site banner
PaperclipPerfector  14d ago (text post)   28428 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 6, 2025

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ultimately, Taylor’s predictions of mass racial strife and whites fleeing to the hinterlands to form whites-only communities just have not panned out. As Hanania says: There are plenty of extremely white places in America, and almost nobody is moving to any of them.

I haven't followed Taylor's work too closely, but it's wrong to characterize the entire Dissident Right as predicting that whites will flee to rural white communities. I don't want to live in a rural white commune in Idaho, I want to live in a world-class city! The fact that non-whites migrate to the most desirable places to live is not really a rebuttal to "demographics are destiny." And white flight to the suburbs is evidence of that fact- it's a compromise: they want access to a world class city but they don't want to live around blacks.

And if you don't call the past 10 years racial strife, I'm not sure exactly what it would take for you to admit this has happened. Take something like white representation in Ivy League 25 years ago compared to today. That is a reckoning. If Taylor predicted White people would flee all the cities to form rural communes (I can't verify that, I'll take your word for it), then you can register that as a false prediction, but the "White Nationalist" prediction I've heard is it will cause civilizational decline and urban decay. If White Nationalists predicted urban decay would you say their prediction was correct?

I have many problems with Richard Hanania, but seeing the army of pro-Taylor trolls

Richard Hanania's entire schtick is trolling with insults about how low-status it is to be a white identarian, including ample insults about appearance. Turnabout is fair play.

And if you don't call the past 10 years racial strife, I'm not sure exactly what it would take for you to admit this has happened.

Hanania’s stance, which I basically agree with, is that the real strife isn’t “everyone against white people”, but rather “blacks against everyone else”. If the oppositional culture of black was taken out of the equation, whether by crushing Indian Schools style cultural reprogramming, eugenics, or geographic/political separation, white people would have almost no difficulty living with a substantial number of immigrants from other races. Latinos certainly took time and significant effort to integrate, and obviously the country needs to get a handle on the number of Latinos to make sure they don’t become a majority population too quickly, but having lived in a heavily Latino city my entire life, I can honestly say that they have not been a significant source of any strife or discomfort to me. Asian immigrants to America have done wonderfully, and there should not be any meaningful effort to stop them from coming here. (Again, proportions matter — I wouldn’t want America to accept 4 million Chinese immigrants next year — but pretending like Asians are a significant contributor to racial division in this country is simply dishonest.) The problem, overwhelmingly, is blacks and the fallout from the eternal question of how to deal with them. Applying a model of race relations designed for black-white conflict to other races is simply missing the point. It’s a distraction.

There are places in the world from which developed countries should want a very small number of immigrants. The United States has, thus far, managed to do a spectacular job of avoiding receiving very many immigrants from those places. Europe has done a much worse job of this, and has suffered the consequences. As I’ve said before, if Europe had let in a million Vietnamese instead of a million Syrians, the continent simply would not be facing any serious problems with multiculturalism. Jared Taylor’s model is, like yours, over-focused on whites vs. non-whites, while it should instead be trying as hard as possible to muster Asians and Latinos in a coalition against blacks and Arabs.

Minor point- the Hispanics that do well in the US seem to be mostly Mexicans, Cubans and certain other carribean groups, and the upper crust and upper middle classes from elsewhere in Latin America. Centracos(most of the people coming to the border now) do much worse, possibly as badly as blacks.

Oh for sure, that’s what I meant when I said America has so far done a good job of keeping out masses of people from populations which will be way harder to integrate. Centracos and Venezuelans will be a very different breed (literally) of Latinos.

Yeah, it's frustrating that people, including Hoffmeister who I feel ought to know better, don't property account for European admixture in Latinos when they get defensive of Latino immigration to America and treat it as a monolith.

Kind of like how Hollywood makes Ana de Armas the character who is the stand-in for Hispanic migration to the United States in the film Knives Out. Not this Guatemalan guy.

Yeah, it's frustrating that people, including Hoffmeister who I feel ought to know better, don't property account for European admixture in Latinos when they get defensive of Latino immigration to America and treat it as a monolith.

I don’t know why you think I see all Latin American peoples as a monolith. I live in San Diego, which is very heavily Mexican, but we have communities of other nationalities and I have interacted with them. I’m well aware that Mexican mestizos and brown Dominicans are very different sorts of people on average. The difference is that thus far, America simply has not had to deal with very large numbers of non-Mexican Latinos. I’m as hawkish as you are about keeping it that way.

You're still thinking in terms of racial coalitions, and Hanania does not or at least he pretends he does not.

You think racial coalitions only matter when it comes to the Black Question, but they can be tossed aside when it comes to every single other political and cultural question? Nonsense. You can say you want them to be your ally against the blacks until the cows come home, but they are going to act in their own interests. Racial coalitions are everywhere.

Blacks are not even the most threatening minority because they don't really have the agency to achieve political and cultural power like, say, Indians coming and replacing the highest levels of our most important institutions. You don't think that would be a problem?

Again, proportions matter — I wouldn’t want America to accept 4 million Chinese immigrants next year

But why not? You just say "proportions matter." But can you explain why accepting 4 million Chinese immigrants next year would be a problem, but at the same time "Asian immigrants to America have done wonderfully, and there should not be any meaningful effort to stop them from coming here". Would you be OK with American demographics becoming vast majority Chinese if it were just spread out over 80 years and associated with economic growth?

Arab Americans also have a higher median income and level of education compared to Latinos. They do well in America. Why not let the Arabs in?

Nigerians also do well in America. I've never had a bad interaction with a Nigerian, only good ones. Why not let them all in?

You haven't sufficiently explained why Latinos are good in America but Arabs are bad in America. If you are measuring "do well" by economic output then you're just in Bryan Caplan Open Borders land like Hanania. Or is your position "Open borders for everyone except Africans"?

Overall, you seem stuck in evaluating immigration impact based on crime and terrorism. If a group doesn't commit a ton of crime then it's OK to mass migrate to Europe and the United States? Feel free to dispute that if I'm not fairly characterizing your argument.

But can you explain why accepting 4 million Chinese immigrants next year would be a problem, but at the same time "Asian immigrants to America have done wonderfully, and there should not be any meaningful effort to stop them from coming here".

I'm going to take a different tack than @Hoffmeister25, and say "modern Mainland Chinese are a considerably-bigger threat than other East Asians and to some extent even legacy Chinese". Specifically, the PRC actually does maintain a degree of control over its diaspora, particularly those educated there (its internal propaganda is far more effective than its external) and those with hostages close family members there, which poses an obvious NatSec risk in the not-so-unlikely event of crisis; "don't import a large, organised enemy force" is like Rule 1 of immigration policy.

But why not? You just say "proportions matter." But can you explain why accepting 4 million Chinese immigrants next year would be a problem, but at the same time "Asian immigrants to America have done wonderfully, and there should not be any meaningful effort to stop them from coming here".

This is one of my least favorite tactics of yours, wherein you pretend not to understand that it’s more difficult to culturally integrate a large number of people than it is to integrate a small number of people. If 4 million Chinese people arrived in the U.S. over the course of one year, this would introduce very serious logistical issues for the places accepting them. Masses of children entering the school system without any English proficiency. The likelihood of insular ethnic enclaves, of the type that still exist today in parts of New York City. (I’ve been to the Chinatown in Flushing myself, and it really is like stepping into some random street market in China.) Whereas a smaller number, spread out over a longer period of time, would introduce considerably smaller issues.

Arab Americans also have a higher median economic, level of education, and national average income compared to Latinos. They do well in America. Why not let the Arabs in?

Because that’s an extremely small selection of the total Arab population. Ditto for the Nigerians who have immigrated to the U.S. thus far. The story of Arab and African immigration to Europe shows what happens when you accept a totally un-selected mass of random citizens from these places. I have no problem living among intelligent English-speaking Igbo Nigerians, provided they are not provided with an outlet to politically prosecute grievances against white civilization. (And, to be clear, most do not appear to wish to do so.)

his is one of my least favorite tactics of yours, wherein you pretend not to understand that it’s more difficult to culturally integrate a large number of people than it is to integrate a small number of people.

I never made that assertion, I was asking you to elaborate on how you reconciled that statement with "there should not be any meaningful effort to stop them from coming here." You say cultural integration, but you acknowledge the reality of racial coalitions, you just seem to think they are only meaningful for the Black Question and not other cultural or political questions.

Jared Taylor's position is that racial coalitions would be impactful in many other ways and would compete with whites politically and culturally. I can say his prediction on that front has 100% come true. It's still early for Indians, but Taylor's point about all the wealthiest Indian philanthropists donating predominately to Indian causes would be a meaningful leading indicator that the racial coalitions won't respect your desire to only acknowledge them for the Black Question. There is also a huge amount of anecdotal evidence of nepotism from Indians in Silicon Valley culture. You just seem fixated on black crime without regard for how racial coalitions express themselves in all of our other cultural institutions.

Equally or more important than the question of racial coalitions is the question of ethnogenesis. You claim that eugenics is the most important question of the day, but you don't see the risk in haphazardly introducing admixture from all over the world into European society? You are certain that a mixture of everyone is going to be better than a European?

Jared Taylor's position is that racial coalitions would be impactful in many other ways and would compete with whites politically and culturally. I can say his prediction on that front has 100% come true.

I agree with you that the issue of integrating Indians is presenting some interesting difficulties. You and I probably agree that in many ways this issue is isomorphic to the integration of Jews into gentile countries in the 19th and 20th centuries. Now, I see the story of Jewish integration as basically a qualified success story, whereas you clearly see it as a disaster and as an ill portent for how the Indian situation will pan out. Probably the biggest difference between the two scenarios is that there is just such an incredibly large number of Indians waiting to emigrate, and the prospect of successfully assimilating the kinds of numbers we’re potentially talking about is dire. We simply cannot let the nascent Indian lobby succeed at forcing our countries to let in an endless number of them. If the stream can be cut to a trickle, though, I think the story of Indian immigration to the West will be seen as a success in sixty years.

You claim that eugenics is the most important question of the day, but you don't see the risk in haphazardly introducing admixture from all over the world into European society? You are certain that a mixture of everyone is going to be better than a European?

I don’t know how many more ways I can make it clear that I do not want haphazard immigration from all over the world. No, I do not want billions of Sub-Saharans, or Gulf Arabs, or Venezuelans, or Melanesians. I do believe that the optimal genetic admixture of people in the future will be some combination of European, East Asian, Jewish, and a small but non-negligible amount of Amerindian. You might think this would be a mystery-meat catastrophe, but I think it would be a healthy and vital blending of the best each of these elements would offer.

What's your take on the Hapa ethnogenesis? Early results don't seem great. They seem to have a lot of issues, it's not clear human admixture works in the "best of both worlds" way like me all may wish.

I look at Hapas, imagine a little bit of Jewish admixture (very little, not enough to go around, more likely Jews are subsumed as well) plus Amerindian admixture, plus Indian admixture, imagine them replacing Europeans in America and Europe. I don't know man, seems like a pretty bad ending to the European race to me and I don't think Civilization would be better for it.

What's your take on the Hapa ethnogenesis?

I'll give my two cents, as I am a product of it. Those of us above a certain age are disproportionately likely to be from broken families (relative to non-mixed families of the same social class) and to have parents who are deeply weird in some way e.g. dad is autistic, a sexpat, or an abusive soldier, mom is a former sex worker or couldn't find a husband in her home country and snagged a white guy to have kids with at age 40, etc. This is not a good recipe for creating successful and well-adjusted individuals, but doesn't necessarily reflect what the results would be if you randomly paired off the populations of say Germany and South Korea.

The younger couples I see around me seem more normal, as most met at school or through some tech job in California, and the gender ratios are less skewed i.e. more pairings of Asian men and White women. It's too soon to tell for sure, but I imagine a nation of their descendants would look like a cross between Finland and Japan: a clean, orderly place capable of making substantial contributions to science, technology, and literature, but with a smaller fraction of truly brilliant, one-of-a-kind individuals. There's a certain type of genius I've seen in a few individuals of European, Jewish, or Indian descent that I have never seen in East Asians.

Hapas seem fine if they assimilate to a consistent culture. Getting stuck between two is bad for them.

What's your take on the Hapa ethnogenesis? Early results don't seem great. They seem to have a lot of issues, it's not clear human admixture works in the "best of both worlds" way like me all may wish.

What specific issues do you have in mind? Certainly some seem to deal with an angst about being torn between two different cultures; that’s to be understood, as currently European and East Asian cultures are still sufficiently divergent enough that I can imagine it being quite difficult to seamlessly navigate between both worlds. However, those cultural gaps are already on their way to closing, as Asian countries continue to Westernize. (And as Western countries increasingly integrate aspects of Asian culture.) I see the cultural difficulties hapas face as basically temporary and contingent. Are you pointing to more material genetic issues?

The issue I have in mind is that I don't think mixing these races together is going to combine their relative strengths in such a way. I don't see evidence of that with Hapas. Maybe some of that is temporary, like sibling rivalry because one brother is white-passing and the other isn't... so it leads to toxic rivalry based on things like access to girlfriends and sex. Seems extremely toxic, and that dynamic is going to be "temporary" on the level of generations, not months.

Throwing Indians and Amerindians in the mix, it just seems silly to think that is going to lead to any sort of "best of all worlds" specimen. And you are putting so much at risk. What if it doesn't work out? Oops, I guess that's it for Europeans. Asians, Arabs, Africans, Indians, Chinese, they will all be around it's no sweat off their backs if Europeans decide to take that genetic route.

I get why Liberals are optimistic about Europe becoming, really One Race, but a eugenic-minded right-winger being optimistic about such a thing is strange.

Very few Jewish-Chinese Hapas exist beyond the first gen; I personally know quite a few and they’re all first generation. You would need at least 2-3 generations to be able to discern what wasn’t just an identity crisis in my opinion.

I personally know a 2nd generation Hapa, now 1/4th Japanese, and he just looks and identifies as White. Children 1/8th Japanese with blond air blue eyes no apparent Japanese admixture at all. It probably helps that Japanese are honorary Aryan (I kid).

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats