyone above 95-ish median IQ can do science. The discovery was invaluable, but can “the West” come up with anything of that caliber ever again? Rather, can you even do what you used to do? We seem to be near the end of the session. Do you even know if you want to live? When you have full automation, will you put forward an argument for not just exercising your freedom to pass away replacing yourselves with machines, like you're currently doing with immigrants? Of what nature will that argument be?
China is another large old civilization. They've been running their own experiments. Their most enduring research program is Confucian. At the risk of butchering it, Confucianism says something like “humans aren't very good and are prone to self-interested behavior. Individual humans are not even human, they can only be elevated from monkeys via social context, and even then they default to barbarianism. But if compelled to cultivate “virtue”, starting on the mundane level of filial piety, hierarchical propriety and standardized ritual, escalating to mental discipline and scholarship, if rewarded with reproductive opportunity for utmost compliance, if the peace is maintained for many generations – they can build hierarchical societies of unbounded scale and splendor; and eventually, more of them become Superior Persons capable of and entitled to correct independent moral reasoning, and those will ennoble everyone else”.
It is debatable how seriously that has been pursued, but I'd say at least as seriously as the Christian/Western program. Both have undergone course corrections that arguably reflect growing out of their scaffolding and purify the original strategy. The West going from theism to deism to non-superstitious interest in the Universe, generalizing the validity of “love” and “freedom” beyond traditional norms. The East purging “thieves of virtue” along with ossified ritual and adopting a more common-sensical epistemology. To an extent this can be decried as trivialization and loss of function on both sides. There's been substantial convergence, but the divergent bits are what's at stake. Right now, I think the Eastern project is showing more promise, and the West is no longer in a position to lecture them on how to steer it. They're more ethnocentric? Less individualistic? They're authoritarian? Their society feels wrong? OK, I hear you. But they're solving social trust, they're solving – in their own way, less charismatic and more transactional – international relations, they're even solving creative expression, while having solved long-term large-scale coordination to a greater extent. And crucially, this isn't their first rodeo, they've had massive collapses and comebacks, they're the only major player that has a sophisticated applied discourse about civilizational recovery. Isn't it saying something that they've fallen behind, failed catastrophically, but have recovered, denied you the option of converting them, and are again pursuing their own program? Isn't it exciting that another solution can exist? Aren't you curious of where it will peak? Of course, they're doing well enough that another questions, for example “how much of the light cone will we be able to claim at this rate” are becoming salient for savvy observers. So it is necessary that they be treated as competitors, not just an interesting alternative path.
Jews, likewise, are a unique research program. They have an insular doctrine of their exceptionalism and special nature of themselves as “the people of God”, their moral obligation to biologically and culturally perpetuate themselves, a very long story of surviving and adapting, institutions built for venerating and reproductively rewarding exceptional individuals who have superior insight into God's will, they're punching so far above their weight that it's almost comical… and all of that hinges on extreme, almost naive ethnocentrism. They've mixed with Western peoples, experienced some assimilation, and now we're watching them return to a more traditional (indeed, exxageratedly traditional) form, with large Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox subpopulations having a vast fertility advantage over secular ones which, so long as they exist, provide a bridge to Western decisionmaking, invent spins like “Judeo-Christian liberal democratic values” and “our common Islamic/Communist/Han enemy”, and generally add confusion (partially their own). It doesn't take a genius to recognize that this research program, while fascinating on its own, can derail the Western one, and on top of your own dysfunction and anxious miscalculations it can create very ugly outcomes. We've seen trial runs in the Middle East, and the worst part is that you can barely articulate that it was mostly about them, not your “strategic interest” or oil or some other bullshit. So they, too, ought to be treated as competitors. It's okay, they can take it.
That's pretty much all relevant live players; smaller or less coherent players, who have a latent opportunity to expand their niche, are also more ethnocentric. The West is uniquely non-ethnocentric and has unique moral narcissism about this fact, largely owed to successes of the last several centuries. I think the jury is out on whether this system is sustainable or has the highest ceiling, and you're not entitled to try and “enlighten” others, but you're clearly valuable enough to think of how you can preserve and improve your program in a world of ethnocentrists, and that's what you should be doing now.
Spawn a great man or something, I don't know.
More options
Context Copy link
I really don't think this is true of a great deal of American conservatives. The fact that Japan, say, prioritizes the ethnic Japanese does not seem to be a moral problem at all for an awful lot of people, which is why I think online edgelords have latched on to it as a useful argument. America can't really be that kind of country, of course, because of its actual settler+immigrant history means we've always been a mess of different fractious groups from the very beginning, but the fact that other nations have other ways of organizing their borders seems pretty unobjectionable.
From that perspective, though, the problem with Israeli influence is that Jewish people are being very normal about their enthocentrism (which is a default almost everywhere around the globe, and will return to being more apparently as America and the West become relatively weaker compared to everyone else), and current American liberalism rules it entirely out-of-bounds to name it and respond appropriately to it, because saying that groups exist and fight for their own (entirely sensible, but also entirely non-universal) interests, sounds a great deal like what has been defined as antisemitism in this case... To that conservative perspective, someone Jewish being a partisan for Israel and Jewish people is totally normal and sensible, but the fact that the American government refuses to likewise be a partisan for Americans and American people (and the boundary here is certainly complicated) is the actual glaring problem, especially in a case like this where (so the claim goes) these Jewish interests are being especially sharp elbowed as the expense of a lot of Americans.
That's at least something like the kind of perspective I come across, at any rate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm also no enemy of the jews but I don't think you're really engaging with fuentes.
I think the Fuentes position is more that he thinks a strong nationalist country is the ideal and that "World Jewery" has had preventing the rise of a strong nationalist country at the very top of their priority list since the holocaust. He sees members of this class to have a strong influence on national politics. That in pursuing the prevention of a strong nationalist country forming they supported immigration on the grounds that it would water down any singular racial element taking control could cause problems if certain immigrant groups had their own antisemitic problems is just the classic golem attacking its master trope. He, probably correctly, thinks that if he worked with the Jews to get rid of the muslims then the jews would return to undermining his project at every turn.
More options
Context Copy link
"Destroy" seems like a bailey to a motte of "exploit"/"keep from realising their full potential", to which this objection does not apply. Compare "if slavery abolitionists are correct that slaves are slaving away for their masters, then why would the masters want to [do bad things] to those slaves?"
More options
Context Copy link
I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig headed fool.
I notice, you are prejudiced, he is acting out his insecurities through violent bigotry.
I'm going to register that I think this is a troll post, the quality is so low that I have trouble believing in it. Numbers pop up only for one side, ethnicity and religion are conflated in different ways for different groups, hatreds are elided at random.
Yeah, I think its just a jew post wearing a semite-phile skin suit.
More options
Context Copy link
There is a sense of victory in that, even in a troll post, people have to quite accurately reflect our views.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nick Fuentes's ideas have zero intellectual worth. He is a mega-church pastor for the religion of inceldom. Incoherence is key to his movement. At least Candace Owens is schizophrenic. What's Fuentes' excuse ?
I'm not convinced that average-IQ is singularly responsible for societal-IQ. They're related, sure. But, IQ differentials have existed for millennia. If the correlation was so direct, then high IQ nations would've achieved insurmountable gaps between them and other nations. This hasn't been the case. Japan, South Korea and Scandinavia are high-IQ regions today. But, they were relatively backwards throughout history. That there is flux implies that IQ is not the primary factor in creating stable and flourishing societies.
Can't read goy without replaying the meme of a rabbi crashing out at Barney the dinosaur.
This is anti-HBD. Between Muslims, Blacks and Indians (presumably you mean south asians), you're looking at 4 billion people. Say their average IQ is
90. Let's call them group A. Let's say group B constitutes non-chinese desirable immigrant groups with an IQ of105. (I'm assuming most western Europeans do not want to immigrate to the US and Chinese are the rival civilization). Group B will have around 500 million people at best.Doing some ChatGPT math, Group A has around 90 million people above IQ 120, and group B has about 80 million people above IQ 120. IQ is measurable and group A is more strongly motivated to immigrate. Therefore, if IQ = HBD and HBD = societal destiny, then the US will end up importing a very large number of blacks, south asians and muslims.
Personally, I believe cultural compatibility is just as important as the intelligence of the people you're importing. But, if HBD becomes the primary driver of immigration policy, then it will inevitably sample the cream of the largest (4 billion strong and growing) cohort.
No. I increasingly believe that liberal policy is a direct result of deeply internalizing HBD. (By liberal, I mean the American center-left, neo-libs, academic elites and NYT types. Not the communists). You can't tip-toe around landmines this effectively unless you know their precise location. I don't want to derail the discussion, but IMO, American liberals are the result of trying to reconcile protestant ideology with the realities of group IQ.
American Protestantism ties a person's self-worth to their economic productivity. It claims that people are created equal, and given equal opportunity, the hardest working will be the most productive and most moral. Working hard (sanctity of work) reflects good moral character, and the primary observable metric of hard work is economic productivity.
If IQ is real, heritable and puts a ceiling on an individual's productivity, then the whole moral framework stops working. Corporate America stops working. It's impossible to motivate hustlers, aspiring grinders and temporarily embarrassed millionaires if IQ is the primary contributor to outcomes.
If the smarter kid will always do better, then why work harder ? Why put in effort ? If you'll never be able to intellectually compete with the nerds, then why play their game at all ? Why be a peaceful participant of a system that guarantees your loss ? Better to bring it down instead. The natural conclusion is to use populism & violence to reclaim power and set up a tribal society instead.
Liberals need the lower class to believe that they can make it if they try hard enough. So, they set aside a few visible roles for all races, so that everyone keeps believing in protestant morals. They know that in the absence of a 'DEI', the elite will look so different from the base population, that a revolution is inevitable. Liberals want to set up socialist safety nets, because they understand that low-IQ people can't lift themselves up by their bootstraps.
Liberal policy is an uncomfortable compromise of believing in both HBD and protestant values. The resulting cognitive dissonance is why even the smartest liberal suddenly loses 50 IQ points when talking about certain issues.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salaryidentity depends on his not understanding it."He's a fed.
More options
Context Copy link
"Success" is generally a function of both effort and talent. Anecdotally, I'm aware of lots of cases and situations where "smarter" isn't enough alone, and often loses to someone willing to work harder. The folks at the very top have both, and outcomes generally scale with effort at all levels of talent, although there are levels where "have you considered trying something else?" becomes a reasonable question.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A lot of the hate for Jews comes from the following areas:
I personally agree that Jews are pretty great overall, and it seems like they've been having a slow-motion awakening on the threats of mass-migration. A good chunk of them are becoming socially conservative, but are leaning towards a more intelligent conservatism rather than the conspiratorial populist rightism. Maybe they'll be the ones to eventually salvage the Republican party, doing the job that the tech-right was supposed to do but utterly failed at.
The liberalism of Jews is an interesting connection, because is it their will-to-power driving them towards the dominant ideology like other elites (in which sense they are captured) or is it because they support liberalism because it promotes Jewish interests (much easier to compete in a society as a Jew if you don't have compete with White enthnonats coordinating against you)?
I think in the Palestinian question, liberalism hurts them as they are simply another Right wing apartheid state that progressives want to crush (continue the march of Unitarianism). White enthnonats would not much care if they seized all Palestinian territory and paid them to leave (might trigger a local Middle Eastern war, I know). Conflicting incentives all round.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I shall support no such thing, because "living in a low crime society" is not the whole of my utility function. In fact, there were plenty of dystopian low-crime societies.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should realize that @FireRises' version of the Madagascar Plan will not end with the deportation ships (or chimneys) being dismantled once the last Black US citizen is deported to the general area from which his ancestors were kidnapped. Because once we have accepted that it is moral to get rid of undesirables who are statistically more likely to commit crimes, there is no reason not to apply the same standard to Whites, after all, HBD applies to them as well. Probably a White guy with a close relative with a history of violence is more likely to commit violence than your average US Black, so we should surely get rid of him as well. Low education attainment is probably correlated with a genetic predisposition, do we really want to keep such suboptimal citizens in our brave new world? And in the long term, East Asians have great work ethics and are a lot less unruly than Whites often are.
Liberal Jews have long recognized that the best way to safeguard their safety in the West is to support a general principle of tolerance, rather than relying on the public perception of them being a net positive minority, which can always flip with another Epstein or SBF.
Why do you think that is a bad thing? After all, the PRC has plenty of advantages from your perspective. A clearly dominant culture, fewer ethnically undesirables, no woke snowflakes crying genocide when you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette, strong leaders making decisions with the long term interests of the state in mind rather than trying to win the next election. The PRC conquering the US, wiping out the present population and settling Han Chinese there is perhaps the likeliest way to end multiculturalism in the US.
While you might be 'strongly-Zionist', this seems orthogonal to your argument, which is mainly about Jewish minorities in gentile countries being net-positive.
I don't think you have grounds to deport the ancestors of slaves, but you do have grounds to deport recent immigrants who were brought in under cynical circumstances or who have stronger allegiances to foreign governments/populations than they do their new nation.
You don't need to eliminate the burden. You simply need to manage its size.
I just had this thought of moving to China one day to get away from Brazil like conditions and getting bullied by Chinese for being from a retard nation that destroyed itself with immigration.
More options
Context Copy link
@FireRises I'd go further and say "opposed"; if you want to keep Jews in the West, you don't want them to "go home" to Eretz Yisrael.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Bari Weiss isn't the head of CBS because of her great charisma, intelligence or talent but because she's Jewish and she's willing to unconditionally do the bidding of a Jewish billionaire. Jeffrey Epstein wasn't wealthy because he was an intelligent, hardworking person high in conscientiousness (his emails make that clear enough!), he was wealthy because he had no ethical limits whatsoever. Les Wexner and Henry Ford might both be rich entrepreneurs who pay lots of taxes but the latter was unfathomably more beneficial to his society and the world at large than the former. Whether Jews are actually significantly more intelligent is debatable; some would argue Jewish overrepresentation in positions of wealth and influence actually has more to do with nepotism, corruption and a total lack of moral inhibitions.
Like Berlin, 1925?
Of course, one could just as easily say "the left is wrong about every social issue, so of course they're wrong about Hitler" and come to the exact opposite conclusion.
This isn't what Fuentes actually says.
What he actually said was: Jews wanted to replace the previously (relatively) anti-Jewish Anglo-American order with a new one, only to discover that their new left wing allies apply the exact same logic to Jews, causing Jews to switch to backing the right instead. He never claimed Jews are "secretly hoping for a Muslim takeover of America", he's actually said that Jews intentionally inflame bonehead counter-jihad type politics for their own benefit. If you wanted a testable prediction, his pre-election prediction that Trump was going to be dragged into conflict with Iran would be a pretty clear example of Trump acting against his political interests on behalf of a powerful foreign lobby.
That's only counting direct subsidies. If you were to count missile interceptions (the "12 Day War" cost a quarter of the global interceptor stockpile!!!), the cost of constantly moving carrier groups to defend them, protection money for their neighbors, wars fought on their explicit behalf ("Prosperity Guardian"), wars fought on their behalf implicitly (most sandbox wars), soldiers killed by them directly (USS Liberty), soldiers killed on their explicit behalf (Beirut barracks bombings)...
For all that accumulated cost, it would have been far more cost efficient had America turned Israel into a parking lot back in 1948, then America might have some allies besides Israel. It certainly would have cost far less than $300 billion. Or, of course, America could simply stay out of the sandbox entirely, as it did for the overwhelming majority of it's existence.
Perhaps there wouldn't be so many Syrian refugees if the US didn't bomb the shit out of Syria on Israel's behalf and then put al Qaeda in charge. Perhaps fewer sub-Saharan Africans would flow through Libya into Europe if the US didn't overthrow Gaddafi for Israel's benefit and create a power vacuum. One directly leads into the other. That's why people give a shit about Israel, actually; because it destabilizes all of its neighbors as a matter of policy and leaves its "allies" (read: dupes) to pick up the mess.
Correction: we helped the Jews beat Hitler. Every single Jew could have dropped dead spontaneously in 1939 and America would have still had basically the exact same capabilities to beat Hitler.
Pollard sold the Soviets American secrets and then was given refuge in Israel, they played both sides and could just as easily have claimed to have helped the Soviet Union beat America had it gone the other way.
In reality, the Jews sell American military secrets to China, much as they sold American secrets to the Soviets.
Correction: the Jews want "us" to fight their enemies for them, again. America doesn't need to "beat Islam", it simply needs to stay out of the sandbox and reject their migrants.
Interestingly "the Jews" (Ariel Sharon, then Israeli PM) warned Bush about getting stuck in the sandbox.
They did phrase it as "why are you going after Iraq, Iran is who you should be going after" though, which paints a slightly different picture.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2007/08/29/israel-warned-us-not-invade-iraq-after-911
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Rather, jews do not like living in homogeneous states. They don't want to live in societies with strong cultural and norms that don't include them and prefer cosmopolitan rootless cultures. Jews don't want to be the only visible minority in an area. At the same time they don't have the same affinity to the local culture and people as gentiles in the same area. Multiculturalism is required to have another culture, aka jews there. Therefore jews promote multiculturalism.
Throw in a jewish hatred for Rome, Christianity, many Eastern European ethnic groups etc and it isnt surprising that jews are overrepresented in promoting mass migration.
Throw in wars for Israel that end up swamping Europe with migrants and the jewish problem becomes evident.
More options
Context Copy link
You can't claim to be a HBD understander and then confuse ethnicity and religion, then merge together hundreds of different ethnic groups in single categories. C'mon, bringing up Islam in that way is literally contradicting yourself. Bosnian Muslims, Iranians, Senegalese people and Indonesians are all Muslim and all have completely different genetic backgrounds. And it's not like there's a sharp distinction between "White" and "Middle-Eastern". People from the Levant can be whiter than many Southern Europeans.
Or if you talk about Jews, again, that's not a single ethnicity. Israel is a melting pot of Mizrahi, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, etc, while the majority of Palestinians are Jews that converted to Islam centuries ago.
If you actually believed in HBD, you would be pro-immigration of Igbo, Iranians and Brahmins elites, who have lower crime rates, higher educational achievement and financial success than White Americans.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with you that Muslim-majority countries usually underperform non-Muslim countries with similar biological stock (North Africa vs Southern Europe, Muslim Africa vs Christian Africa, Pakistan vs India, Iran vs Indian Parsis), but critically Muslims are not a biological group and "Muslim-majority countries underperform" is a cultural explanation, not an HBD one.
It's true that Muslims are not a racial group, and so the label isn't a biological one.
But 'people who marry their cousins and so suffer from inbreeding-related mental retardation' is a biological category, and well...
Funny thing about inbreeding is that unlike protracted heavy inbreeding (where a family has no new blood for an extended period), protracted mild inbreeding (lots of cousin marriages but not systematic) will eventually tend to weed out most of the alleles responsible for inbreeding problems (as it exposes them to much-stronger natural selection).
Do also remember that if someone heavily inbred marries someone else heavily inbred - but unrelated - the offspring are not inbred at all.
Islamic cousin marriage tends to be much more systematic than cousin marriage outside Islam.
To be clear, by "systematic" I mean like nearly 100% endogamy (I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect 85% still wouldn't be enough) in a moderately-sized clan, like the actual Habsburgs, so that you get a pile of allele-fixing and increased consanguinity. Are there a lot of families that do that in the Muslim world?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Islamic genetic potential tends to be worse than for their Christian neighbors, though. Often because Muslims marry their cousins at crazy high rates.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah but when the religious-culture doesn't really permit an easy offramp due to actually taking anti-blasphemy and people leaving the faith somewhat seriously, the two become very tightly linked.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah this is the line @2rafa has argued often in the past, quite convincingly. I agree that Jews in general are some of, if not the most, single strongest genetic group in terms of IQ and other desirable traits.
I do wish Fuentes and others would work more on getting Jews aligned with the general nativist agenda as opposed to re igniting blood libel. Unfortunately they feel betrayed because Jews have admittedly been huge pushing the overall progressive consensus after the Holocaust. It’s a tricky subject, but I’m much more on the side of converting Jews instead of kicking them all out or murdering them.
Israel has low PISA scores
A handful of studies showing marginal gains in IQ by measuring elite jews in NYC doesn't say much. If arab IQ was measured by testing in fancy parts of Dubai their scores would be impressive as well. Try Iq testing some west bank settlers for different results.
That's not too surprising. It is 20% Arab, and of the (school-age) Jewish population, most are Sephardi, and of the (more intelligent) Ashkenazi, a large chunk are Haredi, who do poorly on PISA because they reject secular education, not because they're stupid.
When people talk about Jewish intelligence, they're talking about the Ashkenazi Jews, because they make up about 80% of global Jewry, and almost 100% in western countries.
The interesting question is what happens when the Haredi take over the land between the River and Sea demographically. They're smart, but a population where the men spend most of their time studying the Torah and refuse military service is gonna struggle surrounded by hostile neighbours and dwindling global support. Israel needs to work out how to keep the Haredi pumping out children while putting them to more productive use.
More options
Context Copy link
Wow, that's a solid stat pull. I'm genuinely surprised by it.
Ashkenazim are a minority in Israël, and are outperformed by the local Arab Christians(who also probably have high average IQ).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ah sorry if this subject is well-worn territory. I haven't been as active of a Motte-izen to keep up with the conversational metagame here.
No worries. It can be good to go back through old topics anyway, not a problem at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link