site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 2026

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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That doesn't make sense. Western countries post-WW2 were much less hostile to Jews than Western countries now. Multiculturalism means a) more Muslims and b) more other foreigners who don't feel post-war guilt about the Holocaust. Aliyah from countries like France is going up as they become more multicultural, as French Jews flee their new Muslim neighbours.

After the establishment of Israel, Middle Eastern Jews fled (or were expelled from) ethnically and religiously diverse countries in order to move to Israel. Diversity means more ethnic conflict overall, which means more ethnic scapegoating of rich groups (i.e. Ashkenazim). Whereas a tiny Jewish population in a homogenous country are much less of a threat.

It's a mistake to overinterpret what happened in Germany. Hitler's rise was driven by Germany's humiliation in WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, and the growing threat of Communism. Other fascist regimes like Italy or Spain were fine with the Jews. Antisemitism was just an idiosyncrasy of Hitler, not a law of history.

It makes enough sense to the jews to have them advocate for it in their own words.

Antisemitism was just an idiosyncrasy of Hitler, not a law of history.

Can anyone point to a historical (right- or left-) populist movement in a culturally Christian country that didn't eventually turn anti-semitic? I suppose there is a colourable argument that Disraeli's OG One Nation Conservatism counts as right-populist, but it isn't a central example.

Jews really are over-represented (by somewhere around 10x, as you would expect given high-end estimates of Ashkenazi IQ if we do live in an IQ-meritocracy) in the allegedly-meritocratic elite, so if you think that the allegedly-meritocratic elite is a conspiracy, then it is a Jewish conspiracy.

There is a long history of homogeneous societies turning on Jews because domestic politics required a scapegoat. Admittedly it hasn't happened in an English-speaking Christian society since the late 18th century, and not in a murderous way since 1290.

There is a history of homogenous societies turning on Jews but there was also plenty of antisemitism in corners of diverse empires like the Russian and Ottoman Empires (not so much in the capitals, at least most of the time, but certainly in many of the provinces). In 1980 America was far more diverse than Western Europe and yet had little antisemitism.

In general the “Jews want diversity because Jews do better in diverse countries” point is extremely contrived, it’s gained currency only because it’s promoted both by Jewish progressives who want to defend multiculturalism in a weekly Reform temple sermon and by far-right antisemites who want to ‘explain’ the motive for why Jews supposedly want to destroy formerly-homogenous white countries with mass immigration. There isn’t much evidence for it or against it. Some Jews supported mass immigration, but so did plenty of powerful indigenous Europeans both in Europe and in North America. Jews were more progressive than many other groups on immigration in the mid-20th century of course, but they were also more progressive on economic and other issues (eg being very overrepresented in economic leftist movements), which suggests it wasn’t an immigration-specific thing.

Gaullism?

Good answer, although De Gaulle turned against Israel in the 1960s in a way which would be considered anti-Semitic by 21st century American standards.

decisively proving that the 21st century definition of "antisemite" is "one disliked by Jews" rather than the inverse

and of course by that standard any "populist movement" is going to rub against the ruling establishment and Jews in or adjacent to said ruling ruling establishment will identify it as "antisemitic"

Can anyone point to a historical (right- or left-) populist movement in a culturally Christian country that didn't eventually turn anti-semitic?

While if you look hard enough you can find a anti-Semitism anywhere, I don't think the American Populist Party of the 1890s ever gained strong such associations. And I'm less familiar with them, but most other populists and even strongmen I can think of in the Western Hemisphere don't IIRC have strong such associations either (Peron, Chavez, even Pinochet).

I think this may be another funny case of Simpson's paradox. What you're missing, is that Jews are not a monolith.

If you are elite and an allogene, multicultural societies are better for you because they minimize the prestige of being part of the indigenous polity, and thus create more opportunities for you. They're "meritocratic" as opposed to "aristocratic".

This comes with drawbacks, including sectarian violence and the associated public safety problems. But if you're an elite you don't care because you're insulated from such things anyways.

Who cares if your coethnics are being gunned down in the streets? If anything that's more reason people shouldn't be allowed to sneer at you in the country club under any circumstances.

Lebanon might pay a very high price for being such a divided society, but for the one guy that gets a guaranteed government office because he's a specific minority, it's a pretty good deal.

Lebanon is only good for the elite because they can flee with their ill gotten gains to Switzerland or Dubai after leaving office. If they had to stay in Lebanon the incentives would be very different.