site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   26428 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Clark Kent Did Not Assimilate

The Dissident Right Inquisition on Twitter/X is ongoing, whereby certain factions of the DR, mostly surrounding the orbit of Bronze Age Pervert, are accused of being crypto-Jewish, owing to their willingness to be super edgy on every aspect of cultural consensus under the sun except that one question. They will criticize everything except Jewish power and Zionist influence. The fact that a growing number of them have actually turned out to be secretly Jewish puts wind in the sails because that sort of behavior is predicted by DR critique of Jewish behavior: the Clark Kent metaphor of deceptively presenting one identity to the outside world while secretly maintaining a different one under the surface.

Steve Sailer got caught in the crossfire here. In our recent discussion on this Twitter spat, I would have put Steve Sailer as an "execption" to the rule that an edgy DR figure who counter-signals the JQ is probably secretly Jewish himself, but now I increasingly believe Sailer is another instance of this model generalizing after all. Last week, after some token Holocaust worship and virtue signaling against anti-semitism on Twitter, Sailer abandoned his typical methodological thoroughness in an article placing the blame for Wokeness solely at the feet of white Protestants and Quakers (!). This position is not new, it is identical to what (Jewish) DR figures like BAP and Curtis Yarvin have been saying for a long time, and @2rafa has advocated for this position as well:

Peng writes:

…wokeness appears to be a syncretic blend of Puritanism and Quakerism. Woke adherents value elite education and moralizing, seem obsessed with rooting out heretics, adhere to orthodoxy, and display a sense of personal salvation, traits that were all characteristic of Puritans, while also displaying the radical openness and commitment to egalitarianism that characterized the Quakers.

Puritans tended to be intense and Quakers nice. Put them together and you get an intolerant religion of tolerance...

...Peng sees Jewish liberalism as, historically, a triumph of assimilation:

Whereas anti-Semites today like to blame Jews in academia for “cultural Marxism,” the correlation actually runs the other way: Jews gave up their faith and assimilated into liberal Christian values, including sometimes literally converting to Christianity. The Jews that resisted assimilation, Orthodox Jews, are a solidly Republican bloc. A similar assimilation is occurring among Asian Americans, who have swelled the ranks of the same colleges over the past few decades.

The key piece of evidence relied on by Sailer is an analysis of The 100 Most Influential Americans by The Atlantic. Finding only 7 Jews among that list, Sailer concludes that Peng is correct and Jewish association with wokeness is merely an effect of their assimilation with Protestant values.

Keith Woods wrote an excellent response to this article, pointing out the the biggest problem with Sailer's methodology: the question at hand is the cause for the radical change in trajectory of American progressivism in the 20th century. "Progressivism" in America at the turn of the century denoted not just immigration restriction, but demographic reversal, as well as HBD and eugenics. This all changed with the growth of Jewish influence in the 20th century. If you tried to create a "top 100 most influential list" related to this sharp diversion in American progressivism you would walk away from vastly different conclusions than those drawn by Sailer and Peng.

What's the motive?

Jewish participation in these cultural upheavals is not challenged by Sailer, or 2rafa, etc. Rather the most import question surrounds the motive for Jewish support, and even creation, of these counter-cultural movements. Sailer cites Peng briefly, but there's no actual evidence presented that Jewish participation in these cultural movements was motivated by a desire to assimilate to Protestant culture and values. On the other hand, Keith presents very strong evidence that the academic and cultural movements most closely associated with these upheavals throughout the 20th century were motivated by a retention of a Jewish identity and a hostility towards Protestant culture and values.

Keith presents strong evidence that the anthropological movements in the 20th century which enforced HBD denial as dogma, deriving from the Boasian school of anthropology, were motivated by his Jewish identification and opposition to antisemitism:

Boas was committed to the fight for racial equality throughout his life. Together with close friends he formed the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom in 1939, an antifascist organisation designed to “discredit the theories of race being forwarded by the Nazis in Germany”.

One of Boas’s most successful students was Ashley Montagu – born Israel Ehrenberg to a Jewish family in London’s East End – who completed a dissertation under Boas in 1937. Montagu arrived in the United States in 1931, and immediately focused his intellectual work on dismantling what he considered the dangerous idea of biological race, as well as attacking his new home of America for its racist past. His 1942 work Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: the Fallacy of Race, which was based on his dissertation, deconstructed the concept of race as one which developed in the 18th century as a response to slavery and colonialism.

Montagu’s book received mixed reviews from other academics, and he misled other academics on his credentials. In her book The Evolution of Racism, Pat Shipman records that Montagu responded to his academic critics by branding them as “racists” who opposed him because of his Jewish heritage. In an interview later in his life, he explained this early opposition with the sensational declaration that “all non-Jews are anti-Semitic”[9], a statement Shipman used as the title of one of the chapters of her book. Montagu also described childhood experiences of antisemitism in London as formative. It does not seem Montagu ever embraced or assimilated to the American Christian culture after his arrival in 1931, rather, he critiqued the norms of White Christian society as masking oppressive dynamics which brutalised other races and women.

Associating the radical departure from HBD to race denial in the early 20th century to Protestantism also does not make sense given the fact HBD was invented within White protestant culture, and the eugenics movement was also invented there and more advanced than anywhere else in the world. The United States, Germany, Scandanavia all had comparable eugenics programs and the Nazis were not even an outlier in that regard. It's impossible not to Notice that the battlelines between HBD and race denial in the 20th century largely broke between Protestant Darwinists (Madison Grant, E.O Wilson, Charles Murray, Samuel Morton, James Watson, etc.) and Immigrant Jews (Franz Boas, Stephen Jay Gould, Jared Diamond, Eric Turkeimer, etc.). Madison Grant also remarked that Jewish influenced was mobilized against HBD as early as 1921:

It is well-nigh impossible to publish in the American newspapers any reflection upon certain religions or races which are hysterically sensitive even when mentioned by name. . . . Abroad, conditions are fully as bad, and we have the authority of one of the most eminent anthropologists in France that the collection of anthropological measurements and data among French recruits at the outbreak of the Great War was prevented by Jewish influence, which aimed to suppress any suggestion of racial differentiation in France.

Keith does a good job establishing that the motivations of the Boasian School of Anthropology and the Frankfurt school of academics were not motivated by a desire to assimilate to white Protestant culture, but rather by their Jewish identification and deep-seated desire to wage culture war on White Protestant culture.

But I want to talk about two more:

Was Sigmund Freud motivated by a desire to assimilate to White Protestant Culture? This is from Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique:

[Freud] was proud of his enemies—the persecuting Roman Catholic Church, the hypocritical bourgeoisie, the obtuse psychiatric establishment, the materialistic Americans—so proud, indeed, that they grew in his mind into potent specters far more malevolent and far less divided than they were in reality. He likened himself to Hannibal, to Ahasuerus, to Joseph, to Moses, all men with historic missions, potent adversaries, and difficult fates. (Gay 1988, 604)

There is also evidence that Freud conceptualized himself as a leader in a war on gentile culture. We have seen that Freud had a great deal of hostility to Western culture, especially the Catholic Church and its ally, the Austrian Habsburg monarchy (Gay 1988; McGrath 1974; Rothman & Isenberg 1974a).[177] In a remarkable passage from the Interpretation of Dreams, Freud, in attempting to understand why he has been unable to set foot in Rome, proposes that he has been retracing the footsteps of Hannibal, the Semitic leader of Carthage against Rome during the Punic wars.

Hannibal . . . had been the favourite hero of my later school days. . . . And when in the higher classes I began to understand for the first time what it meant to belong to an alien race . . . the figure of the semitic general rose still higher in my esteem. To my youthful mind Hannibal and Rome symbolized the conflict between the tenacity of Jewry and the organisation of the Catholic Church. (Freud, Interpretation of Dreams; in Rothman & Isenberg 1974a, 64)

The passage clearly indicates that Freud was self-identified as a member of “an alien race” at war with Rome and its daughter institution, the Catholic Church, a central institution of Western culture. Gay (1988, 132) states, “A charged and ambivalent symbol, Rome stood for Freud’s most potent concealed erotic, and only slightly less concealed aggressive wishes.” [178] Rome was “a supreme prize and incomprehensible menace” (Gay 1988, 132). Freud himself described this “Hannibal fantasy” as “one of the driving forces of [my] mental life” (in McGrath 1974, 35).

A strong connection exists between anti-Semitism and Freud’s hostility to Rome. Freud’s conscious identification with Hannibal occurred following an antiSemitic incident involving his father in which his father behaved passively. Freud’s response to the incident was to visualize “the scene in which Hannibal’s father, Hamilcar Barca, made his boy swear before the household altar to take vengeance on the Romans. Ever since that time Hannibal had . . . a place in my phantasies” (in McGrath 1974, 35). “Rome was the center of Christian civilization. To conquer Rome would certainly be to avenge his father and his people” (Rothman & Isenberg 1974a, 62). Cuddihy (1974, 54) makes the same point: “Like Hamilcar’s son Hannibal, he will storm Rome seeking vengeance. He will control his anger, as his father had done, but he will use it to probe relentlessly beneath the beautiful surface of the diaspora to the murderous rage and lust coiled beneath its so-called civilities.”

Rothman and Isenberg (1974) convincingly argue that Freud actually viewed the Interpretation of Dreams as a victory against the Catholic Church and that he viewed Totem and Taboo as a successful attempt to analyze the Christian religion in terms of defense mechanisms and primitive drives. Regarding Totem and Taboo, Freud told a colleague that it would “serve to make a sharp division between us and all Aryan religiosity” (in Rothman & Isenberg 1974, 63; see also Gay 1988, 326). They also suggest that Freud consciously attempted to conceal his subversive motivation: A central aspect of Freud’s theory of dreams is that rebellion against a powerful authority must often be carried on with deception: “According to the strength . . . of the censorship, [the authority-defying individual] finds himself compelled . . . to speak in allusions . . . or he must conceal his objection beneath some apparently innocent disguise” (Freud, Interpretation of Dreams; in Rothman & Isenberg 1974a, 64).

If we were to create a Top 100 Influential list regarding, specifically, the radical shift in American culture Freud would certainly make this list along with the other examples discussed, and likewise another example for the intellectual motivation being driven by Jewish identity and a bitter hostility to White American culture. Not an attempt to assimilate to Protestant-Quaker cultural values.

Captain America - American as Apple Pie?

One blind spot in MacDonald's work is the comic-book pantheon: hugely influential on American culture, identity, and values. Looking barely beneath the surface reveals the very same psychology: less overtly malicious, but no less salient.

After all, someone ignorant would perceive Captain America as an Ayran hero. But when I watch this scene from Captain America (2011) I perceive something very different from the rest of the laity. I perceive the significance of the Jewish immigrant-inventor, Abraham Erskine, injecting Steve Rogers with the Serum that empowers him to fight the Nazis. The meaning of the myth does not point to a Jewish attempt to assimilate to Protestant values, it portrays a Jewish self-conceived role of transformation of American values. In the case of Captain America, the Jewish Immigrant lectures the audience before literally injecting the Aryan with a serum to transform him into the "Superior Man" so he goes to fight other White people. The Jewish writers are metaphorically depicting Culture War with Gentiles through these symbols.

Superman is one of many others which clearly fits in with this category, with heroic symbols and combat being a metaphor for Jewish Culture War being waged on white Gentiles.

Clark Kent is not a Jewish assimilation fantasy, he's a Jewish supremacist fantasy.

Clark Kent adopts an alter-ego in his daily interactions with humans by changing his name from Kal-El, meaning "Voice of God" in Hebrew, to the Gentile name Clark Kent. He changes his appearance, puts on a suit, goes to work as a media reporter (!) with everyone else none the wiser to his true identity.

But when Clark Kent tears open the shirt, he affirms that underneath the disguise he was always Superman. He holds sentimental feelings towards humanity as his adopted family, but in his heart of hearts he is a diasporan son of Krypton and he will never be them- he is a superior being and he must protect them and guide them.

This is extremely sophisticated storytelling. It provides perceptive Jewish audiences with a sense of identity, and yes superiority, it is a myth that tells them they cannot assimilate even if they change their name and appearance such that nobody around them knows who they truly are, they will always be Kryptonian underneath the surface. At the same time, there is compelling content for Gentile audiences that internalize the Ethos espoused by the ass-kicking superhero.

The dynamic described above was consciously created and self-aware. This is from a former principal writer of the Superman series from 1971 through 1986:

The unwarranted assumption in the explanations above is that Kryptonians are not Jews. I dissent from that notion. While they are not direct descendents of the Judeans of the Middle East from whom the term "Jewish" comes, I always ascribed effectively Jewish doctrine and ritual to the Kryptonian tradition. In fact, the Kryptonian tradition is congruent with and certainly predates the Judean, so they have at least as much claim to the tradition as any of us.

I give all my characters religions, so I've thought this through - really. The kents are Methodist (as is Clark), Lois is Catholic, Perry is Baptist, Jimmy is Lutheran (no surprise there) and Bruce Wayne and Batman are both Episcopalian (even less of a surprise there). And Superman (like the Siegels, the Shusters, the Weisingers, the Schwartzes, the Maggins and the Luthors) is Jewish.

This is so self-evident that it may as well be canon.

What's interesting here is that Clark Kent is Methodist but Superman is Jewish. This points to a very different dynamic of non-assimilation, and there's an interesting parallel to be made with certain DR edgelords who are Nietzschean on the surface and then crypto-Jewish underneath. These characters are metaphors for things that are real.

The psychology embedded metaphorically in the comic book canon points towards the exact same dynamic which motivated other intellectual movements: Jews retain their identity, if only in cryptic form, and self-conceive as saviors directing the values of humanity.

Conclusion

I'm not one to let Christianity off the hook, I also believe it is necessary but not sufficient to describe the cultural trajectory of 20th century America. But to say that Jews only contributed to it by force of their desire to assimilate is just so preposterous and contradicted by an enormous body of evidence of all forms that I find it hard to believe someone of Sailer's caliber falls victim to it. When Sailer sees someone say something like "IQ is just a measure of how good you are at taking tests, nothing important" that's how I feel seeing Sailer, BAP, Yarvin, 2rafa all say something so implausible like Jewish contributions to 20th century intellectual movements were motivated by their intense desire to assimilate to White American Protestant values.

These people are obviously motivated by their own Jewish identities, and it's correct for the Gentile DR to be inherently suspicious of the crypto-Jewish DR. It is a real problem that these people are unable and unwilling to see an incredibly obvious pattern, psychology, and symbolic coherency underlying these 20th century intellectual movements, it's not simply a prejudice.

Boasian Anthropology, the Frankfurt School, Freud and psychoanalysis, comic book myth creation, in none of those cases is the cultural influence of those movements motivated by an attempt to assimilate to a Protestant/Quaker ethos. In all cases, the individuals involved directly perceived themselves as Jews outside- even above and superior than, White Gentile culture and they all perceived their role as engaging in Culture War against White American values to direct them towards a way they perceived to beneficial for Jews.

Associating the radical departure from HBD to race denial in the early 20th century to Protestantism also does not make sense given the fact HBD was invented within White protestant culture, and the eugenics movement was also invented there and more advanced than anywhere else in the world. The United States, Germany, Scandanavia all had comparable eugenics programs and the Nazis were not even an outlier in that regard.

Are you anti-HBD? From where I stand, you do not pass the intellectual Turing test for the pro-HBD position. Saying that HBD was invented (not discovered, invented) within White protestant culture makes it sound like like you simply wrote "'Scientific' Racism" and then did a search and replace with HBD.

Only an icky minority of HBD proponents would claim that HBD is a refinement of whatever the Nazis thought.

The more sensible position would go:

The Nazi race ideology was based on Cargo Cult Science. Dilettantes who had not read the Sequences went out and "proved" exactly what they wanted to prove. Thus race denial was a directionally correct update. Later on with much better statistical methods, understandings of biases and confounders we discovered that race actually plays some role, after all. By analogy, first people said that the Sun circles around the Earth. They were very wrong, and the update towards "the Earth circles around the Sun" was the most significant step towards a correct model of the solar system ever. However, with further theories and precision measurements, we were able to determine that actually, the Earth and the Sun circle around their shared center of gravity (which happens to be within the sun) and are also subject to the gravity of all the other planets. While to some tiny degree, the Sun thus circles the Earth, this does not mean that the geocentrists were right all along.

I also don't get the paranoia about crypto-Jews. I think Jewish culture places a great value on arguments, and a disproportionate amount of intellectuals with outspoken opinions are of Ashkenazi origin.

However, they do not have mind-control superpowers which enables them to argue gentiles into anything they want. Thus, an argument by a Jewish-origin person is not an infohazard, and I can read it and judge it on its merits the same as I would any other argument.

Of course, if there was a Jewish World Conspiracy, the DR might be worried that if too many of their leaders are crypto-Jews, they might bury the story of How The Jews Secretly Control Everything. A council of Jewish Leaders which has directed every public Jewish-origin person from Karl Marx to Scott Alexander in a giant Kayfabe performance for the gentiles.

Personally, I find that notion silly. Occam's razor would prefer the explanation where Bernie Sanders is really a socialist, Eliezer is really worried about x-risk from AI and Ayn Rand was a true believer in capitalism or whatever.

Nah, Judaism is a racial Cargo Cult. The Old theories around race turned out to be more empirically accurate than what constitutes modern-day expert consensus. The current consensus of race and HBD denial is the Cargo Cult. Those older theories, which predated the Nazis and were not invented by them, have been totally vindicated by 21st century advancements in genetic analysis. Obviously they weren't correct about everything, the Urheimat of the Aryans was not in Germany as claimed by German nationalists. But the Corded Ware culture, the common ancestor to all European peoples and languages, did originate from that part of Europe.

Only an icky minority of HBD proponents would claim that HBD is a refinement of whatever the Nazis thought.

It would be incredibly dishonest for HBD proponents to pretend that their conclusions are divorced from the 20th century Protestant Darwinists/race scientists. They are simply "rediscovering" what was already learned over a hundred years ago, and suppressed by ideologues with an ethnopolitical agenda.

I think Jewish culture places a great value on arguments

I do think they place great value on arguments, and are very willing to bend reality to conform to their arguments. This was a common pattern of behavior throughout all the influential 20th century intellectual movements discussed in this thread. They weren't based on empirical study, they were just arguments based on predetermined conclusions which happened to align with their Jewish identities and ethnic interests. Yes, they place great value on arguments, very true. Too much value, even, and not enough on the truth.

But the Corded Ware culture, the common ancestor to all European peoples and languages, did originate from that part of Europe.

That's not true. The Greeks and Albanians are from late-Yamnaya/Catacomb culture people, the Basque still exist and there are Uralic and Turkish people as well.

Not to mention how much of the ancestry of these groups isn't from the Yamnaya or Corded-Ware culture people. Or how much of a mongrel race these Indo-Europeans groups were in the first place.

You just pick and choose what facts you want to fit your narrative.

Sure, CW was ancestral to Italo-Celtic, Germanic, and Balto-Slavic languages. So nearly all European languages, fair enough. I already mentioned the Urheimat was not the CW culture in any case. It's pretty amazing all of those languages come from one common ancestor. In my opinion that qualifies as some vindication for the older Racial theories. The Urheimat was probably the Russian Steppe, but the CW culture gives truth to the caricatures of the older racial theories, especially in comparison to something like Hebrew mythology or modern-day academic consensus. The Nazi racial theories were more grounded in reality than what passes today. Although the Reich Lab is responsible for making a lot of very recent corrections that are bringing the present-day consensus closer to the old racial theories.

CW culture was a mixture of Yamnaya, European farmer groups, and Hunter-gatherers. So basically they were "mongrels" to the extent modern Northern Europeans are mongrels.

German Nationalists claimed the Urheimat was Germany, but in reality the markers they pointed to spoke to the massive influence of CW culture. That's a reasonable error, it's not a racial cargo-cult compared to something like Judaism or modern Race Denial.

Even the most mystical accounts of Hyperboreans emerging from the Northern most land in existence and colonizing the world/founding civilizations likewise has far more basis of truth than something like the Hebrew bible.

The Nazi racial theories were more grounded in reality than what passes today.

You are eliding the fact that the Nazis thought that Balts and Slavs weren't really Aryan, despite them being more CWC by ancestry than any German. Also that they were pale, blond, blue eyed people, when they were overwhelmingly far more swarthy. Nazi racial theories made no sense and they used them to justify killing millions of people most of which were fellow Aryans.

This is a common tactic of yours, to elide the terrible parts of Nazi ideology and equivocate it with the worst ultranationalist sentiments of other peoples.

You are eliding the fact that the Nazis thought that Balts and Slavs weren't really Aryan, despite them being more CWC by ancestry than any German.

Because that's not true, from the German racial laws where Poles and Italians are given as examples of Aryan people:

Aryan descent (German blooded) is thus a person who is free of foreign blood, as seen by the German people. The blood of Jews and Gypsies also living in Europe, that of the Asian and African races and the Aborigines of Australia and America (Indians), are considered as foreign. For example, if a Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian, is free of such foreign blood, he must be regarded as Aryan, whether he lives in his native country or in East Asia or in America or he may be a US citizen or a South American Free State.

Alfred Rosenberg also regarded Slavs as Aryan. Both Hitler and Rosenberg also regarded Greeks and Meds in general as Aryan, as well as Finns and Estonians. Why lie about what they believed?

Nazi racial theories made no sense and they used them to justify killing millions of people most of which were fellow Aryans.

This is fake Steven Spielberg history, Germany had a reasonable causus belli against Poland and France/Germany escalated to a World War and refused all of Hitler's peace proposals.

What reasonable casus belli did Germany have against Poland?

Wait, did I just reply to SecureSignals in a post about Jews?

Damn.

Setting aside the feud between Sailer and BAP, your whole comment seems to be predicated on a false premise. Isn't the whole point of Superman that he did assimilate? Kal-El of Krypton became Clark Kent of Kansas thanks to Truth Justice and the American Way

More generally, when it comes to arguing about the Sins Of The Jews, creating Superman seems to be... among the lesser ones, to put it mildly? The Jews created a cartoon character who advances prosocial values, like not doing crimes, helping your fellow man and so on! Score one for the Jews!

Sailer isn't exclusively pro-Jewish: https://www.unz.com/isteve/jewish-advantage/

https://isteve.blogspot.com/search?q=jew

He has a nuanced position. Yes, Jews did do well in the sciences. Yes, Jews showed up and enthusiastically implement a bunch of extremely dangerous ideas. He criticizes a bunch of them for behaving obnoxiously, Sacha baron-cohen for instance. Anyone who links that infamous LA Times article where Joel Stein rejoices in Jewish control of Hollywood and concludes with this paragraph isn't exactly a conniving crypto:

It's funny how history gets written. Back in Golden Age Hollywood, eight major studios were nepotistically run by Jewish moguls who hired their relatives and in-laws as executives, and the other studio was owned by Walt Disney, who nepotistically hired his relatives as executives. For decades now, a controversy has raged over whether Walt Disney was anti-Semitic. No comparable controversy exists over whether the other eight studios were anti-Gentilic. In fact, the term "anti-Gentilic" doesn't even exist. (As I recall, George Orwell had some insights into the political usefulness of the nonexistence of words.)

And his thesis has its virtues. Wokeness didn't start in Poland or Belarus where the Jews were mostly present. Only when they got to Britain and the US did things start happening. Clearly there were structural weaknesses in Western European and especially Anglo society that let such a domineering leviathan erode and decay. I can't imagine that people like Noel Ignatiev would ever prosper in another society. Imagine going to China and making a living out of trying to abolish the Chinese race, founding journals and getting university professorships that undermined their national identity. He'd have an absolutely miserable time if they even let him live. Even Israel would suppress this guy, they hated his criticism of Zionism. Only nigh-limitless Anglo tolerance allows this kind of behaviour.

On the other hand, Protestantism was also a big supporter of white supremacy. You had the Nazi Party doing very well electorally in all Protestant Germany but flickering out like a candle in Catholic Germany. All the Protestant eugenicists you listed too.

I'm just going to register my schadenfreude at Sailer, BAP, et Al. This is probably a prime good usage of "but I didn't think they would eat MY face" meme, n'est pas?

Jewish HBDers, racists, etc send the message that my Aunt Hilda was 100% right about niggers, and probably correct in a limited way about 'Ricans too; but then they do this dance as to why she was completely wrong about Kikes.

But to say that Jews only contributed to it by force of their desire to assimilate is just so preposterous and contradicted by an enormous body of evidence of all forms that I find it hard to believe someone of Sailer's caliber falls victim to it. When Sailer sees someone say something like "IQ is just a measure of how good you are at taking tests, nothing important" that's how I feel seeing Sailer, BAP, Yarvin, 2rafa all say something so implausible like Jewish contributions to 20th century intellectual movements were motivated by their intense desire to assimilate to White American Protestant values.

I feel similarly when people tell me that HBD is obviously true, because "evolution didn't stop at the neck;" then are shocked Pikachu when people start dusting off the conniving greedy Jew stereotype and say "no no no we were just talking about IQ!" Maybe, but before iq tests were invented the differences you purport to notice existed, why can't other metrics exist even if we haven't found how to measure them yet?

I feel similarly when people tell me that HBD is obviously true, because "evolution didn't stop at the neck;" then are shocked Pikachu when people start dusting off the conniving greedy Jew stereotype and say "no no no we were just talking about IQ!" Maybe, but before iq tests were invented the differences you purport to notice existed, why can't other metrics exist even if we haven't found how to measure them yet?

How would you even measure 'greediness'? My experience has been that it's basically just a word used enviously. If I'm a tenant who can't afford rent, then landlords are greedy. If I'm a low-paid worker, then my boss is greedy. If inflation is making food more expensive, then supermarkets are greedy.

Antisemites don't think Jews are greedy because they've observed it, they think Jews are greedy because Jews are rich, and to the envious, rich=greedy.

By contrast, it's pretty easy to notice intelligence effects dispassionately. Even blank slatists notice that Asian kids do well in school.

Holy Thread Necromancy Batman!

How would you even measure 'greediness'?

...it's pretty easy to notice intelligence effects dispassionately...notice that Asian kids do well in school.

There was a time before IQ tests, there was even a time before schooling. Would intelligence still have been noticeable? Sure, but in inchoate ways. You'd notice who was intelligent and who wasn't, but not in ways you could easily measure. Then we'd go on to invent things like testing, apply it to diverse groups, and we'd be able to see this in numbers.

Meanwhile, HBDers like Sailer are peddling that the racists of the 1800s were correct in their inchoate understanding of the racial differences between whites and blacks; BUT those same racists were completely wrong in their inchoate understanding of Jews. Sailer argues for a biodeterminist approach to capability, but a blank-slatist approach to morality: humans all start out with no genetic moral tendencies.

But why would this be the case? Looking around, dispassionately, even Blank Slatists notice that humans have different moral tendencies, and folk traditions would hold that they seem to be genetic in nature, the same folk traditions that HBDers say were accurate about intelligence. Take it from the horse's mouth:

[A]t a contemporaneous meeting of the Washington Special Actions Group, a government crisis task force, Kissinger grumbled, “If it were not for the accident of my birth, I would be antisemitic.” He added: “Any people who has been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong.”

My experience has been that it's basically just a word used enviously. If I'm a tenant who can't afford rent, then landlords are greedy. If I'm a low-paid worker, then my boss is greedy. If inflation is making food more expensive, then supermarkets are greedy.

Moreover, I disagree that greed is not understandable or measurable as a negative trait. Any more than the other six deadly sins aren't measurable or understandable as negative traits.

"Wrath isn't actually bad, the weak call the strong Wrathful out of envy of their strength." (Tbf, this is, like, half of Nietzsche)

"Lust isn't actually bad, incels call the beautiful lustful out of envy because they can't get laid." (Tbf, this is most of the incel discourse)

"Pride isn't actually bad, losers call the proud sinful out of envy because they have no achievements to be proud of."

I should admit I am somewhat taking the piss here, I don't believe that HBD is true in the way it is typically presented. But I find it difficult to argue, using HBD premises, that antisemitism is ridiculous and unscientific.

I think what weakens the 'Jews really are greedy' hypothesis is that every market dominant minority has been accused of being greedy. Chinese in southeast Asia, Indians in former British colonies, Boers in South Africa, Parsis in India, Igbos in Nigeria.

The complaints are exactly the same ones that medieval European peasants and Confucian scholars made about merchants generally. That they were greedy middle-men who didn't charge 'fair price' and who didn't produce anything themselves. Sometimes the targets of these complaints were an ethnic group, sometimes they weren't. But the root of the complaints seem to always be envy, and the fact that humans prefer moralistic condemnation to the cold, impersonal reality of the forces of economics.

I should admit I am somewhat taking the piss here, I don't believe that HBD is true in the way it is typically presented. But I find it difficult to argue, using HBD premises, that antisemitism is ridiculous and unscientific.

Honestly, it sounds like you're just trying to tar HBD by association. What you've written suggests that you're uncomfortable with the reality of racial differences in intelligence, and so you want to associate it with the primitive Jew-hatred of the past.

I think what weakens the 'Jews really are greedy' hypothesis is that every market dominant minority has been accused of being greedy. Chinese in southeast Asia, Indians in former British colonies, Boers in South Africa, Parsis in India, Igbos in Nigeria.

And every poor peasant/slave minority has been accused of being some mix of stupid, lazy, racist, violent. Romans on the Germans, British on the Irish, WASPs on Polish and Italian immigrants, Americans on Mexicans. Does that undermine your arguments about blacks?

Further, there's no logical reason why two different minority groups in different parts of the world can't both be greedy.

You're making the anti-HBD arguments that any Vox thinkpiece by a history professor at a mid-tier liberal arts college would make, which would be dismissed by the HBDers when it comes to intelligence.

Does that undermine your arguments about blacks?

No, because we have actual scientific evidence. There actually are racial differences in IQ, in brain size, in reaction time, in educational attainment and we can measure these things objectively. What anyone thought in the past is irrelevant. The fact that one group of people in the past believed (correctly) that there were racial differences in intelligence doesn't mean that another group of people in the past believing that Jews were unusually greedy or sneaky (without evidence) is correct.

You may want us to talk about the past because making an anti-HBD argument is easy that way, because everyone in the past believed a mixture of true, false and crazy things and its easy to pick and choose. But the only thing that matters is hard evidence. If someone presents actual evidence that Jews are greedy or that all racial groups are equally intelligent then I'll update my beliefs. But if you are (I assume) trying to convince me away from the hard-HBD position, telling me that I'm obligated to hate Jews as a consequence of that belief isn't very convincing.

Come now. I've been around the block. I know better than to try to convince any mottizens of anything, let alone that they're obligated to do anything.

I'm making the point from the first that Jewish or philosemitic HBDers who are shocked, shocked to find the same arguments turned around strike me as tragicomic figures, in the classic leopards eating people's faces party mold.

The stereotype around here is that Jews are misers, something more quantifiable than "greedy". Penny-pinching, huge effort to eke out a bit more profit, etc.

I feel similarly when people tell me that HBD is obviously true, because "evolution didn't stop at the neck;" then are shocked Pikachu when people start dusting off the conniving greedy Jew stereotype and say "no no no we were just talking about IQ!"

TBH, I'm much less predisposed to believe HBD claims about Jews (in either direction) than sub-Saharan Africans (or *nesians), simply because of the shorter timescales. With sub-Saharan Africans there's a fairly-long timescale and lack of Neanderthal admixture; with *nesians there's Denisovan admixture. Neanderthals and Denisovans had almost a million years to diverge, and Out of Africa II was ~70,000 years ago (with additional time if you're comparing to West or South Africans due to divergence within Africa); Jews are what, 4,000 years old at best?

n'est pas

"n'est-ce pas". "n'est pas" is pronounced approximately "nay pah" and means "isn't"; "n'est-ce pas?" is pronounced approximately "ness pah" and means "is it not?"

Jews are what, 4,000 years old at best? 6000 - 8000 ?

It's difficult to assign divergence times on what looks more liike net than a tree.

Got me on the months old correction. Thanks. Still not sure why people are going back to a half assed comment.

I'm always surprised that Neanderthals have gotten such bad marketing, when it would be fairly easy to play them as the lost super race, scientifically.

Still not sure why people are going back to a half assed comment.

Well, I can't speak for @Crowstep, of course (perhaps he uses the "Comments" feed and saw my post?), but in my case it was that I did a search for "stop at the neck" since I wanted to find an old post I'd written that used the phrase, and happened across yours on the way since it was more recent.

I'm always surprised that Neanderthals have gotten such bad marketing, when it would be fairly easy to play them as the lost super race, scientifically.

Well, the thing is that that interpretation only really became coherent in 2010, when it was proven that whites and Asians are Neanderthal in significant part but not whole. Neanderthals were first thought to be our full ancestors (and thus no particular master race, plausibly less intelligent than modern descendants due to intervening selection), and then thought to have been yet another dead branch (and thus the same sort of thing as Australopithecus/Paranthropus robustus, who absolutely deserve the reputation of pop-culture Neanderthals). And, well, to state the obvious, by 2010 "whites and Asians are, as a whole, intellectually superior to sub-Saharan Africans because they have Neanderthal blood; Neanderthals were the real 'Numenoreans'" - which is the claim we're talking about, stated plainly - was something that mainstream journalism and big-budget fiction wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

(To be clear, I'm agnostic on that claim; there aren't any obvious reasons it can't be true, but the well of research on the topic has been so badly poisoned by both sides that it would be foolish to be confident in almost any claim in the area without having done the research oneself. I'm merely stating, descriptively, why it is not part of the pop-culture understanding of Neanderthals.)

You're probably correct. I'm just surprised by the lack of Neanderthal as Atlanteans, and the inverse lack of "only blacks are pure humans."

“Secret” is doing a lot in the OP. In any case, Sailer and BAP have very different views on most of these issues, Sailer is largely a form of civic nationalist, BAP has an incoherent kind of gay misogynist LARP more focused on contempt for women than other groups. Neither attempted to ‘hide’ their Jewishness, Costin wore an IDF t-shirt in college and posted his DNA test results and is open about it, Sailer is adopted but has speculated his birth father (iirc) could have been Jewish on several occasions over the last 20-30 years. In either case I don’t think that Jews shouldn’t participate on the right or in these spaces because some people might deploy related evopsych arguments in favor of antisemitism. As MacDonald and others show, they would do this anyway.

The logic of your argument is exactly what led to a lot of Jewish academics being unwilling to believe the obvious evidence for a lot of this stuff in the mid-20th century, not because they were nefarious manipulators trying to destroy European civilization but often because they didn’t want to be ‘on the side of’ people who justified antisemitism which they were personally afraid of. That doesn’t stop scientific enquiry, though, and the truth is the first duty of the principled researcher, wherever it leads.

It reminds me of ‘tradwife regret’ discourse (see Lauren Southern recently) and associated schadenfreude. But that doesn’t mean modern western gender relations are good, let alone optimal. It certainly doesn’t “disprove” women being socially conservative because hurr durr leopards ate her face lol, girlboss discourse is back because one person tried the hashtag tradlife and it wasn’t all that fun. There’s the famous cautionary tale of Ettore Ovazza, loyal Jewish Italian fascist, shot by the Germans in 1943. Did leopards eat his face? Perhaps, but no moreso than anyone destroyed by a twisted version of a belief system they once supported, and that is a very large number of people. I’m not going to become a leftist just because there are antisemites and misogynists on the right.

Do you think that Jews ought to compromise themselves at all in regards to Jewish identity politics that can be anti christian and anti european? Or is it only on the other side to be tolerant?

For example, they should oppose laws that enforce a story of Jews as oppressed and European Christians as oppressors, and in fact support institutions promoting a narrative that does include some criticism of Jews for their contributions to far left extremism, and antiwhite movement.

It isn't really a complicated issue. There are Jews who are an asset to the right like Stephen Miller who tend to have an identity that encompasess more than the Jewish one. And Jews who do have resentment towards right wingers and Europeans and strong Jewish identity, do exist aplenty, and are not caused by insufficient appeasement, since there is ever abudance of the appeasing right.

Only a minority of Jews are such in their ideology and behavior that it would be wise to accept them. Neocons for example are a subversive force on the right. However, this can theoretically change.

Ironically, Jews would have assimiliated more, if organizations like ADL, WJC, etc, etc were banned. And in fact, Jewish support of multiculturalism and anti-european identity politics and intersectionality is in part related to the more radical Jews wanting the Jews not to assimiliate to whiteness.

Anyway, both Jews as a pattern and non Jewish pro Jewish types, are not even handed people only opposing antisemitism, but are highly biased to an extend that could be described as Jewish supremacist. And paint as antisemitism things through that lense. It would be both moral in general from a more unviersalist point of view, but also good in regards to the right and European-Jewish relations, and more friendship, for Jews and those promoting pro jewish narratives, to water down their wine. To compromise. To accept their own sins, instead of doing the narcisist manifesto.

That didn't happen.

And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

And if it was, that's not a big deal.

And if it is, that's not my fault.

And if it was, I didn't mean it.

And if I did, you deserved it.

Avoiding the narcisist manifesto, does not make them self hating.

When Amy Wax claimed that her father was unduly too critical towards Christians, that wasn't self hateful.

And on much of the right they will find people who are going to accomodate them and aren't going to be promoting some demand of maximalist self hating dogma. The Jews who enjoy a positive reputation among the kind of right that doesn't like Shaprio aren't just Unz, but plenty of non self hating Jews but who have compromised on level of seperate jewish identity politics and do see the interests of europeans as legitimate and identify with a broader category rather than seeing them as a hostile other.

Of course, the issue is that laws currently promoted are Jewish supremacist in nature. And those who support that.

Another issue, is that if you got some hateful Jewish supremacists pushing their agenda, that is going to inflame the passions and anger on the other side. Just like Jews who have compromised and are more moderate and friendly towarsd the right incentivize a more positive reactions.

One's ideology in regards to nativism, immigration, AA and such issues is of course fundamental. And whether a Jew in a european country identifies as being part of that group and sees them as his people.

Jews claiming to be right wing who still retain sufficiently strong liberal views on such issues and are motivated by seperate ethnic identity are going to be treated with more suspicion. And even if their liberal views are somehow unrelated to their Jewish identity, they are a problem. Like I said, neocons should be reasonably excluded because of having sufficiently different and hostile ideology, and have a history of cancelling actual right wingers and conservatives for being insuficiently liberal on racial, and other issues. And more so especially for being insufficiently subservient to Jews and making any criticisms.

Sailer also wrote a short post after the issue discussed critical of the Israel lobby that the uncomrpomising Jewish identitarians wouldn't have promoted. So I wouldn't consider him the same as those types. More of a positive force than a negative. https://www.unz.com/isteve/not-getting-the-joke-2/

Which doesn't make this good article https://keithwoods.pub/p/protestantism-jews-and-wokeness arguing against his thesis a bad thing. Even those who are sufficiently a positive force to not gatekeep them out can promote bad ideas, which would be good to debate and counter.

Anyway, excessive compromise in pro female, pro jewish, pro black, etc direction is a key part of our current situation. This isn't to say purity spiralling in the opposite direction is correct, but appeasement is the wrong move and having those who are excessive pro jewish, pro female, etc, etc compromise is correct in general, but especially for the right. The right will become indistinquishable with the left in fundamental issues, if it listens to women and Jews and LGBT Republicans and pro migration types and pro black types arguing for more appeasement. More compromise. Laws giving their favorite groups preferential treatment. And there is a connection with appeasement to one, leading to appeasement to all and the same intersectional story. While painting anything but that as antisemitic, misogynistic, anti black, racist, etc, etc.

The right has compromised too much in these directions, is losing its own identity as a right and moving too far to the left in the process and needs to fix this overreach and not increase it.

Jews wanting to be a part of the right have an even bigger moral obligation than Jews in general to water down their wine, and compromise from the more extreme positions typical in Jewish community that are part of a progressive Jewish nationalist narrative of Jews as always oppressed, always in the right against especially a European Christian historical, present, and possibly future oppressor. Some level of admitting fault is not only accurate but necessary because if Jews are progressive as a pattern, and as Prager says "the conscience of humanity" why oppose the ADL, and the activities of those Jews who do see with hostility european christian civilization? Since Jews didn't do nothing wrong, then they were correct to be leftists under this perspective and only reacting to "antisemitism" under this false narrative. So why oppose the current leftist trajectory? That compromise I mentioned towards a more moderate position and having a stronger broader identity that sees European rightists as your people would also make it justifiable for European rightists to accept such Jews.

When Amy Wax claimed that her father was unduly too critical towards Christians, that wasn't self hateful.

Sure, I agree with this.

This strikes me as a touch overcooked. BAP is quite willing to go on about "shtetlbillies", and Sailer regularly talks about the perversity of Jewish support for immigration and the failure of high-achieving American Jews to show appropriate noblesse oblige.

I don’t buy that Superman was written with secretive philosemitic intent, even if the writers have said as much. His name is Anglo-American, his looks are Anglo-American, his uniform is a shield with an S in the middle (lol), and the name Superman appears Nietzschean more than anything. Just out of curiosity I checked the original first issue of Superman. The first page speaks about a baby sent to earth with titanic strength who must use his powers to save humanity at large by benefitting those most in need, which okay, there’s maybe some Moses and Samson in there but to me that reads Christological. The authors saying it is secretively Jewish sounds more like an excuse drafted by two creative writers upon realizing they invented a very “aryan”, Titan-ish hero.

Anyway to add more to the etiological origin theory of Wokeness, someone here once commented with this article that is filled with figures about the breakdown of 60/70s social scientists and other interesting things. (don’t remember the username)

surveys given to physical anthropologists in the 1970s found that Jewish anthropologists largely disbelieved in race as a biologically valid concept (a distinctly left-wing view) while the opposite was true of gentile anthropologists.

Lerner et al. (1989) who somehow managed to administer political surveys to a random sample of over 1,300 high status members of the military, the media, law firms, the government, etc, and then reported on the difference in opinion between gentile and Jewish elites. What they found is that gentile American elites had a slight right-wing bias but the addition of Jewish American elites pushed the mean opinion in the other direction creating a significant bias in favor of the left.

I don’t buy that Superman was written with secretive philosemitic intent, even if the writers have said as much.

I know, I know, I'm not telling you what you want to hear but what you need to hear.

Clark Kent is an Anglo-American name, but Kal-El is Hebrew for Voice of God. To defend a point @Amadan made, just because a mythological figure was created with one intention does not mean that intention is followed or respected in all the portrayals of the figure. Zach Snyder's Superman is definitely portrayed more Aryan and Christ-like and Lex Luthor Jewish, a reversal from the comic-books. It seems the upcoming Superman is the first cast with a Jewish actor so it will be interesting to see how the character is different from Snyder's interpretation.

But of the origins of the character, there can be no doubt. From Rolling Stone:

To our ears, fighting for “truth, justice, and the American Way” may sound like old-fashioned patriotism. But in the 1940s, it was controversial.

In fact, looking back on those early days, Superman was very woke. He was known as the “Champion of the Oppressed.” At a time when Republicans opposed President Roosevelt’s liberal programs and opposed entering World War II, Superman supported — in comic books and on a wildly successful radio program — the New Deal, open immigration, and entering the war against Hitler. Some episodes of the radio show lampooned the KKK.

Indeed, in 1940, Nazi propaganda accused Superman of being a Jewish conspiracy to poison the minds of American youth.

Of course, after Pearl Harbor, American sentiment changed, and Superman became a national hero, not only fighting Nazis in the comic books but with his image emblazoned on tanks and planes. At first, however, he was a progressive — even a radical.

And of course, Superman was also an immigrant. As Schwartz puts it in his book, “he is the ethnic guy with the Hebraic name Kal-El who came to America, changed his mannerisms and appearance. He tucks his tallit [Jewish prayer shawl, but Schwartz means Superman’s costume] down into his suit, and he goes around the world like a gentile. So it’s sort of like the ultimate assimilation/assertion fantasy, the ability to decide which part of you should interact with society at any given moment. What is more American than being an ethnic immigrant, and bringing the gifts and uniqueness of your cultural heritage to the greater benefit of the American society?”

Sorry to rain on your parade, but it's important to understand how and why this stuff happens, and why all this stuff is important. The realm of story and myth is the most important in Culture War.

Kal-El is Hebrew for Voice of God

It's almost Hebrew for "voice of God". Which doesn't count.

(voice followed by god would be "kol el" and Hebrew grammar wouldn't let you phrase it that way to mean "voice of god" anyway.)

(As an aside.)

Superman supported — in comic books and on a wildly successful radio program — the New Deal, open immigration, and entering the war against Hitler. Some episodes of the radio show lampooned the KKK.

He also foiled, imaginary, schemes of interned Japanese against America and rationalized said camps. Since FDR is considered by progressives of today to have been on the wrong side of that one, it gets minimized and, in this case of this article, even omitted.

A contrast emerges: there was contemporaneous opposition to slavery by creators of culture, which produced works such as Uncle Tom's Cabin. Internment camps were, however, condoned by even progressive producers of media of their time and any work of art which speaks ill of the camps, was made after 1945.

It's been pointed out before, but I think it's worth saying again: the default hypothesis for why there are so many influential Jewish people in the history of progressive thought is that there are disproportionate numbers of Jewish people in just about every intellectual movement of 20th century America and Europe. It's not as if there is a shortage of Jews on the right. E.g. Barry Goldwater and Milton Friedman to name just a couple. The fact that so many on the alt-right have Jewish heritage is just another manifestation of this phenomenon.

It's impossible not to Notice that the battlelines between HBD and race denial in the 20th century largely broke between Protestant Darwinists (Madison Grant, E.O Wilson, Charles Murray, Samuel Morton, James Watson, etc.) and Immigrant Jews (Franz Boas, Stephen Jay Gould, Jared Diamond, Eric Turkeimer, etc.).

Steve Sailer literally invented and popularized the term "human biodiversity" in 1999. He wasn't the first to independently invent the term, Jonathan Marks did in 1995 and wrote a book with it in the title, but the current meaning associated with HBD is from Sailer. If you're going to claim he's secretly jewish, that's at least one name for you to add to the pro-HBD side.

Last week, after some token Holocaust worship and virtue signaling against anti-semitism on Twitter

Why doesn't this part contain a link? Is it because it actually refers to Nick Fuentes trying to start some sort of internet slapfight with Steve Sailer and his fans compiling tweets from years ago where he does stuff like mentioning Ashkenazi jews having a higher IQ or incidentally refers to the Holocaust being bad? But you didn't want to talk about your post in the context of the campaign by the Fuentes "groypers", and "isn't it shocking that if you search through Steve Sailer's tweets it turns out he's anti-Hitler" would be a weird thing to post, so you try to present it as if he recently started tweeting about anti-semitism apropos of nothing? This sort of thing, where people summarizing something carefully elide most of the story to fit a pre-selected narrative, is pretty annoying.

all say something so implausible like Jewish contributions to 20th century intellectual movements were motivated by their intense desire to assimilate to White American Protestant values.

How implausible is this actually?

For several thousand years Jews lived in a relative state of internal exile in dozens of host societies that spanned almost the entirety of the old world, from Portugal to India. In those societies they performed a variety of functions. At times they were treated well, at others poorly. In some cases and at some times they became influential and respected figures, in others they were reviled, expelled or killed. Through much of this period assimilation was relatively rare. The Jews kept their customs, and often moved rather than assimilated. They did not - the occasional cult aside - attempt to resettle (let alone conquer) their ancestral homeland, and instead believed that it would be delivered to them by providence during or after the coming of their messiah. They were embittered, in many cases, by their treatment at the hands of gentile populations, but this almost never spurred them to take up arms; the religious perspective, in most of these cases, was that this treatment was a test and/or punishment of God.

While there were Jewish figures of note in this era, as Murray notes in Human Accomplishment Jews were not hugely overrepresented in intellectual achievements for the vast majority of this period. What intellectual talent the Jewish race possessed, if any, was locked away in rabbinical studies, in interpretation of the Talmud, or in activities performed for gentile authorities, like accounting. Nevertheless, the economic niches by which this population provided for itself served to effect a curious and rare process of genetic selection that resulted in a population perhaps one standard deviation more intelligent than the average of the surrounding gentile communities.

In the 18th century, European society began to change. While one Jew, Spinoza in Amsterdam, had some minor impact on this development, it was otherwise an almost entirely gentile movement, itself the product of a series of intellectual and religious movements set off by the reformation or, even earlier, the Renaissance. The ideas of universality, the equality of man, and a kind of eschatological vision of civilizational progress that would one day be turned into the foundation for our own sociopolitical culture. True, the European civilization of the time was very different to our own, and still involved many of the decidedly non-universalist ideas around identity of the age. But the seeds were sown.

It is hardly surprising that Jews embraced these ideas in large numbers, since they meant for them the opportunity to take, increasingly, part in the wider societies in which they found themselves. This much is not disputed by antisemitic dissident rightists (I think), but they argue that for Jews this was an underhanded deal, an attempt to have their cake and eat it, to preserve particularity for themselves but to end it for others. I disagree. Many, in increasing numbers, bought into it wholeheartedly.

Indeed the alternative to your argument, that Jews engaged in these movements as part of an insidious plan to destroy their host civilizations in service of an ancient hatred and/or fear is equally implausible. Extremely high, sometimes exceeding 70%+ intermarriage rates for secular Jews (which almost all the relevant figures were) in the US and Soviet Union speak to a sincere desire for assimilation or at least a fading of strong ethnic identity. Strong tribal loyalty demands, at the least, endogamy. Secular Jews eschewed this in ever increasing numbers. At the height of the British Empire, many of the most elite Jewish families, most prominently the Rothschilds, intermarried to the extent that the younger generations are now neither religiously nor culturally Jewish. The same is increasingly true in the US, where many of the most prominent Jews, from Mark Zuckerberg to Anthony Blinken, have gentile wives and so will not raise Jewish children. This is not the behavior of a people trying to preserve the in-group at all costs; tribal loyalty begins and ends at the point of continuation; the Jews who do practice high-fecundity endogamy are deeply culturally and politically detached from those in positions of power in Western societies.

The basic explanation for the ideology of Jewish progressives and leftists is that most have genuinely bought into the ideas they preach. That is why many of them are increasingly hostile towards the actual, extant Jewish ethnostate, despite tribal loyalty being very hard to break (see nth-generation Turkish Germans, Irish Americans during the Troubles and so on). Of course hypocrisy is always present, as it is in every people. But that is not enough to claim that their views are not motivated by a sincere belief in the same universal trend towards equality and liberty that motivated many of the gentile writers of the enlightenment and its successor movements.

I don’t mean to persuade you, I respect your posting on this topic enough to know I’m not going to convince you of anything. Still, given you mentioned me, I felt I should restate my point for anyone reading.

How implausible is this actually?

The reason it is implausible is because there is a bunch of documentation proving the resentment and antipathy these intellectual figures had towards the culture and values in question, the very same they were consciously challenging with their work. They did not like them, they did not want to associate with them. None of them claimed that they were motivated by an adoption of 18th century liberalism, but all of them were influenced by their Jewish identification and concern over issues like anti-Semitism.

Franz Boas, the Frankfurt school, they were all motivated by opposition to German National Socialism and HBD/race ideology (well, except for that one race ideology...)

Freud is one of the most stark examples, where he just outright says he perceives his work as waging war on Gentiles. But Jewish comic book writers defining "Americanism" as fighting Nazis with the creation of their heroes are engaging in the same behavior. Literally none of them were motivated by 18th century liberal ideas, and they were all motivated by their Jewish identity which they retained even as atheists.

I think you're thinking in too blurry terms here. There is a documented heavy and ongoing debate among the Jewish diaspora as to how much they should integrate into their respective cultures.

Consider the case of modern French politician Eric Zemmour, a tribesman himself, who loves to quote Clermond-Tonnerre's phrase: "Everything must be refused of the Jews as a nation, everything must be tolerated of the Jews as individuals" as he exhorts typical assimilationist talking points.

One may make infinite criticisms of the man, but there is little reason to think he, as a person, despises ethnic French people, especially as he is one of their few defenders on specifically ethnic grounds. You don't write that many books about how shameful their purported demise is if you have a shred of antipathy for them.

Now sure, people like that were probably few and far between in American comic book writer rooms. But were they really insignificant to the degree that you can brush off the debate and put all Jews under a single banner altogether? Especially under the cold war? I think that's far from established.

And it seems especially facile to be this broad when we're talking about the far rights' own particular Jews.

Oh man, it is unironically charming and hilarious reading @SecureSignals giving a postmodernist DR read on superhero comics with all the zeal and complete lack of familiarity with the actual mythos of the wokes and anti-wokes currently going on about Star Wars on Twitter.

So is the theory here that the very concept of a "superhero" is crypto-Jewish? Because:

After all, someone ignorant would perceive Captain America as an Ayran hero. But when I watch this scene from Captain America (2011) I perceive something very different from the rest of the laity. I perceive the significance of the Jewish immigrant-inventor, Abraham Erskine, injecting Steve Rogers with the Serum that empowers him to fight the Nazis. The meaning of the myth does not point to a Jewish attempt to assimilate to Protestant values, it portrays a Jewish self-conceived role of transformation of American values. In the case of Captain America, the Jewish Immigrant lectures the audience before literally injecting the Aryan with a serum to transform him into the "Superior Man" so he goes to fight other White people. The Jewish writers are metaphorically depicting Culture War with Gentiles through these symbols.

Most superheroes have some kind of origin story. They came from another planet. They got irradiated. They were injected with a super-serum. They have mutant genes. They found a magic ring. They had a spell cast on them. They were possessed. Their father is a demon or a god or an alien or a vampire or...

Certainly, you can map some kind of crypto-Jewish symbolism into any of those stories, but this is doing exactly what po-mos do, which is starting with a thesis and then bending the story to fit it.

The "Jewish" origins of Superman are hardly a new revelation (Siegal and Shuster pretty explicitly imagined Superman as a kind of power fantasy who could, among other things, fight Nazis and punch Hitler just like Captain America - obviously any superhero who fights Nazis must be sending coded Jew-signals, even if they were written at the height of World War II when, you know, America was fighting Nazis!)

You're making way too much of Elliot S. Maggin's comment. He was a Superman writer, but his internal "head canon" is not official DC canon. Superman, like all properties, has been through literally hundreds of writers. If the "Jewishness" of his origins taints him even in the hands of non-Jewish writers, then so are all characters stuck being representative of whatever their original creator imagined, despite the huge number of variant and conflicting reimaginings that superheroes in particular go through.

You wrote this long rant about how Superman is symbolic of Jews pretending to assimilate while they actually envision themselves as the secret master race, completely oblivious to the long Superman/Batman discourse in fandom on this very subject (minus the Jewish nonsense) - tldr is that most fans consider Clark Kent to be the real man, with Superman being a costume he puts on, whereas Bruce Wayne is just a mask worn by Batman. (Though I am sure you can make either one fit your Secret Joos thesis.)

And yeah, I know superheroes weren't really the point of your post, but they're more interesting than white nationalists eating each other alive on Twitter playing "find the Jew."

So is the theory here that the very concept of a "superhero" is crypto-Jewish? Because:

Of course not! My theory is that superheroes are a vehicle for waging Culture War. This was true in the Greco-Roman Pantheon, in the Hebrew Pantheon, as true as it is in Marvel Comics. These heroes are consciously and intelligently designed to send cultural signals of dominance, weakness, subversion, or celebration of a people based on the conscious intentions of the mythmaker. It runs the gambit. Jupiter, for example, is obviously an Aryan superhero who is placed at the very top of the hierarchy of that mythos. James Bond is an Aryan superhero, Superman is a crypto-Jewish superhero. Moses is a Jewish superhero. Bruce Wayne is Jewish according to canon.

It's about understanding the medium, not the assertion that all superheroes are crypto-Jewish. It's about the fact that this body of myth betrays the fact that the mythmakers strongly identify as Jewish and perceive themselves as playing a different sort of role in Gentile society than assimilation with Protestant values and White culture. That is not what those content-creators internalized or portrayed at all in their myths. They are portraying Culture War with gentiles, and depicting their self-conceived role in it.

It runs the gambit. Jupiter, for example, is obviously an Aryan superhero who is placed at the very top of the hierarchy of that mythos. James Bond is an Aryan superhero, Superman is a crypto-Jewish superhero. Moses is a Jewish superhero.

I don't think your interpretation holds up. "Ordinary man turns out to have a special origin and is secretly a god" is a story as old as myth. You have to bend it a lot to make it a "crypto-Jewish" story. Superman is very much a metaphor for immigrants assimilating and becoming American, and if your claim is that actually he doesn't assimilate and he's instead spreading "Jewish" values in his "gentile" society as part of the secret Jewish plot to subvert their host civilization, well... why does almost every actual Superman story tell the opposite of that narrative? (There are of course numerous "Superman is evil" stories, but those are usually set in an alternative universes.) Is it because those tricky Jews are trying to convince us that immigration is good or what? When I said you are engaging in the po-mo fallacy, I meant it - you see Superman as crypto-Jewish, and Captain American as crypto-Jewish (because he gets injected with a super-serum and fights Nazis), and like I said, if I wanted to "prove" that Thor and Iron Man and Wonder Woman and Spider Man and Captain Marvel and every other superhero you could name is actually crypto-Jewish propaganda, I'm sure I could come up with a similarly bent interpretation of their origin stories (Iron Man - a wealthy capitalist using his accumulated wealth to make himself more powerful, need I say more? Wonder Woman is literally a golem! Thor, uh, let me think about that, I'm sure there is some way that the Norse God of Thunder is Jewish...)

I could make Jupiter and James Bond into crypto-Jewish superheroes if I tried.

This is all quite amusing, but it's like reading a Marxist earnestly explaining how every story ever actually proves that Marx was right.

and he's instead spreading "Jewish" values in his "gentile" society as part of the secret Jewish plot to subvert their host civilization

That is obviously not the intention of the writers. The intention of the writers is that he lives among the humans even though he can never truly be one of them. He protects them and guides them, and he's an avatar for Kryptonian values. Obviously the myth-creators do not view Superman as a subversive but as a superior being, leader, and moral teacher. That is their self-conception. It's the same self-conception as Freud, Franz Boas, the Frankfurt school. It was absolutely not "I just want to be one of you and adopt your way of thinking and living." In none of those cases.

Jewish writers portraying superheroes as fighting Germans, even before American entry into WWII, is an obvious demonstration of the ethnic motivation of the creation and depiction of superheroes. Captain America was created in 1940, well before Pearl Harbor and when America was in opposition to entering the war against Germany by over 90%. But then we get these Superheroes that inspire large audiences, who go out and fight the Germans and redefine American Values. It is absolutely subversive, even if the writers genuinely see themselves see themselves as doing a moral good:

In 1940, Timely Comics publisher Martin Goodman responded to the growing popularity of superhero comics – particularly Superman at rival publisher National Comics Publications, the corporate predecessor to DC Comics – by hiring freelancer Joe Simon to create a new superhero for the company.[2] Simon began to develop the character by determining who their nemesis could be, noting that the most successful superheroes were defined by their relationship with a compelling villain, and eventually settled on Adolf Hitler.[3][4] He rationalized that Hitler was the "best villain of them all" as he was "hated by everyone in the free world",[4] and that it would be a unique approach for a superhero to face a real-life adversary rather than a fictional one.[3][c]

This approach was also intentionally political. Simon was stridently opposed to the actions of Nazi Germany and supported U.S. intervention in World War II, and intended the hero to be a response to the American non-interventionism movement.[5] Simon initially considered "Super American" for the hero's name, but felt there were already multiple comic book characters with "super" in their names.[6] He worked out the details of the character, who was eventually named "Captain America", after he completed sketches in consultation with Goodman.[2] The hero's civilian name "Steve Rogers" was derived from the telegraphy term "roger", meaning "message received".[2]

Goodman elected to launch Captain America with his own self-titled comic book, making him the first Timely character to debut with his own ongoing series without having first appeared in an anthology.[4] Simon sought to have Jack Kirby be the primary artist on the series: the two developed a working relationship and friendship in the late 1930s after working together at Fox Feature Syndicate, and had previously developed characters for Timely together.[7][8] Kirby also shared Simon's pro-intervention views, and was particularly drawn to the character in this regard.[4] Goodman, conversely, wanted a team of artists on the series. It was ultimately determined that Kirby would serve as penciller, with Al Avison and Al Gabriele assisting as inkers;[4] Simon additionally negotiated for himself and Kirby to receive 25 percent of the profits from the comic.[9] Simon regards Kirby as a co-creator of Captain America, stating that "if Kirby hadn't drawn it, it might not have been much of anything."[4]

These figures are, intrinsically, conceived by particularistic ethnic motivations to produce a moralizing or psychological effect on audiences. In the case of Captain America, he was created by Jewish mythmakers to inspire Americans to wage war on Germany during a time this was deeply unpopular. These myths are not inscrutable, they can be interpreted. The idea that there's no deeper meaning to a Jewish immigrant Abraham Erskine injecting Steve Rogers with a serum to fight the Germans is just totally preposterous.

I could make Jupiter and James Bond into crypto-Jewish superheroes if I tried.

Exactly, and that's the point. You could make James Bond African. That would be subversive. You are proving my point that Superheroes, and their creation and depiction in myth, is a medium for waging Culture War. But if you decide to write a myth portraying Jupiter as crypto-Jewish, it would rightfully be considered subversive, but it would also not change the fact that the origin of the character had a different ethnic motivation which you would try to change or subvert in your updated myth.

Captain America and Superman and many other comic-book heroes have a deep meaning regarding the self-conception of Jews in Gentile society, and it is not at all a story of assimilation with Gentile culture.

Captain America and Superman and many other comic-book heroes have a deep meaning regarding the self-conception of Jews in Gentile society, and it is not at all a story of assimilation with Gentile culture.

Okay, I'll play along - suppose this is true. Jews see themselves as a wiser, benevolent people here to guide us goyim, and they even create superheroes to reinforce this story. How is this different from Christians who create Christian stories and characters to perpetuate Christian values, or atheists or communists or...

Superheroes are cultural icons, therefore part of the Culture War? Sure. That's why we get so much screeching about whatever Hollywood has done with the MCU lately. But since you are (as usual) trying to bring this back to Jewish nefariousness, where is the nefariousness? Jews tell stories just like everyone else, and I'm sure their Jewishness does influence the stories they tell. You seem to leave it as an unsupported inference that this is somehow subversive or works to the detriment of non-Jews. (Otherwise, why does it bother you? Because you're mad that they duped us into fighting on the wrong side in WWII? Which is what I take to be your unstated thesis.)

It's about tracing the development of the modern-day myth of America, today in 2024. It's about establishing that it's totally untrue that modern-day American mythos was predetermined by Protestantism or Classical Liberalism, although I definitely grant those are necessary ingredients. But you cannot ignore the ingredient of Jewish influence on the culture, and that influence was and is not motivated by a desire to assimilate to Protestant values or White culture. It is and always has been hostile to White culture. This dynamic is foundational to so many of the most important myths that calibrate our moral compass and perception of the world: the Holocaust, desegregation, WWII, Hitler as the anti-Christ of our post-war universe...

Obviously, this does not describe the behavior of everyone, or every contribution, or every myth or body of art. But there is a systematic, underlying current that can't be denied and it's just silly and this point that people try to deny it.

Why does the "myth of America" matter anyways, though? I can understand the contours of the post-WWII "creation myth" of the US perfectly fine, but I can also sense that that narrative is probably going to be outmoded soon enough, if it wasn't already. The newer generations don't buy into the "America the righteous" story, and if anything, are ripe for a new narrative to be moulded.

I'm with Amadan and ResoluteRaven on this, that this all seems like pointless tilting at windmills. We're only in a culture war because there are no "real" wars to fight at the moment. The moment China or Russia move directly against us, though, I expect even the most radical of progressive American Jews to start frothing at the mouth and wrapping themselves in the Stars and Stripes, baying for blood.

I strongly object to your suggestion that Culture War falls by the wayside with real war. That isn't true. Our prevailing post-war American Mythos fundamentally revolves around the story of WWII and the Holocaust. Culture War gets racketed up during period of armed conflict, it doesn't go away.

I expect even the most radical of progressive American Jews to start frothing at the mouth and wrapping themselves in the Stars and Stripes, baying for blood.

Yes, at the outbreak of war in Europe American Jews started to froth at the mouth and wrap themselves in Stars and Stripes, baying for blood. That didn't lead to a "pause" in the Culture War it culminated in a complete reinvention of the American Mythos under the banner and ethos of pop-culture figures like Superman and Captain America, which were created by Jews with the conscious intention to redefine American Values in a way that accommodated their ethnically particularistic motives and, in my opinion, at the grand sacrifice of the legacy white American population and Europe as a whole.

But you cannot ignore the ingredient of Jewish influence on the culture, and that influence was and is not motivated by a desire to assimilate to Protestant values or White culture. It is and always has been hostile to White culture.

Ah, here we have the critical swerve, the place where you say uncontroversial, obviously true things so people will nod along, before you suddenly take the sharp right.

There is a great deal of Jewish influence on the culture? I don't know anyone who disputes that.

Jews don't want to assimilate to Protestant values? Well, that depends what you mean by "values" (some of Protestant and Jewish values are the same, some are not, given that they are different religions), but Jews have never claimed to be assimilating to Protestantism (and in fact object to it).

"White" - well, we've had this discussion before. Whether or not Jews are white seems to be a question answered purely based on who is asking and who is answering. What are the "white" values (as distinct from Protestant values) that Jews do not share?

"It is and always has been hostile to White culture."

This is what you keep claiming, and it's still nonsensical.

Obviously, this does not describe the behavior of everyone, or every contribution, or every myth or body of art. But there is a systematic, underlying current that can't be denied and it's just silly and this point that people try to deny it.

It is absolutely not silly, and easy to deny, given the incoherence of your thesis. Jews are out to get us, but not all Jews, and Jews do things like create stories, and identify with their religion and culture, and have political opinions, and they're not always Protestant ones, and therefore Jews are an existential threat to white people (which sometimes includes them and sometimes doesn't). Oh, and they don't want white people to identify as white people because only Jews should have ethnic solidarity, if I recall your main objection correctly. Who orchestrates this anti-white agenda? Either it's Jew genes or... storytellers, I guess.

What are the "white" values (as distinct from Protestant values) that Jews do not share?

Cultural relativism and race denial (i.e. Boasian Anthropology), Critical Theory (i.e Frankfurt School), Psychoanalysis (i.e. Freud) are major areas of intellectual and cultural influence which are widely regarding as introducing hostility towards White culture and traditional values, and the progression into what we call Wokeness. Would you agree with that? I think a lot of us here are aware of the implications of HBD denial, what even boomercons are calling "Critical Race Theory" and so-on. Freud was obviously hostile to traditional values, as were the Frankfurt School intellectuals who related traditional values and White ethnocentrism to anti-Semitism and the authoritarian personality.

So accepting that these intellectual movements perpetuated hostility towards White culture and traditional values, all that remains is understanding the motivation of these intellectuals. They were not rooted in empiricism: Boasian anthropology, Frankfurt School study of the "Authoritarian Personality", and Freudian psychology are known for ideological dogmatism and antipathy for empiricism. They were likewise not motivated by 18th century liberalism. They were motivated by their Jewish identity and their hostility towards Gentile culture and morality.

Who orchestrates this anti-white agenda? Either it's Jew genes or... storytellers, I guess.

Yes, it's storytellers. Alwayshasbeen.jpg. Stories orient us in the world, they direct our moral compass and perception of reality. The stories we tell and honor direct our behavior in all respects. It's an important insight. Stories matter, the people who tell stories can influence masses of people. Not a new insight by the way, Plato understood this.

More comments

I'm not sure if I've asked this before, but how, exactly, do you explain the same cultural developments happening in a host of other countries with scant or practically no Jewish presence? All simply due to downstream effects of American culture, even back in the days before the omnipresence of the said American culture?

Well, the European Continent was destroyed by Captain America and Uncle Joe, who then proceeded to impose very tight ideological and information control on much of Europe for decades. America is an Empire, it's plainly obvious that European countries adopting American-style culture is not happening independently of the cultural developments in America.

Eastern Europe lags behind, also pointing towards American cultural influence, and the lack thereof throughout a lot of the 20th century, although it is certainly growing. It's not a stretch to say the global hegemon is chiefly responsible for the cultural developments in Europe. That's how empires work, especially in the age of Mass Media where millions of people all around the world can crowd into the Dionysia and watch the myth of Abraham Erskine injecting Steve Rogers with an Ubermensch serum so he can go fight Nazis.

But much of what you discuss refers to developments taking place before WW2, and before the true ascendance of American culture in Western Europe, too (ie. after the 60s). And it's not exactly like most of Europe needed the American media to tell them that Nazis were bad, the part where Nazis occupied most of Europe at one part of the war or another, imposed a very restrictive regime even by the most generous revisionist standards, and then failed miserably in ways that led to the ruination of their original country managed that quite well by itself.

But what I'm talking about is that when I read Finnish history, Finland seems to have not only managed to have huge, even revolutionary, socialist and communist movements with barely any Jewish participation, but also hit the milestones for most of the things right-wingers complain about - feminism, gay rights etc. in roughly the same schedule as the United States.

The locals advancing these ideals in Finnish (or in Swedish - an extraordinary part of early social-progressive activists of the 60s seem to have been Finland-Swedes, and one local conservative even basically said that there's no need for antisemitism here because Swedes played the same role) would have, in great majority, been gentiles of a Protestant background, since that's what everyone here was.

Some of the ideas might have come from people originating from Jewish ethnicity, but there still seems to have been a great fallow ground for those ideas to take root and many activists willing to apply the ideas to a local context in ways that actually made them effective - which makes one question whether it really took the devious Jew to actually come up with the ideas, or if there were material/cultural/technological/historical reasons that would have led to someone coming up with them anyway.

Odds are your political movement, on either the far-left or far-right, is overrepresented by Jews, especially in the highest positions of power and influence of said movement. Who do you think is writing all that material: Jews score really high in verbal IQ, even more lopsided than other IQ-subtests. Gentiles I have found prefer video or audio. But jews are the ones cranking out those huge word counts. Similar to how 16% of men over 7 feet play professional basketball, which in statistical terms is extraordinarily high odds ratio relative to merely above-average-height men playing in the NBA, an abnormally high percentage of Jews are involved in writing and or politics.

Ok, let's say that Jews are overrepresented in the canon of HBD studies by 50%. And then let's say that Jews are overrepresented in the cultural/academic forces which eradicated HBD by 1000%. You can't just say "they have high IQ so they are overrepresented" to explain the causation, and more importantly the consequences, of this pattern.

Jews do not become overrepresented among intellectual movements equally, and their motivations for forming and joining some intellectual movements to a greater degree than others is not explained by their IQ. Oftentimes they "join" an intellectual movement and change it in a fundamental way, like the Neo-Conservatives jockeyed anti-Communism into ultimately being about pro-Zionism. IQ does not explain this.

Likewise, IQ and verbal abilities may explain a lot of the overrepresentation of Jews among comic-book writers but it does not explain the artistic motivation or meaning of the content itself.

Besides Nick Fuentism, which is mostly defined by its fairly low sophisticated anti-semitism given it seems to have no other guiding principles, what other broad political movements in modern day America are Jews under-represented in?

Tradcath integralism? But I suppose Fuentism is a sub branch of that.

While there's probably no religious Jews in tradcath integralism, nobody with familiarity with IRL tradcaths would think ashkenazim are underrepresented there.

Are there really that many Ashkenazi converts to tradcath? There have always been a trickle (for centuries now) but I didn’t think it was particularly common. Actually since the 80s converting to megachurch Evangelical Christianity has been more common, I remember reading that a number of movie directors and producers of Evangelical Christian movies were Jewish converts some years ago.

Apparently in 2005 around 20% of Americans who identified themselves as having been raised Jewish now identified as Christians.

Yes. Ashkenazi converts to Catholicism are disproportionately tradcath. How much of that is tail effects converging, and how much of that is some special appeal, I'm not sure.

I would expect that white converts in general are largely tradcath.

More comments

But IQ does matter at the tails. If the mean is raised by 10 points then the effect is seen even more pronounced at the tails, like 3-4 sigma. Verbal ability matters greatly when it comes to policy and law. Yes, it does not explain why Jews may choose to get into politics, but it can explain how they rise to the highest ranks, as high verbal ability makes them effective communicators.

Yes, it does not explain why Jews may choose to get into politics,

Do Jews go disproportionately into politics? They're not exactly under-represented in scientific fields, or finance (hence all the stereotypes), law, medicine etc.

Another day, another Jew post from SS.

From whence springs this obsession? What got you to this point? How does one become a single-issue jewposter? It's a surprisingly common (what I view as a) failure mode for people like you and I and the other people on this board, but I don't really understand what the process is that gets you to this point. What's your story?

Also, something I've wondered for a while: Are you a nazi? By which I mean: do you openly self-identify as a nazi? The username, the holocaust denial, the jew posting, it all pretty obviously points in one direction, but I'm curious about both your view of yourself and the choices behind your presentation on the this board.

'nazi' is a nickname for ignatius, which used to be a very common bavarian peasant name. It was what the communists called NSDAP (stupid name anyway) members, not unlike modern leftists calling republicans cletus or billy bob or whatever. So pretty much nobody calls themselves a nazi, as it's meant to be insulting

That said, pretty much nobody is a member of a german political party from a hundred years ago, either. That's not to say some people don't identify with some of their goals or policy platforms, but 'let's make Gdansk Danzig again' doesn't really have a lot of cultural currency nowadays. Millions of American men who boomed millions of American babies (one of which was my dad, miss you pop) went to North Africa, Italy, France, and Germany and had a delightful little war that lives large in the public imagination because, unlike the first war, mostly everybody had a really good time. So in answer to your second question, although I'm not /u/SecureSignals, no. Personally I lean toward Falangism because the older I get the more I find protestantism cringe

To your first question, just watch CNN for 10 minutes and listen to Wolf Blitzer ask David Chalian about Chuck Schumer's reaction to a recent statement from Tony Blinken. It is so pants-on-head obvious that it's not unlike trying to tell people the vaccine wasn't safe

I mean, I’m a half-Cajun half-Dutch tradcath and I think the JQ is a waste of time.

Right. Why drive away Jewish talent? What's the worst case of having Ben Shapiro around? We're a bit more willing to spend on Israel? That hardly seems worth complaining about compared to his value as a pundit in convincing people. Repeat for Sailer, etc. etc.

What's the worst case of having Ben Shapiro around?

Ben Shapiro is an awkward, uncharismatic nerd and I've never been convinced by his arguments. He's actively off-putting to me and every single person I've ever spoken to about him has shared those feelings. I'd support keeping him around as long as he stays on the side of people I disagree with, but other than that...

Fair enough. Then substitute in the argument for people who are persuasive or helpful.

To make a long story short: If you care about your group you want people who care about your group in charge. Ben Shapiro doesn't care about the 'white America' group at all. This bleeds into his rhetoric. He does, however, care a lot about Israel. If he cared as much about white America as he did Israel there would be no problems, but he obviously doesn't.

As far as I can tell, the more fashy folks believe that Jewish perfusion in society is the main obstacle to establishing the ethnostate of their ambitions. This might at least be true in a boring sense, in that a society that gets on board with purging the Jews almost certainly must already have been converted to a strict strain of ethnonationalism; but there's a more dubious bailey along the lines of "if all Jews were spirited away without any particular attendant shift in attitudes preceding it, in due time the society left behind would come around to our views".

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