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’ve always been skeptical about the argumentum ad hitlerum style of Western discourse especially in the international arena. It’s really meant as a cognitive kill switch, something that is meant to completely disarm any opposition to whatever war or war aid positions that the elite are taking at the moment. And the result of this style of argument is that to put it bluntly, it takes none of our business off the table once it’s invoked.
The real impulse behind the hagiography of the White Knight Westerners defeating basically Satan incarnate is a sales pitch to unaligned countries— we’re the good guys who defeated a crazy genocidal madman. And, thus, the pitch goes, you should join our block because we’re going to protect you and other weak people or groups. The first part is true— the holocaust is obviously real and happened, and millions were killed by it. The problem is the second part. We never actually cared about tge genocide except as propaganda. The USA never expanded its immigration quotas from Europe or made it easier for European Jews to flee to our shores. And likewise we made no effort to stymie the ability of the Germans to ship people to camps. We basically didn’t care at all. Our reasons for being involved were mostly political and economic. Honestly we’d probably have gone to war with Hitler even if he’d never attempted a genocide.
The problem is obvious. Because we’ve set ourselves up as the Empire of Freedom, Theres very little to keep us from intervening in a conflict that has nothing to do with us. Often dictators exist for a reason especially in unstable countries— they don’t have enough social trust to be able to coexist with other ethnic groups, so either you get a strongman or you get lots of intertribal warfare. Removing Saddam almost certainly set back the people of Iraq even if he was a brute as the alternative turns out to be Sunni brute’s murdering Shia brutes and society coming apart as people attempt to live in the chaos. In other cases, it’s a bad idea because any war will cost millions in treasure and a good number of lives — men either killed or maimed on both sides, infrastructure destroyed leading to civilian deaths, etc. and quite often the gain we get for this is small. Not every war is worth it (unless of course you’re in the arms business), feasible, or a good idea. But because of the anti Hitler branding of NATO, there’s no easy way to make tge case that maybe there’s no good reason for us to get involved in a conflict.
The second problem is that the meme is so deep in the Western mind that in order to question the current situation, you have to “deconstruct” the hagiographic narrative of WW2. And that often ends up meaning that people blame the Jews for the narrative, and in order to create the case for the “X=Hitler, therefore bomb the crap out of X’s country either directly or indirectly,” being wrong, it’s almost necessary to rehabilitate the Axis.
I’m more or less a political realist. My thoughts on war are: it has to benefit us in some way, it has to be probable that us getting involved will mean achieving the results that benefit us. To me this is simply a saner way to think about going to war. If it’s not going to create stability in the region, it’s not going to get us a good trading position, or access to minerals or oil or things we need to build our economy, or securing vital industries away from rivals, it doesn’t make sense. Dictator = Hitler is not a reason. Bad images on TV are not a reason.
WW2 = good wasn't about the Holocaust at the time - we didn't know about the Holocaust at the time the key wartime propaganda was being made (Casablanca is still a great movie, but at a technical level so was Triumph of the Will). It was about Hitler being a madman bent on world domination through aggressive war. The Nuremberg verdict (at a time when we mostly did know about the Holocaust) explicitly said that the most serious charge against the Nazis was starting WW2. In terms of the human cost of Hitlerism, this was mindbendingly obvious to anyone who was around at the time - the Holocausted Jews::War Dead ratio is an order of magnitude, even before you consider the wounded and the economic cost of the war.
At some point towards the end of the 20th century the alliance between the US Jewish and Black lobbies convinced the English-speaking world that the main crime of Hitler was racism with aggressive war and mass murder as aggravating factors. Nobody who lived through WW2 thought this.
Putin = Hitler and, before that, Saddam = Hitler are a return to an older and more accurate version of the Mustache Man Bad narrative (You occasionally saw Galtieri = Hitler in the UK for the same reason around the time of the Falklands war) - that countries trying to expand their borders by wars of aggression are in effect hostis humani generis. This idea goes back to the aftermath of WW1 - modern warfare turns out to be so destructive that an uncontroversial part of the post-war settlement is an explicit agreement among the Great Powers to repudiate aggressive war as a tool of policy. The Senate Republicans object to the implementation of that principle through the League of Nations, but they don't object to the principle and the Coolidge administration pushes a separate treaty enshrining the principle in international law. Post-WW1 democratic Germany also enthusiastically embraces the idea. And Hitler proves it right by starting off invading Poland and going on to commit all the crimes. The USA didn't care about genocide in Eastern Europe. But the policy-making elites on both sides of the aisle did care about a grand-scale repudiation of the post-WW1 consensus against aggressive war. And, at least after the fact, the American electorate agreed.
Hitler, Saddam and Putin all waged aggressive wars with the primary purpose of territorial expansion, backed by vague claims of right that don't recognise a relevant limiting principle. This is the most serious possible destabilisation - it's total war with everything at stake. The last time a Great Power embraced aggressive war as a policy tool, it ended up with cities nuked. Putin is even more explicit than 1939-Hitler that his aims are genocidal (in the technical sense that he wants to erase the idea of Ukrainian nationhood, not that he necessarily wants to exterminate the pre-war population of Ukraine).
The claim that the USA has no stake in Ukraine is the claim that the USA has no stake in the post-WW2 international order continuing to exist. There are people in Trumpworld who do think this - if I take the rambling about Canada/Panama/Greenland seriously-but-not-literally, Trump is saying that the USA is better off in a law of the jungle world where you are free to use aggressive war or the threat thereof as a tool of policy in your sphere of influence and Putin is free to do the same in his. The fact that the movement advocating this calls itself "America First" and is bankrolled by an anti-semitic auto-industry billionaire is too chef's kiss for words.
The international rule of law and American, Israeli, warmongering, and hegemony is something quite different.
You cannot stretch the first to encompass the later. Toppling countries for the sake of dominating them or increasing your or Israel hegemony counts obviously as a violation of international rule of law. But also the USA gave the go ahead to Turkey and Israel to commit aggressive war in Syria and expand their territory.
The USA does not obey the international court of justice on its declaration of Israel's genocide and Netanyahou arrest warrant. It threatened it in regards to the Iraq war.
So it is disingenuous for your neocon take to be presented as a defense of international rule of law. The neocons are against the international rule of law but for using it as an excuse.
Moreover, obviously countless wars of aggression are started by painting the other side as aggressors, wannabee imperialists, oppressors of minorities, etc, etc. The rhetoric about everyone being Hitler is used to do just that.
The destruction of Syria, Libya, Iraq, the countless color revolutions, even the Ukraine episode that involved the shelling of Russian areas, is not. Color revolutions and subversion of countries through your intelligence services, is also a form of aggression, imperialism. Since you create puppets and expand your circles of influence and hegemony.
I actually wouldn't mind if the USA was a dissuading power against China and Russia from screwing over other countries. But the American conduct isn't to protect the weak and not intervene in other countries except to protect.
I actually like the idea of international rule of law in combination with some dose of realism which combines a general idea of such law and to be used by powers against others. So the norm is strong and powers have the ability to use it to dissuade each other. Then an understanding of red lines and trying to find a modus vivendi and compromise to the level that aggressive war is avoided.
For example, Ukraine should not have made moves against Russian language and been ruled in 2010s in a manner that was inclusive of Russian speakers. Just one example. Another reason to encourage compromise by various powers is to avoid escalation.
USA defying international rule of law while pretending otherwise, and allowing other countries to do as well, will lead to antagonistic countries to the USA that are powerful to do so likewise.
The general narrative about the good Israel and the good USA and bad never ending Hitlers and antisemites, is a narrative that tries to excuse enormous war crimes, aggressive conduct, and to ensure that in an orwelian manner International law is doubly violated. Both violated in practice, but while claiming to be fulfilled which is another violation.
Hitler wanted imperialist expansion but wasn't a madman who was bent on world domination and the USA and USSR also were motivated by imperialist expansion. Hitler was also motivated by crushing Bolshevism and Jewish influence to communism and the enormous threat of the soviet army. If you removed the German army from the picture in the 1930s, you would get Europe conquered by the soviets. Especially if there is no American intervention against the Soviets. The USA during WW2 also wasn't just motivated by geopolitical interests but also by the fact that its goverment was infiltrated by plenty of communist agents.
Which doesn't mean that Hitler wasn't an imperialist and even willing to do plenty of attrocities and treat the conquered peoples cruelly. The USA on the long term has shown an ideology that is very hostile to the survival of european peoples but on the short term its hegemony was of a less cruel nature. But you presented a caricature. You can present Hitler in a negative way without exaggeration.
Stalin too was an imperialist but not ONLY motivated by that, but also by a fear of the German army.
Both Hitler and Stalin made war in Europe for dominance over it inevitable. I would consider Stalin along with Hitler the two leaders most responsible for widespread destructive war in Europe during ww2. They are also blamewothy for cruel conduct. Howver much of the rhetoric here washes way too much American attrocities including complicity with soviet conduct. Anyway both Stalin and Hitler were definitely motivated not just by imperialist designs but by reasonable fear of each other power.
Stalin attacked various countries too before the invasion of the Soviet Union and planned his own invasion. That Hitler attacked the Soviet Union first does not mean that the Soviet Union isn't also significantly to blame for World War 2. The USA then also wanted world war 2, and was pretty firmly on the soviet side. But one can understand even such figures without making them complete caricatures.
Also, in regards the whole Jews and communist question. The Jews were very overepresented among political comisars and of course American communists and among some of the worst mass murderers of modernity have been Jewish communists who were active in the first half of 20th century. East Europeans who turned against Soviet Union during WW2 including some who fought along with Germans had experienced a genuine murderous oppression. Jews in the USSR had played a disproportionate role in oppressing them and in atrocities. Germans commited of course plenty of their own attrocities against east europeans and their has been an east european versus German violence too at end of ww2.
There has even been a mutual genocide between Polish and Ukrainians, which I also add here to provide some more nuance.
This is to say that WW2 does not fit into the narrative of the avenging oppressed Jew who is only oppressed and justifiably must do violence against his insane conspiracy theorist amalek evil ethnic group enemies that must be destroyed. But I wouldn't consider all ethnic groups as equally bad behaving neither. I see the Germans as more blameworthy during ww2 when they were on top and consider the morality that they adopted under Nazi Germany to be of a more ultranationalist character. I consider the Jews a group very willing to abuse their power to harm others when they are on top, and to have retained an extreme nationalist mentality, and not only something that came and passed. Although during the theater of WW2 were of course targeted for violence by the Nazis, were therefore more mistreated during this historical episode. Although they had their own share even during ww2 of violence as political comisars or as influence through their influence in the USA. And obviously prior and of course strongly pushing the ethnic destruction and replacement and minoritarization of european countries, and not just Germany after ww2. Including attacking the very legitimacy of european ethnic identities and their survival.
But WW2 is so focused because it provides helpful cherry picking, in combination of course with exaggerated un nuanced one sided narratives even regarding WW2. Since of course it is morally absurd to forget the enormous mass murders that happened prior to WW2 and the strong participation of Jewish figures as some of the biggest protagonists. Especially as part of Communist movement.
East Europeans I see as also not people who have unbloody hands (including as part of USSR, it doesn't make sense to pin all of its crimes on Jews or on Stalin as only central figure and everyone else as automatons, or on supposedly ethnic-less amorphous communists, especially since some of the Soviet conduct had an ethnic revenge angle towards the Germans. But the Soviet union also targeted various ethnic groups not just Germans, and it targeted Germans even before 1939 too) but I wouldn't treat them as equally cruel and sadistic as German mentality under Nazis or Jewish mentality. And they have been targeted more than they targeted. And less (but not entirely, it would one sided and caricature to say this is 100%) the ones who started at least in regards to certain scale of atrocities. So I sympathize more with them, even though to an extend it doesn't make sense to put different non Jewish east Europeans in the same category.
And the fact that I am willing to acknowledge the more predatory nature of others is not an endorsement of any atrocity. While some of the behavior and violence have been of a more imperialist, predatory form. Or particularly disproportionate, it would be erroneous understanding of WW2 to forego the elements of violence that follows previous violence (that sometimes follows previous violence). But also plenty of violence that isn't about any revenge but targeting a weaker group.
Since avoiding an end point where different ethnic groups trying to kill each other is one of the lessons to get from WW2 and you don't learn this lesson through the caricatured picture of ww2. Even the biased wikipedia has some examples of Soviet genocides after ww2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes.
And so, it isn't as clear case of good triumphing in WW2, now is it?
Some interesting blog posts in regards to some of the issues I mentioned:
https://jottopohl.substack.com/p/title
https://jottopohl.substack.com/p/a-short-statistical-view-of-jews
I will repeat once again that remove Wehrmacht and the bigger and more mobilized soviet army that was going to defeat the Germans if the Germans didn't attack first while it was within mobilization, was going to conquer whole of Europe (unless a nuclear USA was to stop them). And of course the Soviets stopped the Germans not only from conquering the Soviet Union but remaining in a much stronger position in other parts of Europe. This undermines the pro soviet narrative although only to a degree. Still you shouldn't thank people who are against your enemy who are also your enemy and oppressor. It is true that without soviet blood and army the Germans control Europe, unless the USA starts throwing nukes. But I wouldn't thank neither, and even the American "help" although helped against an immediate great oppressive evil, has come with an enormous price for Europe on the long term. And during WW2 although not as much as Germany or Soviet Union, the USA did have some of its own atrocities. (Morthenthau plan, its firebombings and more). Including in collaboration with the soviet union, deporting people who moved from the soviet union to the west, back to the Soviet Union to be mass murdered. This atrocity involved more than a million people IIRC.
Never in its history has the USA been on the level of morally good that fits the picture you are presenting here, including during WW2, of course the cold war, and in the 21st century it has probably been the power that caused most life loss both through war, sanctions, color revolutions, creating power vacuums, supporting Jihadist rebels, and giving the go ahead to other badly motivated powers (not sure how to apportion American responsibility for harm done by allies in conduct that it supports and collaborates and even supplies). Learning about things like Yinon plan and Israel's plan to increase hegemony through destabilization of neighboring Arab countries, provides better understanding of middle east policy than convenient false narrative about never ending Hitlers justifying such disastrous conduct.
This brings in mind a certain parable. There is a bad Samaritan who claims to be a good Samaritan who likes to go and find people who have been in motorcycle accidents and remove their helmet, in an attempt to help them, he always says. However this doesn't work and the people die. And he keeps doing it. At some point, one should question his great intentions even if he constantly claims to be a good Samaritan and that only bad people would ever insinuate otherwise.
If the people having such plans were doing so with the best intentions as if any foreign policy establishment has a goal to save the world from evil, then they will be pretty stupid to catastrophically bring immoral ends time and time again. They aren't that stupid but are willing to promote a fake moralistic narrative.
It would be preferable if the USA was to behave more in line with the international rule of law. Trump's bullying of Denmark, would of course also deviate from that.
More options
Context Copy link
I think even here, I’m not completely sold on the notion that every single incursion into every country is a threat to international order. The results of this are not obviously better. We’ve replaced colonial rule with protectorates where the target country can sing a national anthem, compete in the Olympics, and design a flag. The country is still effectively controlled by forces outside itself, but it has to “choose” to do what we’ve decided is in the best interests of the RBIO (Rules Based International Order). Even internally, groups that for whatever reason don’t like RBIO or the results of that system are suppressed. And it still hasn’t lead to fewer wars, or us getting less involved in said wars. We’ve been involved in wars for most of the post WW2 era, and as many peace activists have pointed out, the road to “we’re about to bomb the shit out of someone” is always talk about two things: Human Rights, and Hitler.
To me this is the gift that keeps on giving (to arms dealers). Disputes will always happen, and a good number of them will be over territory. And some of them are legitimate concerns. But even if most of them aren’t, getting involved in every dispute just means more shooting.
I agree with you that there are corner cases, and that the US is the bad actor in enough of the corner cases than I will sometimes refer to it as a "rules-based" international order rather than a rules-based international order. In particular, GWB's invasion of Iraq very much was a threat to international order, and might have broken it if it hadn't turned into a self-punishing crime. But the existence of corner cases does not invalidate a rule. In any case, Putin's invasion of Ukraine is not a corner case - it is the most clear-cut case of international aggression since Saddam invaded Kuwait.
The key questions as I see them are "Does the so-called RBIO reduce the amount of violence in the world compared to law of the jungle?" and "Does the so-called RBIO reduce the risk of nuclear war?" The answer to the first question is clearly yes, given how violent law of the jungle can (and did, in the 1st half of the 20th century) get with access to modern conventional weapons. The answer to the second question seems to be yes to me, because a world where "Should Ukraine be invaded and genocided?" is a local matter between Ukraine and whoever has the power to invade them is a world where medium-sized countries like Canada, Poland and Vietnam need nuclear deterrents, a world where Canada needs a nuclear deterrent is a world where they build one, and a world with more nukes is a world where one is more likely to be let off in error.
I don't consider the USA to be a supporter of a rules based order. It isn't corner cases.
Sure, there might be circumstances where USA might oppose aggressive action of other powers that USA might be opposing something evil. But even in these circumstances the USA might be putting oil in fire and want a proxy war, or it be more complicated than USA stopping aggression.
Additionally to the extend USA can be an ideological power it is about an ideology that difers from rule based order like Communists were for communist ideology and not about avoiding subversion, invasions,totalitarianism.
In my view to have an international rules based order both the USA and others in general need to value international law over invasions for example, but some level of realism is also helpful. Because toppling other countries for the sake of hegemony and creating chaos or putting puppets in charge, obviously is both against international rules based order and the end point of hubris and inability to compromise with the existence, rights and interests.
The coexistence of some level of realism with valuing for their own right opposition to countries invading their neighbors. Trying to colonize other countries, is how you can get something closer to both. So I agree that a pure cynical our interests only, isn't sensible.
I agree that USA shouldn't be a pathologically altruist power however. In agreements for global warming there are plans for developed countries to pay for development of India, China. Or to stiffle their own future.
Self destruction is not the path for any sane way to behave and in our times it is a fashionable version of supposed "justice".
There are issues that I find Chinese behavior concerning like the mass use of fishing vessels as far as Argentina, and depleting fishing supplies.
What would make me have a more positive view is a USA that isn't the trouble maker or tries to dismember China but is against the Chinese and others starting trouble. Basically for a global American influence that helps preserve nations free, self determinant, and dissuades war and civil conflict. Instead of often doing the opposite. Do I think this is going to happen? No.
I guess on some level you can have more or less respect for a genuine International rules based order, which is different than people just using it as a phrase but actually doing the opposite. I do think it is possible to push to a degree things in one or another direction but utopia is impossible. Generally I like to argue towards what I consider good even if it is unlikely to bring significant good change.
Maybe there has been some small elements of that in the so called pax americana that gave some people false hope, or some influence of American media and propaganda. At the end of the day much as I wish it was different, the USA isn't a benevolent power. And the narrative that tries to promote this version and uses ww2 is just a distorted version of history.
Also relevant that the realist school has a point that much of warmongering isn't of the benefit of the Americans as a people.
I agree with the general sentiment but I don't interpret the Ukraine conflict as one of only Russian aggression but see Ukraine as also the outpost of American aggression against Russia. And also see the use of USA of countries like Ukraine, as also not necessarily to the benefit of said countries who become the battlefield for proxy war. I also don't buy into this idea of only Russian self defense. The Russians created their own breakaway in Georgia, in Moldova with Transnitria.
Not only with its own conflicts directly involved, but the USA has allowed Turkey, Israel and Azerbaijan (which to an extend is antagonistic to Iran), to expand territories and commit aggressive behavior.
Maybe zero American influence would lead to other powers undermining more the international rules based order but the typical policies of the American foreign policy establishment/deep state are themselves undermining any genuine International Rules Based Order that isn't just a slogan. Being maximally uncooperative and desiring of world hegemony it self leads to conflict. But sure being maximally tolerant of Chinese/Russian and others aggression against other countries will also lead to wars. So I do think there would be a positive value in a USA willing to dissuade that without engaging it self in those behavior or encouraging/allowing others to do so.
There is also the ideological angle of the kind of influence that are the result of color revolutions such as in Georgia, and the influence of CIA and NGOs, even of someone like George Soros and other types. Which I am 100% against the ideology imposed on countries by these people. And this it self is aggression that undermines any genuine international rules based order. The policies that come along of mass migration, and oppressing the native majority and treating them as illegitimate, and of course oppressing and excluding from influence patriots who oppose this, fits historically with the policy that tyrannical empires did throughout history to import foreigners and have them rule over a subject people.
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