site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   32426 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The strange place of Jewishness in the culture war

I find that Jewishness has a very strange place in the culture war, and I think it merits examination. I welcome people trying to help me make sense of it and figure out exactly where the battle lines lay. Both left and right fancy themselves champions of Jewishness, and paint the other side as antisemitic. It's very strange how it breaks down, and I don't fully understand why and along which lines.

On the left, they're very eager to portray the other side as fascists, holocaust deniers, and old-fashioned anti semites. We can see this in cases like Kyrie Irving mentioned below, and Kanye West, where if anyone says anything bordering on Jew-illuminati conspiracy theory, they are pounced on and labeled as fascist and far right. I particularly disliked the handling of Marjorie Taylor Greene last year, where she said something (which admittedly did sound stupid and crazy to me) about Rothschild, and immediately, I was hearing about "jewish space lasers" from every jewish acquaintance I know. While I do agree that Greene sounded crazy, I think there was a few steps and a lot of filling in the blanks between what she said and something that's legit antisemitic.

On the right, everyone I know is very eager to say that the left hates Jews. These people are fans of people like Bari Weiss. I'm less clear right now on exactly what delineates the claim that the left hates Jews, maybe because we've had a run over the past month of a number of cases of the left supposedly championing Jews (like in the Kanye situation). I know that one such thing that people on the right take issue with is the left being very anti-Israel. Though really, I think it does make sense that being anti-Israel isn't the same as being antisemitic.

This state of affairs makes it difficult for me to predict how my Jewish acquaintances will react to any culture warring. I've found that sometimes, the very same people are eager to claim that liberal American institutions hate Jews due to their stances on Israel, but then will also turnaround and claim that Trump was about to start shipping Jews out to the camps for the 2nd holocaust. It sort of seems to me that most of them are so eager to see oppression everywhere, they're like a leaf blowing in the wind, following whatever the current is, claiming that anyone and everyone is out to get them. Instead, to me, it seems more like (almost) no one is out to get them, and instead everyone wants to claim that their tribe is the only REAL supporters of the Jews.

One could argue jewishness is at the top of the culture war, which helps explain why it's a weapon for both sides.

The history of the holocaust is perhaps the most powerful victim narrative there is - a people brutally killed by the millions in a way that is modern, industrial, and driven by pure hatred. The powerful victim framing is used by the woke left to attack any opponent who publicly identifies the elites as jews.

Of course, when elements of the legacy left and the woke speak out for the rights of palestinians, the right is not going to forgo the opportunity to use the anti-semitism label against them. Rarely does the left criticize the jewish elites these days, apart from some elements of it that have been driven to the very fringe.

And it is the subject of jewish elites that is the most relevant to the culture war. The insanity of many of the trending cultural movements, the racial conflict, anti-energy "ESG" movements, pedophile story hour, #metoo, ubiquity and desensitization of pornography, pro-war/anti-war, and so on, represent such a regression of humanity that you really have to question the extent to which any of it is organic. Insofar as modern American cultural trends are manufactured, it is with the blessing of the elites.

It does not need repeating that jews are over-represented in the sort of elite circles relevant to shaping cultural narratives, media, banking, politics, media, technology, media.

Not all elites are jews, and not all jews are elites, but ingroup preferences and biases are going to play a role both consciously and unconsciously in the decisions of who is and isn't let in. Not really good or evil, just human (and potentially evil).

But certainly some forces at play in the culture war could be fairly called "evil". Beyond the promotion of degeneracy and "pitchfork people versus torch people" distractions, the most obvious example is the insanity and crushing of the human spirit following the amplification of the fear and hysteria around covid that lasted two years and in some circles persists to today. A rational society led by benevolent elites would be discouraging fear and encouraging calm in response to a novel cold virus.

So we know these elites can use the jewish victim narrative as a shield against criticism and use the vast and well-funded network of "anti-hate" groups to ostracize and ruin their opponents as soon as they start to notice and vocalize the apparent overrepresentation of jews among the people who appear to be perpetuating these evils. One of the most famous people in the world saying "Jews control the banks" and losing access to his bank immediately thereafter brings this into the forefront of the collective consciousness.

With this in mind it's useful to clarify the relevant issue here, which is not jewishness generally, but a group of people that obtains and maintains wealth and power through careful cunning, manipulation, and deception, caricatured in the meme of the "grabbler" and broadly repeated in anti-sesmitic stereotypes dating back centuries.

So what exactly is the connection between all of these elements:

  • Over-representation of jews in elite circles of media, banking, politics.

  • "Anti-semitisism" as the most stigmatized form of hate.

  • Superiority complexes, "goyim", and narrative control / censorship.

  • Glamorization of cultural degeneracy and wokeism.

  • Demonization of family and traditional values.

  • Promotion of racial conflict, and anti-whiteness.

  • Covid lockdown hysteria, vaccine apartheid, the pharmaceutical industrial complex.

  • Ye sacrificing his career and professional reputation because he's "off this meds".

  • Epstein didn't kill himself; human trafficking and blackmail of influential people.

  • Financialization of the economy over the past 50 years.

  • Debt, compound interest, ESG, growing income/wealth inequality, inflation, and poverty.

  • "You will own nothing and be happy"

That is the realm of the jew-illuminati conspiracy. There may even be no connection at all, and the trends we see are just a natural result of free markets, globalization, and technology intersecting with human nature.

The extent to which jewish thought may be influencing the elites control of culture nonetheless warrants some consideration from anyone seeking to understand the culture war, though you won't find any real answers amidst the sea of anti-semitic nonsense out there, and must bear in mind that merely speculating on the connection between nefarious behavior of elites and jewish thought is itself met with hostility and used to further the victim narrative.

Ultimately it is likely a fruitless endeavor, though if the connection is real then continuing to sweep it under the rug is perhaps a recipe for holocaust 2.0. And now, even if you conclusively prove some "evil jews" conspiracy to be true, sharing it widely will only cause problems, you are better off sharing the more nuanced anti-semitic take of "don't kill the jews; kill the jew inside you"; meaning, don't perpetuate any of these toxic cultural elements and resist the temptations of greed, status, and materialism, in favor of a life of service and respect towards others. Because the power to do these evils comes only from exploiting human weakness and temptation, and the more we recognize that and refuse to comply, the weaker that power becomes. In the end, whether the jewish influence is 0% or 100%, isn't that the outcome we should all want?

We can see this in cases like Kyrie Irving mentioned below, and Kanye West, where if anyone says anything bordering on Jew-illuminati conspiracy theory, they are pounced on and labeled as fascist and far right.

Major nit: There's a difference between saying something "bordering on Jew-illuminati conspiracy theory" and saying something that can, without much interpretative effort, be understood as literally meaning "I want to systematically kill Jewish people".

Using Kanye West's outbursts as an example to prove a point about how you can't criticize Jews without being deplatformed is at least as misrepresentative of reality as claiming you're being victimized by somebody's (unwitting) use of the 'OK Sign' hand gesture.

I'm certainly no expert, but I think you're making the mistake of conflating different sorts of jews. Both Democrats and Republicans are quick to support "the Jews", but it's mostly different jews! Democrats support elite western jews, and Republicans support Israeli nationalist jews. These two groups often hate each other, and have two different approaches to their "jewishness". So, for the Democrats, and their elite jewish constituency, Israel is an embarrassingly competent state which has engaged in all the sorts of state-level fuckery that all countries do, especially when they have power. Plus, there's a "colonialism" flavor to it, and perhaps a bit of distaste for the realpolitik required to create an actual physical state rather than an abstract ideal of "Zion".

OTOH, the muscular, militaristic nationalism of the jewish state, religious nature and conflict with arab and muslim groups which also attack US interests appeals directly to American advocates of militant religious nationalism.

So the question is, do you like your jews militarily weak but politically powerful as a small minority, or strong as a majority in their own country?

You're probably right to some degree, but as far as some of the Jewish people I know, they themselves seem to defy factions. They are elite Western Jews, who are also Zionists. As a consequence, they are eager to believe that western liberal institutions hate them, and also that the right is full of fascists who want to have the second Holocaust.

Literally anybody that does not cheer for team J gets deplatformed, fired, unbanked, sued for millions of dollars...

Countersemitism is actually a broadly popular mindset, as it always was.

You just wouldn't know if you only watch TV or youtube and read reddit.

American politicians will one day say that it's unacceptable that foreign countries influence American elections [talking about Trump/Russia] then attend an AIPAC meeting where they will pledge their undying support of Israel.

You only hear about the people that have the wealth and fame combination that allows them to 1 - have some people listen to them 2 - have the resources to survive getting cancelled.

Everyone else just can't afford to openly talk about jewish power, even if they are acutely aware of it, so they self-censor.

Most self-censor themselves before even formulating an actual thought, as they are bathed in a constant semitic propaganda.

Countersemitism is actually a broadly popular mindset, as it always was.

Has countersemitism, broadly popular as you say, been able to articulate a way to oppose semitic hegemony to achieve political, cultural, and financial sovereignty? What does freedom look like and how do we arrive there?

I haven't even read some of the most prominent countersemitism experts, but there is a wide array of solutions.

I think most are focused on drawing awareness.

For example :

How seriously would Americans take impeachment proceedings if they were aware that a large majority of the key actors all belong to the same tiny minority of the population?

How much less would they trust the Biden administration if they knew how under-represented the average American is?

What's gonna happen to that small subset of the population if/when the economy/Ukraine war/etc come crashing down?

I think there's already been a lot of work done historically, I'm thinking of the yellow hat of the Middle Age or the real estate regulations of the Magna Carta.

But I think that a good starting point would be to simply investigate a lot of these power players just to see what is going because clearly there's been a lot of coverups going on, from Epstein and the other heroes of #MeToo era to even the bankers under Obama and beyond, or the warmongers under Bush.

There hasn't been a lot of accountability in all these rotten events.

Zionism (right) vs Bolshevism (left).

Also, Jewish space lasers are as true as turning the frogs gay.

Can you explain Jewish space lasers? Metaphorically turning the frogs gay was true- everyone’s gay now and we don’t know why.

Iron Beam and similar directed energy weapons. They can allegedly shoot down satellites. Apparently China, Russia, Israel, and the US have these weapons. There also may, or may not be, DEWs in space, which can either shoot down other satellites or possibly ground based targets (I can't imagine they'd be too effective shooting the ground, unless they are one time use, or spend a hell of a long time charging; maybe a nuclear powered one could do it?).

The Jewish space laser conspiracies started with simple 'space laser' conspiracies. There was a growing conspiracy around various forest fires being done by DEWs. Lots of videos of California neighbourhoods burned down, but all the trees and stuff being untouched; melted cars; and then there were 'strange' light beams visible on some weather satellites. I just follow conspiracies for fun, so I don't really try to remember all the details.

Then the Space Force came out, talking about how China and Russia had DEWs in space (or targeting space?). And so then the conspiracies around DEWs went into overdrive. I don't know how the Jewish part ended up being added, but I assume Israel. If not Israel, then it's probably just 'The Powers That Be'. You can attribute any conspiracy to the Jews.

Turning the frogs gay was about a chemical (atrazine) that was getting into the water (usually from runoff from farms), and frogs exposed to it would change into females. So it's really the frogs are trans, rather than gay. And if 'they' means the government, then I suppose we could blame them. So 'they are turning the frogs gay' is mostly true.

And space lasers almost certainly exist; whether they are space-based and shooting at other satellites, or ground-based and shooting into space. Don't know about space to ground. I imagine there's a >90% chance that a Jewish person was heavily involved in designing it. And I imagine there's a >50% chance that Israel has some. So Jewish Space Lasers seems mostly true to me, though probably not quite as nefarious as the wording makes it seem.

I don't know how the Jewish part ended up being added, but I assume Israel. If not Israel, then it's probably just 'The Powers That Be'. You can attribute any conspiracy to the Jews.

Jewishness got added because Greene mentioned Rothschild Inc in her original statement. This is why I said:

I think there was a few steps and a lot of filling in the blanks between what she said and something that's legit antisemitic.

Yes, the Rothschilds are Jewish, and some people probably link that to their conspiracies about them ruling the world. But they're also super rich, and people think they rule the world for that reason, too. We have no evidence (as far as I know) that Greene was coming at this from an antisemitic perspective, yet people quickly latched onto that, until people wouldn't shut up about "Jewish space lasers", driving me insane.

The frogs turning gay was almost literally true.

Also literally turning the frogs gay. (Really, turning the frogs trans, but who's counting...) I will never cease to be amazed at the ability of the internet to take Conspiracy Theories Czar Alex Jones and unerringly zero in on the like one thing he ever said that actually has a shred of evidence to it.

(To be clear, that effect has been questioned a bunch, and I have no idea what's actually up with it. But "Alex Jones cites a study that may not hold up" is hardly how you see the claim treated.)

Alex jones' talent is digesting tons of internet conspiracy info and sources, and regurgitating it in the most evocative, outrageous, and poetic manner. He also invariably always frames it US vs. THEM.

Thus sex deformities in amphibians caused by chemical runoff, turns into "THEY"RE PUTTING CHEMICALS IN THE WATER TO TURN THE FREAKIN FROGS GAY"

But 99% of what he says doesn't originate with him... it originates in invariably more respectable sources, or online discussion... but because he's such a virtuoso with phrasing, the most popular summary of the story is always his summary...

Most of his predictions aren't even predictions. As he says "WE HAVE ALL THEIR WHITEPAPERS", he just read the WHO documents about vaccine passports from like 2014, was going on about how they're going to take all your freedom away with a pandemic and vaccine passports...and then COVID hit and what do you know Alex Jones was right...except they'd openly planned and published their vaccine passport ideas in 2014, it wasn't a "Conspiracy" it was open policy, its just Alex Jones is the only person who hates them enough to read their boring speculative white papers about things that aren't going to happen, until they do.

deleted

It sure was lucky for the left that the Kochs aren't Jewish.

deleted

Honestly I'm not sure how many of his opponents even know he's Jewish. It seems like the median right winger thinks of Soros as "billionaire from something or other, eastern european but I don't know what country, uber-liberal views and supports lefty organizations in a way that isn't really fair and I couldn't explain why". Sort of like a less specific version of Bill Gates(who they also don't like).

The Rothschilds are the same thing; I'm not sure if they people ranting about their influence even know they're Jewish, or anything about what they are other than "vaguely wealthy family with vaguely sinister behavior".

My estimate is "about as many as those who know there is such a thing as Jews".

deleted

Thank you, I think you've well-put a lot of my frustrations over how people responded to Greene, latching so quickly onto anything that seemed like it could be used to tar her, when it's not quite so clear. When I first looked into what exactly she said, I also thought "wait... she didn't really mention Jews, exactly, why is everyone taking this stance in opposition to her?"

Because the Rothschild family features in a lot of conspiracy theories due to being enormously wealthy and influential during the 19th century. You really don't need any additional explanation for why a family that had that level of wealth and influence over governments for a century accumulated conspiracy theories exaggerating their power further. Look at the conspiracy theories that have accumulated about Bill Gates in just a couple decades. Someone did the usual conspiracy-theorist thing of playing Six Degrees of Separation and noticing they were connected to PG&E, and then MTG read and repeated it.

For fans of irony - Despite being super into any conspiracy as a kid, I used to mindkill anyone who mentioned any antisemetic conspiracy (this is back when I was a good boy, 11 or 12 or so). That was until I got accused of trying to spread antisemetic conspiracy theories for doing a history report on the amazingly cool (to a poor stupid x files fan) Rothschilds, who were so awesome back in the day that people still thought they ran the world. Apparently I was trying to dog whistle antisemetism despite not actually knowing they were Jewish (the term dog whistling wasn't used back then, the teacher just called it being sneaky).

So much has been said on this topic over the centuries, it's tedious.

The long and short of it is that Jews truly have «systemic power» that the left accuses White-cishet-male-etc. outgroup of having; perhaps this accusation is better understood as a deflection. They are overrepresented in positions of power, they are substantially coordinated specifically as Jews, including in those positions of power, via a rich and dense network of Jewish organizations focusing on outreach to/bargaining with/pressuring people in power – well, this «they» necessarily excluding those who neglect their ethnic identity or its illegible political terms (e.g. Greenwald), and the fruit of in-group preference that those factors provide, but in terms of total influence this isn't a noteworthy caveat – and their coordinating structures are dedicated to maintaining and furthering this power, first of all by means of promoting the doctrine of Jewish victimhood (to the point of it having become a kneejerk quasi-religious dogma, with Hitler impersonation being about as taboo as Devil worshipping was in the Middle Ages – at least the medievals could have their Festivals!), and secondly by eroding the capacity of other peoples to coordinate, except to again erode the bigger and stronger group's capacity. So we have Civil Rights support and assorted pro-Black activism including BLM, but the moment Blacks begin to build their identity on the Black Hebrew Israelite/Nation of Islam ideology (admittedly a complete schizo clown show), Jews pull the plug and we see those performative lustrations.

This isn't new. I think the difference this time is that Western elites are progressively becoming, well, less Western, and more tolerant of explicit ethnic casteism, especially when powered by genuine differences in capability: for a good illustration, see @BurdensomeCount here. Due to all people nominally having the same rights and obligations, there is no notion of noblesse oblige either, the useful bits of Western egalitarianism being combined with useful bits of Eastern might-makes-right logic.

I think in my lifetime, even with moderately pessimistic estimates (i.e. the next 15 years) I'll see the flip-flop on this topic, a sharp transition to normalization of the belief that Jews, as a politically represented ethnic fraction, are just inherently better and have more rights than Gentiles. Those demands of admitting the advantage, with the promise of recognizing it as valid, are not as clever as people like Roko may imagine.

Sorry to reply to old comment (was browsing the threads after just making an account here). But I had to ask about your bold prediction here:

I think in my lifetime, even with moderately pessimistic estimates (i.e. the next 15 years) I'll see the flip-flop on this topic, a sharp transition to normalization of the belief that Jews, as a politically represented ethnic fraction, are just inherently better and have more rights than Gentiles

Really? On what grounds will this belief be justified? Certainly not religious ones in the secular mainstream. You expect HBD beliefs to be normalized as well? You perhaps consciously exaggerate by adding 'and have more rights' though I'm not 100% sure; I have no idea what sort of rights you think would be claimed. Maybe it seems so vastly unlikely to me because I don't think mainstream sentiment tolerates such extreme dissonance as that, the message for several decades being so vigorously against that kind of claim-to-superiority. The majority of non-Jews will not tolerate it and the taboo on HBD is sufficiently severe in terms of normalized public discourse. If anything, I think the attempt to normalize the claim would be dangerous for Jews, a lot of cultural and financial power can be taken from a small minority if they offend their neighbors as what happened in Weimar Germany illustrates.

And I don't think you provided a good illustration of Western elites becoming more tolerant of explicit ethic casteism, a comment here with our idiosyncratic commentariat is not a good illustration of any mainstream elite opinion. I am not aware of any good evidence of Western elites becoming more tolerant of explicit ethnic casteism in the way you have in mind, did you have any better examples in mind?

I would ask to bet on it with terms in your favor given how unlikely I consider the proposition concerning the Jews but probably neither of us would offer enough money to make it worthwhile and give motivation to coordinate over a period as long as the next 15 years. Feel free to give more precise details of how we would determine the outcome of such a bet just for fun if you like, though.

Yes, in the highest-likelihood scenario [without AGI-scale events flipping the board and making it unrelateable to our terms], I assume that HBD beliefs, whether truly informed by science of based on folk notions of essential superiority and inferiority, will become significantly less taboo, probably as a result of popular knowledge about elites who'll begin to break away from the normal population using technologies like embryo selection/editing.

On top of that, I wouldn't be surprised by the general discrediting and collapse of wokeness among the secular population (maybe following some CRT/BLM type debacle) and, on the religious side, mainstreaming of the obsequious Evangelical Christian approach to interfaith relations, as other denominations follow with their slowdown or decline – starting with the election of and good performance by DeSantis. Also, as Israel continues to grow and increasingly assert its strategic independence, there will be even less use for the victim narrative, and organizations currently enforcing it will be divested from. In fact, this may already be happening. Greenblatt speaks like an insane cartoon villain; simply saying «yes we are strong, now stop fucking with us» will be better even in terms of optics.

And needless to say, Jews already belong to a comparatively higher caste «with more rights». Though they're not alone there (except they are alone as the group which can both assert perfect assimilation and lobby for their distant ethnostate) – regular Gentile Whites are the sole ethnic grouping that cannot plead for its interests directly, and that affordance is, in my mind, fair to call a «right», if an informal one. Formalizing or at least admitting this difference, at first coyly, then matter-of-factly, is not unthinkable.

I believe that the status quo of hysterical blank slatism and faux-egalitarianism is artificially maintained; its resistance to refutation is not self-sustaining, its arguments are just too weak and infertile, and there's a generation of people who grew up seeing DESPITE memes, followed by «forbidden» PGS/IQ infographics and pathetic shut-it-down responses. It's a minority to be sure, but one that can easily explode in numbers. This is a metastable, fragile situation.

I don't think you provided a good illustration of Western elites becoming more tolerant of explicit ethic casteism, a comment here with our idiosyncratic commentariat is not a good illustration of any mainstream elite opinion

It's sufficient for this attitude change to import more Western elites and their mores from the subcontinent. It just so happens that the first in line to the presidency of the US right now is a half-Brahmin (married to a Jew) and the most powerful person in the UK is a Punjabi. Call me racist, but I don't believe that Count is highly atypical among his kin, as far as perception of group differences is concerned. What's the proportion of Gentile Whites graduating Ivies now, anyway?

Feel free to give more precise details of how we would determine the outcome of such a bet

I agree that this is impractical, but we could establish a series of bets in my favor on specific assertions about mutually exclusive scenarios towards the ultimate outcome, most of which I'd necessarily lose.

regular Gentile Whites are the sole ethnic grouping that cannot plead for its interests directly, and that affordance is, in my mind, fair to call a «right», if an informal one. Formalizing or at least admitting this difference, at first coyly, then matter-of-factly, is not unthinkable.

Then sure, Jews have that right, along with various other ethnic minorities, including even specific Gentile white ethnic groups like Italians and so on (although of course those interest groups became much less vigorous as they integrated into the white mainstream and their ties weakened. But my point is that such interest groups are still around at the local level all over the place in America). The fact that Jews share this right with other minorities makes it very weak evidence for your specific claims about future of Jewish status and its public articulation in America. I grant that they manage to do more with the right than various other minorities, sure.

I also don't think the HBD denial is sustainable in the long run either by the way, but I think the issue will still be sensitive enough that no group is going to be having some kind of literal superiority, in the mainstream, predicated upon HBD details for quite a while if ever in the public sphere. That said the exact timeline on accepting HBD details I'm pretty unsure of. Maybe it will relate to development of bio-technology interacting with genetic details. You read the Jewish scholar Nathan Cofnas's use of HBD details with regard to Jews to argue against various alternative theories of their success, like that of Kevin MacDonald? Is that the sort of use of HBD details you imagine in public discourse with regard to Jews? He was not trying to argue for anything beyond that with it though, let alone legitimate future explicit formal privileges as far as I know.

Your examples of Indian elites in the west are interesting. I agree it would probably be one indicator of increased ethnic caste-ism if a lot more people with Indian cultural background became Western leaders, although I would still want to see the actual evidence and details of them bringing in caste-ist tendencies; the most elite, public-facing could easily be the most culturally integrated. I did hear about Indian executives in American tech bringing Caste-ist discriminatory tendencies with them though (against fellow Indians from lower castes), there were some lawsuits.

How will it relate to the tendency you predict if the American courts strike down affirmative action, barely implicit racial discrimination (like against the Asians at Harvard) in elite universities? I take all the recent hubbub with regard to that as evidence of how uncomfortable Americans remain with explicit racial privileges even for unfortunate groups, let alone already successful groups. I agree without checking the exact statistics that Jews do quite well in American universities for various reasons (some combination of connections, talent, wealth, general success in America, good networking; perhaps their merit advantage has declined in America with Asian immigrants and so on), that is one reason why they definitely wouldn't need or desire to claim any literal formal privileges with associated legitimation through HBD. I don't think they have much incentive at all to radically rock the boat in terms of public claims to privilege.

By the way, is part of your general prediction that American anti discrimination laws will be repealed to allow for the greater privileges you imagine?

And also, unrelated, but hope you are doing well in Turkey or wherever you are now after fleeing Russia, per your previous sharing of personal situation on forum.

Thanks for your concern, I'll probably manage, though I had more confidence in that before crypto crash.

including even specific Gentile white ethnic groups like Italians and so on

Italians not only don't make as much of a use of their identity, but it is qualitatively a lesser card, they cannot insert themselves into conversations about «marginalized peoples» and being targeted and needing police protection in their houses of worship and so on, they cannot very well collect data and wring their hands about the Holocaust of free admixing or falling birth rates in the Italian community, and of course they have no capacity (nor, frankly, interest) to lobby for the national Italian benefit. Armenians have learned recently, too, that not all diasporas are equal, as their homeland was getting pummeled with Israeli weapons. (To her credit, even the staunch Zionist Pelosi made indignant noises and gestures, unlike us «Orthodox brothers», so I don't hold this war against Americans, Jewish or not).

But you are right that there are Gentile white subgroups with lobbying capacity. It's only the central case of whites, normie cishet WEIRD Americans of Anglo-German stock and those who have politically joined them, who cannot advance their collective interests. Some say they don't have those interests and just aren't «a thing», but all sorts of sociometric proxy data correlated with their identity, and identitarian concerns underlying e.g. Trumpism, suggest the opposite; had they their own think tanks and advocacy groups to coordinate explicitly, I believe they'd have been a thoroughly dominant force.

By the way, is part of your general prediction that American anti discrimination laws will be repealed to allow for the greater privileges you imagine?

Not quite. I believe that wokeness justifying affirmative action and founded on the denial of inherent group differences is becoming a toxic asset on its own, both due to the general dilapidation of its supporting rhetoric and due to getting in the way of new, non-White high-performing groups, which are immune to White-targeted guilt-tripping and can organize somewhat. Progressive Jewish organizations (chiefly ADL, of course) which are committed to enforcement of woke views in the public discourse are becoming a liability to the community (which is also changing demographically from something out of a Coen Brothers movie towards something akin to Lakewood, NJ). So Jews with less progressive, more neocon-like and Zionist inclinations, Bari Weiss and her ilk, will feel encouraged to spearman the «revolution» against it, regaining the trust and goodwill of the broader society that's currently being expended, and appropriating the credit of Gentiles like Sailer (who have been speaking against wokeness, and getting silenced, for decades). You can take it as a more or less conspiratorial and bitter spin (e.g. seeing Weiss and Weinstein/IDW and other clowns as trial balloons at seizing the contrarian narrative), but it can be read as a simple, opportunistic response to incentives in real time.

Cofnas isn't a specifically «Jewish scholar», he's more of a good-faith autistic scholar who feels offended on behalf of his people and gets a bit biased; I understand his opposition to MacDonald as something very natural, but ironic given surnames of people who have precluded his own ability to advance in the academia. (On balance, pro-KMac papers in that sequence are stronger, but some parts of the story did get damaged).

I believe he is a true believer in race-blind meritocracy and would have been that way even if his people weren't at the top of HBD totem pole.

Speaking of incentives, I just don't see how Jews can let go of ethnic organizing and its fruit after largely giving up on wokeness and the eternal victim card, so some sort of privilege will emerge and be acknowledged. No positive discrimination, in the form of literal allotments, will be needed. In the end, if your company's board of directors is largely made of one ethnicity because that ethnicity just has higher board-of-directors PGS, and they act in their collective ethnic interests in ways not available to others, and this is not framed as redressing past wrongs, providing support to vulnerable groups and leveling the playing field – what can such a position be called, if not superior?

Speaking of incentives, I just don't see how Jews can let go of ethnic organizing and its fruit after largely giving up on wokeness and the eternal victim card, so some sort of privilege will emerge and be acknowledged.

Jews didn't attain most of their powerful position in society through wokeness and the victim card, they can maintain their position just fine without any need for the kind of explicit discourse shift on the matter you predict. In fact I don't think recent wokeness was even all that beneficial for the Jews, when whites are purposefully disprivileged at high levels that includes the elite Jews that would be competing for those positions; many liberal-left Jews that supported these things are sincerely ideologically universalist and I have not yet seen strong evidence that their positions would be explained primarily in functionalistic terms. I do better understand the prediction when you clarify that you don't have in mind literally formal discriminations, which be would be rather strange.

So I am making the fairly simple to defend prediction of a continuation of the status quo, more or less. I think there is a massive burden of proof on those predicting significant shifts on such sensitive matters. I mentioned Cofnas as that's a good recent example of someone using HBD details to try to refute hostile analyses with other reasons for Jewish success in America; to ask precisely, is that the kind of discourse you imagine being used to legitimate Jewish success alongside the added value judgement that Jews are better and have more rights (by rights you apparently just mean social permission to ethnically organize and inhabit high positions and so on? You say they already do this, so I don't see why the discourse would need to change on it. Acknowledging the existing situation so explicitly just invites hostility).

Also, would you say your position on Jewish power and reasons for it is somewhere between KMac and Cofnas? Should I read KMac if I want the fleshed out details you have in mind with the claims about Jews in power and their doings? Feel free to recommend any other author if there is one with the canonical analysis, presentation of details for you. I'm sure we would disagree on plenty of details, extent but we don't need to go into all of that as I could assume them for sake of argument and still disagree I think on the basic claim about the discourse shift you predict to justify, legitimate, etc Jewish power in next few decades; groups think they are better than the rest all the time but they don't easily get the rest of society to accept such claims in the open and that basic fact plus society's remaining uncomfortability with HBD discourse even if scientific facts are accepted is what makes me fairly confident about your prediction being mistaken; I think you under-estimate how much such claims based on HBD details would be intuitively repugnant to the average American and indeed most liberal-left universalistic Jews regardless of their power and I don't know how I might show that to you.

This state of affairs can hold without any especially significant discourse shift, I also think, which maybe is another reason I am confident:

In the end, if your company's board of directors is largely made of one ethnicity because that ethnicity just has higher board-of-directors PGS, and they act in their collective ethnic interests in ways not available to others, and this is not framed as redressing past wrongs, providing support to vulnerable groups and leveling the playing field – what can such a position be called, if not superior?

Also, on this:

But you are right that there are Gentile white subgroups with lobbying capacity. It's only the central case of whites, normie cishet WEIRD Americans of Anglo-German stock and those who have politically joined them, who cannot advance their collective interests. Some say they don't have those interests and just aren't «a thing», but all sorts of sociometric proxy data correlated with their identity, and identitarian concerns underlying e.g. Trumpism, suggest the opposite; had they their own think tanks and advocacy groups to coordinate explicitly, I believe they'd have been a thoroughly dominant force.

I think WASP elites choose not to advance interests on ethnic lines, this is a matter of ideology. I do not believe they are vigorously prevented by other groups, basically. This is however a complex issue where multiple factors may be at play but I incline against explanations where them being prevented by other groups play a major causal role. Their own ideology is more important and this is what I think happened historically with WASP elites in America by the way, in the 20th century. I can cite to you the book "The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America" by Eric Kaufmann, the narrative of which is summarized as such:

Kaufmann begins his account shortly after independence, when white Protestants with an Anglo-Saxon myth of descent established themselves as the dominant American ethnic group. But from the late 1890s to the 1930s, liberal and cosmopolitan ideological currents within white Anglo-Saxon Protestant America mounted a powerful challenge to WASP hegemony. This struggle against ethnic dominance was mounted not by subaltern immigrant groups but by Anglo-Saxon reformers, notably Jane Addams and John Dewey. It gathered social force by the 1920s, struggling against WASP dominance and achieving institutional breakthrough in the late 1960s, when America truly began to integrate ethnic minorities into mainstream culture.

It seems to me that understanding this historical sequence properly where the facts are all settled can help us evaluate contemporary claims about these groups, so feel free to dispute this further.

Thanks for your effortful comments but I've lost interest in this chain. There are many nitpicks and objections we could discuss (e.g.: Affirmative Action does not substantially harm Jews who, having very high average scores, make it in regardless, but it reduces the relative representation of White Gentiles in prestigious institutions, and accordingly the political power of this competing demographic; iirc Sailer had addressed this years ago, as well as Jewish opposition to AA, that didn't survive this basic observation). What would come out of it, though?

I basically agree with KMac's lens of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, provided in the Culture of Critique. Religions in general are group evolutionary strategies, though the effect is understudied. I also accept broad strokes of his characterizations. Where we differ is in value judgements. I am not that enamored with Northwestern Europeans and their Church-molded mentality, and not that unsympathetic to Jewish traits, doctrines and approaches. Even pretty silly and biased critiques like The Authoritarian Personality have more truth than strongly identifying Whites like KMac, who only recognize humblebrag-worthy faults like «too altruistic» or «not clannish», are willing to admit; if anything, my people have been illustrating this spectacularly since February, and no doubt many NWEs would have gone down the same path with modest prodding. It's not just a libel.

The quasi-conspiratorial issues, leftism, ingroup preference, whatever, those are anodyne. The most devastating and perhaps the most contentious point of those KMac raises is the trait of self-deception prevalent in Jews both on individual and organizational level, its unusual strength, unironically reminding one of doublethink, and its scarily opportunistic nature; though perhaps we need another term, because other peoples self-deceive too, just not so productively on average. Either one sees it, or one does not. It changes everything about the topic, and precludes the possibility of productive engagement between the two camps. In my mind, it's an undeniable reality that cripples your observations like «many liberal-left Jews that supported these things are sincerely ideologically universalist and I have not yet seen strong evidence that their positions would be explained primarily in functionalistic terms».

A very typical case in point:

The establishment of the state of Israel in 1948—and Israel’s military victories over larger Arab forces in 1949, 1956, 1967, and 1973, fostered a surge of pride in Jewish Americans. From antiquity until the creation of the Jewish State, Jews were largely people of the book, merchants and scholars. The creation of Israel unified them into one strong peoplehood, with a homeland and with an army committed to defending the Jewish people worldwide. For the first time in centuries, Jews around the world were no longer victims but architects of their own secure haven that they could flee to in crisis. From the establishment of the Jewish State until the beginning of this century, Zionism came to replace religious observance amongst secular American Jews as a core element of their own Jewish identities. […]

The “New Antisemitism,” also known as anti-Zionism or hatred of Israel as an acceptable stand-in for the classical hatred of Jews, initially gained currency in universities and in leftist intellectual circles. It has since metastasized to much of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Today, several U.S. congresswomen have claimed that Jewish Americans have dual national loyalties.

And so it goes, into rather absurd places, including the victim card:

While we undoubtedly face grave challenges as American Jews, we must not give up. Until now, due to lack of information and fear of rejection and persecution, many American Jews have been complicit as anti-Zionism morphs into the new antisemitism. Now is the time to stand up, fight back with all our remaining might and hold antisemites accountable.

We must form alliances with groups that share the same Judeo-Christian values of freedom and democracy, inspire today’s Jewish youth to be proud of their people and the Jewish homeland, and bring Israel back to the center of our Jewish life in the diaspora.

Or straight from the horse's mouth, right at the top of the hierarchy of the party preaching universalism:

"You can be, all at once, completely Jewish, completely pro-Israel and completely American,” he said.

Schumer bellowed a pro-Israel message at the annual event, while calling out fellow politician Rep. Ilhan Omar who had questioned the Jewish ability to be pro-Israel and pro-American at the same time.

Stunning and brave. (Can you be at once completely Chinese, pro-PRC and completely American? It seems you can't even work for civilian Chinese semiconductor companies and be American these days. This is the qualitative difference in diasporal lobbying power).

This self-contradictory doublethink, the demand to support your double standard in deed and vociferously deny the existence of double standard in word, comes naturally to those universalists, and it is swallowed without objection by Americans, so I do not believe there will be crippling problems with the transition to a more explicit state of affairs.

Yeah, it's a big topic where's confident opinions come from holistic impressions based on lots of history, contemporary anecdotes and rhetoric, etc so reasonable to end it with that; knowing where you agree with KMac, I can read him if I want lots more details on your perspective. Obviously there are a lot of crank-ish commentators on this topic so good to know what to look into beyond my present indefinite questioning of your perspective here.

I see how the point about self-deception would eliminate the contribution of various observations, and that actually helps me understand your justification for sudden shift in discourse to ethno-centric HBD legitimation quite a bit. So reading KMac would be very helpful for me to see that, yes.

Even harder to analyze than Jewish power is future trajectory of ideological justifications, discourse; seems like intuitions about what is or is not acceptable and pace of change on them are based on one's reception of the vibes. As one needs not just confidence on Jewish double-think but acceptance in rest of society. I do hope the IQ HBD taboo gets eradicated, awfully annoying in dealing with all sorts of mundane policy issues.

My point with the book reference about WASPs was just to point to the extent native American forces contributed to the same left-liberal political dynamics that helped eliminate WASP hegemony, which could undercut some of the more ambitious claims about how non-WASP elite actors contributed to their decline. But we don't need to prosecute such details further, though I do recc the book if you are curious about 20th century WASP decline.

us fish, nobility obligates our water

so much of what i see is point-retort noblesse oblige. progressivism wholly, but all the little post-yarvins and their listeners are falling to it. everything, thought, word, premise and conclusion. we know better, we are better, we ought rule. we should do A; no we should do antiA. trying to solve the question of Just Rule invokes it with every answer but one.

but the moment Blacks begin to build their identity on the Black Hebrew Israelite/Nation of Islam ideology (admittedly a complete schizo clown show) …

This is why Conservatives should have encouraged the parallel Black Egyptian Hypothesis movement, also known as Hotep culture. It preserves Jewish/Hebrew identity for Jews of all colors while still encouraging Black men to regard themselves as heir of a great legacy and thus above the petty spites and feuds of street crime culture.

Hoteps are also usually nuts.

for a good illustration, see @BurdensomeCount here. Due to all people nominally having the same rights and obligations, there is no notion of noblesse oblige either,

I very strongly believe in noblesse oblige and perform it when in the midst of my own people. Back home people can basically tell at a glance that I am better than them simply based on my dress (even when I'm wearing local dress my clothes have higher quality fabric are crisper and fit me better due to having been specifically tailored for me) and in such a case I even go out of my way to e.g. at the airport lift my own baggage rather than getting a porter as that is demonstrating the virtue of self sufficiency to others around me. Also when praying I have no qualms to standing next to janitors and ditch diggers, reflecting the fact that while in Earthly matters people have different ranks, in the eyes of God we have all been created equal (and infinitely beneath Him) and that we will be judged for our sins in the same way on the Day of Resurrection regardless of whether one was a prince or a pauper.

When talking to people in my language no matter how low they may be I always use the formal, polite way of referring to them and in conversation always treat them like an equal (because it is possible to tell from my dress, manner of walking, height etc. that I am their superior, I don't need to articulate it). They know they are beneath me, I know I am above them but treating them like dirt beneath my feet isn't going to get us anywhere in relation to the reason I'm talking to them, instead I have a duty of care towards them similar to a parent's duty of care towards their children and I try and make sure that what I'm asking of these people doesn't cross the line over into exploitation (equally I would never ask someone to do something I wouldn't be willing to do myself, I've cleaned plenty of toilets and even once dug a ditch to find out what it was like).

In the west though I don't do any of it, because the proles here believe themselves to be equal in worldly matters to me (lol, lmao even) and so I treat them like equals; much like how my job is focused on figuring out ways to make money off of other market participants in the west these people get to deal with a version of me that only looks after my own self interest, and naturally since they are beneath me they lose out more often.

Once I made close to £500 off a student acquaintance of mine who was making wildly overconfident claims about the probabilities of certain events, I challenged him to trade on it and he accepted, despite knowing I work in quant finance and him being a history & politics student who stopped studying maths at 16. I even pushed to do a big sized trade given how confident he seemed by dangling the carrot of potentially winning £2000 in front of him. Naturally he was wrong, I was right and suddenly he had lost a month's worth of discretionary expenses for him. Had this been back home I would never have proposed the bet in the first place, seeing it as exploitation of those below me in this domain, and even after I had won would probably have returned the money along with a life lesson in being less confident in your assertions but here in the West I was perfectly happy to take the cash as I had rightfully won it from an equal, never mind that it was supposed to be his food money for the rest of the term while it was something I wouldn't even notice (you can probably tell I didn't really like him).

Once I made close to £500 off a student acquaintance of mine who was making wildly overconfident claims about the probabilities of certain events, I challenged him to trade on it and he accepted, despite knowing I work in quant finance and him being a history & politics student who stopped studying maths at 16. I even pushed to do a big sized trade given how confident he seemed by dangling the carrot of potentially winning £2000 in front of him. Naturally he was wrong, I was right and suddenly he had lost a month's worth of discretionary expenses for him.

Just as a curiosity, what were his predictions and what did you do a big trade with him for?

Funnily enough it was the night of the 2020 US election and the trade was over the number of senate seats that the Democrats won on the night. He was your typical snooty nosed liberal who I think wanted to impress a girl also present by claiming to be "leftier than thou" with all of us. At the very least his actions pissed me off pretty early in the night. Also he was the type of "all bluster, no substance" person that is unfortunately pretty common at Oxbridge (wanted to go into politics after graduation etc.) He loudly proclaimed that everyone hates Republicans and was making unprompted statements like "there is a 50% chance Dems get at least 52 seats tonight" and I decided to teach him a lesson. All I did was check 538 predictions for what the real probability of that was and challenged him to trade, mentioning that if he really thought there was a 50% chance Dems got 52 seats he should be very happy to do a 4:1 trade with me that it's not going to happen (maybe he said 53, I can't exactly remember as it was 2 years ago and I very frequently do these sorts of trades with coworkers).

I suspect because there was a girl he wanted to impress and he didn't want to look like a pussy he didn't back down, most people I propose trades to back down when you suggest involving real money and at that point I decided it would be good to teach him an expensive lesson. I first proposed to do the trade for a small amount, my £80 vs his £20 but he taunted me (or at least I took it as a taunt) by saying I don't really believe in my position considering what a small proportion of my income £80 is given my job salary. At this is was pretty damn pissed off, and decided to properly teach him a lesson and asked him if he wanted to raise the bet size to my £2,000 vs his £500 and he accepted (it's a bit like redoubling in Bridge after your opponents double, they say they can beat you and you say "no you can't we're gonna punish you for thinking you can beat us"). We both transferred the money to the bank account of a trusted mutual acquaintance and waited until morning, whereupon I got my £2,500 once it because clear that it wasn't possible for Dems to get 52 seats any more and the best part was that he didn't even flip out or anything at me, despite having lost significant money and his body language showing he very clearly wanted to do so, because the girl was still there and it would look like he was having a tantrum.

To this day I haven't talked to him again, I saw him a few times walking around college after that event but never exchanged words, he should have graduated by now.

Looking back this probably wasn't the best bet to make because of the Georgia runoff which could have locked my (and his) money up for a pretty long time, but hey it worked out for me in the end.

You both sound like highly unpleasant people but then again, a fool and his money are soon parted, so you did teach him a valuable lesson.

You both sound like highly unpleasant people

Funnily enough pretty much nobody who actually knows me in person decently well would describe me as unpleasant. People generally consider me to be fun, easy going, patient and extremely generous. Perhaps I'm giving off the wrong vibes with my writing style, I don't know...

I will pray for you.

Back home people can basically tell at a glance that I am better than them simply based on my dress

The son of God rode in on a donkey and never expected anybody to 'tell at a glance that he was better than them'.

Those who believed in him created the civilization that lucky people like you get to visit and 'work in quant finance' in.

my job is focused on figuring out ways to make money off of other market participants in the west these people get to deal with a version of me that only looks after my own self interest, and naturally since they are beneath me they lose out more often.

You didn't choose your job? Who forced you to 'only look after your own self interest'? I pray that we all find the alternative version of ourselves that treats others better than ourselves.

I will pray for you.

Thank you, and I will remember to pray for you too.

The son of God rode in on a donkey and never expected anybody to 'tell at a glance that he was better than them'.

While I believe in Jesus and respect him as a prophet bringing the word of god to mankind I'm not a Christian but rather a Muslim. There is an Authentic Hadith that goes:

Abu Huraira reported: I have not seen anyone more graceful than the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, as if the sunlight emanated from his face. I have not seen anyone quicker in his walking than the Prophet, as if the earth was folded for him. We would exert ourselves, while he would not endure any difficulty.

As well as others like (this is one of the miracles attributed to Muhammad);

Imam Ibn Abi Khaythamah has recorded the following narration on the authority of Sayyidah ‘Aaishah : “None who was regarded to be tall would walk alongside him, except that Muhammad would be taller. At times two tall men would stand on either side of him and he would still be taller than them. When they would go away, they would once again be described as being tall and Muhammad as moderate”

In Islam it's pretty well established that Muhammad from his appearance stood out and displayed nobility in everything he did. There is also a Hadith that says:

Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Noble character is among the deeds of Paradise.”

Islam is rather more of a warrior's religion than Christianity. I find the latter very much reflects a slave mentality that (in my opinion) isn't the best for individuals to hold, for example from the Sermon on the Mount there are statements like “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." and things like "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you". To me this reflects a warped viewpoint of the world and in this case I identify more strongly with the Confucian doctrine of "treating your enemy the same way you treat your friend is an insult to your friend" (I suppose this provides an example of fundamental differences in the basic beliefs that Western/Eastern cultures were built on that then went on to cause the cultures to diverge further and further as they developed, a bit like different starting conditions in a chaotic system).

Those who believed in him created the civilisation that lucky people like you get to visit and 'work in quant finance' in.

True, but those people have gone now and western society is trending towards godless heathenism, that culture is slowly going extinct even though the genes are still there, basically in inverse of how the Magyars strongly contributed to modern Hungarian culture, but very little to their genes. A modern Hungarian saying Magyars were his genetic ancestors would elicit a scoff from me, much like how a modern non-believing westerner would do if they said that the believers in Christ who built the West were their memetic ancestors.

You didn't choose your job? Who forced you to 'only look after your own self interest'? I pray that we all find the alternative version of ourselves that treats others better than ourselves.

Nobody. I actually always try to treat people I know better than myself, it's just that in the West without noblesse oblige I don't really give a shit about providing direction and being a good role model towards low class people I don't personally know or have relationships at at least the level of "friendly acquaintance". Back home I do indeed look out for others, even random strangers before caring for myself to an extent. It's considered bad form to say how much you give to charity but I give freely to the poor and always have done so, this being a value instilled in me by my parents from an early age. In fact I consider my high paying finance job as sort of a reward from God for freely giving to the poor and needy, indeed I didn't keep that £500 I won from that overconfident western idiot but instead donated it to the Edhi Foundation which provides hospital and ambulance services to the extremely poor back home and saves countless lives a year (Edhi himself was a great man, in Islam it's generally frowned upon to donate organs but even then shortly before he died he asked his doctors if any parts of his body might be of use to patients and they replied that while most of them wouldn't - he was 88 at the time - his eyes could still be implanted so he gave those up too when he passed away, one final act of charity towards those who need it).

I too hope we all find the ability to put others before ourselves.

Islam is rather more of a warrior's religion than Christianity. I find the latter very much reflects a slave mentality

Warrior of that?

The Christian god very much intend his followers to be obedient to him, but the ideal Christian behavior is not really to be a slave, as Christians have historically rather chosen to die as a martyr than conceal their faith or deny their god.

Any persecution can be tolerated for the sake of the actual life with god, after this worldly one.

I actually always try to treat people I know better than myself, it's just that in the West without noblesse oblige I don't really give a shit about providing direction and being a good role model towards low class people I don't personally know or have relationships at at least the level of "friendly acquaintance". Back home

What do you mean by that dichotomy?

Do you have a switch on your morality based on where you are located?

One side effect of the Christian behavior of wishing good on your own enemies is that it may potentially lead to a certain admiration by enemies or bystanders for your peaceful, moral behavior.

Perhaps that is one reason you work in quant finance in the West instead of IED development wherever you come from.

If people like you won't use a porter, how are porters going to make a living?

Porters aren't slaves. Hiring one (including as part of a package) is a business transaction from which the porter benefits.

I agree, and the reason I won't use a porter is to demonstrate that relying on servants to do small menial tasks is not necessary (as pretty much everybody back home does, even we have a live in cook) and there is virtue in doing these things yourselves. I don't have anything against using a porter when I have lots of luggage (and do use them) but plenty of people back home with the means hire a porter even when all they have is 1 carry on bag and 1 suitcase, both of which they could easily have moved themselves together because they see the small pittance handed to the porter to be worth less than the effort expended in rolling a single bag along.

This wasn't an attack on your attitude, which if anything is refreshing in its boldness and consistency. Even an explicit Varna system where our neo-Brahmin Judeo-Hapa CEOs are recognized as spiritually (and racially) superior but are also expected to fulfill certain paternalistic prosocial obligations befitting their greater capability would be preferable to the current having-the-cake-and-eating-it-too arrangement, where Whites both underperform and carry the inexhaustible moral burden of transgressions, real and imagined.

Note, however, that in the West you feel noblesse oblige towards, and intend to save, «the West» as an abstraction and a communal cultural legacy. As you have indicated many times in the past, ignorant, wretched lower-to-middle-class Anglos can only inspire an almost-genocidal contempt on your side. You justify this by pointing out their unmerited pretension of equality. Fine. But if we compare values, they are, on average, superior to the median member of your nation (if not your lineage) in all respects one could care about – work ethic, intellect, honesty, fucking cleanliness – except maybe knowing their place; they provide the substrate for your flourishing; and they are not afforded the opportunity to lord over those lesser people in their countries, nor do they seek it – as opposed to their, or rather their upper classes', forefathers of the Colonial era. And indeed both in the US and the UK they calmly accept even the political leadership of your kin; a situation unthinkable in any South Asian nation, no matter the respective merit.

In my eyes this largely redeems their superficial arrogance, and brings the ball back into your court.

they are, on average, superior to the median member of your nation (if not your lineage) in all respects one could care about – work ethic, intellect, honesty, fucking cleanliness – except maybe knowing their place;

Oh absolutely, we've failed to even potty train our lower classes properly...

I have an uncle back home who worked for a few years in the west but went back to take care of my grandparents. He constantly laments the lack of talent and general low performance of the people he can hire compared to what he could get in the West, almost all the competent people basically emigrate and back home we're left with the dregs. It's good for the country as a whole due to remittances but bad for growing successful businesses.

@2rafa says that we should feel deference towards the Anglos at the top and I will freely admit that the superior Anglos are better than the superior South Asians but it is not enough to merely be superior, one has to use it for the benefit of society. A king who does not rule as a king but instead prefers to spend his time slumming it out with the peasants isn't doing them a service, instead he is damaging the realm and in turn the peasants themselves by leaving it headless. Western elites losing the desire to take their natural place and rule justly over society is not something to credit them with, but rather it's a mark on their character.

Modern western elites have very conveniently dropped all the noblesse oblige that required them to put effort into providing direction to society, while adopting all the worst hedonistic impulses that allowed them to focus on putting themselves first over the rest of society. Sure, they spun up a welfare state that now takes up a huge portion of their (and my) taxes and uses them to try and fix the problems they themselves have created but these people by and large are already rich enough to live a good life because of their assets. Instead of earning say £1,000,000 a year and living life according to norms that provide a good role model for others they have chosen the path of earning £500,000 (after taxes) and giving in to personal hedonism where because of their support structures they still do well, nay better than the first case, in the end, while setting fire to what remains of society.

I think your accusation of my "almost-genocidal contempt" towards the lower classes is unfounded. What I dislike about the western lower classes is their insubordination, this doesn't merit their (or anybody's) genocide, other than that I think they are probably the best lower classes you can find anywhere in the world. They are not to blame for the degenerate culture they have adopted, in a functioning society culture is set by the elite, and it is modern western elites who have failed to articulate and indoctrinate a good and successful way of life/vision of society to the lower classes.

If I were to have "almost-genocidal contempt" towards anybody it would be towards the memes of the modern Western upper class. It is their dereliction of duty that has led to the current state of affairs, I would classify it as a sin towards their own lower classes, and as we all know, the wages of sin is death. This dereliction of duty is not something I am thankful to the western upper classes for, they have chosen the path of easy hedonism for themselves over their ordained role of ruling wisely over the rest of us. And for this they deserve to be at the very least memetically replaced.

Indeed I lay the blame at the feet of western elites not only for the modern state of the West but also the subcontinent as a whole. There is a saying, said half jokingly, back home that in 1947 the white man took his independence from us and left. After plundering India for a hundred years once the concept of universal human rights had developed to the point where taking care of us as our master and leader was about to become more of a burden than a boon the white man very craftily packed his bags, sowed in us the seeds of "freedom" and left us to our own devices, whereupon the local elites who were less competent in almost every way and more corrupt etc. were forced to try and make a go of things. Naturally this led to worse outcomes than one where the white man would still be ruling over us justly and fairly. Well many of us weren't having it and instead of consigning ourselves to be ruled over by our own incompetents we sought our way to the home of the white man, where he was still in charge and things were better. A friend of mine once told a white person he was talking to that the reason there are so many of us now in the UK is that because "you were there, so now we are here".

These days though the white man doesn't even want to rule over his own lands and tries to pass off shirking his duty to enjoy the hedonistic life as being the morally "right" and "just" thing to do, how far has he fallen...

Nobility, as far as I understand it, is about owning land, developing it and those who dwell on it and protecting it and them from harm. (Whatever "bloodline" and "good stock" are, they only contribute to nobility as much as they contribute to what nobles do). Perhaps Burdensome has neglected to mention everything he does that makes him, as he puts it, "better", but from what I gathered from his post he moves money around the Western market and earns a premium based on how much of it ends up in his employers' hands. Hardly evokes an image of a noble patriarch, that.

Right, the devil is very much in the details as far as @BurdensomeCount’s account of his noblesse oblige. The nobility of medieval Europe were expected to actually materially improve the lives of the people living under them, and to provide military protection for them. They were warlords - warlords with culture and at least the trappings of a genteel bearing, to be sure, but we’re talking about a network of guys who were expected to raise and lead armies in brutal combat.

I’m sure that @BurdensomeCount would say that he’d be happy to be a benevolent patriarch to the Western proles, and to provide for and protect them, if only they hadn’t pre-emptively spurned his noblesse with their gross insubordination. But could it be that he has gotten the causation backwards? Maybe the Western proles hate him and revolt against him because they are fully aware that he is in their country specifically to do something parasitic which produces zero actual value for anyone who isn’t a mega-wealthy vulture capitalist, and they don’t believe that he has anything remotely useful or beneficial to offer them.

A shake-up a few years ago in the executive suite of the multi-billion-dollar corporation with which I’m employed led to the ascension of an Indian Brahmin CEO, who then hired a few of his co-ethnics to major positions in the company. I’m sure that this guy probably sees himself precisely the way that Burdensome sees himself; as a paragon of superior breeding, here to rescue a flagging company with his immense and visually-obvious inborn talents. What most of us proles see, though, is a painfully awkward empty suit with not one iota of integrity or love for the common man in his bones. A parasite, here to bleed the company dry, dither about wage increases, and give a leg-up to other immigrants from his caste. A massively well-compensated parasite, and almost certainly a profoundly intelligent and numerate man, but someone I wouldn’t let into my home.

I would actually be fine with an immigrant overclass who displayed a genuine noblesse oblige. I agree with Burdensome that Anglosphere proles - I can’t speak to the state of Western proles more broadly - are degenerated and unworthy of the mantle of self-rule. They are crying out for someone to be their champion, but their shitty tastes and miscalibrated instincts keep leading them to elevate what, to the rest of us, are obvious grifters and charlatans. A ruling class with a combination of genuine erudition, hyper-competence, and noblesse oblige is exactly what these people need, and while I’m far from convinced that we’re past the point that we could construct such a class entirely from native-born talent, it’s at least plausible. The problem is that we can sense, with zero difficulty, that the overclass we’re actually importing are soulless sycophants and parasitic quants, saying whatever they need to say to get ahead while privately undermining and bleeding dry the people they’re ostensibly supposed to be protecting. Until the proles see concrete changes, of course they’re going to be insubordinate. You can play chicken-and-egg games all day, but from my perspective the ball is in your court to earn their deference.

I find the position strange because cursory research shows a clear over-representation of Jews in key areas of society, yet you have Jewish advocacy groups whose aim seems to be to replace any thought of this with the propaganda that “white people” are over-represented, which most people do not interpret as “mostly Jews”. The sheer chutzpah of this group to go after rappers because they “spoke truth to power” inarticulately is staggering, because their crime is not misinformation — saying it about white would get a pat on the back —but naming a group a little too accurately. Since when do we expect rappers to be articulate, anyway? When Lebron James, king of the first page of books, says that every day black people are hunted by white people, was he called out or was he praised?

So I think this is the strange place of “organized activist jewry”, or whatever you want to call the alliance of Jewish-identifying advocacy groups and journalists. You have a wealthy, influential cabal, united by a belief in the superiority of their bloodline, and they’re pushing a little too much and the curtain is started to tear. While of course I hope that every Jewish life is safe in America, the blacklash seems utterly natural, and I’m not going to catastrophize the words they pick when they speak truth to power. As organized Jewry is pretty much against my interests, I hope awareness continues to spread, and this awareness will of course be deemed anti-Semitic.

"Since when do we expect rappers to be articulate?"

I don't know. Rappers do truck in wordsmithery after all. The gift of gab is out front in that particular genre of music more than any other.

I thought that as a kid listening to rap, but when I listen to it now I find the vocabulary to be exceptionally poor. With most of the stories and/or the message of the songs superficial and presented in the most ineloquent and straightforward way possible. Compared to extremely simple poetry like The Life of A Cupcake most rap doesn't even compare.

Ya Rap survives because black people and lesbians are the last people allowed to produce Bawdy poetry (and somehow the lesbians are even worse at it), the most popular genre of poetry for most of human history

Regime de Vivre

I rise at eleven, I dine about two,

I get drunk before seven; and the next thing I do,

I send for my whore, when for fear of a clap,

I spend in her hand, and I spew in her lap.

Then we quarrel and scold, 'till I fall fast asleep

When the bitch, growing bold, to my pocket does creep;

Then slyly she leaves me, and, to revenge the affront,

At once she bereaves me of money and cunt.

If by chance then I wake, hot-headed and drunk,

What a coil do I make for the loss of my punk!

I storm and I roar, and I fall in a rage,

And missing my whore, I bugger my page.

Then, crop-sick all morning, I rail at my men,

And in bed I lie yawning 'till eleven again.

-- John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester (approx 1675)

united by a belief in the superiority of their bloodline

If you think that that is what "the chosen people" means, you are quite mistaken.

Imagine I told someone that God has singled white people out for special responsibilities and wants me to keep the bloodline pure, that my worship must be led by those of special German descent, and that God has made special promises with rewards to my European ancestry, including a carve out of land in, hm, Uzbekistan. They will obviously think I am crazy, because such ideas are crazy, but they would also come away with the idea that I am a white supremacist and an extremely dangerous person.

Well, it depends. Did you also say, "According to the [leaders of the white people], [whites] has not been chosen as the people of the Law on account of its racial superiority.'? or that ""A [non-white] who consecrates his life to the study and observance of the Law ranks as high as the high priest"? Or that "Poverty is the quality most befitting [whites] as the chosen people"? Or that "Only on account [their] good works [are whites] among the nations "as the lily among thorns" ? Then, no, I would not draw that inference.

And if I said “God has chosen us and sanctified us out of all the nations”, “[europeans] only have I singled out of all the families of the earth”, and “[europeans will] be a peculiar treasure unto God from all the peoples”?

We can try to lighten the statements however we want, but this is what is believed. For those versed in the Talmud it’s no problem to say “Jews were not chosen from racial superiority”, because this is true in their legalese, as God is said to have chosen Jews on His own accord thereby making them superior. Such a statement does not answer whether Jews functionally believe that they are superior.

The Talmud rolls back Meir’s assertions, with

they will receive reward not like those who having been enjoined perform commandments, but like those who not having been enjoined perform good deeds

And in some cases prescribes the death penalty for a gentile who studies the Torah

the punishment of a gentile who studies Torah is like that of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, which is execution by stoning

And the fruits of being especially chosen have been persecution, so make of that what you will.

I'm curious what your qualifications are to say "what is believed." And,re who gets rewards, if you are not familiar with the Jewish concept that any righteousness person gets said rewards,regardless of faithm, you don't know much

I think it's as simple as Jews say [positive statements about themselves] and that if a group of white people ever said [positive statements about themselves] on account of being white then they'd get called Supremists. Not because they actually think they are supreme, just, calling a group of white people White Supremists is just a Thing You Do to boo them. See also: conflation of White Separatists/Nationalists with supremists.

This angle fits the rest of the post, which was about overrepresentation, which is true but unacceptable to mention about Jews, but is acceptable to mention about whites. See also: the way to get the ADL to defend Ethnonationalism is to mention Israel.

I don't know what that has to do with the statement that I took issue with, which was that Jews are "united by a belief in the superiority of their bloodline." That is a very different claim than "Jews can get away with saying positive statements about themselves but whites can't,' which I don't take issue with as a factual claim.

Those who believe it only believe it unconsciously. Few believe it consciously, and of the ones that do, I'd expect 0 to be secular progressive NYT writers.

There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?

To the same extent that a Protestant work ethic doesn’t go away when Protestantism is discarded, or the residue of guilt doesn’t go away when Catholicism is discarded. If you are raised going to Temple, or have parents who do, and spend time in a social circle that is influenced by the religion, that will have an implicit effect. Essentially, as these progressive Jews believe that the stain of racism isn’t easily washed off of white Americans, I assert that the mark of tribal ethnic supremacism doesn’t immediately disappear once attendance to Temple discontinues.

They aren’t raised going to temple, though, that’s the whole point. Jews are about as religious as any other northeastern ethnic group(that is, not very) and the secular reform Jews writing for the NYT may have gone to synagogue on Hanukkah and Passover growing up but they mostly weren’t regular attendees, didn’t keep kosher, didn’t have a predominantly Jewish circle, etc.

Why would that be the defining feature? Culture alone could carry on for generations after explicit religious attendence stops. My ex-wife was one of those secular Jews, but she still grew up in a Jewish community in Brooklyn; she used to criticize the in-group solidarity she saw, even as she was heavily acculturated into it. There is a very noticible difference compared to our children who are being raised in an almost entirely gentile community.

Moreover, virtually all "white billionaires" are no card bearers of pro-white activism. Quite the contrary. On the "Jewish Question" though, I think part of the reason why Jew-owned newspapers like NYT have seen an uptick in criticisms towards the IDF's excesses in Gaza for example is the right's co-option of the Zionist cause and pacify the would-be criticism from the left. Perhaps the conventional right wing antisemitic tropes of Jewish influence in the west to lobby for Jewish nationalism militaristically and violently while eroding gentile nationalisms through diversity and mass immigration are not too far off the mark.

I also think the adage that today's conservatives are mostly yesterday's liberals is largely correct, and this is where large parts of the pro-Zionist right stands on the matter (of course, we also have the grassroots Evangelical movement in favour of Israel). The accusations they lay against the left are by and large within the liberal framework, you could see this in statements like "leftists are the real antisemites/bigots", "leftists are the real fascists", and so on. The same people however are also vehemently opposed to regime change operations in the MENA region against Assad, etc.

That said, while I do see what the left, tankies and Arab Ba'athists say about the Zionist lobby in the US, its still difficult for me to believe that American mainstream media is biased towards Israel and silent on IDF atrocities against Palestinians. Tons of Democratic voters outright believe that Israel shouldn't exist, I suppose two of those groups are primed to just see anything western as a hostile outgroup?

EDIT: As an aside, could it also be that this is another reason why the "incel" movement is so reviled by the mainstream? After all, young lonely men are very prone to political indoctrination and they often rail against the hyper-individualist hyper-capitalist culture for atomising society into loyal consumers and eroding all traditional support structures (or their own idea of said structures), rendering them unhappy. Often times, this does infringe on espousing antisemitic tropes. And what do they have to lose for it that the Jewish elites could threaten to take away!

Tons of Democratic voters outright believe that Israel shouldn't exist

What's your proof? I found a survey from 2019 that says Democratic voters positively view Israel while not being as positive about its government.

united by a belief in the superiority of their bloodline

Would you say this belief is wrong?

I would say that Jews do have a hugely disproportionate amount of power in society, but they are also generally higher IQ and higher achieving than pretty much any other group so I guess I’m OK with it. I mean hell the whole reason America and the West won World War II is because the Jews came over and built super weapons for us.

Speaking as someone who is not Jewish.

The war was won because Japan decided to attack the largest and wealthiest developed country in the world, and Germany decided to invade the second largest industrialized country and fight the aforementioned largest and wealthiest developed country in the world, and Germany’s European Allies were a clown show that needed constant diversion of military resources to protect.

The Jews had nothing to do with it except making it easier to shut down questioning of the war narrative after the fact.

The war was won well before the bomb on the back of access to much superior industrial capacity, manpower and oil.

yes. US industrial capacity was so great we could supply both american theaters and underwrite the soviets' materiel efforts.

the bomb shortened a war that was already decided

I mean sure the Allies probably would’ve won, but the quality of the victory is important too. Without the bomb I highly doubt we would’ve had 80+ years of the Pax Americana and US hegemony.

The Soviets having the bomb soon afterward was also directly due to the efforts of a network of spies that were predominately Jewish.

the rosenbergs were framed

those powerful who framed them is a question steeped in shadow

More comments

Hah, I think there is certainly reason for Jews to be proud of their ancestry and group accomplishments. But the way that the religion of Judaism codifies this superiority, in combination with activism, is a somewhat toxic combination.

Jews know that an antisemitic white-meets-antisemitic black coalition is unlikely since black Israelite types tend also to hate white people

This ignores left-wing antisemitism based on either Israel as colonial oppressors or Jews as capitalists. There's not much keeping radical blacks with allying with that.

I think you're understating the possibility of a White/Black antisemitic alliance because Covid changed a lot of dynamics, especially around what certain communities are willing to put up with from potential allies. In particular a lot of Black nationalist groups are genuinely kind of crazy and unpredictable and lots of White nationalists/Christian nationalists are willing to look the other way and or keep their mouths shut because they expect to be the dominant partner in such a coalition. And that both might easily take a "the real enemy is the Jews" attitude.

I mean, I don't think it's the most plausible scenario, but I do think dismissing it as "haha, they don't get along" is overlooking some things.

If we define the left as extreme progressives - both BDS and the left tolerance of anti jewish crime when the perp is not white make compelling cases.

I'm less clear right now on exactly what delineates the claim that the left hates Jews.

The left has historically played host to a wide range of activism sympathetic to the Palestinian side in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. This can range from everything from genteel two-state-solutionism, through the Boycott, Divest, & Sanction movement, to borderline (or at least claimed) anti-Semitism.

Second, leftist attacks on fat-cat capitalists and vulture financiers have verged into imagery that can be interpreted as referring, obliquely, to rich jews.

Third, and most provocatively, radical strains of black activism (such as the Nation of Islam) can be extremely anti-semitic, and during the past few decades there have been a series of anti-jewish incidents in the black community from the Crown Heights riots in the late 90s, all the way to the recent shootings a kosher grocery in New Jersey (iirc).

I'm not sure why one would put NoI on the left, though. In addition to their black nationalism and antisemitism, NoI has espoused, as far as I know, strongly traditional gender roles, anti-gay attitudes, a pro-capitalist (ie. black business) economic policy, and worked with various far-righters (some may have seen this photo of George Lincoln Rockwell at a NoI meeting). What, exactly, would place them objectively on the left?

When NoI-aligned people get involved in partisan politics, they either run as or support Democrats, not Republicans.

Which NoI-aligned people have been involved in partisan politics?

The founding members of the Women's March, for example?

There are probably quite a few people on the right who, if push comes to shove, would admit that they wouldn't really want their daughter to marry a Jew, even though "some of them are OK", but overwhelmingly, full-blown Judenhass is coming from the mainstream left, or people who are defended and enabled by the mainstream left.

I think it's more complicated than that. I doubt that many right wingers outside maybe the most extreme fringes would object to their daughter marrying an ethnic Jew(although there's a lot who aren't even that religious who would expect their daughter's affianced to be at least nominally Christian), but I also don't notice full blown Judenhass as being overwhelmingly left wing. I mean, disproportionately Black and Muslim, sure, but demographics alone don't make weird fringe groups far left. The SPLC claims that IRL tradcaths make up the main group of serious antisemites, and while I don't know that I'd trust the SPLC on anything even remotely related to issues like that, I do think it's pretty clear that real antisemitism is spread pretty far and wide among dissidents, cranks, and fringe groups.

Interesting. I would call the way Kanye situation played out (especially when you compare it to the way the Kyrie situation played out) a prime example of how the Left is perfectly OK with a moderately high level of antisemism, so long as the people spouting it don't step out of line and indicate that they might (gasp!) hold positions that could possibly be described as conservative, or pro-GOP, or pro-Trump.

That's interesting. What about the Kanye situation signifies that to you? I've seen nothing but people on the left hating on Kanye for this and claiming that his fraternizing with the likes of Candace Owens is what did this to him.

Ah, I see. Then my next question would be, what has Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib done that you feel the left is turning a blind eye to? As far as I'm aware, Omar has said a lot of anti-Israel things, but has she said anything like Kanye, which implies some sort of Jewish conspiracy? Or anything else that we've seen the left take issue with in the past?

Is this implying that Kanye was already in Nation of Islam territory? I'm unaware of him being influenced by that, although some of his initial comments probably made it sound like it was in the vicinity of that.

Given that this is the second top-level post in a row that has asked the exact same question, and it's a question I bet a lot of people are wondering, I would suggest reading The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald. This book provides the most definitive examination of the place of Jewishness in the culture war. MacDonald's observations consistently generalize to help explain these behaviors which are driving controversy today.

Can you give a summary? My reading list is too long as is.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XHK-WjxMShI

This is a 'quick' overview of most of the big interesting points of the book.

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