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 -
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 could equally say white Anglos love to promote multiculturalism and Communism and if we want to break it down by religion Episcopalians and Unitarians probably do so at higher rates than Jews.
Anglos don't promote multiculturalism or communism with anything near the fervour or effectiveness of Jews. Anglos are notoriously anti-communist, led the anti-communist bloc and were never at any major risk of communist takeover unlike France or Italy.
The Episcopalian church is a fairly progressive institution, not an ethnic group. It's expected that progressive churches will have a high proportion of progressive members. But alongside the Episcopalians and other progressive organizations, you have immigration-restrictionist movements, you have right-wing churches, rightist institutions. Anglos are diverse.
Where are the right-wing Jewish movements? In Israel building settlements or supporting Israel from abroad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Yes, whoops, my mistake there.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
It's not just America, Jews in Europe routinely call for migrants to be accepted and tolerated more. The Bonnier Group media in Sweden fulfills a similar kind of role to the NYT in America, pushing multiculturalism and social justice issues.
We have these quotes from Jews like Barbara Spectre: "Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role."
She says it, I believe her. In the UK https://www.jcore.org.uk/, 'supporting refugees, led by Jewish values'. Where are the rabbis and Jewish NGOs against mass immigration? Jews are not right-wing in that sense. They might prefer the mass-immigration Tories to the mass-immigration, vaguely anti-semitic Labour. But they don't actually agitate against mass immigration at any considerable scale.
Wokeness was invented by Jews, they came up with blankslatism and antiracism and they pushed hard for civil rights, whereas whites were divided. It was whites who enforced Jim Crow and segregation when they were around, while Jews like Levison were advising MLK. Obviously whites are more right-wing than Jews, they were right wing in the past too.
The Anglosphere has not displayed pathological altruism across history. Robert Clive, not an altruist. Francis Drake, not known for niceness. Those people flinging smallpox ridden cloth over at the native americans, not altruistic. The Duke of Marlborough was a pretty tough guy, not to mention Wellington. You don't conquer huge swathes of land by being nice and welcoming to others. Only recently has the Anglosphere and Europe decided that their destiny was not to rule the world but to help disadvantaged communities and become majority non-white. Previously, there was the White Australia Policy, Asian Exclusion Acts, immigration restriction and white supremacy. In WW2 John Curtin of Australia spoke openly about this:
Pathological altruism is a recent phenomenon. It had roots in a more-benign than usual kind of imperialism certainly. But there is a qualitative difference between 'lets build some railways in India' and 'let's cover up these Pakistani grooming gangs in our country raping white girls because we don't want to look racist or prejudiced.'
It makes zero sense for the people with all the wealth and power to decide, unprompted and without external influence, to start giving away wealth and power to other peoples, invite other peoples in and give them preferential treatment. Only once you add a group with notoriously high verbal IQ does this story start to become more believable.
More options
Context Copy link
If this is true, then why did Nietzsche blame the jews for wokism in the 1800s?
He blames the jews for the reversal of moral values. "Might makes right" is now entirely alien to us. All modern virtue has become the opposite of that which, biologically, leads to health. The victim mentality has become a social strategy. People now compete in who can make themselves out to be the most oppressed, and this behaviour is rewarded. There's no participation trophies because we no longer have the heart to say that somebody won, and to them imply that somebody else must have lost. If somebody is offended by words, we no longer feel disgust at the offended party (as we used to!), but instead blame the stronger party, the person who doesn't suffer from mental breakdowns due to mere words. This reversal, which attributes the highest value to the low and meek, is "wokeness". When Nietzsche criticizes morality in "The will to power", and in "The geneology of morals" which I'm quoting below, it sounds like a modern critique of the feminine values which have taken over society.
"Let’s bow to the facts: the people have won – or “the slaves”, the “plebeians”, “the herd”, or whatever you want to call them – if the Jews made this come about, good for them! No people ever had a more world-historic mission.“The Masters” are deposed; the morality of the common people has triumphed. You might take this victory for blood-poisoning (it did mix the races up) – I do not deny it; but undoubtedly this intoxication has succeeded.The “salvation” of the human race (I mean, from “the Masters”) is well on course; everything is being made appreciably Jewish, Christian or plebeian (never mind the words!)"
We domesticated ourselves too much, and now we, like dogs, have something like Williams syndrome. Most of our "barbaric" traits have been pruned from the gene pool, but as a result, strong men are lacking, masculinity is lacking. And the jews helped bring this about, even if a development like this was inevitable.
More options
Context Copy link
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