site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   35687 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Academic Agent always comes across to me as a meta-grifter whose grift is to claim that everyone else on the right is dumb and/or grifting (see also that skinwalker Hanania). A grifter for hobbits with a slightly higher IQ. Okay, cool story bro. Don't worry, I'll remember to like and subscribe to your Substack so that I can read your exclusive paywalled articles about how everyone else is a money grubbing shill. On what grounds does this guy expect me to take him more seriously than the rest of the online political commentators?

Also @TheOneWhoFarts, do you have an opinion about this article? Your post is just a summary.

AA likes to feud with people for spectacle, but I don't think that's a fair characterization.

He has people he respects even in disagreement like Quinones or MacIntyre. He's just never had a second of patience for the likes of Fuentes and the wigger right, or the antiwoke liberals to his immediate left who focus on trans issues and the like but don't buy into any actual political radicalism and just want things back to the 1999 normal .

Of course anything that has to do with ecelebs has a quantum of cultishness and drama that seems inescapable. But as far as having a reliable political position I think AA is relatively predictable: he's a snob elitist intellectual radical. A common archetype in politics really.

As someone who disagrees with him on some stuff and listens to his videos regularly, this is IMO a fair characterisation.

Calling him a grifter is wrong. He sells some online courses*, but he mostly analyzes politics from a particular perspective. He isn't obviously or even covertly shilling for anyone. I believe he provides a valuable service there. Ofc he's not infallible, and he doesn't understand tech much, but that's yet not a huge downside.

He has many informative videos that are bang on. E.g. "Boomer Truth Regime" Elite Theory, analysis of Western Elites Power lies with organised minorities.

He's also not opposed to having some fun. He plays/reviews video games and long organised a twitter 'tournament' judging the sexiest women .. Amusingly, despite hundreds of challengers, it was almost always won by Jennifer Connelly(if she was in the running).. Kept providing amusing sports-like comments for it..

*these might even be good. I was fairly impressed with his book, the 'Populist Delusion'. Well argued, well researched, doesn't waffle around. Good for informing normies, it starts out softly. There's no attempt at edgelording or anything like that either.

Richard Spencer is the same way. It's like cool so we should all be like you and talk about Jews and hate on Christians in Zoom calls and do literally nothing. There is no step two in this "plan" other than just admit defeat.

Spencer would tell you not to do anything to paint a target on yourself accelerate the collapse by furthering the more insane parts of the left so you can be the reasonable alternative to the communists when the Reichstag burns.

AA would tell you to get cozy with powerful tech executives to form an influential cabal that can influence policy and replace the existing elite with people of your ideology.

Fuentes would tell you to ridicule the left online as hard as possible to capture the youth and dominate the cultural arena as the progressives successfully did.

Regardless of how much of a fake grifter fed these people are, they all have identifiable plans for their political ideology to succeed.

Spencer would tell you not to do anything to paint a target on yourself accelerate the collapse by furthering the more insane parts of the left so you can be the reasonable alternative to the communists when the Reichstag burns.

No, Spencer's much-vaunted "liberal turn" is just a misunderstanding of the fact he isn't an accelerationist and doesn't want to see prevailing institutions collapse. He wants to take them over using crypsis and esoteric group-signaling using the same tactics he perceives have been used by Jews.

He wants the institutions to survive, so the next Christian-successor spiritual movement is ready to take the helm and reorient them in the same way they were taken over and reoriented against us.

crypsis and esoteric group-signaling

Is this all the crusader and Shia LaBeouf as Padre Pio memes on Telegram, or something more?

Shia LaBeouf actually literally became a based tradcath under the influence of Mel Gibson. I don’t know whether he still is but last I’d heard he was a regular at St Vitus(FSSP parish in LA).

Yes. I've seen reporting he's being mentored by Mel Gibson. It's a nice redemption story.

Well how’s that going for him? He has accomplished nothing except discrediting himself and making his goals more difficult.

Actually, his change toward this position is a result of the failures of political organizing. He has changed his approach significantly since the rise and fall of the Alt Right.

Right now his effort includes studying the aforementioned topic, in particular the Hebrew Bible as the ultimate keystone for understanding how esoteric, cryptic spiritual movements cohere races of people together and direct their behavior. And also how this practice extends to other forms of fictional art creation like film or comic books.

He has a book coming out on the theory he's been calling "Racial Esoteric Moralization", should be interesting. I do think he's correct that there has to be some sort of post-Christian Religion that organizes the behavior and identity of these disparate Right-Wing factions.

I tried to read about Racial Esoteric Moralization just now, but both places I tried to read about it (https://theapolloniantransmission.com/rem/ and https://politicaltheology.substack.com/p/once-more-between-rome-and-judea) just seemed like largely impenetrable babble, to be honest. A bunch of combing through ancient texts to find what the authors probably already wanted to see there. If you think that it is worth knowing about, I would appreciate if you could write a summary of it. I'm not saying this in a snarky way, it's just that both of the essays I just tried to read about REM made me feel such a combination of boredom and a sense of "this seems like a highly online right-wing version of astrology mixed with rehashes of Nietzsche insights" that I couldn't force myself to go through reading the entireties.

Yeah I've picked up on it from various Podcasts on movies and Bible Studies. They are doing a Podcast series on Genesis right now where they go through every single verse, but I think it's behind a paywall. They are close to releasing a book that will essentially be a debut for the theory. I'll probably read it and write a review when it comes out.

But in the meantime, Grok did a pretty stellar job providing a fair summary IMO:

REM Theory Overview:

REM Theory, as articulated by Mark Brahmin and Richard Spencer, primarily focuses on the concept of Racial Esoteric Moralization (REM) and Jewish Esoteric Moralization (JEM). The theory posits that myths, art, religion, and propaganda are not just cultural expressions but are deeply intertwined with the formation and moralization of racial identities. Here's a breakdown based on available sources:

  • Racial Esoteric Moralization (REM): This aspect of the theory argues that there exists a symbolic language that has been passed down through centuries, influencing not only Western but global cultural narratives. REM suggests that this language serves to shape racial identity and moral conduct through symbols and stories that are often unconscious to the general populace but known to an elite or those versed in this symbolic language. The theory claims that these narratives in myths, religion, and art can either "moralize" or "demoralize" a populace, thereby serving as tools for social and political control.
  • Jewish Esoteric Moralization (JEM): According to Brahmin, JEM is a subset of REM where Jewish mythology and cultural expressions have been used historically to shape not just Jewish identity but also to influence broader cultural narratives, particularly in Christianity. Brahmin's analysis suggests that JEM has contributed significantly to the development of Western culture in ways that might not be obvious to the lay observer.
  • Apolloism: This is an extension of REM Theory where Brahmin and Spencer advocate for a return to or revival of a pre-Christian, classical, or "Aryan" ethic. Apolloism contrasts with what they perceive as the demoralizing effects of Judeo-Christian spirituality on what they term the "Aryan" race. The idea is to use the understanding of REM to construct a new cultural and religious framework (Apolloism) that would elevate and preserve the qualities they associate with ancient Aryan culture.
  • Racial Esoteric Moralization (REM) in Film: Symbolism and Archetypes: Brahmin argues that films, like ancient myths, use archetypal characters and symbolic narratives to convey racial and moral messages. He interprets characters and plotlines in terms of their racial symbolism, suggesting that even mainstream movies are imbued with hidden messages that reinforce or challenge racial identities.
  • Hollywood as a Moralizing Force: They see Hollywood as an institution that has historically served to shape the moral and racial consciousness of the audience. Through REM, Brahmin would analyze films to uncover how they might be promoting or undermining certain racial identities or moral values.

Insights from the Apollonian Transmission:

  • Cultural and Myth Analysis: The Apollonian Transmission, a platform by Brahmin, delves into the decoding of ancient and contemporary texts through the lens of REM. It aims to uncover how these texts carry hidden messages that influence racial and moral identity. Brahmin and Spencer argue that by understanding these symbols, one can counteract or redirect the demoralization they believe has been inflicted upon Western civilization.
  • Criticism and Controversy: The theory and its implications have stirred debate. Critics, like those referenced in "Once More Between Rome and Judea", challenge the methodology and conclusions of REM Theory, accusing it of sophistry and speculative pattern recognition, suggesting that it lacks rigorous evidential support and borders on pseudoscientific interpretation.
  • Practical Application: Courses like those offered at ALEX university aim to apply REM Theory in understanding Hollywood cinema, suggesting that films serve not only entertainment but also as a medium for racial moralization or demoralization. This approach underscores Brahmin's belief in the power of culture as a tool for racial and moral shaping.

In summary, REM Theory by Mark Brahmin and Richard Spencer is a framework for interpreting cultural and religious narratives as mechanisms for racial identity formation and moral guidance, focusing on the symbolic language that they argue has shaped human history. Apolloism then proposes a cultural and spiritual revival based on these insights. However, this theoretical framework remains controversial and is subject to significant critique regarding its methods and conclusions.

One more followup:

Racial Esoteric Moralization (REM) in the Hebrew Bible:

  • Symbolism and Allegory: Brahmin and Spencer argue that the Hebrew Bible, like other religious texts, contains layers of symbolic language intended to shape the racial identity and moral conduct of its adherents. They suggest that narratives within the Bible, such as those involving the Israelites, are not merely historical or moral tales but are imbued with racial significance.
  • Creation of Jewish Identity: They posit that the Hebrew Bible has played a crucial role in the moralization (and thus, racialization) of Jewish identity, reinforcing a sense of chosenness and separation from other peoples. This is seen in stories like the Exodus, where the Israelites are depicted as a distinct, divinely selected nation.
  • Influence on Western Culture: Brahmin extends this by suggesting that through Christianity (which he sees as heavily influenced by Judaism), these Jewish moral and racial narratives have permeated and shaped Western civilization, often in ways that are not overtly recognized.

The 4-word summary would be that "Myth influences racial formation."

Yes and his book is nonsense (what he has released). REM theory is unfalsifiable. It’s just whatever him and Mark think. And I would bet almost anything that he is wrong that there is a post Christian religion, especially on the right. And again he has accomplished nothing. He has a Substack and a Zoom call.

REM theory is only unfalsifiable insofar as all critical literary analysis is unfalsifiable. I agree Mark sometimes goes too far speculating on certain nuances, but the big picture items- Hebrew stores like Tower of Babel, Jacob and Esau, David and Goliath, esoterically depicting racial conflict and elevating a Jewish type is very obviously true and insightful. In the most important cases- i.e. Jacob and Esau representing a sibling rivalry between Jew and Aryan, this has always been acknowledged by the Rabbis who relate Esau to the progenitor of Edom, and therefore Rome and Rome's successor Europe. That's just an example for how REM aligns with the interpretation of the Rabbis in a very important case, maybe the most important case.

That analysis applied to modern filmography, i.e. Steven Spielberg is also only as "unfalsifiable" as all film criticism. But Spielberg films are unequivocally an example of REM theory generalizing to modern forms of art depiction, in which the Jewish identities of the art-creators is imbued in their mythological signals, which in turn influences the behavior of mass audiences of people.

The essence of REM Theory that Yahweh is a metaphor and synonym for Jews as a race is unequivocally true. Understanding that leads to a much deeper interpretation of these biblical stories, in particular understanding the stories in which Yahweh comes into conflict with Civilization (i.e. Tower of Babel).

The conclusion that the Hebrew Bible has influenced the creation of races of people, and therefore race-creation is downstream from myth-creation, is so obviously true that we should be shocked that nobody has made this observation before in the way REM has. Have to give it credit where due.

You admit it’s unfalsifiable then says it’s obviously true. So which on is it? This is just Richard’s interpretation and nothing more. Not every Rabbi would even agree with him. I know who this is. There’s only like 5 people this account could even be.

More comments

Spencer is actually z/acc

Never saw that one coming

There's actually a lot of parallel between Spencer's theory and the e/acc actually, in particular how Culture is a complex interaction between memes and genes. e/acc seems to stop short of (at least exoterically) recognizing this as consequential and vital for Race Formation, whereas that's Spencer's primary concern. For example, how a piece of literary fiction like the Hebrew Bible can mold races of people over thousands of years.

On the other hand, e/acc is correct about the upheaval of AI and Spencer like most of the DR is basically blind to the fact that it is going to change everything.

I would say I think the truth is in between e/acc and Spencer. Spencer + AI Realism, or e/acc + Racial Esoteric Moralization.

Spencer would tell you not to do anything to paint a target on yourself accelerate the collapse by furthering the more insane parts of the left so you can be the reasonable alternative to the communists when the Reichstag burns.

Maybe he should have taken his own advice then because literally everyone thinks he's a clown. He hung out with some of the most deranged Nazis like Andrew Anglin and TRS, did a Heil Hitler salute in front of liberal journalists who used him as a patsy, and then went to Charlottesville where he basically killed the Alt-Right for good. Now that he is literally hated by everyone, all he can do is sit on the sideline and be a contrarian and grift.

He's also just straight up wrong on his takes about Christianity and white identity. Plus his takes on the Jews are deranged. He has endorsed the idea that Jews created Christianity to secretly control the goyim. He also believes that Mohammad didn't exist and was created by Jews. He also has said that Snorri Sturluson was a crypto Jew.

He is nota serious person.

I'm not objecting to his being a patsy. I'm objecting to his not having a plan/ideology.

Yeah he sucks at it and any successes of WNats are frankly not his own, but this is the forum where we try to not to handwave people as retards and instead consider their failure, isn't it?

I don't think we should gloat about how much of a lolcow Fuentes is either, for instance, and just consider whether his views have merit.

What I'm saying he doesn't get to give that advice when he did the complete opposite of that when he had the chance. So even if that's what he's saying now, we have years of evidence showing when given the chance he does the complete opposite. The reason he is doing what he is now is because he literally has no other option. He embarrassed himself so thoroughly that nobody will ever associate themselves with him. So it's easy to give that advice when that's the only option you have. He has a massive ego and would love to be in the limelight again if the opportunity arose, where he would probably make the exact same mistakes as before because he hasn't shown a hint of remorse for his actions or admitted any fault.

There is no step two in this "plan" other than just admit defeat.

"Boycott shills and only engage with those who volunteer their time and efforts for free", surely? (Hmm… Is this whole thing just an effort to lure more people to the Motte?)

I have listened to his podcast and he seems to say vote for Democrats because they are more competent. I don't even understand the point of that though because they literally stand for everything he supposedly supports. They are explicitly anti-white. What's the point of being a white nationalist if you're going to vote for the mixed race child of immigrants who wants to increase DEI and affirmative action? These guys just get off on being not like the other Nazis.

Uncharitably, Spencer's business is being a CNN jobber they can invite to get the scary Nazi take on things, and that opinion makes it more likely to get invited.

Charitably, he's an accelerationist and the left needs to be in as much power as possible before he becomes "the right".

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