site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   19263 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 26, 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Israel had its first general election since 2022 on Tuesday. Israel is an experiment in ethnonationalism, but it is also an experiment in proportional representation. Every conceivable minority group or special interest has their own political party. There is a party for Russian immigrants, a party for Ashkenazi Haredim, and a separate party for Mizrahi Haredim. Arabs of course vote for entirely separate parties from Jews (by custom, not law).

Israel is the most right-wing democracy in the world. In Israel, you can vote for the racist party (Likud), the extremely racist party (Religious Zionism), or the racism über alles party (Otzma Yehudit, literally "Jewish Power"). You can even vote for the pro-racism but anti-Netanyahu party (Together), or the pretending-not-to-be-racist party (Yashar). If you feel like sticking it to the man, there is at least one viable actually-not-racist party (The Democrats). Some would argue the Arab parties (Joint List and Ra'am) are non-racist, but others would say that they are just as racist but in the opposite direction.

The Knesset has 120 seats, so 61 seats are needed for a majority to form a government. Most of the results are in, and it's looking like deadlock.

Estimated seats by bloc

  • Netanyahu Bloc - 53

  • "Change" Bloc - 48

  • Arab Bloc - 19

In European legislatures, is is customary to have a cordon sanitaire against parties perceived as far-right. In Israel, there is a cordon sanitaire against the Arab parties. The Netanyahu bloc has lost its majority, but there is no clear opposition bloc large enough to form a government. Israeli Arab turnout was through the roof.* Bedouin nomads rode into town on camels to vote. The conventional wisdom seems to be that forming a coalition with any of the Arab parties post-October 7th is political suicide. If no one can form a majority, there could be another election as soon as next year.

*Netanyahu is accusing the Arabs of voter fraud. I have no idea if this means anything.

Israel is an experiment in ethnonationalism

Not that I am disputing this, but it is really bizarre as it is also one of the most ethnically diverse places in the World. Iraqis, Yemenis, and Polish people who somehow decided that they constitute one ethnicity.

In Israel, you can vote for the racist party (Likud), the extremely racist party (Religious Zionism), or the racism über alles party (Otzma Yehudit, literally "Jewish Power"). You can even vote for the pro-racism but anti-Netanyahu party (Together), or the pretending-not-to-be-racist party (Yashar).

I'm really curious how you are defining the word "racist." Mainly because in most circles (but not necessarily on this discussion board) the word is a major pejorative, one of the worst things a person can be accused of. And because it's also one of those social justice words like "apartheid" and "genocide" with strategically flexible definitions depending on who/whom.

How about exhibit A:

The Law of Return is an Israeli law, initially passed in 1950 and extended in 1970, giving all Jews, persons with at least one Jewish grandparent, and their spouses, legal rights to enter, reside in, and acquire citizenship of, the State of Israel.

I will grant you that it is a mixture of religious and ethnic discrimination (as you can lose your right if you or your grandparent converted to another religion), but this is not "disparate outcome racism" that the wokes like to whine about, but straightforward racial discrimination for the purpose of maintaining an ethnostate.

As a thought experiment, suppose that Iceland guaranteed white people from South Africa a path to become citizens, but not black people. Not through some proxy, but directly. You have two people both of whom apply to a visa, neither has been in Iceland or is likely to have ancestors who were in Iceland within 50 generations, and Iceland decides that it prefers one of them because if his ethnicity, because they want to maintain the "white race" in Iceland.

This Iceland would be about as central of an example of racist as you can be reasonably be. A government has a skin color palette or a DNA origin threshold and explicitly makes policy decisions about individuals based on that, without even the fig leaf of wanting to undo the effects of earlier unequal treatment of ethnicities it did earlier. Whether it decides who goes on a plane to Reykjavík or on a train to Auschwitz or on a overfilled slave ship towards Florida makes a big difference in magnitude but not in direction.

And to be honest, I do not see really much in the way of difference between the fictional Iceland policy and the real Israeli policy. You can make a case if you want that the Law of Return is actually one of these rare cases where racism is good, as apologists of affirmative action make for their cases. But any definition of racism which does not include treating two foreigners different purely because of their ethnic background will struggle to admit any cases of racism, unless you want to go straight for a racially discriminating definition of racism: "racism is racial discrimination done by gentile whites", for example.

As a thought experiment, suppose that Iceland guaranteed white people from South Africa a path to become citizens, but not black people

More than a dozen European countries do have ancestry-based visa programmes. So does Japan, Korea, India, Turkey and Kazakhstan. Although expecting a skin colour palette is a weirdly American way of looking at things. Poles are not Germans just because they both have pale skin.

It's not as if Israel is unique in that regard. Israel's programme is obviously a bit different because the Jewish diaspora is 2,000 years old, but fundamentally it accepts people because of their ancestry, just like programmes in many other countries.

If Iceland did have such a programme, it obviously wouldn't be open to Euro-South Africans, because they are mostly Dutch and English rather than Icelandic.

By the way, here is an excerpt from the Constitution of Liberia:

In order to preserve, foster and maintain the positive Liberian culture, values and character, only persons who are Negroes or of Negro descent shall qualify by birth or by naturalization to be citizens of Liberia.

Ok, and I'm not exactly being deafened by the chorus of "Racism!" accusations against various political parties or factions or whatever in Liberia.

Of course, without a definition of "racism" it's hard to say for sure if Liberia (and its various parties/factions/whatever) are racist.

That being said, I'm pretty confident that a lot of social justice types would insist that Liberia is NOT racist. Because their definition of racism incorporates another strategically ambiguous word: "Power"

In other words, it's who/whom all the way down.

If Iceland did have such a programme, it obviously wouldn't be open to Euro-South Africans, because they are mostly Dutch and English rather than Icelandic.

I picked this metaphor on purpose. The Netherlands preferentially accepting Afrikaners in would not be quite as absurd.

On reflection, it more along the lines of some of the Breton and Welsh deciding that it is time for a resurgence of the Hallstatt culture and managing to turn most of Austria into a modern Celtic kingdom. This fits the picture better because there clearly is a cultural link between the ancient Celts and modern Celtic languages (while in my original metaphor there was no such link). Needless to say, I would be opposed to building such a Celtic ethnostate in Central Europe, and if one existed and engaged in further Celt-maxing and expansionism I would be happy to call them racist.

I looked into ancestry-based return because I'm technically eligible for a dutch passport, it's not an ethnic thing- it's about technically having citizenship via jus sanguinis to begin with.

I don't want a dutch passport badly enough to jump through the hoops it would take to claim it.

it's not an ethnic thing- it's about technically having citizenship via jus sanguinis to begin with.

It's been observed multiple times in this thread that facially neutral policies can still be discriminatory.

But as usual, I'm just looking for clarity and consistency.

By the way, here is an excerpt from the Constitution of Liberia:

In order to preserve, foster and maintain the positive Liberian culture, values and character, only persons who are Negroes or of Negro descent shall qualify by birth or by naturalization to be citizens of Liberia.

Ok, and I'm not exactly being deafened by the chorus of "Racism!" accusations against various political parties or factions or whatever in Liberia.

Of course, without a definition of "racism" it's hard to say for sure if Liberia (and its various parties/factions/whatever) are racist.

That being said, I'm pretty confident that a lot of social justice types would insist that Liberia is NOT racist. Because their definition of racism incorporates another strategically ambiguous word: "Power"

FWIW I think Liberia is racist, and no one cares mostly because no one in their right mind actually wants to live there.

FWIW I think Liberia is racist

Without your providing a clear consistent definition of "racist," this statement is meaningless. What's also interesting is that you didn't say anything about the political parties or political factions within Liberia. With Israel, there are people ready to argue, in effect, that essentially every Jewish political party in Israel is automatically tainted with the alleged racism of the country as a whole.

no one cares mostly because no one in their right mind actually wants to live there.

One way to test that argument is to look at places which (1) have discriminatory immigration policy or otherwise are racist by some definition; and (2) are places which attract potential immigrants. And see if anyone cares.

When people talk about factional disputes in Poland, are they careful to label each faction as "racist"? When there when people talk about factional disputes between Hamas and Fatah, are they careful to label each faction as "racist"? For that matter, how often is Poland accused of racism on the international stage?

It seems pretty likely to me that when people accuse Israel (or its political factions) of being "racist" that's not the true objection. Especially given the unwillingness to provide a clear definition of "racist"

In any event, the criterion "no one in their right mind actually wants to live there" seems like a gerrymander criterion to me.

It may not be written as 'you have to belong to this particular ethnic group'. But when the conditions are things like 'your great-grandfather must have been born in this particular European country before 1922' or whatever, it is ethnic in a de facto sense, deliberately so.

I will grant you that it is a mixture of religious and ethnic discrimination (as you can lose your right if you or your grandparent converted to another religion), but this is not "disparate outcome racism" that the wokes like to whine about, but straightforward racial discrimination for the purpose of maintaining an ethnostate.

But any definition of racism which does not include treating two foreigners different purely because of their ethnic background will struggle to admit any cases of racism,

Well you are completely free to define "racism" any way you like for purposes of discussion; I am requesting a clear, consistent definition.

I take it that in your view, any country which engages in citizenship discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion is "racist" in your view?

I am asking this question because many countries (Ireland, Japan, Poland, Liberia, etc.) engage in this sort of discrimination and yet it's pretty unusual for me to witness accusations of racism against these countries. Which makes me suspect that "racism" is not the real objection to Israeli policy.

That being said, if you will agree that numerous countries in Europe, Asia, etc.. are "racist" by your definition, I will certainly concede that Israel is too.

By the way, if a country discriminates in the same way in terms of permitting residency, work authorization, etc. can we agree that this is also racist by your definition?

Edit: Actually looking over your post, I see that I hardly need to ask that question.

As an example, from what I understand, under Chinese law, an ethnic Chinese person whose family has lived in Manila, Mexico City, or San Francisco for generations would have a far easier time obtaining residency and a work permit in China than a non-Chinese. So in other words, China is apparently treating foreigners differently purely because of their ethnic background.

So the answer would seem to be "yes." Under your definition, China is racist; Japan is racist; Liberia is racist; etc.

Agreed?

I am technically- or was a few years ago- eligible for dutch citizenship through my grandfather. I don't consider it worth the paperwork after looking into it, but it's qualitatively different from the Israeli law of return- because it wouldn't apply to hypothetically pure-dutch descendants living in some village in new york that they founded in the 17th century before it was sold to the British. Only to those who are descended from historically recent-enough immigrants from Holland that they would technically be covered under Dutch nationality law.

but it's qualitatively different from the Israeli law of return

Well the question I would ask is whether it's materially different for purposes of accusing the Netherlands of being "racist." Since you decline to define that term, your point is meaningless.

Certainly there are many countries out there which treat foreigners differently depending on the race/religion/ethnicity they belong to, either explicitly or in practice. For example, I was just reading that China permits ethnic Chinese people who have lived for generations in places like Manila, San Francisco, or Kuala Lumpur, to reside and work in China.

And by the way, I'm not saying that there's anything necessarily wrong with this type of "racism" on the part of various countries. I'm simply asking for a clear consistent definition. As opposed to a strategically ambiguous moving target.

Under your definition, China is racist; Japan is racist; Liberia is racist; etc.

Agreed?

Fine by me.

I mean, I could nitpick and claim that considering previous citizenship of your parents irrespective of their particular ethnicity is less bad than simply deciding that you generally prefer your main ethnicity even if there is no particular link to your country in an applicants ancestry. I would certainly consider China more racist if their law was peculiar to Han Chinese rather than applying equally to Zhuang. Hoping that it would also apply to Uyghur would be beyond optimistic.

Another difference is how impactful the various return laws are. Poland or Ireland are traditionally seen as countries from which people emigrated. Not a lot of Americans either with or without Polish ancestry want to emigrate to Poland. By contrast, Israel has been heavily dependent on immigration since their law of return was passed. To a good approximation, everyone there is either a recent immigrant or an Arab (or possibly both).

I could nitpick and claim that considering previous citizenship of your parents irrespective of their particular ethnicity

From what I understand, China goes by ethnicity; Liberia goes by race; Poland goes by descent (so yes, in theory this means that if you are not ethnically Polish you might have a shot; in practice this means that you have to be either ethnically Polish or one of a small minority of Polish-descended Jews for whom records are available. But as has been pointed out, facially neutral laws can discriminate.)

Not a lot of Americans either with or without Polish ancestry want to emigrate to Poland

I am pretty confident that a LOT of people from the Arab world (and the rest of the Third World) would LOVE to immigrate to Poland, probably even more than to Israel.

Poland or Ireland are traditionally seen as countries from which people emigrated. By contrast, Israel has been heavily dependent on immigration since their law of return was passed.

Well, Jewish Israelis see Israel as a country from which their ancestors emigrated.

More importantly, none of this is relevant to your definition of "racism." You agree that all these countries are "racist."

If you want to argue over whether Israel's immigration policy is fair or just, fine. But that's a completely different question.

If you want to say that sometimes "racism" is okay or more excusable, fine.

But in that case, I would want clear criteria for deciding whether "racism" is more excusable and justifications for those criteria.

If your claim is that discrimination is more excusable for countries which were emigration countries in the 19th and 20th century, I would want justification for this criterion. Because to me it seems like a gerrymander criterion to me.

Ethnic supremacist parties, like most of the Israeli mainstream, are pretty uncontroversially racist.

Ethnic supremacist parties, like most of the Israeli mainstream, are pretty uncontroversially racist.

I would have to disagree with this, in the sense that the word "racist" is very ambiguous. (Of course it's not helping that you added another buzzword to the mix: "supremacist")

I take it that you decline to explicitly define what you mean by either word?

Are you seriously disputing that the largest Jewish parties are Jewish supremacists?

The Arabs had exceptionally high turnout because they want the government to actually bother to police Arab-majority areas(which are gang-controlled shitholes with frightening crime rates, because the police ignore them). This is not due to Israelis just loving Arabs too much to bother enforcing the law on them, American leftists on blacks style- see the behavior of the IDF literally anywhere.

I think he’s trying to argue that racism is too hard to define so nothing is racists to defeat left wing accusations of racism. I to be honest am fine with just saying something is racists but racism can be good.

Are you seriously disputing that the largest Jewish parties are Jewish supremacists?

I can't really agree or dispute such a claim unless I know how you are defining the term "supremacist."

And yet you decline to define what you mean by "racist" or "supremacist."

I suspect this is because there is no way to define these words in such a way as to be (1) broad enough to cover Israel (and/or the Yashar party); (2) narrow enough not to cover lots of entities which are not normally accused of being "racist" or "supremacist"; and (3) not obviously gerrymandered so as to apply only to Israel (or Israeli parties).

Certainly for Social Justice types in the US, the word "racist" is used in a strategically ambiguous way as Scott pointed out a few years back:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/

But in any event, I can't respond meaningfully to your question or your claim if you are unwilling to define your terms.

The Arabs had exceptionally high turnout because they want the government to actually bother to police Arab-majority areas

I'm skeptical of this claim, but I would rather not get sidetracked.

No matter how high you are setting the bar for what you consider "racist", I can assure you the Israeli right-wing is clearing it with ease.

No matter how high you are setting the bar for what you consider "racist", I can assure you the Israeli right-wing is clearing it with ease.

Well how would you define the term?

I'm really curious how you are defining the word "racist."

"We should be free to discriminate against Israeli citizens that are not Jews"

"We should be free to discriminate against Israeli citizens that are not Jews"

Would you be able to identify 2 policies supported by the Yashar party which would discriminate against non-Jewish Israeli citizens?

So the reason I said that Yashar pretends not to be racist is that they do pretty much commit to treating all Israeli citizens the same. The catch is that Israeli citizenship law is itself quite racist, in the sense that there is an explicit ethnic preference for matrilineally descended ethnic Jews regardless of national origin.

So the reason I said that Yashar pretends not to be racist is that they do pretty much commit to treating all Israeli citizens the same. The catch is that Israeli citizenship law is itself quite racist, in the sense that there is an explicit ethnic preference for matrilineally descended ethnic Jews regardless of national origin.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. And can we agree that under your definition, a political party is "racist" if (1) supports treating citizens equally (or supports treating citizens more favorably than non-citizens); and (2) it exists in a country which the citizenship laws give preferences to people of certain ethnic backgrounds?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_absentee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Israel_Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_absentee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Israel_Law

As a threshold issue, I looked at the articles you cited and saw no mention of the Yashar party. Moreover, I don't see how denying citizenship to a non-citizen discriminates against citizens, Jewish or non-Jewish.

Maybe summarize the policies in your own words?

Well, Yashar is sufficiently progressive to suggest Israeli Arabs can serve in the IDF, so they get a point for that.

But they have never even suggested that either discriminatory policy I linked to should be overturned.

Well, Yashar is sufficiently progressive to suggest Israeli Arabs can serve in the IDF, so they get a point for that.

But they have never even suggested that either discriminatory policy I linked to should be overturned.

Seems to me you are goalpost-moving here.

The policy you point to does not appear to discriminate against non-Jewish Israeli citizens; at a minimum you have not explained how it does. Nor have you shown any evidence that Yashar supports either policy.

I suspect that in this context, accusations of "racism" are fundamentally no different from accusations of "apartheid" and "genocide." In the sense that there is no way to define these words broadly enough to cover Israel (or leading parties in Israel); narrowly enough so that they don't cover lots of other situations which are not normally and widely condemned as "racist"; and not in a way that is obviously gerrymandered so as to apply only to Israel.

For example, lots of countries discriminate in terms of offering citizenship: Japan, Ireland, Poland, just to name a few.

The policy you point to does not appear to discriminate against non-Jewish Israeli citizens; at a minimum you have not explained how it does.

Don't be obtuse. Most Israeli citizens can marry a foreigner and live with their spouse in Israel. Some are not allowed to. Most Israeli citizens can live in any village. Some are not allowed to. In both cases these "some" are Israeli Arabs.

Nor have you shown any evidence that Yashar supports either policy.

You are free to ask them yourself. Both policies are explicitly opposed only by the Arab parties.

More comments

I thought about posting this as a top level comment, but this seems like as good a place.

What do people think the consequences of Jews leaving the Democratic party will be? Prior to like 5 minutes ago, Jews were up there with blacks as the most left-wing group in America, with something like 80-90% supporting Democrats over Republicans. However as Third Worldism has become the dominant ideology within the Democrat party, Jews are being shown the door. Jewish politicians and operatives who refuse to bend the knee on Palestine are being made to feel very uncomfortable. And the party is starting to nominate anti-Semitic politicians like Abdul El-Sayed to major positions. It's become common knowledge that, regardless of their position on Israel, a Jewish politician could never win the Democratic nomination for President. The Josh Shapiro fantasy lasted all of 2 minutes.

And, contra their reputation for self-loathing, Jews are actually starting to flip parties. According to one recent poll, 64% of Jewish voters will support the Republicans over Democrats this cycle.

Personally, despite being a Gentile, I've always felt a degree of connectedness to Jews to the point where many of my best friends are Jews. I also believe that Ashkenazi Jews are easily the most intelligent ethnic group on the planet. This is reflected in their vast contributions in the scientific and creative fields. Something like 40% of all Nobel Prizes in the sciences have been awarded to Jews. But I also believe that the political influence of Jews over time has been so incredibly negative overall that it undoes all the good things. (Communism is doing a lot of work here).

So for 100 years, you had this small but incredibly smart, creative, rich, and politically active group has pointed like a gun at the Republican party. And now.. it's not. I don't think we'll see the gun turned around and used in the other direction, but this feels big.

  1. A huge decline in Democratic Party organizational ability as ideologically-motivated Jews are replaced with corruption-motivated Third Worlders

  2. A possible easing of the extreme pro-left bias in the legal profession

  3. Less fundraising for Democrats

Of course, this is also not a great place to be for Jews. They paid the Danegeld to the Democratic Party and have been repaid with contempt. But any anti-semitism they feel now will be trivial compared to what they experience when President AOC leads a Democratic trifecta.

Whoever thought the Republicans would be the best best for Jews? We're only 10 years away from this Tweet by Matt Yglesias (often called the worst tweet of all time).

My guess is that in a Trump administration angry mobs will beat and murder Jews and people of color with impunity

Personally, despite being a Gentile, I've always felt a degree of connectedness to Jews to the point where many of my best friends are Jews.

This did make me chuckle at your choice of username.

I'd be really fascinated to see if that poll you mentioned that shows more Jews supporting Republicans than Democrats replicates. That would be huge.

Whoever thought the Republicans would be the best best for Jews? We're only 10 years away from this Tweet by Matt Yglesias (often called the worst tweet of all time).

I think it depends on whether the Republican party post-Trump goes in the Vance or Rubio direction, given what looks to me like Vance's open flirtation with groyperism. I don't live in America though, so my understanding of the dynamics involved might be severely lacking.

Rgarding that Yglesias quote, I think he's basically a lolcow, albeit a very smart one.

But any anti-semitism they feel now will be trivial compared to what they experience when President AOC leads a Democratic trifecta.

While I am sure that there are cases of genuine antisemitism in the Democratic Party, I think that the median case of what gets called antisemitism is simply hostility or neutrality towards Israel.

There are two groups who claim that Israel and the Jews are one and the same: right wing Israelis and Neonazis (sometimes in personal union). They are wrong.

I think it is fair to suppose that the ~7 million Jews who are US citizens are staying in the US by choice rather than because they have not gotten around to buying plane tickets to Tel Aviv yet. If I had to speculate, I would say that their motive might be that murdering and getting murdered in some god-forsaken desert is probably not their idea of a good time. I know I would feel the same.

Do you think that president AOC will proceed to put them into camps, starting with Bernie Sanders? For that matter, do you think Bernie feels betrayed by the Democrats over their lack of support for Israel?

For mostly secular Ashkenazim, I think the left remains a reasonable option for politics. Sure, Jews are officially not considered a disadvantaged demographic on the woke totem pole, but neither are they tracked as a specific demographic, instead they are mostly considered white, which prevents a lot of headaches with regard to Ashkenazim being over-represented (due to HBD reasons). They have thrived in a multi-ethnic society for a long time, it seems not terrible unreasonable to suppose that they will continue to do so?

Donald Trump has been great for Netanyahu, but has he been great for the median Jew in New York? Did the tariffs boost her shop's revenue? Does she feel NY is safer from nuclear attacks by Iran? Is she happy about the immigration enforcement?

The culture war is a divide between the urban and the rural, blue-collar workers and white-collar workers. I do not think that most US Jews would naturally lean towards the red tribe.

--

My hope for a president AOC would be that the US-Israeli relations would become similar to the US-Uzbek relations. That instead of actively (or proactively) defending Israeli interests and selling them the latest military technology, the US would simply opt to treat them as yet another uninteresting country with a dubious human rights records. Let them buy their military tech from Russia or China. Slap them with trade sanctions if they are especially bad, ease the sanctions if they behave themselves for a while.

And no, this would not make the US any more antisemitic than their current foreign policy stance on Uzbekistan makes them anti-Turkish.

While I am sure that there are cases of genuine antisemitism in the Democratic Party, I think that the median case of what gets called antisemitism is simply hostility or neutrality towards Israel.

Maybe in the past. Now the median is either "student protestors" waving Palestinian flags, chanting "from the river to the sea", and harassing or assaulting anyone they think is Jewish, or it is people covering for those people.

Do you think that president AOC will proceed to put them into camps, starting with Bernie Sanders?

Of course not. And I hope that you wouldn't imply that from anything I said.

Really, the biggest change I'd expect is Jews to be shut out of more positions of power due to their ethnicity. Previously, Jews were a strong beneficiary of a lot of ethnic spoils because, unlike other whites, they were allowed to organize for their own benefit. Now they have to slum it with the rest of us whites in the category of people actively discriminated against. I won't feel too bad about it.

I'd also expect slightly more anarcho-terrorism type things with lots of nuisance attacks against synagogues, maybe a few get burned down, maybe a few random Jews get hate-killed here and there and the FBI won't be assed to care. This isn't just a fake problem either. Synagogues already need security and it's because they get threatened constantly.

Overall, quality of life for Jews in US will remain far higher than in Israel.

Donald Trump has been great for Netanyahu, but has he been great for the median Jew in New York? Did the tariffs boost her shop's revenue? Does she feel NY is safer from nuclear attacks by Iran? Is she happy about the immigration enforcement?

This is starting to sound like the El-Sayed messaging. Here's what I would have to say about that. Don't vote for people who hate you. It's as simple as that. They don't care about you, they won't protect you, and any 0.1% increase in GDP they promise in exchange for your soul will never materialize anyway.

Pandering by the Republican Party towards Jewish voters is currently set to produce an absolutely generational drubbing in the Midterms. Going by both polling and prediction markets Democrats are easily winning Texas, narrowly leading Kansas and putting up a strong fight in South Carolina; that is to say, the battle is being fought in the reddest of states and they're somehow still losing. The obvious conclusion to draw if going all out in standing up for Jews and attacking Democratic "antisemitism" results in a crushing defeat is pretty simple: "with Jews you lose".

By 2032 the Republican nominee's position on Israel is likely to sit somewhere between apathy and antipathy.

We will see if it’s “generational” but midterm other side wins is quite normal. And I do think MAGA needs to thank the Jews for better media coverage and better ability to wield power. A lot of the negative of Jews in politics would have been limited by not doing Iran. For MAGA to get things done they need the Jews to be the high IQ party because Jews uniquely have high status. And that will pull in other high status people.

Maybe Jews are bad for winning elections but I do think they help a lot at wielding power.

Republicans are likely to lose the Texas senate race(not other races) because the Republican nominee is Ken Paxton and not due to Zionism.

The mainstream Republican Party is no antisemitic, this isn’t controversial- they’re pretty hardline anti-anti-Semitic.

What's your take on the direction the Republicans might take in the near future? Traditional i.e. led by someone like Marco Rubio, or "alt-right" (or whatever we're calling it now) with someone like Vance?

I wonder what motivated Matt Yglesias to make that tweet and what was running through his head? Was he just trying to manipulate people into not voting for Trump? Or did he really believe what he said? He's either a shameless liar or a person with no fundamental understanding of the world. Either way, its a bad look. Sometimes there are takes that are so bad that it discredits literally everything else a person might say.

Was he just trying to manipulate people into not voting for Trump?

Yeah, he's admitted this before, he has no problem with this kind of thing. https://archive.ph/jf7ur

/images/1793376147815642.webp

Imagine just coming out and saying "guys don't trust me I'm trying to trick you".

I guess he is both evil and stupid.

Not only that, but imagine him saying that and then people all over the internet still taking him seriously. It's a baffling state of affairs.

What tweet by Yglesias?

What tweet by Yglesias?

I believe he is referring to this (alleged tweet) from a couple posts up:

My guess is that in a Trump administration angry mobs will beat and murder Jews and people of color with impunity

Was he just trying to manipulate people into not voting for Trump? Or did he really believe what he said? He's either a shameless liar or a person with no fundamental understanding of the world.

Yes.

He's either a shameless liar

Consider he's the same person who publicly argued in spring 2020 that masks don't do anything while he privately stockpiled masks for his family.

He also said ‘people of colour’, so I suspect he was genuinely delusional in a common form of Trump derangement syndrome.

"People of colour" is woke-stupid rather than TDS. The two ailments* are frequently co-morbid, but conceptually different. The Bulwark crowd have TDS but are not woke-stupid. The leadership of corporate America went woke-stupid around 2020 (but are now recovering) but not TDS.

* Modulo the argument that Trump is as bad as he claims to be and TDS not an ailment, rather trusting your lying eyes over all the people acting like "this is fine" dogs.

But I also believe that the political influence of Jews over time has been so incredibly negative overall that it undoes all the good things. (Communism is doing a lot of work here).

Seems kind of a stretch to blame communism on 'the Jews'. Like yes, Marx was a (secular) Jew, but Engels wasn't. None of the communist dictators in Russia, Europe, Asia or Latin America were Jewish. And the communist impulse (eat the rich, total power for the government) really doesn't require much theory behind it anyway.

None of the communist dictators in Russia

Now examine the membership of the Bolshevik party in 1917

The theory was critical for turning it into an ideology which can get huge chunks of third world discontent turned into a durable movement.

Seems kind of a stretch to blame communism on 'the Jews'.

Here's the test I would propose:

If you are willing to give Jews credit for modern science, you get to blame the Jews for communism.

I'm not so sure. If Jews made up 20% of communist dictators, you might be able to say that Jews are disproportionately responsible for communism in the same way they are disproportionately responsible for scientific advancement. As it is, Jews have made up 0% of communist dictators (sorry Trotsky). And the reason communism is bad is not whatever bullshit theory Marx and Engels wrote, it's all the killing, repression and poverty caused by its political implementation.

There's a reason that when we think of fascism we think of Adolph Hitler instead of Giovanni Gentile. Fascism is bad because Hitler tried to kill everyone in the world, not because of what an intellectual wrote in a book.

And the reason communism is bad is not whatever bullshit theory Marx and Engels wrote, it's all the killing, repression and poverty caused by its political implementation.

The reason it routinely descends into killing, repression, and poverty is the bullshit theory Marx and Engels wrote.

Also, why should we limit ourselves to top men? Surely the mid-level commissars gleefully followingz and giving out orders of their own count for something? Or is the "I was merely following orders" excuse back on the menu?

And the reason communism is bad is not whatever bullshit theory Marx and Engels wrote, it's all the killing, repression and poverty caused by its political implementation.

Ironically, the area in which Jews were grossly overrepresented was in communism that didn't descend into killing, repression, or (too much) poverty. They still had to steadily reform and unwind it (the bullshit theory is bad! economics' laws are safer to ignore than physics', but not by much), but it was creditable that they did reform and unwind it rather than picking out some Kulak-type groups or vague "wreckers" to scapegoat and making things worse.

Fascism is bad because Hitler tried to kill everyone in the world, not because of what an intellectual wrote in a book.

Central planning rationalized with "the weak are holding us back!" tends to have the same problems as it does rationalized with "the strong are oppressing us!"; in the end the main difference is who's in the most danger when the planners fail.

Bela Kun was Jewish. And even still, you have people in Stalin’s circle: [not only] Trotsky; Bronstein; Genrikh Yagoda; you had quite a lot, who were part of the administrative apparatus of the dictatorship.

If you look at his main period of dominance (1930-1953), there's really only Kaganovich. Everyone else got purged. And then he instituted a bunch of antisemitic campaigns like the attacks on 'rootless cosmopolitans' or the Doctors Plot.

I guess comparing scientific advancement with 'communism' isn't really a fair comparison. The science thing has a clear mechanism. The Askenazim are extremely intelligent and therefore contribute disproportionately to scientific progress. But there's no gene for communism. And even if you argue that there's something about Jewish culture that predisposes them to communism (doubtful when looking at extremely right-wing Israel), almost all the examples of Jewish communists are atheists who have no real attachment to their ethno-religious identity, including Marx himself. The only reason anyone cares is because antisemites seek out things to blame on their hated outgroup.

I’d argue it’s more a quirk of Russia, where it was always common for the current regime to pick one special ethnic group and use it as a hammer against all the others. First it was the Sarmatians, then the Cossacks, then the Jews, and now it’s the Chechens.

Don’t know if you’ve read K-Mac’s work on the Culture of Critique series, but he performs an analysis of why so many Jews are overrepresented in leftist causes and social movements in the west, spanning across the 20th century up to today. One thing he points out is there’s an operational difference to be distinguished between Jews who ‘happen to be’ involved in various causes, and Jews who are expressly found promoting different causes as part of an attempt to “advance a Jewish interest,” as an identity. His work’s been assailed over the years, but there’s also a lot of support for the framework of his analysis. Multi-level selection hasn’t garnered widespread scientific acceptance over individual selection, but it’s still a fairly hotly debated topic in the realm of evolutionary biology.

Also there's pretty good reasons for Jews to be overrepresented in the 'educated but not massively rich' echelons that did a lot of driving of Communism. Chinese communism has a ton of push from the Hakka subpopulation who have a similar position as a dialect group, for instance.

And of course there's just the "Jews more likely" situation where they are going to be overrepresented pretty much everywhere based on high IQ.

I still think that, without the early organizing influence of Jews on the international movement, we don't get the Soviet Union and, by extension, Red China. Low confidence though.

Sure, but I feel like people frequently assume 'There's a lot of smart Jews in positions of Academic and Bureaucratic power' equates to 'super Jew Genius illuminati' when I don't really think that's the case perse.

Republican politicians due to evangelicals loves Israel. Republicans were more more Zionist compared to some Jews! I don’t understand why so many felt republicans hated Jews.

Projection; your general Democratic voting Jew is as pure Blue Tribe as can be, and rural Evangelicals are his quintessential opposite. Accordingly, it must be true that it is the Evangelical that hates him, because to believe otherwise would force him to confront the possibility that it is he who is the bigot, which of course cannot be the case, as he is a Good Fucking Person, while the Evangelical is not.

Projection. Jews have a net -40 favorability rating of Evangelical Protestants and a net -13 favorability rating of Mormons, against Evangelicals’ net +39 and Mormons’ net +58 favorability rating of Jews. Jews hate the two groups most closely associated with the Republican party and assume the latter must hate them back.

It's a bizarre love triangle where Republicans love Jews, Jews love Democrats, and Democrats hate Jews.

These are fairly recent events thoug the re-alignment just hasn't shaken out. The Democratic Party does not hate Jews or Israel. Young Democratic voters due.

Also, stupid people don't like Jews.
https://x.com/zagrebbi/status/2115834981797003381

Certainly the recent immigration to the US can't have helped matters in that regard.

It’d be interesting to see such a result split by race, given the obvious potential confound with blacks (and to a lesser extent, latinos) being low in average IQ and reportedly high in anti-semitism.

Чем меньше женщину мы любим/Тем легче нравимся мы ей?

I don't think they'll actually leave. Some might vote different this cycle, but most "secular" jews are actually converts to the Protestant heresy currently the state religion. The orthodox are in a couple cities, so blue no Republican will see the light of day for at least three centuries. A new Current Thing will replace Gaza at some point and the jewish vote will return to the DNC like a canine to its vomit.

The current trend seems to suggest that the democratic party will continue to become unapologetically hostile to Jews (Mandami and the Minnesota guy being a teaser trailer of this). I expect Democrat-supporting Jews will soon face a choice between continuing to openly identify with their background or exhibiting performative antizionism in exchange for being allowed dhimmitude in the new progressive world. See the UK Green party for an example of this in action.

This is probably true, but if Gaza manages to be an issue in 2028, it would be a problem for the Democrats in my area (northern New Jersey). Lots of secular Jews, but many religious ones and VERY and unapologetically Zionist. This year it seems like the DNC managed to tamp down the Hamasniks a couple of weeks ago, so it'll have little effect on the midterms.

What do people think the consequences of Jews leaving the Democratic party will be?

My best guess is that there isn't going to be a major shift any time soon. There have been reports for decades of Jews switching from Democrat to Republican and it's never really snowballed. I think that (1) Jews (and especially AIPAC) still have quite a lot of influence over the Democratic Party in the US; (2) the latest freakout over Israel will very likely die down in the next few years once progressives switch to the new Latest Thing; and (3) once that happens, the anti-Jewish elements in the Democratic Party will end up marginalized.

I think the other thing to keep in mind is that in the next few years, it is very likely, perhaps virtually certain, that there will be advances in technology which have major impacts on nearly all aspects of geopolitics. So that the question of Jewish Republicans is kind of pissing in the ocean.

Democrats no longer hating Jews would require a complete ideological shift in Democrats. If I think of the last 10 years of progressivism the core principle seems to be oppressor-oppressed lens of the world. Jews are far too rich to find their way back to the “oppressed” side of the equation.

As of now at this moment the average Democratic politician is pro-Israel. Biden and Kamala gave Israel all the weapons they wanted for Gaza and offered no criticism. The anti-Israel activists were not able to significantly hurt Kamala with it. Even if many people loudly online proclaimed that they wouldn't vote for her. Things might shake out differently in the coming primary. But the Democrats in congress are still very pro-Israel. Even AOC only votes "present" on aid for Israel not against.

This is factually wrong. Biden did withhold weapons Israel requested. And criticized Israel and weapons.

You underestimate the power of hypocrisy. Wave a magic wand, say "Holocaust" three times backwards, mumble something about Hitler, and pretend Jewish wealth isn't a problem as you're cashing the checks from Jewish donors. The Hamasniks will have to be brought to heel for this to work, but that's not impossible.

there will be advances in technology which have major impacts on nearly all aspects of geopolitics

Yes, and I almost want to preface all my comments with that, but I hope its implied.

The space of possible outcomes post ASI is so unknowable that sometimes its better to just ignore it. Of course, that's like dividing infinity by infinity and saying it equals one. But without this simplification, how can these discussions even take place?

The space of possible outcomes post ASI is so unknowable that sometimes its better to just ignore it. Of course, that's like dividing infinity by infinity and saying it equals one. But without this simplification, how can these discussions even take place?

That's a good question. Because discussing culture war issues almost necessarily entails questions of trends and predictions. And the speed of technological development throws pretty much all of those trends and predictions into question. But yeah, it would be pretty boring to discuss nothing but AI all the time. So yeah, I see your point. Carry on.

There is no strong Jewish identity outside Zionism other than in actual Haredi Judaism, which is mostly apathetic on this question but which really has nothing to do with the political left and sees the entire secular world, Jewish and gentile, as corrupt and degenerate.

Most liberal American Jews will and are abandoning Zionism. They are doing it perhaps slower than the left would like, but faster than one might have anticipated given half these people literally went on birthright. In the end it’s a relatively small price to pay, because Western Jews never sacrificed or lost anything for supporting Israel. There was never any cost to it, it’s on the other side of the world from America, and America is too racially, religiously and culturally diverse for extreme, violent antisemitism to become likely as state policy.

What, an unholy alliance of hotep black nationalists, 74% indigenous Mexican Catholics, Arabs, trans leftists and racist Irish and Italian Ellis Island people are going to commit some kind of inquisition against Jewish-Americans for supporting Israel? That seems about the least stable political coalition of all time and one that probably wouldn’t agree on anything except that one issue. Antisemitism is rising, and will probably continue to from the nadir of the 1990s (although I don’t think we’re close to mid-century levels yet, let alone something that would imply actual physical risk), but there are a lot of other kinds of medium sized ethnic animosity in America.

My guess is that two thirds of American Jews, already secularizing fast, will abandon any remaining Zionist aspect of their identities and remain generic progressive libs. The remaining third will be split into the fast growing Haredi populations which with the exception of Chabad might swear neutrality in the even of any serious state anti-Israel sentiment, but probably will just stay out of it, and the Modern Orthodox / Religious Zionist / maybe some more right wing conservative Jews, who will remain Zionist, and who will increasingly just come to be seen as the ‘Israeli diaspora’.

I think it depends, a lot of the current zeitgeist on the left is absolutely hostile to Judaism, even if right now they’re still pretending that it’s all about Palestinians. The alliance was basically one of parasitism— other ethnic minorities who are part of the DNC alliance had very little wealthy people to donate to the cause, so they needed the Jews to bankroll the party. But the same minorities, especially with the growing Arab population, don’t like Jews and they’re increasingly given microphones with which to speak their minds.

Some American Jews will cross the aisle I think, but most will bend the knee to third worldism. Honestly, I think that Ashkenazi democrat Jews are probably the intellectual core of the third worldism movement. They have already separated Jewish identity from being tied to Israel's future or Zionism in general. Why trade a leadership role with democrats for an uncertain welcome among republicans if embracing third worldism is all it takes to maintain their current status?

However as Third Worldism has become the dominant ideology within the Democrat party, Jews are being shown the door.

Jews were fully supportive of Third Worldism, they arguably invented it, motivated by their opposition to "White Supremacy". They only turned against it when it turned against Israel. What did they expect? That everyone would perpetually and forever accept this blatant hypocrisy?

Third worldism was largely invented by merging ideas held by Indian nationalists, later Maoists, Fanon, indigenous rights activists in erstwhile Western European colonies and so on together in opposition, primarily, to both the ‘West’ and Soviet communism which was seen as too imperial and, eventually as the racial angle developed, essentially a white empire ruling over an ethnically diverse working class. The contribution of Jews to third worldism is and was substantially less than their contribution to ur-Marxism, to anarchism, or indeed to Leninism / state communist ideas.

When OP says that Third Worldism is pushing Jews out of the Democrat party, he's not referring to the Cold War concept. He's referring to the fact that hegemonic anti-racist ideology has turned against Israel. And that ideology emerged from 20th century political and cultural movements in the United States. A core motivation of those intellectual developments in anthropology, sociology, Tolerance Education, HBD denial and blank-slatism, activism on behalf of allegedly "repressed" minorities in the United States, equal rights, etc. was opposition to racism and White Supremacy, and in particular the aspects of the "authoritarian personality" that Jews associated with antisemitism and the Holocaust. Jews complaining about "third worldism" are just complaining about the ideology they created to suppress White Supremacy being targeted towards the Zionist project.

If you apply the same Tolerance Doctrine/ant-racist standard imposed on Whites to Jews then the left-wing reaction to Israel is perfectly consistent. Jews just want to forever retain the order which states that garbage is only supposed to be imposed on Whites and Jews are exempt from it. That order is now untenable.

Was that the nationally representative poll with 1000 respondents? Which would indicate only a handful of Jews in the sample?

Even with that recent poll, I'm finding it hard to believe Jewish people I know will switch parties. I mostly know very americanized jews. They seem very bought into the progressive stack.

Intellectually I know it should be possible. Black people should be a prime example. They were heavy republican coded after the civil war until the 1930s.

There is a general animosity I feel towards both parties. They are when slightly down in competitive races the party of competence and sane governance. And when up in unclose races the party of special handouts for favored allies, open corruption, and blatant lies.

Yes, I also believe that any switch will be temporary. Secular Jews are just inherently turbo libs.

But... what if the Democrat party just shuns them? It doesn't mean that Republicans benefit from their incredible intelligence, wealth, and organizing ability. But neither will the Democrats. Huge sea change.

I don’t find it hard to believe. I know and am friends with numerous Jews. El Sayad scares them.

Also wouldn’t be surprised in Michigan if the black Christian cohort simply doesn’t vote for him.

I've been following that race closely and Michigan is a possible Republican flip.

The Democratic primary was a farce, with two white HR ladies running against one Arab. So of course they choose the one who isn't like the other. Faked polls may have also played a roll. And of course Sayed is the exact kind of politician who gets excitement with the online crowd but fizzles with real people.

Jews obviously aren't going to vote for Sayed in large numbers, but that's a small number of overall votes. The bigger issue is that he's not very popular in the black community, with some evidence suggesting that the negative ads saying "El Sayed cares about the West Bank more than West Detroit" is doing some damage. It also happens to be true, which helps.

There's growing evidence that this electorate is going to be even older than previous years, with early voting data in many states showing the under 40 crowd at numbers far below previous elections.

If blacks and young people stay home, and Sayed only draws 30% of the black vote, he's going to need a massive bloo wave to have a chance.

What do you think El-Sayed’s they/them ad is going to do to the race?

Are you talking about this ad with the eggs and bananas?

They're saying it's such a bad ad that it must have been put out by the opposition.

Doesn't this just reconfirm that he is obsessed with Israel at the expense of being a normal person? It will play well with the online left I'm sure, but everyone's vote only counts once, and how does this help increase black turnout or get seniors to vote for him?

On a more factual level, Israel is not responsible for eggs being expensive.

Not going to lie, I'm going to blackpill if he wins. The logical part of my brain says there's no way its possible. People can't vote for this guy, he's awful. But the vibes-based part of my brain says "you're rationalizing what you want to be true".

But the vibes-based part of my brain says "you're rationalizing what you want to be true".

El-Sayed is up 3 points in the polls and over 70/30 in the prediction markets.

The only whitepill I can give you is that this isn't really a Michigan vote of confidence for El-Sayed. To the median voter a midterm election is just a weirdly confusing referendum on the incumbent president, and the incumbent president's approval margin in Michigan is now around negative 20. It's impressive in context that a Republican with a mostly-Trump-aligned record is only 3 points down.

While it sucks for Republicans that Trump is down 20 points in favorability, I imagine the favorability of Democrats is not much higher.

Polls consistently underestimate Republican support and have only gotten worse. Who even answers the phone these days? I also don't trust the prediction markets and would even put money on Rogers at those odds if the tax treatment of the prediction markets were not so awful (for me, that would mean 40% tax if I won, and no deduction if I lose. No thanks!). That's perhaps why the market is so tiny and easy to manipulate.

I'll freely admit that my confidence is not that high however. The voice in my ear saying "what if you're wrong" is loud in general and deafening in this case.

More comments

I thought it was put out by a supporter, but he's stated the ad does not speak for him (although did not outright condemn it, or say where he differed in stance. Standard politician stuff).

Trying to read ev results is just p hacking with a massive dose of hopium. It's meaningless unless you preregister a methodology and even then has very little power.

Probably, but do you have any evidence to back this up, or is it just vibes?

Jews in electoral terms are not a meaningful demographic nor are they likely to stay Republican for long (if we believe that they're even flipping) what with the rise of the groyper right.

Groypers are also not a meaningful demographic.

Nor are communists, but riling up the base by nutpicking the worst communists is a standard part of doing right-wing politics, and it works.

Multiple official US government social media accounts are under the control of Groyper staffers, and that situation will only get worse as long as MAGA remains in power and twenty-something MAGA supporters become more Groyperish by cohort replacement.

In my experience outright lazy, blatant antisemitism comes more from groups that'd be considered historically blue-tribe. Blacks, Arabs etcetera. The abolition of social censure around questioning Jewish stuff has snowballed directly into a lot of absolute lunatic 'THE JEWS ARE SACRIFICING THE BABIES TO MOLOCH' stuff in my experience

I think the relevant question to be asking is if young Jews find right-wing or left-wing elite spaces more accommodating. There's certainly a groyper problem on the right, but the anti-Zionist/anti-Jewish climate at the formative institutions seems, from what I can tell from a distance, to be left-coded.

How much of the groyper problem can be alleviated if Jews were primarily right-wingers? Did things like had a right-wing ADL etc? I think the right has very good reasons to dislike the Jews and it’s because historically Jews have mostly been bad to the right.

Current leftist politics especially the third-worldists are at their core anti-Jew because the Jews are not third-worldists people. I don’t think the right has a similar ideological issue with Jewish interests and the big issue is most Jewish political resources played for the other team.

I think that visible shifting of Jews towards the right would possibly (one way or another) mitigate the groyper problem, yeah. However I do think the timing and numbers will be important, otherwise instead the right could end up in a civil war like the left.

The truth is though that the groypers just aren't going to have institutional support on the right, I don't think. There aren't really right-wing racist billionaires. From what I can tell on the left the institutional support comes from political machines, and I don't think there are any groyper political machines either, just Discord servers. Which is not nothing, but I think the main thing they have going for them is the bipartisan opinion turn against Israel over the last couple of years.

“There aren’t really right-wing racists billionaires”

Have you heard of Elon Musks? Likely Peter Thiel but I don’t think he’s tweeted as explicitly as Musks.

If the right pulls in Jewish votes it’s likely because Jews begin to embrace racism and begin to see the third world/first world political dynamic. And this is a Jewish trait. Israeli Jews do have a lot of ethnonationalism and “Jewish blood” beliefs.

Yeah, what I should have written is along the likes of what hydro wrote below.

There’s a few right wing racist billionaires, but they’re not antisemitic.

Musk may not be anti-semitic personally, but I wouldn't want to have to convince a sceptical Jew given the way he signal-boosts anti-semitic memes on X.

Musk isn't personally anti-semitic or racist, he's just on a lot of drugs and mad at the political left.

Wilkes and Dunn are actual white supremacists, albeit moderate ones. I know this through my connections within the Texas republican party, both pro-Wilkes-and-Dunn and anti, too, this isn't some libbed out conspiracy theory about nonexistent racism.

And there's a lot of adult bureaucratic jobs in the Republican sphere where you're not exactly seeing much of the groyper side of things.

Right, I suspect both on the left and on the right you can find spaces that are friendly towards Zionism, but I think those places on the right are much easier to find because they advertise.

Both Republicans and the Democrats have space for antisemites in their coalitions, but only the Dems are giving them paychecks.

Lately, I've seen a meme on X about "Japan A" and "Japan B". The Japan A is the one we think of when we think of Japan. But there is also a Japan B: vulgar, rural, bad-food eating, modded-car driving, high school dropouts, etc...

Almost every country has a B side. There is a France B, Italy B, as well as the much more famous England B and United States B.

In any case, Israel B is hilarious. It's like 9 million Bronze Age tribespeople and shtetl dwellers attached to 1 million of the most high agency, high IQ people on Earth. They hitched their wagon to a very bright star, but the load gets heavier every year.

Israel's fundamental weakness is that Judaism is not a proselytizing religion, meaning they are unable to absorb or subjugate their defeated enemies quickly. Instead, they are forced to integrate Sephardi and Mizrahi to bolster their numbers, diluting the purity of their Ashkenazi brain trust. The permanent welfare handouts for the Haredi, though, is what really dims Israel's future. I expect the Ashkenazi to flee Israel in significant numbers to the US as soon as the Haredi obtain primary leadership within a governing coalition.

How these future "refugee" Ashkenazi integrate politically in the US will be interesting.

Is anyone capable of absorbing/subjugating their defeated enemies anymore? Outside the occasional Islamic takeover of some middle eastern or African village, it seems the days of mass conversions to avoid the jizya tax are long behind us. It's not like the Christian nations of the world are doing a great job proselytzing to the waves of refugees they're seeing. Even the Muslim countries don't seem to be putting much effort into forcing assimilation (the Gulf countries are famous for doing the exact opposite)

Born again Protestant Christians in the US have traditionally made outreach and conversion attempts to immigrant communities. Same with Mormons. I think both groups have been less successful recently, though I'm not sure where to find data on that. Immigrants aren't subjugated enemies though.

China has made more forceful attempts to deislamize Uyghurs. I think they have at least some success with that. More importantly for China, they're able to subjugate and deislamize Uyghurs while maintaining at least neutral or better relations with most Islamic countries. Strictly speaking though, it's not conversion to another religion, unless socialism with Chinese characteristics counts as a religion.

I mean proselytizing is one thing, cultural assimilation is something else. And no one post WW2 is really capable of doing so mostly because the RBIO global system has completely bought into the idea that cultures are to be conserved at all costs, even when the culture itself is harmful not only to other cultures but to itself.

Enforcing the standards of actual civilization on a backwards tribe that still practices genital mutilation is considered backwards. Insisting that the death penalty for “blasphemy” or “apostasy” are bad is evil in the RBIO. What exactly do you expect here? If Israel integrated and insisted that Palestinians could no longer preach genocide of Jews from the pulpit, would they be allowed to enforce it? Could they enforce a no jihad rule? Or would they be accused of cultural genocide for saying that “Death to Israel “ is hate speech?

meaning they are unable to absorb or subjugate their defeated enemies quickly.

I don't know how big of an advantage this really is. After all, Muslims conquered and absorbed pretty aggressively more than a thousand years ago and there is still massive intramural conflict within the Muslim world.

The permanent welfare handouts for the Haredi, though, is what really dims Israel's future. I expect the Ashkenazi to flee Israel in significant numbers to the US as soon as the Haredi obtain primary leadership within a governing coalition.

I think that by "Ashkenazi" you mean Ashkenazi who are either secular or religious but not ultra Orthodox. But anyway, yeah it seems like the ultra-Orthodox are on track to take control of Israeli democracy. Will that actually happen? That's the sort of straight-line type prediction (ok, straight line on a logarithmic graph) which is never quite as certain as it seems.

I remember back in the 70s it was widely believed that sooner or later Israeli Arabs would become a majority and get control of Israel's government.

Haredi parties got 13 seats out of 120, down from 18 four years ago. Israeli media suggests that this is about Shas (the Sephardic Haredi party, but also the only party specifically dedicated to protecting Sephardi and Mizrahi interests) losing non-Haredi Sephardim to Likud as the war in Gaza makes the Haredi draft-dodging issue more salient. Religious Zionist parties also got 13 (down 1, possibly because a joint list broke up) - the vast majority of religious Zionist in Israel are Modern Orthodox in their faith, and the vast majority of Modern Orthodox Jews are religious Zionist in their politics. In addition, a lot of religious Zionists voted for Likud, and some for Together - a right-liberal joint list combining Naftali Bennet's otherwise right-liberal religious Zionist party and Yair Lapid's secular right-liberal party.

In terms of long-term trends, MO Jews also have high birth rates (though not quite as high as Haredim) and are also benefitting from religious-Zionism motivated immigration of (mostly MO) diaspora Jews. The MO/RZ bloc is therefore growing about as fast as the Haredi bloc. The question is whether the MO/RZ bloc remains allied with the Haredim against secular Jews (which is what Netanyahu has built his career on), or whether they ally with the secular right to strengthen Israel by eliminating Haredi parasitism (which is what Bennet wants). If the Netanyahu coalition holds together, then I expect the most economically productive secular Ashkenazim to feel increasingly unwelcome until they start moving to America, while the Haredim eat Israel from the inside.

The real question would then be 'does this process play out before netanyahu dies of natural causes?' It's kinda obvious he isn't going anywhere.

The basic logic of a religious-right coalition built around Likud is going to survive Netanyahu as long as the religious Zionist parties are willing to work with the Haredim.

Although I agree with you that if Netanyahu was eaten by a landshark tomorrow, we would see the rapid formation of an all-Zionist "unity" coalition (i.e. no Arabs, left or Haredi) with his successor as Likud leader becoming PM (possibly with an agreement to rotate with Eisenkot), and most Jewish Israelis would breathe a sigh of relief. There are 80 MKs to work with and you need 61, so I suspect the incoming PM is looking to cut rather than recruit partners.

In terms of long-term trends, MO Jews also have high birth rates (though not quite as high as Haredim) and are also benefitting from religious-Zionism motivated immigration of (mostly MO) diaspora Jews. The MO/RZ bloc is therefore growing about as fast as the Haredi bloc. The question is whether the MO/RZ bloc remains allied with the Haredim against secular Jews (which is what Netanyahu has built his career on), or whether they ally with the secular right to strengthen Israel by eliminating Haredi parasitism (which is what Bennet wants). If the Netanyahu coalition holds together, then I expect the most economically productive secular Ashkenazim to feel increasingly unwelcome until they start moving to America, while the Haredim eat Israel from the inside.

This seems to be a well thought out and reasonable analysis, my main objection is the same Yogi Berra problem I mentioned above.

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