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 -
Do they? Take the example were just discussing - Superman. Is Superman a 'radical critique of Gentile history, culture, and racial identity'? Surely Superman is best-known as an avatar of 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way' - he is a patriotic avatar of American values in a way that is explicitly presented as inclusive of all races and cultures. This does not seem like a radical critique of Gentile identity - on the contrary, it is clearly an affirmation of a particular understanding of American identity that is extraordinarily inclusive of people of different racial or religious origins.
You mentioned Stan Lee as well. Are the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, the X-Men, or Spiderman radical critiques of Gentile history and identity? You're going to have to explain that to me, because it's not obvious.
There are obviously many thousands of Jews engaged in all sorts of creative or ideological activities all over the world, from many different political perspectives, and it's not at all obvious on what basis you can assert that Jews as a group are engaged in a destructive critique of Gentile culture or identity. Is, say, Ben Shapiro involved in such a project? He seems pretty keen on a concept of Western identity that includes Jewish and non-Jewish Westerners on equal terms.
If Chinese people in America had the same history as Jewish people? Then it seems likely they would be treated the same way, no?
Mentioning ancestry in any way is not the same thing as 'formulating a race consciousness'. It's true that ancient Greek writers have some sense of ancestry - all human beings do. But that's a motte-and-bailey.
What does that quote have to do with anything? A writer in the 1920s snarking about the accusation of Jewish involvement in the Russian Revolution reveals anything about the history of Christianity in Rome... how, again?
My point is that there does not seem to be any reason to suspect Paul of pushing some sort of racialist or Jewish supremacist agenda - on the contrary, Paul's evangelistic program is famously something that surmounts and crosses ethnic divides. Paul's program is not to convert all Gentiles to following 'the God of the Jews' in an imperial sense - he clearly understands God to be the God of all human beings from the creation. In Acts 17 he is accused of proclaiming a foreign divinity (17:18), and his response is to argue that God is implicitly known among the Gentiles in an anonymous way, that they too are God's offspring, and he even quotes Gentile poets to the effect that God is not far from them and they live in his own being. Likewise the diatribe of Romans 1 only makes sense on the understanding that God should be properly understood as the God of the Gentiles as well of the Jews.
In what way, then, does it make sense to accuse Paul of an agent of this Jewish racial consciousness to subvert and manipulate the Gentiles for Jewish benefit? He himself clearly disclaims that - indeed, in the passage you quoted where he recites his ancestry (Philippians 3:5), his whole point in context is that this ancestry is of no significance, and that there is no cause for being 'confident in the flesh'.
It's the same thing I've been complaining about all along - the mere presence of a Jewish person in any context, no matter that person's actions or plainly-stated agenda, is evidence of this Jewish racial consciousness to you. What could possibly falsify your claims?
If we strip away the spooky language, what this essentially boils down to is that many Jews - like the woke TikTok girl - want to make the world better and believe that they are helping to do this. I am baffled that continue to find this horrifying. Why do many Jews want to make sure the Holocaust is remembered? Is it not entirely plausible that they sincerely (and correctly) believe the Holocaust was something unimaginably horrible and don't want anything like it to happen again, and to the extent that self-interest is involved, it's because they fear being victims again? Sure, I'll buy that Jewish people want to influence the societies they're in in ways that prevent the Holocaust from ever being repeated. What I don't buy is that there's any malevolence in that, or anything that seems particularly hostile to non-Jewish cultures qua non-Jewish cultures. "Please don't try to murder entire cultures, especially if it's us" seems like a pretty reasonable message to push, and there are perfectly obvious, non-malevolent reasons for doing so.
I'm aware that American citizenship and identity has not been available to all people since the beginning of the United States. Over time the circle of acceptable American citizenship in terms of race has expanded.
But what does that have to do with the point? I presented the United States as an example of a nation that regards itself as chosen by God for a special mission to enlighten the other nations of the world. That was true even when American citizenship was heavily racialised.
I don't believe they do tell you that, not least because thus far you have not given a single example of a Jew saying that, to you or to anyone else.
E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. This is exactly what I am talking about. It is a radical critique of Gentile identity because it subverts the identity of America as a white country. I presume you have some sympathies with Israel, what if a bunch of Palestinians somehow had the wherewithal to take control over Israeli cultural institutions, and they made massively-popular superheroes giving moral lessons to Children about how Israel is not a country for Jews?
How did we get to this point where white people are just totally submitted to their own demographic replacement? Slowly, and with propaganda like this. This propaganda was intelligently crafted with a political motivation, it planted the seeds of our current culture.
You can look at many examples- take Captain America. Who could have a problem with him right? He's a macho Aryan who is a role model for children. He was also created by a Jewish storyteller, Joe Simon, and Wikipedia relates:
It is extremely mythologically significant that "Captain America* was engineered by Jewish storytellers in 1940 to fight the Germans. That is not innocuous, it is not a cultural exchange, it is mythmaking and culture-creation for the ethnically-motivated intention of influencing a mass audience. Here's the cover of the first issue from December 1940 when there was essentially a consensus of public opinion against intervention in WWII. Today, Captain America's identity as a "Nazi puncher" is fully internalized by the mass audience.
Last week I posted that secret report from the Polish ambassador in 1939:
It is interesting to compare this political agenda to craft this myth of an Americanism that exists to "punish trouble-mongers" with the character of Captain America who was created only a few months later.
This is an example of how an apparently innocuous cultural symbol was consciously designed in the service of an ethnically-motivated agenda. Now I'm not that interested in arguing with you about the validity of that agenda, it suffices to show mythmaking as ethnically-motivated propaganda consciously designed to influence public opinion. Joe Simon conceived, in 1940, of Hitler as the "greatest villain in the world", and his comic-book villain soon became engrained in our quasi-religious consciousness with that role.
My argument is no stronger than assigning credit to our popular culture for our popular social movements, and you cannot acknowledge that basic fact without considering the underlying motivations of Jews who have heavily influenced this culture with race-conscious aims.
They fear being victims again, so they cannot allow white racial consciousness or advocacy for the ethnic interests of white people. Their sincerity does not at all alleviate the conflict that is staring us in the face, the conflict that they are conscious of and my co-ethnics are not because they "learned their lessons" from Superman and Captain America, if not from St. Paul and Christ.
I have no particularly strong feelings about Israel one way or the other.
That said, I don't think it's any sort of 'radical critique of Gentile identity' to take the position that people of many different races and religons should be welcome and equal in America. Many Jews believe that, yes. But also most non-Jews in American believe that now, and the social forces that led to that change, that led to the broadening of American identity, don't seem to have had anything particularly special to do with Jews.
See, once again what you're doing is just vaguely gesturing towards the idea that anything that happened in a place that any Jews lived that you don't like is the result of a Jewish conspiracy.
I would say again that you are clearly moving goalposts. You asserted that narratives created by Jews, of which you regard Superman as an example, are used to critique Gentile identity. I reply that Superman firstly is clearly a confident defender of American identity and patriotism, and secondly frames this in a way that regards all races as equally welcome. This sure seems like as a literary creation Superman is firstly pro-American-identity and secondly anti-ethno-supremacy. This is directly contrary to the picture you just painted of Jews as ethnosupremacist and alien from their countries! If you read Superman as metaphor for the Jewish experience (which is only one of many valid ways to read Superman), the thrust of that metaphor is that Jews can be fully assimilated Americans.
Are you asserting that Siegel and Shuster in the 30s and 40s were part of a deliberate, conscious attempt to destroy 'white' American culture?
How is it remotely suspicious that a superhero created and drawn and published by Americans in the 1940s was opposed to one of 1940s-America's greatest overseas enemies?
Okay, sure, Jews in 1940s America didn't like Nazi Germany much. I concede this. What is that supposed to show?
This is the frustrating thing about this entire argument from you - your entire strategy is to pick some totally innocuous incident in history and just because it involves a Jewish person, you present it as if it's clear evidence for some pan-historical Jewish agenda to destroy the white race.
What's missing from all of this is, well, any evidence for anything whatsoever. Okay, Joe Simon didn't like the Nazis and made a hero to fight them. He felt that Hitler was an enemy of everyone in the free world, and Captain America represents that commitment. But there are many conceivable reasons why a Jewish-American in 1940 might hate Hitler that do not amount to a deliberate Jewish racial plot to destroy white people.
What conflict is this?
We've gone from "Jewish people don't want the Holocaust to happen again" (entirely obvious and reasonable) to "therefore Jewish people want to destroy white racial majorities" (do they?) to "SecureSignals' co-ethnics are in a conflict with Jews" (who? how?).
I really wish you'd just be straightforward with all of this - if you could just say it as plainly as "multiculturalism is a deliberate, conscious plot by the Jewish people to destroy whites".
If Superman were about the actual assimilation of our Kryptonian hero, Kal-El (the Kryptonian name of Superman), that would make for a very boring story. Of course Superman is not about that- he cannot assimilate.
The most he can do is adopt an alter-ego in his daily interactions with humans by changing his name from Kal-El, meaning "Voice of God" in Hebrew, to the Gentile name Clark Kent. He changes his appearance, puts on a suit, goes to work as a media reporter (!) with everyone else none the wiser to his true identity.
But when Clark Kent tears open the shirt, he affirms that underneath the disguise he was always Superman. He holds sentimental feelings towards humanity as his adopted family, but in his heart of hearts he is a diasporan son of Krypton and he will never be them- he is a superior being and he must protect them and guide them.
This is extremely sophisticated storytelling. It provides perceptive Jewish audiences with a sense of identity, and yes superiority, it is a myth that tells them they cannot assimilate even if they change their name and appearance such that nobody around them knows who they truly are, they will always be Kryptonian underneath the surface. At the same time, there is compelling content for Gentile audiences that internalize the Ethos espoused by the ass-kicking superhero.
My point is that ethos is downstream from mythos. So those who have special talents in creating mythos likewise are in a strong position to influence the ethos of the collective consciousness. Siegel and Shuster's Superman telling children that being American means being anti-racist in 1950, not 30 years after the United States passed legislation intending to wind back the clock on demographics to the 1800s, is an example of this, as-is Captain America.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Test comment will delete
More options
Context Copy link
Test comment - will delete
More options
Context Copy link
This is exactly what I am talking about. It is a radical critique of Gentile identity because it subverts the identity of America as a white country.
This is perhaps a well-worn point by now, but it bears repeating if you're going to insist on this 'white country' framing; without wishing to be too Whiggish about this, does not, surely, the extension of American identity to all racial groups simply represent the final stage of the steady expansion of the range of that identity to non-Anglos and freed slaves in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? That the 'white country' idea ever emerged among anyone at all is itself testament to the fact that the nativists had had their day long before the middle decades of the twentieth century and before even you could impugn Jewish influence.
Last week I posted that secret report from the Polish ambassador in 1939:
And as last week, uncritically handing us what a contemporary thought is not evidence of anything, even if it is his real thoughts.
The report from the Polish ambassador is relevant here because the agenda he perceives takes on a mythological form of a comic book hero and a comic book villain. It shows how an ethno-political agenda consciously takes the form of myth and storytelling. Captain America is absolutely evidence of the narrative-framing identified by the Polish ambassador, and you saying "it's not evidence of anything" is just wrong, because it certainly is evidence that the ambassador's perception is correct.
According to Superman it does, being racist is un-American!
We live in a country where you will be de-personed if you ethnically advocate for white people or are critical of Jews in any capacity. It is easier to ponder questions like 'white country' than explain the reality of the present culture without tying it to the actual culture, which was created in the 20th century and beyond.
Can you explain why all of our prevailing cultural institutions will consider you evil if you advocate for white people specifically in the way you would for Jews? The Whig view of history is the myth, that we just got some enlightenment that this was the path of moral behavior, and Superman just got it right a couple decades faster than the rest of us. Nope, we internalized myth and propaganda developed with conscious political motives, the Whig view of history is just believing the myth rather than the truth of what forms our perception of reality.
If I understand you correctly, then I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that myth-making of that kind occurred, the point is whether the Polish ambassador is correct in his assertion of the 'unbreakable ties' of such things to 'international Jewry', which I would dispute and here is the relevance of my next comment re;
Ignoring the rather tiresome strawman of Whig history that appears to have become common currency these days, the point is not necessarily that the expansion of American citizenship represented some natural endpoint of the 'path of moral behaviour', but that once the extension of the American nation beyond the Anglo, or at most Nordic/Germanic/Saxon etc. character, which was well before any one could assert any notion of Jewish influence, the only possible next resting place was a universal definition. Those trying to stop the growth of American citizenship no longer had plausible ground to stand on; if a freed black slave, Irishman, Pole or Italian could become a citizen in every sense, on what basis was a Chinaman to be denied that same citizenship? And so forth. Whether or not this was a good or bad development is besides the point, which is that the trajectory was set before any possible Jewish influence.
Because in an American context 'whites' is a meaningless and unhistorical category; what are white interests?
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