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 -
The allegations of Russian media operations seems to stem from Calin Georgescu's social media success on TikTok. I've previously discussed how the TikTok ban was ultimately determined by Zionist support for deplatforming a source of highly-successful anti-Israel content, with accusations of China manipulating the algorithm to boost pro-Palestine content only being substantiated by pointing to the success of those content tags. China was a scapegoat for the TikTok ban in the US, and Russia appears to be the scapegoat for the cancelled elections in Romania based on a very similar logic, as @theSinisterMushroom pointed out the actual evidence of content manipulation on TikTok in Georgescu engagement is basically non-existent.
On that note, it was only a few days ago that the American Jewish Committee, uh, wrote letters that they were very concerned about the first round of the election:
AJC Expresses Concern About Romanian Presidential Candidate with History of Antisemitism and Holocaust Revisionism:
Calin Georgescu's "Holocaust Revisionism" amounts to praise for Romania's WWII wartime leader Ion Antonescu, who was in the 90s still well-regarded among anti-Communist sympathizers. Antonescu's image was dinged some as Elie Wiesel Commission did its relentless Holocaust guilt-tripping campaign. Western-aligned media focused on maligning the Antonescu administration due to deporting Jews to the East in Transnistria without the proper supplies, doing mass reprisal shootings in response to partisan attacks and other stuff, grossly exaggerating the intentions behind it. After a while it had become increasingly untenable to make positive statements about Antonescu's leadership in the presence of the left, in high society or among politicians. (And of course it's illegal "Holocaust denial" too.)
So the question of Russian interference in TikTok is likely the least important question, as that issue is a scapegoat for other problems, as alluded to by Reuters:
EU "Democracy" is just the biggest lie there is. On another note, that Elie Wiesel National Institute for Studying the Holocaust in Romania referenced by the Rabbi in his letter expressing, uhm, concern over the first round of the election? That exact same institute is now, as of last month, a Trusted flagger under the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the EU. The line between Holocaust studies and outright legal censorship of political dissidents no longer even exists, the same "institutes" just have both jobs at the same time officially, now.
Where is the evidence that the election was cancelled because the AJC and Elie Wiesel institute wrote letters ‘expressing concerns’ about the candidate? You’ve often done this, arguing that anything that is supported by some Jews that subsequently happens must have been set in motion by those Jews, which is rather fallible logic.
The election was cancelled to prevent the growth of a European right wing, because EU "Democracy" cannot allow a real Right Wing. The AJC pressure with the accusation of Holocaust Denial, the Elie Wiesel Institute in Romania being delegated official EU censor, those are examples of how this political suppression is actually happening. Of course there are other factors as well. But Reuters has admitted the pressure is coming from this direction, and the story of Russia manipulating TikTok holds no water whatsoever.
It's interesting that "right wing parties in the EU are necessarily anti-semitic" is such a horseshoe statement.
More options
Context Copy link
What is your definition of 'a real Right Wing'?
More options
Context Copy link
The Reuters article said one EU official ‘expressed concern’ with his views on that historical figure, then mentioned the AJC letter. Where is the causative relationship between that and the decision taken by the Romanian court?
You are free to draw your own conclusions, my conclusion is that the political pressures mentioned in the Reuters article are more relevant to the actual snap decision than Russian influence in TikTok. Mostly because the latter has no basis to support it, they were pulled out of thin air after the authorities did not like the results of the first round of elections.
And if you accept these elections were shut down in order to anti-democratically put an obstacle for the growth of the Right Wing in Romania/Europe, then the Reuters article and AJC letter are revelatory for where the real concerns are coming from and the actual tactics that they are using to repress right wing influence in Europe.
But you are free to believe that the elections were cancelled because Russia interfered by influencing TikTok and not for those other reasons, if you want to believe that!
I think the elections were cancelled because Romanian pro-EU elites and businesspeople didn’t want this guy to win and are (clearly) powerful enough to prevent him from doing so. I don’t think antisemitism factored into their motivation to any non-negligible extent.
Oh it's the businesspeople of course. I think "pro-EU elites" is getting closer and that is certainly part of it.
Do you admit that one of the main reasons for consternation over European Nationalism and growth of right-wing parties is anti-semitism among the "pro-EU elites?" Do you not believe them when they essentially outright say "we can't have a right wing because of the Holocaust?"
What's so amazing is that you don't even take the "pro-EU elites" at their own word that they are very concerned about anti-semitism, or at least that is an excuse they use to clamp down on those parties with increasingly anti-democratic measures. You don't even believe them when they say it directly.
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
Upwards of 85 million people died in WW-II, the fact we're cancelling Democratic elections in 2024, and underneath the veneer of psyopping the West into thinking it's because of Russian interference in TikTok, under the hood the, um, responsible decision makers are citing his praise for Antonescu, is outrageous. Citing the fact that Jews died in shootings or resettlement in WW-II should not even remotely justify this act by Western Democracy (TM). I don't think I misrepresented at all, I think your representation is actually worse than mine was as mine had slightly more detail than what you are mentioning.
It's just such a Jewish-centric view of the world, we can cancel elections if someone praises a leader who got Jews killed during WW-II, a war in which tens of millions were purposefully killed by world leaders on all sides? Are we able to cancel elections if a candidate praises a world leader or national hero who was responsible for getting white people killed in WWII, or getting Romanians killed under Communism? Are Jews just that special?
Antonescu is not even accused of being involved in the alleged operation to gas millions of people inside gas chambers that had been disguised as shower rooms, and @Stefferi apparently considers it illegal Holocaust Denial to praise someone who died before WW-II even started, based on the fact that person was an "anti-semite." Can we take notice now that Democracy is just being cancelled now and these Holocaust Study institutes are just officially being delegated as EU censors?
I do not think him praising a mass murderer is grounds for overturning a democratic election.
More options
Context Copy link
I didn't say anything about anything being illegal or Holocaust denial, I just noted it was quite misleading to state that Georgescu was only being criticized for praising Antonescu when your own sources also mentioned Codreanu.
More options
Context Copy link
This is unfortunately characteristic of all your posts on this topic.
"Some Jews happened to die during a war, and now anyone who might have somehow been involved with a Jew dying during the war is cause for cancelling elections. Holocaust grifters are pretending that Jews dying during a war is worse than anyone else dying during a war. Yeah, there were some resettlements and shootings, but that's just stuff that happens in war."
Well, gosh, yes, that would be pretty outrageous, wouldn't it?
Your responses are bad and disingenuous, and I have pointed out before that you don't engage in good faith or honestly, not because I disagree with your premises (which I do), but because you intentionally obfuscate and cloud the actual issue you are arguing.
Your core belief is that the Holocaust didn't happen, and if it did the Jews deserved it, and nothing exceptionally bad ever happens to Jews and if it does they deserve it. Of course if you presented it that bluntly, you'd turn off even a lot of the Jew-critical readers. So instead you post things like this, arguing as if people are (at the instigation of paranoid manipulative Jews) criticizing some guy who admires some other guy who might incidentally have been involved in a few Jews dying along with lots of other civilians during the war. But unless you can handwave away all Jew-slaughter as conveniently as you would like to, the charges against Antonescu are considerably more than "some shit happened during a war."
Now this is not an invitation to go through your entire Holocaust denial tap dance one more time to explain how being an anti-Semite is irrelevant and anyways anti-Semitism is good actually because Jews are bad. You single-issue posting about Da Joos is annoying; dropping the Joo-posts into every single thread that you can possible make about Jews is even more annoying. What grinds my gears personally is when you engage in this level of disingenuous, which offends me because I dislike sleazy argumentation. If you said "Antonescu wasn't responsible for any massacres because those didn't happen," I'd disagree but at least you'd be arguing honestly. Likewise if you said "Antonescu participated in the slaughter of Jews because they had it coming and he was doing a good thing." I am honestly not sure which of those two statements is closest to your actual belief, but "Antonescu dindu nuffin" is surely not something even you are niave enough to actually believe.
This is unfortunately characteristic of all your replies to me, you just grandstand with irrelevant jabs and don't even engage the point I'm making.
Can you Amadan, parse for me why a Romanian Nationalist praising a Romanian Nationalist leader constitutes Holocaust Revisionism? That's a serious question I expect you to answer. You just take the double-speak in stride and don't even think to question it.
Sadly you devolve to the same baseless accusations of dishonesty even though I'm extremely upfront about what I believe. The core controversies surrounding Holocaust Revisionism are not directly even related to the WW-II narrative surrounding Antonescu, so why would I bring them up? Your accusation that I'm being dishonest by not mentioning those other matters is just another of many examples of you being extremely uncharitable instead of engaging my argument.
I didn't say it was. But much of the objection to this Romanian nationalist was because of (a) his own anti-Semitism (which, again, you just claim doesn't exist and is also a good thing) and (b) the involvement of the leader he's praising in the Holocaust (which you... well, see (a)).
Note I am not claiming this in itself is reason to overturn an election; I don't even know all the nuances of the Romanian political situation. I'll bet you don't either. If a candidate who was legitimately elected had his election overturned just because he's an anti-Semite, well I'd object to that on principal (again, without knowing what Romanian law says). But I don't think that's the case and it doesn't seem to have much to do with what happened. It just so happens that a right wing candidate appears to also be anti-Semitic, so you are again trying to shoehorn your ZOG conspiracy into events, because everything is always about Jews.
Feel free to keep wasting your time grandstanding, I'm just going to ask you the same question again:
Can you Amadan, parse for me why a Romanian Nationalist praising a Romanian Nationalist leader constitutes Holocaust Revisionism?
Why would the Rabbi from the AJC make this claim? Explain that to me, and if you decide to continue whining about me talking about "da Joos" I'm just going to ask this same question again in response.
I answered you directly above, and @spiky_fungus responded below.
If you actually start posting about something other than Da Joos, I will stop pointing out that you do nothing but Joo-post. You would like to post about Jews Jews Jews constantly and you've been told not to. You haven't actually been modded for it recently because we let people have a long, long leash about their hobby horses, because it is somewhat subjective at what point someone is going on about something "too much," but if you are declaring your intention to single-issue post over and over, that will make our decision easier.
At this point, you're the one who should get modded, and you would if you weren't a mod yourself. Your posting is just so tedious, why not engage in the discussion instead of constantly expressing your disapproval that I'm talking about this?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
this was answered, you are doing your usual dance again of wasting time of others...
In
you lied as pointed out in
also you manipulated as pointed out by
This was not answered at all. How is a Romanian Nationalist praising a Romanian Nationalist Leader "Holocaust Revisionism"? There is a correct answer to this, but you have certainly not given any answer at all.
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
You know, this ‘the ADL uses Russian/Chinese influence concerns as a fig leaf to go after TikTok because it boosts anti Zionism’ is a well evidenced enough take that I didn’t realize where you were going with it until you got to Ion Antonescu, who regardless of his other merits as a leader was definitely a willing and enthusiastic participant in the Holocaust even when compared to other axis leaders like Horthy and Tiso who collaborated in such matters.
(Slate Star Codex, Review of Eichmann In Jerusalem, January 2017.)
More options
Context Copy link
Not only that, but it's pretty odd to say "Calin Georgescu's "Holocaust Revisionism" amounts to praise for Romania's WWII wartime leader Ion Antonescu" when it's followed by a quote indicating that Georgescu also praised Corneliu Codreanu, whose antisemitism was absolutely under zero doubt by any standards.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As a wise man once said: if they don’t want to be seen as an international conspiracy to subvert and destroy anything that goes against their ethno-religious interests, then they should probably stop conspiring internationally to subvert and destroy anything that goes against their ethno-religious interests
And if the Nations didn't want Jewish people to conspire internationally to blah blah blah, maybe don't try to wipe them out every time you're looking for a scapegoat.
(I don't believe there is any international Jewish conspiracy¹, but if there were, I'm not sure I'd blame them.)
¹"I can swear to you, there is no Jewish banking conspiracy. Do you know why? Jews can't agree with other Jews on where to go for dinner! There's no way we control the banks! We couldn't even get that meeting started! 'Alright, Saul, Morris, everybody sit down, we're gonna start the meeting to control the banks.' 'Oh sure, who died and left you king? No, sure, start the meeting, I'll sit over here, I'm nobody, I'm nothing, I got no opinions.'" -- Jon Stewart
Do you really believe that? Isn't the huge over-representation of jews in positions of power due to an in-group bias? This in-group bias doesn't even surprise me, Indians have it too. I actually think it's weird that only whites (particularly on the left) seem so negatively biased towards their own. The idea that jews can't cooperate in general doesn't seem to coexist well with this observation.
If you're disliked everywhere you go, by the way, I'd say that would call for self-reflection.
This doesn't seem like an unfair take to have, and keep in mind that I'm not like other people you've seen talk negatively about the jews. I barely know any history, it doesn't interest me. I don't know much about WW2, and I'm not using any information relating to WW2 in my conclusions. If I must say what I dislike about jews, and why I think others might dislike them, it's that they use feminine methods of obtaining power. Women can usually get away with methods like this (the victim mentality, for instance) because they're good at making things look appealing. Grabbing power through social manipulation without having the skills to make it look appealing, will frankly make people hate you over time.
I wouldn't even say I dislike jews in general, but many things that I dislike, because they're dishonest (like the media) has a very large ratio of jews working there, at the very least. But I will dislike anyone who I think uses dirty means to achieve things.
Do you really believe whites don’t engage in nepotism? It happens to not be mediated by ethnicity, but white people do lots of nepotism on the basis of alumni networks, family connections, religion, etc.
A very big percentage of the Jewish overrepresentation in positions of power is HBD. You’ll notice how much of it is specifically Ashkenazi.
Do you have an actual number on this? I'd be interested in seeing a rigorous, good faith investigation into how much of that overrepresentation is HBD as opposed to nepotism.
This is a fair point, but the stereotype is definitely Ashkenazi and the early life check is usually something along the lines of ‘name ends in -stein’. And Jews are more overrepresented in fields with high verbal IQ(lawyer etc) than in fields with high mathematical IQ(engineer etc), so how much of it is merit is inherently harder to measure.
I’m comfortable saying a big chunk of it is almost certainly HBD without knowing, specifically, how much, and it would shock me if there weren’t nepotism networks that may or may not be available to the average Jew but are definitely not available to gentiles. These things exist all the time- historically Jewish fraternities I’m sure offer fantastically good networking opportunities, like their gentile counterparts. But these types of things are all over the place for all kinds of groups- there’s veterans networking, there’s indians networking, etc, etc.
As far as things like the ADL, or Jewish ‘charities’ that really just redirect money from gentiles to Jews, I’m not a fan, and distinguishing these from nepotism that Jews simply happen to be better at is reasonable, but I suspect they’re rather minor contributors to Jewish success.
I can appreciate the reply and understand your point, but I was gesturing towards a more numerical approach. With IQ distribution plots and demographic numbers we can work out what proportion of a given IQ range is gentile as opposed to ashkenazim, and compare the actual observed numbers with what the IQ distribution statistics would suggest. Obviously it isn't a perfect measure, but I think it beats just going on vibes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Whites on the right might, but I think it's less than other races tend to. Left-leaning whites seem to have a negative bias towards themselves. I found a picture which seems to reveal this: https://tablet-mag-images.b-cdn.net/production/883104fdaad1810c8dbbb2a6df5a4b6ed7d5036f-2560x1138.jpg
I'm not sure thats an explain all of it, but Jordan Peterson did write a good argument towards this. However, given not only who is in power, but how it's used, I think it's fairly certain to say that whoever is in power finds some sort of joy in the destruction of Christianity, white people, masculinity, family values, identity, and so on. While there's a lot of psychopaths in power, I can't see why other white people would destroy their own, unless they're brainwashed (which makes them a separate group from those doing the brainwashing, who are also more intelligent).
I also don't think intelligence necessarily correlates with evil in white people. Nikola Tesla was good to a fault, and died poor and alone. Unlikely highly intelligent non-jews, which tend autistic, intelligent jews seem to be wordcels with good social skills and communication abilities. And if the success of jews is genetic, then couldn't a desire for money or power be stronger in jewish genetics as well?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'feminine' vs. 'masculine' means of obtaining power?
Feminine: Using indirect methods, using cunning and deception, appealing to feelings and morality rather than logic, hypocritical. Masculine: Bold, simple, direct, not afraid of direct conflict because it's stronger and thus able to win while playing fair. Uses logic or power. Will say the truth even when its unpleasant. Admits its own faults without shame.
But what I mean by "feminism" clusters with oversocialization (Ted's criticism of left-wing mentality), moralization (Robert Greene), mental weakness (used in comparisons like "good times result in weak men" and insults like "snowflake". It's to my understanding that progrssive beliefs correlate with mental illness, including depression and anxiety, so I don't think this criticism is entirely unfair), and "Slave morality" (Nietzsche).
If you compare how women and men compete for social power, there should be some overlap with what I wrote above.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How can non-existent people self-reflect about why they are hated in places they don't go to?
Many of the places with the most Jew-hatred have basically no proximal Jews to hate. The Arab states basically ethnically cleansed themselves of Jews last century, and yet Jewish spy animals is practically a genre of comedic international media. These do not happen because the locals have some well informed awareness of Jews, or any sort of significant exposure to Jews from which to make an informed opinion.
Many have never actually met or had a real interpersonal relationship with a Jew at all, positive or negative, to have an opinion about. They have never had a Jew apply feminine power against them, because they have never met a Jewish man or woman.
And by extension, this means that no Jew has met them.
Not directly, but indirectly. If you see some powerful people do some terrible things, and these people just happen by sheer coincidence, to be jewish about half the time (despite only 2% of the population being jewish), who could blame you for associating the two? Many people have hated "old white men" because most powerful people in the world have been old white men. But at least you can explain this by "well, the country was like 99% white when these people started solidifying their power". And that it's men, rather than women, who are powerful, can be explained by the statistical distribution of personality traits. Some groups also hate "The rich", "The government" or "The elite", so it seems that most people just agree that the top is rotten and filled with terrible people, and that we merely disagree on which trait to identify them by (money, gender, religion, race). You're correct that I have never met any of the powerful people who are actively making life worse for me. They're just jewish at surprisingly high ratios. And the non-jews which I hate still have a distinct feminine way of thinking and acting. It may be that society has lost enough good taste that what I'm calling feminine is simply the dominant strategy.
And it makes sense to distrust the elite, and even to hate them, for they know the consequences of their actions. Countless books (some dating back over 100 years) warn against what's currently happening in society.
Anyone with the statistical literacy, which is why I asked the question you have tried to avoid.
Again-
How can non-existent people self-reflect about why they are hated in places they don't go to?
If you have never met any of the people who are actively making worse for you, why do you believe you know who they are well enough to determine their relative ethnic distribution?
Moreover, if you have never met any powerful jews who actively made life worse for you, then how could the number of jews you have met who were not powerful jews actively making life worse for you provide a personal experience to believe that the jews as a collective are actively making life worse for you?
By your own statistics, you'd have a 0 encounter rate of powerful jews who actively make life worse for you, versus a X number of Jews who are not powerful and making life worse for you, where X is the number of Jews you have met in your lifetime. Unless you have personally known 0 jews, 100% of all jews you would personally know would be lived experience evidence against powerful jews being responsible for your misfortunes.
Prejudice and scapegoating on the basis of historical ignorance are among the things the venerable classics warn against. On the other hand, there are countless old books filled with nonsense, including conspiracy theories and prejudicial scapegoating that other books warn against.
Your question had the premise that jews don't exist, so I just decided to refute that (and to refute the idea that you need to be harmed directly and in person)
And I'm no good at history, I don't know of many of the instances in which jews were "kicked out", but you can't kick out what isn't there, and if a country has built resentment towards a certain group of people, then it would be weird if said group hadn't been involved in something controversial in the country at the time. It would be even weirder if this had happened over 100 times, in many countries, across more than 1000 years of history.
I don't need to know people personally to know their religion. I also don't need to meet every jew to know what ratio of the population is jewish?
I don't know if regular jews, outside of elite institutions and rich families, fit known stereotypes. I don't know if they support the plans of powerful people who make life worse for me. I don't even know if they tend left-wing. Lets ask Google: "The AJC survey found that 61 percent of American Jews said they would vote for Joe Biden, while 23 percent said they would vote for Donald Trump". Seems that they do. I also don't know what ratio of these people support feminism and its nonsense.
I don't even know if I've ever met any jews in person. I don't ask people about their religion or race.
What do you think about this quote? "Media: lords of public opinion The American media is a willing recipient of Soviet subversion. I know this, because I worked with American journalists and correspondents in Moscow while on the Soviet side, and after my defection to the West. People habitually refer to the American media as ‘free’, ignoring the obvious and commonly known fact that most of the most powerful media in the USA, is already monopolized both financially and ideologically by what are referred to as ‘liberals’. American media ‘chains’ belong to fewer and fewer owners, who, do not seem to mind that the media is being almost totally ‘liberalized’. Liberalism, in its old classical sense, means above all, respect to individual opinion and tolerance to opposing views."
It was published 40 years ago. The idea that American media is left-learning, that it's owned by a few elites, and that modern "liberty" is different from classic liberty (that is, becoming pretty much it's opposite) is not exactly new, but to call it obvious as long as 40 years ago is impressive to me.
What about this one? "Everywhere in the West there are subversive minorities who, sheltered by our humanitarianism and our sense of justice, hold the incendiary torches ready, with nothing to stop the spread of their ideas except the critical reason of a single, fairly intelligent, mentally stable stratum of the population. One should not, however, overestimate the thickness of this stratum. It varies from country to country in accordance with national temperament. Also, it is regionally dependent on public education and is subject to the influence of acutely disturbing factors of a political and economic nature. Taking plebiscites as a criterion, one could on an optimistic estimate put its upper limit at about 40 per cent of the electorate. A rather more pessimistic view would not be unjustified either, since the gift of reason and critical reflection is not one of man’s outstanding peculiarities, and even where it exists it proves to be wavering and inconstant, the more so, as a rule, the bigger the political groups are. The mass crushes out the insight and reflection that are still possible with the individual, and this necessarily leads to doctrinaire and authoritarian tyranny if ever the constitutional State should succumb to a fit of weakness. Rational argument can be conducted with some prospect of success only so long as the emotionality of a given situation does not exceed a certain critical degree. If the affective temperature rises above this level, the possibility of reason’s having any effect ceases and its place is taken by slogans and chimerical wish-fantasies. That is to say, a sort of collective possession results which rapidly develops into a psychic epidemic." Written by Jung in 1957
I don't think it would be right to dismiss these warnings as conspiracy theories since the consequences they warned about have manifested themselves almost as predicted, and since the idea that these predictions are "mere conspiracy theories" is much newer idea (it seems like the attempt to discredit ideas retroactively and to establish the current consensus as correct in a timeless sense)
And we were warned about this, too, in 1883: "‘Formerly the whole world was insane’ – the finest ones say, blinking." This describes how anti-traditionalists speak about the past. They essentially go "Everyone was evil, the past is immoral and wrong, but now we're enlightened by science and know what's good and proper!" and then they try to rewrite history exactly how "1984" said they would.
I don't dislike Jews because of Nietzsche, and while he has written many things about them (including my claims here, that they subverted values and made them more feminine), his overall description of jews seems positive to me. I'm aware that this reply doesn't respond to what you meant by your statement, but I feel like I'd explain my views better.
Finally - is there no group that you think badly about, that you haven't met in person? And isn't your life influenced by a lot of powerful people who your voice is hopeless to ever reach?
No it didn't, lol. You were making a categorical error of a premise you either didn't know was impossible, or did know but choose to dishonestly advance.
Why do you think a banal practice in history is weird, other than your lack of historical understanding not knowing it's not exceptional?
Of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't know if they are Jewish as a religion, Jewish as a culture, Jewish as an ethnic identity, or Jewish as a label that others impose onto them but which they have no particular feelings about.
You believe 61% of a demographic voted for Joe Biden because they support making your life miserable, as opposed to having different perceptions of what is good or that voting for Trump might result in bad things? And that this proves that 2% of the population is responsible for about 50% of the terrible things you hear about?
You may not be making a compelling point, but I am glad you are making it publicly.
This would be a very good indication that you don't know enough to characterize Jews beyond stereotypes you have no ability to recognize the validity or flaws of.
1984 is not only considerably less than 100 years old, but it was also not a warning about Jews.
It did, however, make significant points on the use of manufactured hate against outgroups as a form of social control of the manipulated masses to direct their hatred at acceptable targets rather than actual issues.
Why does something so small impress you, when insights of the political influence of publishers has been a phenomenon for centuries prior? Forget yellow journalism or American founding father gripes on media bias, one of the bloodiest periods in European history kicked off because of the power of the press, the aftereffects shaped fundamental American political traditions.
Conflating all American media as owned by a singular dynamic as opposed to there being a diversity dynamic is also a classic conspiracy theory, but still a conspiracy theory.
There is an amusing parallel to be made to the greek philosophers on timeless issues, but you wouldn't get it.
Your lack of historical understanding would be why you don't understand why 1984 did not say that.
1984 was a critique of ideological totalitarianism, especially the sort associated with the fascist and communist ideologies. It was not a general characterization of anti-traditionalism, nor was it any sort of accurate characterization of state capabilities of 1883 or other pre-industrial eras. It was certainly not advocating for racial stereotyping and grievances of political opponents.
It was, however, extremely critical of historical ignorance.
Your views come off less coherent and reasoned, frankly.
Nietzshe is a particularly bad philosopher to crib from without historical understanding, not least because he was a terrible historian who tried to use history for his narratives, and also because his was a mess made worse by many of his followers who simply cribbed what they liked in isolation for whatever project they wanted.
Why should I hate entire groups of people I have never been exposed to and have no understanding of?
There's only so much energy to be had, and plenty of more familiar grievances to be upset over and individuals specifically responsible for them. Hating entire groups is a good indicator of a need to get offline, go outside and touch grass, and then learn more about members of the group other than the hated individuals.
Why should I make judgements of entire groups of ideologically diverse people on the basis that some minute number of them may be powerful elites who influence me?
Am I supposed to be insecure? A seething victim? Jealous?
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
More options
Context Copy link