site banner

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
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.

The culture that these people all seem to want to “R E T V R N” to is pretty explicitly not just Christian, but Catholic, isn’t it?

The idea they are supposedly criticizing, that human beings have dignity, is not a “slave mentality”, it is the foundational idea behind ending the standard where the vast majority of humans were subjects of their King. Christianity is a liberating ideology at its very core.

Of all the dumb, grifting things that people like Richard Spencer have said, this is perhaps one of the dumbest. This puts him into the same category as people like Andrew Tate; just absolute luke warm IQ people who would be working some low intelligence job if it were not for social media.

I think they want to return to pre Christian Germanic paganism, aka a remnant of the time of living in mud huts like the Africans they love to hate.

Like it or not, Europe broke out of those conditions from 1,000 years of Catholic theocracy. Asia modernized by copying them. This is a well-known, historically supported story that’s perfectly compatible with reactionary ideas about things like the place of women.

I think some of these DR types are too racist for actual Christian reactionaries in real life, or find that their autistic NEET edge lord behavior is otherwise unwelcome in IRL Christian reactionary communities so try to go further back. Twitter edgelordism is escapism whether it’s on the left or the right.

I think some of these DR types are too racist for actual Christian reactionaries in real life

I'm not so sure, given that the Christian reactionaries I know IRL can get pretty racist, despite (or maybe even because of) being mixed-race in some cases (Elwood "Chief Red Cloud" Towner was not unique).

Twitterati edgelords are on a whole other level; being a Christian reactionary myself I'm well aware that politically incorrect racial attitudes are common in the community. But going on unbidden rants on the subject doesn't seem particularly common, nor does unqualified praise for Hitler or support for ethnic cleansing or population control.

Twitterati edgelords are on a whole other level

Agreed

going on unbidden rants on the subject doesn't seem particularly common

No, because they've got jobs to keep, because they've got kids to feed. But in private conversations, or anonymous online spaces…

or support for ethnic cleansing or population control

I know a trad-Cath civil engineer who hates suburbs, and argues that instead of the "white flight" retreat that drove their growth and "urban decay," whites should have defended the inner city by "just shoot[ing] all the n*****s." (He's also a rabid antisemite of the "gas the k***s" variety, and has been on some TRS podcasts.) Then there's the Russian Orthodox Native guy who said that of all the terrible things the white man brought to this continent, the worst, above alcohol and smallpox, is black people.

I know a trad-Cath civil engineer who hates suburbs, and argues that instead of the "white flight" retreat that drove their growth and "urban decay," whites should have defended the inner city by "just shoot[ing] all the n*****s."

This is probably because he, like most IRL tradcaths, believes commie-coddler powers that be engineered the civil rights movement to direct the worst of the white flight generating violence against Catholic neighborhoods in an effort to break the cultural power of Catholicism(on the upswing in the 50’s and early 60’s due to very high fertility rates and strong group identity), not because he literally believes blacks should be exterminated.

not because he literally believes blacks should be exterminated.

Did you miss the part where he literally believes Jews should be exterminated? We went to high school together, so I've seen his views evolve from the Heinleinian right-libertarian sort to Trad-Cath Fascist (that's not an insult, that's self-identified).

I have never met a mentally OK enough to be basically functional tradcath who believed Jews ought be exterminated(and I have met a lot of tradcaths, including many who voice politically incorrect ideas and strong antisemitism quite freely), but I have no trouble believing you’ve found one- you wouldn’t be the only friendly or neutral observer who claims to have. I admit to being curious as to his attitude towards converts from Judaism, who would be ethnically Jewish but not religiously.

I recall, particularly, a traditional Catholic priest who once told me that bishop Williamson was of course right about the Holocaust, but he shouldn’t be allowed to say it because he doesn’t believe it would have been a tragedy if it had happened. Even if not exactly mainstream within traditional Catholicism, I don’t harbor delusions of bishop Williamson being one of a kind.

You really do encounter some idiosyncratic characters now and again. It sounds fake, but the boyfriend of one of my good friends, an Arab woman, for about a year at college was a black Muslim African guy (raised in Europe, but first generation and his family mostly still lived in their home country) who was a huge fan of Moldbug and Pat Buchanan. He was ambivalent about HBD/The Bell Curve (which I’ve always found is a remarkably widely-read book for wrongthink) but would discuss it with almost everyone he did coke with, which was a lot of people.

I was chuckling and looking for the retweet button before realizing this is a different site. Your friend sounds like he posts bangers