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 -
I think I’d be a little naive if I supported the coming to power of people who hated me. Would that not make me as bad as the aggressively progressive whites for whom you presumably have contempt (or at least pity)? Even a Jew with zero Jewish identity has every incentive to oppose the coming to power of people who oppose and distrust him on the basis of race and who would, in their dreams, disenfranchise and expropriate him to the extent he fled from the country. You can have healthy self-regard in any way you want, but if you threaten me then I have no duty to support you, and if (as many WNs do) you make the poor treatment if not expulsion of my people (as identified by you) a central pillar of “healthy self regard” for your tribe then I’ll oppose that on the basis of my own self-interest. In addition, if the price for immigration restrictionism is open antisemitism in American politics, then I kind of lose either way, don’t I, because the price for me getting what I want is me not being able to enjoy it, making me some kind of, what, cuck?
Jews have been part of the United States as a project since the beginning, indeed before many European ethnics were in the country in any numbers. The founding fathers / framers considered Jews to be white. George Washington himself explicitly declared that Jews would “possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.” Jefferson and Adams, especially, were philosemitic, Adams declared that Jews had “influenced the affairs of mankind more and happily than any other nation, ancient or modern.” I have my problems with America’s founding ideology, but it is clear to me that while the founders would not have been happy with unlimited migration from Central America and vast immigration from Asia (or indeed from many other parts of Europe if you read Ben Franklin), they had no issue with a small Jewish population living in the United States. The British had allowed for the naturalization of Jews in the thirteen colonies as early as 1740, so this even predates much of the enlightenment. I think this grants me a stake in the American political project and that I therefore have no duty to put the needs of another citizen above my own.
I don’t believe that explicit ethnat sentiment is required. Denmark’s harsh restrictions on ‘non-Western’ immigration were passed by social democrats who in their opinions on these issues are largely aligned with social democrats in the rest of Europe and the United States. They did so purely for evidence based reasons and because the tide of public opinion (the average Dane is not a staunch ethnat) had turned against mass immigration.
So yes, I oppose antisemitism for reasons of obvious self interest, just as you oppose policies that would discriminate against you based on your race for the same transparent reason. But I also think that attempting to ignite a fervent, purposeful white ethnogenesis in modern America is, for a variety of reasons, a likely futile task, and that is true whether it is explicitly antisemitic or not.
If White identity is so intrinsically threatening to Jews, then that is a big problem, because I'm not going to accept the Africanization of Europe because the station of Jews in our institutions might be threatened by White racial consciousness. You are in fact endorsing the dialectic as framed by White Nationalists, but are simply falling on the side of Jews rather than on the side of European people. That's understandable, but I fall on the side of European people and it's not based on hatred of Jews. The Animosity comes from the dilemma that you are assuring me truly exists, and you prioritizing your own perceived interests over those of European people is the behavior that draws the ire of WNs. Why would I prioritize Jews over the existential threat of demographic replacement of European people?
I am more optimistic than you are that practical relations can exist between Jews and a racially-conscious European nation, but you are providing a demonstration of the WN argument that Jews will never accept white racial consciousness because they perceive it as threatening to their own racial interests. Even a secular Jews who reads NRx still opposes White identity lest we develop any degree of anti-semitism, which is apparently the worst thing in the world. Not anti-white hatred, no that's just some academic errors that have been made here and there, but anti-semitism is truly the most evil force in all of history.
Of course "antisemitism" simply means any measure of criticism of Jews whatsoever, right? So I'm supposed to accept the denial of positive race-feelings of white people because it might lead to Jews being criticized in the public square? I'm sorry Jews may lose their complete immunity to being criticized in any measure that they criticize Gentiles, but again, it would be absurd of me to accept this as some disastrous outcome in the face of Europe being conquered by Arabs and Africans.
White ethnogensis has already happened, both on a genetic and social level. People identify racially as "white", it already happens. But in any case what Hood and I are talking about is a movement in Europe rather than the United States. You've already demonstrated how easy it is for racial self-perception to be influenced by propaganda, so calling it a futile task flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary: it's extremely easy to use culture and propaganda to invoke racial feelings in a particular direction, and it always has been.
White identity isn’t intrinsically threatening to Jews (as I said, Jews have been part of the ‘white’ identity in America since before 1776), but white identity that is openly hostile toward Jews is intrinsically threatening to Jews. A very large percentage of serious modern day American white identitarians are openly hostile to Jews. You claim Jews see all white identity as hostile to Jews, but it is in fact white identitarians who in great numbers describe themselves and paint themselves as hostile to Jews and perceived Jewish interests. If the Jew who reads the Occidental Observer comes to the conclusion that white nationalists will always be a threat to Jews, whose fault is this exactly?
Antisemitism is as important to me as anti-white racism is important to you, which is to say (from your writings here), very important. I don’t oppose European identitarianism, but I would act in my own interest if it should become explicitly hostile to me.
Both are correct: Jews are hostile to white identity, and white identity is hostile to the status quo of the station of Jewish identity in the West, in particular with its wholly unjustified legal and social privileges that give it immunity from any degree of criticism that Jews constantly levy against Whites. It's a genuine conflict of interest, it's not something that can be dismissed with the myopic accusation of irrational hatred. You are basically saying the WNs are right, but you have to take the other side because you are Jewish, which their world model would predict in any case.
I disagree that Jewish American and gentile white American interests must be fundamentally hostile toward each other. But, of course, if gentile WNs are openly hostile toward Jews then Jews will continue to be hostile towards you, regardless of whether the chicken or the egg came first and regardless of who has more 'institutional power'. Jewish hostility towards WNs with Nazi sympathies is justified by history at least as much as WN hostility towards the likes of George Soros. WNs justify, for example, hostility towards black people with crime statistics, so why can't Jews justify hostility towards WNs with the 'crime statistics' of the Holocaust which - even under revionist interpretations - are still rather grim reading (huge expropriation, stripping of professional titles, imprisonment, deportation, mass shootings, impromptu pogroms etc.)?
The average Jewish American has never thought about their relationship to white America writ large, the average self-admitted WN probably dislikes Jews. In reality, this conversation is kind of overplayed, since WNs do not seek to convert Jews, do not seek them as allies or friends and generally distrust even far-right Jews unless, like Unz, they agree with them on everything (many even dislike Cole for merely occasionally defending Jews).
I also think it's unfair to accuse me of accusing you of "irrational" hatred. I understand where that hatred comes from, as Solzhenitsyn and Churchill and indeed many great Jewish thinkers and writers did before our time. But there is much space between "irrational" and "justified".
In any case, I do think the cycle will be 'broken' in as much as I don't expect that antisemitism will be a central force in early 21st century American politics, and I expect that over time demographic changes in the Jewish community due to assimilation and birth rate differences between secular and Orthodox Jews will slowly shift the Jewish population to the right as has already happened in the UK and France.
This is just a chicken and egg question. It's notable here that the entirety of Jewish recorded history is traced by conflict with various hegemons and civilizations: Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Rome... Come 20th century America, I think White America naively expected the Jews to assimilate to the degree that, say, the Italians assimilated. That didn't happen, and you cannot blame White Nationalists for that. If Jews had assimilated to the degree of Italians, then you would have a point, but that did not happen. Jews retained a strong ethnocentrism, including a strong ethnonationalism towards a foreign country and hysterical opposition to anti-Semitism that doesn't resemble the ethnic struggle of any other European group which was folded into white culture. And that ethnic identity influenced the development of critical cultural and political institutions, to the determinant of the station of White Americans.
I will grant you that there are WNs more hellbent on revenge and score-settling, who hate Jews more than they love their own people, the National Justice Party comes to mind. But I will not grant you that the behavior of Jews was driven by these WNs, America accepted them with open arms and they retained strong loyalty to their own particular ethnos which they had internalized as fundamentally oppositional to White Gentiles (understandable given their religion is defined by struggle against Gentiles). That ethnocentricism systematically took the form of radical critique of White culture and morality throughout the 20th century and today.
Who says they can't? I'm not saying they can't, the even more pessimistic outlook is that Jews are justified in being hostile towards White identity. I am merely observing that they are hostile and that they will always be so. Isn't it even worse for you to admit, that because of WWII, Jews can never accept advocacy for white ethnic identity? If I were you, I would want to convince WNs that there is still a pathway for Jews to accept white ethnic advocacy, but I think we both know that is not the case precisely for the reason you have described right here.
Lastly, I think the smartest WNs are more open to practical relations on more equal terms with Jews than you would acknowledge. There are influential writers like Ron Unz, Gottfried, David Cole, who are appreciated broadly by WNs... the difference is those figures will grant that there is an unacceptable dynamic at play between the assertion of Jewish identity and white identity, whereas people like you take the position that the Jews are the eternal blameless victims, and this conflict is solely due to the deficiencies of non-Jews forcing them to be on the defensive. Given the experience of 20th century America, I cannot buy that, and you are just another example of someone who can't bring herself to attribute any sort of culpability to the behavior of Jews for the conflict we are talking about right now.
If WNs drop their anti-Semitism, you think Jews are going to all of a sudden start supporting white identity? I don't think so, and 20th century America is my evidence for my confidence in that conclusion.
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