This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Douglas Emhoff, husband of Kamala Harris, posted a photo on Twitter celebrating the Jewish American Heritage Month.
I counted, give or take, 155 Jewish Staff Members. There are 474 White House Staff Members in total, meaning that Jews comprise 32% of all staff members. This is a radical over-representation of 1400%, or 14x what should be expected given the population of 2.2%. As everyone pictured is White, presumably this really is a photo with all the Jewish staff members who wanted to participate in the event (otherwise: why no black staffers present?). There may be some not pictured for various work-related or personal reasons, and perhaps some with Jewish spouses pictured. I had difficulty finding the figures on other demographics. According to an authoritative source, 14% of the staff are Black (this just happens to be the same number and is not a typo). I could find nothing on Asian members, but perusing the total list of White House Staff names I calculated give or take 50 with exclusively Asian names; this should be construed as a minimum because of high exogamy rates and names not always being obviously Asian. That puts Asians at 10.5%. Given that Black people sit at 14%, I would go out on a limb and say that the Latino constituents also comprise roughly their makeup in America; let’s peg it at a slightly lower 15% (if someone wants to check from the list of staffers’ names be my guest).
All of this puts the non-Jewish White percent at 28.5%, counting the Turkish and Arab names as White (and ignoring the probably ~2% Native American that Joe slipped in there). And so, among White House staffers, Whites are quite under-represented and Jews are enormously over-represented. This is problematic IMO, because the domestic founding population of a nation shouldn’t be so under-represented, and a single ethnic cluster with a strong activism network and their own influential nation state probably shouldn’t be 14x over-represented among White House staffers without anyone in established media criticizing or noticing. Alas, such topics have been posted frequently, but in previous cases the over-representation was among Cabinet Members and Supreme Court Justices and so on. This shows that even in a large sample size such as 474, the over-representation remains. If I could put my position into as few words as possible, I would steal from a random tweet on the subject: “Half of the White House staff is Jewish, but we get told that ‘White Supremacists’ run America lol.” What pains me is that while the default white Americans are so under-represented, they are the ones who face the most ruthless black propaganda against their demographic. It’s important to educate others on the problem of representation, I suppose.
The idea that any given demographic should have the same number of slots in any given position of power based on their representation in the overall population is dumb, whether you're talking about Jews or blacks.
Jews aren't overrepresented, they're just represented. White people may make up a majority of the USA population, but a big chunk of those are useless or stupid and so don't count. If you look at an AP math class in New York and compare that to the makeup of White House staffers, you'll see a more realistic comparison of Jews to whites.
White people and Jews are not the same kind of race. They're wholly different zoom levels, different layers on the cladistic tree of humanity. If white people are a kingdom then Jews are a genus. Jews have way more in common with the average Jew than whites have with the average whites. Whites include people from all corners of Europe in the same category for some stupid reason, Jews only count a single insular subgroup. If Jews are a race, then Anglo-Americans descended from people who lived in Ulster but aren't descended from Irish stock should also be a race. And if those Anglo-Hibernian Americans are counted as their own race, you will see a truly shocking overrepresentation among US Presidents (shocking if you assume that every European ethnicity should be equally likely to be President, which is a weird assumption).
Groups are different. White House staffers are not recruited by lottery. It is normal for their racial makeup to be biased one way or another by the makeup of the sorts of people who would apply for those positions. Also "white people" are a fever dream invented by racist nutjobs and everyone needs to stop pretending that "white people" exist. They don't.
Are you saying this percentage is different from one population group to another?
More options
Context Copy link
I agree it's dumb, but if every other group gets to force society to change when they're under represented my group should be able to do the same thing and my group appears to be under represented in a whole lot of areas.
My rules: blind meritocracy is an absolute defense against any bias accusation
Your rules fairly: every group must be within a certain range of it's population share
Your rules unfairly: every group but one must be within a certain range of it's population share.
The whole idea of there being groups is smuggling in so many assumptions, though.
Consider this toy example: The US population is 10% black descended from slaves captured from central Africa and 3% first-generation-immigrant black descended from the coastal warlords who enslaved the previous group (fake numbers I just made up). I, the official making the statistics, invent the concept of "black people" and decide that both the slave-descendents and the warlord-descendents are "black people." Since 13% of the population are "black people," I make sure that Harvard consists of 13% warlord-descended immigrant elites and 0% slave-descended locals. The slave-descended black people now have "representation," but the people representing them are the descendents of the people who enslaved their ancestors. This is supposed to help make up for the fact that their ancestors were enslaved.
Consider this other toy example: Atlantis contains many immigrants from countries around the Atlantic. 20% of the population of Atlantis are "British" Immigrants - 5% Irish, 5% Scottish, 5% Welsh, and 5% English. For the board of directors of my hedge fund, which has 10 members, I decide that 20% should be "British" so that there will be "representation." I choose the English son of the CEO of Lloyd's of London and the English daughter of famous football player David Beckham and famous musician Posh Spice. Are the Welsh, Scottish, and Irish "represented" by these "British" members of the board of directors? Are the English even represented by these two millionaires descended from other millionaires?
I say no. There is no such thing as British people. There is no such thing as black people. There is no such thing as white people. I would argue that there is such a thing as Jews, and in order to get that kind of reality into any of these other groups you need to slice them at least as finely as you slice the Jews. At this zoom level you'll find many groups that are just as overrepresented as Jews are. You'll discover that 1% of highly-connected families have almost all the power, and only some of those 1% of families are Jewish. The rest are "white" (or "Chinese") and smuggle their power in by unfairly grouping themselves with millions of random shmucks with whom they have nothing in common except skin colour.
You make a good case for that.
Are they atheist, reform, conservative, or orthodox? Mizrahi, Sephardi, or Ashkenazi? Beta Israel? (or should we go even finer? it was kinda weird that the Martians were all specifically Hungarian)
It's possible to come up with a definition (and if you don't like it, I have others!), but it's also possible to define "British" similarly well/poorly.
This thread brings to mind one very practical definition of Jewish people ("they're the ones who will get lumped together by anti-semites", which then ironically motivates an internalized identity in self-defense), but you could define "white" ("they're the ones who will get lumped together by modern 'anti'-racists") and at least historically you could have defined "black" (the 'one-drop rule' was meaningful because it was a rule to people who despised them) in a similar way.
Ah yes, hate. The one thing which brings us all together, allows us to ignore details and focus on what really matters.
Unironically yes. For all of evolutionary history, the most pressing matter for our ancestors was the other tribe from the other side on the river crossing the river to smash their skulls with big clubs.
See that "moral equivalents of war", struggles against inanimate threats always turns to struggle against other humans.
You cannot smash virus with your fist, but you can smash these bastards not wearing masks! It is their fault!
The famous poem was not about hating people of color as it is interpreted today, it was about hating the Huns.
(of course, "Saxons" and "Teutons" were at the time seen as two different races, as distinct as angels are distinct from devils, and world's history was seen as tale of their eternal struggle)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Like I said my preference is pure blind meritocracy and let the chips fall out where ever they go.
But once you start making slices then yes, I want you to make all the slices and treat every subgroup equally.
More options
Context Copy link
It doesn't matter. Those assumptions are made, they are widely agreed upon, and many of them are codified. Being happy with DEI programs but then when someone objects arguing "Well, what ARE races, really?" is just a distraction tactic.
More options
Context Copy link
Do you think it’s important to tell the Jews that their nation and peoplehood is not real? This would reduce their in-group practices considerably. What do you think would be their response if you told them that Jews are not a culture or people or identity?
Do you think it is important to tell White Christian White House staffers that they belong to real and separate White Christian nation, that you are their fellow White Christian, that they should help you instead of calling cops to arrest you for racist hate speech?
As long as everyone follows the standard, I think we could go either way. We should either remind everyone of the sacrifices and oppressions of their forefathers and the unity of their ancestral spirit, of ensure no one believes such a creative fiction. Evil can almost be defined as the violation of a fair standard. An eye for an eye is the oldest law we know, and approximately the spirit of the law today.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What if you look at AP math class literally anywhere else in the country other than New York? How Jewish is it? Does it also have 1400% overrepresentation?
Well Jewish people tend to concentrate into a few cities, such as New York and Washington DC, so you would want to compare Washington DC to one of the other cities that contain large numbers of Jewish people. I expect that an AP math class in Beijing won't have very many Jews, for example. Cities that you could compare it to include Philadelphia, LA, Boston, and Chicago, all of which I'm sure have the expected demographics in their AP math classes.
Contrary to the beliefs of some here that Jews control the government, the pct of the DC metro area that is Jewish appears to be less than that of Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, and SF/Oakland
That isn't at all contrary to the claim, regardless of the claim's truth.
I didn't say it was. I was merely suggesting that DC is not a good choice as a comparison.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure what is the problem here, 100% of current US Presidents are exactly the group you feel "represents" you. So you should feel much more "represented" by it then "under-represented" by White House stuff, which mostly don't take any important decisions. Like, if the US President "represents" you but a janitor "represents" the filthy Jews, why you're feeling bad?
Of course, to some this approach seems utterly insane, as I don't see why any random Jew would "represent" me just because he's also a member of 10-million ethnic group, or why any random White person would "represent" any other random White person, just because they are both have pale skin and not happen to be Jews (I guess anybody with pale skin who is not a Jew is qualified as "founding population", right?). But I guess to some people it makes sense somehow?
Imagine in 100 years, Jews make up half the Politburo in China, nearly half of the General Secretary's staff, and the remaining staff disproportionately marry Jews, but the General Secretary continues to be Han Chinese. If China and Iran went from signing a 25-year cooperation agreements to Chinese nationals chanting "Iran delenda est"
Would your response still be "Nothing to see here, goyim, move along".
Even if say China and Iran went from signing a 25-year cooperation agreements to Chinese nationals chanting "Iran delenda est"?
What are you on about. Are you really suggesting the decisive factor in Iranian-US relations is the influence of Jews? Yes, I am sure nothing happened that may have impaired those relations in the intervening period between close co-operation and now.
Or is this about somewhere else?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The President is a figurehead and serves his cabinet + staff + party + donors. Ethnic/Cultural representation is considered to be important by many which is why it is pushed by those in power on the Left. Jews are more likely to have certain political and social views than non-Jewish Whites going by available data. People do not spontaneously generate but have attitudes and views shaped by their culture. The reason “are Jews white” is even a topic written about by Jews over decades is because they understand that there are unique cultural and ideological elements among Jews which differentiates them from their Christian-ancestry cousins.
Sure. Astrology is considered to be important by many too, so is the sacred status of cows (India has a billion people! If we go by numbers, I think we should talk about cows much more than about the White House!). That doesn't mean it makes any sense, and if your answer to "how does it make any sense" is just "a lot of people agree with me" - then probably you know it doesn't make any sense, but can't gather the strength to defy your peer group and get your mind free. Maybe one day.
I pray that the Jews one day “defy their peer group and free their mind”, as you put it. Do you do the same?
Interestingly enough, you don't pray that you do. It's always the other guy that has to do the work. Always others that are imperfect and need God to correct them (and, of course, even God needs your advice in that - there's no way He Himself could figure it out without your input! After all, he's only God - and the rumors are, He's at least 2/3 Jew at that, so no wonder!) Always praying for the other guy to be saved from his ignorance and delivered into the light, never for yourself. How selfless! It is really admirable.
I suppose I believe in a God of justice who does not privilege certain groups with the right to evade the objectivity of justice without recourse. I would have to consult the Pentateuch for further lessons.
deleted
More options
Context Copy link
Wouldn't hurt. Reading more and assuming less about what's God's Justice looking like is not a bad idea.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your prayers were answered long ago.
(except for Orthodox Jews, but these are not the kind of Jews this thread is about, not many black hats in the White House)
Assimilation is killing the Jewish people
That’s a valid point, I totally concede that. But I’d say that perhaps the ultra orthodox + conservative ascendancy is going to bring some issues, not soon but within 40 years, given birth rates.
What is future of Jews in medium an long term, ofc assuming the current trends continue and we are not paperclipped by Omnius?
In the Middle East, Great Israel from Nile to Euphrate ran according to old time Biblical laws, with beautiful temple in Jerusalem covered in blood of sheep and goats all the time. Country as important as Saudi Arabia or Iran are today.
Outside the Middle East, there are many ultra Orthodox communities as influential as Amish and Mennonites are today, plus lots of people with some Hebraic tchotchkes inherited from great-grandparents stashed in the attic.
Conspiracy theorists complaining about Jews will be still there, but these complaints would be seen as absurd and quaint as complaints about freemasons are seen today.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It makes sense in tribal/clannish society, where tribes/clans stick together and help each other (in other words, a default setting for mankind.)
In this world, if you go to royal court, kneel before courtier, kiss the hem of his robe and humbly present your petition (with appropriate bribe) it makes a big difference whether the courtier is of the same tribe as you - difference whether your petition is passed further and maybe even reaches the king, or whether it goes straight into garbage dump.
As you said, we are not in this world, "White Christians" are not a tribe. If someone greeted White Christian White House staffers: "Hello, my white brothers in Christ!", their answer would be not "Welcome, brother!", but "ARREST THIS RACIST!"
As they should,
Id-Pol is deeply and fundamentally Un-Christian and Christian groups in this day and age don't last long without developing strong memetic antibodies against woke nonsense.
More options
Context Copy link
‘White Christians’ are a tribe, they just don’t call themselves that(they prefer the term evangelical). If you presented a petition to an evangelical functionary while making it clear that you are also an evangelical(or some kind of serious Christian believer), you are more likely, all other things being equal, to have that position granted.
Now of course evangelicals aren’t as overrepresented among powerful functionaries as Jews. But I have no doubt that if you needed a favor from mike pence, being able to give off the important shibboleths of being a Christian true believer would go a long way towards getting him to listen.
It would be more accurate to say that "Conservative Christians are a tribe" granting the "white" part is allowing the woke idiots to steal a march.
Sure, but they don’t call themselves that either and I was addressing the original who used the term ‘white Christian’s’.
I know and im saying that granting the OPs assumption that you have to be white in order to be Christian without pushing back against it is a load of woke nonsense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hasn't this been known forever? Jews have been way over-represented for generations now in pretty much every position of prestige in society. It does make this canard about being discriminated or oppressed obsolete.
More options
Context Copy link
I applaud your research tenacity.
In response to the Twitter replies to the tweet, and stepping back to look at a larger view, it seems plain that modern White identitarians (who are the main people making these (partly accurate) "observations" about the Jewish White House staffers, in the replies to that tweet) are making the same exact core mistake which many past White identitarians made.
The mistake is simple: they unnecessarily make enemies of Jews, instead of trying to encourage friendship and alliance. (In some situations enmity is absolutely necessary- like an imminent threat of death- but almost all enmity with Jews is quite unnecessary, because there are better options.)
(And I think there can be no mistake that most Jews reading that thread, even when they might think that all of the accusations are true and fair (and most won't think that) will become more fearful and opposed to White identitarians, not less opposed).
(This is a funny thing I have often observed- many people are more afraid and vengeful when faced with a completely true accusation, than with a false accusation. Accusing someone of something true won't protect you from their fearful lashing out!!! "The truth is an absolute defense" is only a legal doctrine, not a reliable social doctrine.)
If White identitarians really do believe that Jews are extremely powerful and ruthless (and some Jews can fairly be described this way, every group has members like this, and the powerful and ruthless Jews are perhaps particularly impressive), then those Jews are a dangerous enemy.
This is the core paradox at the heart of the anti-Semitic wing of White identitarianism (and also anti-Semitic Black Hebrews other anti-Semitic groups)- they claim that the Jews are incredibly powerful and dangerous, but then behave in a way which tends to maximize the threat from the Jews.
This creates the worst of all worlds, in which some Jews are encouraged to feel under threat (and they are a tiny minority group, so it takes less of a threat before they feel afraid enough to act on their fear), which tends to encourage their worst selfish and paranoid tendencies, which only makes the original problem worse.
(On an even broader level, this is the biggest mistake the Nazis made: making too few deep friends and allies, while also making too many enemies. And modern White identitarians seem to be sadly prone to making the same exact mistake. Not enough friends, and too many enemies.
It is possible to win while having some enemies, but you almost always need to have stronger friends than enemies. And long-term enmity from enemies tends to have a perpetually draining effect, it cannot be tolerated well long-term.)
If there is any chance whatsoever that the would-be dangerous Jews can be converted to friends instead of enemies, then that is obviously a much safer environment for the White Goys, is it not?
...
So, what approaches could White identitarians conceivably attempt, to gain more benefit from Jews, and less danger and aggravation?
It is hard to forecast in advance which approaches will work, so I feel it's important to first identify every single option with even the slightest chance of success.
These would be some of the options I would suggest to the White identitarians, to minimize the danger from the Jews and maximize the positive benefits.
-Stop treating Jews like a monolith. Hell, a lot of the Jews which cause White people the most grief, also cause the most grief to other Jews.
Quite a lot of the Jews which are the most damaging to "White" societies, are also highly damaging to Jewish communities, with their-
.financial exploitation and greed (on the ruthless capitalist side, like Bernie Madoff at the worst, scamming Holocaust survivors out of their nest eggs)
.promoting communism and socialism (draining the hard-working and rich Jews of their wealth)
.promoting pornography (some Jews hate that stuff)
.promotion of anti-racism & affirmative action, undermining Jewish group cohesion
.promoting pro-crime DAs
.promotion of affirmative action, which Jews have not been able to entirely escape even with all of their academic donations and high test scores
.some of the most effective anti-Israel people are Jewish, ironically
.media products with moral values many Jews disagree with
.Jews bringing embarrassment (e.g. Jeffrey Epstein), or starting wars and fights which bring danger to the broader Jewish community
... and so on
(This is an overall basis for why many Jews are actually more allied already with subsets of the White community, than with their fellow Jews. Like, many socially conservative Jews have more in common with socially conservative Whites, than they have with the peak secular Jews.)
Some of the best critiquers of Jews that I have ever known, were Jews themselves! Many of the most admirable Jews in history have spent centuries bearing the danger and burdens galvanized by their worst cousins. (Much like some of the most brave and beautiful Germans in history were raped and killed because of the greed and hatred and stupidity of key Nazis.)
-White identitarians should do more to appreciate and put front and center the Jews that are substantially on their side. A huge percentage of the most effective anti-Woke and pro-HBD communicators and political donors are Jewish.
It is hard to win friends and allies, if you fail to fully appreciate the friendship and alliance of the friends you already have. Don't make this mistake!
Off the top of my head, the following Jews are examples of those at least partially allied to you already (just to show it's possible): Chaya Raichik (libs of tiktok), Ben Shapiro, Mickey Kaus (immigration), Bill Maher has had some nice anti-Woke rants, Ron Unz, and so on.
Trump's biggest political donor, by FAR, was a Jew, Sheldon Adelson.
-Encourage as many Jews as possible to truly identify as White (in addition to identifying as Jewish, or even in place of identifying as Jewish, if they would prefer that, as some often have in the past).
With the incredibly high inter-marriage rates Jews have, most of their children and grandchildren will be even more European and less Jewish in their ancestry than they already are. They are already doing the work for you! Embrace it!
-I know that some White identitarians are opposed to "interracial" marriages, but if a White identitarian believes that Jews are the biggest enemy, and also believes that interracial marriages weaken the powerful, then perhaps the best way to weaken the powerful enemy Jews is to marry with them?
-Many White identitarians seem to glorify the conquests and kingdoms of the past, while failing to study them in any meaningful way and see just how many hard sacrifices and "marriages solely for alliance", even, which it took to build those kingdoms.
They simply need to study their history, and learn its lessons, to get some great ideas for the present.
-As many White identitarians as possible should make it clear that they have a group identity with Jews as a subset of White people, or at least "close enough".
We know that almost all of the founding mothers of the Ashkenazi Jews were genetically indigenous European Goys, for example. https://archive.is/kd9F0
When an ancestry test shows someone as "100% Ashkenazi Jewish", that just means they have the genetic markers of a particular ancestral population. It doesn't mean that 100% of their ancestors for all of time were Jewish, that wouldn't even be possible.
Ashkenazi Jews are almost all less than 60% Jewish in their ancestry, and due to later intermarriage, most are even less genetically "Jewish" than that.
And Sephardic Jews are genetically more closely related to European Goys, than nearly any other population on the planet. They are distant cousins on the human family tree.
-Recognize that because of the history of the Jewish Diaspora, there simply is no path to getting rid of all of the Jews. They live and thrive in too many places, to be completely killed off, even if there were a way to attempt it (which there isn't, realistically speaking).
-Make it clear that Jews are safer by identifying and acting as White, in addition to Jewish.
(This is the one positive possibility of suspicion of the Jews, like in that Twitter thread- if Jews feel fear of White identitarians, but no hope of safety, then they will lash out.
But if they are afraid, but also see a glide path to mutual happiness and success, most of them will be inclined to take it. But there MUST be a genuinely positive option for Jews to take, in order for this dangerous strategy to work.)
My assessment is that White identitarians and Jewish identitarians have done a fair amount to make the other side afraid, but not nearly enough to offer constructive alternatives and reasons to hope.
-Do more as White identitarians, specifically, to pointedly appreciate and admire any Jews which you can find admirable. People feel safer when they are appreciated and admired, and certainly more inclined towards friendship.
-White identitarians should do more to learn about the overall Jewish community, Jewish history, and Jewish culture. Jews appreciate that.
White identitarians should do this even simply as a way to "know the enemy" better, if they are convinced that Jews are indeed an enemy (or might become an enemy).
And if it turns out that White identitarians who study Jewish history and culture realize that some of their hatred isn't justified, that would save them immense amounts of energy and avoid them creating unnecessary danger for themselves.
(I've hit the character limit, this comment continues in my reply to myself)...
I agree with most of what you are saying, but the biggest problem is that America already did what you are suggesting. It welcomed the Jews with open arms. As much as Jews want to protest about historical anti-semitism in the United States, they were granted access to American institutions where they achieved great influence. From the perspective of the White identitarian, the result was not ethnic solidarity or alliance with white America, it instead resulted in radical critique of gentile culture and Christian morality that has greatly influenced the direction of the culture towards anti-racism and demographic suicide.
If America couldn't earn the ethnic solidarity of the Jews with goodwill, then what could?
Secondly, most of (at least the smarter) White identitarians have an adversarial respect for Jews that isn't represented by the myopic accusations of "hate". Most of them will openly admit that the aspiration is to inspire White people to behave more like Jews in important respects.
Surely it resulted instead in mass assimilation
More options
Context Copy link
The radical critique that some (far from all, keep in mind) Jews made would have had almost no power if a large fraction of non-Jewish whites had not agreed with it. White identitarians often see non-Jewish whites as being easily brainwashed by Jews into becoming puppets, which is a rather sad evaluation that makes non-Jewish whites overall seem feeble to an extent that is hard to believe. Surely the reality is probably not that Jews, whatever their disproportionate intelligence/wealth/etc might be, managed to brainwash or coerce non-Jewish white America into the various political changes that you are laying at the feet of the Jews. Jews might have outsized power, but not to that extent. It is likely, I think, that the main role was played by non-Jewish whites. Jews were disproportionately good at being thought leaders, but it is not like they forcibly made all of those millions of non-Jewish whites support the various political changes that you decry.
Ethos is downstream from mythos, nobody is really immune to those forces. It's just part of the human condition. Non-Jewish whites deserve their share of blame absolutely, but you can't really blame them for being so influenced by the news media, academia, Hollywood, and popular culture. Once you lose control over those culture-creating institutions, you've lost the plot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree, White people already did a huge amount which IMO should have earned the lasting goodwill of Jews.
This is why I wrote so much about our failures to brag about what we have done, and to convert our past generosity into concrete commitments to friendship or at least non-enmity.
If we don't extensively brag about our aid, not only do we ourselves mostly remain ignorant (making it easier for others to browbeat us into moral submission), we also seem like enemies, since friends normally value their gifts to their other friends. "Look at how much I care about you, I made this just for you!" (Which is why Jews would ideally brag more about their contributions, too, to show that they care about us.)
I would also even suggest that more White identitarians should start bragging about Jewish achievements as our own. (This also solves the social faux pas of bragging about yourself- it always looks better when someone else brags about you. I bet vast numbers of Jews would be quite chuffed to see their achievements and generosity given more publicity, especially by White identitarians whom they currently fear.
And vice versa- imagine what would happen to the heads of White identitarians if Jews started doing a good job of reminding the world of the billions of lives White people have saved, and so on!)
If we behave like their success is not our success, then it creates a psychological schism. But if we treat their success as our mutual success, and expect them to treat all White success as their own as well, it creates a group identification which would be to our mutual benefit.
(This was the wisdom behind why so many clever operatives liked to talk about "Judeo-Christian civilization" and all that. It was an attempt to create a mutually-beneficial group identification, which many smart Goys and Jews of past generations recognized as valuable.)
Ideally, you would not want there to be any more of a sense of schism between the average Jew and the average White Goy, than between an ancestrally French person and an ancestral German, Brit, Pole, etc.
After all, all of these other White ethnicities have warred against each other plenty of times in history, and yet they can be friends today.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have made very similar arguments before, and I remain optimistic that Jews (and East Asians) will reconcile themselves to whiteness in due time, to the incalculable benefit of all involved. I’m very bullish on the Eurasian Imperium future, in which basically the most important categories will be Those Without Substantial African/Negrito Ancestry vs. Those With Substantial African/Negrito Ancestry. I expect Jews to come out on top in pretty much any major re-sorting of ethnic/racial alliances, so obviously it is in the best interests of my descendants to make sure that Jews’ stewardship of that alliance is as benevolent and mutually-beneficial as possible.
In the Roman Imperium, did the Jew reconcile himself to the Aryan, or did the Aryan reconcile himself to The Jew? The adoption of Christianity provides the answer, of course- followed by the collapse of civilization and centuries of what are known as the dark ages.
The Roman Empire wasn't Aryan though it was Latin. Those who we would label "Aryan" today were still a bunch of illiterate peasants living in thatch huts on the far northeastern fringes of the empire.
Native Romans descended from the Bell beaker culture which was created/preceded by the westward migrations of the Corded Ware culture. The Corded Ware culture is the best approximation of a common ancestor of the Roman, Englishman, Russian, and Indo-Aryan. Most of the living Indo-European language branches are descended from Corded Ware, including Italic (i.e. Latin), Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, and Indo-Iranian(Aryan) language families.
It's really crazy to think how these languages spoken by half the world descended from this culture.
Europeans are essentially a mix of three different population groups:
Eastern/Western Hunter-Gatherers
European Farmers (also known as Anatolian farmers)
Yamnayan Steppe / Indo-European
The combination of these populations varies between European countries. For example, Southern Europeans have relatively more genetic contribution from European Farmers while Scandinavians have relatively more contribution from the Indo-Europeans.
The Indo-Iranians (who called themselves Aryans) were also descended from Corded Ware culture which is why they already had significant admixture from European farmers in addition to the prominent Yamnayan (European steppe) ancestry. According to David Reich in 2019, the Aryan invaders that contributed genetically to South Asia were ~60% Yamnayan (steppe) ancestry and about 30% European farmer ancestry. This is nearly identical to modern Northern Europeans.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Sardinians have almost no Yamnayan ancestry as it was the only location in Europe that was not touched by Indo-European migrations during the Bronze Age. They are living fossils of the Neolithic European Farmers before the Indo-European invasions of Europe.
So you are technically correct that the Romans did not regard themselves as Aryan. At the same time, there is a very real genetic and linguistic origin shared by the Romans, Celts, Germans, Slavs, and Indo-Iranians that is being evoked by the word "Aryan".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh come on, man. I’m a lot more willing to indulge the Jew-hating stuff than many others here, because I think there’s some valuable commentary in there, but the Romans had many other things working against their long-term prospects before, during, and after Christianization. I’ve said plenty of negative things about the conversion of Europe to Christianity - in addition to positive things as well - but I think the direct causal link you’re attempting to draw here is tenuous at best.
I wouldn't call it tenuous since the relation between the two has been the subject of debate for thousands of years (not even to mention the long-term and present-day impact of Christianization), but the main point was that your expectation of solidarity from disparate groups during the Decline of American empire doesn't really have much basis. Your prediction of a Jewish and Asian reconciliation towards Whiteness is way more tenuous than relating the adoption of the Roman-era "woke mind virus" slave morality to its decline and collapse.
I’ve also compared the spread of Christianity to the spread of Woke, so I understand why you would extrapolate this parallel to predict that Christianity’s effect on Rome’s trajectory was exactly as monotonically disastrous as Woke appears to be for European-descended cultures. However, I think it’s every bit as likely that European cultures eventually end up molding Woke toward our own needs and purposes, much as they did with Christianity, defanging its most destructive aspects to achieve some sort of sustainable equilibrium.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you going to redefine "whiteness" the way it's already been redefined by the woke? Because it sounds like you are proposing not any coherent kind of "white" nationalism, but "ethnicities with high average IQ" nationalism.
I remain bemused by your campaign for a kinder, gentler white nationalism that will be inclusive of Jews and Chinese.
I would not define whiteness that way. But the good anti-racists down at the University of Maryland sort of are. They sort incoming freshmen into the two racial categories:
People of Color (not including Asians)
whites and Asians
And do you believe them?
More options
Context Copy link
The Whites and Asians sorting is amusing considering that May is both Jewish American Heritage Month per OP and Asian American & Pacific Islander Heritage Month.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To the extent that certain parts of the “Woke” coalition recognize that East Asians are “spiritually white” or “white-adjacent”, this is yet another example of a “The Woke Are More Correct Than The Mainstream” moment. And certainly there is a storied history within the race-realist philosophical/anthropological tradition of recognizing Asians as one of the “noble races”. White identitarians’ relationship with Asians has always been somewhat bipolar, with one extreme (such as our dearly-departed Sinophobe @Lepidus) viewing Asians as a bug-like overly-communitarian race, incompatible with free-spirited Europeans, and the other extreme seeing them as a brother race, every bit as capable of building and sustaining glorious civilizations as Europeans are. I lean strongly toward the latter extreme, as do many others. This isn’t some totally quixotic effort in which I’m going it alone.
As for recognizing Jews as white, this has pretty much been the normal mainstream view, even among race realists, for the majority of human history. The early American Renaissance conferences featured a number of staunchly white-identitarian Jews, who were unfortunately later sidelined by the more hardcore Jew-skeptical faction of the movement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
-White identitarians should copy more of what works so well for the Jews. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", and it is wise to copy things which are already proven to work.
If Jews are so rich and powerful and good at working in their own ethnic interests, then surely White identitarians would be wise to learn from them?
-One strategy which is proven to work: buy off politicians. It is still quite cheap to buy politicians; AIPAC and other rich Jews do it all the time, with very little money compared to the size of the American economy. (One key part of the strategy is to buy off politicians in BOTH parties.)
The total amount of money spent on political donations at the federal level in the USA in 2020 was $14 billion.
If 4% of Americans are White identitarians willing to spend less than $1000 per year to get everything they want, they could blow all other political donations out of the water with more than $15 billion in donations each election.
Of course, you don't need to outdonate literally all other donors in order to buy politicians. White identitarians could spend wayyyyyy less than that and still gain as much in benefits as AIPAC and friends get for their donations.
I know some White identitarians are willing to die to get what they want. But are they smart enough and pragmatic enough to simply spend $100 per year to bribe politicians in both parties to work for the interests of a majority of Americans???
-Quite frankly, if the most pro-Jewish group on the planet were the White identitarians, do you think that the danger from the Jews would be high? No.
Many Jews do in fact reward those who are kind to them. Focus on them.
-Do more to brag about all you have done for Jews in the past, but frame it like you are their friend.
Instead of framing it like "Look at how much money we give to our enemies", frame it as "Can't you see that we are your friends, after all we have given to you?".
In other words, behave no worse than a Jewish mother using guilt to encourage better behavior.
And what have White Goys given to Jews?:
.massive amounts of foreign aid
.military aid
.promises of protection in the event of a war
.fighting wars partly on the behalf of Israel, at the behest of the neocons and the like
.votes on their behalf in the UN etc.
.intelligence
.letting Jews immigrate to countries we controlled, and even generously letting them control many of our powerful institutions
.liberating concentration camps (Yes, some goys killed Jews. But even the Nazis knew that they had to mostly hide what they were doing, because most White people would not support it, even in an era of intense anti-Semitism.)
.paying reparations and making amends https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/27/slavery-reparations-holocaust-restitution-negotiations-229881/
.White-created educational institutions, laws, colonies, and social norms were the launching pad for much of Jewish wealth and success
.it is possible that some of the genetic basis for Ashkenazi success came from those European mothers, perhaps even more than the Jewish fathers
.just as White technologies saved the lives of most of the people on the planet, they helped to save the lives of many Jewish people
In general, it frustrates me to no end that so many White people are so amazingly generous to others, and then do such a terrible job of taking credit for it or getting friendship or concrete value in exchange.
And then many White identitarians make the situation even worse, somehow turning the past White generosity into a basis for hatred and enmity, instead of converting the historical generosity into a basis for friendship.
-Do more to appreciate Jewish contributions to White people, including massive life-saving technologies like the Haber nitrogen process.
Jews have made major contributions in every category listed above, as well as:
.academic contributions
.humanitarian contributions
.paying high taxes which subsidized welfare for White people and others
.political contributions (great statesmen)
.mathematical contributions
.scientific contributions
.cultural contributions
.legal contributions
.weapons (Nuclear weapons were basically a Jewish science project which were given to White Goys to control. Talk about trust!)
.genetic contributions (many mostly-White geniuses are part Jewish)
-Get better at identifying areas of mutual interest, where there is natural pragmatic alliance to be had, or friendship to be had by mutual enjoyment.
-Get better at identifying things which can be negotiated to mutual advantage.
The main principle of negotiation seems to be to find things you would easily part with which are of great value to others, while identifying things which others would easily part with which are of great value to YOU.
Some Jews are amazingly good at negotiation (of either the win/win variety, or the win/lose variety), and are great training partners in pragmatism.
-At every turn, employ "White" persuasion techniques, like the Dale Carnegie technique of defining a high standard for others to live up to. Keep referring to Jews as our friends, not our enemies. Defining someone as an enemy tends to make them one!
On the assumption they'd be used to destroy Nazi Germany. And the funding for implementation came from Europeans, without which Jewish physics expertise is useless.
And what have Jews given in return? Just what are these cultural contributions we're talking about? We got multiculturalism, mass immigration, MindGeek and Tinder. We get Blackrock promoting ESG, we get the NYT and media broadly stoking anti-white hatred (with their wildly diverging treatment of white-on-black vs black-on-white killings), we have Disney pushing everything but white men. We have the ADL shamelessly promoting Jewish nationalism and denigrating white nationalism.
Outside the hard sciences, where they provided a lot of useful work - polio vaccines for instance, Jews have had profoundly negative effects on the West. They comprehensively work to transform the Western World to fit their preferences of an open, cosmopolitan society and snaffle up most of the elite positions in said society, while playing a divide-and-conquer game with newly imported minorities and the old majority. This is not advantageous to Europeans, who lose the benefits of homogenous, high trust communities and a good chunk of elite positions. Consider how many people weren't born due to ideas like feminism which was heavily promoted by Jews or 'overpopulation' circulated by people like Ehrlich.
From Sontag:
Or Barbara Spectre in Sweden:
Noel Ignatiev writes that he merely wants to abolish the category of whiteness, yet I doubt he'd be so enthusiastic if we wanted to eradicate Jewishness (merely as a category though, never mind about the weakness it induces in the group of individuals after having their identity dissolved.) Obviously having your identity is beneficial to the group, why else would identities even exist?
A large chunk of the Jewish cultural intelligentsia has a deep-seated hatred of whites and don't even bother to hide it. Treating people who openly hate you as friends is ridiculously silly. That's what we've been doing for decades and it isn't working out well. Consider the WW2 veterans who are inconceivably bitter about the society they fought for (there's a whole book of letters, The Unknown Warriors, from UK veterans where they mostly despair at the transformation their country has undergone, how the values they were raised under have been demolished).
Of course, I'll give the standard 'not all Jews are working to undermine to remain the remnants of Western Civilization'. But consider that not all whites participated in pogroms, Crusades or Nazism. Sweden isn't going to be spared its 'inevitable cultural transformation', despite hardly ever doing anything to anger Jews. These large-scale conflicts are totalizing, they do not suffer nuance. Consider what happened to the whites who were sympathetic to Dessalines and remained in Haiti after he won the war.
If anyone wants links to back up my points, then I can provide them with sources.
Sure, the Jews thought it would also be in their overall interests of the time (not only as Jews, but also as Americans and pacifists like Einstein) to create the atom bomb.
But I still think it was a big deal to entrust such a destructive weapon to people who were not so ethnically or culturally dissimilar from the Nazis.
And, perhaps most relevantly for White identitarians, by creating such a destructive weapon, they perhaps created the conditions to never have another massively destructive war among White people. ("Brother wars" being one of our chief and regular mistakes for so many centuries.)
It may have even been unintentional, but how many White Goy lives have been saved by the fear of nuclear war? (Quite a lot of human progress has come from unintended discoveries and indirect effects... sort of an anti-fragile effect, I think, the natural tendency of humans to try to turn everything into a positive.)
I personally value the cultural contributions of Jews the least of their contributions. Very little of their culture is the culture I like most. (I hate Seinfeld, I hate Mindgeek, I hate Tinder, I hate...)
But almost zero White people (including White identitarians) don't have some favorite movies or music or other culture which had major Jewish contributions.
One of the culturally "Whitest" and most wholesome movies of all time, imo, "It's A Wonderful Life", was made by a Jew, for example.
Hollywood may have been largely run by (often nepotistic) Jews for over a century (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-dec-19-oe-stein19-story.html), and yet those Jews turned a profit from White audiences. If Jews did a better job of giving White audiences culture they were willing to pay for, than we ourselves were able to do, whose fault is that? Nepotism can only explain so much...
This had already happened, and was going to keep happening, even if no Jews had ever been let in the country.
The Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 passed overwhelmingly, Jews were not necessary for it.
"voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the United States Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18.[28] In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.[29] In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no, and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no, and 11 abstained.[30] In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill"
And Reagan naturalized huge numbers of illegal aliens.
I think America and other countries have done a terrible job with how they have managed immigration, but us White people should take responsibility for our part in them. (And if we were partly persuaded by Jews into these mistakes, we should take responsibility for that, too. We have to be smart enough to not push the blade into our own heart, no matter how persuasive some messages might be.)
No doubt commercial and pro-immigration Jews helped accelerate this, but probably much of this would have happened anyway, due to capitalist and migratory pressures. We need to take responsibility for our choices, along with acknowledging the environment we were operating in. Once we created so many nice countries, and being so capitalist, mass immigration was almost inevitable.
"Jewish nationalism" and "Jewish identitarianism" are great phrases. Instead of saying "Zionist" (which most people don't understand), just always refer to it as "Jewish nationalism/identitarianism", so people understand that White nationalism and Jewish nationalism are the same thing.
I think that several groups of people are VERY BAD at bragging about how much they have helped the rest of the planet.
These groups include (but are not limited to):
.men of all races
.White Goys
.Jews
.nerds in general
Anyway, Jews need to do a better job of bragging about every great contribution they have made, just like White Goys need to brag more, and men need to brag more, and so on.
It's possible that one single Jew- Fritz Haber- saved more lives with one single invention, than the sum of all lives lost to every single "bad Jew" on the planet.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=EvknN89JoWo&ab_channel=Veritasium
(One thing I love about the Fritz Haber example is that he also helped to kill a lot of people, so it shows the dichotomy of Jews, which is similar to the dichotomy of White Goys & the dichotomy of men & of technology in general- sometimes they do bad things, and sometimes they do good things. But the Good usually heavily outweighs the Bad.)
White people had the least need for help, but I bet the White population could expand by over 100 million extra people due to that one Jew.
Every other invention and scientific discovery is basically gravy on top, for its benefits for White people. And Jews are massive contributors in these areas.
A meaningful portion of White wealth is directly and indirectly based on Jewish ingenuity & investment. (Just like most Jewish wealth is built on top of White foundations.)
And in a civilizational conflict with, say, China, Jews would be crucial allies. Just like their help in ending the war with Japan.
It seems particularly insane to me in the present moment for any White identitarians to dare to make themselves seem like a threat to Jews, when so many Jews are playing crucial roles in AI development. There are an almost infinite number of ways in which unnecessary enmity could turn out horribly for White anti-Semites during this phase of history!
(And likewise, there are so many White Goys playing crucial roles in AI development, and Chinese people, and Indians, and so on, that the risk of Jews or anyone else being negatively racist towards any of these other groups seems off-the-charts insane.)
I bet some Jews have the exact same rationalization for why it's ok to screw over lots of White societies. "Sure, most White people are nice, but some of them did MASSIVE damage to us...", and use that to justify their selfishness and racism against all of us.
And BTW, I never doubted that some Jews have had a truly horrible (and often misinformed) attitude towards us. I am just exploring how the dynamic could eventually become lastingly better.
Ending the negative cycle is the key thing. Or at least reducing it. Both sides need better communication/persuasion, and more creative pragmatism.
This and the rest of your comment did a good job of exploring reasons to A) fear the power of Jews (in other words, try to convert them to friends and allies, by whatever creative and reasonable means we can do so), and B) "if you can't beat them, join them".
Ah yes but somebody would've figured out synthesizing nitrogen eventually. If it wasn't Haber, it would've been the next-best, next-luckiest chemist. As guano prices rise, more money and brainpower is brought to bear on the problem. Someone was always going to figure out quantum mechanics, eventually. In a world without Jews, people might've figured out nuclear weapons somewhat slower but it would still have been achieved. Likewise with polio vaccines.
Politics and culture is vastly more important than science since culture and politics are one-shot things. If you lock in feminism to the Japanese constitution and the birthrate plummets, never to recover, then that's brainpower that is forever lost, it cannot be rediscovered. If you (Trotsky, Zinoviev and the rest of the gang) impose a horrendously bad form of government on a huge swathe of Eurasia (then get overthrown by Stalin and Beria who do their best to match and exceed in terms of brutality and waste), then that can never be undone. Let's not forget galaxy-brain Von Neumann's plea to immediately wage nuclear war against the Soviet Union and kill tens of millions more. If he'd been listened to, if people had trusted his game theory over their own common sense... Well someone else can invent computer architecture - nobody can bring the dead back to life.
Over the last few years, how many people weren't born because of Ehrlich and co's overpopulation meme? How much wealth has been squandered? Nobody can be sure but the amount of brainpower we lost to communism and bad politics (which is admittedly multi-causal but heavily influenced by ideas promulgated by Jews) is immense. My bet is that it outweighs Jewish contributions to science by far.
Good point. But the key thing hinges upon the necessity of the enmity. If you have a neutral, then you should not offend them unless necessary, especially if they're powerful. But if there's an enemy on the verge of attaining total power over the world? If protesting at the sinister entrenchment of political bias in GPT, for example, is making a threat, so be it. It's rather similar to the adage 'When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression'.
Likewise, brainpower is needed in a conflict with China. But there are other options - we could abandon our crusade to impose LGBT rights and liberal democracy upon Beijing. Acknowledging China as a legitimate non-democracy would have soothed much of the problems. Or we could've been more disciplined earlier on! Goldman Sachs and co could have not blindly sought profits from the Chinese market... A less Open Society would not have brought in Chinese students and trained them in advanced technology, so they could then leak IP back to China. A West that had a genuinely nationalist policy would not have let its industrial base be carved out and send to Shanghai.
There's a combination of high intelligence and insufficiently high wisdom that is very dangerous. It can make money and innovation - but also bad money and bad innovations like coin-clipping or communism, Middle East regime change, pre-emptive nuclear war, pumping sterilization drugs into the water supply as Ehrlich proposed. Better to match moderate wisdom and intelligence, advance swiftly but not recklessly embrace radical ideas.
Even so, I respect the novelty and refreshing point of view of your argument. But don't you think that it's a very unlikely ideology to work? I've spent a lot of time reading and never come across anything like what you say. People more naturally think in terms of 'threat -> enemy -> weaken/destroy' than 'threat -> cooperate -> ally'. Why else are there wars in the world?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Finland probably has one of the smallest Jewish communities anywhere in Europe. Which doesn't mean there aren't Jews of influence - but the most notable ones, former UN ambassador, Max Jakobson and MP Ben Zyskowicz - have been figures of the right, with Zyskowicz particularly having a reputation of being a right-wing stalwart within his party.
The closest the local antisemites have had to a "Barbara Spectre" is that many of them have theoretized that Aatos Erkko, the former longtime editor/owner of Finland's main newspaper and biggest domestic media concern, was partly Jewish from his English mother's side. However, I have never found actual proof of this - Aatos's mother's family tree does not have any indications of such, and Aatos seems to have mostly just inherited his father's liberal Anglophile political inclinations.
Like I've said before, Finland has had a socialist revolution, one of Western Europe's biggest and most influential Communist parties, a new-left movement advocating for sexual revolution etc, a robust domestic pornography industry etc. things that antisemites often blame solely or at least mainly for being a product of Jewish influence, yet with next to no Jews involved here. That would indicate these are really products of material and social trends, not some malign minority - if Jews have been involved in such sectors in other countries, it's more of a question of taking up places in an ecosystem where the same places would have been occupied by gentiles if there had not been Jews.
One notable thing is that occasionally the local discourses on the Finland-Swedish minority have greatly resembled the ways antisemites talk about Jews - something that has been noted not only by Finland-Swedes but also by far-righters. (Conservative cartoonist Kari Suomalainen who tended towards the far right at the end of his career caustically noted that "Finland has never had a particular need for antisemitism since we have Swedes to hate.")
More options
Context Copy link
What we can do is provide clear, reasoned enlightenment in response, so anyone reading can see the difference between that poisoned paranoia and rationality.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, Mr Al Goldstein normalized hardcore pornography in the US. Reuben Sturman was the 'Walt Disney of Porn'. Tinder's two founders were Jewish and half-Jewish respectively. Stephen Hirsch runs Vivid Entertainment, which dominates the video production side of US pornography today. Jews have made an enormous and grossly disproportionate contribution to sexual liberalization. This is not up for dispute. Do you want me to list off a huge number of Jewish feminists? I can but usually I get accused of gish-gallopping whenever I provide large amounts of evidence to support a case.
Plus, a quote from Al Goldstein: "The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don't believe in authoritarianism."
And who was it working intensely for a greatly liberalized immigration policy in the UK, in the late 1990s where immigration increased massively, despite never being part of a democratic party program? Minister of State for Asylum and Immigration Barbara Roche. There's also an enormous swathe of Jewish lobby groups clamouring for increased migration to the UK. It's the same story in the US - Jewish billionaires predominently lean the same way in their enormous political donations. They support either Israel or sexual liberalization and mass immigration: https://www.themotte.org/post/421/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/79580?context=8#context
Well, David Marmorstein Tassilo helped found the company and is COO.
Why don't you have a look at the US government and get back to me on that:
Blinken (Secretary of State)
Sherman (Deputy Secretary of State)
Yellen (Treasury Secretary)
Garland (Attorney General)
Cohen (Deputy CIA Director)
Haines (Director of Natl Intelligence)
Klain (Chief of Staff)
Lander (Science & Tech Director)
Levine (Deputy Health Secretary)
Mayorkas (Director of Homeland Security)
Neuberger (NSA Cybersecurity Director)
In contrast, Whites have Energy, Transport, Health, Commerce, Agriculture and Veteran's affairs. An enormous chunk of the most important parts of the US government are run by Jews. We often talk about sectarianism in academic analysis of history. For instance, we understand that the Syrian Ba'ath party is dominated by Alawites, in alliance with some minorities like Christians and Shia, working against the Sunni majority. I've studied the topic. The officer corps of the Syrian army was filled with Alawites. Non-Alawite officers often got Alawite second-in-commands to keep them in line, to ensure they wouldn't make the wrong choices. That situation is paralleled in the US government to a certain extent.
Hmm... The name does not square with their actions...
It’s always the ones you least expect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In 6 years of encountering this claim across hundreds of threads in dozens of places, alongside hundreds of thousands silently encountering this claim for the first or Nth time and a very good chunk of them being initially set down or carried further along the path towards irrevocably arriving at "there's something up with the jews and maybe something should be done about it" by it, I can't recall ever seeing anybody actually go through and dispute it.
More options
Context Copy link
My point is that Jews are enormously overrepresented in establishing and developing these sectors. The direction in which they take things tends to be more radical and transgressive. It stands to reason that if there weren't any Jews, then there would be much less in the way of pornography and casual sex generally. The most sex-oriented big dating apps are tinder and grindr, both founded by Jews. More lovey-dovey, long-term relationship apps like OKCupid and Bumble were founded by Europeans.
Not all horrendous ideas in the world are from Jews: Gentler for instance proudly sent orphans in Germany off to live with pedophiles and got dozens of men acquitted of molestation, Foucault campaigned for the abolition of the age of consent, presumably so he could have sex with children. There was a postwar vibe that was excessively libertine, where barriers that should not have been touched were broken. The Frankfurt school had a lot to do with this attitude of course.
Immigration and refugee resettlement in the US stems significantly from Jews. The 1965 Immigration Law was introduced by Emmanuel Celler. Sure, it was passed by many non-Jews too. But consider Proposition 187 which sought to stem illegal immigration in California, which was approved democratically but then blocked by Mariana Pfaelzer.
This is what we call shifting the goalposts.
You made a lot of claims about Jews essentially being responsible for modern hardcore pornography, and when that was knocked down, now it's "Well, they're enormously overrepresented."
How exactly do you quantify "enormously," anyway? More overrepresented than they are in the media generally?
My question for you is the same I have for all the Joo-posters: you play this game of trying to get everyone to Notice things, but never spell out what you think the significance is. Are Jews just natural degenerates with a biological compulsion to subvert and corrupt? Is there something in Judaism that you think is a causal link to pornography? If we agree that yeah, lots of Jews are involved in porn - okay, so what? Lots of Asian women and black men are too, but we can probably come up with some obvious hypotheses about that which do not involve Asian women or black men being inherently degenerate.
You clearly want us to draw conclusions, but you Darkly Hint at them without being willing to spell out what you think the causal link is.
There are a whole lot of racialized theories that are based solely on "Those People make up X% of the population but Y% of this group," but it's only when Y is greater than X for your favorite outgroups where, rather than consider obvious historical and cultural pressures and even happenstance, we're supposed to attribute it to something sinister and inherent about Those People.
And I'm open to HBD explanations, to the degree that I think that IQ has a lot of explanatory power for many things. But I have yet to see a HBD explanation for Jew-Noticing that doesn't boil down to something about as scientific as Hitler's racial theories.
No, this does not stand to reason. Wow, dude, above when it's pointed out that Jews are responsible for some major scientific breakthroughs, you said "Well, someone else would have discovered that if a Jew hadn't." Yet online porn and casual sex, apparently, is something so uniquely Jewish that without Jews, no one else would have ever invented PornHub and OnlyFans and Tinder?
More options
Context Copy link
So true.
This is why there was no pornography in ancient world before it was influenced by Jews.
This is why pornography was unknown in Christian countries of old where only handful of Jews lived, for example 18th century France and Britain.
This is why there is no pornography today in countries where never were any Jews, countries that strongly rejected Jewish ideas like monotheism and communism, for example Japan.
More options
Context Copy link
Or possibly "it would've been the next-best, next-luckiest" people to try to expand that market? If we compare the inventions of synthetic fertilizer, quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons, and vaccination to the invention of "if you offer women money some of them will do dirty stuff on camera", how on Earth do you conclude that the former insights were just ripe for the plucking while the latter was an improbable course that alt-history would have naturally avoided? People have been trying to figure out how to grow more food, make better weapons, and survive smallpox for millennia, with grossly more limited results, whereas all a pornographer has to figure out is how to combine "we have cameras now" with the World's Oldest Profession. I made fun of the "Deutsche physik" movement the other day, but at least they had "modern physics is really hard" as an excuse for failure. It's funny to even try to imagine how non-Jewish would-be pornographers could have failed. "We tried offering them turnips, we tried offering them badgers; nothing worked!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why?
Do you feel "represented" by White Christian White House staffers?
Do you feel that Biden's WCWHS are "your people", do you think that they see you as "one of them", do you think that they are protecting your interests, do you think that they look at you with more kindness and gentleness than their Jewish colleagues?
Every alliance that excludes you from its membership is an implicit threat to your interests. This is basic Survivor logic.
Again, do you think that White Christian White House staffers would defend your interests and would see you as their "ally"?
Less unlikely to do so. Where are the pictures of the White Christian White House staffers having developed a firm enough ethnic identity as such to gather together and take pictures of themselves celebrating their shared White Christianity?
Are you really just overlooking the word "white" as though it's an unnecessary detail in this discussion?
It is an unnecessary detail
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But we know they do not. We know they are nice-sounding mouth-noises that cover for rank in-group tribal advocacy (or, in other words, morally-loaded but vague marketing buzz-labels). So why bother to continue to engage with the concept on its own terms? Why buy into the marketing materials instead of the actual meat of the policy decisions the marketing is designed to cover for?
More options
Context Copy link
Those with influence get to decide popular culture, and I live in a country that runs off popular culture, which means my life and those whom I love are affected by the culture of those in power. If Catholics were so over-represented, Biden would likely not speak about transphobia when Christian children were gunned down by a Transgender activist. Well, if Catholics were so over-represented they would actually comprise the entire White House staff, and then they would build two more White Houses and fill each one with the same amount (all Catholics), and there would still be roughly 100 Catholics left over to fiddle with their rosary beads. Do you think Jews would be content if 30% of the staff were Muslim? This is a good way to think about it. Why not 90% Muslim? Jews would have nothing to fear if Muslims hypothetically comprised the entire political apparatus, right? And atheists nothing to fear if every leader were a Mormon from Utah?
So, if Joe Biden fired all Jews and replaced them with good Catholics, as good Catholics as himself and his family, your culture would be protected and you would be happy?
You in 1923:
If you mean instead, that the singular parent-influence that led to a 14x exaggerated hiring rate and that also leads to Biden policy decisions was replaced by a Catholic one, then of course this would be in my interests. Do you think Jews are just burning their money by spending millions of dollars on advocacy groups, lobbying, and so on? Or do they perhaps benefit? Well, of course they benefit, otherwise the money would not be spent. Whether there’s a direct connection between Jewish lobbying and a 14x over-representation is not something I know, because it hasn’t been investigated (neither reported), because I don’t have the lobbyists to order the investigation. The Black lobby of course gets a special video call with Biden’s team, seen in my link above.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Technically, she could be Beta Israel.
More options
Context Copy link
It is to a large extent merit due to being smart, as Dr. Jordan Paterson agrees, but this does not preclude favoritism too.
What do you mean by "success" here? Because to me, being "the richest and most educated group in the US" is success.
How did they even become the richest and most educated group? Most Americans Jews didn't arrive rich and well-educated. They arrived as poor immigrants from Eastern Europe who didn't speak English and were hated by the gentile majority.
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not going to deny IQ but I think cultural focus on educational development has had a huge positive impact on Jews and Asians. The reason that so many Asians are in tech fields is the tiger mother pushing their kids not only towards success in school, but toward high-status fields like computer science, engineering, and medicine. A Jewish tiger mother would do much the same, encouraging their kids to study hard and go into high status fields.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's an easy answer, but it's incomplete.
The reasons for the overrepresentation are only one part of the question, and not even relatively important. Let's say their massive overrepresentation in these intellectual and cultural institutions is due to 50% merit and 50% ethnocentrism, who cares? It's all merit in my book.
The far more important question, which does not have an easy answer, is how we should understand their stewardship over their areas of influence. All of the people saying "well duh, Jews are massively overrepresented in PMC so that's going to be reflected in white house staffing" would be the first to deny that Jews bear any outweighed responsibility as a group for the intellectual and cultural trajectory of the country, or that their group identity has systematically influenced their stewardship of their areas of influence to the determinate of the country. That is the bigger problem.
They are massively overrepresented in these key institutions, and you can't criticize them as a group, even as they engage in group-oriented behavior. There's not an easy answer to that conundrum.
More options
Context Copy link
The sorts of elite liberals who might be staffers in the White House are vastly disproportionately Jewish, just like elite conservatives who might be staffers in a conservative admin are disproportionately conservative catholic.
There’s an interesting debate as to why, but with that background it’s not shocking that Biden’s White House is extremely Jewish.
More options
Context Copy link
Look at yourself.
Trawling lists to tally up your racial quotas. Wringing your hands over the tragic underrepresentation of your preferred demographic. So determined to believe that skin color (or however you can most favorably slice the boundaries) determines moral worth and political value. Behold the Übermensch!
You are giving an object lesson in why identity politics suck. You are recreating the field of grievance studies. I have no doubt that you could give me a dozen reasons why the stereotypically progressive position is foolish and immoral, so why are you wasting your time recreating it?
Have some self-respect.
Make it less personal, please.
He's not wrong though.
As @netsack says, this whole thread is an object lesson in why identity politics suck. It literally makes people stupid and is fundamentally corrosive to the building of any sort of community.
When I mod someone for breaking the rules, it doesn't mean I disagree with what they said.
Why am I having the same argument with you about things I tried to explain to @FarNearEverywhere? Being "right" doesn't mean you get to sling insults.
It's not an insult though, it's an appeal to be better.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That cuts both ways, though.
I think @coffee_enjoyer has principles which discourage affirmative action, reparations, and otherwise favoring most ethnicities over others. Is it not fair to demand he apply those rules fairly even when Jews are involved?
More options
Context Copy link
Turnabout is fair play.
More options
Context Copy link
On the object level I somewhat agree, but your argument if taken seriously would disqualify all accusations of hypocrisy. It is totally fair to accuse your opponents of not following their own principles, and doing so doesn't require adopting those principles.
I am specifically accusing OP of adopting principles when it is convenient for taking shots at The Jews.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The reason that the progressive position is foolish is not because representation doesn't matter, particularly in elite institutions. The reason the position is foolish because it provides a completely false model explaining patterns in representation, a false model that is designed to reduce the representation of non-Jewish white people with mechanisms like affirmative action.
If someone became president and all of a sudden Jewish representation reverted to their population representation of ~2%, I have a feeling you would attribute meaning to that, and no doubt @2rafa would as well. But whites are already underrepresented in key areas of intellectual and cultural life, so there's not much room for them to "take comfort" in those trends in any way.
2rafa would completely panic if Jewish representation in elite institutions fell to below their population representation within the course of a few decades. But he'll equivocate with some "no big deal" handwaving to explain why non-Jewish white people have no reason to complain about their own representation.
I--not who you're responding to-- thought this while reading but suddenly doubted myself. Makes me realize I don't actually know who the hell any of you people are. (And no my name isn't George, either.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I dislike the whole premise of this post. The phrase “default white Americans” is a categorization I’d wholeheartedly reject, as a supposedly positive variation of the Chinese robber fallacy hinted to be synonymous with “volk”. I assume most of the Jewish staffers are “default Jewish Americans” and the Black staffers are “default Black Americans,” absent any further info. “Americans who chose to be American by legal immigration” is a much more meaningful category.
“Jewish” and “white” also need some breakdown. Alexander Vindman, central to one impeachment of Trump, was a Soviet citizen at birth, to a Jewish family in Kiev (at the time). Without any of that knowledge, I’d think him one of your “default white Americans”.
I’m an American by birth and default choice in a land which accepts all comers. I care less about underrepresentation by bodies like mine and more about hearts and minds like mine. I want Allen West as President, David Mamet as White House speechwriter, Thomas Sowell as head of the Fed, and so-called Ultra-Orthodox Jews on the Supreme Court bench.
Nobody born outside of the country can ever be a default white American, they can only be a foreigner immigrant. I'd you want to be a default white American, you need both parents born in the country, and ideally at least three grandparents.
I'd apply the same qualifier to the default black American: both parents born in the country, and at least 3/4 grandparents.
But let's be real. You know what the phrase means, you just don't like the group it describes.
That's overstating the extent a little, I think.
One of my parents is an immigrant to the US, but the main ways that I deviate from the default are, I think, generally not connected to the immigrant status of my parent. I don't really think my parent is ideologically unusual for the US either.
More options
Context Copy link
I am the group it describes. My ancestors came over on the Mayflower, in the New England Puritan wave, in the Pennsylvania Dutch wave, and whenever the Scottish (not Scots-Irish) came over. I drink cow milk and eat wheat and cheese with zero side effects.
What I don’t like is that “white” carries more weight than “American” for my political rivals, and hate that it’s carrying that weight for the enemies of my enemies.
This isn't going to make you feel any better, but for many, if not most, people outside of the US the term "American" carries more weight than "white" only because they are taken to be synonymous. It is considered patently obvious to my Asian relatives that their (American-born, monolingual English-speaking children) are not "Americans" and that neither are blacks or hispanics, regardless of how long they have lived here. If you learn any Asian language you will hear such sentiments expressed regularly.
While I think our experiment in separating the concepts of nationality and ancestry has been noble and well-intentioned, its modern defenders would do well to remember that what they are fighting against is nearly the full weight of human nature along with the culture and mindset of every other civilization on the planet.
More options
Context Copy link
Twitter uses word "Amerikaner" for the group this thread is talking about - people descended from North-West European settlers in North America.
It is awkward, Germanic sounding name, but no one found anything better so far.
According to proponents, Amerikaners are separate nation with their own unique culture, nation colonized, oppressed and exploited, nation that is still unaware that it exists.
Some serious national revival movement is needed to save it.
Time to stop shitposting and start writing stirring poetry and plays, compose music and paint imposing works of art (or train AI to do it, we are not in 19th century any more).
More options
Context Copy link
No. And this is an important point. You phrased it this way to sound witty, but for most people on this Earth it is a statement much more meaningful than you can imagine.
Being «the group» is a real feeling. You are not the group, you're just some descendant. You are incapable of comprehending the sense of being «the group». Your idea of being part of an ethnic group is atrophied to the point you believe it's about some historical record and food compatibility; not white-hot rage and bestial frothing at the mouth when it's criticized by an alien, not exhilaration at the sight of «your» men fucking «their» women (and this soft of sentiment is absolutely what the in-group preference of the majority of humankind entails). You are a team sports creature: the whole evolutionary gimmick of your «group» is being demonstrably lukewarm toward one's kin and creating moral communities bound by abstract verbal premises; and you personally are extreme in this regard.
This is a solid tactic so long as the group's morals endorse genocide, subjugation and discrimination against neighboring peoples. Not so much when you become civilized and welcome people smarter, more tribal and more loquacious than you into your polity, to have them warp your childishly simple good-faith agreements and underdefined premises into whatever they need at the moment.
Just the other day I was watching that congressional session with Altman and looked up Sen. Blumenthal. On the whole, I liked him more than I expected, both in the hearing and in terms of his policies. But, of course, he's a man of the Tribe:
I don't care about Palestinians or Israelis. But why can't Americans encourage boycotts against an illegal occupation in the Middle East? And why do people with such priorities get to decide whether Americans can have guns or GPUs?
Largely because he is a group and you lot are not. You are merely a dispersed biological population.
You do not belong to a tribe. You are born to signal being your own man, because this was rewarded in the ancestral environment. But it's not rewarded any more. Your moral community firmware is obsolete and executing it will be increasingly denied to you.
Then again, this is just evolution at work. If your elite sees any point to preservation efforts, maybe some of you will exist in a hundred years in a way that would matter.
Oof. As much as I enjoy your razor-sharp insight, it cuts deep because it is true. I have eschewed grouping myself with my biogroup because of the ugliness of those who do. In doing so I have consciously denied a power to be grasped.
For separate reasons, I still strive for something more excellent, the coming of the kingdom of God, which brings all the lost children of Noah into one great family. I could be paranoid about the originators of my faith being Jewish, but I think that blackpill is poison.
Christianity is interesting on ethnic groups.
The Jewish people were obviously their own ethnic group, but one thread found in Acts and several of the epistles is the broadening of that to all nations. See Ephesians, for example:
Ethnic tribalism is antithetical to Christianity, at least at this point in redemptive history.
It is the household of God, as the quote I put ends, that we should identify with instead.
Touching on your comment, @DuplexFields, I suppose I don't see why Christ's Judaism is a problem.
One of my dad’s favorite jokes goes something like this: Two men from the same small town, an African-American Baptist pastor and a Scots-Irish Presbyterian minister, were good friends. Sometimes when they had lunch together, the subject turned to whether Jesus was Black or white. The arguments got heated on occasion, and one day on their way home from a conference, the two men were arguing the topic when they died together in a car accident. On their way up to Heaven, one turned to the other and said, “I guess now we’ll find out who was right all along.” Finally, they floated up through the topmost cloud. Saint Peter asked their names, checked the book, nodded, and let them in. Immediately they beheld a glorious figure approaching. They squinted because of the brightness of the light as their new eyes started adjusting. It was clearly Jesus, but they couldn’t quite make out His features. He opened His arms wide, and in a big, booming voice, said "Buenos dias, amigos!"
The Logos, the second person of the Trinity, ineffable and infinite mind of God, devised a perfect plan outside of spacetime before He created the world. As part of that plan, God chose the people descended from Abraham the faithful, Isaac the obedient, and Jacob the trickster as His priesthood here on Earth, and also as the wetware which would house the human mind of the Son of God. That man, Jesus of Nazareth, was superbly Jewish in all three ways: by genetic descent, by His religion, and by culture. The God of Christianity is inseparable from Judaism, and that’s how He had always planned it. This is not a problem for me and my faith.
People who care a bit much about “the Jewish question” one way or the other are usually atheists or have some twisted religious beliefs about blood and/or covenants. I have some opinions on why God did it that way, but this really isn’t the thread for it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But that quote and the philosophy behind it is about a future happy hunting ground with no connection to this world. Saying the great hope is that you’ll be in heaven is abandoning this world and your responsibility to and for this world.
More options
Context Copy link
Is this quote supposed to inspire hope, or further bitterness and derision?
"But consider this: if I lied to you, then you won't get everything I promised! Wouldn't you be better served to keep believing me instead?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I too would rather return to 1990s era race-blind meritocracy. But if we're going to have a racial spoil system (which we do), I'd prefer my group not to be uniquely disadvantaged.
More options
Context Copy link
Default White is a regrettable term, but “non-Jewish” is even more regrettable, and saying the word gentile in this context seems off. Similarly, “plain” comes with negative baggage. I also don’t want to say European, because the majority of Jewish Americans very much have European heritage. There really aren’t too many options, and I think if I said Christian-ancestry I’d also find disagreement.
I use the term "Amerikaner" to refer to the white American ethnos-that-isn't-quite-an-ethnos, though this would in theory exclude people who still retain a strong European immigrant culture and include any Jews who are thoroughly assimilated.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the problem you're having with the terminology here is due to trying to describe a coalition with varied heritages, interests, and purposes as a single group with solidarity.
Add in the Spain-ish whites, German-Mexicans (but not the German-Mexican Jews), Greeks, non-Jewish eastern Europeans, and the Roma, and now you have the entire pale rainbow.
Except the Ashkenazi.
I’d like to see people make noise about how underrepresented the Roma are in the Biden White House, for a change. Or perhaps overrepresented, but we don’t know because those aren’t the stats you wanted to retrieve and publicize.
But I don't know that that's entirely wrong—while various groups did start out more different, over time they assimilated. People complained when the Germans came. People complained when the Irish came. People complained when the Italians came. But there's been plenty of assimilation, and now they're viewed much less distinctly, and became much less distinct.
More options
Context Copy link
I'd the Mexicans today got treated like the Germans of the 20th century, they'd be default white within two generations.
That requires brutal suppression of their heritage and language, though.
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not 100% sure what point you’re making. European nationalities have had a shared culture for over a thousand years (nota bene: this is not mutually exclusive to unique culture). This is thanks first to Christendom, then to the proliferation of philosophy and music and art and literature. This is obvious when studying history. They are also genetically similar, due to prehistory but also due to genetic proliferation of Celts and Germanics. While Europeans did not define themselves like the Ashkenazi in premodernity as based on bloodline, it is quite silly to allege that European Americans have no shared genetics or culture. So, why would we single our Jewish Americans? Four reasons. (1) They are the group over-represented, and I would be as perturbed if the Irish were as over represented. (2) Absolutely every group but whites put themselves into larger groups, which includes Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. (3) They have their own unique religion, historical culture, (important in their minds) bloodlines, and intensive advocacy networks. (4) When people talk about white privilege, they may mean Jews if going by data, so a cultural correction is in order.
Let me know what you think. I see no argument for why it isn’t justifiable to mention Jewish over-representation when they are obviously their own unique cultural group within a large cultural tent, which any Rabbi would tell you.
More options
Context Copy link
The groups you refer to split in a natural way into: Irish, Italian, French, Polish (Catholic) and German, English, Scottish, Scots-Irish, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish (Protestant). Russians confuse me. There might be some Catholic Germans, but if there are, they know who they are.
A split by ethnic religion would capture the main division, which is between those groups that arrived before the Civil War, and those that arrived after. The latter were poorer and might still be. Hispanic people would join the newcomers if they still are nominally Catholic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Bring back the word Aryan. Using "white gentile" is so incredibly cucked, it would be like if you made the word "Jew" taboo so Jews had to just all refer to themselves as non-Aryan whites. You could nitpick that term, but the nitpicks of that term would apply to "Jewish" as well.
The problem with using Aryan is that you end up including Indian Brahmins, which, though they are rapidly growing in influence within the American (and British) elite PMC, certainly wouldn’t count as white in the way you’re intending it.
That is far from the biggest problem with using the word Aryan. The biggest problem is that approximately everyone will instantly pattern-match you as an anti-Semite at least, and a Nazi at worst.
Well yes, that’s obviously true, but I’m pointing out why @SecureSignals specifically, who demonstrably is not concerned with being pattern-matched as an anti-Semite, would still be better off eschewing the term for his own purposes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why would the word Aryan include Indian Brahmins? We don't call Mexicans Spaniards. Just because there was an Aryan invasion of India doesn't mean the caste with the most admixture remaining from that extinct ruling class are the same race as the invaders.
My understanding is that the Brahmin caste in India is directly descended from the Aryan overclass who ruled the Indus Valley civilization, although they have obviously taken on substantial admixture from the indigenous Dravidian populations in the intervening millennia. Certainly their religion, their cultural outlook - including their caste system - and their enduring position of prestige in India are directly continuous with their Aryan past.
As a follow-up, I came across a source I was looking for earlier:
David Reich described the Aryan invading population in 2019:
And the remaining 10% was of West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer origin, a population which is similar to Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers.
That ethnic composition is nearly identical to modern Northern Europeans (note "Earthly Neolitic" == European farmers). Certainly Europeans have far greater genetic similarity to the Aryans than the Brahmin.
Even among the Brahmin, >70% admixture from the Indus Valley and the indigenous Andamanese.
That's not to understate the tremendous Aryan influence on Indian civilization. But the admixture profile of modern-day Northern Europeans is nearly identical to the Aryans- and even throughout other regions of Europe with relatively lower Yamnaya ancestry and higher European farmer ancestry, the ancestrial profile looks the same as the Aryans in comparison to the Brahmin.
cc: @BurdensomeCount
Interesting, thanks for this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The castes correlate with indo-european admixture, but it's still too low to resemble anything you would call a direct descendant, in the way you wouldn't call a mestizo a direct descendant of Europeans. It's a case of ethnogenesis. I haven't seen PCA/clustering with the caste systems compared to European groups but I imagine that would demonstrate this point as well.
It's also likely the caste system was created in response to racial changes among the ruling class, so substantial changes likely happened before the formalization of the caste system. Where are the conquistadores today? Even if a caste system were created in Latin America today, the upper castes would still have a substantial amount of indigenous admixture.
It's interesting to consider how the Spanish intermixed with the natives which the Anglos did not.
Actually, from what I understand the political/cultural/financial elite in Mexico, Brazil, and the Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay) has very little non-European admixture at all. In Mexico they’re descended largely from conquistadors (hence Steve Sailer’s epithet “Conquistador-American” for people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), but in other parts of Latin America they’re just as likely to be of Italian and German ancestry. I can’t speak to the more undeveloped parts of Latin America.
More options
Context Copy link
What does “it’s still too low” mean in this context?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Except lots of American default whites are not aryan- even granting that aryan in racial use is kind of a fuzzy term, italian Americans and white hispanics are fairly large ethnic groups that most people would agree the term aryan excludes.
All racial terms are fuzzy, Israel manages to define an ethnic Jew in a way that works in practice. There should be some category to refer to "non-Jewish European-descended" and Aryan was used to denote that group historically. Italians were regarded as Aryan even by Nazi racial laws FWIW, the term wasn't nearly as exclusive as the post-war lore has made it out to be. White hispanics are more complicated because there are some with entirely European ancestry and some with much less.
Except it does not, there is no more contentious issue in Israel than "who is a Jew", and it is getting hotter every day.
On one side are people who want to expand already expansive Law of Return(for various reasons), and on the other side are ... people who feel about Gentiles as you feel about Jews.
Ask them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link