site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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).

I knew a 1/4 Japanese hapa in high school. Jacked up in the head, but that was from his parent's divorce. Blonde hair, blue eyes, not inclined to athletics but would probably have been good at them if he'd tried.