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 -
"Guys, I swear, the first 200 years of liberalism had nothing to do with the West's current predicament. The cultural change that followed 1965 emerged completely inorganically out of the juice's takeover of western civilization (which must have happened very quickly in like what, 20 years?), classical liberals are completely absolved, the founding fathers are completely absolved, the Scottish and French enlightenments are completely absolved, Hegel is completely absolved. Everything bad that has happened to Western civilization is solely down to who won WW2, please disregard anything that happened previously unless it backs up this point."
This is why the MacDonald school can never adequately explain modern Western civilization. You can't disregard liberalism, you can't disregard the French and American revolutions. You can't disregard laicite, disregard republicanism, disregard individualism, disregard the concept of personal liberty and the rejection of primal or atavistic identity as central to Anglo civilization. That Jews and other non-whites had some impact on the development of these memes and their ultimate and eventual transmission is truth. That they invented them is not. Western civilization before 1939 was not progressing in a 'trad' direction. Even the Nazis would - in many facets of domestic policy - have been regarded as absurdly progressive to a European in 1870. The NSDAP was not radically socially conservative in its treatment of gender or sex. German women's enrollment in medical schools, for example, fell from 20% to 17% during Nazi rule, hardly a substantial decline. (Fun fact: this is vastly higher than the proportion of women at American medical schools at the same time.)
The problem for the counter currents crowd (and the wider 'classical' alt-right affiliated with eg. nazi apologism and revionism) is that they are so blinded by their hatred of Jews that they refuse to consider that progressivism/liberalism was not a particularly Jewish invention, and they are so blinded by their obsession with Hitler and his defeat that they refuse to consider that many of the things they hate about modernity actually have their roots much further back in the writings of gentile white philosophers, thinkers, politicians and so on. The enemies must be internal, whites (as this very article implies) are at worst misguided idiots or taken advantage of.
"No more brother wars" goes the far-right chant. Yet there were 2000 years of "brother wars" before the one that they allege the Jews started. The European Parliament is a cesspit of achieving nothing, yet everyone in it is white (actually, apparently 24 out of 705 MEPs are "people of color"), there has never been a non-white European Commissioner etc. Belgium remains as divided as a country as it was when it was near enough 100% white. The East Slavs are tearing each other apart. Getting out of this quagmire requires some humility, and not of the pathetic "how could we let ourselves get tricked like this?" sort, but of the genuine "we made and believed some poor ideas" variety, one that takes some responsibility for the past without blaming the eternal outsider, and which can articulate a positive rather than a vengeful vision of the future.
As for a homeland, the last places likely to be supermajority white are a few poor countries in Eastern Europe with poor economic prospects (Ukraine is a big one), Denmark and possibly Finland, Iceland (which receives a lot of immigration, but largely from Poland and Romania) and - in an amusing bit of irony - Argentina (and Uruguay). I would recommend the avowed identitarian considers acquiring EU citizenship by whatever means necessary (not hard even for the unskilled white American as long as you aim for a lower-tier Euro country, although Germany is pretty generous as it is) and then moving to Denmark, learning the language, and trying one's hardest to assimilate into their society. Copenhagen is actually very nice, I'd stay if I was a Dane.
Here is a link https://counter-currents.com/2014/06/heimat/ that discusses Hermann Sudermann's play Madga, and the film made from it. The author claims that the popularity of the film clues us in to what the National Socialist ideology really thought about sexual morality. The article goes into great detail in describing the film. The film is anti-bourgeois propaganda that paints the sexual morality of the time, (play:1893, film:1938) as both rigid and hypocritical; the hero of the piece is the single mother! So the NSDAP is very much not socially conservative.
The author of the 2014 Counter Currents article, Derek Hawthorne, wrote a long and nuanced piece, digging into the weirdness of German culture back then. It is a long time since I read it, and I haven't time to reread it properly to tonight, but it made a big impression on me. The hot take that has stuck with me for nine years goes like this:
There are two sisters. One well behaved sister who conforms. The other sister has a wild side and ends up a single mother. Due to the messed up social conventions of the day, the mediocre, well behaved sister needs her father or other relative to come up with a lot of money for a dowry. Due to the power of the playwrights pen, becoming a single mother make you special and turns you into an opera diva who earns a lot of money and is able to swoop in and save the day by paying her sisters dowry.
A social realist play written for 1893 would have things work out OK/mediocre for the conformist sister and a bit of a disaster for the wild sister because of the social reaction against her getting pregnant outside of marriage. If the playwright wanted to argue for social change, the argument would be the cruelty of the system towards the wild sister. Sudermann's play cheer leads for sexual liberation with a crude propaganda technique: make things work out extra well for the single mother, just because playwrights are writing fiction and can do that. The excellent outcome tends to legitimize single motherhood in the eyes of audience. But it makes no causal connection; it is just crude propaganda.
Back when I first read the article in Counter Currents I still thought that right wing was a single thing, with a core creed. And before the 1960's that creed would obviously include no sex before marriage. Strong families, children need fathers, each child needs their own biological father, not mummies current boyfriend. The social conservative thing. So I'm reading on with wide-eyed astonishment. When do the NAZI's realize that the play is degenerate art? When do we get the theatrical equivalent of the Röhm-Putsch and the banning of Sudermann's Madga? Never happens.
I already knew that the NSDAP was a little bit pagan in spirit. You can see that in the pictures from the time of women athletes in their skimpy attire. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=third+reich+women+athletes&qpvt=third+reich+women+athletes&form=IGRE&first=1
I'm trying to update my views. Is right wing a pagan, lusty, fertile creed, accepting of female promiscuity? Is it a Catholic, keep sex in the marriage bed, creed? Is it it a pagan, lusty, honor creed, with female promiscuity leading to lethal violence? Mostly I've stopped believing that "right wing" is an actual thing.
It's split about 50/50 between the two, with Nick Fuentes and his movement representing the Catholic interpretation and the pagan interpretation not really having any movement of similar influence but a lot of individuals who are hostile to Christianity.
More options
Context Copy link
An interesting note on this point: later Hitler claimed he regretted helping Franco in the Spanish Civil War, and even said they should have helped the 'reds' instead, because they had idealism and vitality and could have made good National Socialists, while Franco and his crew were just a bunch of ossified reactionaries who would never amount to anything. He even excused the leftist attacks on the clergy and church-burnings in Republican Spain as understandable considering how the church had "oppressed the people" for centuries.
Like most writing on Hitler and the NSDAP it seems to take out of context verbal derision as important opinion and a leading guide for the inner workings of both Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, when in reality it was probably just 'Franco wont help in the war effort, what a prick.'
Yes it was probably Hitler just blowing off of steam, but his disdain for "reactionaries" was very real.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’ve heard this before but is there any good writing on it?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The answer to your question is they don't because contra the last 80 years or so of concerted effort to paper-over history the Nazi's were never particularly right wing. The National Socialist German Workers' Party was always Socialists at its heart. Nor is it a coincidence that when you get progressives to actually describe their Ideal form of government what they come up with is a an explicitly secular and technocratic regime where in the state is all things to all people, IE inter-war period Fascism. I don't think the Wilsonites (as in Woodrow) ever really truly stopped believing in socialism, eugenics, technocracy, or building a "new world order". The Horrors and excesses of World War II just made it a losing proposition to advocate these things publicly. As World War II and what the Nazis were actually about passes from living memory into myth and legend, it is only natural for their stupidity and evil to return. As the old poem goes...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you… sure you’re responding to the right comment? I don’t think you are understanding @2rafa’s point. If you truly want the “best and the brightest” then you can’t handwave away so much history of gentile whites.
As discussed in the comment you’re replying too, all the feminism and SJW identities etc that you’re so upset by were created by white people. This is a civil war within white culture, not a war of trad white men against all comers. Until that truth is acknowledged and dealt with skillfully truly smart and learned people will never join this movement.
Yeah. Scott Alexander's post about the four American tribes is pretty insightful here. The Borderer-Cavalier coalition fighting against a Puritan-Quaker coalition. Quakers seem very much like the OG hippies...
More options
Context Copy link
No, I meant to reply to cake's OP comment.
Oh, awkward.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
These complaints are reasonable against, for example, Greg Johnson, but they are very odd complaints to make about Gregory Hood, because he is a very vocal critic of liberalism and of Enlightenment philosophy, and has written and spoken quite a bit about those very topics. He is not particularly hawkish on Jewish issues; like any white identitarian, he is aware of and recognizes the significance of Jewish influence on the political developments of the 20th century, but he does explicitly place most of the blame on philosophical movements that are pretty much 100% Anglo-European in origin. A perusal of his Twitter account @VDareJamesK will reveal his monarchist and Traditionalist sympathies and his disregard for liberal-democratic ideas.
I don’t expect people who are not personally interested/invested in white identitarian ideas to keep track of the specific positions of various figures within the movement - especially when so many of them happened to be named variations of Greg! - but I think it’s very important not to casually accuse writers of rank hypocrisy without bothering to check if the guy you’re talking about actually holds the positions you’re imputing to him.
I confused my Gregs. I'm usually good about this kind of thing, so I do apologize.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The fact that this is your best suggestion for a "positive vision" for someone who has sympathies for the concept for a White homeland shows you have no better alternative to what they are proposing. "Retreat to the last bastion until it, too, is lost" is you just saying "accept losing while you retreat as much as you can." You aren't proposing a "positive vision of the future", whereas Hood's proposal of a White homeland is just that.
I think the most positive vision of the future is to elect a competent Republican like DeSantis, build 'the wall' and develop a more competent deportation apparatus shrouded in completely un-inflammatory language (like mandating a beefed-up e-verify nationwide), restricting family-based immigration, ending the H1B visa program (leaving only the O-1 exceptional skills category), ending all rights for overseas students to remain in the US for any period after graduation and restricting family-based chain migration further by implementing a lifetime cap on the number of family members one is allowed to bring over (2 or 3). All this could be accomplished in a GOP trifecta. Then transition the right's public rhetoric into a strongly protectionist, pro-labor movement with some elite tech support (without alienating the evangelicals or small business owners) and become a hardline law-and-order party. Double prison capacity, increase sentencing lengths, 90s-tough-on-crime policy on steroids, with huge federal funding for additional police. Condition federal funding for states on not running afoul of 'civil rights' law, which will be interpreted as any policy designed to specifically support any member of a group in a protected category in any way, either directly or by proxy. Restore discipline in schools by encouraging corporal punishment in problem districts, stick the IRS on every progressive billionaire and progressive corporation, cut a deal with more apolitical tech executives (like Zuck and Musk) to surreptitiously promote 'pro-social' (ie right wing) memes on their networks. Then govern as an American caudillo (and successors) with 70% of the white vote and 40% of the hispanic vote forever.
ie. Steve Bannon's plan, which was realistic and workable for an intelligent leader of a competent American conservative movement.
Unfortunately, American conservatives are largely retarded and so will hand Donald the primary victory over DeSantis, ensuring that even in the unlikely event that Trump wins again, none of the above will ever happen.
Immigration restriction seems to be a big part of your vision, but you are still hostile to the concept of White identity? You don't want White people to internalize any sort of ethnic identity, but you want major policy changes on Immigration. You can't have one without the other.
What about for Europe? What if restricting MENA immigration to Europe were only possible, in earnest, with the creation of a pan-European, white racial identity? Would you support it if that were the case? Or is your "ideal" also, somehow and someway, Europe does a 180 and starts seriously restricting immigration for reasons unrelated to the aspirations of white nationalists and impulse of ethnic identity?
It just seems weird that immigration reform seems so important to your ideal, but then you counter-signal the most important impulse that would bring about serious immigration reform.
Not who you're replying to, but I also oppose illegal/uncontrolled immigration, and my reasons for doing so are irrespective of race. Illegal immigration creates a ghettoized immigrant community that is less likely to assimilate into a national culture, and an "open border" creates many logistical issues not the least of which is that it essentially nullifies a nation's ability to rule itself. The kind of Constitutional/quasi-libertarian project that I would most like to see is only feasible within firmly set and well-policed borders. Whether those borders are keeping out brown or white people makes no difference to me.
More options
Context Copy link
I think a lot of Europeans (including white Americans) think direct racial preference in that way is vulgar. They have friends and coworkers, in some cases family members of different ethnicities (much moreso than the average German in 1933 would have had Jewish friends or coworkers), they see them as part of their community, they find the race-baiting and outright extreme rhetoric of the dissident right unpalatable - even smarter people on the dissident right will often tweet or comment extreme racism, including epithets, just for the hell of it.
They aren't strongly attracted to the trad hausfrau / bruderschaft aesthetic which the wider trad right struggles to disengage from. Its spiritual core is muddled and incoherent. They just want to live in a functioning country with a sense of purpose. You would argue they could have this if only they agreed with you, but they want it without agreeing with you. They don't want to listen to a racial lecture about how the friendly black mechanic who services their car is a brute, stupid, lesser, etc. You will say that one could articulate a positive vision of identitarian nationalism without hatred of other people(s), but in practice we can see on the dissident right that even the 'intellectuals' who hold themselves back most of the time can't actually resist outright vulgar, generic hatred of the "those fucking animals" variety in many cases.
This feels especially unfair when most of the victims of wignat policies would be either the descendants of slaves trafficked against their will to the Americas, or descendants of immigrants who complied with the policies established by America's democratically elected rulers at the time of their immigrating. I would feel for the former because their people would suffer twice for the same (white) action, and I would feel for the latter the same way I sympathize with the Indians forced out of Uganda by Idi Amin. Say your father adopts a child and then dies some time later, but before they come of age. Do you not have obligations to him as a sibling, even if you disagree with your father's action? I would say that you do.
It's possible, although I don't think this is the main impediment to reducing illegal MEA migration to Europe, which could be best supported by just copying Australia circa 2015 and establishing offshore deportation centers. The main problem in European politics is apathy (an issue that extends far beyond immigration), and I doubt Meloni standing up and saying that 'Europe should remain native' would change that. Still, I recognize that it isn't my place to disagree, and so I don't have a problem with it as long as it isn't explicitly antisemitic (not that I would be able to do anything if it was).
Nope, they only think it's vulgar for themselves, they accept that same behavior as entirely normal for everybody else, including Jews it must be noted. You seem to think that this is just the way Europeans are, but you ignore the fact that it was less than 100 years ago that European and American beliefs around racial preferences are the complete opposite of what they are today.
You seem to dismiss the obvious, that this continental shift in Race Consciousness so happened to coincide with the aftermath of WW-II and its narratives that permeated the culture of Europe and America alike, but you cannot say that it is just in the nature of Europeans to have no ingroup preference, that sentiment is clearly downstream from the culture that informs our perception of reality.
Most importantly, you seem to acknowledge the importance of managing demographics with what would be considered white nationalist-tier immigration reform, but you somehow think this can be accomplished without European people having any sort of in-group preference, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I suppose Zionists never disparage non-Jews, right? You might say "I denounce that behavior from Zionists" but would you present that behavior as an argument for why Jewish people shouldn't identify as Jewish?
Given a lack of in-group ethnic preference, why shouldn't they be apathetic to mass MEA replacement? Because muh economy? Dey took 'er jerbs? That doesn't work, we already know it doesn't given the experience of the United States.
They weren't "the opposite", ethnic tolerance developed over time. People will say on one hand that the late 19th century was more racist than the early 19th century, but in general European societies became more tolerant from 1789 with allowances for the occasional blip. The emancipation of Catholics in the protestant countries, the slow emancipation of the Jews in the Napoleonic world and then England and then Russia (and so on) etc etc. It didn't just start in 1945.
It seems to me that they're apathetic about almost anything. See the discussion below and last week about European economic stagnation vs America.
I identify as Jewish only in as much as people like you would call me out for it if I identified as 'white'. In real life I almost never discuss Jewishness and what Jewish identity I have is (as I have said before) mainly the result of being exposed to large amounts of white nationalist antisemitism on the internet, much like a lot of white ethnats are such because of various /pol/ collages designed to spread those politics.
Of course I condemn hardcore religious nutters in Jerusalem, which is mostly a shithole. Israel is doomed in part because my co-ethnics refuse to bite the bullet and forcibly assimilate the chareidim at gunpoint; they stick their fingers in their ears (usually well away from Jerusalem or the West Bank) and pretend the problem will go away some day. My fate under ultra-orthodox rule would probably be little better than my fate under the rule of Kevin MacDonald, so I hope for neither.
Do they even need to forcibly assimilate them as opposed to just telling them they’ll starve if they don’t get real jobs? It seems to me that the charedi refusal to engage in normal economic activity to support themselves like everyone else is the crux of Israel’s demographic problem, even as they likely would not make good rulers, and that their gender segregation and 17th century clothing are minor issues that a functional society doesn’t have to care much about.
More options
Context Copy link
"Developed over time" is doing a lot of work here, and ignoring the actual cultural and intellectual movements that were most closely associated with those developments, which was the subject of Kevin MacDonald's study. Kevin MacDonald doesn't even present concrete political solutions in his work, his work is dedicated to tracing the influences of movements which were most closely associated with what you call "ethnic tolerance" in the 20th century.
I remember seeing a polll indicating that American troops in WW-II preferred losing the war to ending segregation, it is the complete opposite of centuries of perception surrounding race.
I'm not asking if you condemn it, I am asking if you believe this behavior means Jews should not claim an ethnic identity. With respect to white people, are basically saying that since some white identitarians say mean things about blacks, nobody should have regard for a white ethnic identity. This was also an Israeli guard by the way, so basically police, not just a random hardcore religious nutter making a scene.
Is affirmation of your Jewish identity in every single high-status institution and culture in the West really not enough? An extremely small number of people sharing memes is enough to influence you in that way? I believe you, by the way, but you undermine your argument by admitting that some internet memes from a relatively small number of low-status people are sufficient to alter your presentation of your own ethnic identity. Then, you should also acknowledge that the European racial self-perception is also influenced by high-status institutions, not merely a small number of internet memes in a couple dark places on the internet.
You talk about how apathetic and demoralized Europeans are, yes, when they should in fact be highly energized if they had a healthy, racial self-regard that you do not want them to have, even while simultaneously admitting the importance of the demographic question.
I don't think Zionism is morally justifiable if it results in the extermination or extreme repression of Israeli Arabs, is that what you're asking me to say? I'm not saying 'white nationalism is wrong because some white nationalists say mean things about black people', I'm saying that I don't think it's a smart strategy for American conservatives. It isn't really my place to say what's 'right' or 'wrong', morally with an ideology, although as above I think if it comes to significant persecution on the basis of race then I think that is generally wrong.
The incident with the German priest is embarrassing because he is a foreigner and because it is embarrassing for Jews to be judged by the actions of the person shouting at him.
When you're 14 and extremely online on 4chan it doesn't feel like an 'extremely small number of people'. In any case, obviously it had an effect as I'm sure it did for you, many of us are here because we read a bunch of smart conservative writers on the internet years ago. So it's probably best to say that a combination of NrX, far-right antisemitism and general trolling and online drama gave me the political identity I have now. It's easy to be radicalized into an identity when you're consciously shown endless examples of 'people who hate you'. Maybe the reason I didn't become antifa was because I also read Jewish reactionaries like Gottfried, Moldbug, Strauss and so on, who knows.
I don't have a problem with a 'European Zionism'. However, the rhetoric of most white nationalists is far more aggressively racist than that of all but the most extreme Israeli religious zionists. If non-whites, including Jews, were guaranteed the rights that Arab citizens of Israel have in this theoretical ethnostate then I wouldn't have any moral issue with it.
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
The USA doesn’t actually have to do anything else to be majority white in 2100. Literally just stop immigration from Africa and Central America. White identity rhetoric is probably the sort of thing that you don’t want associated with a movement to shut the border down and stop accepting African immigrants- Greg Abbott manages to make his policy of turning back migrants at the border palatable in a state much redder than the nation as a whole by not carrying on about white identity.
Africa, you say? Not China, India, the Philippines, Vietnam or Korea, each of whom send far more immigrants than does Africa
From a long term demographics perspective, migrants with a fertility rate hovering around 1 who interbreed with whites to an extent that their children are considered white in two generations simply don’t matter very much. And obviously a lot of the pathways to reduce African migration also reduce Asian migration, as well.
This Pew report says that the rates of intermarriage among Asian and Hispanic newlyweds is about the same.
Hispanics run the spectrum from pale, blue-eyed blondes whose ancestors never so much as shook hands with an indigenous American to 100% Maya natives living in remote Oaxacan villages or whatever. Intermarriage rates don’t capture the granularity here.
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