site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36584 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 2022

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.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Recently I was asked, as happens periodically in this forum, to clarify my position on that thorniest of thorny questions: The Jewish Question. Specifically, @faceh asked me, after I had criticized his equating White Nationalism with statements about “gassing the Jews”, whether I would support the removal of all Jewish individuals from positions of power in White countries. Work stuff pulled me away for a few days and I’ve been unable to answer his question, but I think it’s a useful opportunity for a larger post.

I’ve spoken before about how my conception of Whiteness can be modeled as a series of concentric circles. The central circle - the cluster of the most archetypally and uncontroversially representative examples of Whiteness - consists, roughly, of the historic populations of what can broadly be called Northwestern Europe (the British Isles, Scandinavia minus Finland, the Low Countries, Northern France) plus the German-speaking peoples of Central Europe and the Tyrol, as well as the diaspora populations of these ethnic groups in the New World. Some ardent Nordicists would stop here and say that only people who fit into this first circle count as properly White, but this is a fringe position and not one to which I subscribe. My ancestry is 100% British Isles on all sides as far back as I can trace it, which is hundreds of years, so I don’t object to the Nordicist position out of any personal conflict of interest, but it seems to me that any conception of Whiteness that leads you to conclude that the Romans weren’t white is just a massive own-goal.

So, then we move on to the second circle, in which we find the populations of Spain, Portugal, most of Italy, Southern France, Finland, Hungary, and arguably the West Slavs and the Balts. All of these ethnicities have certain aspects that make them non-central examples of Whiteness - such as partial admixture from non-White substrates, like the Finns and the Iberians, or speaking a non-Indo-European language, in the case of the Hungarians and the Finns. Still, these are very White-looking people, relatively speaking, and their cultures have all played an important part in European history.

Past that, you get to a third circle, encompassing the South and East Slavs, the Romanians/Moldovars, the Maltese, the Sicilians, and the modern Greeks. The boundaries of this circle are blurry, and there are certainly aspects of these cultures which strike members of the central circle as quite distinctly foreign, which is part of why nativists and White Nationalists of the early 20th century vociferously resisted the mass immigration of these peoples into Anglosphere countries. Many of these ethnic groups contain very significant recent genetic admixture from non-European conqueror groups. An argument can be made (and sometimes is made) to exclude this circle from discussions of Whiteness. For me personally, though, any model of Whiteness that kicks out Tchaikovsky and Nikola Tesla is, again, an avoidable own-goal. The outer edges of this circle is where pretty much any commonly-used understanding of Whiteness would stop, though. There’s one glaring exception, though, and that is Ashkenazi Jews.

If you ask the average American if Jews are White, he’ll probably say yes, although it’s likely he hasn’t really thought much about it. If you show him a picture of, say, the Beastie Boys, he’ll readily and without hesitation identify it as a trio of White guys - he might not even be aware that they’re Jewish; still, if he reflects a bit on Jewish history and the fraught relationship between Jews and gentile Whites, he might concede that the question is complicated. And indeed it is! On the Dissident/White Identitarian Right, the question of whether or not Jews are White is generally considered to have been definitively answered - in the negative - and has been for some years now. However, there are some of us in that sphere who aren’t totally comfortable with nor confident about that answer.

I’ve spoken before about my warm feelings toward Jewish culture and Jewish people. The first girl I ever loved was (and still is!) Jewish, and my most recent long-term relationship was with a Jewish woman. The Jewish approach to comedy forms a foundational piece of my sense of humor: clever, heavily verbally-oriented, sarcastic, self-deprecating, at times neurotic, and suffused with a general sense of unease and alienation. From an early age, I strongly related to the Jewish intellectual tradition: contrarian, relentlessly critical and deconstructive, never taking anything at face value or uncritically accepting a proposition. It’s a culture that venerates intelligence, high verbal IQ, and the ability and willingness to argue. I strongly considered converting to Judaism for years, because I suspected that I would feel at home in that tradition. (And could land a beautiful Jewish woman - I have a type, and the Ashkenazi female phenotype epitomizes it.)

So, when I started getting deeper into the Dissident Right sphere, I found the discussion of the “JQ” to be by far the most difficult part to digest. While there is still a healthy Jew-welcoming (or, at least, Jew-neutral) faction of the White Right (Jared Taylor of American Renaissance has never publicly recanted his statement about Jews - “They look White to me!” and Paul Gottfried and Nathan Cofnas are still important rightist voices), the overwhelming stance of the hard Right is that the JQ has not only been answered in the negative, but is one of the most important questions - if not the single most important question - that one must answer when considering geopolitics today. I tend to keep my head down when the Jew stuff comes up in those spaces, simply because I know I’ll be shouted down and potentially singled out for suspicion as a subversive/infiltrator. But, the doubts and reservations I feel internally have not been resolved to my satisfaction.

Basically, I place Ashkenazi Jews in a nebulous fourth Circle of Whiteness. This peripheral circle’s boundaries are in flux, and ethnic groups in this circle can drop out or drift into this circle based on political and material developments within their own cultures. Groups that orbit in this circle also include the Japanese, the South Koreans, Latin American mestizos, Persians, Ottoman Turks, Indian Brahmins, and Arabs. The history of relations between these groups and the more central circles of Whiteness is incredibly fraught, and filled with periods of violence and persecution, conquest, inter-ethnic competition, and mistrust. Arabs and Turks were the great racial/religious enemy of Europeans for centuries, with enormous bloodshed and iterated conquests on both sides; on the flip side, they were on the forefront of scientific/cultural advances during a time of severe cultural regression and stagnation in Europe, and Arab/Turkish scholars were primarily responsible for preserving the works of the great Greco-Roman thinkers during that same time when White Europeans were busy abdicating their responsibilities as stewards of that tradition. Jews in medieval Europe were heavily represented in a parasitic rentier class, which contributed greatly to the animosity so many Europeans felt toward them; however, they were also massively overrepresented in vitally-important technical fields such as medicine. Something like two-thirds of doctors in medical Germany were Jews, meaning that countless gentile White lives were saved or immeasurably improved by Jews.

The great question, to my mind, when it comes to this fourth circle is: will these groups ever see themselves as White? Obviously these groups are always going to be peripheral to Whiteness; nobody is ever going to see a Japanese person as just as white as a Dutchman. However, with the looming population explosion in sub-Saharan Africa and the Global South more generally, we could be approaching a situation in which it will become necessary for the civilizations of the Global North to begin mounting a coordinated defense against the waves of migration that could soon begin spilling out of the Global South. In the same way that Christian Europeans had to bury their long-standing inter-ethnic enmities in order to present a unified front against Saracen and Turk invaders, it may be necessary for societies above a certain level of material and cultural development to bury the hatchet and form a phalanx against the marauding hordes spilling across the Sahara and the Darien Gap. If such a scenario arises, civilizations such as China, India and Iran may have to make the crucial choice about whether or not they want to stand with Europeans, in a united Eurasian front - a Fortress Eurasia, if you will - to repel the invaders, or whether to actively join or facilitate the invaders as they overwhelm and annihilate the already weakened and degenerated peoples of Europe and the Anglosphere.

If such a scenario arises, I want these civilizations on my side. (“I never thought I would die side-by-side with an Arab.” “What about a friend?”) Under such conditions, a criterion of “White enough” will necessarily be sufficient. Jews are well within the “White enough” category, as far as I’m concerned, and I wish that others on the White Right would not be so cavalier about continuing to ignite the already-burning bridge with an ethnic group that still has the capacity to become a powerful ally, but which also had the possibility to continue its development into an equally powerful and implacable enemy.

So, the Jewish Question is actually a series of questions, and some of those questions need to be answered by Jews themselves. I don’t know how many Jews, or what percentage of Jews, see themselves as my enemy, or are likely to act as my enemies as worldwide racial conflict begins to boil over. I’m open to believing that the answer isn’t as dire as many on my side believe. I don’t know the answer, and I’m still trying to talk it out.

Jews in medieval Europe were heavily represented in a parasitic rentier class

This requires you to believe that banking and trading contribute no value to society. This was certainly a widespread view in the Middle Ages (and still is among Muslims), but it shouldn't affect objective retrospective assessments.

Jews in medieval Europe were heavily represented in a parasitic rentier class, which contributed greatly to the animosity so many Europeans felt toward them

This is extremely innacurate; Jews were overrepresented in the hated professions of merchants, tax collectors and managers (for absentee landlords).

Rentiers are people living off land rents, and typically not ones with military obligations such as feudal lords, and really more of a modern era phenomenon.

they were also massively overrepresented in vitally-important technical fields such as medicine

Until cca 1930 medicine was more harmful than helpful; and I have no doubt a lot of people realised so in the middle ages, so, a big caveat.

Until cca 1930 medicine was more harmful than helpful; and I have no doubt a lot of people realised so in the middle ages, so, a big caveat.

Adding to this, in the middle ages there was a distinction between doctors, who worked off theory and may or may not actually treat any patients, and surgeons, who worked off of experience and accumulated knowledge and definitionally treated patients. While doctors- many of whom were academics who didn't even attempt to treat anybody- were usually more harmful than helpful, surgeons were much more of a mixed bag and good ones could be very good given the technological limitations of the day.

Ye olde battlefield surgeons were basically getting people from certain death to probable death.

surgeons were much more of a mixed bag and good ones could be very good given the technological limitations of the day.

And worst case, if they botch your amputation, you get a discount on your next haircut.

Even in the case of "DEFINITELY A JEW level Jewish looking," I find it hard to argue that such a person isn't white. Ashkenazi Jews are members of a pale-skinned European ethnicity, and if Southern Italians are white without even having pale skin, then Jews are definitely white. Most Jews are whiter than Jim Croce, who is white.

I dunno, Jewish noses seem to stand out an awful lot.

I mean, I get it's not more distinctive than dutch eyebrows or french jawlines or whatever, but to claim Jews don't have an obvious phenotype doesn't seem true to me.

And shaving your head might get the meth head electrician to think you're a fellow skinhead, especially if you have visible tattoos.

These classifications seem so bizarre. Like, I get why the term 'white' replaced English, German, French etc in the new world as the settler groups admixed. But if you define white as a literal skin colour, them surely you don't need to classify different ethnic groups, you can just look at them?

And if 'white' means European, then in what world are the French somehow more European than the Italians?

If you're trying to classify European ethnic groups, it would be better to think like a European and not an American. 'White' is not a meaningful category in this context.

The rule for white in American history is that you look around the room and figure out what is the minimum number of people you need to classify as white to have a sufficient (loyal) white majority in numbers/money/power to oppress the non-white, then inventing the rule that will deliver this majority with the minimum number of extraneous inclusions.

That's how you get from ilforte's quote from Ben Franklin excluding most of Germany to "idk, maybe we count the Jews and the Japanese and some Indians and throw in Persians too and see how the math comes out?" You go from needing only the English/Scots/some Germans to have a supermajority, to needing all the Germans and the Swedes and French, to needing the Irish, to needing Italians, etc. That's why Mexicans went from being considered white in Texas before sufficient quantities of outside European immigrants had shown up, to Mexicans briefly "Losing" their white status after enough European immigrants made Texas majority non-hispanic white, to now having their white status "restored" as white Texans need the numbers.

White has no functional definition outside of that algo, everything else is backwards rationalisation to justify and give credibility to what the rule spat out as the line that would give "whites" a majority and exclude someone else. OP's concentric circles of whiteness are just different solutions to the same problem.

I think whiteness is about not standing out because of your appearance to euro-americans. Under this definition there are large swathes of south european people who would not pass because you could tell them apart based on their appearance but its fuzzy because race is not a discrete thing.

'White is the minimum number of ethnic groups needed to do racial oppression' does not seem like it would pass the ideological Turing test, at all.

How about 'white' means 'assimilated into Anglo-American culture'?

In fairness, colorism is a bit of a strawman promoted by people who oppose racial perspective and seek to make it appear more ridiculous. When Anglo racists with above room temp IQs say that Eastern Slavs are not white, they aren't literally trying to compete on fair pigmentation (and by the way Turks can have very Aryan skull shapes)... it's an unfortunate conflation of terms.

The fact that it's not a strong argument in favor of HBD does not make it a "straw man".

There are some distinct cultural traits with the English, French, and Germans that southern Italians don't share.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line

Very loosely, under Manorialism a couple could get a chunk of farmland to work by presenting themselves to the lord as honest, hardworking, and not a source of trouble. It lead to more atomic family structures and smaller families.

It replaced a clan centric system, where individuals had to preserve the honour and reputation of their clan. Tolerating an insult could lead outsiders to think that your clan would tolerate injuries. So it was critical that everyone understood that they should not mess with your clan.

For instance the Scotch-Irish were famous for feuds like the Hatfields & McCoys.

There's also a zero-sum aspect to altruism where the more you care about your extended relatives the less you care about your unrelated neighbours.

So for a traditional resident of small town America it's expected that they would help their old school friends and neighbours before their second cousins.

That's not going to be the case for more clannish societies.

There's no good name for "within Hajnal" societies but it's generally what people are thinking.

I am trying to promote the terms "cisHajnal" and "transHajnal".

Your certainly right, but to classify people north of the hajnal line as 'more white' doesn't make any more sense than classifying them as 'more redheaded'.

'More outbred' would be more accurate, and actually hint to what you are taking about.

Although I doubt OP was talking about outbreeding, nuclear families and manorialism. I'm pretty sure they were awkwardly trying to apply idiosyncratic American ethnic terms to a world where the terms make no sense.

Yeah, but white southerners are mostly scotch-irish by extraction and these people consider them white.

Hajnal put all of Scotland inside the line. I have seen arguments that the Scottish Highlands were actually transHajnal, but my understanding was that the Borderers (from whom most of the Scots Irish are descended) were clearly inside it.

The traditional Irish culture is also transHajnal, but the Scots Irish put a LOT of effort into not assimilating into it.

So, then we move on to the second circle, in which we find the populations of Spain, Portugal, most of Italy, Southern France, Finland, Hungary, and arguably the West Slavs and the Balts. All of these ethnicities have certain aspects that make them non-central examples of Whiteness - such as partial admixture from non-White substrates, like the Finns and the Iberians

This is the biggest issue I have with your piece. It is my it's own definition muddled. The Iberians you talk about are just normal early European farmers like the ones in central Europe or France. The Bell Beakers are already almost 50% EEF before they invade Britain.

I don't know what you consider being white? Is it only Yamna like ancestry? Does Caucasus hunter gather like ancestry count more or less than western European hunter gatherer ancestry? Does the question of whether people descended from those Caucasus hunter gatherers were actually the proto-Indo Europeans like the literature is converging on make a difference? Does the fact that your ancestors were, back in those ancient days very swarthy somehow taint your blood? Should the blue eyes of the western European hunter gatherers count more or less than their dark skin? Did you know western European hunter gatherer ancestry is correlated, both with darker skin and bluer eyes in European individuals?

I think they're saying not that pre-"White" Iberians were not "White", but that the modern Iberians have some admixture from non-"White" groups. And it is true that there is a lot of North African and even some sub-Saharan African admixture in southern Iberia.

So, Galatians are fine then? Iberians means people from Iberia. I assume that means actual native Iberians as opposed to the invading Bell Beaker and Urnfield cultures, or later North Africans. Also, the North African admixture is low; since, so many were expelled after the Reconquista and the western North Africans have large Early European Farmer admixture already anyway.

Can someone explain this thread to a confused Slav? I thought "are Slavs white" question was just an expression of good old-fashioned Anglo supremacism. And that it was aimed at our culture. But people here seem to be seriously discussing whether we are white, in literal terms.

What does it mean? Personally I am probably paler than most Anglos. Most people in my country are paler than Italians or Spaniards. What's going on?

deleted

It's almost as if culture matters.

In WN circles I have never seen anyone suggest slavs are not white. Slavs were even regarded as Aryan under the Third Reich.

Slavs were even regarded as Aryan under the Third Reich.

No, the plan was to culturally assimilate the more Aryan looking ones (huge genetic overlap between Czechs and Germans etc) and exterminate the rest.

With Russians, Germans openly planned to starve to death all Russian urban population as a food saving measures. (look up Hunger plan). They never managed that due to bureaucratic ineptness and unwilligness to go through with it on lower levels.

They never managed that due to bureaucratic ineptness and unwilligness to go through with it on lower levels.

This is not true. The so-called "Hunger Plan" is yet another fabrication that takes a grain of truth and spins it into a plan of genocide. That so-called "plan" just referred to an estimate for the number of deaths of starvation that would happen as a consequence of German occupation of Soviet territory until the end of the war.

This starvation was estimated as a consequence of provisioning their own army through the end of the war. For example, from the wikipedia article:

1.) The war can only be continued if the entire Wehrmacht is fed from Russia in the third year of the war.

2.) If we take what we need out of the country, there can be no doubt that tens of millions of people will die of starvation.

This is not even close to some secret plan to exterminate the Slavs because they were not considered Aryan. It was an estimate of the effect of provisioning their army to continue the war.

Edit: There is also the fact that the Germans fielded one of the largest volunteer foreign armies in history, composed predominantly of Slavs. The volunteer rate of Ukranians to the German side rivaled the volunteer rate of British for the war effort. I know it's fashionable to think that the Germans had plans to turn around and genocide the people that were helping them, but there's no evidence for that. The best the mainstream narrative can do is misrepresent things like the "hunger plan" to assert genocidal plans that did not exist.

Are you seriously claiming that reaching an agreement to not supply cca thirty million people with any food because it might inconvenience your homeland and bring back memories of WW1 rationing & recognizing this would cause these people to die isn't planning mass murder ?

The claim that is at controversy is that the Germans had a plan to exterminate the Slavs. Those documents do not support that conclusion. It shows that the Germans considered mass starvation as a dilemma to provisioning their army to continue the war. You can say they should have surrendered and they are murderers for continuing the war. That's fine. But to say that this estimate was part of a secret scheme to genocide the Slavs is just not true.

There was mass starvation in India and Greece as a result of Allied blockades and diversions of food resources. Nobody would call that a planned genocide, even if you want to call it murder.

The claim that is at controversy is that the Germans had a plan to exterminate the Slavs

I never said that.

What they had a plan was for killing millions of conquered Soviet urban dwellers on account of the tight food supply.

was part of a secret scheme to genocide

It wasn't 'secret' in the slightest. Maybe not discussed in public or propagandised much, but forced population expulsions of Slavs and Germanisation of the more Aryan looking ones was a plan.

I never said that.

Come on. This is exactly what you said:

No, the plan was to culturally assimilate the more Aryan looking ones (huge genetic overlap between Czechs and Germans etc) and exterminate the rest.

With Russians, Germans openly planned to starve to death all Russian urban population as a food saving measures. (look up Hunger plan). They never managed that due to bureaucratic ineptness and unwilligness to go through with it on lower levels.

You said:

  • They had a plan to assimilate the Aryan looking ones and exterminate the rest of the Slavs.

  • As part of that plan, they planned to use hunger as the extermination method to achieve their goals.

  • The plan wasn't carried out due to lower level officers not following orders.

None of this is true. The reality is that there are some documents that assessed the logistical reality of the situation, and concluded that the Wehrmacht could only be fed from Russia in the third year of the war, and there was no alternative. This assessment soberly predicted mass starvation and regarded the situation as catastrophic. You can say that the Germans should have prioritized feeding the locals above feeding their army. Or that they should have surrendered at this point upon realizing the human cost of continuing the war. But that is all very different from the ahistorical claims you have made in your post.

These documents that historians use to spin a "Hunger plan" actually described the pragmatic concerns of the food situation rather than an implementation of some plan to exterminate the Slavs.

Lastly, Germany prioritized feeding locals based on those employed in the German war effort. Your notion that they went around giving food to those they thought looked Aryan enough and let the rest starve in order to exterminate them is a testament to the abysmal failure of mainstream historiography to move beyond ethnic hatred in interpreting history.

More comments

Bullshit. Was their army powered by corpses? They (would have) died because the germans wanted them to die.

You’re doing a bait-and-switch by focussing on motive, as if a ridiculously small legitimate benefit makes the murder incidental and exonerates the murderer. ‘I didn’t kill him out of hate, he had 10 dollars in his wallet, so I had no choice’.

IIRC the definition of "aryan" was flexible and tended to widen over time, with groups that exhibited good military performance usually being defined as Aryan.

In WN circles I have never seen anyone suggest slavs are not white. Slavs were even regarded as Aryan under the Third Reich.

This is where I begin to question your white nationalist credentials.

Slavs were even regarded as Aryan under the Third Reich.

No, they definitely were not. Most Slavs were planned to be exterminated. The Nazis were even surprised at the number of Poles who looked "Aryan", and assumed that all of them were really just Polonized Germans.

The so-called "Generalplan Ost" referred to around 5 different iterations for plans of resettlement after German victory. Similar mass resettlements of ethnic Germans in areas conquered by the Allies also followed German defeat. None of these plans called for the extermination of the Slavs and none of those plans moved beyond the ideation stage. The mainstream historiographical interpretation of "Generalplan Ost" is one of many fabrications made by the Allies to post-hoc justify the destruction of Europe and Soviet conquests.

Alfred Rosenberg comes to mind as perhaps the most prominent Nazi racial theorist, and he regarded Slavs as Aryan. Slavs were even acknowledged as Aryan in law, i.e. in German racial laws:

Aryan descent (German blooded) is thus a person who is free of foreign blood, as seen by the German people. The blood of Jews and Gypsies also living in Europe, that of the Asian and African races and the Aborigines of Australia and America (Indians), are considered as foreign. For example, if a Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian, is free of such foreign blood, he must be regarded as Aryan, whether he lives in his native country or in East Asia or in America or he may be a US citizen or a South American Free State.

Two Slavic groups are used as examples of Aryan in the racial law: Czechs and Poles.

There is a popular lie that "Aryan" only referred to the blonde haired and blue eyed phenotype. The lie that "Aryan" only included ethnic Germans is just a weaker version of the same lie made for the same reasons as the other lie.

People attempting to carve reality at the joints, using the idea that race is both genetic and cultural and pretending it’s just genetic.

As someone who identifies as American, only belatedly and reluctantly as white, and not at all as White, I am grateful for this peek inside the racial mind in its attempt to steelman and convince. To quote Ayn Rand in her essay on racism:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

I have a working theory that the reason that rootless cosmopolitans, late-stage capitalists', and various other flavors of socially atomized WERIDo seem to gravitate toward racialism, (be it of the CRT or HBD variety) is that they lack a sense of culture. They compare a McDonalds in Tokyo to a McDonalds in Manhattan and conclude that the differences between the US and Japan are superficial because they lack any wider frame of reference. They judge on skin color because skin color is easy to see/measure. It's the old streetlight fallacy.

They compare a McDonalds in Tokyo to a McDonalds in Manhattan and conclude that the differences between the US and Japan are superficial because they lack any wider frame of reference. They judge on skin color because skin color is easy to see/measure. It's the old streetlight fallacy.

This doesn't make sense. A racialist would interpret far deeper meaning to the differences between a McDonalds in Tokyo and a McDonalds in Manhattan than a liberal would.

Yes, that is what I said.

The reason that socially-atomized young progressive urbanites such as yourself gravitate towards racialism (be it of the CRT, HBD, or WN variety) is that race is visible, and being socially atomized they have no real sense of culture. They ascribe outsize importance to superficial details like race because, true cultural differences (IE a city without a McDonalds) is completely beyond their ken.

To clarify, the entire rest of the world places profound emphasis on racial differences, both implicitly and explicitly. You are one of the very few who can claim to not place strong emphasis on racial differences and treat them as superficial. You can let that be your legacy and cling to it until the bitter end, if you want.

Incorrect

The vast majority of the world places the primary emphasis on language/culture first with genealogy a distant second but you mistake it it for race because you can't see the cultural issues that underpin it. As other users have noted both Nazi Germany and Apartheid-era South Africa considered Japanese to be "white" which is nonsensical from a genetic stand point but makes perfect sense in a culture first model.

This is almost certainly true. In my experience, they compare their WEIRD acquaintances with WEIRD-mindcolonized non-Westerners and conclude that because everyone cares about Ukraine and climate change and reads and agrees with the NYT, regardless of nationality or race, we must all be the same on the inside. Next time you talk to someone who has "lived in China" or "worked in Tokyo for 5 years" consider that they may have never left their foreigner bubble or, even if they have, they spent time around non-Westerners who were Western-educated and, importantly, were the kind of people who preferred to hang around with Western foreigners.

Well, for one thing, right from the "concentric circle 2", I quite wonder why I am supposed to sympathize with white nationalism at all, considering the stakes, if I'm not firmly within the circle 1, "whites in every situation".

More to the point, though, these sort of of ponderings demonstrate, more than anything else, that race is indeed socially constructed, at least in large part and perhaps the most important part. If one was to consider human race on a firmly biological basis, it would probably be based on human genetic clustering studies like the one which procuded this image, I'm pretty sure everyone here has seen it. Yet, those clustering studies tend to demonstrate that Europeans and Middle Easterners are indeed closely very genetically related compared to other major continental subpopulations (and what else would you use as a comparison); of course you could divide those clusters to more and more groups to get the result where Europeans and Middle Easterners show more as distinct populations, but at some point it just becomes p-hacking. If we consider Europeans and Middle Easterners as a part of the same population, then surely ethnic Jews, who tend to in roughly 50 % European and 50 % Middle Easterners, are very firmly a part of that cluster.

And yet white nationalists tend to talk about Jews as wholly and unambiguously nonwhite and the migration of Syrians, Turks and Algerians as race replacement. This is one mystery that I've never quite seen firmly answered. Of course one might say that they are not white-white because they are Jewish and Muslim and so on, or because they don't identify as white themselves, but then you just prove more firmly the (partially, and perhaps the most importantly) socially constructed basis of race.

Do you live in the US?

If you answer no; you need not care about WNs at all. Europeans have their own problems, namely, excluding non-European migrants from the continent on account of it being mostly fiscal suicide unless we talk Chinese, educated Indians or similar Americans.

Of course there is some need for me to care about intellectual movements in America, even fringe ones, since their developments will inevitably show up in European discourses in some ways.

Well, for one thing, right from the "concentric circle 2", I quite wonder why I am supposed to sympathize with white nationalism at all, considering the stakes, if I'm not firmly within the circle 1, "whites in every situation".

I have to say that any faux-biological definition of "white" that leaves out the country with one of the highest rate of blonde hair and the whitest skin tone is pretty suspect to begin with. You could make such division, but calling it "white" would be pretty stupid.

The history of explicitly racist regimes suggests that the definition of the favored race tends to widen over time. Apartheid famously counted Japanese people as white, for example, and the history of Latin American racism is mostly the blood purity requirements to be considered white being loosened and not tightened.

What does it matter if you or the rest of the dissident right deign to categorize Jews as your fellow Whites («enough»), if they are aware of still being Jews? Moreover, what do they gain from this recognition to consider accepting it? You say you're involved in WN circles. How much has changed since this 2011 note, sans the fact that Google doesn't find this page by its title now (even so, results are worth checking out)?

Arguments about definitions are usually interesting inasmuch as they reveal reasons people hold for drawing lines, or talking about those lines in public. It seems that most of the time questions about some group's Whiteness status on the far right are driven by two concerns.

The first is prestige; Whiteness is perceived as an elite club, or perhaps the preoccupation with its membership is meant to conjure this status into reality. A piece by a Cuban-Jewish-American M. Yglesias quoting Ben Franklin springs to mind:

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

What's that about? (Incidentally, an American has recently said that I'm one of «Literally the palest people I've ever seen!»). Let's be charitable and assume that Benjamin spoke not of the Asiatic admixture you hint at, but of some less trivial measure of racial quality. East Slavs are low-quality, low-prestige people. Putting Tchaikovsky in your camp is a no-brainer, but you would happily do without hundreds of millions of less illustrious Ruskies throughout history. Likewise, Indians are mostly «Pajeets» but Ramanujan is kinda cool And Pichai runs Google so eh, fellow upper caste Indo-Aryans can get a second-class seat. This kind of discussion makes for a genre of an intra-right status game, where one gets to boast of historical and anthropological erudition, magnanimity appropriate of a superior breed, and/or also condescension and intensity of disgust reaction. This is rather uninteresting to those of us of Swarthy and Tawny Races of the World who don't buy into the idea that the acknowledgement of racist Anglos is a worthwhile thing to pursue. (We're more into acknowledgement of Teutons).

The second angle is instrumental. «Can those people be of use to our White Nationalist cause, and will they?» The pan-White narrative serves to build a maximally broad camp.

The problem, of course, is that they have no reason to come into your camp. Not Arabs or Slavs, and particularly not the Jews.

To put it mildly, in the current year being White is uncool. On average, you get to have some advantages such as on the dating market, but they're not conferred on you by the identity or by group membership; every single way in which Whites have it good is a product of positive individual traits correlated with being White, perhaps to some meager extent of Bayesian priors various markets have due to distributions of those traits. Meanwhile, bad things are inherent to the identity in the social context. Whiteness in the US, and by implication elsewhere, is a construct tainted by the history of slavery and racism, not just due to propaganda or real events, but even simply because of self-sorting. If you want to be on the strong team, you have Civic Nationalism, and therefore identify as an American Patriot, maybe a MAGA Republican or a «degenerate mutt» like Hlynka. (Similar dynamics exist in other majority white states, e.g. France). If you want TRVDITION, you have actual national and ethnic cultures of your forefathers beginning in Europe, the more specific, the better; not long ago, this meant affirming Anglo-Saxon supremacy but nowadays only Putin uses the term seriously. You can also put some other facet of your identity in the first place: from a Trans person to an Eco-Activist, the world offers you many lauded options. Who the hell needs White Nationalism? Only people who have not managed to escape from sanctions levied on Whiteness, or who have deemed such an escape unseemly for ideological reasons. Those are not cool or powerful people. Many of them go so far in repudiating sanctions that they justify past evils.

And the sanctions are severe. One could say that «Whites» are de facto disenfranchised to an extent. They cannot organize, research and lobby explicitly for anything like common white interests, and it is illegitimate to even discuss such interests in the political realm. This is unpopular to notice, but immutable group membership plus the doctrine of group equality allow to smuggle in any kind of demand, including bald extortion under the guise of redistribution to right historical wrongs or straight-up prohibition on critique directed at members of a group. So Whites qua Whites are second-class citizens in their own countries: they do not possess a crucial right to agitate and lobby for their collective interests, and are forced to resort to humiliating roundabout stratagems like economic reforms with desired second-order effects, while inefficiently coordinating to pretend they favor those policies out of some lofty general principle. Jews, of course, enjoy the exact opposite position, because they can simultaneously be praised for stalwart Jewish nationalism and also have legal rights of regular citizens of Western countries, including the right to lobby. Why on earth would they want to be seen as White?

You try to sell the narrative of a common geopolitical enemy. Do Jews need to face those «common enemies»? I don't think so. In fact this is just a rehashing of Islam As The Civilizational Threat To Our Judeo-Christian Enlightenment, a neocon take obviously peddled by Israeli Nationalists to secure Israeli interests. And today Abraham Accords are signed, Israel is improving relations with Arab countries, Militant Islam isn't looking too hot, Iran is on its last legs (as are Jordan, Lebanon) so the question is moot. Africans, lol? What do Israelis care? In general, Israel positions itself as a no-bullshit self-interested Middle Eastern nation that happily deals with other non-Western states, including hostile ones like China and Russia (why not fight them, by the way?); they do not need to be inserted into anyone else's delusional fights. Frankly this search for a threat to unite against looks like desperation.

And one corollary of the above is that strongly identifying Jews who nevertheless grace White causes with their support will be fundamentally unserious about it. They may see value to the «White» civilization, but they know they have their own thing to retreat into if things go badly or their new friends are ungrateful, and that thing's on a much more solid footing. It's a bit of a game.

whether I would support the removal of all Jewish individuals from positions of power in White countries

I believe that the appropriate answer is «What good would that do?»

The problem of WNs isn't that there are many Jews in positions of power. It's that Whites in similar positions have no agency, qua Whites. Chuck Schumer is a conscious, proud member of a millenia-old ethnoreligious community headquartered in Israel, and explicitly takes actions to advance their interests using his position as an American politician (including assistance in suppressing people who notice and take issue with this agenda). Mitch McConnell is just some turtle-looking Republican. If you remove Chuck, Mitch won't start caring about the continuity or glory of your race. Neither will Nancy.

What can be done with that? Not much, I'm afraid.

The problem of WNs isn't that there are many Jews in positions of power. It's that Whites in similar positions have no agency, qua Whites.

I wholeheartedly agree, any alternative solutions then? As it stands it seems like any (gentile) white person in the West with even a semblance of racial consciousness is basically dissident by definition. Converting to Judaism or trying to run back to my grandparents home country in Eastern Europe seem like the only viable options, but both seem incredibly foreign compared to my upbringing. I guess there’s always the Orthodox Church as well.

Iran is on its last legs

Is there any reason to believe that when Iran overthrows the Mullahs, it's going to stop being staunchly racist and nationalist ? I've heard it said numerous times that Iranians are usually nice to foreign visitors but do not even hide their open contempt of Pakistanis, Afghans, to a lesser degree Arabs ?

Even if there was no religious or historical animus against Israel, Iran would still be a rival to Israel and of course Saudis.

The problem of WNs isn't that there are many Jews in positions of power. It's that Whites in similar positions have no agency, qua Whites. Chuck Schumer is a conscious, proud member of a millenia-old ethnoreligious community headquartered in Israel, and explicitly takes actions to advance their interests using his position as an American politician (including assistance in suppressing people who notice and take issue with this agenda). Mitch McConnell is just some turtle-looking Republican. If you remove Chuck, Mitch won't start caring about the continuity or glory of your race. Neither will Nancy.

What can be done with that? Not much, I'm afraid.

What could make rich well educated lawyer feel solidarity with poor illiterate peasants? When he is treated like one of them, when he is reminded he is the same dirty wog like they are.

Make sure Mitch McConnell is oppressed and persecuted like poor Appalachian whites are oppressed and persecuted, and he might reconsider too.

I'm not sure exactly which reply in this chain sparked this thought, so I'm putting it here.

There's a thing I notice myself doing, where I sort of expand my sense of identity in a solidarity with Republicans, because they are the enemies of my enemies. By a decade of common ground in the culture wars and politics, I have come to kind of think of them as my ingroup. I cheer the successes. I lament and fear their failures. But that identification can easily fall apart when stressed in the right place. Bring up abortion, or Iraq, or the drug war, and suddenly I remember Actually, I'm A Libertarian. I've never been a member of the Republican party. I've voted for roughly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats for significant offices, and more third party than either. To the extent that "Republican" is an identity, it is one I can detach like a lizard tail, when I need to do so to protect my ego.

When I see right-wingers complain about Jews, the usual context is pointing out that an ostensibly white writer talking about how America, or white people, or western civilization is terrible is actually Jewish.

"You're saying I can tell just by looking at the Early Life section on Wikipedia?"

"No, Neo. I'm saying that when you're ready, you won't have to."

As a demonstration and calibration, I quickly looked up I can Tolerate Anything But the Outgroup. There's a section where Scott quickly lists 10 different articles purportedly showing intense, loathing criticisms of white people coming from white people. Two of the links seem dead, and 2-3 seem almost certainly gentile, but in less than 10 minutes of lazily Googling people who mostly don't have Wiki articles, I was able to find that Rebecca Schoenkopf and Jacob Weisberg are Jewish. Amusingly, Jacob is the only one with a Wikipedia article, and it doesn't have an early life section. It does mention his parents, and his mother is apparently a famous Jewish socialite from Chicago. So, minimum 25% Jewish rate.

I think a lot of what they're seeing is a phenomenon of Jewish people getting caught up in utopian purity spirals like wokeness, but having that ego-saving escape hatch allows them to go all-in harder. They're basically Motte-and-Bailey-ing their own identity, getting the kudos for vicious, scathing self-criticism while not actually taking any of that criticism to heart because it doesn't really apply to them.

I want to begin with the statement that I am not, by typical definition, racialist, although I accept a weak form of HBD, and that to me you are correct with the view that "who is white" is a question with by-definition fuzzy answers because the boundaries of any racial group are by definition fuzzy.

Now, to continue, "are Jews white", yes, depends on how you define it. Obviously by a historical geography definition Ashkenazim are as white as poles(that is to say, generally understood to be), and I don't care if they're technically semites or khazars or whatever. By a phenotype definition they're as white as Italians(that is to say, generally accepted as). By a genotype definition they're definitely mixed but Maronites and Eastern Europeans are both conventionally accepted as white, and they are both major contributors to Ashkenazi Jewish DNA.

By a sociological definition, "whiteness" has been redefined almost literally into a way to describe Jews without naming the Jew(while conveniently pinning the blame on Billy-Bob from Nowheresville, Indiana), so that describes Jews as white.

Instead I think you're referring to the cultural aspect, where "white" describes people of ethnic groups that were historically part of Christendom. So Armenians but not Persians or Turks, Maronites but not Alawites, Ossetians but not Tatars, Romanians but not Romani, Spaniards but not Sephardi. And this is a semi-useful definition because there are real differences between Christian and Jewish or pagan or Islamic cultures. To start with, Christian cultures are unlike other Abrahamaic-influenced cultures in generally having strong traditions of both musical and representative art, requiring the woman's consent for marriage and not just her father's, making use of both pork and alcohol in their cuisine, viewing slavery with greater discomfort, lacking a thorough religious dictation for basic legal principles, viewing dogs as high status animals, celibacy/chastity as a virtue, and generally not expecting clergy to hold either secular political or military roles. And these are extremely relevant distinctions that line up pretty well with the things that distinguish the west from the middle east. But it's more useful to describe them as "western", because those things also encompass lots of Latin Americans and African Americans who are obviously from looking at them nonwhite. And so I think it's best to use "white" in a phenotypic way that would encompass lots of Jews, Middle Easterners, etc. And, personally, I care a lot more about common cultural background than common skin color.

This is the single best description of mostly-European Christian culture I’ve ever read. I have no idea how much the individual points are from barbaric cultures, but I do identify with this much more than the color of my skin, which I view as an accident.

I know it's more or less besides the point, but I can provide at least some evidence for any one of those things as being rooted in pre-enlightenment if not ancient Christianity. Yes, obviously current western views on consent or dog ownership or slavery or separation of church and state are more "postchristian" than "christian", but they more or less have to be postchristian and not postislamic or posthindu.

Imagine obsessing this fucking much about skin colour.

My thoughts on this: Much words, little heat, little light. I suspect you'll be modded for "phalanx against the marauding hordes spilling across the Sahara and the Darien Gap."

Why do you think these "concentric circles" of whiteness are categories worth maintaining and considering morally relevant? I'm sympathetic to The Great Replacement hand-wringing because a group of people (both white and not) are going extinct. This process is, as far as I can tell, being defended because addressing it would gore sacred cows. As for other downsides, it's possible that the nature of replacement will cause institutions and culture to change unpleasantly.

Besides those two issues, why do you care if natives are being replaced by slavs or mestizos or han chinese or sikhs? They're being replaced, the same. The human organisms who live in the West (I mean by broad definition, including Japan) are endangered one way or another. And their culture, if you care about that.

To wit, you want to form an alliance with the "fourth circlers" to prevent "nineteenth circlers" from taking over. Why was it worth fighting with fourth circlers to begin with?

I'm imagining an alternate universe where you are posting about how people with Type I Diabetes must not burn bridges with people with Hypothyroidism to defend themselves from the rising Type II Diabetes menace.

the overwhelming stance of the hard Right is that the JQ has not only been answered in the negative, but is one of the most important questions - if not the single most important question - that one must answer when considering geopolitics today.

I've never seen any coherent evidence that the over-representation of jews in powerful positions compared to anglos/germans/latins/slavs is any different from the whites being over-represented compared to blacks. The far-right, in a way, forms a carnival mirror to BLM. They search for a conspiracy, ingroup bias, or systematic oppression to answer what boils down to simple capacity.

/images/16670693929262843.webp

a group of people (both white and not) are going extinct.

But, the link you post does not show that. The "no migration" line shows white British at 75% of the population in 2021. That does not indicate a race to extinction, even if in relative terms the percent will be 20% if the "standard projection"* Nothing in the link implies that the white British pop will decline at all in absolute terms.

*Which for all I know is completely bogus, since there is no source cited

Nothing in the link implies that the white British pop will decline at all in absolute terms.

Nothing in the link, no. But as the TFR of the UK is 1.56, thus below replacement, without immigration the total population would decrease.

Ashkenazim seem pretty similar, group IQ-wise, to Japanese. Are they similarly overrepresented among powerful positions, or moreso?

According to Nisbett, who probably isn't popular here, yes. He argues that Jewish accomplishment (measured by Nobel Prize winners, Ivy Leaguers, Supreme Court clerks, and professors at top colleges) outstrips even an average IQ of 115. He, of course, favors a cultural explanation, referring to the differences between Italian/English and Arab/European accomplishment during different centuries, but does not deny that Ashkenazim seem to be 7-15 IQ points higher than white gentiles.

112 is the upper estimate

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your figures? Google and DDG are not especially friendly to these queries anymore.

Yeah I tried to double check it because I thought I remembered Asian-Americans had higher average IQ's than Asian-Asians(like in the 110 range, which is more roughly comparable to the Ashkenazi 112 than 104), but google won't return anything. I will accept that the Ashkenazi have a group IQ advantage over Japanese or Chinese Americans in the absence of evidence. The only other group I can think of as having a group IQ similar to the Ashkenazi is Tamil Brahmins, and they're similarly overrepresented among scientific achievement(I feel safe in saying that at least literary/cultural advantage to Jews over Tamils is probably due to circumstances/culture).

Ashkenazim seem pretty similar, group IQ-wise, to Japanese. Are they similarly overrepresented among powerful positions, or moreso?

Japan's National IQ is about 105; European jews are 115. Additionally, there are five times as many jews as japanese in the US, and European jews had a dramatically lower cultural and linquistic hurdle to clear on immigrating.

I'd say those factors can plausibly explain the gap.

European jews don't have an IQ of 115. At best you have an upper bound estimate at around 109. Lower bound being 104.

They can cite higher numbers if they want, just like I can cite numbers that say the average IQ of a fieldworker in China is 122. That doesn't mean its very smart to do so. Considering that looking at a small sample of jewish children from high achieving families might skew the data. Similarly to how only looking at test takers from elite universities in Beijing might.

Lynn looked at vocabulary scores of jews living in the US as a proxy for IQ and saw that in that category they had an advantage that ultimately translates to 7 points. Considering that jews, in every study I've seen, are carried by their verbal score, but lag behind in other scores, such as spatial memory, I'd consider 104 to be a reasonable lower estimate, and considering I could be wrong somewhere, a 109 is a reasonable upper estimate.

I don't know why you think Lynn is such a bad researcher. He generated a lot of controversy with his rough estimates for IQ for areas that did not have much data. But it's not like he didn't know that these were rough estimates. The controversy was, as far as I could tell, carried nigh entirely by hysterics from people who did not belong at the table of psychometric research in the first place.

If most HBD figures cited an inflated Chinese IQ score they would be wrong as well. I don't understand this authority worship here. Looking at studies on jewish IQ in the US, most focus on children and/or unrepresentative samples. I see no reason to look at the aggregate of bad studies over a single decent one regardless of what 'leading figures' have to say. If this is what they say I don't see a reason to consider them leading on the topic. Nor do I consider the disagreement between us to be on an equal level.

I don't understand your last paragraph. I'm not saying that it's a myth that jews are overrepresented where they are. I just hazard a guess to say that they are where they are, on top of everything you laid out, because of heavily expressed ingroup bias. Or, for a lack of a better term, nepotism. And I am sure that this is an inherited trait like all psychological traits are.

More comments

I've never seen any coherent evidence that the over-representation of jews in powerful positions compared to anglos/germans/latins/slavs is any different from the whites being over-represented compared to blacks.

In absolute numbers, Anglos are ahead, but in relative numbers, Jews are overrepresented.

Yes, but jews are significantly smarter than anglos. You would expect them to be overrepresented compared to anglos, just as anglos are overepresented compared to blacks. The IQ gaps between the three groups are roughly equidistant.

Looking at jewish IQ and the total number of jewish people in the entire world, any high IQ jew would be outnumbered by a similar IQ Anglo, in the US alone, by a factor of 6.

No, looking at the tail ends the total number of jews is too low to account for the overrepresentation. At the elite level jews are outnumbered 6 to 1.

Considering that most people in these institutions are not 155+ IQ, no the situation does not make sense. You have to crank the dial on the IQ score all the way up to get a number that doesn't betray the glaring obviousness of jewish overrepresentation. Which is why when the claim is 115 for jewish IQ, the IQ barometer is set at 145 or 140, and when we lower the jewish IQ score, the barometer for IQ goes up accordingly. I don't think this is a game worth playing and it becomes obvious how ridiculous it is when looking at the actual IQ scores of jews.

I don't think the argument is over capacity. Everyone knows Jews are smart. The questions are, are they nepotistic? Do they agitate as a class?

I think they do. I think they behave the exact way wokes claim whites do (but whites don't).

I don't have much in the way of an anti-Jew bias and don't care about it very much. But I think it's interesting, especially after seeing what happened to Kanye for being, essentially, the modern equivalent to Marilyn Manson (Kanye is as much a genuine Nazi as Manson was a genuine satanist).

Kanye is as much a genuine Nazi as Manson was a genuine satanist.

Not everyone who is anti-semitic is a Nazi. Kanye is getting his talking points from the Nation of Islam and Black Israelites. That strain of black thought is deeply anti-semitic (and also believes some hilariously-improbable conspiracy theories). But he is also a bipolar guy off his meds, who is building conspiracies in his head surrounding his divorce, and is really mad at some Jewish lawyers that represented his wife, among a whole bunch of other things.

Kanye has said a lot of wild shit about a lot of different groups. But when he went after Jews, everything changed. They rapidly coordinated against him, and took him from billionaire to millionaire over night.

Hilariously, even his bank kicked him out. And his talent agency. I'm sure that will go a long way in terms of proving that Jews don't have disproportionate power in Hollywood, banking and law.

Do women or black people control the NFL? No. It’s owned by old white guys. But Jon Gruden isn’t coaching anymore.

Did Jewish people just start working in the entertainment industry? Ice Cube appearing on the cover of the Nation of Islam’s rabidly anti-semitic newspaper ‘The Final Call’, years after his previous controversy surrounding his lyrics, didn’t keep him from being cast in family comedies.

I sincerely think you would like Farrakhan’s book where he cherry picks which Jewish bankers helped finance the slave trade, ignoring all the gentiles that did as well, and everyone else involved, and paints it as a coordinated “Jewish” effort.

You're misreading me. I don't really care that Jews agitate very effectively as a class, and have an outsized influence in some industries. But they do.

Per Pew, "Fully 42% of all currently married Jewish respondents indicate they have a non-Jewish spouse. Among those who have gotten married since 2010, 61% are intermarried." That indicates a low level of in-group solidarity.

I don't believe in some grand Jewish conspiracy. I would expect them to interbreed with white elites. As Yarvin says, the story of Jews in America is a story of assimilation, not domination.

But the upper crust whites are a hell of a lot more Jewish than the bottom tier. And as such, they have more power. And because of the Holocaust/Jewish advocacy, they're still capable of agitating as a class when they want, in a way that upper crust whites can't or won't.

"They interbreed with other elites" isn't much of a gotcha for what I'm saying.

But why do we care that they are capable of agitating as a class? That is true of lots of economic, social, ethnic, etc (eg: AARP), groups, including groups with a lot more political power.

They are more effective at it. But I'm not saying that we have to care. I don't really care.

I doubt that they, or anyone,is as effective as AARP.

Obviously endogamy and in-group solidarity are not the same thing, although it's reasonable to assume a correlation.

But we're having this exact conversation every four-six months. The question always is, what's the baseline for comparison? Jews constitute 2.4% of the US as per your source; even adjusted for SES, they are outnumbered by non-Jewish peers in every stratum. Choosing Jews as marriage partners even 39% of the time suggests some preference for endogamy. This is measured by odds ratios in the relevant literature, as described here by, appropriately, Rosenfeld.

New Demographic Perspectives on Studying Intermarriage in the United States, Phillips 2013 in Contemporary Jewry explains further:

Interracial marriage continues to increase for all groups in America (Passel et al. 2010), and commentators on the Jewish scene commonly speak of high and increasing rates of Jewish intermarriage (Wertheimer 2001) as well. But what does this mean exactly? The implied comparison is with earlier time periods. Another way to think about intermarriage rates is in comparison with other groups. Jewish sociology exclusively uses simple individual rates of intermarriage, but for comparison among groups odds ratios are preferable because they control for group size (Kalmijn 1998). As Rosenfeld (2008) explains, ‘‘The odds ratio for endogamy is simply the odds of endogamy divided by the odds of exogamy (or out- marriage). An odds ratio of 1 would mean that the category in question had no significance in the marriage market, because the odds of marrying within the group would have to be the same as the odds of marrying someone from outside the

And there's the issue of, well, Jews not really constituting a homogenous demographic. Orthodox Jews overwhelmingly marry and even befriend each other.

Mixed-ancestry Jews have the lowest odds ratio (50), followed by White Hispanics (329). This means they are less likely to marry endogamously (and more likely to intermarry) than the other groups considered, controlling for group size. Single-ancestry Jews have the second highest odds ratio. [= 2,085].

Religious affiliation, unsurprisingly, interacts with descent.

Endogamy values for [non-Hispanic] Whites are not provided and are a PITA to calculate.

P.S.

The measurement of Jewish intermarriage in the literature on Jewish sociology diverges from the conventions prevalent in demography in significant ways and does not consider Jewish intermarriage in the larger context of American intermarriage. Instead, Jewish sociology tends to focus on interventions that can reduce intermarriage and on the impact of intermarriage on the American Jewish community. […] it combines first with second marriages and does not control for mixed-parentage. When both of these are applied, a different picture emerges from that of the unremitting increase in intermarriage widely portrayed in communal discourse.

  1. As noted in my response to KulakRevolt, the 2% number is not the relevant one; the relevant pct is the pct of Jews among college educated Americans who live in the few metro areas where Jewish people live -- the article you cite notes that "Americans overwhelmingly marry within [their] educational level.

  2. So, mixed-ancestry Jews are more likely to intermarry, while single-ancestry Jews are less likely to intermarry. What does that say about Jews overall? And note that Orthodox Jews are very much a minority

  3. More importantly, They have some preference for edogamy" is a far, far cry from "they exhibit dangerous levels of in-group preference." The bottom line is that most Jewish marriages since 2010 have been to non-Jews. That is evidence that in-group bias is not very strong.

  4. Note also that Pew reports that "U.S. Jews are also less likely than the overall U.S. public to say religion is “very important” to them (21% vs. 41%). Slightly more than half of Jews say religion is “not too” or “not at all important” in their lives, compared with one-third of Americans overall who say the same." and that "bout half of Orthodox Jews in the U.S. say they have “not much” (23%) or “nothing at all” (26%) in common with Reform Jews, and a majority of Reform Jews reciprocate those feelings: 39% say they have “not much” in common with the Orthodox and 21% say they have “nothing at all” in common. Just 9% of Orthodox Jews feel they have “a lot” in common with Reform Jews and vice versa."

So, all the actual evidence presented so far seems to refute the claim

Not necessarily. A jew marrying a gentile can still be excessively ethnocentric in all matter besides marital. Similar to how an anti-immigration forklift operator can have an asian wife. .

No, of course not necessarily. it is a single data point (albeit one more than provided by the OP). And, yes, an anti-immigrant forklift operator have an immigrant* wife, but how many do?

*I am assuming that not all anti-immigrant forklift operators have antipathy for Asian-Americans who were born here.

I should have clarified, an 'imported' or foreign born asian wife. What I was saying is that this single data point doesn't necessarily point in the direction you need it to. It's not a matter of how many, it's a matter of recognizing that the course of your life and your expressed political beliefs don't always line up 100%. And just because they don't doesn't mean you don't feel how you feel regarding politics and your in and outgroups.

I'm not sure how much you can draw from that... Given how integrated Jews are and how much a minority they are in absolute terms (1.8%), a 39% intra-racial preference would represent an EXTREME ingroup preference over what we'd expect if they just considered themselves interchangeably white.

Like do you think American's of German Descent would in-marry at 39% in a random segment of America where they're 1.8% of the population? or do you think it'd very quickly approach the random rate of 1.8%?

  1. You overstate your case a bit; in places were most Jewish people actually live, they make up more than 1.8% of the pop. Moreover, given the trend toward college educated persons rarely marrying those without a college education, the relevant pct is probably the Jewish pct of college students, which in the regions in which Jewish students attend college, is a substantial pct. And note that about 30% of Jews have graduate or professional degrees - they are even more unlikely to be in the marriage market.

  2. As for German-Americans, when it comes to marriage, religion is obviously a more important determinant than ancestry, and apparently 76 percent of married Catholics with children are married to other Catholics, though perhaps the numbers for married Catholics w/o kids is lower.

  3. Most importantly, the question is not, "do Jewish people exhibit more in-group preference than German-Americans or whatever." That is a red herring. The question is, is the in-group preference of Jewish people high enough that it is a threat of some sort, as the OP claimed? The outmarriage rates are a data point that tends to indicate not (Note, btw, that in general intermarriage rates

PS: Here is another data point: Jewish Americans are less likely than Americans of other religions to say that religion is very important to them, and more likely (44%) to say it is not too or not at all important

The questions are, are they nepotistic? Do they agitate as a class? I think they do. I think they behave the exact way wokes claim whites do (but whites don't).

I'd be open to evidence for this, but I've never seen it. The argument that jews are "parasite ethnicity" that silently coordinates to weaken its host country is cogent. (So is Critical Race Theory's description of systematic racism.) And it seems to match history the demographics of power. (So does Critical Race Theory.)

I need evidence — for example, some study showing off-the-charts Jewish ingroup bias — to take it more seriously than other just-so stories about the world.

I don't believe the parasite class weakening the host shit.

I think they are a group of high achievers that agitate effectively as a class, and may preferentially hire other Jews.

Nothing more, nothing less

I don't have any statistics, but I think Jews having outsized power in certain areas (Hollywood, banking) is fairly obvious.

I believe that Jews preferentially hire other Jews, but I don't have stats.

It also seems obvious that Jews agitate as a class.

Kanye has said a lot of crazy shit about a lot of people and groups, but look what happened when he went against Jews. They coordinated against him, and hurt him more effectively than any other group has been capable of.

"Studies show" isn't the be all end all of certainty (effectiveness of parachutes, etc). It's an open secret that Indians in management at many large tech firms in America preferentially hire other Indians to such a degree that entire departments become Indian, often of specific castes (probably eliding some nuance here but I'm sure some of our resident Indian longposters will show up to nitpick).

How many studies on Indians preferentially hiring other Indians are there? A quick search came up with a ton of studies about Indians and Pakistanis getting discriminated against but zilch on Indian nepotism in U.S. tech hubs, so by your standards anyone who disagrees ought not trust their own lying eyes. Studying hiring practices of brown people (Indians) that disadvantage mostly white and Asian candidates in gauche so it is just not done.

So it goes with overrepresentation of Jews. Can you imagine a serious academic discussion about the topic, not to mention any affirmative action to correct the I can't because it would be immediately rejected, the researcher blacklisted as an "anti-Semite" (what does that even mean anymore), and discussion in the public fear quashed.

Here's the part where I have to prove my bona fides lest I get accused of being a 4chan pol poster. I don't think there's an international Jewish conspiracy or even a national one. The vast majority of Jews don't coordinate outside of their immediate networks, just like most people. There is however a "perfect storm" (for lack of a positive term) of factors that lead to Jewish overrepresentation. Like Indians, Chinese, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and many other communities with a strong group identity, they feel warmly towards and elevate their own (this is a good thing IMO). But, they also have a siege mentality that strengthens these feelings, cultural traits that happen to make one more successful in the modern information age, and higher IQs on average.

So there's no mass Jewish conspiracy, it's just a lucky confluence of genetic and historic factors, but AA proponents are still hypocritical for ignoring it, and whites should not be scolded for Jewish success by statistically aggregating the two.

And finally (and perhaps most controversially) the suppression of any "noticing" of this fact is extremely creepy. Wouldn't most people be concerned if there was massive overrepresentation of Scientologists, or Iranians, or [insert your favorite identity group] in positions of power? It would demand an explanation.

There are plenty of examples of Jewish intellectuals explicitly agitating for the interests of the Jewish community in ways that would render an analogous white person unfit for polite company. There are NGOs that exist explicitly to further Jewish interests, and there is even an explicit Jewish ethnostate. Jewish people network with other Jewish people through their synagogues and holidays, Jewish parents often encourage their children to marry within the faith, and I doubt you could find many Jewish people who would deny that their social circles are disproportionately Jewish.

What manner of further evidence are you looking for? A survey in which Jewish hiring managers obliviously admit to giving Jewish applicants an unfair advantage? If something along those lines is your requirement, then you have constructed an epistemological fortress.

To make my own position clear, I acknowledge and respect the innate intellectual advantage of the Jewish population (although I vaguely suspect one could slice the "white" community in America more finely to derive a genetic cluster among white people who are equally performant and equally sizeable, if one had the inclination and data to do so), and do not view them as parasitic in any way. Their achievements in science, technology, art and business are genuine and mostly work to everyone's immense benefit. We would all be impoverished if Einstein had never existed, and ten thousand more lesser known exceptional individuals like him in every walk of life, none of whom can be explained by nepotism.

I do take exception to the Jewish community's unnecessary persistence in maintaining a parallel culture within America, conceptualizing and advocating for its interests as distinct from the white population. Intentionally resisting assimilation and pursuing exclusive ethnic interests is a defection in a multiethnic society, and it is toxic for the country in similar fashion to white identity politics. Antisemitism is in part a response to this defection, and not entirely unjustified.

The analogy I draw is to Survivor. In Survivor, one of the most powerful tactics in the chaotic early game is to form a rock-solid two-person alliance, because two strategically aligned votes make a powerful coalition in an unorganized field of monads. Thus the rational play in the early game is to seek out and punish players who have formed such a two-person alliance, as a means of defense against their manipulations.

Likewise if an ethnicity organizes and advocates for its interests, one should expect other ethnic groups to recognize the inherent division in loyalty and to object, reactively (in this case with antisemitism) or proactively (via an exclusive ethnogenesis of their own, e.g. white identity politics). The salience of whether "Jews are white" is likely a product of these reactive and proactive responses to a recognition of an ethnic group's defection.

My impression is that you object to not just Jewish ethnic identity, but Judaism as a religion. Is there any way Jews could "assimilate" into American society without completely abandoning their religion? And why doesn't this standard also apply to, say, Catholics?

I don't think assimilation necessarily requires abandoning a religion. Catholics have assimilated without abandoning their religion. It has just become less central to their identity over time.

Do American Catholics not network with other Catholics through churches and holidays, and even Catholic social organizations like the Knights of Columbus? Do Catholic parents not encourage their children to marry within the faith?

I don't see how American Jews have failed to assimilate beyond remaining religiously Jewish.

If such a scenario arises, civilizations such as China, India and Iran may have to make the crucial choice about whether or not they want to stand with Europeans, in a united Eurasian front - a Fortress Eurasia, if you will - to repel the invaders, or whether to actively join or facilitate the invaders as they overwhelm and annihilate the already weakened and degenerated peoples of Europe and the Anglosphere.

If such a scenario arises, I want these civilizations on my side. (“I never thought I would die side-by-side with an Arab.” “What about a friend?”) Under such conditions, a criterion of “White enough” will necessarily be sufficient. Jews are well within the “White enough” category, as far as I’m concerned, and I wish that others on the White Right would not be so cavalier about continuing to ignite the already-burning bridge with an ethnic group that still has the capacity to become a powerful ally, but which also had the possibility to continue its development into an equally powerful and implacable enemy.

As I understand, your political concerns and goals include: white racial consciousness, racial solidarity in the face of upcoming geopolitical pressures, unified opposition to invaders especially as we get demographic explosions in the global south over the next century. All of which I agree with. Do you think Jews have thus far been constructive or deconstructive in these goals?

If you think they have been deconstructive towards those goals, and if you are DR-adjacent I have you think you agree that they have been highly destructive to those ends in the ongoing culture war, why do you expect them to change?

The Anglos built a beautiful bridge for Jews to cross into American culture and intellectual life. If that extreme act of good will and equality given by the Anglos to the Jews has only resulted in the current state of culture-war and the role of Jewish influence with it, how can you accuse the DR burning that bridge? If America couldn't make them allies- in the sense of Jewish racial solidarity with Aryans, then what will? A migrant crisis? Does recent history support that hope or prove how backwards it actually is?

If such a scenario arises, I want these civilizations on my side. (“I never thought I would die side-by-side with an Arab.” “What about a friend?”)

And it's the DR who is the most open to that sort of cooperation with the Arab world. They broadly support Assad precisely because they view the Arab world as gatekeepers to mass migration (a role which has explicitly been acknowledged by Arab leaders). But there is a group that would never allow such an alliance, and has its own interest in destabilizing all these Arab regimes which are a bulwark against mass migration... And you know as well as I do who ends up with the refugees. It's the European world, with Jewish interests exerting heavy political and cultural influence in the European sphere to compel them to accept these migrants.

So, the Jewish Question is actually a series of questions, and some of those questions need to be answered by Jews themselves. I don’t know how many Jews, or what percentage of Jews, see themselves as my enemy, or are likely to act as my enemies as worldwide racial conflict begins to boil over.

I do not know either. All I can do is look at the current state of the world and set my expectations based on that. If you do that, where do you land on the question? Do you expect the next migrant crisis to elicit Jewish racial solidarity with Aryans, and for them use their considerable talents for the well-being of the white world? I do not. All indications are that the present course is accelerating.

I think you're completely understating the Jewish role in immigration reform. E.A. Ross wrote how Jews, even before the 1920s immigration restrictions, were by far the most fervent supporters of immigration into the US. He complained that their advocacy for immigration was letting in non-Jewish undesirables from Eastern Europe, saying "the brightest of the Semites are keeping our doors open to the dullest of the Aryans!" In contrast, he blames the Irish for ruining city governments, but not for open borders advocacy.

When it comes to Philip Hart and Ted Kennedy, that bill you're referring to was introduced to the house by (Jewish) Emmanuel Celler. It had not been passed under the Kennedy administration (who won only about half of NYC Irish voters, maybe less) because of the resistance of (Irish) Michael Feighan, who controlled the immigration committee in the House. And considering that even the most fervent Anglo-American nativists accepted Catholic Irish and Germans as assimilable and good immigrants nearly equal to the founding stock, the idea that "Catholics are more responsible for the death of Anglo-America than anyone else" is questionable.

I think that the Anglosphere had better institutions of the type Jews are very common in compared to the hispanosphere historically and that this fact is obvious, but it does not to me seem well established that this is true in comparison to France or Germany.

I don't necessarily disagree with the points you are making... The Catholic/Protestant dynamic is another expression of ethnic differences resulting in macro-impacts on American culture.

Assigning retrospective blame isn't even the most important question. It's how we should move forward. If you think that a level of white racial consciousness and solidarity is going to be necessary to maintain (or ideally, rejuvenate) Western civilization, then you have to identify potential allies and potential adversaries in moving towards that end. Would you identify Jews as being a potential ally or potential adversary in realizing that significant change in public consciousness?

There is very little evidence that Jews have any interest whatsoever in nurturing white racial solidarity. As part of that UCLA "Initiative to Study Hate":

Under the direction of David Myers, the Sady and Ludwig Kahn Professor of Jewish History at UCLA, the initiative will feature 23 projects in its first year, supported by $600,000 in internal research funds. Additional projects will be funded in years two and three of the pilot.

Researchers will convene in a monthly seminar to discuss their research findings and hear from other experts. The initiative will also host public programming and engage with relevant policymakers, practitioners and NGO leaders in order to explore how to translate theory and research findings into potential applications in educational curricula, health care and public policy.

“Hate is so pervasive in our world that it almost seems too daunting to take up,” said Myers. “But we believe that this is exactly the kind of big question that a great public university like ours must seek answers to. This new initiative aims to understand how and why hate functions as it does.

“We’re interested in hate as it takes rise in groups and is transmitted from generation to generation, but we are also exploring how hate takes rise in the individual’s brain. Our ultimate aim is to do all that we can to mitigate or minimize hatred in individuals and groups,” added Myers.

One team, involving economists, health care professionals and historians, will study hate directed at people who experience homelessness. The project will identify the beliefs, stereotypes, and fears that fuel hatred of homeless people, and it will examine the stigma, discrimination, and hatred they experience.

Another team is examining how certain brain mechanisms might create a sense of dehumanization toward others. They’ll study participants with healthy brains as well as those with frontotemporal dementia.

The comprehensive initiative comes at a time when expressions of hate appear to be increasing both in frequency and intensity - in the United States and globally. And college campuses have recently seen a disturbing increase in incidents of antisemitism, attacks on ethnic minority students and LGBTQ+ youth, and other hate crimes.

The Protestant/Catholic dynamic is real. But it's not exactly a mystery why WNs see the above as overtly hostile and a far greater threat to their project than Irish Catholics.

Your perspective is interesting, but speaking of own-goals, your categorization of different circles of "whiteness" which basically boils down to "People who kinda look white and include people I respect like Tchaikovsky," where the Romans were definitely white but Italians are iffy, reads exactly like "race is a social construct" except you're constructing it in a way convenient to your particular (somewhat idiosyncratic) white nationalist sentiments.

Basically, you count the swarthy Mediterranean peoples and the pale-faced Slavs as more or less white because they are definitely European and they fought Muslims, and Japanese and Persians can count as kinda sorta white because you admire them and you'd like to have them as allies. This was almost comical back when apartheid South Africa classified Japanese as "white" as it exposed how absurd any claims of basing white supremacy on actual genetics were.

I am not surprised that, balking at classifying Jews as malignant foes because you actually know and like Jews, you find yourself in an uncomfortable spot with your fellow white nationalists. You clearly struggle with having wholeheartedly embraced HBD where blacks are concerned, yet being aware that your allies include people who really do want to commit genocide and are motivated by racial animus, not a calculated and rationalist desire to optimize the most benevolent traits of Western civilization. I'd wish you luck in squaring that circle, but I don't actually wish you luck in finding a group of "white nationalists but without the literal Nazis."

This was almost comical back when apartheid South Africa classified Japanese as "white" as it exposed how absurd any claims of basing white supremacy on actual genetics were.

You can call it comical if you like, but perhaps white South Africans, due to their unique geographical circumstances, understood something about Whiteness which the rest of the White (and White-adjacent) world is only now beginning to grasp: that Whiteness is most useful as a way to exclude its opposite - Blackness. White as “not-Black” seems like a fairly important distinction, given the geopolitical and demographic outlook of the century to come.

I suspect you will have a hard time getting most of your fellow white nationalists to adopt your definition of "whiteness" as "Not black."

You know, @HlynkaCG sometimes goes on about how white nationalists are just leftist identitarians under the hood, and I never really saw it, but now I think there is something to it. One of the most amusing aspects of the woke terminology treadmill is how they keep inventing successively narrow terms - "PoC," "BIPOC," etc. - because at first they just meant "Not white", but then they needed to exclude Asians and/or Jews and/or wealthy Nigerians and/or Iberian Spaniards, etc. (Same thing in reverse with the ever-expanding "LGBTQBBQ++" acronym that basically means "anything as long as you're not 100% straight.")

And here you are doing the same thing. Just saying "I don't like blacks" is a little too on the nose, so you invent this whole taxonomy where you're defending "whiteness" but "whiteness" is "anyone who's not black" and then you get to have fun arguments with your fellow identitarians about whether Jews and Asians and Arabs and Indians get to join the club.

So yes, I call it comical, but moreover, I call it incoherent, at least if you're trying to justify your beliefs via genetics.

After some googling I can confidently say that POC and BIPOC refers to the same set of people, and it's identical to adding+ to LGBTQ.

BIPOC was basically created to exclude, or at least deemphasize, Asians.

To the extent that White Nationalists resemble leftist identitarians, I think it’s because both camps understand the deep power and vital importance of coalition politics, structural power, and communitarian thinking. Critical race theorists are absolutely correct that White civilizations constructed hierarchies of values which were designed to reproduce hegemonic culture and distribute power and resources to those who were best able to embody and perform the roles valued by that culture. I just disagree with them about whether or not that’s a bad thing, and I recognize the central importance to me and my posterity of preserving the power structures put in place by my ancestors to benefit their descendants.

The endless salami-slicing of the BIPOC category has been a result of the fact that it was a coalition designed to center and empower blacks, but which created a network of power in which non-blacks quickly began to dominate the hierarchy, given their manifestly undeniable advantage over blacks in the sorts of traits and talents that allow one to accrue political and academic power. That’s why the artifice had to be abandoned so quickly; blacks tried to design a club where they could have pride of place, but chose to (or had to, or were manipulated into) opening the doors of that club up to people who were never going to accept taking a backseat to blacks. (Hell, the most persuasive argument against my attempts to welcome Jews back into the White fold is that by doing so Whites would be committing an identical act of self-sabotage, opening our club up to people who will quickly and comprehensively out-compete and marginalize us.)

This was almost comical back when apartheid South Africa classified Japanese as "white"

One can maybe charge early 20th century US laws with racism, but they're at least consistent. In 1922, when only "free white persons" and "persons of African nativity or persons of African descent" were allowed to naturalize, Ozawa Takao, an ethnic Japanese resident of the US for 20 years, sued to be considered white for this purpose. The US supreme unanimously decided that Mr. Ozawa wasn't a member of the Caucasian race and thus ineligible to gain citizenship by naturalization.

Edit: The following year Bhagat Singh Thind also desired to be seen as white in the eyes of US authorities. He made the case that since he was of high-caste and Aryan he was, by the contemporary anthropological defition, Caucasian. USSC again unanimously decided against the petitioner.

... reads exactly like "race is a social construct" except you're constructing it in a way convenient to your particular (somewhat idiosyncratic) white nationalist sentiments.

That just gets back to the common Motte-and-Bailey of "race is a social construct", doesn't it? On a narrow reading, it clearly is, as OP's personal account of racial categorization provides evidence for. On the reading with the further implication of "... and therefore whatever racial groupings are often used are entirely arbitrary [and have no grounding in biology whatsoever]", which is the one that's often meant when the phrase is used in arguments, I'd say it's clearly not, and OP provides a few reasons to think that, e.g. phenotype or various degrees of admixture.

In other words, I don't see the own-goal here, OP seems clearly aware that racial categorization draws both from cultural attitudes and genetic facts. You could basically read his posts as: "this is my social construction of whiteness, here's why I think it captures something about objective reality and why it's socially useful".

In other words, I don't see the own-goal here, OP seems clearly aware that racial categorization draws both from cultural attitudes and genetic facts. You could basically read his posts as: "this is my social construction of whiteness, here's why I think it captures something about objective reality and why it's socially useful".

I wouldn't disagree that racial categorization draws from both cultural attitudes and genetic facts. I'm not in the "race is 100% socially constructed" camp.

But I think the boundaries are much, much fuzzier than white nationalists and other racial identitarians want to admit. Hence their being just as willing as social justice activists to redraw the boundaries of "whiteness" to suit their agenda, without much regard to actual genetics and often without much regard to culture.

So a question I had originally asked was, slightly paraphrased, "To what extent does being pro-white ALSO require you to be anti-semetic?"

Your answer here seems to be "it doesn't, unless the Jews ever become a threat to the interests of whites."

Is that a fair restatement?

Do you believes that Jews, in aggregate, are a threat to the interests of whites?

Do you believes that Jews, in aggregate, are a threat to the interests of whites?

I have suspicion Jews, in aggregate, are disproportionately threatening to everyone including themselves. They have a so called 'verbal tilt', they are far more likely to have a high verbal IQ than visual.

This gives them a superpower of being able to rationalise absolutely anything, and are thus a ready source and a readier vector of all kinds of hazardous ideologies, primarily left-wing ones because those are intrinsically more appealing on account of almost always being about overthrowing existing order and replacing it with your own that's clearly going to be faultless.

If you propose to do so out of pure self-interest, you won't get as many helpers as if you dress it up as trying to bring about heaven on earth, etc.

I think that Jews are White, but that the organized political and economic wing of international Jewry does not see itself that way, and is acting against the interests of White people. This isn’t true only of Jews, though; they have (inexplicably) found eager allies and collaborators among a certain subset of gentile Whites, who are working hand-in-hand with them in the dispossession of Whites. Part of having White racial consciousness is, as far as I’m concerned, wanting to safeguard the welfare even of White people who don’t want the help. Rescuing wayward, confused Whites is non-negotiably important, in my opinion - saving Whites from themselves and opening their eyes to what has been done to them with their own ostensible (if compromised) consent. Basically I think that a great number of Jews fall into that category of “wayward Whites who can still be brought back into the fold before it’s too late”, although my confidence in that proposition continues to waver.

Part of having White racial consciousness is, as far as I’m concerned, wanting to safeguard the welfare even of White people who don’t want the help. Rescuing wayward, confused Whites is non-negotiably important, in my opinion - saving Whites from themselves and opening their eyes to what has been done to them with their own ostensible (if compromised) consent.

Good luck with this.

The best and brightest of Whites clearly see that "whiteness" is lost cause and are leaving the sinking ship ASAP to join the winning side.

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/joe-biden-s-very-jewish-family-1.508420

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2014-09-28/ty-article/charlotte-clinton-mezvinsky-jew-or-not-jew/0000017f-dbff-df9c-a17f-ffff53ee0000

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3097352/meet-donald-trumps-grandchildren-arabella-joseph-and

Do you believe that, when searching for a husband, someone like Chelsea Clinton really went "hmm, whiteness is a losing cause; I better find a Jewish husband to ensure that my child is not white"? Especially considering that the recent events have, indeed, demonstrated that antisemitism continues to exist - such as in the way that one of the most major musical artists, if not the most major, of the recent decades is willing to go to major medias to express clearly antisemitic views?

And what, you think this is muh IQ and education?

«Sinking ship» may be too strong a phrase but Jewishness does carry social benefits that Whiteness does not, namely access to resources and authority of an ethnic corporation. Can you imagine the reverse of Kanye's case, with some guy calling on Whites to drop Kanye or Nick Cannon?

People do care about ethnic and caste-based in-groups, even if Hajnal whites are on average a bit defective in this respect – even they can adapt. It is historically normal for upper-class (but not necessarily high income) people to think dynastically and seek to marry off their children into a higher-potential, better-protected, well-networked ethnically distinct demographic at the top of the current social hierarchy; this needn't be explained by random, thoughtless romance-driven breeding mechanics characteristic of plebs. Ambitious Jews did that as well when entering Anglo and German higher society, the result being many newly made Baron families mixing with Lutherans and e.g. Rothschilds all but dissolving among the British aristocracy. Now Clintons and Trumps may prosper in a way Kennedys have not, and Pelosis have a stake in the future too.

In fact I contend that for some families this is can be understood as a reward, a result of proving one's dedication over multiple generations. Trump's father had been desperate to demonstrate his and now Ivanka, after converting to Judaism, has become just about worthy of being accepted into the family of a mediocre convicted felon. Pelosi boasts of her father having been a shabbos goy; now some of Pelosi's grandchildren will have a solid defense if anyone calls them Nazi, Racist or Fascist. The story of Clintons and Bidens is probably similar.

Especially considering that the recent events have, indeed, demonstrated that antisemitism continues to exist - such as in the way that one of the most major musical artists, if not the most major, of the recent decades is willing to go to major medias to express clearly antisemitic views?

That's a breathtaking spin on a man with maximally high social capital getting deplatformed in real time. Everything else aside, do you honestly think Kanye's case reinforces your point? What could even have been evidence in favor of the opposite that you'd accept – antisemitism not existing, all antisemites having been rounded up and shot? Literally insane ultra-rich and confident men knowing better than to speak ill of Jews, or Kanye getting quartered in public?

Or are you also building your credentials with conspicuous gullibility, at Eetan's expense?

In an op-ed for the Financial Times, the Endeavor co-CEO wrote that there should be 'no tolerance anywhere for West's anti-Semitism' and encouraged brands to full-stop cease partnering and working with the designer.

Emanuel, himself a Jew, is widely considered to be one of the most powerful men in the entertainment industry. West has repeatedly blamed the 'Jewish media' and 'Jewish community' in the music industry for toying with him.

'This is a moment in history where the stakes are high and being open about our values, and living them, is essential. Silence and inaction are not an option.'

This is something I’ve certainly thought about. What if instead of absorbing Jews into Whiteness, the only really viable long-term hope is to absorb Whites into Jewishness, through a calculated long-term campaign of intermarriage? It’s not something I currently advocate, nor do I have any hope of it getting off the ground as a widely-accepted cultural program, but it’s not clear to me right now whether or not it would be a bad thing.

Well that actually clears things up even if I find the point of view to be almost unrelatable.

The great question, to my mind, when it comes to this fourth circle is: will these groups ever see themselves as White?

I'm curious about how likely you think it might be that they'd see themselves as white. There are many factors which might ask them to see themselves as Jewish first and white second, not the least of which is that there's an entire nation which will take them in, no questions asked, if they're kicked out from elsewhere.

I have my doubts about the long-term viability and security of Israel, given its extremely unfavorable geographic position, surrounded by nations whose enmity toward it shows no signs of abating. Now, I know it will never happen, but I’d be open to inviting all the Israeli Jews to basically take over the New York City metro area and turn that into the New Israel, if I wasn’t still wary about the long-term prospects of a détente between gentile Whites and Jews.

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