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 -
"Guys, I swear, the first 200 years of liberalism had nothing to do with the West's current predicament. The cultural change that followed 1965 emerged completely inorganically out of the juice's takeover of western civilization (which must have happened very quickly in like what, 20 years?), classical liberals are completely absolved, the founding fathers are completely absolved, the Scottish and French enlightenments are completely absolved, Hegel is completely absolved. Everything bad that has happened to Western civilization is solely down to who won WW2, please disregard anything that happened previously unless it backs up this point."
This is why the MacDonald school can never adequately explain modern Western civilization. You can't disregard liberalism, you can't disregard the French and American revolutions. You can't disregard laicite, disregard republicanism, disregard individualism, disregard the concept of personal liberty and the rejection of primal or atavistic identity as central to Anglo civilization. That Jews and other non-whites had some impact on the development of these memes and their ultimate and eventual transmission is truth. That they invented them is not. Western civilization before 1939 was not progressing in a 'trad' direction. Even the Nazis would - in many facets of domestic policy - have been regarded as absurdly progressive to a European in 1870. The NSDAP was not radically socially conservative in its treatment of gender or sex. German women's enrollment in medical schools, for example, fell from 20% to 17% during Nazi rule, hardly a substantial decline. (Fun fact: this is vastly higher than the proportion of women at American medical schools at the same time.)
The problem for the counter currents crowd (and the wider 'classical' alt-right affiliated with eg. nazi apologism and revionism) is that they are so blinded by their hatred of Jews that they refuse to consider that progressivism/liberalism was not a particularly Jewish invention, and they are so blinded by their obsession with Hitler and his defeat that they refuse to consider that many of the things they hate about modernity actually have their roots much further back in the writings of gentile white philosophers, thinkers, politicians and so on. The enemies must be internal, whites (as this very article implies) are at worst misguided idiots or taken advantage of.
"No more brother wars" goes the far-right chant. Yet there were 2000 years of "brother wars" before the one that they allege the Jews started. The European Parliament is a cesspit of achieving nothing, yet everyone in it is white (actually, apparently 24 out of 705 MEPs are "people of color"), there has never been a non-white European Commissioner etc. Belgium remains as divided as a country as it was when it was near enough 100% white. The East Slavs are tearing each other apart. Getting out of this quagmire requires some humility, and not of the pathetic "how could we let ourselves get tricked like this?" sort, but of the genuine "we made and believed some poor ideas" variety, one that takes some responsibility for the past without blaming the eternal outsider, and which can articulate a positive rather than a vengeful vision of the future.
As for a homeland, the last places likely to be supermajority white are a few poor countries in Eastern Europe with poor economic prospects (Ukraine is a big one), Denmark and possibly Finland, Iceland (which receives a lot of immigration, but largely from Poland and Romania) and - in an amusing bit of irony - Argentina (and Uruguay). I would recommend the avowed identitarian considers acquiring EU citizenship by whatever means necessary (not hard even for the unskilled white American as long as you aim for a lower-tier Euro country, although Germany is pretty generous as it is) and then moving to Denmark, learning the language, and trying one's hardest to assimilate into their society. Copenhagen is actually very nice, I'd stay if I was a Dane.
The fact that this is your best suggestion for a "positive vision" for someone who has sympathies for the concept for a White homeland shows you have no better alternative to what they are proposing. "Retreat to the last bastion until it, too, is lost" is you just saying "accept losing while you retreat as much as you can." You aren't proposing a "positive vision of the future", whereas Hood's proposal of a White homeland is just that.
I think the most positive vision of the future is to elect a competent Republican like DeSantis, build 'the wall' and develop a more competent deportation apparatus shrouded in completely un-inflammatory language (like mandating a beefed-up e-verify nationwide), restricting family-based immigration, ending the H1B visa program (leaving only the O-1 exceptional skills category), ending all rights for overseas students to remain in the US for any period after graduation and restricting family-based chain migration further by implementing a lifetime cap on the number of family members one is allowed to bring over (2 or 3). All this could be accomplished in a GOP trifecta. Then transition the right's public rhetoric into a strongly protectionist, pro-labor movement with some elite tech support (without alienating the evangelicals or small business owners) and become a hardline law-and-order party. Double prison capacity, increase sentencing lengths, 90s-tough-on-crime policy on steroids, with huge federal funding for additional police. Condition federal funding for states on not running afoul of 'civil rights' law, which will be interpreted as any policy designed to specifically support any member of a group in a protected category in any way, either directly or by proxy. Restore discipline in schools by encouraging corporal punishment in problem districts, stick the IRS on every progressive billionaire and progressive corporation, cut a deal with more apolitical tech executives (like Zuck and Musk) to surreptitiously promote 'pro-social' (ie right wing) memes on their networks. Then govern as an American caudillo (and successors) with 70% of the white vote and 40% of the hispanic vote forever.
ie. Steve Bannon's plan, which was realistic and workable for an intelligent leader of a competent American conservative movement.
Unfortunately, American conservatives are largely retarded and so will hand Donald the primary victory over DeSantis, ensuring that even in the unlikely event that Trump wins again, none of the above will ever happen.
Immigration restriction seems to be a big part of your vision, but you are still hostile to the concept of White identity? You don't want White people to internalize any sort of ethnic identity, but you want major policy changes on Immigration. You can't have one without the other.
What about for Europe? What if restricting MENA immigration to Europe were only possible, in earnest, with the creation of a pan-European, white racial identity? Would you support it if that were the case? Or is your "ideal" also, somehow and someway, Europe does a 180 and starts seriously restricting immigration for reasons unrelated to the aspirations of white nationalists and impulse of ethnic identity?
It just seems weird that immigration reform seems so important to your ideal, but then you counter-signal the most important impulse that would bring about serious immigration reform.
Not who you're replying to, but I also oppose illegal/uncontrolled immigration, and my reasons for doing so are irrespective of race. Illegal immigration creates a ghettoized immigrant community that is less likely to assimilate into a national culture, and an "open border" creates many logistical issues not the least of which is that it essentially nullifies a nation's ability to rule itself. The kind of Constitutional/quasi-libertarian project that I would most like to see is only feasible within firmly set and well-policed borders. Whether those borders are keeping out brown or white people makes no difference to me.
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