site banner
ymeskhout  14d ago (text post)   4002 thread views

The Bailey Podcast E036: White Right

Listen on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Podcast Addict, and RSS.

In this episode, we talk about white nationalism.

Participants: Yassine, Walt Bismarck, TracingWoodgrains.

Links:

Why I'm no longer a White Nationalist (The Walt Right)

The Virulently Unapologetic Racism of "Anti-Racism" (Yassine Meskhout)

Hajnal Line (Wikipedia)

Fall In Line Parody Song (Walt Bismarck)

Richard Spencer's post-Charlottesville tirade (Twitter)

The Metapolitics of Black-White Conflict (The Walt Right)

America Has Black Nationalism, Not Balkanization (Richard Hanania)

Recorded 2024-04-13 | Uploaded 2024-04-14

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I find it a bit odd that while John Hajnal has a (concise but detailed) Wikipedia entry, but the Hajnal Line as a concept, in fact, does not, and instead redirects to an entry seemingly arbitrarily entitled "Western European marriage pattern", which appears to have been put together by leftist activists. This applies even more to the entry on Werner Conze, which it links to.

I also find it very odd that Hajnal has no entries in either German, Hungarian or Hebrew on Wikipedia, even though he was the son of Hungarian Jews who moved to Weimar Germany.

On a related note, I find it odd that nuptiality as such has no Wikipedia entry at all, and only has a very short and imprecise entry in online dictionaries. I'm no scholar, but as far as I know, the scientific definition of nuptiality as a concept in demographic studies is the rate of fertile women within a population. As such, the nuptiality rate and its projected change is absolutely crucial to the demographic future of any society.

Here is the article immediately before it was merged, and here is the article as it appeared in March of 2021, before an activist editor significantly changed it, summarizing his changes as follows: “Per talk page request, adding content to reduce bias in the article toward Hajnal'a theory, as well as to mention the racialist history of this research.”

This editor’s Wikipedia user page gives some insight into his views and editing motivations: “I am primarily interested in the documented history and photography of American small towns and railroads. Most of my activity on Wikipedia would consist of edits of that nature; if it weren't for the fact that I seem to find myself entrenched in lengthy disputes over culture-related articles; typically with trolls. I adamantly oppose the rise of racism, HBD, bio'truth', nationalism and jingoism, and I consider these to be the most compelling threats of our time to human dignity and safety.”

Thanks for digging this up. I assumed it went down something like this.

I linked to the Wikitionary entry for Hajnal line, but it's a mistake on my end to rely on Wikipedia as a source here. I default to linking to Wikipedia which works fine as a starting point for more information for almost every topic but because I'm not steeped in the race & IQ sphere, I had forgotten how zealous the Wikipedia editors have been on "sanitizing" this particular topic (I'm fairly sure there was a motte effortpost that convincingly outlined how insane the editors had gotten). If you have a better source to link to, let me know.

The title "Western European marriage pattern" is muc more accruate to the actual concept. Walt describes eg Ireland as trans-Hajnal, but if you actually look at the line (in red), it's clear that Ireland is on the West of the line, and is only devided from "cis-Hajnals" by an different line. What is important about the concept is the region, not the boundary. So it makes sense to name the article for the characteristics of the region. As for the content, it doesn't seem too argumentative. It throws in a line shitting on WNs, which is to be expected. But for the rest of the argument it seems pretty neutral. Acknowledging that the theory is accepted by some scolars and rejected by others.

I'm a bit confused by this concept. Elsewhere, I've read that Scotland should also be on the other side of the line. Is this actually a robust concept and does it really explain anything?

A couple of points.

The entry rather dubiously calls Hajnal a Holocaust survivor and strident anti-fascist. The Wikipedia entry on him certainly includes nothing about his supposed anti-fascist activism, and says this:

In 1936 his parents left Nazi Germany, and placed him in a Quaker school in the Dutch countryside while they arranged to settle in Britain. In 1937, John was reunited with his parents in London, where he attended University College School, Hampstead.

Also, stating that “his theory has been warmly received and heavily promoted by Neo-Nazis, and the alt-right”, and citing as proof an 1983(!) essay from a scientific journal, which is obviously inaccessible without a subscription and whatnot, plus a 2020 monography without page numbers included, is rather suspect.

The last part of the entry entitled “Precursor to theory” is pure nonsense. The idea that a man had great ideological influence on genocidal Nazi policies in occupied Eastern European lands, even though he was a mere infantry captain of the Wehrmacht, serving on the Eastern Front until getting wounded in 1944, and was thus barred from taking his nominal seat as professor of some newly-founded Nazi university (that doesn’t even have a Wikipedia entry in English), which would be the sole potential basis for even calling him a Nazi ideologist/theoretician (other than the sociology articles he wrote before, which apparently all focus on Jewish influence in Poland, the Baltics etc., which has scarcely anything to do with the concept of the Hajnal Line), is hardly anything but ideologically motivated baseless garbage.

But anyway, merging the existing Wiki entry on the Hajnal Line, which I’m sure existed at some point, with this particular one, which admittedly cites lots of demographic data but is needlessly verbose in my view, and pointedly fails to go into a similar level of detail about Eastern European patterns, is definitely suspect.

Having now read more of the entry, I agree the article is fine as a starting point. I vaguely knew about the Hajnal line map, but my limited familiarity made the lines seem arbitrary to me, and I didn't know it stemmed from particular marriage patterns.

Here is a good summary on the Hajnal Line from HBD Chick and this goes into greater detail about some of the particulars.

I'd recommend starting there.

That's the standard way for organized leftists to 1984 something from Wikipedia. Vote to merge the article in question with another semi-related article. Move over some of the content, redirect old links, delete the original article. Then vote to minimize and delete the moved over content as it doesn't really fit with the new article.

Every step can be argued as neutral, but the end result isn't.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats