site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26921 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can we just appreciate that you don't think "White American" is a real thing when it was the original requirement for citizenship? You are just proving my point of how easy it is to use culture to convert something that was just plainly obvious for the vast majority of the country into an identity that doesn't really exist. You are the product of the cultural processes you are underestimating Amadan.

You will realize that while English, Germans, French, and Dutch

And where are they now? They are White. They don't cling to their ancestry in remotely the same way Jews retain their identity and organize on the basis of their identity. That's why it's a non-starter. If Jews want to assimilate into a White pro-civilizational ideology they need to free themselves from Yahweh. If they can't do it that means that they will continue to play the shell game of assimilation/assertion based on the convenience of the moment, for their group benefit and at our group expense.

"If you want to be one of us you have to be one of us." You can't retain identity with a superstitious desert cult on the basis of a blood-covenant with a jealous anti-civilizational god.

Can we just appreciate that you don't think "White American" is a real thing when it was the original requirement for citizenship?

I do think "White American" is a real thing as a social category. I do not think it is a real thing as a unified ethnic tribe with uniform common beliefs and traditions. (It's kind of getting there but it's relatively recent.) You are playing a weaselly game of definitions here. "Hurr hurr you don't even think white people exist, you have been brainwashed by Da Joos." No, I think white people exist. I do not think "white people" have had the "racial consciousness" you assert and advocate until recently, historically.

And where are they now? They are White. They don't cling to their ancestry in remotely the same way Jews retain their identity and organize on the basis of their identity.

Okay, but so what? Historically, the answer is that Germans, French, Dutch, English, etc. were able to assimilate and become part of the broader American "white" society in a way that was precluded for Jews. Your answer is that Jews are uniquely nefarious and Jewish culture and identity is uniquely malign. Market minorities exist in other places in the world and behave in similar ways. You simultaneously endorse shunning Jews-as-Jews from society but complain that, thus shunned, they continue to band together and maintain their own society. You can't tell people "We hate you and won't accept you, but don't you dare stick together out of self-defense."

That's why it's a non-starter. If Jews want to assimilate into a White pro-civilizational ideology they need to free themselves from Yahweh.

Do Christians also have to reject their god? Are you a "Christianity is a Jew-cucked slave morality cult" white nationalist? Or are you a "Judeo-Christianity is a Jew lie" white nationalist?

"If you want to be one of us you have to be one of us." You can't retain identity with a superstitious desert cult on the basis of a blood-covenant with a jealous anti-civilizational god.

Leaving aside the practicality of demanding people abandon a religion that's thousands of years old because you think that uniquely among all religions in the world, it's evil, I do not believe you'd actually accept Jews who abandon Judaism, and I think with good reason, Jews would not believe you. (And even if you are an unusually magnanimous white nationalist, as I said most of your fellow WNs are pretty open about wanting Jews to just... quietly and peacefully vanish to Mars or something.) There are atheistic Jews today with no connection to the Jewish religion, but you still accuse them of Jewing Jewishly. How many generations would they have to divest themselves of Judaism before you'd consider them no longer Jewy Jews? Your proposal is not sincere and not credible.

"Judeo-Christianity" is a term used by unserious Christians and dishonest Jews. The only surviving Jewish religions are those that defined themselves in opposition to the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Modern day religious Jews can trace the history of their religion and language directly to the Pharisees and their rejection of Jesus.

The ideas expressed by the term Judeo-Christianity are incoherent to sincere believers of either faith, but that doesn't stop atheist and Jewish intellectuals using that term to smuggle in some kind of longstanding alliance between Christians and Jews.

I hear Christians use it more often than Jews.

The same Christians who accept immigrants, homosexuals, women's rights and support for Israel.

It's ironic. As a sincere Gnostic, I respect the mystical insights from Judaism, but I can just as easily trace it through the monotheistic Aryan Greeks. Outside of Jewish mysticism, their religion comes off as a massive cope for being biologically inferior to Aryans.

Read on for Gnostic proselytism: I can maintain my extreme racism because I believe in 1) reincarnation and progressive enlightenment of souls and 2) each Apostle had a more or less accurate message for more or less developed races. I got most of this from an active Gnostic group on the west coast. They claim to have an oral tradition that comes from Magdalene, her son, and their Celtic descendants (in contrast to Peter and Paul's Gospel that became Multiracial Empire Christianity). What they claimed got me curious enough to go down the rabbit hole of serious (secular) Christian scholarship and I think they have the most religious religion on the planet. .

Also, since Jesus was Semitic, and his coming fulfilled both Aryan and Hebrew prophesies, I hold out hope we can avoid a Global Race War.

The same Christians who accept immigrants, homosexuals, women's rights and support for Israel.

Actually, it is also used by conservative Christians who are not in favor of those things. (Except maybe support for Israel; most conservative Christians are pro-Israel.)

Maybe I'm too disconnected from the establishment "right." I don't track the "right wing" Christians much. They were exposed by atheists like Sam Harris to be intellectual frauds. They also accept fags and niggers into their congregations, so no, I don't think they are against them.

I don't think they have an ideological foundation. Much like the grey-tribe types on here, but less intelligent.

I do not think "white people" have had the "racial consciousness" you assert and advocate until recently, historically.

You are just flatly wrong, you can look at Thomas Jefferson's writings for who counted as "White." It's basically algebra. The question concerned them as well. Racial consciousness was the status quo until very recently but people like you are duped into thinking we always thought the way you do today. They did not. As late as 1923 an Indian Sikh was denied citizenship by the Supreme Court for not being White, and the Indian's argument was not even against the letter of the law but claiming that Indians are Aryan. Can't you imagine me on the Supreme Court hearing this argument and denying an Indian citizenship for claiming to be Aryan?

The Court unanimously rejected Thind's argument, adding that Thind did not meet a "common sense" definition of white, ruling that Thind could not become a naturalized citizen. The Court concluded that "the term 'Aryan' has to do with linguistic, and not at all with physical characteristics, and it would seem reasonably clear that mere resemblance in language, indicating a common linguistic root buried in remotely ancient soil, is altogether inadequate to prove common racial origin.

Wow, sounds like I could have been on SCOTUS in 1923. I would have even written a better opinion given I'm acquainted with the "Indians are Aryan saar" line of argument. Whereas you deny that they had this sort of racial consciousness in the first place. You are just so brainwashed by -current day- you can't even relate to the consciousness of the country 100 years ago. There are Americans today who were alive when SCOTUS made that decision. Isn't it amazing how everything turned on a dime?

You simultaneously endorse shunning Jews-as-Jews from society but complain that, thus shunned, they continue to band together and maintain their own society. You can't tell people "We hate you and won't accept you, but don't you dare stick together out of self-defense."

Jews should be treated no differently than Jews treat Whites. No more no less. Take the ADL, AIPAC, American Jewish Congress- invert it. And Jews were accepted, but they used their acceptance to attain power and promote their own culture and identity at the expense of their outgroup.

Do Christians also have to reject their god? Are you a "Christianity is a Jew-cucked slave morality cult" white nationalist? Or are you a "Judeo-Christianity is a Jew lie" white nationalist?

They ought to, but it wouldn't be a requirement in the same way. If Christians did what Jews do, it would be a requirement, but they don't so it isn't.

There are atheistic Jews today with no connection to the Jewish religion, but you still accuse them of Jewing Jewishly.

Atheistic Jews still very frequently identify as Jews. See Eric Weinstein flipping off the Arch of Titus when he visited Rome. He's still offended by that 2000 year old offense to Jews. He's still a Jew even if he's an Atheist. Yes, if they want to be on my side they have to let that go. If they aren't willing to then that just proves they are on their own side doesn't it?

Jews would never let me into their ingroup. Maybe if I did a full conversion process and renounced any previous religious identities. Even then it will be difficult. Sorry, but if a Jew is claiming to be one of us within my in-group then it's a minimum expectation they depart from their Jewish identity. If they aren't willing to that shows they belong to a different tribe.

people like you are duped into thinking we always thought the way you do today.

You're being very lazy. When I say whites didn't have racial consciousness as whites, I don't mean I believe Thomas Jefferson or the 1920s Supreme Court believed all races are the same. I mean you are trying to construct a pan-white brotherhood based solely on European ancestry that did not exist.

Jews should be treated no differently than Jews treat Whites.

Concretely, what does this mean? I know you think (almost) all Jews are involved in some conspiracy to destroy white people, though the mechanics seem to be basically using social influence and democratic processes to make society more liberal? So how would you reverse uno the Jews?

Atheistic Jews still very frequently identify as Jews.

Okay, so thanks for confirming that there's no realistic way any Jew could be regarded as acceptable to you, regardless of his individual beliefs. If a Jew actually said "okay, I no longer identify as a Jew, I am just a white American," you would say "lol no."

You're being very lazy. When I say whites didn't have racial consciousness as whites, I don't mean I believe Thomas Jefferson or the 1920s Supreme Court believed all races are the same.

What do you think racial consciousness is? What do you think was going through the minds of SCOTUS when they wrote their opinion? That is racial consciousness. Indians aren't White- no citizenship sorry. That was SCOTUS in 1923 but here you are in 2026 saying they didn't have racial consciousness as whites. It's just absurd to be honest. There were antimiscegenation laws, segregation, on the basis of White but nope no racial consciousness as Whites! Even though segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were based on "White" vs "non-White."

Do you want to read this 1909 speech by Roosevelt and tell me he didn't have racial consciousness as a white as he repeatedly references the "White race"? Or how about that other speech where he warns about avoiding Race Suicide? You are just flatly wrong, you have been tricked.

Okay, so thanks for confirming that there's no realistic way any Jew could be regarded as acceptable to you, regardless of his individual beliefs. If a Jew actually said "okay, I no longer identify as a Jew, I am just a white American," you would say "lol no."

If a Jew says "I'm not a jew" and doesn't retain identity as a Jew that's a different then an atheistic Jew who identifies as a Jew like Eric Weinstein. Being an atheist isn't enough. If you identify as a Jew you're a Jew, whether theistic or atheist, and if you don't you aren't. Simple as. True there's not consensus among the DR on that point but that's the position I support.

Do you believe Jews have a race consciousness as Jews?

You are just flatly wrong, you have been tricked.

Dude, I know history better than you do. You just keep repeating things that intentionally miss the point.

Do you believe Jews have a race consciousness as Jews?

Yes and no. They have ethnic and religious consciousness as Jews, but not all Jews are Ashkenazi and my understanding is there is actually some racial division within the Jewish community. What you're really asking me is "Are Jews tribal? As tribal as I want whites to be?" And the answer is yes. That said, when people like you want them to cease existing ("as Jews, in Minecraft"), of course they are going to be tribal. Historically, people like you are the reason Jews are so tribal. Yes, I know your version is that they started it and if Jews didn't act so Jewish people wouldn't hate them.

Historically, people like you are the reason Jews are so tribal. Yes, I know your version is that they started it and if Jews didn't act so Jewish people wouldn't hate them.

Why does it have to be either/or? There's an ugly 2000-year-old cycle where Jewish tribalism makes people dislike them, and being surrounded by people who dislike them makes Jews tribal, and it goes on and on. (I have to put one of those in front of another to make a grammatical English sentence, I am not proposing that one came before the other, it's a cycle).

Sure, but most Jewish "tribalism" is just sticking to their own community and following their own religion (and being moneylenders, which is never popular but also is a result of historical exclusion from other professions). The SS version where they have been inimical to gentiles is just "drinks the blood of Christian children" / "rats who stabbed the Fatherland in the back" nonsense being repeated in the 21st century as "engineered woke and mass immigration."

...and heading organizations in the West that advocate against local ethnic concerns, for example the ADL vs Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson was quick to point out the doublespeak of the Anti-Defamation League. He highlighted how in 2010, ADL had objected to the influx of Palestinian refugees in Jewish-dominated Israel, to avert potential demographic change and undermining of political representation and protection of Jewish community.

Quoting the statement by ADL, Carlson read, “With historically high birth rates among the Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority within a bi-national state, thus likely ending any semblance of equal representation and protection.”

He further read out the ADL’s statement, “In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically – and potentially physically – vulnerable. It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the State of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory.” Tucker Carlson thus exposed the hypocrisy of ADL by pointing out its dual standards on external population influx in the US and Israel.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats