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 -
They oppose white ethnic advocacy, in many cases deny the existence of a "white" identity altogether, uniformly oppose protest to demographic change, and uniformly oppose anti-Semitism. They wouldn't describe "anti-racism" in these same words but I think we can drop the charade that anti-racism isn't opposed to white ethnic advocacy.
Politics are downstream from culture, the culture-creators have enormous influencing in guiding the reality-perception of the masses. We are all heavily influenced by the myths we believe in (theistic or otherwise) and the stories we internalize and the public narrative we see when we turn on the TV, that is the human condition that nobody is immune to, least of all Jews.
What I believe, and what HBD would suggest, is that some peoples have more talent than others in wielding cultural influence. They are able to create stories, myths, and narratives that provide cover for more esoteric meaning. This takes the form of Biblical myth but also prevailing cultural narratives like "We have to fight Saddam Hussein to make the Middle East safe for Democracy", which hide an esoteric motivation with exoteric form of artistic expression or propaganda. I don't think it's a coincidence that Jews dominate Hollywood or that it's just a matter of IQ. They are good at crafting stories and narratives that influence the masses. Asking "how do I explain Christians" is just hilarious in the recognition of this fact...
Under the assumption that Jews have relative advantages in creating influential culture, and that the prevailing culture is extremely anti-white and philo-semitic, it's hard to pretend that HBD provides no insight at all into the behavior of Jews and the prevailing culture.
You are doing a lot of subtle shifting of goalposts, as usual.
But I understand your answers to the above questions to be (b) and (a), respectively. So basically, Jews do what they do (specifically: try to destroy non-Jews) because of HBD, and everyone else follows their agenda because Jews have so cleverly crafted and sold a narrative to them. Is that accurate?
Follow-up question: do you have any theories as to why it is only Jews who have this genetic impulse to destroy all members of their outgroup and do so in such insidious ways? Or do all tribes have this impulse, but Jews have some special advantage that makes them better at it?
These words like "genetic impulse to destroy all members of their outgroup" and many others you've scattered through your posts is just your own weak-manning, feel free to copy + paste anything I've said that you object to because you aren't characterizing my position accurately.
The only two premises is that they have an HDB-explained talent for influencing culture and an (also HBD-explained) in-group preference. That's not goalpost shifting, that's what I have always said, and if I said something you think is particularly stronger than these claims then what was it? Tikkun Olam is relevant here because it shows how they construct moral preferences, which safeguard them and weaken the position of white people, as a universal "healing" of the world, which is a very convenient conception of healing the world.
I am obviously phrasing it in a more blunt way, because you try to put it in a more evasive and less obviously culture warry way, but I genuinely do not see how my characterization is inaccurate. Why don't you explain it to me, as I've asked you to do numerous times? You do believe Jews act as they do for reasons that can be ascribed to HBD (i.e, genetics), yes? You do believe that Jews act to undermine and disempower their outgroup, yes? (Perhaps "destroy" assumes too much - maybe they'd be satisfied with complete subjugation?) I understand why you don't want to be pinned down admitting, in those words, that you believe Jews have a genetic impulse to destroy all members of their outgroup, because that would require showing your power level too blatantly, but no, I do not believe I am weakmanning you. You believe Jews are hostile and dangerous to non-Jews, that they are this way for genetic reasons and therefore it is a predilection that all Jews possess, even if they deny it or are unaware of it, and they are, if not uniquely so, then at least unusually energetic and successful at prosecuting tribal warfare, with the end goal of suppressing or extirpating rival tribes, across a span of millennia. Is any of that not correct?
Yes, do you not?
Yes, do you not?
If I were to ask you: which open-border supporting Jew provides the absolute steel-man for the rational and economic case for open borders? It would without a doubt be Bryan Caplan, I've read a lot of his work and enjoy reading his perspective. But what are we to make of his admission that "Mormons scare me"?
I would qualify Caplan's perspective as "undermining and disempowering" his outgroup, wouldn't you?
Anti-racism also specifically seeks to disempower white people, as in it's the overt agenda of the program. If a Jew supports anti-racism, which specifically aims to empower Jews with social and legal protections and disempower white people, would you qualify that advocacy as "undermining and disempowering" their outgroup?
Edit:
I don't believe it's a predilection that "all Jews possess", sometimes it's a psychology that manifests in different ways, even as Jews who are especially contrarian and themselves anti-Semitic. Many Jews are apolitical altogether. Why is it when we talk about IQ you understand we ware talking about averages and distributions, but when it comes to talking about Jews we can only be talking about every single one at the same time? Why do you insist on pushing this fallacy that is pushed by the IQ deniers all the time?
I do not. Or rather, I do not thing the things you believe Jews specifically do are part of a biological imperative. If you're asking do I think Jews are human beings whose behavior has been shaped by evolution, well yes, of course, but that's not really what you're asking, is it?
No, I do not think Jews act to undermine and disempower their outgroup, or at least, no more so than any other human beings.
You keep throwing chaff in response to questions by quoting more Jews who endorse policies you consider inimical to you. Why should I care what Bryan Caplan thinks? Why is what Bryan Caplan thinks a statement about the malignant evolutionary path of the Jewish race?
More to the point, if all you are saying is that Jews act like every other human being, why do you care about them so much, and why do you think I should care about them in particular?
I've already addressed this. I understand you don't think literally every Jew is a Cylon. (Probably a better metaphor than "lizard person.") But you think the "Jew average and distribution" is such that most Jews are basically Cylons - meaning, they will naturally act as hostile, subversive agents among non-Jews.
This is what you believe, and you believe this is true of Jews generally and not true of non-Jews generally. True or false?
Because I'm trying to calibrate our understanding of what we can consider "disempowering their outgroup." Caplan is acknowledging ethnic anxieties behind his support for open borders- he doesn't want the legacy majority to have power and organize against him. So in this case the support for demographic change is explicitly based on disempowering the legacy majority.
What about anti-racism, where disempowering white people is the specific goal of that cultural movement? If a Jew supports that movement, can we say he is advocating for the disempowerment of his outgroup? If we can't acknowledge these things as examples of what we're talking about, then we're talking past each.
They are better at creating culture and propaganda and they use their talents to prioritize the well-being of their ethnic group above my own ethnic group to the detriment of my ethnic group. Why would I need more of a reason to care?
Say theoretically there are Jewish professors or Hollywood producers who prioritize the production of anti-racist content. Would you agree that they are being hostile and subversive?
I think your understanding is hopelessly flawed, and frankly, I think your analysis is as disingenuous as most of these link drops you do.
Bryan Caplan wrote an essay about why he worries about any one ethnic group having too much power. Notice that he included Jews.
From there, you have spun many other conclusions without foundation: (1) That he is motivated by "ethnic anxiety"; (2) That this is why he supports open borders; (3) That he feels this way specifically because he is Jewish; (4) This his particular concern is "the legacy majority" (I notice how you sneakily slipped that buzz phrase in there, even though, as I noted, he actually said he is worried about any majority, including his own); (5) That all this is a Jewish trait which he shares with other Jews; (6) That this does not arise merely from shared cultural experiences, but their DNA.
I mean, any or all of those things could theoretically be true. But put together it's a narrative that obviously fits your ZOG worldview, but it is all nothing more than a just-so story. You're pointing at random Jews who say things in the media and saying "See? See???" like this is supposed to convince us of the --Joo--Cylon menace. When you can't even avoid ignoring points in the very examples you cite (like Caplan himself not excluding Jews from his point), it becomes patently obvious how you are ignoring, say, all the Jews who don't conveniently say things that pattern-match to "Cylon" and even say things that contradict it.
I am not particularly interested in steelmanning "anti-racism," because we'd get bogged down in definitions starting with "racism" and not ending with "disempowering" or "white people." But you are still overgeneralizing. Not every person, Jewish or otherwise, who is "anti-racist" is Ibrim X Kendi or subscribes to Kendism, and even of those who do, your assumption is that they actually support that because they consider white people their enemy and they are waging tribal warfare against them. And not, say, because some people actually believe racism is a bad thing and this is the best way to combat it.
No. I actually think racism is a bad thing and fighting racism is a good thing. I'm certainly not a Kendiist, but I do not classify everyone producing anti-racist content as "hostile and subversive" and my racial enemy.
Why is it so taboo for white people to advocate for their ethnic identity? Can we at all attribute this phenomenon to the narrative-generation of cultural elites? If so, what are those narratives and what are their origins? Even boomer-cons have picked up terminology like "critical race theory" from which we get closer to acknowledging an actual origin for these narratives, rather than pretending they fell from the sky.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link