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 -
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.
No, I said it's literary criticism, which means it should be engaged on its merits and there is a lot of merit to their interpretation. Especially since some of the most important parts align with the interpretation of the Rabbis.
It is in fact not just Richard's interpretation:
Ok, so this is REM theory exactly. It's not some moral lesson from God, it's a myth representing race conflict and intended to moralize a race of people. And the article acknowledges the position of the Rabbis:
The Talmud clearly associates the Romans with the Edomites. And it's not just a Spencer idea that Jacob and Esau represent different races in ethnic conflict.
Even the Philistines, i.e. in the David and Goliath myth are considered to have been likely descended from the Sea Peoples, in particular the tribe with Greek origins:
Goliath is not a semitic name, it's an Indo-European name and the Philistine language is not semitic in origin. Goliath's height and strength would support the theory from a phenotypical perspective as well.
The point of that being REM theory is both radical and plausible in proposing that these myths are portraying conflict between Jews and Indo-European tribes in many of the important cases. This theory is supported by the Rabbis and the Talmud. It's also supported by some archeological and linguistic evidence tying the Philistines to a tribe of Indo-European sea-farers.
So saying it's "unfalsifiable" is wrong, insofar you could prove it wrong if you could prove that Esau did not symbolically represent an Indo-European even though the Talmud supports the interpretation of Esau as representing an Indo-European type.
Even from purely a literary perspective, Esau seems to represent an Indo-European type with red hair- he is strong and physically fit. Famously, Jacob swindles Esau's birthright by putting on goat-skin and pretending to be Esau to his blind father Isaac, such that Jacob received the blessing meant for Esau. Very interesting stuff. The story harkens to even modern myth in which the "Nerd vs Jock" trope is racialized along the same lines, and the nerd uses his brains to beat the jock and get the chick in the end.
And by saying it’s Richard’s interpretation I don’t mean literally nobody else agrees with him, but many do not. Or are you saying that literally every Rabbi agrees with Richard here?
I won't pretend to know that all Rabbis would agree on something, but I'm pretty sure they would at least mostly agree that the interpretation of the early Rabbis was that Rome was descended from Edom. The more controversial question would be why the early Rabbis had this interpretation of the myth.
The article I linked presents an interpretation of the reason the Rabbis associated Rome with Edom that does not agree with Richard's position.
However, the reason that article gives for why the early Rabbis associated Rome with Edom is basically the Transitive Property of Hate: the Rabbis hated Edom, the Rabbis hated Rome, therefore Rome is Edom. I don't find that convincing, but even that perspective supports REM Theory that these myths and their interpretation, and even their changing interpretations esoterically depict racial conflict.
Even the suggestion that the Rabbis associated Edom with Rome based on the conflict of Jews with Rome would only suggest that even the original influence of the story would have been inspired by proto-Jewish conflict with proto-Indo-European tribes as well! Did this conflict between Rome and Judea start with Rome and Judea? No it did not, the racial contact goes back further and the Hebrew bible provides a mythological depiction and interpretation of this conflict in stories like this...
That is REM Theory. It's highly plausible and I think it's a significant theory. It generalizes to art and myth that is depicted even today. It also generalizes to the Pagan canon. It's not just Jews that used Religion for this purpose, the Indo-European Pantheon is likewise an esoteric canon of racial conflict, moralization, and hierarchy. It's a very strong theory and you haven't really challenged it meaningfully IMO.
I don’t know enough about Judaism to refute any specific interpretations, but it’s literally just a religion written thousands of years ago by ignorant people in the dessert with many interpretations. REM is just astrology for extremely online Nazis. The texts have been interpreted countless ways over the centuries, so the idea Richard and Mark have found some novel way to interpret them is extremely implausible. What’s even more implausible is that this interpretation will have any impact or help him reach his political goals or have any real world impact.
It's literally not novel as it aligns with the Early Rabbis who made the same relation... REM explains the reason for the existence of the myth.
Indo-European tribes invaded all of Europe, and down through India and Iran. Much about these invasions was not known for sure until very recently- in some cases, until the past couple decades, the invasions were regarded as racist myths and they never happened in the first place. The more we learn, the more plausible the suggestion is that Hebrew myth was, in significant part and in particular stories, inspired by contact with Indo-European tribes. Goliath being an example- an Indo-European name and a depiction of a physically tall man which of course is the most prominent phenotype of Indo-Europeans among everyone else in the world.
It perhaps even explains the reason the Hebrew Bible exists in the first place- propaganda to cohere a people in the face of an external threat. That part is more speculative, sure. REM would suggest that is the reason for the existence and importance of that myth body. I don't think anybody would deny the Jews have abided thanks to this body of myth.
But the Roman canon is likewise largely inspired by contact with external tribes, and there are Roman gods who esoterically depict Semitic peoples just the same. The notion that Indo-Europeans are not depicted in the Hebrew Bible becomes less likely the more we learn about how broad their migrations were across continents. Particularly given the early Rabbis themselves attributed a continuity between these mythological figures and the real-world Roman empire.
Spencer's interpretation isn't even novel as I've explained, what is novel is his combination of that interpretation with evolutionary psyschology and Race Formation. There has been scientific study of Race, there has been mythological study, but there hasn't been adequate analysis of the interplay between the two. REM fills a real gap in providing a synthesis of those studies.
There’s too much to reply to here and your previous comments. From what I can see he is taking things like Indo-Europeans and mixing it with massive speculation about early Jews that he can’t know for certain. I’ve heard him do REM and JEM and you’re making it sound massively more scientific than it actually is. If there’s writings he has the explicitly cite sources and make claims then I’ll revisit it, but for now it just seems like a Gish gallop of woo and pseudo science.
REM Theory requires no gishgallop, just two simple premises which have quite a lot of support:
That some of the mythological figures in the Hebrew Bible were intended to symbolically represent an Indo-European type, like Esau and Goliath. This is a common feature of the pagan canon as well- mythological gods as symbolic representations of foreign people. It's not outlandish prima facie that Indo-Europeans are symbolically represented among figures in Hebrew myth. The reason it would be "new" to emphasize is because there has been a long-standing ignorance and denial of the extent of Indo-European migrations, and therefore a lack of appreciation for how these migrations could manifest in Hebrew myth developed during the time of these expansions.
That these myths were consciously designed by propagandists, and these myths direct the evolution of human races.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link