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 -
Indeed, there is nothing they can possibly do that would bring antisemites to change their position. There's another word for that sort of belief: unfalsifiable. Any action 'the jews' take that isn't obviously in line with the antisemite view is just evidence of ever more complex trickery. And so it is found that both 'pushing for greater authoritarianism' and 'staying mum' all leads to the same rotten conclusion.
What would prove antisemites wrong would be for Jews to systematically exert their talents and influence for the interests of white people. Basically, for them to treat white people as they treat their own in-group, or even putting white people above their own in-group in political and cultural conflict. That's not going to happen, and I don't even necessarily blame them for it, it's just something that has to be accepted.
Look at 2rafa who has said that we can't support a White identity because it might be threatening to Jews. Accepting this premise is true, yes it is very difficult for Antisemites to be proven wrong with the remaining options for how Jews should respond to Antisemitism given that, you know, "be on the side of white identity" isn't an option.
They did for the vast majority of the existence of the United States, and that radically changed along with the change in elite composition and saliency of prevailing Grand Narratives, specifically around WWII and later the Holocaust. White identity has been made taboo by these grand narratives formulated by our cultural institutions. If you ask the average person why advocating for White people is the most evil thing in the world, they will surely respond "What do you mean, haven't you seen Schindler's List?!"
The post-WWII and Holocaust narrative has formulated an anti-fascist dialectic on both the left and right. The left is anti-fascist because of their social liberalism, and the right is anti-fascist because of their economic libertarianism. But they all agree Hitler is the anti-Christ of this post-war moral Universe. This is the cultural context in which white people have turned against their own self-interests.
I could turn this around and ask why Jews haven't allowed their mind to be changed about supporting White identity given all of the benefits and friendly relations they have enjoyed from the West since the end of the Second World War.
To this day, Jews will go and wail like toddlers at a freakin' wall to constantly relive a thousands-year old offense, and they won't allow a single shred of advocacy for White people without invoking the Holocaust and "Never Again" to explain why it's beyond-the-pale. Anybody who wants to advocate for white people or White identity is absolutely correct that Jewish influence in cultural and political life is the most significant barrier to accomplishing this. Unless that changes, which it won't, it's misdirected to say that the Cart is driving the Horse, or claim that Dissident Right twitter is the reason Jewish influence is so hostile towards white identiy.
King Charles' very first speech featured a promise to construct the new Holocaust Temple in the gardens in plain view of parliament. That way, any lawmakers or citizens walking by the center of political power cannot do so without being reminded of Jewish suffering. There's just not much room to doubt the source of these cultural narratives that have inspired bitter hostility towards white identity.
Mass immigration was radically altering American demographics in a way the Founding Fathers never intended as early as the mid-19th century. In that case of course it was famously a Jew who was perhaps the nation’s staunchest restrictionist. Hart-Cellar was in substantial part a Catholic project.
But again, it doesn’t really matter. You think that white people suddenly turned “against their own interests” because of Jewish mythmaking about World War 2 and the Holocaust narrative specifically, ie the KMac / ‘racist lib’ narrative. But widespread education and cultural messaging about the Holocaust began in earnest in the 1980s, well after the loosening of immigration laws in the US and well after mass immigration from the Islamic world had begun into Westen Europe from Pakistan, North Africa and elsewhere. And the movements that led to gay rights, women’s equality laws, the civil rights act, the sexual revolution and so on had a long ideological tail that stretched well back through the 19th century, they weren’t invented wholecloth by Jewish (or any) boomers.
The biggest obstacle to wignat advocacy is other gentile whites - over a hundred million of them - opposed to that ideology rather than several million Jews. Those gentiles practice an ideology that is clearly, demonstrably and directly descended from the principles of universality, rights, democracy, individualism and so on upon which the USA was founded and which was, ultimately, invented by their own kind. I don’t think this is a tenuous link at all.
But it’s always easier for ethnats to be angry at another people than their own.
America was always from the very beginning identified as a "White" country. The very first immigration law restricted citizenship to Whites, not just Anglos. An aspect of America that I like is the aspiration for a pan-European nation. But yes, from the very beginning, European immigration was aligned with the foundational ethos of the nation.
The loosening of immigration laws in the US weren't perceived as going to have an impact on demographics, much less put America on the path to being majority non-White. I'm even willing to believe that those who lobbied heaviest for its implementation, who also invoked the Holocaust and "nobody wanted the Jews so now we have to accept looser immigration" argument in its defense, didn't predict it would change demographics like this.
The Holocaust civic religion peaked in saliency in public consciousness right at the demographic inflection point. So the DR argument that this civic religion, by design, worked as a memetic superweapon to drive demographic replacement without much complaint or opposition from white people is aligned with the sequence of events you describe. Of course, it's not just the Holocaust memetically driving White people to not care about demographic change. Like any civic religion, the dogma is accompanied by socially and legally authoritarian enforcement mechanisms.
And yes a mythos that formulates a curriculum taught to children as the most important and divine moral truth, coincided with a huge catalogue of films and other cultural output that broadcasts the mythos to mass audiences, coincided with authoritarian measures to punish those who dissent from the hegemony of the mythos is absolutely the mechanism around which a smaller number of people can direct the public opinion and behavior of a much larger group of people.
Do you not accept basic premises of Elite Theory when it comes to attributing any sort of accountability to Jewish influence over key institutions in intellectual and cultural life?
Jews were explicitly considered white in those terms, and always have been (as well Maghrebis, as I recall).
And I think it’s ahistorical to dismiss the thoughts of Franklin and others about non-Anglo immigration.
Well I don't disagree with that, but I don't see how that's relevant to my point.
"Are Jews white" is a complicated question, to which I would say "Yes", but they are not Aryan. One of many reasons to bring back such a word to describe the real, common ancestry of non-Jewish European-descended people. Jews themselves make the distinction and assign a mythological meaning to it.
Are Iranians white? Are they Aryan? What about North Indians? Pashtuns?
I'm trying to understand your racial taxonomy.
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