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 -
Going off of memory here, but I think as a simple baseline White Women have the highest levels of endogamy compared to other races. It is not a dead-end to provide social or ideological signals to retain, promote, or strengthen that behavior. Judaism does this, although exogamy among Jews is and basically always has been one of their chief concerns, event their current level of endogamy given their small population pool relative to the population is proof of very strong social pressure for endogamy.
It certainly isn't a dead end- anywhere in the world. There needs to be a subtle or esoteric celebration of or pressure for endogamy.
The subtle and esoteric approach is better not only because it's more effective because it does incorporate more people into the fold.
Let's suppose that Trumpism is succeeded by "Vanceism" and there are going to be some major radical reforms to the Right Wing movement. I don't think Vance would oppose elements of a new Right Wing culture that esoterically promote White endogamy just because he married an Indian, in the same way I bet Jews who marry non-Jews are still more sympathetic to the Jewish effort for promoting endogamy. Does anybody think Jared Kushner is opposed to Jewish endogamy just because he married outside? Of course not.
The title "White Advocacy Is for All of Us" is an interesting one, but an Inclusive White Nationalist movement is not as contradictory as it sounds. Think of how strong the support of non-Jews is for Jewish nationalism- Zionism is for Everyone. The cultural and political levers that have accomplished that feat are available to White people as well if they learn how to use them.
Edit:
I always find this question to be pretty dishonest because it's never invoked for the advocacy of any other ethnic group. It's only when somebody talks about White Advocacy that everyone pretends they don't know what White is.
Just like "who is Black" or "who is Jewish" would be complicated if you drilled down to the nitty-gritty and tried to provide a comprehensive racial categorization, you just need to look at a PCA plot of human genes to quite clearly see where a "white person" belongs. White Nationalists will even crassly tap the PCA plots when others try to invoke ambiguity over who the Aryans were for example. Even the Nazis had a fairly comprehensive definition of "Aryan" that included all of the identified "six races of Europe" Nordic, Falish, Western, East-Baltic, Eastern, Dinaric as Aryan, and their own map of Europe is remarkably consistent with modern genetic clustering within Europe.
It's simply not a huge obstacle to White Advocacy, you can put the borderline cases in either category, just like the NAACP isn't crippled by being able to unambiguously identify the classification of every single person as black or not black. It's not some intractable problem.
Many White Nationalists do acknowledge racial differentiation within White people, so did the Nazis to various extents. The most common strain is Nordicism, which was held by some Nazi theorists but rejected by Hitler because he wanted to avoided causing racial conflict within Germans who are stratified among different European races. Point being, even Hitler understood "German" as a mixed-race concept, which many people don't know- although all the constituent races were considered Aryan.
The intermarriage rate among secular Jews in the US, which now approaches 70%, exceeds that of other small religious/ethnic population groups, like the Mormons. Yes, their smaller population explains some of the intermarriage, but it doesn't explain why it's so high.
More options
Context Copy link
/images/1737576706176236.webp
Jews are 2.4% of the American population, 58% endogamy among American Jews is proof of an enormous social pressure for endogamy among Jews.
It’s 72 percent in recent years for exogamy among the non orthodox so that social pressure is rapidly waning. at that rate in two generations they no longer effectively exist, they’re essentially white like any other group at least genetically. You’ll only have Orthodox Jews left to hate on at that point.
Only 9 percent of American Jews are orthodox although with their birth rate it will expand very rapidly
Jews who identify less as Jews are less likely to be endogamous. This just illustrates how idealistic things like "identity" actually do influence the breeding behavior of people, and why promotion of identity among White people is not a dead-end to promoting endogamy among White people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not necessarily, because very few American Jews live somewhere they’re 2.4% of the population.
Jews choosing to live among other Jews would be an endogenous factor, sure. But it's a factor that is itself explained by the phenomenon of Group Identity and ideology directing breeding behavior. And even if you adjusted that for certain communities the level of endogamy among Jews is impossible to explain by chance. I know you bemoan it is even as low as it is (!), but it's certainly not a dead-end issue.
It’s quite high in a general sense and has risen rapidly. In addition I don’t think you can discount that it’s likely gentile white subgroups still marry endogamously at much higher than random rates, for religious and/or regional and local demographic reasons. Irish and Italian in-marriage was still quite high until the latter third of the 20th century, particularly in urban areas on the East Coast.
If you take a modal PMC white (well, you know what I mean) Jewish person in their late 20s trying to find a spouse in Manhattan, for example, it’s likely that even someone with no serious ethnic or religious preference would find a substantial proportion of their dating pool was Jewish or half-Jewish at this point. Most American Jews are substantially more likely to intermarry than Muslim, black, Mormon and many other American tribes. To me, this doesn’t reflect a very strong ethnic presence; British Pakistanis manage to have 95%+ endogamy despite making up only a few percent of the population, so it’s not as if it’s actually hard for truly ethnocentric groups to restrict out-marriage. High rates of Jewish intermarriage therefore likely reflect a degree of actual rejection of hardline ethnic chauvinism among a substantial proportion of the American Jewish population, since a substantial proportion of those unions will result in children who aren’t Jewish according to Halacha and will have little Jewish identity.
I think you misunderstood my point, I do think that gentile white subgroups are naturally endogamous and that was my point. It's not a "dead-end" when it's something they seem inclined to do anyway, even with the apparatus of propaganda being optimized to try to discredit the natural tendencies that are associated with the pattern of behavior.
My point was that I don't think promoting endogamy among white people is at all a dead end; even after decades of promoting exogamy White Women still prefer White Men. It's certainly not a dead end.
The disparity between "secular" and Orthodox Jews only illustrates the importance of ideology and identity to tuning the level of endogamy. How is it a dead end when the experience of Jews shows how important identity is to the practice?
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
This simply isn’t true. For example, during the discussions about reparations which have taken place at both the state and federal levels in the U.S. over the last few years, a major undercurrent is the desire to avoid having to face the inevitable controversy over who counts as “black” for the purposes of reparations. Are they only for descendants of American slaves? Could they be offered to descendants of slaves from, say, Caribbean countries? (Even though those slaves were never the property of Americans, but rather other colonial powers?) What about African immigrants, or the descendants of African immigrants who were never enslaved? (Could some wealthy second-generation Igbo-American get the same reparations check as a sixth-generation ADOS person?) And then how mixed-race could somebody be — How diluted can their black ancestry be? How white-passing? — before they no longer make the cut for the reparations check?
These are going to be very live and very sensitive issues if reparations ever become a serious policy proposal at the national level. It’ll become very clear how non-unified people of African ancestry in America are, once it’s no longer politically expedient to present a veneer of solidarity.
Reparations as a policy fails on so many fronts it's useless to point to as an example of political advocacy being made impossible or impractical by ambiguous cases of group identity. As you noted, the controversy isn't even who is "black" it is who is owed reparations and who is not. All of those groups are considered black for the purposes of political advocacy, but when assessing damages to some perceived harm that is a different entirely question. It's also just not a popular policy, a lot of Americans do not like handouts. Also, if we made an attempt to objectively settle the financial costs of harms caused by social relations between blacks and whites, then certainly the reparations would be owed to White people and not the other way around.
I don’t think you addressed the core of my point. I’m saying that the extent to which a given racial group has common interests worth coordinating around is extremely context-dependent. White advocacy potentially makes sense in a context in which white people are being systematically acted against, regardless of a given white person’s other characteristics.
To some extent, this is true of the current American political context. It does not appear to be remotely applicable to Europe. Hood wants Europeans to coalesce around a shared supranational White identity, but the current political and racial conditions in Europe simply do not seem conducive to this. Whites are not under attack as whites in Europe. There is nothing like the DEI edifice, the mass affirmative action disfavoring whites, etc. If current demographic trends persist in Europe, that could certainly change, but as of right now there is no strong external pressure compelling Europeans to defensively adopt a shared white identity.
The comparison to reparations is instructive, I think, because it reveals the cracks in the “black” racial coalition. When blacks feel collectively besieged, as though their collective destiny hinges on remaining in solidarity, then “blackness” is a meaningful identity to them. This has certainly been the case throughout the entire history of the black American experience. When things like affirmative action were introduced, it introduced another vector incentivizing blacks to stick together and to adopt a “big tent” understanding of blackness. However, reparations introduce a countervailing incentive: the reparations money is a finite resource, and the more people qualify for it and split the pie, the less each individual black person has to gain. Suddenly solidarity is the wrong approach. Suddenly the question of whether someone like Kamala Harris is black becomes very relevant. The question of whether Obama was black was at one point a live-wire question; once he became elevated as a figure around which blacks could politically coordinate in order to secure power and resources, it ceased being a question. But if he’d been trying to claim a limited resource to which another more “authentically black” person could have credibly laid claim, it would have stayed a potentially divisive issue.
Many whites in America understandably feel that way about the issue of who counts as white. Different camps of whites recognize political sovereignty as a limited resource which cannot be shared between groups of whites with radically different political and cultural sensibilities. There isn’t enough political and economic power to go around, such that every subset of white people gets an acceptably large share. That’s a recipe for division among whites, not solidarity, and people like Hood need to present a compelling case why white people should sacrifice their more local interests in order to secure resources for other whites whom they don’t even like.
Historically, the superordinate European identity wasn't whiteness, it was Christendom. Arguably it still is* - even though few culturally Christian Europeans actually believe in Christ. The near outgroup has historically included Jews, but is mostly physiologically-white Muslims (Albanians, Turks, North African Arabs), and increasingly extends to Muslims in general now that non-white Muslims are here in sufficient numbers. Christian Africa is fargroup, as is anywhere with a non-Abrahamic religion.
Also, critically, the superordinate identity is weak. The people who don't like non-white immigrants mostly don't like Polish immigrants either. If you really want to see British Brexit-supporting xenophobes get their hate on, the preferred target is still Ze Jermans.
* Things get complicated with the FSU and Yugoslavia.
More options
Context Copy link
Obviously it's aspirational. You have the EU- so you already have an ever-growing political and financial integration of European countries, including movement across borders. You have NATO so you have a level of military integration, including major recent developments like Germany remilitarizing and France advocating for closer military ties among European countries.
We are already quite close to Pan-Aryan Imperium simply with the current powers of EU, NATO and growing political and financial integration of Europe. And then you have demographic change which is spurring populist movements in Europe and a racial consciousness. The conditions are absolutely conducive for the fostering of a pan-European racial consciousness or a European unification. But a "White racial consciousness" would be required for European Unification. Unifying Europe is a glorious aspiration, and it's not as impossible as you think.
German Unification seemed impossible for thousands of years, until it happened. American unification was a pie-in-the-sky idea, until it wasn't.
I also reject your notion that whites are not under attack, the demographic changes themselves are ipso facto an attack on White people, and they are increasingly perceiving them as such in Europe. Are White people able to stop or reverse demographic change without racial consciousness? It seems to be required.
An aspirational White identity already exists in the US, so the idea that European people can't just federally integrate into a single country, and then very shortly identify as White is disproven by history. The concept is extremely relevant to Europe.
And yet... there's still a Congressional Black Caucus. And the NAACP. And many, many, many other organizations dedicated to black advocacy. All of these arguments also apply to Jews who often disagree among themselves vehemently.... And yet....
You are just inventing these roadblocks for why White people can't advocate for themselves that do not exist. None of the reasons you are giving for why White people can't organize are unique to the challenges faced by White identity, they apply to all other identities exactly the same and yet those other identities succeed in organizing to project political power, even if it fails in certain silly cases like reparations.
I’m not trying to “invent” reasons why global white racial consciousness can’t become a reality. I’m simply observing that up to this point, it has not happened, and I’m trying to identify the reasons why. I also want a global imperium of sorts, although my vision of it is not limited only to people of European descent. I want to be clear-eyed about what the obstacles to that are.
You are correct to note that European identities are far less insular than they were a few centuries ago, let alone a thousand years. Nearly nobody cares about being a Burgundian, or a Moravian, or a Cornishman; those identities have been subsumed into larger and more inclusive identities. That process could certainly continue to erode petty-nationalist concerns. (Or it could see reversals — see the reawakening of Welsh language and consciousness, or the growing Catalan separatist movement.)
However, there are still very significant and (on a human-historical scale) very fresh wounds of enmity preventing integration of certain white countries into a larger pan-European project. (Russia most obviously, but also in the Balkans.) When I hear a Swede take potshots at a Norwegian, or a Fleming express enmity toward a Walloon, I find it as exasperating and cringeworthy as you do. It’s a bit harder for me to dismiss out of hand a Pole’s or Finn’s suspicions and hypervigilance about Russians. There are still very serious geopolitical tensions and conflicts of interests which seem to present a considerable impediment to full “pan-Aryan imperium”.
Those are two groups of people with a very specific history of persecution and conflict with larger and more powerful ethnic groups, though. Their ethnogenesis was forged in defensive struggle. Whatever you and I think about how much difficulty whites have suffered as a result of the black presence in this country, it’s simply not comparable in any way to racial chattel enslavement. Whites in Europe, even during the headiest days of the Saracen and Mongol invasions, have not suffered collective persecution on the level of the anti-Jewish pogroms. Whites have not had any good reason to assume a collective defensive identity, defined to exclude another more numerous group. Whites were too busy making war on each other.
I’m a big fan of an “aspirational white identity” (although my conception of “whiteness” is considerably broader than yours), and since we’re responding to OP’s post about Gregory Hood, I’ll bring up that Hood has made the point that “America was the original European Union.” In America, people of European descent had at least two distinct outgroups — blacks and Amerindians — against which to contrast themselves. It’s easier to recognize one’s similarities to other whites when they’re thrown into such stark contrast by the existence of a very different Other.
I am desperately hoping that whites, Asians, and other advanced peoples are able to develop a collective consciousness, without needing to first go through our own crucible of collective persecution by a dominant collective enemy. We need to be looking toward the future and projecting out threats which are, at this early stage, mere potentialities, and to start thinking collectively before they become stark realities.
To be clear, this has already happened in the United States, and for the vast majority of the history of the United States until very, very recently. That unification was inspired by the project of empire-building itself, not being victims in some "pogrom", no good civilization was born over identifying as Eternal Victims, and likewise Jewish identification and ethnocentrism was a cause for such progroms as much as the pogroms inspired ethnocentrism.
Collective identity is based on myth and propaganda, as it was in the United States, Rome, the British Empire, Greece, any great civilization, and certainly how it is for the Jews as well. No great civilization was ever built by a race of whiney victim-mongers.
It's another of many liberal precepts you still low-key hold, that in order to form a collective identity you must be a victim to be inspired to act that way. You don't need to be a victim, although I agree you need pressures to motivate the change. The pressures are already here. War with Russia, which has directly motivated greater European military buildup and integration. You have demographic change which is evoking racial backlash all over Europe as well as Canada and the United States. You have the threat of China, the African population bomb, you have Indian migration which judging by the Canadian subreddit has turned the average Canadian into an actual Nazi.
There are plenty of pressures, the project of European integration into a white identity has already happened in the US, and it wasn't based on identifying as some whiney eternal victim, or long-over struggle against the Indians. It's only modern-day liberalism that grants value for identification based on being a victim.
The pressures faced by Europe today are far, far greater than they were during the integration of European immigrants into the United States "white identity". At the turn of the century the country was 85%+ White, with the 15% blacks concentrated in the south and largely segregated. At the turn of the century New York city was 93% White. It's just not true that European integration on the American continent was motivated by blacks or Indians as a common enemy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think that the average white French person - and certainly white Parisian - feels a closer affinity to a second or third generation black French person than they do white Americans. This is more likely to be the true if we're talking about a particularly idiosyncratic American culture, like the deep south, which most Europeans are confused by. And of course, white and black Americans have more in common with each other than they do with their racial counterparts in Europe.
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
OK, I don't know what "white" is for this purpose. Is a half-Asian kid white or not? As near as I can tell, they'll get to face the academic discrimination of any other Asian kid if they happen to have inherited Chang as a last name or the same discrimination that a white kid would if they're named Stevens. Culturally, they'll be treated as whitish. This isn't some weird, borderline case that requires adjudication via genetic clustering maps, it's just a common product of the many Asian-white couplings in the United States. That white nationalists would feel the need to dig into the PCA plots to answer the question rather than just saying that they're white enough or that they're actually Asian highlights a reason this project is just not very appealing.
The existence of edge cases doesn't immediately invalidate the usefulness of having separate categories, otherwise we would throw our hands in the air whenever we had to define languages (is this rural Galician dialect Spanish or Portuguese?), colors (where is the boundary between blue and green?), or sections of the electromagnetic spectrum (is this extreme UV or weak X-rays?). If there are ever enough half-Asians to matter, we will get our own box on the census the same way Hispanics do. Either way there are still tens of millions of unambiguously White Americans, and that is who the category is for.
More options
Context Copy link
Since we're in white-nationalist-hypothetical-fantasy-land, why not PCA plots using already existing public genomic data by population? Wouldn't need any digging beyond DNA-testing potential entrants into United Whites of America (UWA), as it sounds like by the hypothetical this white nation would be carved out of the United States.
Nowadays, commercial DNA tests are cheap and contain way more than the precision needed to ascertain someone's white admixture. I doubt US white nationalists would make a hardline about excluding US South and East Asian Americans since there's large compass unity in treating US Asians as white-adjacent, and Asians are only 7% of the US population. Having a country to one-selves that excludes blacks, who are disproportionately net-tax consumers and perpetrators of violent crime (DESPITE... being 12% of the population, 56% and all) and furthermore, latinos (although less damaging on a per capita basis), would be a blessing for white and Asian Americans.
It's mainly West Asians in Europe, the "Pajeet Problem" in Canada, and some generalized Yellow Scare fear, that give white nationalists pause (and persons across the US political aisle pause, for South and East Asians are Acceptable Ethnic Targets [the TvTrope page for which has since been turned to just "Acceptable Targets”]), especially with the 3 billion plus South Asian and East Asian populations at a global scale.
Even a simple two part triangle test could take care of this. First, a triangle test for Central Europeans (CEU), West African (YRI), and Amerindian (AMR) DNA. If you're within, say, 40% of the European node (i.e., 60% white admixture), as defined by a radius or baseball field ranging from the CEU-YRI and the CEU-AMR edge, you're in. This would basically include all US South Asians, but likely leave a lot of US East Asians hanging, as global scale PCAs sometimes have East Asians and Amerindians lumped together. The second triangle test would be between Chinese from Beijing (CHB), YRI, and AMB. If you're within the 40% of the radius of the CHB node, you're in.
So it’d be a matter of political will, not genetics. Most Argentine Americans would make the cut, some Puerto Rican and Colombian Americans would, most Mexican and Central American-descendant would not. East Asian Americans and White-East Asian Hapas would make it in. Such an outcome could be called something like a 60% agreement (damn, I swore I had something for this).
More options
Context Copy link
How are you not even responding to the point I am making you have directly quoted? You can say you don't know what a Black is for the purpose of advocacy, or an Asian is, or what a Jew is. But literally nobody asks that in the face of somebody advocating for those groups. Racial identity is ultimately a political tool, and as such it is functional even with a relatively small portion of ambiguous cases. The ambiguous cases do not stop the ethnic advocacy of any other group of people.
Half-Asians feeling alienated is not a good reason for not having White Advocacy.
Yeah, there's a sort of isolated demand for rigor when it comes to defining "white" in online discussions about hypothetical white advocacy, or just advocacy for less anti-white rhetoric and policies.
In contrast, in real world or hypothetical discourse about giving more racial preferences to blacks and latinos, there's substantially more of a "I know it when I see it" and "let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good" vibe (to the extent such considerations come up at all), an all-gas-no-brakes attitude as to not slow things down by getting bogged down by corner cases and implementation details.
Some of it may be due to constituency, that the type of people willing to discuss—much less advocate for—the interests of white people are cognitively different on average than those who advocate for the interests of blacks and latinos, at least descriptively in the current cultural milieu.
The entire idea of White Advocacy doesn't sit well with people because of the propaganda they've been exposed to their entire lives. So the smarter among them try to dress up that feeling with arguments deconstructing what it means to be White. So they believe their opposition to White Advocacy lies in ambiguity of the concept or rational argument, rather than acknowledging it actually is something they were taught to believe their entire lives- that advocating for White people is a moral wrong and advocating for Jews and non-White people is a moral good.
It doesn't sit well with people not because of "the propaganda" but because identity politics of all stripes is deeply unpopular outside the professional managerial class and (in the US at least) remains closely associated with Marxism and Europe. Two things that are also less than popular.
Identity politics in the popular zietgiest is seen as an ideology for losers who wouldn't make the cut in a honest meritocracy, hence the popular epithet of "Didn't Earn It" applied to all DEI hires.
The way the identitarian right presents itself does them no favors either. What incentive would a sincere American white supremacist straight out of the movies have to associate with low testosterone edgelords chanting "your body my choice" and non-binary cat-girls from Ontario writing Hitler apologia. How does aligning with such losers and degenerates do more to secure a future for his children than aligning with MAGA?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The example I provided addresses at least part of it directly - I don't know what an Asian is for the purpose of advocacy and I think this has been an obstacle for Asian-Americans that would prefer less discrimination against them.
And yet we have a Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. And a Congressional Black Caucus. And a Congressional Hispanic Caucus. And a Congressional Native American Caucus. And of course innumerable Jewish advocacy groups. And while all of those are expressions of racial identity formulating political power, you stand on the sidelines pretending to not know what an Asian is. That's your right, but you are wrong to imply that these challenges to are unique to White identity.
And if you admit they are not unique to it, then you've failed to demonstrate why it's politically not possible if it's so politically effective in these other cases.
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