site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35513 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Part 1: Da Jooz totally did it (Negro communism edition)

Prologue: David Cole Stein has a wonderful post on how conservatives do best when they 'notice': "Hey look at all the deranged homeless people screaming at you on the subway", but are limited by their own stupid tendency to also promote grand theories for why things happen: "The dems are brainwashed by Chinese communist propaganda". When you combine an observable and undeniable fact, with even a plausible but unprovable theory (and for the record I think CCP propaganda theories are psychotic), you provide people with a social license to dump it all in the trash. Some (Kevin McDonald cough) might find that a small price to pay to be considered Sherlock Holmes. Well, Motters, I'm not gonna let you get off that easy.

Thesis: Jewish elite overrepresentation in destructive cultural movements is not explained by their higher intelligence. It is also a critical factor, perhaps the critical factor in setting these off and shaping the direction these take. When Jewish elites act, they are representing the values of Jews in particular, not merely elites generally. Jews are always willing to go further than general elite opinion.

The Jewish Public vs. The Comparable Gentile Public

The civil rights movement immediately led to a continual orgy of violence and mayhem (the OG summers of Floyd), and that the American public begged someone to put an end to it. This was Nixon's silent majority. Here are the voting patterns of Whites with college degrees - at the time corresponding roughly in IQ to the average Jew, and Jews:

WHITE COLLEGE GRADUATES - NIXON - 80 - 82% ___ VS ___ JEWS - HUMPHREY - 81%

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-voting-record-in-u-s-presidential-elections

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-may-become-the-first-republican-in-60-years-to-lose-white-college-graduates/

The harmful role of Jewish Elites

  • The Abolition of freedom of association (Shelley V. Kraemer)

In 1948, The US government joined a black plaintiff and their black lawyers in suing to abolish restrictive covenants, which limited the sale of homes to Blacks. Note critically, that restrictive covenants were private agreements between private homeowners; and thereby entirely outside the scope of any plausible interpretation of the constitution. Of course, by US government I mean; Jewish solicitor general Philip Elman, four Jewish lawyers and not a single gentile lawyer. This great dose of Jewish overrepresentation was obscured on the advice of Arnold Raum (take a guess) who said:

It's bad enough that [Solicitor General Philip] Perlman's name has to be there, to have one Jew's name on it, but you have also put four more Jewish names on. That makes it look as if a bunch of Jewish lawyers in the Department of Justice put this out."

The Supreme Court sided with the US Government, and the only mechanism protecting tens of millions of Americans, including 80% of homes in Los Angeles and Chicago; from the carnage that was to follow, was rendered unenforceable. This was single most important battleground of the civil rights movement, and it was won by the enemy before people knew the war was going on.

RETRACTION NOTICE

Boy have I screwed the pooch here. As @Gdanning notes, Cohen was actually arguing for the company's ability to conduct IQ tests, not against it. He also alleges Jewish support for opposing racial quotas in Bakke v. California. I'll verify and update accordingly.

  • School segregation and the other standard civil rights cases**

Here Jewish representation tends to be more balanced, corresponding well to their representation in the American elite generally. Critically however, Jewish lawyers never appear on the anti-civil rights side of a case.

  • The murder of IQ testing (Grigg's v. Duke Power Company)**

Here again, the US government joined the black plaintiff in requesting that the Court establish the precedent that promoting based on intelligence tests would be like providing equality of opportunity "merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox." In other words, presumptively discriminatory unless you could prove otherwise.

Perceptive readers will note that by US government, I mean Lawrence M. Cohen speaking in the name of the US Chamber of Commerce.

Response to Objections:

Readers may note that all of these decisions required the cooperation of a majority gentile supreme court. This is a fair objection but I would note that SCOTUS judges are immunized from repercusions by their lifelong tenure and high status. No one was gonna turn down offering a job to any SCOTUS judge afterwards, regardless of what he did. A lawyer who forcibly integrated your neighbourhood, was a different matter. I don't doubt that there were a few non-jews in the office of the solicitor general who supported Shelley, but only the Jews had the sheer guts to pursue it.

  • -18

This one should be relatively easy to solve. What percentage of the institutionalized was black?

Why do black people of identical West African bantu descent have such different crime rates in different countries?

They don't. Unless you're talking highly selected tiny populations of foreign strivers in certain countries.

For example, Britain, home to a modest but non-negligible amount of West Indian immigrants:

Among adults, Black men were about 8.4 times more likely to be arrested for robbery compared with White men

They're playing coy over at that link, however:

In relation to knife crime, a 2018 report entitled ‘Justice Matters: Disproportionality’[footnote 11] references data collected by the Metropolitan Police Service. This work showed that in London in 2017, 50% of knife crime offenders were BAME (up from 44% in 2008). In this total, 50% were under the age of 25 and the majority (90%) were male. 50% of knife crime victims were BAME. A similar pattern emerged when examining knife crime with injury.

BAME stands for "black and middle eastern", however, middle eastern is just 15-20% of the BAME grouping, which based on that demographic data makes up 10% of London inhabitants.

I'm fairly sure the homicide numbers would be similar, as I remember looking them up and finding out they were almost identical to the American ones. It's worth noting that the document link says something about how pure conviction data are misleading, and it was clearly too much work to adjust them for demographics.

This was sarcasm, I'm sure the report writers, no doubt a committee, chose to omit the most damning statistics, and just left us with traces, such as the robbery and knife crime, as to avoid getting in trouble.

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

BAME stands for "black and middle eastern"

It actually stands for "Black, Asian & Minority Ethnic" - i.e. it is the British equivalent of POC, a term for lumping all non-white groups together. As of 2021, the British government discourages its use because the various non-white ethnic groups do not in fact like being lumped together.

Anecdotally, Jamaicans and Somalis are the black subgroups that commit most of the crime. I always think the best argument against HBD as the main explanation for crime rates is the difference between Jamaica (45 murders per 100,000) and Barbados (14), which carries over to Jamaicans and Bajans in the UK.

which carries over to Jamaicans and Bajans in the UK.

14 is still very high. Most white populations, in conditions of normality have someting like 2-4.

Also, just how 'black' are 'Bajans' ?

Because, for example, wikipedia has 'Rihanna' as an example of a afro-Barbadian. yet she's not that black.

If you look at e.g. pictures of Haitians, they're far darker. (picture linked). So what's the breakdown of ancestry of the population of Barbados?

With IQ, there is a clear pattern of lower function the more black ancestry is present. It's probably similar if you're dealing with crime.

Per the national censuses, which use local race groupings that don't include a US-style one-drop rule, both Jamaica and Barbados are 92% black, with most of the rest being mixed. This is the typical pattern for the Caribbean (including Haiti), with a majority black population who look something like Usain Bolt, with a small mixed-race elite who look like Rhianna. Looking at the pictures in the Barbados and Bridgetown wikipedia articles confirmed this.

The Caribbean-American community is mostly drawn from this mixed-race elite (because US immigration is selective) - think Eric Holder or Colin Powell. But the Bajans who stayed in Barbados or who moved to the UK before or shortly after independence (when UK immigration for Commonwealth citizens was not selective) are blacker.

Why do some large countries in the region where most African Americans originate (eg. Ghana) have markedly lower homicide rates than African Americans?

Firstly, you need to ask yourself how reliable these statistics are. Police are seen in Ghana as the 'most corrupt institution' people encounter. Were they to have incentives to hide crime, you shouldn' really trust it.

Secondly, it could very well be that in Ghana, they retain harsh practices that do not lead to the promotion of crime, such as treating boys leniently, etc.

Also, as to their 'lack' of crime : they don't see it that way. They're apparently still lynching people, and with even less premeditation than Americans used to. As in, they don't abduct the suspect from police custody, but rather kill a suspect on the spot.

than Scots Irish

Are they the same people ? The border region populations was seen as dregs of three nations. As I understand, the peasants who used to live there, with a violent culture, not very good at farming either were largely driven out by their former lords once peace prevailed.

A) The rule that homicides are a good metric for general crime because they are unlikely to be swept under the rug may only apply to Western countries. How many intrepid journalists are looking to expose underreporting in third world countries, and would anyone care?

B) Nonetheless, levels are probably substantially lower as blacks aren't necessarily gonna be soft on black criminals in a black majority country. There may be collective punishment mechanisms in play.

If the American slave population was adversely selected in the first place -- African tribes selling their own convicts, misfits and conquered people to Western slavers -- then HBD provides an explanation why the group descended from them continues to underperform.

HBD posits a partial reversion to the mean one generation after the selection event occurs. After that, there should be no further effect; the non-heritable components of the initial selection (including both shared and non-shared environmental components and test error from the selection event) will have washed out with the next generation, while the heritable component will remain forever.

Reversion to the mean is a thing regardless of HBD. What it says is that if you select on a characteristic that is partly heritable, the next generation of the selected population will be closer to the mean of the parent population than the selected population itself is. But it happens only once and it doesn't bring you all the way back.

If that's the case (and I haven't seen any evidence that African tribes were predisposed to selling convicts and misfits to slavers; I don't see what conquered people has to do with anything given that losing a war doesn't suggest one is more predisposed to violence than the victor), then we should expect other places with similar concentrations of undesirables to be similar. I'm unaware of any evidence that suggests that the crime rate in Australia is higher than that in England, and the former was specifically founded as a penal colony.

I don't see what conquered people has to do with anything given that losing a war doesn't suggest one is more predisposed to violence than the victor

It suggests, on average, that the conquered people are less fit than the conquerors.

given that losing a war doesn't suggest one is more predisposed to violence than the victor

Both World Wars are by mainstream historians thought to have been started by the side which would go on to lose. With starting a war commonly considered a sign of bellicosity and proneness to violence, one has some pretty big anecdotal evidence against the quoted line.

More comments

Might there be some lingering selection bias in the new world cohort?

What do you think was selected for or against?

Expendability / Saleability

Angered the chief / king.

Lost the conflict with your neighbors, etc.

The problem of violent crime is quite far from 1:1 of "violent" mentally ill homeless. I don't think gangbangers in the US or Sicarios in Mexico are exactly suffering from the same ailments that the homeless guy who pisses on passengers on the train is from.

Yeah they shittify places sometimes literally but if violence is exactly what you are after, the mentally ill might not be the best target.

I would be inclined to agree with the sibling comment - gangbangers, Sicarios, etc do commit lots of violence, but almost entirely towards rival gangs or drug dealers. It seems pretty rare for them to hassle ordinary people. Many such organizations have existed for long periods of time in local communities and rarely get significant pushback from those communities. Many of them even take the law into their own hands to an extent, dealing out street justice to petty thieves and nutcases when the police are slow to act.

Scott has a post arguing against this connection.

Reverse Voxsplaining: Prison and Mental Illness

What about that graph? It’s very suggestive. You see a sudden drop in the number of people in state mental hospitals. Then you see a corresponding sudden rise in the number of people in prison. It looks like there’s some sort of Law Of Conservation Of Institutionalization. Coincidence?

Yes. Absolutely. It is 100% a coincidence. Studies show that the majority of people let out of institutions during the deinstitutionalization process were not violent and that the rate of violent crime committed by the mentally ill did not change with deinstitutionalization. Even if we take the “15% of inmates are severely mentally ill” factoid at face value, that would mean that the severely mentally ill could explain at most 15%-ish of the big jump in prison population in the 1980s.

To render the argument statistically plausible it seems like you would need to both justify why the proportion of murderers who are mentally ill seems to have declined (the linked study is from Britain so you could try to see if it's different in the U.S.?) and why most of those in prison do not seem to be mentally ill according to screening surveys. Note that, though it isn't a significant part of his argument, Scott does cite the famous Rosenhan experiment which was very likely a fraud.

Associating it with "violent homeless people" specifically is more plausible. Saying it had an "extraordinary effect on crime rates" doesn't seem plausible, and that is what I was mentioning Scott's post in response to. The majority of violent crime is from career criminals. It seems very difficult to argue that deinstitutionalization was responsible for the rise in the crime rate without evidence indicating most of those additional criminals are mentally ill (and seriously enough that they would have been institutionalized).

The Supreme Court sided with the US Government, and the only mechanism protecting tens of millions of Americans, including 80% of homes in Los Angeles and Chicago; from the carnage that was to follow, was rendered unenforceable. This was single most important battleground of the civil rights movement, and it was won by the enemy before people knew the war was going on.

If housing covenants were the only thing protecting urban Americans from living in "open air sewers," then I daresay your war was lost in 1619, not in 1948.

Your overall thesis appears to be that all groups of high-IQ nonwhites are moral mutants with incompatible values with whom whites ought to interact as though they are dealing with some technologically advanced alien species rather than their fellow human beings. I can only assume that you're planning a post about Indian Brahmins somewhere down the line. Even assuming this were true, at current rates of intermarriage there won't be very many non-mixed Jews left in the US outside of the Hasidic community within a few generations. Their group identity will persist longer than that of other European immigrants, but the sort of secular Jews who were the driving force behind much of American leftism in the mid-20th century are a dying breed and will soon join the likes of the Tammany Hall Irish and what's left of the Italian-American Mafia in the dustbin of history.

Actually I think the Jewish problem is mainly socially constructed, and that the only genetic aspect to it is their high IQ. Imagine if you will, the Irish suddenly becoming 15 points smarter and a million of them migrating into the UK while obtaining a corresponding share of the Irish elite. You think the part where the key factor in Irish identity is their oppression, mostly real but sometimes fictional by brits is somehow gonna be forgotten? You think they might not sympathise and ally with every other resentful anti-British group ion the planet? Then what should Brits do?

If oppression of minority or colonized groups is the cause of their resentment, then presumably we should try not to oppress them more and to enforce as much of a 90's-style colorblind attitude as possible. We might also surreptitiously reduce coverage of past oppression in history classes, preach some form of civic nationalism and common identity, and encourage intermarriage and assimilation to ensure that old prejudices do not endure.

Manipulate housing prices in order to extract rents from all the anti-British immigrants and have the last laugh while they squabble over pronouns and shit?

The civil rights movement immediately led to a continual orgy of violence and mayhem (the OG summers of Floyd), and that the American public begged someone to put an end to it. This was Nixon's silent majority.

This part of your text is doing a lot of the heavy lifting. But is it justified?

The civil rights movement immediately led to a continual orgy of violence and mayhem (the OG summers of Floyd)

It is true that US homicide rates began to go up around 1965, and the civil rights movement had already been around for at least a decade by that point. But vague chronological proximity does not necessarily indicate causation. And you would need to provide some serious evidence to justify call the racial unrest of the time "a continual orgy of violence and mayhem".

the American public begged someone to put an end to it. This was Nixon's silent majority.

I am skeptical of the idea that Nixon's silent majority was primarily motivated by a backlash against violence related to race issues. Is there any more reason to believe this theory than to believe that, for example, Trump voters are mainly motivated by racial crime issues?

Critically however, Jewish lawyers never appear on the anti-civil rights side of a case.

I think this hints a core intuitive objection I have to the narrative you are seeking to weave here. What do we know about the non-Jewish lawyers on the pro-civil rights side of the "standard civil rights cases" you are talking about here? I would wager that some very clear pattern would emerge, which would correspond to a picture that is more along the lines of there being two broad coalitions fighting (urban vs. rural? Moldbug's Brahmins vs Optimates?), of which the Jews overwhelmingly side with one. That picture, though, no longer provides the categorical support for the "civil rights is a Jewish plan against the Gentiles" picture you are seeking to paint (though of course it is not inconsistent with it; a scheme can of course include dupes and Quislings). I would, for example, guess that to the extent non-white lawyers were involved in civil rights cases, they were also all on the pro-civil rights side; yet, most WNs tend to not ascribe enough agency to them to call civil rights a black/brown/yellow/red plot.

All being said, though, even if your thesis is true, so what? If the civil rights movement is indeed a destructive plot by triple-parens them, I can't get myself to think this is particularly immoral, given that they have a pretty solid case for retaliation/self-defense in destroying whatever it destroys. I also don't think I can't oppose it based on self-interest, because I think so far I've been a net beneficiary even taking into account all of its failings and wrong turns and local negatives.

All being said, though, even if your thesis is true, so what? If the civil rights movement is indeed a destructive plot by triple-parens them, I can't get myself to think this is particularly immoral, given that they have a pretty solid case for retaliation/self-defense in destroying whatever it destroys. I also don't think I can't oppose it based on self-interest, because I think so far I've been a net beneficiary even taking into account all of its failings and wrong turns and local negatives.

I am not on board lepidus's claims in any real way, but I have seen several conservative rabbis make points that are...similar to his. Their points have generally boiled down to something like, "Jews are so overwhelmingly irrationally afraid of white gentiles oppressing them, that they will enable any outside force to be against that force, no matter how self destructive." I first saw this point right after 9/11 when a lot of progressive Jews were on the "stop Muslim hate" train, and they would be pointing out quietly that Jews would be pretty screwed if Islam became a political force in the US. I saw some similar takes after Trump took office. But conservative rabbis represent a very small % of Jews.

Their points have generally boiled down to something like, "Jews are so overwhelmingly irrationally afraid of white gentiles oppressing them, that they will enable any outside force to be against that force, no matter how self destructive."

Probably has to do with context. Islam in America doesn't seem very attuned to the more fundamentalist preaching exported from Saudi Arabia. Cases of Muslims planning or engaging in religious-based violence in America are rare, perhaps exceptionally so.

Cases of Muslims planning or engaging in religious-based violence in America are rare, perhaps exceptionally so.

There are relatively few Muslims in the US. But quite a few Muslim terrorist incidents. And plenty of smaller incidents where Muslims and Jews are in proximity, such as NYC, though these don't seem to be tracked on a national level.

I'm seeing 15 on Wikipedia for the US, that seems rare to me. Also, what's the source on the Muslim-Jew incidents?

What do you mean, rare? The boogeyman of the left, white nationalism is at 11, if wiki is the scale we're using.

Some of the other categories contain even more islamic perps, like antisemitic, and palestininan terrorism. Not to mention islamic terrorism did by far the most victims, outweighing all other forms of terrorism combined.

Even the 2017 study, ignoring the twin elephants in the room, comes to that conclusion:

A 2017 report by The Nation Institute and the Center for Investigative Reporting analyzed a list of the terrorist incidents which occurred in the US between 2008 and 2016.[24] It found:[25]

115 far-right inspired terrorist incidents. 35% of these incidents were foiled (this number means that no terrorist attacks occurred) and 29% of them resulted in fatalities. These incidents caused 79 deaths.

63 Islamist inspired terrorist incidents. 76% of these terrorist incidents were foiled (this number means that no terrorist attacks occurred) and 13% of them resulted in fatalities. These incidents caused 90 deaths.

19 far-left inspired terrorist incidents. 20% of these terrorist incidents were foiled (this number means that no terrorist attacks occurred) and 10% of them resulted in fatalities. Two of these incidents were described as "plausibly" attributed to a perpetrator with left-wing sympathies and caused 7 deaths. These are not included in the official government database.[26]

The article wiki uses as source here is confused. Its central, vehement point is that far more resources should be devoted to far-right terrorism, yet its own (and in my opinion, already cherry-picked) statistics show that despite the government's focus on islamic terrorism, it remains the greater threat. Imagine what would happen if we suddenly equalized all forms of terrorism to foil 55% (the mean of the two threats) : far-right deaths would be reduced by 24, islamic deaths would jump by 79.

Suspiciously absent from that wikipedia article are black supremacist attacks, like waukesha. And the dallas and NY police killings (quote from a perp: "I want to kill white people, especially white officers"), although mentioned in the introduction, are not in the categorized list. But I guess it's just "isolated incidents", they needed the space for a couple of anti-abortion attempted murders.

What do you mean, rare? The boogeyman of the left, white nationalism is at 11, if wiki is the scale we're using.

I mean that Wiki is listing 15 attacks in 20 years, with the clear outlier being 9/11. I didn't say anything about how rare or common white nationalist attacks were.

You said "Muslims planning or engaging in religious-based violence in America are rare, perhaps exceptionally so." That 'exceptionnally rare' is 100% false.

But okay. You mean then, that terrorism is rare in general. That may be true, but so are wars. And one can cause the other, as 9/11 or sarajevo '14 have shown.

More comments

I think Moldbug's categories don't really apply well here. Republicans had generally been pro-some civil rights but drew the line at private property. Democrats hadn't been too concerned with private property, and were pretty statist, but as I noted elsewhere their version of progress circa 1918 was 'eugenics, self determination for competent races and segregation'.

There were pro-civil rights brahmins and anti-civil rights brahmins, pro-civil rights optimates and anti-civil rights optimates. New catholic elites, which don't really fall under either group, but I guess we can call them Brahmins provided we don't foget this is ahistorical were the only other group consistently allied with Jews and blacks.

Yes, obviously the blacks (not many yellows back then) play their role as stormtroopers, but no sane person imagines blacks pulling off the conquest of large chunks of metropolitan America on their own. White Catholics are an important part of the story, but at least their participation on the enemy side was temporary self interest while they integrated and a good half of them if not slightly more are now on the right side. Jews are the permanent Lieutenant and above staffing force for the permanent revolution, and it's not obvious that there are any concessions that could pacify them.

even if your thesis is true, so what? If the civil rights movement is indeed a destructive plot by triple-parens them, I can't get myself to think this is particularly immoral given that they have a pretty solid case for retaliation/self-defense in destroying whatever it destroys.

What did we ever do to them? This is the only country that let Jews in without discrimination, restricting their immigration only when Jewish revolutionaries began rampaging through eastern europe. They've made fortunes here. And now, a country that has done so much for humanity must have all it's cities turned into open air sewers because? Seriously, what have we done that justifies this?

And if what you mean is that Jews are entitled to do whatever it takes for them to feel safe even in the absence of a casus belli, why should we not feel the same way and act accordingly?

I think so far I've been a net beneficiary even taking into account all of its failings and wrong turns and local negatives.

And how is that? Furthermore, shouldn't your reaping benefits from this country engender some kind of gratitude and desire to defend it?

What did we ever do to them? This is the only country that let Jews in without discrimination, restricting their immigration only when Jewish revolutionaries began rampaging through eastern europe.

You mean like how when Harvard changed its graduation requirements to limit the number of Jewish attendants?

There's a whole (alleged if you want) history of anti-semitism in America.

Also, the relevant factor in them "rampaging through eastern europe" was their communist tendencies, not the Jewishness. This is the thing that bothers me the most, the attribution of actions to race over ideology.

And now, a country that has done so much for humanity must have all it's cities turned into open air sewers because? Seriously, what have we done that justifies this?

Oppressing non-whites, non-straights, non-cis, etc. You understand that the people who were at the receiving end of those actions are going to act against you over them, yes?

You understand that the people who were at the receiving end of those actions are going to act against you over them, yes?

Doesn't this mean that if you're White you should do everything you can to stop non-whites from getting power as they will act against you?

I mean, I don't disagree. The future of Europe will be an absolute slaughter, but it's unusual to find a Jewish rationalist who admits it.

It took me a minute to realize what tripped my alarms about your post. You seem to be an actual white nationalist at minimum (the capitalizing on "white"), and anti-semitic to boot (assuming that I'm Jewish, which is a bizarre place to jump from so anodyne an observation as "people you hurt will try to hurt you in response").

Given this, I can see why you think people who aren't white can't be trusted with power, because I sure as hell wouldn't trust you with it.

Thankfully, non-whites are not nearly as bloodthirsty as you cast them. There are no equivalent calls for enslaving white people, not in the way that was done to blacks in America. There are calls for reparations and eliminating white privilege, which are not nearly the same. Though you may disavow them, Universal culture is exported by white Westerners for the most part, and just about everyone is willing to jump onto that. I have my gripes about what they sell, but it's a fairly bloodless future.

BTW, I'm not Jewish by belief or blood. You should consider reeling in how quick you are with that sort of accusation, it gives away what kind of mindset you have.

It took me a minute to realize what tripped my alarms about your post. You seem to be an actual white nationalist at minimum (the capitalizing on "white"), and anti-semitic to boot (assuming that I'm Jewish, which is a bizarre place to jump from so anodyne an observation as "people you hurt will try to hurt you in response").

I assumed you were Jewish because every single time somebody says something even mildy critical of Jewish people you jump to their defence. You notably don't do this with White people.

I'm a White nationalist in the same way the average Kenyan is a Black nationalist. Its odd to note the capitalising of White given the capitalising of Black since the George Floyd unrest.

Given this, I can see why you think people who aren't white can't be trusted with power, because I sure as hell wouldn't trust you with it.

"You understand that the people who were at the receiving end of those actions are going to act against you over them, yes?"

Your words, not mine.

Thankfully, non-whites are not nearly as bloodthirsty as you cast them. There are no equivalent calls for enslaving white people, not in the way that was done to blacks in America. There are calls for reparations and eliminating white privilege, which are not nearly the same. Though you may disavow them, Universal culture is exported by white Westerners for the most part, and just about everyone is willing to jump onto that. I have my gripes about what they sell, but it's a fairly bloodless future.

Humans are exactly as bloodthirsty as I cast them, PoC included.

I assumed you were Jewish because every single time somebody says something even mildy critical of Jewish people you jump to their defence. You notably don't do this with White people.

This is why you should stick to addressing the things people say, and not projecting identities onto them and responding to them based on what you assume those identities to be.

You're being unnecessarily personal and antagonistic, and "you sound Jewish," in so many words, is obnoxious. Stop it.

I assumed you were Jewish because every single time somebody says something even mildy critical of Jewish people you jump to their defence. You notably don't do this with White people.

Calling white people a conscious group with shared goals and ideas is absurdly rare here, and even then, it's in a negative manner. 99% of the time, it's being done in an article being posted from elsewhere to mock here. Why would I need to call that out? That's the mainstream opinion anyways.

My motivation when doing so has nothing to do with the Jews and everything to do with what I see as unjustified assumptions/conclusions. If people post unironically here about how the Jews are doing something for racial rather than ideological reasons, I consider that bad reasoning when they don't give sufficient evidence. I do the same thing when I see conservatives do it to progressives here. But that's not because I have a terminal goal of defending Jews or progressives, I do it because I dislike bad reasoning altogether.

I'm a White nationalist in the same way the average Kenyan is a Black nationalist. Its odd to note the capitalising of White given the capitalising of Black since the George Floyd unrest.

There is a whole set of misguided and idiotic literature on why black people should refer to themselves as "Black", but they're clear on how it's a reference to the collective oppression of their race. No such justification exists for the use of "White", it's used tactically in a pro-white sense only by people who are at minimum white separatists.

But hey, maybe you're just like that and think "White" is just about your race's collective experience. But that's wrong anyways, given that a solid number of your fellows are actively involved in destroying you and what you believe in. They don't seem to have that collective experience. The same goes for "Black".

Your words, not mine.

Interesting how you jump to "it will be a bloodbath" when I didn't specify a damn thing. If you want to accuse me of saying it implicitly, I'll formally declare that I am referring to legal and non-violent actions, like demanding reparations/aid or asking white people to "check their privilege" or whatever.

Humans are exactly as bloodthirsty as I cast them, PoC included.

We're talking about America/the West, where that sort of violence is drastically rarer than the rest of the world. This isn't Pakistan where the rule of law is as tenuous as the water supply, the legitimacy of the laws banning violence are taken seriously, to the point where people come with rather serious justifications for why they should be allowed to violate it.

Boo hoo, having your access to institutions built by others limited may be unfair but it is not the worst thing in the world. Hollywood gentiles may have similar complaints but everyone just tells them to fuck off; or would if they dared voice them. Getting threatened at knifepoint by a degenerate who asks why u dared set foot in his neighbourhood and knowing that no one will come to help you but you are at the mercy of an 80IQ psychopath is.

  • -10

This is unnecessarily antagonistic.

Checking your mod notes, it looks like you actually wrote this comment before Amadan modded you for this one (assuming the system isn't lying to me and I read the notifications correctly) but you have put yourself in the difficult position of having multiple bad comments showing up in the mod queue very shortly after eating a ban.

And most of this is downstream of a post that you entitled "Da Jooz totally did it (Negro communism edition)." Like--we get it. You're so edgy! But being deliberately edgy is not really the proper vibe here.

The rest of the post (which I didn't see until post-edit, so it's possible I've missed some things) is not, like, egregiously awful, though it is somewhat evidence-light and "boo outgroup" heavy. But there is a saying about glass houses and stones that I think kind of applies, in a "don't be egregiously obnoxious" sort of way. Posting Chinese-robber type reasoning is always on shaky ground, but when you then follow that up with antagonism toward those who raise questions, this is corrosive to the conceit that we are here to test our shady thinking. I appreciate the retraction in response to the rather decisive empirical counter that was raised against you, but that, too, does not undo the other mistakes you're making more generally.

I'm not going to ban you this time, and I'm not even going to give you a topic ban, but please understand that this kind of posting is exactly why per-user topic bans are so tempting to me. At some point it's like--we get it, you think the Jews are to blame for at least a large chunk of societal ills, but you've shown yourself to be so certain of this that when you post about it, no one can even politely pretend to believe that you are in any way persuadable on the matter. I understand that this is often true of many things people post, but in the spirit of "tone-not-content" and charitable interpretation, we do our best to assume that arguments are being offered in good faith! But that faith is defeasible, and you erode it with posts like this, which in turn strips you of that protection in your other posts.

Next time, you will get a ban, and it's unlikely to be short.

Nice retreat from "We didn't do anything!" to "Actually, what we did wasn't so bad."

Also, you seem to be forgetting all the actual violence directed from people who were straight, white, cis, and/or male towards those were not, and punished for it either.

Democrats . . . version of progress circa 1918 was 'eugenics ...

Eugenics was a project of the Progressive movement, which was somewhat more associated with the Republican Party.

a country that has done so much for humanity . . . , shouldn't your reaping benefits from this country engender some kind of gratitude and desire to defend it?

Has it occurred to you that Jews and others who supported the Civil Rights Movement were in fact defending the precise principles which constitute the "so much" that the US has done for humanity?

Eugenics was a project of the Progressive movement, which was somewhat more associated with the Republican Party.

The historical record does not support this claim. The most outspoken proponents of eugenics (Davenport, Kellogg, Sanger, Wilson, Et Al) were all democrats where as the loudest opposition to the same has always come from religious conservatives. IE the sort of people that this monty python bit was inteded to mock.

The most outspoken proponents of eugenics (Davenport, Kellogg, Sanger, Wilson, Et Al) were all democrats

Were they? This says that Sanger voted Socialist, except when Al Smith got the Democratic nominee, whereupon she voted for Hoover. And later she voted for Nixon. I can't find anything re Davenport and Kellogg. And there were famous proponents of eugenics who were clearly Republicans: Teddy Roosevelt, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Most of the Supreme Court justices who were in the majority in Buck v. Bell were Republicans, while the one dissenter was a Democrat. The California forcible sterilization bill passed in 1909, under which something like 80% of the forced sterilizations in the US took place, was passed by a state Senate and State Assembly which were both majority Republican, and the bill was signed by a Republican governor. Clearly, eugenics was bi-partisan.

where as the loudest opposition to the same has always come from religious conservatives.

Surely Southern Democrats were well-represented among religious conservatives at the time

So by you by your own model Sanger was a socialist who voted democrat. How exactly does that support your assertion that eugenics was a primarily republican movement? Meanwhile Roosevelt and Rockefeller were both considered centrists so what you're saying is that democrats and moderate republicans both supported eugenics while the contemporary "far right" opposed it. FWIW I would actually agree with that characterization, but it is also a direct refutation of the claim you just made, so which is it?

So by you by your own model Sanger was a socialist who voted democrat.

I believe you misunderstood me. I noted that the source says she voted for 1) Socialists; 2) Hoover, a Republican; and 3) Nixon, a Republican. No evidence there that she ever voted Democratic.

How exactly does that support your assertion that eugenics was a primarily republican movement?

I didn't. I said: "Clearly, eugenics was bi-partisan."

Meanwhile Roosevelt and Rockefeller were both considered centrists so what you're saying is that democrats and moderate republicans both supported eugenics while the contemporary "far right" opposed it.

??? Where did I say anything about the far right?

No evidence there that she ever voted Democratic.

...unless we count FDR, Truman, or Kennedy, wich is the fucker of it isn't it?.

Saying that "moderate republicans supported eugenics too" doesn't actually prove your claim, nor does it disprove mine.

More comments

Move over @HlynckaCG, It seems I am a natural Republican after all!

*Doubt*

Indeed, the strongest predictor of a religious body's stance on abortion today is their stance on eugenics at the time eugenics was a live issue(interestingly a stronger predictor than a religious body's stance on abortion at the time eugenics was a live issue).

How does the joke go?

Two Jews are sitting next to each other one day. One of them sees that the other is reading a Nazi newspaper. "Why are you reading that? Don't you know they hate us!"

The other responds, "Friend, if I read our papers, they tell us that our people are being harassed and persecuted. If I read a Nazi paper, they tell me that we are in control of the world!"

The civil rights movement immediately led to a continual orgy of violence and mayhem (the OG summers of Floyd), and that the American public begged someone to put an end to it. This was Nixon's silent majority.

Immediately? Is that immediately after the Montgomery Bus Boycott got started at the end of 1955? Or immediately after the Little Rock desegregation protests in 1957? Immediately after the sit-ins that lasted, in various places, from 1958 to 1962? Immediately after the 1961 Freedom Rides? The Ole Miss riot? The Birmingham campaign? King's march on Washington? Freedom Summer 1964? The passage of the Civil Rights Act? Passage of the Voting Rights Act? Up until 1964 most of the notable riots of the Civil Rights Movement were instigated by whites. Even when the first significant urban disturbances happened in 1964 they didn't result in conservatives ascending to the presidency. By the time of the first serious rioting in 1967 and 1968 the first wave of the Civil Rights Movement i.e. what everyone thinks of when they think of the Civil Rights Movement was pretty much over. Dr. King wasn't even alive during the Long Hot Summer of 1968. Your concept of immediacy is sorely lacking, or at least at odds with any reasonable definition of the term.

Note critically, that restrictive covenants were private agreements between private homeowners; and thereby entirely outside the scope of any plausible interpretation of the constitution.

Well, no, that wasn't the ruling. The ruling was that the court couldn't enforce the contract because doing so would constitute state action under the 14th Amendment. The idea of contracts being technically valid but ultimately unenforceable isn't exactly novel in law; for example, a court wouldn't enforce a contract between two minors.

Here again, the US government joined the black plaintiff in requesting that the Court establish the precedent that promoting based on intelligence tests would be like providing equality of opportunity "merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox." In other words, presumptively discriminatory unless you could prove otherwise.

The point of Griggs wasn't so much IQ testing as it was that you can't enforce arbitrary standards in a transparent attempt to technically comply with the law while not actually complying with it. No one seriously thought that a Southern company that had simply barred blacks from certain positions outright just a few years prior and decided to admit them only if they passed education or testing requirements that had no bearing on the actual job but happened to disproportionately disadvantage blacks was making a good faith attempt to comply with the civil rights act. It's as if a black-owned company decided to screen employees based on knowledge of BET programming and rappers you've never heard of (and no, you can't study for it, because the kind of rap black people in the projects listen to isn't the same kind of rap that gets talked about much in mainstream publications).

The 1964 civil rights act, or something else in the early 60s was the tipping point.

Here's murder:

https://cdn.mises.org/homicide.png

Here's violent crime generally:

https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/violent-crime-rate.jpg

And the Ghetto riots start in 1964.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto_riots_(1964%E2%80%931969)

The first wave of the Baby Boom turned 18 in 1964.

By 1969 there's also a doubling in the burglary rate which climbs continually since 1960. I can't quickly find a comparison point to the 1950s.

https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

In 1948, The US government joined a black plaintiff and their black lawyers in suing

Nope. Although once the cases reached the Supreme Court, the US govt filed an amicus brief, as is often the case, the lawsuits (there were two companion cases) were each filed by neighbors seeking to prevent the sale of a home to a black guy: "On October 9, 1945, respondents, as owners of other property subject to the terms of the restrictive covenant, brought suit in the Circuit Court of the city of St. Louis praying that petitioners Shelley be restrained from taking possession of the property" 341 US 1, 6. "The second of the cases under consideration comes to this Court from the Supreme Court of Michigan. The circumstances presented do not differ materially from the Missouri case. . . . By deed dated November 30, 1944. petitioners, who were found by the trial court to be Negroes, acquired title to the property and thereupon entered into its occupancy. On January 30, 1945, respondents, as owners of property subject to the terms of the restrictive agreement, brought suit against petitioners in the Circuit Court of Wayne County. After a hearing, the court entered a decree directing petitioners to move from the property within ninety days." 341 US 1, 7.

Of course, by US government I mean; Jewish solicitor general Philip Elman, four Jewish lawyers and not a single gentile lawyer.

Perlman, not Elman. And, according to the Supreme Court opinion, "With him on the brief was Attorney General Clark," - that would be Tom Clark, who does not appear to be Jewish.

Note critically, that restrictive covenants were private agreements between private homeowners

Do you know what else was a private agreement? The agreement between the seller, a white guy, and the buyer, a black guy.

Critically however, Jewish lawyers never appear on the anti-civil rights side of a case.

You mention Griggs later. In that case, "Lawrence M. Cohen argued the cause for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance [i.e., in favor of Duke Power]".

Then there is the Bakke case, in which "Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance [i.e., in favor of Bakke] were filed by . . . Abraham S. Goldstein, Nathan Z. Dershowitz, Arthur J. Gajarsa, Thaddeus L. Kowalski, Anthony J. Fornelli, Howard L. Greenberger, Samuel Rabinove, Themis N. Anastos, Julian E. Kulas, and Alan M. Dershowitz for the American Jewish Committee et al.; . . . by Philip B. Kurland, Daniel D. Polsby, Larry M. Lavinsky, Arnold Forster, Dennis Rapps, Anthony J. Fornelli, Leonard Greenwald, and David I. Ashe for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith et al.; . . . [and] by Benjamin Vinar and David I. Caplan for the Queens Jewish Community Council et al."

The murder of IQ testing (Grigg's v. Duke Power Company)** ... Here again, the US government joined the black plaintiff in requesting that the Court establish the precedent that promoting based on intelligence tests would be like providing equality of opportunity "merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox." In other words, presumptively discriminatory unless you could prove otherwise.

Nope. Rather the Court simply held that "Nothing in the Act precludes the use of testing or measuring procedures; obviously they are useful. What Congress has forbidden is giving these devices and mechanisms controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance." 401 US 424, 436. And note that that is an interpretation of an act of Congress; if Congress did not like that interpretation, it was free to change the law.

Note also that, until the day that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 took effect, "the Company openly discriminated on the basis of race in the hiring and assigning of employees at its Dan River plant. The plant was organized into five operating departments: (1) Labor, (2) Coal Handling, (3) Operations, (4) Maintenance, and (5) Laboratory and Test. Negroes were employed only in the Labor Department where the highest paying jobs paid less than the lowest paying jobs in the other four "operating" departments in which only whites were employed.' Then, on the very day that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 took effect, the company added the IQ test requirement. 401 US 424, 427-428. The Supreme Court is not composed of morons.

Ok, I got the Cohen part wrong and this counts as a big dent on my credibility, and my argument. Sincere thanks! It's pretty blatant too, so I don't exactly have much to say for myself. I'll edit the post to include a partial retraction.

For interested readers: https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/1970/70-124_12-14-1970.pdf

I'll also check out the Bakke case, and post on it shortly.

Thanks. And please do take a hammer to any of my posts at any time.

You are missing one really critical thing - why is the situation so? Why the jewish elite in US are so left wing? What follows? How can we flip them on the right? Why is it impossible to flip them ... etc etc.

Throwing selected facts while being vague is a left tactic of character assassination. Because if there is nothing concrete it is impossible to refute or disprove.

I am not saying that generally speaking part of a state elite to not have their interests aligned with state's is outlandish theory. Just be more specific.

You can even I guess make a theory that civil rights era legislation was a mistake. There are enough examples in history that show that when wasp-s lose or loosen the reigns of power, the states develop suboptimally. And the US cost disease and some other social ailments do pick up in the 70s.

I think there’s history as well, going back to the Bible, basically everyone at some point tried to kill them. So it kinda makes sense that Jews would try to do-opt or join leftist movements under th3 promises of protection. Because of this history, bioleninism would work on them. Being loyal to a regime that promises them safety would be attractive.

I don't know if "bioleninism" is applicable here, though, given things like the reputed high IQ of Ashkenazim and such. I mean, yeah, those ones gotta be careful about who they marry, but still.

Jewish elites are very left wing because they're pretty much all highly educated, urbanized, and religiously unobservant, and disproportionately from culturally liberal locales.

I suspect WASPs from New York City who are highly educated and go to church no more than twice a year have very similar ideological views.

Throwing selected facts while being vague is a left tactic of character assassination. Because if there is nothing concrete it is impossible to refute or disprove.

Well, I think I was pretty specific. Specific enough for Gdanning to take a sledgehammer to my work. I don't really understand the rationalist tendency to demand an explanation for a phenomenon before it's existence is acknowledged. It reminds me of the old joke that has a Frenchman saying: "It works in practice, but does it work in theory?" Identifying a group as being the key actor at the most critical points which brought about the destruction of your system seems valuable in and of itself. Ideally, only then should speculation as to motives emerge, otherwise a good story might paper over faulty facts.

Anyway my own position is that recruitment of a considerable percentage of Jews to the right is basically impossible, and risks repeating the NeoCon cycle by which they become gatekeepers within the right, and purge it of it's genuine members. Unlike some other commenters, I'm skeptical of the appropriateness of Anti-semitic discourse given that Jews who hate Western civilization are pretty open about it anyway and can be targeted for their actions instead of their identity and why would we alienate the 10 - 20% who are on our side?

At the same time I think not restricting Jewish permanent immigration earlier was a terrible mistake. For the record, so was turning back fleeing Jews. I don't understand why the only options ever presented are heartlesness or cultural suicide.

In addition, Jewish political donations today are considerable and tend towards socially liberal or pro-Israel causes. This is in addition to their massive structural influence throughout media and the world economy.

See my comment ages ago: https://www.themotte.org/post/205/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/37000?context=8#context

Who were the biggest individual political donors to Biden in 2020? Mr Sussman, Mr Simons, Ms Simon make up the top 3. All three are Jewish (Simons is the multi-billionaire founder of Renaissance capital, Sussman founded another finance company and and Simon is a real estate heiress).

Other notable spenders in the election were Bloomberg and Steyer, who ran failed electoral campaigns of their own. Steyer is half-Jewish. Bloomberg is Jewish. On the Republican side we have 'kingmaker' Sheldon Adelson, who was the largest Trump donor in 2016 and probably 2020. Jewish. We've got Uihlein, Griffin, Mellon, Ricketts & Eyechaner non-Jewish. Dustin Moskovitz, Jewish and pro-Democratic. Paul Singer, Jewish (he supported Republicans but also tried to get them to support LGBT). And then there's Soros whose exact donation figures are hard to discern due to it mostly being dodgy websites that discuss it, though probably very large if not the highest of all. Zuckerberg provided hundreds of millions for election offices, which is vaguely political. I can't believe it doesn't buy influence, especially in conditions where the format and methods used were in a state of flux due to COVID.

I observe a general trend where extremely rich Jews support Democrats and LGBT - their fortunes mostly from finance or tech. There's Adelson who's on the other side of course (Adelson was most interested in union-busting, marijuana prohibition and pro-Israel action). In contrast, we have gentiles who usually support Republicans and are fairly right-wing. This is from reading their wikipedia blurbs. Of the twelve 2020 megadonors CNN described as 'white', 7 are Jewish. 6.5 depending on how you class Steyer.

There's also such a thing as the 'Adelson primary'! Basically the top Republican candidates compete to see who can be more pro-Israel in foreign policy so Adelson will give them tens of millions of dollars. It's pretty repulsive, even though it looks legal. With stuff like this going on in broad daylight, who needs Scott's Dark Money? The prospect of offending Adelson by some incredibly minor slight gets these high-and-mighty Republicans to bow and scrape.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190207130641/https://news.yahoo.com/millions-at-stake-the-adelson-primary-is-neck-125553624.html

The behind-the-scenes wooing of the Adelsons has been underway for months — a graphic testament to the outside influence that one or two fabulously wealthy donors can have on the presidential race. According to an account first reported by National Review, Jeb Bush initially fell out of Sheldon Adelson’s favor after one of his foreign policy advisers, former Secretary of State James Baker, spoke at an event sponsored by J Street, an American Jewish “pro-peace” group that supports Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. The appearance prompted the casino magnate to send word that the move cost the former Florida governor “a lot of money,” while associates of Adelson were quoted as saying that Bush was “dead to him.”

Bush scrambled to make amends. One top GOP donor who is close to the Adelsons told Yahoo News that he quickly got a phone call from Bush distancing himself from Baker. Bush “told me that he [Baker] was just on a list and that he’s never called him for any advice,” said the donor, who, like most others interviewed for this story, asked not to be identified publicly. The donor, at Bush’s request, then passed this along to Adelson. It was “helpful,” the donor said, in mollifying Adelson.

And consider people like Pompeo (then US secretary of state) and their tendancy to go on weird tangents about Israel. It's likely that they're selected for high office precisely because they love Israel (or will at least say and act like they do), by politicians who want to look like they love Israel. How else would you get a Secretary of State who says things like this?

"There is no more important task of the Secretary of State than standing for Israel and there is no more important ally to the United States than Israel. There is much more work to do."

Or Nancy Pelosi:

"If this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid…and I don’t even call it aid…our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are"

Their political prospects are surely linked to how pro-Israeli they are, this is the language of sucking up to the boss.

Once again, some apparent white nationalist has noticed that lots of elite are left-wing and assumed that's because they're Jewish rather than because the elite are like that.

Jewish elites are more left wing than other elites in large part because the factors that reduce left-wing ness among other elites are much less common among Jews- strict religiosity and rural connections are both less common among Jews in general. In particular among Jewish elites, the nature of strict Jewish religiosity suppresses the likelihood of being in the elite in a way it doesn't for Christians, which probably has an additional factor shifting Jewish elites towards the left.

I live in one of the least Jewish (historically or now) countries in the Western world. Jews have had remarkably little influence compared to most other countries, and what influential Jews there have been in Finland have often tended to be right-wingers (such as current MP Ben Zyskowicz, just recently attacked while campaigning for the upcoming election, who notably was anti-Soviet in the 70s when even most Finnish right-wingers would hold their tongue on this subject).

Despite this, Finland has had an armed socialist revolutionary attempt in 1918, one of the strongest Communist Parties in Western Europe during the Cold War era, a very active and influential feminist movement, a flourishing local pornographic industry, an active banking sector full of various speculation and follies etc., just to mention some things were antisemites often blame Jews, and just Jews, for social developments they see as malignant. In none of these have Jews had been particularly important - for instance, I've been able to find just one Jewish member of any influence in the whole history of the Communist Party of Finland, a Central Committee member in 1980s when the party had already split and its influence was fading fast. These institutions have, in great majority, been led and staffed by gentile Finns.

All of this leads me to believe that whatever perceived Jewish participation there is in these institutions in other countries is mostly just a particular niche in institutions that would exist anyway being filled by Jews in numbers greater than what per capita rates would suggest, for whatever reason. However, Jews or not, these still would exist, should the social conditions be such that there's room for them to exist.

I don't like the idea of the elite consensus being an emergent property of being elite without it being taken into account what shapes these emergent properties.

As an example, I think it makes sense from an elite perspective to be, to make a long story short, 'pro-Heritage Foundation'. If you own a lot of the economy it makes sense you want 'line' to go up. Simple.

But there are also cases where this doesn't make as much sense. For example, there is nothing self evident about wanting to tear down the old structures or make drastic changes to the order of society. Why would an elite, that is already on top, want to do such a thing? It makes no sense. Unless, of course, the 'elite' sees themselves as an outsider to those structures. Which was the case for the new elite of jews and Catholics that started making up significant portions of the elite in America from 1930's onwards.

The balance of the elite shifted from what it was due to this influx of outsider elites who had different incentives from the old elite of, what was mostly, Liberal Protestants. This led to the many debates and intellectual clashes that made up the culture war of old. Where the 'old guard' stood behind the old structures whilst the new elite was tearing them down and building new ones out of the rubble. The one I'm familiar with, on race, is highly illustrative of this. From Boas and his fraudulent anthropology, that is the bedrock of modern American anthropology. Which helped facilitate the landscape that pushed men like Carleton Coon away. To Gould and his alternative timeline of evolutionary biology and what would later be recognized as completely fraudulent biology. Contrasted with Wilson and his fights against Gould and Lewontin and I think you have, at least in a specific area, a good illustrative example of what was going on at every single level of academia where anyone was putting up a fight against the new elite. And whilst the ratio of old vs new, WASP vs jew, was still balanced enough that you could have an explicit culture war at the elite level, the ratio kept skewing further and further 'new'. Giving us what we have today.

Another illustrative example would be the drastic change at the ACLU. Which I assume most are familiar with.

This wasn't an emergent change that happened naturally because elites are how they are because they are elites. There was a stark change in the demographics of Americas elite. New faces. New races. And the drastic change is not just correlated with this new ethnic makeup and overrepresentation of jews but also corroborated by specific historical examples where these jews ousted the old to make way for a new ideology that better suited their being.

It's hard to write in support of the WASP elite since it, along with the white American middle class, is finally getting what they've had coming for a long time now. And though it may be the fault of the WASP to have ever let the new elite in, ultimately the real driving force behind the change was the new elite.

I think there's a great segment from the linked interview with E.O. Wilson that illustrates the failure of the old mindset:

We had a meeting to take the final vote on Lewontin at Harvard, and a group of the older professors said they were worried about reports of his behavior at Chicago—that he might be disruptive or might have gotten away from genetics, and so would not be the right sort of person to be at Harvard. I made the speech I will regret for the rest of my life: I said we should never accept or reject someone because of their political views. I felt so good about myself making that political speech!

Then I feel like you need to properly engage with the issues of Boas's methodology. The primary one being that his thesis rests on him comparing the faces of children with the faces of their parents to conclude that they are not similar. I had thought most people knew that the faces of children change with age. Sometimes referred to as 'growth'. And that, as detailed in the linked article, the dominant force for all such traits, on closer review, was genetic. Leading to the reason why it is possible to tell the geographical ancestry with of a skeleton with "90% accuracy" from skull alone. And why children take after their parents in one way or another.

The history you bring up has little to do with the point being highlighted in my writeup. The book was review bombed because the climate of anthropology had drastically changed. Being swept up in the Civil Rights culture war where, as you point out, Coon found himself on the side of segregationists.

Coon wrote the book in 1962 after having resigned as president of the AAPA. Coon resigned because a group of anthropologists had pressured him to defame a book that, upon closer inspection, Coon deduced none of them had even read, bar one. It was pure culture war. And the two sides were the classical scientific racists going up against the theories of Boas.

Though it's not important to my main point, since it's not claimed that every single 'member' of the 'new' elite is jewish, nor that every single 'member' of the 'old' is gentile, the biggest opponent of Coon at the time was a student of Boas, Ashley Montagu, real name Israel Ehrenberg.

Doesn't really sound like someone advancing "Jewish interests".

Who are you quoting? Though this is mostly unrelated to what I've been talking about, I'd fall back on Kevin MacDonald and his theory for the specific nature of Boas and his motivations. But to be clear, I made no mention of "Jewish interests" in my original writeup. Which pertained to the new elite vs the old elite, and the difference in incentives between them that could explain the nature of differing emergent elite consensus.

If you have points to make on what "Jewish interests" are and who is advancing them vs who is not then I think you need to flesh that out in more detail beforehand.

Yeah you're right. the ACLU has always been aggressively jewish. I felt the difference was that back then it had to play by old structure rules to get what it wanted with the Civil Rights stuff. Compared to now when it doesn't need to bother with such games. But I think that historical narrative is born more out of mythology than reality.

The early ACLU was a support organization for communist revolution in America. They may have dropped this once the Soviets shook hands with the Nazis, but they seem to have had few qualms about the whole mass murder part. Then again, I'm not sure how Jewish it was back then, so Jews might have actually improved it. This article mentions mainly gentiles.

https://reason.com/2017/12/14/communist-dissonance/

Once again, some apparent white nationalist has noticed that lots of elite are left-wing and assumed that's because they're Jewish rather than because the elite are like that.

a) I'm actually not cold-hearted enough to be a white nationalist. I'm more of a non-central white supremacist.

b) If you know the elites were only mildly left-wing but Jews were always far-left, and you know that the elite are far more leftwing but Jews remain the most left-wing portion of the White elite, how the hell do you get to 'Jews are only left wing because they are elite?' Which way does time go again?

Like your prior posts about Chinese people, this amounts to you presenting a few anecdotes to make an argument so weak that it borders on incoherence. You seem to to saying a few cases where Jews were lawyers in supposedly important cases is proof of some sort of phenomenon, but what even is that phenomenon? Whatever it is, how could this incredibly meager evidence prove it, and shouldn't there be much better evidence available which would result in a more useful discussion?

Is the phenomenon that you are trying to prove that American Jewish people are more left-wing than the general public even when you control for "elite" status? Or more specifically, that they are more aligned with the sort of racial politics popular among the left in the U.S., perhaps because they were allied when discrimination against Jewish people was widespread and it became culturally self-perpetuating? Then why try to prove this with some random anecdotes about Jewish lawyers and support for Nixon rather than much stronger and more direct evidence like public opinion polls asking about those issues? And why treat "Jewish people are more left-wing" as some novel phenomenon you have to guess at from scratch, rather than demographic differences in politics being a well-known phenomenon that pollsters gather data on all the time? (Incidentally, left-wing "privilege" discourse and the assumption that differences in outcome reflect discrimination carries some unintended implications about Jewish success and arguably has similarities with some of the resentment that fueled historical anti-Jewish discrimination, not to mention specifics like Harvard admissions policies. A survey asking equality vs. equity questions might get some interesting results by seeing how much difference it makes to apply the same logic to Jewish people as part of the survey.)

Alternatively, is the proposed phenomenon something more specific or controversial than Jewish people having different political demographics for whatever reason? Are we talking about genetic differences, and if so what kind? E.g. if you propose Jewish people are genetically higher in Openness to Experience which got them allied with the left historically, wouldn't you again be better off with surveys rather than legal anecdotes? Are we talking about Jewish people (or some elite subset of them) getting secret nightly marching orders from the Elders of Zion, and if so shouldn't leaking or intercepting those orders be much better evidence? Are you even consciously thinking about the specifics of the phenomenon you are proposing, or are you just grouping together Jewish people as a unit and treating them as you would an individual? "I don't like George because look at these 3 cases of him doing something I dislike." might be a compelling argument about an individual, but when talking about groups of millions of people much better evidence is available and is required to determine anything meaningful.

Is the phenomenon that you are trying to prove that American Jewish people are more left-wing than the general public even when you control for "elite" status?

Yes. And that this difference is enough to fundamentally alter the direction of a nation, towards what I consider terrible outcomes. There is one qualifier, which I'll get to later if I continue this series, and it's that labels can mean fundamentally different things under different people. Early Progressives may have shared the statism of modern progressives, but their vision of progress included 'sterilize the incompetent to improve our gene pool', 'let's resegregate the government' and 'we must preserve the white race' and 'self-determination but only for functional peoples, others need colonialism'.

If your analysis of Stalin and Beria vs. Gorbachev and Chernenko, misses the part where Stalin and Beria were Georgians ruling over Russians and Gorbachev and Chernenko were Russians ruling over mainly Russians, and confines itself to formal ideological labels, it's arguably worse than useless. Groups that understand the tenuous nature of their power are gonna pursue their goals with far greater brutality and indifference to suffering.

I recommend David Mamet’s book “The Secret Knowledge” on how he extracted himself from progressivism (before it got super-weird, to his credit), and why he identifies socialist collectivism with the form of social justice preached in liberal synagogues (those which don’t believe the Torah is reliably historical beyond one of the captivities). It’s only one chapter, but it’s burned into my mind like Goldstein’s book excerpt in 1984.

I recommend it in general, in addition to recommending it to understand the Jewish socialism angle; Mamet’s “The Edge” starring Hopkins and Baldwin is one of the most perfect films of all time, and he carries over the wit and wordiness which made his name in the first place. He’s the non-liberal Aaron Sorkin.

Interesting. I had no idea David Mamet was behind that movie The Edge. Interesting. That movie is kind of a "Hatchet" (remember that book?) for adults.

He has a background as a playwright which makes the outdoorsiness of that film an unusual fit for his repertoire, I would think.

You think this is going make a dent in his antisemitism?

Nah. Once someone’s taken that pill, they’ll not vomit it up without divine intervention.

So are these secular jews or religious jews?

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