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 -
Who is Thor? If you ask the average person, they will not relate a Germanic tribal deity who was, at one time, a religious symbol of resistance to Christianization. They will say "Oh I love Thor, the last movie where he joined the Guardians of the Galaxy to save humanity from aliens was epic." Stan Lee, who was also Jewish, was a particularly effective mythmaker and storyteller precisely because he appropriated a base of existing myth and archetypes in the creation of a new Pantheon that memetically captured the imagination of Gentiles. The interpretatio romana likewise incorporated non-Roman deities into the Roman pantheon, which served a cultural and civic function. A talent for mythmaking specifically entails appropriating existing symbols and integrating them into a particular cultural and religious consciousness.
Christianity and Islam both belong to the Judaic pantheon, which is deeply meaningful in spite of localized "DLC" to the pantheon, so-to-speak. There is an incomprehensible mishmash of deities in the Hindu religion inspired by local interpretations and "new characters", and likewise Stan Lee hired gentile writers to create new characters and stories for his pantheon, but ultimately it's his universe.
If all prevailing followers of Abrahamic religion (including Jews themselves) worshipped the god Apollo from Greek myth instead of the Jewish god from the Hebrew bible, but also formulated their own innovations- heroes and myths, under the auspices of His Image, we would properly regard the cult of Apollo as the most successful religion. Even if globally influential cults emerged which worshipped some derived heroes like the martyred son of Apollo or warrior-prophet of Apollo... They would still, at the end of the day, be worshipping a European god who is the embodiment of a race of people as the master of the universe. Christians and Muslims worship a Jewish god, so their religions must be considered mythological "success" of the Judaic pantheon in the same way.
Of course, the earliest Christians were Jewish and St. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles - the Stan Lee of his day - was a Jewish pharisee.
Abraham and Moses are heroes in the Judaic pantheon, this is like saying "we don't know the genetic profile of Iron Man so we can't say anything about his behavior in that regard", the storytellers are the Jews themselves who keep these myths alive and propagate them among themselves and others with their rituals and behavior. This often takes esoteric form in modern culture, where a film like Spartacus functions as a mythological homage to Exodus and inspires audiences to root for the slave revolt against Roman civilization. This is sophisticated storytelling, and the Jews are better at it than anyone. They are also able to pick up on it whereas gentiles remain oblivious to deeper esoteric meaning to myths like these (FWIW I agree with the author here that Zach Snyder's Superman is less Jewish and more Apollonian than in the written canon, while the Nietzschean-Übermensch Lex Luthor is more Jewish in Snyder's work).
In order to calibrate our baseline perspectives, would you accept the proposition that HBD provides explanatory power for why Jews tend to be more successful lawyers than non-Jews? I am suggesting that this holds for culture-and-myth-creation, and the cognitive traits that explain this go beyond simply IQ.
You don't see how the global-memetic spread of a myth body, and its survival as a diaspora for thousands of years, is evidence for the power of its storytelling?
Secondly, we should dispense with the absurd claim that the Aleinu is not supremacist, if a group of white people all cited some refrain proclaiming that the master of the universe chose them as his favorite people and made them differently from everyone else, and all else will bow under the yoke of the Creator who made Europeans his chosen people, you would unambiguously call that supremacist. I think the Aleinu is in fact similar to cultural rhetoric like Manifest Destiny or the British Empire which saw itself as the light unto the world, bringing civilization to the savages. Of course it's supremacist.
Judaism is an ethnically supremacist religion, and I don't mean that as a criticism, it is the entire reason it has survived under hostile conditions for thousands of years. Their god is their race, and their race is their god. I have heard Jews, in the wild, say "us being God's chosen people doesn't mean we are superior, it in fact means we are mandated greater responsibility for the world", which is not much different that you would hear from some European colonizer in Africa, we have a responsibility to civilize these savages because of our unique gifts bestowed by God. It is supremacist.
Christianity is a personal salvation cult. There are many theories for why it spread. The decline of Rome undoubtedly played a part, but I think there were also some micro-phenomena, like women being dazzled with the Gospel and then insisting that their pagan husbands convert as a condition for marriage. Bio-Leninism and Nietzsche provide a different explanation. I don't claim to know the how, but there is no question that they were successful at spreading because of their memetic potency. Concluding that the memetic potency is related to the people that created the pantheon, and relates to dynamics in modern-day culture, would be well-supported by taking HBD seriously as more than just "IQ-realism."
I think you're muddling quite a few things here.
For a start, I want to clarify exactly which standards you're using. The global spread and popularity of biblical narratives does indeed seem like evidence that those narratives have some merit. But what I would challenge you on is that there's any particularly unique about those narratives, which implies anything sinister about Jews as people.
After all, you mention other highly successful ancient narratives. I suspect most people on the street who recognise the name 'Thor' do know that he's an ancient Norse god, and Thor is actually a pretty weak example because the surviving corpus of religious Scandinavian literature is so small. But I invite you to consider, say, the enduring recognisability and popularity of Hercules. Consider the enduring narrative power of the Iliad and the Odyssey - even when the entire religious culture those stories were embedded in faded away. People may not specifically worship Zeus any more, but even in the Superman comics you reference, Perry White continues to swear by Zeus! ("By Jove!") This seems like an enduring hold on the imagination by these ancient writers. The power of Greek mythological narratives is such that they've even successfully hopped across cultures - you can find the Greek gods popping up even in Japanese media, for instance.
What I want to suggest is that the existence of an extremely successful narrative or set of images doesn't necessary imply anything nefarious about race. Certainly the success of Greek mythological narrative suggests that at some point in history something creatively fecund was going on in Greece, but leaping from this to the assertion of a unique, genetic Greek talent for myth-making that continues to the modern day and makes Greeks a powerful conspiracy manipulating non-Greeks to their advantage is simply ludicrous. As with Greeks, so too with Jews.
I think you're also tending to single out the involvement of any Jew in any creative endeavour as evidence that the whole thing is somehow Jewish, or part of this cross-historical Jewish myth-making scheme. In practice, however, Jewish influences are often only one of many involved in creating the narratives that you're describing. I was just talking about Greeks, after all, and we have to grant that Judaism in the classical world was extremely Hellenised, and Christianity's early growth involved a lot of fusion of Jewish and Greek ideas. You might say that this shows the power of Jewish narrative to co-opt and absorb Greek thought, but why not the opposite? Why doesn't it show the power of Greek narrative to co-opt and absorb Jewish thought? Why are the Jews, in your telling, always the manipulators and never the manipulated?
Thus with the Superman example. The Christian and for that matter Greek influences on Superman seem pretty clear - Superman has been read as an allegory for Jesus but also as coming from the Greek heroic tradition. There is certainly something very Apollonian about him. Greek or Christian memes flowing through the minds of Jewish people are still Greek or Christian memes. A figure like Superman is pretty clearly an aggregate of diverse influences, some of which are related to the Jewish experience in America, and some of which are not.
If Jewish ideas can flow through non-Jews in a way that, to you, is just Jewish influence (as with Christianity and Islam), it seems like non-Jewish ideas can also flow through Jews in a way that retains their power. If so, perhaps we'd be better off thinking of ideas in less of a race-essentialist way.
In this case, there are some foundational ideas that originate in ancient Israel, yes - monotheism is the big one. Those ideas spread between many different peoples, mixed with different other ideas and contexts, and eventually formed several different religious traditions, including rabbinic Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. At no point in this process do you need a posit a special genetic propensity for myth-making or cultural manipulation on the part of the ancient Israelites.
I'd also suggest that you use the term 'the Jews' in a very vague and general way, such that it's not clear what you refer to or why. For instance:
Who are 'the Jews' in this context?
Read 'Abraham and Moses' as shorthand for 'the people who historically came up with the core ideas and narratives of the Torah'. The point is that we cannot know anything meaningful about the genetics of the community in which the fundamental elements of Abrahamic faith were born.
I note that it is clearly the case that people like Abraham or Moses are revered by people of many different ethnicities. A specifically racialised interpretation seems weak. Muslims say explicitly that Abraham was a Muslim, and reject any significance for race. Christians also say directly that what matters is being a spiritual heir of Abraham, not one by blood (cf. Matthew 3:9, John 8:39, Romans 4:16, Galatians 3:7). Clearly Abraham is a hero and is understood as an ancestor by members of all the Abrahamic faiths - you have to go significantly against how these traditions have understood Abraham to see him as deeply racialised figure.
This even seems consistent with Jewish understandings of Abraham. Converts to Judaism are given the name ben/bat Avraham v'Sarah - son or daughter of Abraham and Sarah. The Jews themselves understand descent from Abraham to be spiritual rather than genetic!
It seems to me that the genetics of Abraham and the other originators of Abrahamic religion are firstly unknown and secondly held to be unimportant by his own heirs, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. So I think you're wrong to racialise this as much as you do.
I'm wary of and try to avoid the term 'HBD'. I think there are probably multivariate reasons why Jews are overrepresented in professions like the law.
I do dispute, however, the claim that there is a genetic propensity for myth-making unique to Jews. I don't think it's even correct to say that Jews (as in a historically distinguishable genetic community like the Ashkenazim) do have a special talent for myth-making above other peoples.
You're taking a very misleading reading of it. What the Aleinu says is that God has called and made a covenant with the Jewish people, differently to all the other nations of the world.
How would we feel if a bunch of other people said something like that? We don't have to speculate. We know, because they do. Americans say something similar to that all the time - that's American civil religion, the unique and special identity of the United States, chosen by Providence to be a beacon of freedom to the world. Americans make this claim all the time.
Judaism is an ethnoreligion, certainly - it is a religion associated with a particular people (though as I have indicated Jews understand Jewish peoplehood to not be reducible to race or genetics). That's not the same thing as being a supremacist religion - as you just admit in the next line, Jews speak very clearly about Jews not being superior to other people.
Moreover, you're taking an interpretation of Judaism here that almost no Jew would agree with. The God of the Jews, as Jews understand him, is the most high and the creator of the universe. They understand God to be a real being, and a different being to they themselves. They have this in common with every other Abrahamic religion.
I would encourage you to consider how the people you're talking about understand themselves. If nothing else, I'd like to suggest that Jews themselves might understand what Judaism is better than you do. Listen to them.
Let me clarify my point, regarding Stan Lee and Thor. My point was that just because Stan Lee used a large body of preexisting symbols and myths to craft them into contemporary cultural signals for receptive audiences does not mean he isn't a talented mythmaker, so your point "Judaism borrows from these other myths so we can't give them credit" doesn't hold. It's the mark of a talented mythmaker to take a symbol, change its meaning in subtle ways, and deliver it to the audience in a way that's compelling.
I don't doubt the success of Greek mythology, and it is another example of the sort of culture-creation I am talking about. I am not saying the Jews are the only ones capable of doing it. Greek mythology was intelligently formulated with a race consciousness. Modern Gentile mythology, like say George Lucas, can be potent and influential but it is not created with a race consciousness compared to, say, Superman whose creators crafted these myths with a Jewish race consciousness that someone like Hlynka could not understand. So the clueless Goy Zach Snyder makes Superman more Apollonian because he isn't in tune with the racial undertones of the character as understood by its creators and fellow, perceptive Jewish audiences. In contrast, with Wonder Woman, who is a Jewish Golem, the racial undertones in her character are much more closely adapted in her films.
I would view Greek mythology as the race-conscious counterpart to both ancient and contemporary Jewish mythology. There are some examples of race-conscious contemporary gentile mythology: Conan the Barbarian, 300, etc.
Can you imagine a world where Jews denounced the Hebrew god as a false demon, all the old laws as superstitious pagan nonsense and then zealously forced all their fellow Jews to convert to the worship of Apollo? I don't think you can imagine that. Even trying to fathom this alternate outcome shows who absorbed who. Of course there are Greek elements in Christianity, but they worship a Jewish god. In this alternate universe where Jews decided to denounce the Torah as Pagan sacrilege in submission to the true master of all Apollo, that cult would also likewise retain some Jewish elements, but there would be no mistake regarding who absorbed who. And the Jewish people, as a genetically identifiable people, would not exist today.
St. Paul, the OG "fellow white people, you must love your enemy and accept Jesus or else suffer eternal damnation by the wrath of Yahweh."
There is basically no distinction between the two. Their spiritual status is a blood covenant and membership is inherited. There was no knowledge of genetics in the ancient world, but the phenomenon was captured conceptually with a blood covenant and inherited ingroup status. It is exoterically "spiritual" but esoterically genetic, a similar pattern exists in Greek myth.
The notion that America was just conceived as some idea open to the entire world, rather than a people, is another example of a clever 20th century mythological revision. Americans make that claim you describe precisely because they have long been denied the ability to assert an ethnic particularity as Jews do. They instead have to embrace a conception of America as an idea rather than a people. I've already compared the sentiment to the rhetoric of the British Empire, which did assert an ethnic particularity and it is universally regarded as supremacist. The Aleinu asserts an ethnic particularity and supremacy, I am going to believe my lying eyes.
I guess that puts you in an odd position because you are left to explain the peculiarly disproportionate representation of Jews in these areas of culture creation, which cannot be explained only by IQ. I am suggesting that this is driven by merit, they are good at crafting these myths, propaganda, and social narratives and they often do so with a race-consciousness that most gentiles do not perceive.
Some certainly do, but others who think "Judaism is not about genetics it's about spirituality", no I actually do understand Judaism better than them and they are fish who cannot tell they are in water. They say that Tikkun Olam means dismantling whiteness and fiercely protecting Jews from any measure of criticism or negative sentiment, no actually, I understand Tikkun Olam better than they do. Believing your own myths doesn't mean you understand them, it usually means the opposite. Someone who truly believes "America has succeeded because it is an idea open to the whole world" does not actually understand the meaning of that myth consciously designed to separate American exceptionalism from racial connotations.
Oh, where to begin...
The problem is that you have defined 'myth-making' so widely as to allow you to declare any involvement of a Jew at any stage of a creative process as evidence that the Jews are uniquely talented myth-makers.
Thus if there's a story involving ideas related to ancient Israel, even if no Jews at all are involved in that story's production, this is for you an example of the pernicious influence of Jewish myth-making.
At the same time, if there's a story involving ideas related to ancient Greece (or any other culture), but a Jew was involved in telling it, this is also for you an example of the pernicious influence of Jewish myth-making.
There's no consistency here. Anything touched by a Jew or Judaism or Israel ancient or modern in any way is evidence for your hypothesis, in a way that you don't claim for other ethnicities or narratives or ideas. I am tempted to ask - is there anything Jews could do, any way that Jews could tell stories, that you would not see as evidence of their subtle infiltration and co-option of other cultures?
I have another take. It goes like this. Ideas created by Jews, both ancient and modern, are frequently taken and used by non-Jews in creative ways. Likewise ideas created by non-Jews, both ancient and modern, are frequently taken and used by Jews in creative ways. This is completely normal and a harmless process of cultural exchange and influence.
What on Earth are you talking about? Greek mythology was certainly not 'intelligently formulated with a race consciousness' - Homer or Hesiod or Pindar certainly had no concept of 'race' analogous to the one you're spruiking. The Theogony or the Iliad are not texts with a strong race consciousness in the sense in which you are using the term.
And I have no idea what you are talking about with Superman. Is it true that one of the influences on Superman was Siegel and Shuster thinking about the experience of Jewish immigrants in America? Yes, probably. To read that as 'created with a race consciousness' is simply dishonest.
Of course I can imagine that, because that has actually happened before. Back when the state of Israel was founded there was actually a small but real Jewish pagan movement, the Canaanites, who believed something like this. They were heavily influenced by Italian Fascism and wanted to restore an imagined past Canaanite identity. They felt that contemporary (i.e. 1940s) Jewish culture had become effeminate and weak due to centuries/millennia of oppression, and came to understand Judaism itself as an enervating parasite, sucking the spirit out of the Jewish people. They wanted to abandon Judaism, return to a sort of Canaanite paganism, and establish a multi-ethnic Middle Eastern empire along fascist lines ruled by a Jewish aristocracy. They wanted to discard Judaism as a religion in favour of a highly aggressive, masculinised concept of Jewish racial identity.
That movement wasn't successful, thank heavens, but the point is that I can very easily imagine Jews rejecting Judaism and attempting to zealously enforce some new religious or ideologial structure by force. Jews are a diverse group and some among them have flirted with such ideas in the past.
I think this is simplified to the point of nonsense, especially if you consider it in light of other cases where there's been substantial religious change in a society - take the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, or the way Persia became Shia, or Islam in southeast Asia. Does, say, the spread of Islam in Indonesia constitute the Arabs absorbing the Indonesians? Did the Jews absorb the Romans? The Safavids brought a new religion to Iran, Shia Islam, and they themselves were probably ancestrally Kurds or Turks - at any rate something other than Persian - and yet it seems absurd to say that the Turks absorbed the Persians.
Cultural assimilation can mean multiple different things. When the Roman Empire came to worship the God of Abraham, yes, there's a certain sense in which something of Israel came to dominate the Roman Empire. But to say that the Jews 'absorbed' the Romans seems nonsensical.
This is a gross distortion of anything Paul actually said. He certainly told people - without distinction as to race - to love their enemy and to fear the Lord, but that italicised part is important. There is no basis for seeing Paul as some agent of Jewish infiltration attempting to weaken or destroy a 'white race' that neither he nor any of his contemporaries would have believed to exist. Paul's message is undoubtedly preached to both Jews and Gentiles, and he sees all people who have received it as fundamentally in the same boat and called to the same standard of behaviour. He could hardly have been more clear about this.
The link I provided there was to a modern Jewish website. Contemporary Jews understand what genetics are, and yet they clearly indicate that descent from Abraham, in the sense that it is matters for being a Jew, is a spiritual rather than a genetic notion. You are making bold assertions about the nefariousness of the Jews without any reference to what Jews themselves actually say or do.
Are you asserting that from at least the 18th century, the Jews somehow prevented the Americans from asserting an ethnic or racialised sense of American identity? Even if that were true, which it clearly is not, that would not even be particularly germane to the point. The Americans are, for whatever reason, an example of a nation who assert a particular 'chosen' status for themselves in the eyes of God and accompanying mission to the world. They were talking about themselves as an 'Empire of Liberty' as early as the Revolution itself! The 'City on a Hill' motif has been deeply significant over the last century, and regardless of any quibbling about the origin of the phrase, I think the notion of America as a destined nation specially chosen by Providence goes back well before it.
As such I repeat that Jews are far from unique in having a sense of a covenant nation with a mission to the world.
I don't think there's anything particularly suspicious to explain, really. Jews are a very well-educated creative minority with very large historical populations in centres of American media, most notably New York. Of course there are lots of them in the culture industry. This seems entirely explainable to me without needing to posit some malicious Jewish talent for infiltrating and destroying non-Jewish cultures.
I'll be blunt here - when you're telling me that you understand Jewishness and Judaism better than Jews, better than Jewish sacred texts, better than Jewish rabbis... I'm going to be very, very skeptical. When it comes down to it, I trust a rabbi to know what tikkum olam means better than I do a random I met on the internet.
It is not completely harmless, because Jews use their station in these cultural institutions to formulate radical critique of Gentile history, culture, and racial identity and use the same influence to protect themselves from any in-kind criticisms. Like I said, imagine an alternative world where every media executive here is Chinese instead of Jewish, but if you Notice that or have anything negative to say about it then you are regarded as mentally deranged at best. Imagine all our social institutions were in complete alignment to punish anybody who has anything remotely critical to say about Chinese influence in media.
This is not an innocuous dynamic of cultural exchange, it is hostile.
Of course Greek Myth is formulated with a race consciousness, gods in the pantheon, as in the bible, are frequently representative of groups of people. The Ionians were said to have been descended from Ion the son of Apollo, who scholars directly relate to Javan son of Japheth in the Hebrew Bible. Both Apollo and Japheth point to ethnic identity. Paul is described as "of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews"...
This is nonsense, the relationship between the Jews and Rome was an ethnic conflict, everybody perceived it, both then and now. As Marcus Eli Ravage put it (1928):
Paul's motives are impossible to disentangle, but in the same way that a Jew today may genuinely believe he is healing the world by promoting diversity, dismantling white supremacy, and punishing anybody who has anything negative to say about Jews, there's no reason to assume Paul had malintent. He influenced the gentiles to reject the gods of their ancestors and worship Yahweh, so he ought to be revered by Jews as the embodiment of Tikkun Olam and there's no reason to suppose his motives were "worse" than Hollywood when they give each-other accolades for the Nth Holocaust movie- they really do think they are guiding humanity on the spiritually correct path, and after all, the gentiles must be taught "Never Again" as the most important moral lesson.
I'm not sure how much you know about American history, but racialized American identity was entirely central to the concept of being an American until after the end of WWII. The first Congress restricted citizenship to "Free White men". The Immigration Acts in the 1924 were specifically intended to anchor the racial composition of the country to the 1800s. This all radically changed. Given the enormous amount of Jewish influence in American cultural institutions, it would prima facie be highly dubious to suggest that the elites in our cultural institutions played no part in these cultural upheavals. Of course they did and they continue to do so today.
The entire "It's OK to be White" trolling campaign, why was that effective? Because according to the media and American culture you are not allowed to assert any positive race-feelings as a white person. How did this radical shift happen from 1923 - 2023 if not the culture and those in influential positions to direct it?
When Jews tell me that "healing the world" means the ethnic displacement of my people and the quasi-worship of their own ethnicity with special social and legal protections, and they view that arrangement to simply be the will of Yahweh to heal the world, yes, I am going to claim I understand the latent motivation for this behavior than they do.
Do they? Take the example were just discussing - Superman. Is Superman a 'radical critique of Gentile history, culture, and racial identity'? Surely Superman is best-known as an avatar of 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way' - he is a patriotic avatar of American values in a way that is explicitly presented as inclusive of all races and cultures. This does not seem like a radical critique of Gentile identity - on the contrary, it is clearly an affirmation of a particular understanding of American identity that is extraordinarily inclusive of people of different racial or religious origins.
You mentioned Stan Lee as well. Are the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, the X-Men, or Spiderman radical critiques of Gentile history and identity? You're going to have to explain that to me, because it's not obvious.
There are obviously many thousands of Jews engaged in all sorts of creative or ideological activities all over the world, from many different political perspectives, and it's not at all obvious on what basis you can assert that Jews as a group are engaged in a destructive critique of Gentile culture or identity. Is, say, Ben Shapiro involved in such a project? He seems pretty keen on a concept of Western identity that includes Jewish and non-Jewish Westerners on equal terms.
If Chinese people in America had the same history as Jewish people? Then it seems likely they would be treated the same way, no?
Mentioning ancestry in any way is not the same thing as 'formulating a race consciousness'. It's true that ancient Greek writers have some sense of ancestry - all human beings do. But that's a motte-and-bailey.
What does that quote have to do with anything? A writer in the 1920s snarking about the accusation of Jewish involvement in the Russian Revolution reveals anything about the history of Christianity in Rome... how, again?
My point is that there does not seem to be any reason to suspect Paul of pushing some sort of racialist or Jewish supremacist agenda - on the contrary, Paul's evangelistic program is famously something that surmounts and crosses ethnic divides. Paul's program is not to convert all Gentiles to following 'the God of the Jews' in an imperial sense - he clearly understands God to be the God of all human beings from the creation. In Acts 17 he is accused of proclaiming a foreign divinity (17:18), and his response is to argue that God is implicitly known among the Gentiles in an anonymous way, that they too are God's offspring, and he even quotes Gentile poets to the effect that God is not far from them and they live in his own being. Likewise the diatribe of Romans 1 only makes sense on the understanding that God should be properly understood as the God of the Gentiles as well of the Jews.
In what way, then, does it make sense to accuse Paul of an agent of this Jewish racial consciousness to subvert and manipulate the Gentiles for Jewish benefit? He himself clearly disclaims that - indeed, in the passage you quoted where he recites his ancestry (Philippians 3:5), his whole point in context is that this ancestry is of no significance, and that there is no cause for being 'confident in the flesh'.
It's the same thing I've been complaining about all along - the mere presence of a Jewish person in any context, no matter that person's actions or plainly-stated agenda, is evidence of this Jewish racial consciousness to you. What could possibly falsify your claims?
If we strip away the spooky language, what this essentially boils down to is that many Jews - like the woke TikTok girl - want to make the world better and believe that they are helping to do this. I am baffled that continue to find this horrifying. Why do many Jews want to make sure the Holocaust is remembered? Is it not entirely plausible that they sincerely (and correctly) believe the Holocaust was something unimaginably horrible and don't want anything like it to happen again, and to the extent that self-interest is involved, it's because they fear being victims again? Sure, I'll buy that Jewish people want to influence the societies they're in in ways that prevent the Holocaust from ever being repeated. What I don't buy is that there's any malevolence in that, or anything that seems particularly hostile to non-Jewish cultures qua non-Jewish cultures. "Please don't try to murder entire cultures, especially if it's us" seems like a pretty reasonable message to push, and there are perfectly obvious, non-malevolent reasons for doing so.
I'm aware that American citizenship and identity has not been available to all people since the beginning of the United States. Over time the circle of acceptable American citizenship in terms of race has expanded.
But what does that have to do with the point? I presented the United States as an example of a nation that regards itself as chosen by God for a special mission to enlighten the other nations of the world. That was true even when American citizenship was heavily racialised.
I don't believe they do tell you that, not least because thus far you have not given a single example of a Jew saying that, to you or to anyone else.
E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. This is exactly what I am talking about. It is a radical critique of Gentile identity because it subverts the identity of America as a white country. I presume you have some sympathies with Israel, what if a bunch of Palestinians somehow had the wherewithal to take control over Israeli cultural institutions, and they made massively-popular superheroes giving moral lessons to Children about how Israel is not a country for Jews?
How did we get to this point where white people are just totally submitted to their own demographic replacement? Slowly, and with propaganda like this. This propaganda was intelligently crafted with a political motivation, it planted the seeds of our current culture.
You can look at many examples- take Captain America. Who could have a problem with him right? He's a macho Aryan who is a role model for children. He was also created by a Jewish storyteller, Joe Simon, and Wikipedia relates:
It is extremely mythologically significant that "Captain America* was engineered by Jewish storytellers in 1940 to fight the Germans. That is not innocuous, it is not a cultural exchange, it is mythmaking and culture-creation for the ethnically-motivated intention of influencing a mass audience. Here's the cover of the first issue from December 1940 when there was essentially a consensus of public opinion against intervention in WWII. Today, Captain America's identity as a "Nazi puncher" is fully internalized by the mass audience.
Last week I posted that secret report from the Polish ambassador in 1939:
It is interesting to compare this political agenda to craft this myth of an Americanism that exists to "punish trouble-mongers" with the character of Captain America who was created only a few months later.
This is an example of how an apparently innocuous cultural symbol was consciously designed in the service of an ethnically-motivated agenda. Now I'm not that interested in arguing with you about the validity of that agenda, it suffices to show mythmaking as ethnically-motivated propaganda consciously designed to influence public opinion. Joe Simon conceived, in 1940, of Hitler as the "greatest villain in the world", and his comic-book villain soon became engrained in our quasi-religious consciousness with that role.
My argument is no stronger than assigning credit to our popular culture for our popular social movements, and you cannot acknowledge that basic fact without considering the underlying motivations of Jews who have heavily influenced this culture with race-conscious aims.
They fear being victims again, so they cannot allow white racial consciousness or advocacy for the ethnic interests of white people. Their sincerity does not at all alleviate the conflict that is staring us in the face, the conflict that they are conscious of and my co-ethnics are not because they "learned their lessons" from Superman and Captain America, if not from St. Paul and Christ.
I have no particularly strong feelings about Israel one way or the other.
That said, I don't think it's any sort of 'radical critique of Gentile identity' to take the position that people of many different races and religons should be welcome and equal in America. Many Jews believe that, yes. But also most non-Jews in American believe that now, and the social forces that led to that change, that led to the broadening of American identity, don't seem to have had anything particularly special to do with Jews.
See, once again what you're doing is just vaguely gesturing towards the idea that anything that happened in a place that any Jews lived that you don't like is the result of a Jewish conspiracy.
I would say again that you are clearly moving goalposts. You asserted that narratives created by Jews, of which you regard Superman as an example, are used to critique Gentile identity. I reply that Superman firstly is clearly a confident defender of American identity and patriotism, and secondly frames this in a way that regards all races as equally welcome. This sure seems like as a literary creation Superman is firstly pro-American-identity and secondly anti-ethno-supremacy. This is directly contrary to the picture you just painted of Jews as ethnosupremacist and alien from their countries! If you read Superman as metaphor for the Jewish experience (which is only one of many valid ways to read Superman), the thrust of that metaphor is that Jews can be fully assimilated Americans.
Are you asserting that Siegel and Shuster in the 30s and 40s were part of a deliberate, conscious attempt to destroy 'white' American culture?
How is it remotely suspicious that a superhero created and drawn and published by Americans in the 1940s was opposed to one of 1940s-America's greatest overseas enemies?
Okay, sure, Jews in 1940s America didn't like Nazi Germany much. I concede this. What is that supposed to show?
This is the frustrating thing about this entire argument from you - your entire strategy is to pick some totally innocuous incident in history and just because it involves a Jewish person, you present it as if it's clear evidence for some pan-historical Jewish agenda to destroy the white race.
What's missing from all of this is, well, any evidence for anything whatsoever. Okay, Joe Simon didn't like the Nazis and made a hero to fight them. He felt that Hitler was an enemy of everyone in the free world, and Captain America represents that commitment. But there are many conceivable reasons why a Jewish-American in 1940 might hate Hitler that do not amount to a deliberate Jewish racial plot to destroy white people.
What conflict is this?
We've gone from "Jewish people don't want the Holocaust to happen again" (entirely obvious and reasonable) to "therefore Jewish people want to destroy white racial majorities" (do they?) to "SecureSignals' co-ethnics are in a conflict with Jews" (who? how?).
I really wish you'd just be straightforward with all of this - if you could just say it as plainly as "multiculturalism is a deliberate, conscious plot by the Jewish people to destroy whites".
If Superman were about the actual assimilation of our Kryptonian hero, Kal-El (the Kryptonian name of Superman), that would make for a very boring story. Of course Superman is not about that- he cannot assimilate.
The most he can do is adopt an alter-ego in his daily interactions with humans by changing his name from Kal-El, meaning "Voice of God" in Hebrew, to the Gentile name Clark Kent. He changes his appearance, puts on a suit, goes to work as a media reporter (!) with everyone else none the wiser to his true identity.
But when Clark Kent tears open the shirt, he affirms that underneath the disguise he was always Superman. He holds sentimental feelings towards humanity as his adopted family, but in his heart of hearts he is a diasporan son of Krypton and he will never be them- he is a superior being and he must protect them and guide them.
This is extremely sophisticated storytelling. It provides perceptive Jewish audiences with a sense of identity, and yes superiority, it is a myth that tells them they cannot assimilate even if they change their name and appearance such that nobody around them knows who they truly are, they will always be Kryptonian underneath the surface. At the same time, there is compelling content for Gentile audiences that internalize the Ethos espoused by the ass-kicking superhero.
My point is that ethos is downstream from mythos. So those who have special talents in creating mythos likewise are in a strong position to influence the ethos of the collective consciousness. Siegel and Shuster's Superman telling children that being American means being anti-racist in 1950, not 30 years after the United States passed legislation intending to wind back the clock on demographics to the 1800s, is an example of this, as-is Captain America.
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