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."
Your main problem is this idea of the jews as narrative crafters, that they have a special power to make falsehood appear real. So when a jew makes an argument that appears convincing to you and me, and to gentiles in the past, you can dismiss it as false without evidence, indeed negative evidence. Because within this argument, the truer an argument appears, the more talented the jews are for transforming falsehood into the appearance of truth. This completely destroys your epistemology by erasing the distinction between true and false things. It is the equivalent of the ‘God the Deceiver’ argument and ‘that’s what they want you to think’ conspiracy memes.
If God can create light as if emanating from a star en route or plant dino bones, and if the jews or ‘the government’ can make people believe whatever they want, nothing can be declared real . Your own beliefs are subject to this magical power , pehaps the jews created ethnic supremacy to justify israel, orbecause they want to prop your side up so that it can be resoundingly crushed like Hitler. The ways of narrative crafters will forever remain mysterious.
'God the Deceiver' is a failure mode of engaging myth and narratives with this in mind, sure, but it doesn't mean it's wrong to consider that some people are better at creating propaganda than others. It's the rationalist failure mode to only think about HBD in terms of IQ and not other complex behaviors like deception or telling stories, the IQ-worship creates a huge blind spot for important social dynamics that are likewise predicted in large part by HBD.
Almost everyone here will accept that HBD explains why Jews can solve a puzzle faster than non-Jews, but saying they are better at creating comic-book heroes and they do so with a higher ethno-consciousness than non-Jews is not nearly as big as a leap as you are suggesting, we shouldn't deny that fact just because there's a failure mode that could lead to false interpretation of social narratives.
Obviously any particular idea should be engaged on its merit, but its motive doesn't necessarily need to be guessed at, as in the case with Captain America they are explicitly open about the raison d'être for the mythical hero being ethno-propaganda to influence the population into fighting the Germans in WWII. If they didn't openly admit it, we could still analyze the art and myth on its merit and reach the same conclusion.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but other times there actually are, believe it or not, ethnic motivations to the propaganda we internalize, that propaganda is created to have an intended psychological effect on audiences. It's not easy to do, and some people are better than others- certainly the negation that all people have the exact same ability to create social narratives and propaganda would not be credible in the first place to anybody who takes HBD seriously.
There were valid reasons to oppose nazi germany, aside from jewish ethnic solidarity (not that I would begrudge a jew for opposing nazism on that ground). If Captain America or Superman present reasons and a vision that people can get behind, that is perfectly legitimate, regardless of any “sinister” ulterior motives.
If jews produce arguments, works of art, or scientific theories that appear to be of high quality, then the simplest conclusion is that they are indeed of high quality and true. Just like similar arguments presented by non-jews.
Aside from the apparently deceptive mythmaking, they also heavily contributed to science. If their cultural contributions are suspect, so are their scientific contributions (‘jewish science”). The next stop in your argument is declaring E=mc2
patriarchaljewish.“They’re only saying that because they’re
menwhitecapitalistsjews!” is just your standard unfalsifiable ad hominem. It leads nowhere and I’m sick of it. With your broken epistemologies, it’s no wonder that you and the woke see conflict as the only option. You’re both stuck in the dark and deserve each other.First of all, I do not agree, but that is besides the point. The point is that this is another example of:
The public has one strongly-held belief, like the practically unanimous consensus to not intervene in WWII against Germany.
The Jews in a position of strong influence have a much different, ethnically-motivated opinion.
The Jews write stories and create myth with the conscious intention of cryptically influencing the opinion of the public towards their own agenda.
The myths become popular culture, our own popular "religion" in a way, and slowly the audiences internalize the message such that they believe "Americanism as Captain America as punching Nazis" is simply what Americanism always has been rather than the ethno-political agenda of the mythmakers.
Even saying "there were valid reasons to oppose Nazi Germany" does nothing to challenge the point I am making here.
The last assumption that's needed is that Jews are better at creating myth, stories, propaganda, and social narratives that influence the Gentiles towards their preferred way of thinking, and this is largely explained by HBD.
Of course, they have contributed to Anthropology, where militant Jews agitated against eugenics such that blank-slatism became the basic premise of social science until this day, in a sharp u-Turn from the Protestant Darwinians. They greatly contributed to psychoanalysis, which used pseudoscience to justify ethnically-motivated ideas around the Authoritarian Personality and sexual liberation which form the basis for social revolutions and critique of Gentile morality. Critical Theory today which formulates the basis of criticism against "whiteness" is derived from the ideas Frankfurt School academics, which even Conservatives have picked up on at this point. In those cases there was an underlying ethnic motivation perceived by the contributors.
As in the case of Freud, he said that "Semitic Hannibal" Barca was his childhood hero, and he imagined himself as a young Hannibal swearing vengeance against Rome and described his own work as a mortal conflict with the Catholic Church. It's a very odd thing for an academic to fantasize about, viewing their own academic work as nothing short of warfare against their mortal ethnic rivals, it's not wonder empiricism took a backseat to Freud's own motivated ideology, as in the case of the anthropologists...
That itself is in all likelihood a result of narrative-crafting by jews., since gentiles are apparently too stupid to have legitimate opinions. If their 1945 view bears no connection to the truth, then neither does their 1939 view.
Let me summarize your points. Smart people can create narratives that influence people (also they contribute to science etc) . Sometimes they have specific personal reasons for doing it.
Okay? Who cares? If people enjoy Superman more than conan the barbarian, if anti-hitler arguments win out in the court of public opinion in New York 1945 as well as in practice in Berlin 1945, if ‘jewish science’ produces better results than ‘purely aryan science’, then that is a far better test of their worth than to try to divine the ulterior motives of the creators through their identity. Everyone has an identity and ulterior motives.
You are an avid practitioner of their critical theory and standpoint epistemology. I possess the uncorrupted Truth while you eat the garbage the Jew feeds you.
Freud said a lot of shit, and Hannibal is cool. I dislike the catholic church too. You dislike the church yourself, judging from your ‘paul jewishly corrupted it’ comments. So the church is alternatively a creature of the jews and a pillar of aryanness depending on the needs of your argument. Your broken epistemology can justify anything. As long as jews are involved, and given their long cohabitation with westerners and their intelligence, they are involved in everything, including far right anti-semitism. It allows you to pick and choose what is ‘a jew lie’ and what is the Truth, when they look exactly the same, thanks to their ‘storytelling abilities’.
This is so incredibly feeble. A shard of smug reddit rhetoric.
Argue then, pal. The redditor welcomes your smackdown.
Although your theories of all-powerful elites often venture into the same epistemic trap, I didn‘t think you would take offense to this. I guess they were (((elites))) after all. Disappointing.
I take offense to self-assured smug stupidity.
No. Once the victor is established, there is nothing to be argued in the framework of power worship. Might makes right? Popularity is the measure of merit? I understand the psychological allure of such a theory. Don't squeal when its practitioners run you over.
The rest of your post is just a sequence of absurdist dunks and gleeful logical fallacies. Ron Unz is a Jew (detested by nearly every other Jew who's had the fortune of contemplating his oeuvre), hence it's illegitimate to discuss Jewish contribution to movements opposing far righters like Unz. Okay, «pal». Real clever.
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