site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36884 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.

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.

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