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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
Also, on this:
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:
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:
And so it goes, into rather absurd places, including the victim card:
Or straight from the horse's mouth, right at the top of the hierarchy of the party preaching universalism:
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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).
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.
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...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I will pray for you.
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.
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.
Thank you, and I will remember to pray for you too.
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:
As well as others like (this is one of the miracles attributed to Muhammad);
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:
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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...
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link