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 -
This is entirely wrong, as the Hebrew conception of God is simply a metaphorical and symbolic representation of themselves as a tribe.
Hebrew teaching is that they have a divine mission to heal the world, and it so happens that "healing the world" means driving out all worship of all idols offensive to Yahweh. Yahweh is a metaphor and synonym for the Jewish people themselves. Their Chosenness is not a cosmic burden, it's a declaration of ethno-supremacism that coheres them in the face of ethnic conflict.
You get close to identifying a real differentiation between pagan and Hebrew worship. Pagan worship did entail baseline respect for the idols of foreigners whereas Hebrew lore does not. The Hebrew mission is to destroy the idols of everyone else in the entire world in favor of sole worship of the Jewish tribal god Yahweh above all else.
I see where you are going with this, that German National Socialism is more Hebrew in spirit than Aryan in spirit. That could not be more incorrect, but I'll wait until you actually present that argument to respond.
Nice thesis statement.
What I would be interested to see is evidence in the sacred texts of other religions, or in the histories of other tribes, of humble laments of the sort found in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah -- in contrast with the "them's the breaks" tone of the pagan texts, or the "we got stabbed in the back by vermin within and without" tone of Mein Kampf. Of course I haven't read every mythological treatise of every world religion, so maybe you can teach me something.
With respect to "humble laments", sure there are plenty of Roman myths where the god, and by extension the people the god represents, are humbled in some sort of way. And in terms of literary tone and prophecy Virgil's Aeneid has some similarities.
But ultimately you are misinterpreting Isaiah as being foremost self-criticism and "humility and forbearance in defeat" while leaving out the most important part of Isaiah, which is the prophet Isaiah professing the coming of the Messiah and the destruction of Babylon. Isaiah is another chapter in the Hebrew motif of Yahweh coming into conflict with Civilizational Order, with the Babylonians being the Civilization of the era hated by Yahweh... Another among a very long list: The Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Europeans...
Mein Kampf is less like Isaiah and more like a Babylonian who read Isaiah and pieced together that the Jews want to see Babylon destroyed. Or sorry, I guess according to @4bpp it was just God's will that Babylon gets destroyed, nothing to do with the will of the Jews themselves. Prophecies are very real insofar as they symbolically represent plans and wishes.
Isaiah is relevant because it provides literary justification for the Yahweh versus Civilization dialectic that is endemic in Hebrew lore and also identified in Mein Kampf, only in the latter case interpreted from the side of the Babylonians- the side of Civilization, the side of the Romans, or the side of the exasperated Pharaoh who expelled the Jews after they wrought plagues onto civilization and murdered the first-born sons of the Gentiles...
Isaiah is not about forbearance, it's about plotting the destruction of civilization.
This also gets to the heart of the difference between Indo European Paganism and Hebrew religion. The former was meant to organize society into expansive Civilization with a clear hierarchy and social order, and the latter is meant to represent a resistance to the former.
I think we've reached a terminal point in this thread of the discussion, where we are at what Sowell calls a "conflict of visions". I have read Isaiah in its entirety, and I presume you have as well. There is no more data to collect, but we see the data through the lens of different concepts and different values. The truth is, you aren't going to convince me of your reading of Isaiah through dialectic, and I'm not going to convince you of mine, even if we are both being honest and logical. The denial of that truth is a chief delusion of the so-called "Enlightenment". A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell by the way side...". That's life.
I wish you would have given an example of a source. I'm skeptical of this (that any Roman myth has the tone and general purpose of Isaiah) to begin with, but if it comes without a source on the first stab, I'm doubly skeptical.
Sorry, I don't accept "agree to disagree" when your analysis ignores Isaiah's prophecy of the Messiah and the ultra-violent genocide of Babylon:
Humble forbearance indeed!!!
OK I see, you are quoting Chapter 13 not Chapter 3. Looks like the Babylonians are in for some Old Testament justice.
This is something I will address at greater length in my next post (note that it was me who first brought up Moses in connection with Genocide), but long story short is this: if we compare Mein Kampf and Isaiah, one is self-righteous, entitled, and enraged, and the other his humble, repentant, and resolved. Jamming on the enemy in itself has nothing to do with identity politics.
There is also an important question of fact here. The moral axiom that connects Judeo-Christian foreign policy , so to speak, from the bronze age to the 20th century is this: like a police officer making an arrest, you are obligated to handle your enemies with the lightest touch you safely can -- but no lighter, and them's the breaks. As a matter of fact, in the bronze age, the lightest touch you can safely use, when bordering a near-peer ruthless belligerent, may be enslavement or genocide (what is your other option? "I guess that war is over; whew; you can all go home now; better luck next time wiping us out and raping our wives and daughters "). But I do not believe Jews per se were threat to Germany at all -- even if Marxism was a threat to Germany (which it was), and Jews were disproportionally Marxist (which they were). The 30,000 Jews who won medals for bravery in WWI were certainly not a threat to Germany -- but many of those very men, and their families, perished in Nazi death camps all the same.
Now how did Hitler think when the shoe was on the other foot, and his own tribe was being a pest and got their asses kicked? If the allied cause was a Jewish conspiracy like Hitler charged, then he should have expected Old Testament justice at Versailles. Austria and Prussia, and their union in the German Empire, had fought bloody wars of aggression against the allies with whom they sought terms at Versailles, and in some cases against their fathers and grandfathers. So by Hitler's own logic, the allies would have been within their rights to push for a final solution to the German Problem while they had the upper hand. But the Versailles treaty, hard as it was on Germany, was not the Holocaust (not the same ballpark, not the same sport) -- and yet what did Hitler say about it? Vae Victus? No. What did we do to deserve this? Not exactly. He said it was an unfair, unjust, absolute abomination. Poor baby.
And that's identity politics: group justice with double standards. It is holding that your people are entitled to prey on others whenever the opportunity presents itself, and whining in self-righteous indignation when the shoe is on the other foot. The Hebrews didn't do that, and neither did the pagans.
Of course it does, the friend/enemy distinction is the essence of identity politics. When the Hebrews do it it's just "Old Testament justice" but when Hitler identifies Jews as adversarial then it's identity politics? Give me a break.
I'm sorry but this just shows a total ignorance of the Hebrew bible, which consists exactly of cycles of the Israelites genociding people according to the will of Yahweh and then acting like whiny victims when the shoe is on the other foot. Jews to this day still publicly celebrate the mass murder of the first-born sons of the Gentiles in Egypt. And don't get me started on Purim...
It is also just a plain fact that US intelligence shortly after WWII regarded Jews as a security threat to the United States. And of course nearly all Communist spies were Jewish. The idea that the entire notion was just "Hitlerian Identity Politics" is total bunk. There was more of a 'there' there.
Overall your analysis too heavily relies on these extremely high-level characterizations of Mein Kampf. If you are going to cite books from the Bible can you also cite passages from Mein Kampf that demonstrate your point rather than your over-reliance on super high-level characterizations of that work?
I've been accused of a lot of things -- but total ignorance of the Hebrew Bible, that's my new favorite.
More options
Context Copy link
This is the same org that recently said right wing extremism is the greatest threat to US national security. I never took them seriously as you seem to, but maybe I should have another look.
More options
Context Copy link
When the Hebrews do it it's "this is something written in a book, secular historians don't think it actually happened, and it's not something to do today".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
At least cite Isaiah correctly, you are missing a 1 in front of your chapter numbers. You are thinking of Isaiah chapters 13 and 14, not 3 and 4.
More options
Context Copy link
What are the references to? They don't seem to be from the book of Isaiah. For example you have
But Isaiah 3:14-16 reads
This is all about God's judgment upon Israel, and in any case doesn't match the themes of fleeing, slaughtering, prisoners, or infants.
Putting part of your post in quotes and googling leads me to this reddit thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/11a4ttc/isaiahs_prophecy_of_the_destruction_of_babylon_is/
which misquotes Isaiah over and over. Did you check those with the original source (the Bible) before you posted?
Of course I've read the original source, that provides a good summary. The summary is less annoying than pasting the verses, but here you go: It is Chapter 13 and 14:
Any reader can compare what is actually Isaiah with your tripe about Humble forbearance. I cited a summary of the claims as I already knew about the prophecy. The chapter given is wrong, but the point is not misrepresented anybody can read it himself.
Funny, that was going to be my argument, too (except for the word "tripe").
I think Thomas Sowell is hands down the most notable right-leaning political thinker of our lifetime, and Conflict of Visions is Sowell's favorite Sowell book. I hope you'll read it if you haven't.
I'm going to guess it's yet another "liberalism was great until Identity Politics ruined everything." And following that train of thought leads people like you actually trying to make the ridiculous argument that the Hebrew Bible and the Roman Pantheon are not identity politics. That is all they are, if you strip away the Identity Politics they are meaningless.
The entire conservative critique of "Identity Politics" is incoherent, and the incoherence is well-embodied by your argument here. The Hebrew Bible isn't identity politics? One of the most absurd things I've ever heard in my life.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
lol. What does you not accepting it look like? Whatever it is, knock yourself out.
I can't agree to disagree because I don't even know how you incorporate Isaiah's prophecies into your analysis. You just ignore them and then end the conversation when they are brought up.
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 is not an interpretation I have heard before. What do you base it on?
The counterexample that immediately comes to mind is Atenism which during its brief life went full iconoclasm on the normal Egyptian religion and afterwards got eradicated in turn. Occasional Chinese persecution of Buddhists also comes to mind. The Romans also had little respect for Celtic religion.
Yahweh creates a blood covenant with the Jews. It's a tribal god, Yahweh is a metaphor for the people he represents. Very straightforward reading of the mythos. If some Roman gold selected the Romans as his Chosen people and formed a heritable blood covenant with the Romans wouldn't it be very obvious to you that the god is a symbol for the people represented in the covenant?
It is universally acknowledged that the Roman pantheon was fluid and integrated the idols of foreigners that came under the hegemony of the Roman people. The Hebrew mythos demands sole worship of Yahweh above anything else and declares a holy mission to destroy all the idols of all foreigners. It's a major difference in the religious orders that is not acknowledged by OP and is going to undermine the direction he is trying to take this.
If only they integrated the people who worshiped those idols.
They did, modern Ashkenazi Jews are descended from intermarried Jews and Romans.
Since the descendents of these unions became the modern ashkenazim, that means it's a case of Romans (Roman women, specifically) leaving the Roman demos, rather than Jews joining it. If the Jews had integrated in, then their descendents wouldn't be Jews today.
More options
Context Copy link
Many modern people are descended from the interbreeding of masters and slaves. What I mean is, if only they had incorporated conquered people into their society having the rights of citizens.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No. I think you are stretching interpretations to force your hobby horse. There are plenty of examples of tutelary deities among pagan religions, including ones that were reused. Do any of the number of deities that the Aztecs believed they had a personal responsibility to keep fed with blood lest the universe get destroyed count as a representation of the Aztecs themselves, even though other Mesoamerican peoples were found to have the same gods with etymologically related names and the same attributes? Were Greeks worshipping Athena worshipping the city of Athens, even as they waged war against it? What about Apollo, who the Spartans considered their tutelary god with the lexical connection being less obvious?
This is true of Romans (with respect to some foreigners), but not of all pagans; e.g. Atenism. Therefore intolerance of foreign gods is not a uniquely Hebrew feature, and can't be used to distinguish Hebrew(-lineage) religions from pagan ones.
Both Athens and Sparta were indeed worshipping a people represented by Athena and Apollo and the ideals they represented. It was an Indo European religion, those figures represent the Indo-Europeans themselves and cult worship of them functionally entailed worship of Indo-European forbearers and founders.
Athena and Apollo represent Indo-Europeans, Yahweh represents Jews. And in any case the Athena cult existed before Athens. Athens was named after Athena. That is nothing like the Mosaic covenant that features in Exodus. If the origin of Athena as a goddess was that she chose Athens as her city then it's unlikely it would have ever been a pan-Hellenic cult. But the pan-Hellenic cult came first and then the name of the city came later. Whereas the Mosaic covenant is the very origin of the Jewish religion and worship of Yahweh.
Can you please provide your interpretation of the blood covenant? Do you think it's literally true? If you don't think it's true, then how could you have any other literary interpretation than the god portrayed in Exodus is a symbolic representation of the people he has Chosen? The covenant is even inherited genetically, it's a tribal representation.
Yes, one of the weaknesses of the word "pagan" is a lack of clarity- I was referring to Indo European religion which does have this quality.
I’m curious about your spirituality (not a gotcha question). I mean you flirt, in these posts, with some kind of genuine spiritual belief in Indo-European paganism that goes beyond just ‘it was good social technology’.
It basically boils down to "it was good social technology" but why it was good social technology is important. Like the Hebrew bible, it was not just about moral lessons it was about cohering the identity and racial consciousness of people who followed the religion. And using that racial consciousness to change the world. Worshipping Apollo was worshipping a racial ideal just like it is with Yahweh.
I also think humans are innately religious, and religiosity is essentially a personality trait. I do think having some pro-European and pro-Civilizational religious revival is essential, and that means moving beyond Yahweh and Hebrew lore. I don't think that revival will be a reform of Indo-European paganism although I think it would have some similarities in spirit and aesthetic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't understand why gods have to be symbolic of anything beyond what their believers claim them to be symbolic of, whether that is "wisdom" or "a choleric narcissist father figure that created the universe and everything in it". The blood covenant also does not need any special interpretation: it's just the claim that the all-powerful figure has specially favoured a particular lineage. Can you not believe yourself to be the favourite son of a father with many children without claiming that the father is uniquely similar to yourself? If I think my boss or advisor likes me, does that imply I think he is the same as me? Every medieval European royal house claimed that their lineage was chosen to rule by the Christian god. Does that mean that each house saw the Christian god as a symbolic representation of themselves, in your understanding? Why did different royal houses then ever get along at all, if they apparently had a fundamental disagreement that amounted to "Jesus is symbolic of us! - No, Jesus is symbolic of us!"?
The attempt of medieval European royal houses to appropriate Yahweh as a symbol of their lineage falls flat precisely because of the Hebrew bible. If Exodus entailed God choosing the lineage of Alfred the Great, then it would absolutely be cogent to identify the God portrayed in that mythos as representing the people chosen by him. You sure as hell wouldn't be saying "oh the worship of that god started because the Saxons claimed that god selected them as his favorite among all the nations, who knows what the god is supposed to represent! Nothing, probably."
You aren't recognizing the difference between the mythological impetus for the cult itself being the Moasic covenant, whereas it has not been in any single other case you have tried to cite as a point of comparison. You have just continued to point out that gods representing people is a thing that happens all throughout history, except for Exodus I guess! Yeah right.
The Yahweh cult is rooted in the Mosaic covenant. Yahweh is a symbol of that people. If some other cult emerged on the basis of a blood covenant between a god and a people you would certainly recognize that as plainly obvious.
Except it is true that countless Christian countries, particularly in Europe, and countless other Christian movements believed that they were chosen by (the Christian/Jewish) God for greatness, for fortune, for special favor. What’s more most also believed that the Jews had lost his favor and/or were now heretics, and that they were their inheritors.
The only way you seem to suggest this is untrue is in the argument that there is some kind of inherent, intrinsic spiritual bond between Abrahamic religion and the Jewish race, despite the fact that for the overwhelming majority of the last 2000 years the great majority of believers have had a negative view of practicing Jews. Some Christians do believe this (like Evangelicals), but that’s because they believe deeply that the whole thing is real. Since you don’t believe it’s real, I don’t really understand why you think that connection is so inherent and so immutable. Clearly it hasn’t prevented antisemitism or guaranteed philosemitism, in either the Christian or Islamic worlds.
I don't think Judaism would have survived without the Christianization of Europe. With all the incessant complaints over historical antisemitism, it's pretty remarkable that Indo Europeans just allowed Jews to live in their territory and maintain the Jewish religion. That almost certainly boils down to an impact of the Christianization of Europe. And Jews would not have allowed the same for pagan Indo Europeans if the tables were turned in some counterfactual. Not that it's going to stop them from always claiming to be the victim rather than treated very well by any reasonable historical standard.
There is an inherent, intrinsic spiritual bond between Yahweh and the Jews. This is so incredibly undeniable. Even Christians and Muslims believe this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I still can't discern a single argument that any of the gods discussed is supposed to symbolise the people that worshipped him or her. You just keep asserting that it is so and must obviously be so, against a wealth of literature that is replete with claims of those gods symbolising all sorts of things but people, and not a single example of anyone ever understanding worshipping the god to entail worshipping the associated people. There is of course a trivial sense in which they do, in that people who both believe in the god and in the story that a particular group of people are the god's chosen necessarily will treat that group in a special way, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the latter belief follows from the former, or that this amounts to worshipping the group as synonymous with the god.
Ask any adherent of religions in the Judaism-derived family and they will probably tell you that yes, they worship the exact same god as the Jews do, no, that god is not a symbol for the Jews, and no, they definitively are not expected in a symbolic way to worship the Jews. They will probably also tell you that the thing about the Israelites being god's chosen for some reason or another does not apply to modern-day Jews, and they are just confused. Even the Jews themselves make a point of not requiring non-Jews to believe the part about the covenant.
The Jews do require Gentiles to follow the Noahide laws and the 10 commandments, which is accomplished by Islam and Christianity. The very first 3 of the commandments:
The ordering indicates prioritization, and the first three all demand sole worship of the Jewish tribal god Yahweh above everything else. They do require Gentiles to follow those laws.
More options
Context Copy link
And interestingly God in the Torah makes a promise to both of Abraham's sons, but the Ishmaelites are definitely not considered Jewish. God, in the Jewish conception, is clearly bigger than merely a God of the Jewish people, even in the earliest parts of Hebrew Scripture.
More options
Context Copy link
You know I was actually typing up a reply that argued against @SecureSignals's thesis, as it runs somewhat contrary to the conception of Judaism that I've traditionally held, but then when I referred back to Maurice Samuel's You Gentiles I found this (pg. 74):
which does seem to lend support to his position.
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