site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13d ago (text post)   25282 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 22, 2024

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've noticed the alt-right (specifically the Richard Spencer wing) is blaming Christianity for cucking Whites and making them accept non-whites in their country. To me this isn't even close to being true and can be dismissed outright as nonsense.

We know from genetics that modern Europeans separated from sub saharan African 30 to 40 thousand years ago. We also know that Western Europeans didn't have any meaningful contact with Blacks until the 15th century when Portugal "discovered" West Africa during the Age of Exploration. By accepting this, we can see that Western Europe has had over 500 years of contact with Blacks.

I've specifically been looking into England, but the same is true for other nations. The highest count of non-whites I can find on Google Scholar recently is 2.6% in 1951. Interestingly, 2.2% of those 2.6% were first generation immigrants. This is by far the highest I've seen with other estimates putting it close to 99%.

So at this point, we have pretty clear data that when Europe was Christian (and America), there was almost 0 non-white immigration to Europe. We also know places like France put in racist laws like Code Noir that explicitly put Whites at the top of the social hierarchy.

When we look at when this changed, it was really the 1960's. But at this point, Christianity was starting to decline due to science and especially Darwin (and in my opinion became obviously not true). The increased immigration and anti-racist views correlates with Christianity's decline, so the idea that Christianity having everyone's soul being equal can be equally dismissed. In fact, I would argue the pro non-white immigration came from the secular left or if you want to argue it's the right neoliberalism. I see zero evidence of this that Richard Spencer and his allies argue to be true. In fact, the evidence shows the complete opposite.

'Christianity' declined in America when elite institutions started getting filled up with Catholics and jews. This happened in the 1940's and by the 1960's the new 'elite' was throwing their weight around. The old WASP ideals were pushed aside. That's all there is to the story of modern America. 1,2

To highlight why this is the case and not the other way around: America was still very 'Christian' in the 1960's. The places that stopped being 'Christian' were the big 4. Academia, media, the courts and government. It just happens to be the case that 'being Christian' doesn't count for anything when you don't control these and you now have a newspaper, radio and TV in your living room streaming the latest in jewish psychological warfare into your home.

Religion and ethnocentrism go hand in hand since both are dogmatic and confident. Christians lose since they are no longer dogmatic and confident. You can weave whatever historical narrative you want in favor of Christendom and why its the best but it all funnels down to the same modern pit we now live in.

On the whole, the closest you get to confident dogmatism in Christians is when you find racist Christians like with 'Christian Identity'. The rest exists in various stages of failure. Be that bargaining with sinners or interpreting the word of god through a rainbow colored lens.

Christianity did three things very well: Formalize a calendar year with holidays, sanctify courtship for the lower classes and emphasize reading. The rest... not so great.(there might be more, lets be honest)

As an aside, I've always considered the typical universalist anglo sentiment to be a strain of death for the western world. Listening to any moral philosophy with a UK accent fills me with dread. It's like you're always one tear away from not having borders.

'Christianity' declined in America when elite institutions started getting filled up with Catholics and jews. This happened in the 1940's and by the 1960's the new 'elite' was throwing their weight around. The old WASP ideals were pushed aside. That's all there is to the story of modern America. 1,2

The Modernism versus Traditionalism split in the Presbyterian Church pre-dates the 1940's. The split between what were essentially modern professional class atheists and fundamentalist Christians who still insisted on the Westminster confession dates from then, at the latest, not from the 1960's.

The growth of socialism, progressivism, modernism, and secularism in the 19th and early 20th century elite is something you can't ignore when telling a story about American social history. The guys in the scenes at Harvard from the 1930's in The Good Shepherd were quintessential WASPs but they certainly weren't Puritans.

And, of course, the most resounding condemnation of this from the 20th century, God and Man at Yale, was written by a Catholic conservative...

There was a left-right divide in the US prior to the aforementioned introduction of jews and Catholics. What is being highlighted is that the introduction of Catholics and jews into the elite changed the split from what it was to a skewed one.

This effect is also clearly present when we look only at jewish elites. As the jewish elites skew leftward at a rate higher than the traditional elite does. By the same token there is little nativist sentiment to go around since the ingroup bias of right leaning jews leads them straight to Jerusalem, not West-Virgina.

Just to make it clear so that people don't get tangled in irrelevant argumentation; no one is saying every single catholic and every single jew is a lefty. We are talking about broad population groups and how their general elite composition skews the native elite composition when mixed together.

And yet the conservative elites are mostly Catholic with a few Jews and almost no mainline protestants.

???

radio and TV in your living room streaming the latest in jewish psychological warfare into your home.

I would be intereted in a rebuttal to this article from users here who disagree with its thesis. As a rule, I'm suspicious of any article that just lists of a bunch of Jews from various fields and concludes there is some interconnected conspiracy. It's also only focused on America when we saw the same phenomenons in Europe post WWII without any Jewish influence.

Another point to consider - for all the talk of Flowerman and his ilk, where is the proof that he was the reason for the outcome? All we have is that Flowerman was explicit about wanting to propagandize ordinary Americans and that Americans today generally display far less in-group bias/ethnocentrism. The article sets out against the notion that Jews aren't a fifth column, but it doesn't make any convincing case that they are.

Jews have the notion of "never again", but they're not the only ones who have bones to pick with American bigotry. You don't need a Jewish conspiracy to eliminate in-group biases in the dominant culture when that culture did harm to others, but it seems quite a few people really want the Jews to be consciously involved in these attacks against the dominant culture.

America and the Soviet Union ruled Europe post war.

To this day mainstream American media holds hegemony in Europe. As was artfully demonstrated by a map of BLM protests worldwide.

Actually, Christian observance in America reached a new high in the postwar era. The height of weekly church attendance in America was in the 1950s. America was less religiously observant in 1920 than in 1950, hard as that may be to believe.

On a typical Sunday morning in the period from 1955-58, almost half of all Americans were attending church – the highest percentage in U.S. history

Meanwhile, the height of Protestantism in the US was probably the 1840s as a percentage of the total population. It’s just that American Christianity was never staunchly ethnonationalist, it existed alongside ethnic nationalism but it wasn’t of it. The same is true in the Islamic world today, you can have tribes with a strong sense of ethnic identity, but it’s not because of Islam, it just exists alongside it.

Actually, Christian observance in America reached a new high in the postwar era. The height of weekly church attendance in America was in the 1950s.

No atheists in foxholes indeed.

Actually, Christian observance in America reached a new high in the postwar era. The height of weekly church attendance in America was in the 1950s. America was less religiously observant in 1920 than in 1950, hard as that may be to believe.

I said nothing that contradicts that. I instead explain why this stopped being the case due to the demographic change in elites.

It’s just that American Christianity was never staunchly ethnonationalist, it existed alongside ethnic nationalism but it wasn’t of it. The same is true in the Islamic world today, you can have tribes with a strong sense of ethnic identity, but it’s not because of Islam, it just exists alongside it.

I don't understand what this means. Ethnonationalism is just an expression of ingroup bias. Any group based belief or ideology relies on ingroup bias. When you don't have ingroup bias you end up with contemporary 'Christianity' which is just a hedonistic gay progressive with AIDS calling themselves a bishop. You start worshipping the outsider and humiliating yourself for their validation and acceptance. Which is what the broad modern Christian movement is at this point.

contemporary 'Christianity' which is just a hedonistic gay progressive with AIDS calling themselves a bishop.

This is a small minority of denominations and they are typically doing very poorly.

As best I can tell the trends that resurged in 1960 began in the early 1900s but we're interrupted and delayed substantially by the great depression and world war 2.

That shifts my priors to the root of the problem isn't something that happened in the 1960s it happened in the 1890s to 1920s or perhaps before that (if the panic of 1907/Civil War just delayed an older trend)

If anything, it has a lot to do with urbanization and industrialization in general.

Guy, men, lads, fellas, I don't even know where to begin with all this. I am intrigued that Catholics Not Christians, though 😀 So the Horrid Popish Plot met the Global Zionist Conspiracy and we made beautiful music together?

It's a hard pill to swallow but the Catholics that came and the influence they brought did little good for the trajectory of American culture as they decidedly helped move the elite 'leftward'.

I'm starting a GoFundMe to commission a klezmer rendition of "On Eagle's Wings". Then, and only then, will the inferior WASP culture be washed away from sea to shining sea.

/SaturdayCartoonVillain

I'm not sure if the version we sang as secondary school kids at Mass in the late 70s/early 80s is the one you mean, but the very name makes me shudder.

I will gladly donate to this worthy ecumenical project!

I'd donate for that. Give me some time and proper motivation and I could probably write it.

I’ve always been taught that anti-Catholic sentiment in America went hand-in-hand with nativism. The Catholics were from strange lands with strange customs like Ireland, Italy, and Poland. It wasn’t Catholicism per se that drove anti Catholic feelings in the country, but it was a common thread among the foreigners arriving from countries that weren’t well represented at the founding.

I guess the Pope coming out against Freemasonry didn’t help relations between American elites and Catholicism, either.

I’ve always been taught that anti-Catholic sentiment in America went hand-in-hand with nativism. The Catholics were from strange lands with strange customs like Ireland, Italy, and Poland.

Strange customs like the Irish? Three 19th century American Presidents were Irish, but they were Protestant Irish.

The main issue was that Catholics were seen as having a supra-nationalist loyalty to the Pope. Even in the 1960 election, Protestant figures like Billy Graham argued that JFK would take orders from the Pope. (The Pope couldn't even restrain JFK's sex life, let alone his policies.) There was also fear of Catholic schools and other sectarian institutiins, which even sought funding from Protestant taxpayers. The Catholic Church was also seen as too anti-black in the North (due to its silence on slavery) and too pro-black in the South (especially by the KKK).

Three 19th century American Presidents were Irish, but they were Protestant Irish.

That's not really 'Irish,' though. Scots-English Yeomanry from Ulster vs Celtic peasantry from County Cork.

That's not really 'Irish,' though.

They were in the eyes of Americans at the time, specifically Scotch-Irish. Also, Scots are Celts, though views about that at the time were sometimes complex.

Aside from their Catholicism, there was little to distinguish a typical Irishman from a typical Protestant Highlander. (Their languages would have been slightly different, but equally alien to an English American in 1850.)

Also, Scots are Celts

Highlanders, yes. Lowland Scots are Anglos with a funny accent and some Celtic wives.

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