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 -
First of all, I do not agree, but that is besides the point. The point is that this is another example of:
The public has one strongly-held belief, like the practically unanimous consensus to not intervene in WWII against Germany.
The Jews in a position of strong influence have a much different, ethnically-motivated opinion.
The Jews write stories and create myth with the conscious intention of cryptically influencing the opinion of the public towards their own agenda.
The myths become popular culture, our own popular "religion" in a way, and slowly the audiences internalize the message such that they believe "Americanism as Captain America as punching Nazis" is simply what Americanism always has been rather than the ethno-political agenda of the mythmakers.
Even saying "there were valid reasons to oppose Nazi Germany" does nothing to challenge the point I am making here.
The last assumption that's needed is that Jews are better at creating myth, stories, propaganda, and social narratives that influence the Gentiles towards their preferred way of thinking, and this is largely explained by HBD.
Of course, they have contributed to Anthropology, where militant Jews agitated against eugenics such that blank-slatism became the basic premise of social science until this day, in a sharp u-Turn from the Protestant Darwinians. They greatly contributed to psychoanalysis, which used pseudoscience to justify ethnically-motivated ideas around the Authoritarian Personality and sexual liberation which form the basis for social revolutions and critique of Gentile morality. Critical Theory today which formulates the basis of criticism against "whiteness" is derived from the ideas Frankfurt School academics, which even Conservatives have picked up on at this point. In those cases there was an underlying ethnic motivation perceived by the contributors.
As in the case of Freud, he said that "Semitic Hannibal" Barca was his childhood hero, and he imagined himself as a young Hannibal swearing vengeance against Rome and described his own work as a mortal conflict with the Catholic Church. It's a very odd thing for an academic to fantasize about, viewing their own academic work as nothing short of warfare against their mortal ethnic rivals, it's not wonder empiricism took a backseat to Freud's own motivated ideology, as in the case of the anthropologists...
That itself is in all likelihood a result of narrative-crafting by jews., since gentiles are apparently too stupid to have legitimate opinions. If their 1945 view bears no connection to the truth, then neither does their 1939 view.
Let me summarize your points. Smart people can create narratives that influence people (also they contribute to science etc) . Sometimes they have specific personal reasons for doing it.
Okay? Who cares? If people enjoy Superman more than conan the barbarian, if anti-hitler arguments win out in the court of public opinion in New York 1945 as well as in practice in Berlin 1945, if ‘jewish science’ produces better results than ‘purely aryan science’, then that is a far better test of their worth than to try to divine the ulterior motives of the creators through their identity. Everyone has an identity and ulterior motives.
You are an avid practitioner of their critical theory and standpoint epistemology. I possess the uncorrupted Truth while you eat the garbage the Jew feeds you.
Freud said a lot of shit, and Hannibal is cool. I dislike the catholic church too. You dislike the church yourself, judging from your ‘paul jewishly corrupted it’ comments. So the church is alternatively a creature of the jews and a pillar of aryanness depending on the needs of your argument. Your broken epistemology can justify anything. As long as jews are involved, and given their long cohabitation with westerners and their intelligence, they are involved in everything, including far right anti-semitism. It allows you to pick and choose what is ‘a jew lie’ and what is the Truth, when they look exactly the same, thanks to their ‘storytelling abilities’.
This is so incredibly feeble. A shard of smug reddit rhetoric.
Argue then, pal. The redditor welcomes your smackdown.
Although your theories of all-powerful elites often venture into the same epistemic trap, I didn‘t think you would take offense to this. I guess they were (((elites))) after all. Disappointing.
I take offense to self-assured smug stupidity.
No. Once the victor is established, there is nothing to be argued in the framework of power worship. Might makes right? Popularity is the measure of merit? I understand the psychological allure of such a theory. Don't squeal when its practitioners run you over.
The rest of your post is just a sequence of absurdist dunks and gleeful logical fallacies. Ron Unz is a Jew (detested by nearly every other Jew who's had the fortune of contemplating his oeuvre), hence it's illegitimate to discuss Jewish contribution to movements opposing far righters like Unz. Okay, «pal». Real clever.
Popularity was the measure of merit when americans agreed with SS ( isolationism) , it‘s only when they disagree that‘s it‘s no longer a measure of merit. My agreement with jews on WWII interventionism is inherently suspect, while your agreement with Unz is entirely legitimate. If you should lose the argument on the object level, simply point to the jewishness, and attendant storytelling abilities and ulterior motives, of those who believe the same as I do, and ignore the jews on your side. That‘s what you might call a closed memetic surface.
On the meta level, I do not think that responding to double standards with triumphant spluttering to the effect that you can also do double standards plus your guys win is cool.
I do not believe that SS asserts that popularity is in itself a measure of merit ever. You probably also understand the theory implied here, where popular opinion is downstream of deliberate political forces molding it, and may be more or less objectively correct depending on the quality of those forces. In principle, I don't think there is any cogent critique of this, certainly not after so many years into CWR, and there is no honest escaping the debate over quality of elites.
More damningly, your other dunks like Aryan/Jewish science are plainly dishonest, instrumental application of Redditbrain memes. «Aryan science» is deficient inasmuch as it's not science proper but an ideological fabrication. If there were «Jewish physics», we'd have good reason to suspect it's fruitless nonsense either, but there isn't, at least Einstein's physics was an organic part of the scientific process in its unrestricted form, with its alleged particular Jewishness a figment of Nazi imagination. On the other hand, there was «Michurin biology», peddled by Isaak Prezent&Trofim Lysenko (Michurin dead upon its founding, Lysenko the illiterate, politically clueless loudmouth, Prezent only known to people in the field, somehow) in the Soviet Union back then, preaching the primacy of material conditions over the false God of heredity. Its obfuscated form is peddled by a number of authoritative leftist Jews and Gentiles in the West today. It is explicitly informed by particularist political values and ethnic concerns, as has been argued to death, and it is weaker on general scientific merits; yet it is more popular, on account of finding purchase with elites who apply your logic: «people who thought otherwise lost in 1945».
There is nothing to be learned in matters of faith, and nothing to debate with a power worshipper, Nazi or Jew. I recall you take issue with Burdensome Count's gloating, but you can't very well object to his method.
Don‘t accuse me of dishonesty on such flimsy grounds (Smugness, stupidity, fine, whatever). I don‘t disagree with a word of the entire next paragraph, until „on account of finding purchase with elites who apply your logic: «people who thought otherwise lost in 1945». „
My point here was that defeat discredits an ideology, like the ukraine fiasco discredits putin‘s system (to a degree… moscow isn‘t in ruins yet, like berlin was) , the loss of the cold war discredits marxism-leninism, etc. So if, as I understand SS to be saying, Hitler was right about everything, it just makes his defeat inexplicable. If nothing else, defeat is a failed prediction.
I believe those forces are weak. The stronger you assume those forces to be, the harder it is to find what is objectively correct. At the extreme, if the forces can convince everyone of anything (God the deceiver, conspiracy nuts), objective Truth is too corrupted and just disappears.
You think I‘m attacking ‚your guys‘ from the left, when I operate on a completely different scale. Based on love of objectivity. It‘s my scale so of course I‘m at the top, then, in order, scott, the average guy, you, the woke mainstream, anthropologists, SS, critical theorists‚ ‚aryan science‘ believers, lysenko. At the bottom they don‘t even recognize objectivity as a valid concept so they just fight in the dark like good conflict theorists.
There is no double standard, because I criticize @SecureSignals and mainstream critical theorists on the same grounds (and he acknowledges the debt his worldview owes them) . There‘s always a jew or a white male capitalist between them and the Truth, so they can‘t trust their lying eyes if they should lose the object-level debate. Their attacks on objectivity protect their (wildly incompatible) positions from any update.
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
It must be nice to beat that straw man, of course I'm not claiming omnipotence, I'm recognizing the power of propaganda and myth.
The Jews have been so successful in that arena not, foremost, because they are smarter than us, but because they are more racist than us; they actually worship their own race and even secular Jews frequently hold their ethnic identity in a regard that is completely psychologically foreign to white people. Their content can be decrypted, its meaning can be discerned and it can be countered, it's not all-powerful.
It didn't produce better science, it didn't win because it was smarter or more empirically-minded or better for society, it won because the most influential thinkers involved were consciously thinking about opposing anti-Semitism with the ideas they were promoting, and they won with academically authoritarian tactics we are all familiar with today.
I think there's value in some of their ideas even if I disagree on how they are applied. Certainly the Dissident Right itself is adjacent to ideas in critical theory like the Culture Industry.
That's why the DR is actually avant-garde. Conservatives just whine that Critical Theory has rained on our parade and they want to wind back the clock on collective consciousness which is neither possible nor desirable. The DR is taking the ideas that have merit from the Critical Theorists and applying them against the prevailing culture. That's a feature and not a bug of the DR. The way out isn't backwards, the only way out is through and that does mean using Critical Theory's tools that have merit against the prevailing culture.
Oh come on, 'completely psychologically foreign', total nonsense, what was that Hitler episode then? Besides, your DR friends like to trot out that whites tend to have less ingrained pro-white bias than other races, like say blacks. So if that, and not intelligence, is the main difference, you'll have to explain why the blacks didn't corrupt us.
Generally throughout history, empires who accepted jews more readily(and other persecuted religious groups like huguenots) , tended to dominate in science and war (Holland, then Britain and the US) while those who reject them bite the dust (Spain, nazi germany).
Hitler did run an experiment, and it produced results that weren‘t flattering to his thesis and yours, and they were unequivocal. Turns out if you thoroughly ‚cleanse your race‘, you don‘t get a glorious 1000-year germania, your country turns to rubble in about 10. But at least he understood how discredited his theory was by the experiment. Why are you less capable of updating than Hitler?
Assuming all you say about jews is true, the only reasonable response, and certainly mine, would be to accept to be ruled by the superior race and thank them for not destroying us like they did nazis. A few million jews faced off against 100 million homogeneous aryans, and the aryans had to beg for mercy in the end. You could say the Will of the strong Triumphed, and people respect strength, by necessity. It‘s over, you‘re wasting your time, take the black pill.
What is the difference between you incorporating jewish thought and americans accepting captain america memes?
Blablabla the public had a strongly held belief, the jews are ethnically self-interested, so they created critical theory to manipulate them, and here you are, regurgitating it, unaware of its cryptic power, internalizing the message and passing it off as your own valid opinion, rather than reflecting the ethno-political agenda of the mythmakers .
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link