This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I agree that anti-Zionism is fundamentally anti-Semitism, sorry to say to so many "anti-Zionists" who want to make the distinction, but you also need to decide if not supporting the Jewish state is the same as opposition. Does Israel give huge amounts of military aid to the US and England to preserve its ethnostate? Don't make me laugh. The thrust of Zionist influence in the West has been vehemently pro-mass third world immigration with organizations like the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, of which our DHS Secretary was on the board...
There's also the argument that it's not "racist" to oppose a state that opposes me. Israel doesn't support my right to live among other White people, and Jews are likely, especially in the face of this election, the demographic and political force that is the most pro-mass third world immigration to the West in the entire world. Why is it racist for me to oppose them when they oppose me?
You just want us on the Right to be suckers, to support Zionism with no expectation of reciprocity. You want us to support them even as they throw all of their own economic and political and cultural influence on opposing us in the West.
If Zionists oppose keeping the US and Europe White the Right should not be suckered into political support for keeping Israel Jewish.
That comparison might make more sense if white people had been a minority in every country for c. 2,000 years, been treated as second-class citizens when tolerated, expelled whenever the majority needed a scapegoat, and then subjected to attempted extermination with everyone prescient enough to try to escape refused entry by every country they tried to flee to.
Unless and until that happens, I see no contradiction in asserting that Jewish people are entitled to a state in which they are a majority, while white people are not.
I agree that Jews should have a majority state, but I donāt think it follows that other groups should be prevented from such a state. The list of genocides in history is long and the subjects are totally random. The unifying theme is that groups that fall out of dominance are at risk of genocide. Itās reasonable, then, for every group to desire a clear majority territory in order to decrease their risk of being genocided. Itās unreasonable to say, ābecause this group has already been subject to genocide, they should have an eternal homelandā, because thatās an arbitrary rule that favors the groups that happen to survive the genocide. It arbitrarily hurts the groups who are totally eliminated (now or in the future), or who lack the global capital and political pull to demand an ethnostate post-genocide. (Itās not as if former genocided peoples have commiseration for other genocided peoples; Israel refuses to recognize the Armenian genocide last I checked). Ironically, this standard favors the groups that are least likely to be genocided in total, because only an already-influential group can demand an ethnostate and then supply the necessary funds to establish it. (Eg, the richest family in the world supplied the funds for Zionism). If our wish is to decrease the number of genocides, then a preventative approach is better than a survivorship bias approach.
That follows from the principle of "Ethnonationalism Considered Harmful" leading to the notion that, usually, it is not justifiable to take coercive measures to keep certain ethnicities in the majority.
Not totally random. Some groups have been dis-proportionally targeted; this pattern becomes more visible with a data-set that includes sub-genocidal persecution.
No, because not every group has the same risk.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that "Because this group has been subjected repeatedly to genocidal and lesser persecutions, and were turned away and sent to their deaths when they tried to flee the most recent attempt, they should have a homeland as long as there is widespread animus against them and government control over immigration."
If the passengers on the MS St. Louis, and all the other Jewish people fleeing the Nazis, had been allowed into America, there would have been a lot less impetus for the formation of a Jewish State.
If all other countries had open borders, showed no sign of any desire to change this, and that situation continued for several decades, it would be reasonable to urge Israel to follow suit.
(Often cast is the accusation of wanting 'open borders for every country except Israel'. I think a better description, at least of those whose political opinions reside on Level 1, would be open borders for every country, with Israel bringing up the tail end of the process. [Those on Level 3, on the other hand, {if their social circle consists of the kind of people in the Respectable Media} will oppose immigration enforcement in the U. S. because their friends do, support Israeli policies because their friends do, and give no more regard to resolving any apparent contradiction in their ideas than they would give to ensuring that their ideas are expressed in sentences ending in words with an odd number of letters. {The same applies to people whose social circle consists of college radicals yelling "From the river to the sea" without any knowledge of the bodies of water to which that slogan refers.}])
The principle āusually, it is not justifiable to take coercive measures to keep certain ethnicities in the majorityā has a big exclusion for āunless it prevents genocideā. Just a cursory look through the annals of history shows that every group which lacks dominance over a territory risks genocide, and that these happen at mostly unpredictable times. Therefore, it is justifiable to take coercive measures to keep an ethnic group in the majority of some territory (or subsection thereof) to prevent its genocide, as this is the best way to protect against genocide. To reiterate my original point, itās silly to only have a principle in place for when a genocide is currently ongoing, because at that point annihilation has the greatest odds, and surely our interest is in reducing the amount and extent of genocide in total. With all this said, there are ways to reduce the amount of coercion involved in majority-fying a territory, like with payments and subsidities. Additionally, we frequently supersede the right to property when there is a distinct majority interest as in the case of eminent domain, and there is no majority interest greater than not being genocided.
If Jews have the greatest risk of genocide, it doesnāt follow that we should ignore the 90%+ of genocides which will happen to other groups (going by history). Thereās so much randomness that itās impossible to divine who will face genocide. Who would have guessed that Anatolian Greeks would have been genocided, or the Armenians? The Iraqi Turkmen had no expectation of genocide by ISIS, or the Darfuri people. You canāt go by pure ānumber or recency of past genocidesā because this has little predictive value. For instance, itās only recently that white people have lived alongside other people in racially-blind democracies, so the absence of past white genocides doesnāt tell us about the future. South Africa does not exactly paint an optimistic future of what happens if they become a minority.
This is an argument for why, if we had to pick one group to give a homeland to, we should all pick Jews getting one. But this is not an argument for why other groups should not get a homeland. Because again, if you look at a list of genocides in history, the vast majority of genocides happen unpredictably to formerly safe populations which arenāt Jewish. If we only protected Jews from genocide, going by history we would be allowing 90%+ of genocides. Shouldnāt our interest be in reducing genocides down to 0%?
The exception is more 'unless a group has been repeatedly been persecuted by many other groups, to a degree greatly above background, and given no refuge when they tried to escape a mad-man bent on their extermination.'
Such a plan would be very destructive to human freedom and well-being; furthermore, even if it had been accomplished fifty years ago and every ethnic group had their own country, the division between ethnicities is not a constant throughout history.
Therefore, to prevent genocides from occurring, the best method is to
Once this has been accomplished, and the ideas that 'an individual is less worthy of concern because they are of a different ethnicity' or 'we have the right to send an individual back to a country where they will be murdered rather than risk them causing some inconvenienceĀ² to us' are taken no more seriously anywhere among the Nations than the idea that '2.00 + 2.00 = 5.00', then we can discuss whether the State of Israel is justified in limiting the number of Arab citizens to less than the number of Jewish citizens.
Ā¹'Distant' meaning 'far enough apart that even the Medieval Church wouldn't object to them marrying.'
Ā²Such as 'they're poor enough that they might cost us money in social support', 'letting in 10,000 of them might contain one or two people who might wish us harmĀ³', or 'we can't distinguish which ones are in actual danger, so avoiding type II errors (deporting someone who will then be murdered) will cause type I errors (some people might move here for economic opportunity, even if we have told them not to!).
Ā³During the interbellum period, some Unitedstatesian opinionists opposed the admission of Jewish refugees on the grounds that Germany might hide saboteurs among them.
Letās suppose that Jews do indeed have the greatest past history of genocide, and that this makes them the most liable to be genocided again, and that as a consequence they ought to be first in line for a homeland. I can follow this line of thinking. What I fail to see is why any white person would be persuaded to abstain from forming their own homeland. It is reasonable to think as follows: genocides are the worst event that can happen to you; genocided nations eagerly wish to create a majority homeland; history tells us that 90% of genocides cannot be predicted (imo); without an influential and wealthy diaspora, it is difficult to create a homeland post-genocide. Given this, why would anyone abstain from forming a majority homeland? Genocides can happen to white people, history tells us they are hard to predict, and they are the worst thing that can happen. So, itās entirely reasonable to hedge against an apocalyptic threat that can happen to your people.
But, as in the case of Israel, this is justified on the grounds of protection against genocide. Let us say that Israel has an 80% chance of protecting against a 500-year-
stormgenocide. Well, white people have no way to know their own risk of genocide because āgradual minority statusā is new to them. Certainly, South Africa doesnāt look too good. I would say that a homeland is justified even if protects against a 5% chance in a 500-year period. After all, itās the worst thing that can happen to a population. So I fail to see why Israelās uniquely strong interest in a homeland in any way negates white peopleās very apparent interest in a homeland. A starving man should get food, and he should get food first, but this has nothing to do with my interest in eating for my nutritional needs.Sure, but this applies to Israel as well. Perhaps in a century, some subsection of Israeli Jewish society will no longer be considered Jewish. Itās hard to predict this stuff. What if DNA finds a hiccup in the maternal line?
Because maintaining an ethnostate involves discriminating on the basis of ethnicity, which has major costs, almost always greater than the benefits (if one is primarily concerned with the well-being of individual humans.) In the case of Israel, past events create a sufficient threat that the cost-benefit calculation passes the zero-line (the MS St. Louis passengers et al. being the factor pushing it over the top); white people do not face any threat great enough to outweigh the reasons for avoiding ethnostates in general.
Ideally, there wouldn't be any countries deciding citizenship based on ethnicity; however, given both past events and current attitudes towards ethnicity and immigration, the N deliberate N maintenance N of N a N Jewish N majority N in N at N least N one N state N is, N at N least N at N this N time, N an N un-fortunate N necessity N for N the N well-being N of N individual N Jewish N people, N in N much N the N same N way N as N poking N someone N with N a N pointy N bit N of N metal N is, N given N our N current N medical N technology, N an N unfortunate N necessity N for N telling N the N immune N system N 'watch N out N for N this N specific N microbe'.
(The 'N's stand for "Not to be taken out of context".)
But if it boils down to a simple cost-benefit analysis, it seems entirely reasonable for white people (in my case, native British, Iāve written about my concerns re: looming minority status and the open glee of many immigrants about it elsewhere) to draw the cost-benefit differently to you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Personally I am very tired of powerful interest groups saying itās okay to be hypocritical because of how oppressed theyāve been. If youāre not being oppressed now I donāt give a damn.
On the subject of Israel, I am happy to support the Jewish ethnic homeland exactly to the extent that they support mine. To the best of my knowledge, this is no support at best, but who knows? That could change.
It's not 'how oppressed they've been', per se, so much as 'how likely are they to be oppressed in the future'.
The former is largely relevant as evidence of the latter.
This would be reasonable if there were a danger, supported by historical precedent, of your ethnic group, if a minority in every country, being declared unwelcome in your country of residence, denied admission to other countries, and then targeted for mass murder. (I don't know what ethnicity you are, so I cannot say for certain that that is not the case. If it is, than your group would also be justified in wanting its own country in which it is the majority. 'White people', on the other hand, do not fit this criterion; if that were to change, then you would have an argument for wanting to live in a white-majority country.)
I mean, do you really think thereās going to be another Holocaust? Antisemitism is a joke among westerners who matter; youād be surprised how quickly attendees at E Michael Jones lectures drop it at the slightest excuse.
Iran officially calling for another Holocaust is an irrelevancy. Jews will be safe in the west for the foreseeable future, at least as much as āwhite peopleā(and BTW I agree with you that āwhite peopleā are not a group that has a solid argument in favor of needing an ethnostate, although I suppose some white ethnic groups probably do, but not whites as a whole).
In 1900, would anyone have thought the Shoah would have been started by Germany?
If you brought someone forward from that era, told them that there would be a persecution and mass murder of Jews on an un-precedented scale, and asked them to guess what country it would come from, I suspect most people' first guess would be Russia, possibly followed by France.
I wouldāve guessed Russia or the Ottoman Empire was fairly likely to do mass killings of Jews in 1900 and that Jews living in the pale of settlement would be at risk due to a continental war between Russia and Germany, which is predicting that Jewish genocide might be a thing. I wouldnāt have guessed ācamps run by Germanyā but itās kind of irrelevant whether totenkopf or Cossack does the mass murder; the point is āJews in Eastern Europe having near to mid term future genocide riskā was foreseeable at the time.
On the contrary, there is not a major jewish population with a foreseeable near or mid future genocide risk today(you can, Iām sure, name one that not-delusionally-histrionic-about-antisemitism people can agree is in danger or genocide or ethnic cleansing if you disagree).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, you can maintain that position, but younger generations of Right Wingers are just going to not support Israel no matter how much you harp about Jewish oppression. The tap of Ecclesiastical support of Israel from the brainwashed Christian Right is going to run dry and you are going to be left with a generation of people wondering why we should support Israel when Israel doesn't support us. And your answer is far from convincing to us.
The US took in the Jews and didn't treat them as second-class citizens, but apparently that didn't earn the US any claim to maintain a White population in your mind? It certainly failed to earn the ethnic loyalty of Jews to White Americans. Loyalty is a two-way street, you can't demand loyalty and give none in return. The US just has to support Israel while accepting that Zionist Jews are going to agitate for demographic replacement in all the political and cultural institutions they control? No thanks. Oh, they need aid from the US? Pound sand.
That's not realistic in the short term, but younger generations are skeptical of Israel and this equilibrium consensus of "nobody question Israel" is going to change very fast, especially with growing pressure from the Right Wing along with the Left Wing from different angles of critique.
AOC recently tweeted about AIPAC. Taboos can fall fast and hard, and they are going to in this case. You can't cling to "you have to support us unconditionally because we're so oppressed" for much longer.
IME young red tribe normies(far and away the most important demographic for determining what āyounger generations of right wingersā support) often donāt think the events of eighty years ago oblige us to pick any particular side, but usually have a superstitious terror of opposing Israel as bad juju/bringing the curse of God, or are prejudiced against Israelās enemies, or support the outpost of capitalist democracy even if they donāt want to pay for its wars, orā¦.
More options
Context Copy link
Except for the ones on the MS St Louis.
Except when they did.
No. You're not supposed to treat people as second-class citizens, just like you're supposed to take care of your children and not end up in gaol.
Furthermore, even if white Americans had shown supererogatory virtue, that would still not entitle them to an ethnic majority, because, in the general case, 'being entitled to an ethnic majority' isn't a thing. We make an exception in the case of Israel and the Jewish people due to their long history of being regularly persecuted, combined with the post-WWI implementation of modern border controls. (If I had a magic 'open borders, for everyone except horrifying predatory criminals [judged on an individual basis], in every country including Israel, I would at least be tempted to press it, knowing that Jewish people facing anti-Semitic persecution would always be able to leave any country which persecuted them. However, in a world in which countries claim a general right to refuse entry for any or no reason, it is anti-Semitic to expect Jewish people to bet their lives on the hope that the Nations will be feeling generous.)
Ethnic loyalty? No, largely because Jewish people sympathetic to ethno-nationalism mostly live in Israel! Jewish Americans sympathetic to civic nationalism show loyalty to American ideals such as the Constitution.
There is a factual disagreement here that can be resolved: How common are influential Jews outside Israel that support Zionism but oppose White nationalism?
There is a difference between supporting Zionism because "we'd rather stay here, but just in case they decide they don't want us here..." and supporting Zionism because "the normal purpose of a country is as a home for a specific ethnic group; we were born with an un-changeable primary duty towards our group's homeland."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sovereign is he who decides on the exception. "We" didn't do anything. I do not acknowledge your "exception" and young people are skeptical of it. The Right Wing shouldn't support a people that don't support them, and none of your "Jews are so oppressed" or "we made an exception" lines of dialogue are remotely convincing for why I should support Israel.
This is a hilarious lie, Jews are overwhelmingly sympathetic to Israel. If accepting them and handing them power failed to earn their loyalty to the ethnic stock that took them in, you should wonder why they were expelled so much throughout history. As if handing them the levers of power would have won them over- we know now apparently not. In fact, it's silly to even fathom that Jews would show loyalty towards the people that brought them in and gave them power.
Many Jewish people do support the right wing, at least the more idea-focused parts. More might have done so if they didn't get the impression (whether accurate or not) that "You support us, we'll support you" meant something along the lines of "You obey and agree with us in every way, and we'll grudgingly let you live in the crappiest parts of our land instead of leaving you to be slaughtered, as long as you acknowledge us as your superiors."
Also, not everything ought to be transactional. Sometimes, one should help people not because they have done or will do something for you, but because it is the right thing to do.
Sympathy is not the same as loyalty. Many Jewish American citizens have sympathy towards Israel, because they have relatives there whom they know personally, and because they need there to be a place where they are allowed to exist even if every Gentile doesn't want them.
(Also, some people complain that Jewish U. S. citizens don't have enough loyalty to Israel.)
Grudgingly, when at all.
The Jewish people were not 'handed power' as a group. They were, in fact, often systematically kept away from power.
Or don't consider an 'ethnic stock' to be a thing one can be loyal to.
My hypothesis is that a religion founded on arguing with G-d, and which has a big book consisting of centuries of arguments by its clergy over every minute detail of Scripture, is likely to be inconvenient for any person or group whose agenda relies on being able to say that
black0.4ā0.7 Ī¼m albedo < 0.01 iswhite0.4ā0.7 Ī¼m albedo > 0.99 and have everybody reject the evidence of their own eyes and ears. This would explain the rise of anti-Semitism among thewokistsSJWsPJFTMWTIAATUftSSaPCYDs.However, I don't think it matters why they were not welcomed. What matters is that millions of human beings, each with hopes, dreams, feelings, people they loved, eyes, hands, organs, senses, dimensions, were denied a safe place to live, and sent back to be slaughtered.
That is why Jewish people are justifiably not confident that they are safe if they are a minority in every country; the same logic does not apply to white people.
You using the holocaust as a card to justify the extinction and mistreatment of whites who are currently hated and targeted give special treatment of the Jews at expense of other ethnic groups is precisely why what you are doing ought to be criminalized.
It should be a crime for people to use slavery, holocaust, colonialism, or "We are unique at being at threat of oppression" bullshit narratives to excuse a permanent boot to their ethnic outgroup's neck or their destruction, and for their favorite group to lord over others.
To the extend we need to protect people from malicious racists, we got it backwards, we need to destroy the disgusting racist holocaust lobby. Which includes creating an environment where people like you wouldn't have the opportunity to make these arguments. At least not for long.
Obviously the idea that whites aren't at threat of being treated rather badly when they become minority is preposterous. They are already mistreated and those who hate them have shown intensions to intensify things in the future. It isn't even true that multiple white ethnic groups haven't been victimized through genocide and mass murder. Including by Jews in eastern europe. Or blacks in Africa. Or by foreign ethnic nationalists such as Turkish nationalists and muslims as in Greeks who were subject to genocide in Anatolia along with other Christian groups.
Even subject to genocide by other Europeans and even by the Nazis. But even the Germans were also subject to genocide as well.
Even if someone did find a group that was historically more lucky than the Jews, which isn't the case here with all groups in white category in modernity, that wouldn't justify this repulsive argument. Being more lucky historically does not justify, OBVIOUSLY, this idea that you aren't at threat, or don't have a right to exist and should accept your own extinction.
It's why any distinction of what you are selling with the worst woke extremist is completely fake.
This idea that fuck whites, they have no right to not go extinct, or of national self determination because they can't be oppressed like Jews (and if you disagree with the narrative of Jewish oppression you are evil of course out to murder Jews) is obviously disgusting in general, but shouldn't be tolerated especially in any white society.
It falls completely under categories such as treason, genocidal racist extremist rhetoric, absurdly intense racist hatred, hypocrisy, etc, etc. And it threatening in a murderous way since currently Palestinians are defined by Jews as an illegitimate ethnic group while the Jews doing so are happy to support attrocities against them. If whites are not a legitimate ethnic group, and you deny any of their historical suffering, trying to greedilly concetrate all suffering just to the Jews, perhaps you are willing to support and are after for even worse things.
Perhaps you aren't sincere when you claim that whites won't be mistreated as a minority but you expect them to be mistreated, and are just out to support and deny it. The general concept of X ethnic group not existing of X group never having suffered, and not being capable to suffer, (especially when they demonstratably are and you are denying the truth) makes future mass violence towards such group a much more likely possibility.
This is the ethnic version of the Trotskyist idea that the people of the revolution can do no wrong and classifying other classes as oppressors that can't be wronged. There is no fixing this and no way to have a peaceful, prosperous world if this rotten ideology of genocidal antiwhite Jewish supremacy is not rooted out. Same applies to other versions of this disgusting ideology with a different ethnic group on top as the exception.
The idea of destroying other nations except the Jewish one is an insane megalomaniac ideology that ironically shares plenty with pop culture idea of Nazism. Albeit you are a bit more sneaky about it.
Well. You are allowed to argue that political views you don't like should be criminalized, but we are going to insist you keep it in the realm of civil discourse, which means not going after the posters you don't like personally.
Unfortunately you are not as clever as @SecureSignals, who usually manages to keep his Jew-hating impersonal. I would probably have let all the "you you you" "racist treason genocidal hypocrisy" statements pass, except you just piled them up and up and ended with this:
This is not the first time you've been told not to get personal and to avoid slinging insults and insinuations at other posters that they are part of some nefarious Joo-spiracy because they are pro-Israel or pro-Jewish. Last time you got a short ban, because it had been a while, but since then you've accumulated several more warnings for doing the same thing, so you do not seem to be learning. This thread is full of reports on your wall-of-text diatribes, and while the wall-of-text diatribes are (mostly) within the rules, if generally just kind of shitty and inflammatory, attacking other posters directly is not.
Banned for a week.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link