site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29605 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I’m on record as being a squish on the JQ, and by extension the IQ (Israel Question), relative to other users here who share some of my other political commitments. Yes, I’m aware of many of the most damning conspiracy theories about Israel’s skulduggery when it comes to its relationship with American foreign policy, and I even think many of them are 100% true. I have no illusions about Israel, or at least Israel’s leadership, as a genuine friend of the American or European people. I don’t want American boots on the ground to intervene in this crisis.

That being said, my approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict has always been “which side is more similar to me, and to people like me?” There’s no world in which the answer is the Palestinians. We can argue for eternity about whether or not Jews are white, whether Israel is a Western country, whether it’s in the best interests of people who care about the future of the West to strategically undermine Israel, etc., but compared to a bunch of dirt-poor third-world Arabs, it’s no contest. I want to see Israel embrace cruelty and brutality in a way that we have not seen any industrialized modern democracy do in 60 years, and I want it to be an example to the world of the kind of mindset that European and Anglosphere countries absolutely must emulate in the years to come. The world is about to become a far more savage place, and maybe the fact that Israel has always spiritually had one foot in the West and one foot in the Middle East means that it will have to be the first one to tear off that scab.

For optics reasons, I’m going to be intentionally vague about what precisely I’m imagining.

If optics was your goal, you would have left that sentence out altogether.

Optics are a spectrum, and this was as far along that spectrum as I was willing to publicly go. You’re correct that I could have gone less far, but I also could have gone farther, but didn’t.

A statement like:

the kind of mindset that European and Anglosphere countries absolutely must emulate in the years to come

has the effect of riling people up, and not being specific about why this mindset is necessary allows the speaker to evade questions he does not wish to answer. That does not fit the ethos of this forum. We are not called TheBailey.

I've always appreciated your posts, even though I don't share your motivations, because I like clear thinking and rational debate. I don't object to anyone advancing provocative claims, as long as they give others a fair opportunity to rebut. Your statement was provocative, but it was too vague for someone to argue against.

Right, there have been multiple times in the last month when I have begun to type out a far more clear explication of specific steps which I think need to be taken - the Lampedusa stuff in particular has stirred up some especially visceral reactions in me - but ultimately I’ve deleted all of them. I’ve said before that one of my goals when posting here is to soften people’s perceptions of white identitarians; to show that at least some of us are normal and reasonably well-adjusted people, able to clearly articulate arguments and to joke around and act like human beings. To show that we’re not just hate-filled, bloodthirsty, atavistic monsters.

This goal is sometimes at odds with the fact that there are certain problems which almost certainly will require violent and cruel behavior, and I fear that the time is rapidly approaching when such solutions will become urgently necessary. Explicitly advocating for such an approach, though, is counterproductive to my optical goals. Pretending to disavow such an approach, though, would be dishonest - especially when we’re discussing a very graphic and high-profile textbook example of precisely the sort of problem that would require that type of solution.

This leaves me in the uncomfortable and suboptimal position of having to pull some punches and to occasionally lack clarity. I’m perfectly willing to speak plainly and to pontificate at length about most subjects, but when it comes to discussing violence - particularly against identifiable ethnic groups - I do find that I have to walk a finer line.

That being said, my approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict has always been “which side is more similar to me, and to people like me?” There’s no world in which the answer is the Palestinians.

I want it to be an example to the world of the kind of mindset that European and Anglosphere countries absolutely must emulate in the years to come.

Sure but they already do this. This is the only time Palestinian-Israeli casualties have been even remotely even (at least in confirmed casualties +prisoners rn). A pretty devastating blow to IDF prestige. Most of the time it's the Israelis kicking a lame dog with a steel-toed boot. Since founding, Israel's expanded territorially, ripping bits off other states and Palestine. They've already kicked loads of Palestinians out of Israel.

If you want real lessons in brutality, look to China. They had a little outbreak of terrorism in Xinjiang... and absolutely dropped the hammer. They suppressed so intensely they've basically wiped out an entire culture in 5-6 years. Only old men go to the mosque these days, it's all over. Extremely disciplined use of overwhelming state power, they nipped it in the bud rather than reacting, complete victory. Makes Israel look like a joke.

Most of the time it's the Israelis kicking a lame dog with a steel-toed boot

More like a lame dog with rabies, which can occasionally get a nip in when Mossad is sleeping on the job.

It seems that most of the West, and thus by extension, Israel (public relations work both ways) has a lower tolerance for the kind of performative and effective brutality needed to squash this for good.

If I was a soldier who just had my nose broken with a rock thrown by a bunch of kids who would be better off in school, well, I probably wouldn't shoot them right away, but that little shit would learn his place fast.

The only reason they haven't been beaten to a pulp is because Israel successfully contains them, and through technology mitigates shit like ghetto rockets being launched indiscriminately at their population centers.

There are so many details about the treatment of Xinjiang and the Uighurs that even seasoned China watchers of the high quality kind don’t know, like it’s insane how successful they’ve been in keeping things quiet; my guess is even Western intelligence doesn’t know many details. It’s hard to say how effective it is in that context. Yes, the Chinese have effectively repressed them, but other Central Asian countries have been very effective at limiting terrorism within their borders (mainly by allowing Islamists to leave, but still) and have used far less repressive methods. Comparing the situation to Palestinians 1:1 isn’t simple, it’s possible China would be facing a much worse security crisis if the Uighurs were as radicalized as Gazans.

Uighurs simply don't have a large group of people in other countries who see them as genuine kin the way Palestinians do. Their radicalization was a brief episode that had to do with limited monetary/weapon/ideological support by US/UK/Turkish intelligence services. In contrast there are about 500 million Arabs (situated in a way that absolutely surrounds Israel, and in command of armies and money and influence). Vast majority see Palestine as the pinnacle of their people's humiliation. The darkest spot on their battered honor which they highly value.

The comparison to Uighurs is quite useless because of this. China was subjugating a people who were barely militant, had little real friends, with zero real threats against its own national security as a consequence of these actions.

Also, if the power disparity weren't so enormous.

"Once the bitter enemies of everything me and mine have won their war, consolidated power, and successfully eliminated their main vulnerability and point of criticism, I'll be in a stronger position."

What a braindead take. Reminds me of comments I sometimes see where some 19yo white girl on some university campus somewhere writes that she has more in common with the son of goat herders than her conservative neighbor (b/c they vote for the right political party). If total war broke out and Hamas won tomorrow, in the "years to come" it won't be their grandsons and daughters writing op-eds in the Times about how the ever shrinking white population have become even more Nazi-like.

If Hamas and Hezbollah win tomorrow and Israel is overrun, firstly American Jews will still be in America and secondly nothing about mass immigration into Europe and the West in general will change.

I don’t see Israel, or the Jewish people, as the long-term enemy of my people. I see reconciliation between gentile whites and Jews as an absolutely necessary part of the destiny of the white race. I think we can recognize that in the short term Israel is a malignant actor, and still believe that what they are holding back is even worse. I look at it the same way I look at Japan in the 1940’s: it was a genuinely anti-white force, and it saw its participation in the war as explicitly anti-colonial. If you’d asked an American in 1944 whether Japan was an inevitable racial enemy of white American, he would obviously have said yes. (Polling of Americans at the time revealed that a large majority wanted the Japanese population totally exterminated.) In the fullness of time, though, Japan ended up taking very well to Western culture and becoming a highly beneficial contributor to the Western world order. Jews have in the past made undeniably positive contributions to Western history, and they inevitably will again in the future. Arabs never will.

I don’t see Israel, or the Jewish people, as the long-term enemy of my people.

You should consider that the reverse is true, especially among the more religious hardliners which are growing in influence in Israel. They spit on Christian pilgrims in the streets, they could murder them for that matter, and those Christians will never accept them as a long-term enemy. But that's ultimately because Christian religion has completely blinded them and they are totally incapable of rationally interpreting the relationship between themselves and the Jews.

I don't blame you for wanting this to be true, but my question is what exactly do you perceive as entailing "reconciliation" between Aryan and Jew, a sibling rivalry that is biblical and mythically embodied in the brothers Jacob and Esau. The Jews view themselves as sons of Jacob and you as the son of Esau. Does your idea of reconciliation rely on this changing fundamentally? I don't think you appreciate how deeply this is baked into the cake of the Jewish religion.

Because they will say that they want nothing more than reconciliation between Jew and Aryan. And their conception of "reconciliation" is the suppression and erasure of Aryan racial consciousness and advocacy coincided with bloodthirsty support for the Jewish ethno-state. I assume that you mean something different by "reconciliation", something akin to reciprocity. Imagine if Jews vocally and materially supported the interests of White people to the extent White people support Jewish nationalism. If that's your idea of reconciliation, I would be interested to see how, when, and why you think these attitudes changing are plausible.

I think you also underestimate the capacity for self-deception and cognitive dissonance. Let's say Israel determines the Final Solution to the Palestinian Question is forced deportation. That is not going to open the minds of Europeans in any degree, they are just going to accept simultaneously that this is necessary for Israel but even proposing a similar measure for African migrants is an evil, jail-worthy suggestion.

Advocating forced deportation for migrants isn’t jail worthy in Europe, it’s mainstream on the right. That they fail to implement it is another problem, but they’re not banned from saying it.

This was ages ago (around the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis) but there was a couple that dinged by a court for posting something like "all they bring is sorrow, conflict, and [a bunch of other negative things]" on Facebook. It wasn't as dry as "illegal immigrants should be deported" (a tautology), but it was extremely mild as far anti-migrant rhetoric goes, and the judge explicitly said if they caught posting something like that again, they'll go directly to prison.if they get caught posting something like this again.

I'm talking about the children of those migrants 50 years from now. Israel would be deporting natives from their indigenous region, but that isn't going to open up the minds of Europeans into deporting the next generation of non-Europeans in Europe. They are just going to accept a different set of standards for the Chosen than themselves as they are doing right now.

Israel can’t deport the Arabs from Gaza. They’ve spent 50 years trying to and the Arab population has increased by more than 400%. That is because, exactly as European countries are finding and will find out, nobody wants them.

Israel can’t deport the Arabs from Gaza. They’ve spent 50 years trying to and the Arab population has increased by more than 400%. That is because, exactly as European countries are finding and will find out, nobody wants them.

Europe didn't want its Syrian refugees either, what the European people want doesn't matter. I think it is completely possible that Europe is forced to accept the migration of millions of refugees on behalf of Israel, and people like Hoffmeister will continue to hold out hope on "reconciliation" and belief that Aryans must rely on the Jews to survive. It's already happened so far with millions of Arab refugees, why wouldn't it happen again?

Agreed! If you look at the religious side of things, Jews are the original People of the Book. They should be respected for that fact alone.

The Jewish religious tradition that birthed the Old Testament of the Bible acts as the fundamental moral, spiritual, and societal framework for the entire Western order. And frankly at this point much of the world. Their contributions made whiteness as a thing even possible, in that their religion birthed the religion that made whiteness such a force to be reckoned with.

I'm not a white identitarian, but I'm baffled as to why so many of your fellow travelers can't take the longer view on Jews and Judaism. Thanks for the reasonable take.

in that their religion birthed the religion that made whiteness such a force to be reckoned with.

It isn't like it took Christianity to make the Romans a "force to be reckoned with", so I don't think your claim here is actually correct. Ever seen the Arch of Titus?

Ever seen the Arch of Titus?

Can you really say that the Romans managed to subjugate Judea? In the short term I agree, but in the long run Judea and its ideas became suzerain over the entirety of the Roman empire (or whatever remained of it).

Can you really say that the Romans managed to subjugate Judea?

In the short term yes, and that's what matters for the purpose of this analysis - they were very clearly a formidable power well before Christianity. Even looking at the bible, they don't hide the fact that the Romans were in charge of the area at the time. I am honestly unsure as to the long run consequences, however. I'd honestly want to see the counterfactual world where Rome actually subjugated the jews and Christianity never happened - but that world is so different to ours that I find it hard to talk sensibly about it.

Polling of Americans at the time revealed that a large majority wanted the Japanese population totally exterminated.

This is blatantly wrong. The actual figure is 13%. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3023943.

You are correct, I severely misremembered that result. I appreciate the correction.

I see reconciliation between gentile whites and Jews as an absolutely necessary part of the destiny of the white race.

You're so wrong it literally pains me in my bones.

Low effort. Spell out your objection or don't bother telling people "No, you're just wrong."

Oh yeah, let me describe in detail the absolute necessity of reconciliation with Jews for the destiny of the white race. A group of people with an extreme representation of thinkers and political figures responsible for everything that is wrong with white western societies as they exist with their current modern memeplexes. That sentence coming out some one who's supposed to be pro-white. At a certain point you need to call bullshit to pure trolling.

At a certain point you need to call bullshit to pure trolling.

I’m not trolling. I sincerely believe that the DR is severely - and, in some cases, intentionally - overestimating the centrality of Jews in the constellation of problems facing our people. As I have said before, “The JQ is not a yes-or-no question.” I can recognize the significance of Jewish power without inflating it beyond what is actually supported by the evidence. You can say I’m delusional and profoundly naïve, and maybe I am! But I’m sincerely expressing my own position on the issue.

At a certain point you need to call bullshit to pure trolling.

No, you don't. You need to articulate why you think someone is wrong, decline to engage, or use the report button if you genuinely think someone is trolling.

I'm not taking your side or @Hoffmeister25's side, I'm telling you that no matter how super-obviously-painfully-stupidly wrong someone is, in this place you explain why you think they are wrong if you want to argue with them, you don't just "Nuh uh" them.

They'll probably interbreed till it's a distinction without a difference*

*AI timelines excluded.

Come on. You really ought to at least say why you think so.

The problem is that Israel is a major source of migrants. The Israeli state has expanded forcing millions of Arabs out of their homes. When they bombed Lebanon in 2006 I got some new classmates in Sweden. Israel has been a major force acting to destabilize the middle east and create chaos. This means migrants to Europe. Meanwhile Israel has been busy promoting multiculturalism in Europe. Israel has been fighting Syria for decades and there are now vast numbers of Syrian refugees in the world.

The best option for Europe is stable secure arab states. Israel wants to expand and wants dysfunctional failed arab states. The blowback from that means Europe gets another wave of migrants that Israaid can help bring into Europe through their activities on Greece's beaches.

The last thing I want to see is the world get more destroyed and more migrants flood into Europe because of zionists. If there is a step one to saving Europe, it is ending the pro Israel neocon agenda that has been a root cause of migrants. I don't want to meet more people with heroin addictions and missing family members after neocon Americans decided that they wanted to go on another mass murder spree in the middle east.

What we need now is to speak the language they understand- pushback. Palestinians have shown great courage and resolve today when they fought back. The same neocons who made billions bombing Afghanistan while working class whites died of heroin lost dozens of vehicles. The same neocon/zionist establishment who flooded Syria with weapons and my neighbourhood with people who fled from them got humiliated today. Aggression is in their nature, they will only stop once they get properly bitten back.

The problem is that Israel is a major source of migrants

This was somewhat true in the past, but I think it is already rather outdated. The Arab population pyramid is already leveling off. The vast majority of third world low quality immigration into Europe will come from Africa in this century.

The vast number of migrants that have come have come from "we love Israel" neocons. Strange how Israel gets an ethnostate while they push for diversity in Europe. They level Palestinian villages to build settlements while they finance migrant smuggling to Europe.

Israel has created an enormous problem for Europe while being no benefit.

If massive immigration is inevitable will Israel take massive african immigration?

What do mass migrant flows from countries like Niger, Senegal and Haiti have to do with Israel? Even if you conflate progressive Jews in some Western countries with Israeli policy, the surge in global migration since the 1990s has much more to do with ease of travel, birth rates, stagnation in the global south, rising temperatures and various other intractable factors than it does with Jews or Israel.

Funny how most of the migrants have come from wars against Israels enemies brought about by radical Israel firsters. Israel has promoted massimmigration extensively through NGOs such the jewish internet defence force and israaid while actively working to destabilize countries in the middle east.

You didn't really address the above post, unless you are saying that Isreal is responsible for civil wars and general unrest in countries in Sub-saharan Africa. Why would they do such a thing?

I never said they were soley responsible. I said they have been a main factor. WIth that said israaid is helping them accross the Mediterranean while Israel NGOs are actively pushing for diversity in Europe. Also most of the refugees have come from wars in the middle east pushed by pro zionist neocons. Israel is actively destabalizing Palestine, Lebanon, Iran and Syria which is an absolute disaster for Europe.

The last thing I want to see is the world get more destroyed and more migrants flood into Europe because of zionists.

At this point,so many migrants are flooding in from so many other places (arguably Europe's own fault in some cases like when they got rid of Gaddhafi) I doubt it will make more than a marginal difference. Europe is either going to change policy to stem that flow (probably by not accepting irregular migrants at all) or I doubt some more Arabs matter.

When they bombed Lebanon in 2006 I got some new classmates in Sweden The best option for Europe is stable secure arab states.

Snipers on Turkey-greece and turkey - bulgaria borders and drones that ram boats are also effective. Europe should just grow some balls.

I recall reading that Israel also tried to push its African asylum seekers into the West and then there was HIAS' role in the Syrian refugee crisis.

I am generally speaking more sympathetic to Israel than to the Palestinians but I think many Westerners are wildly overstating how much in common we have with the Israelis, at least the part of Israel that is ascendant.

I'm not so optimistic. Israel will likely get a free pass on savagery in popular opinion while all other countries continue to be gentled into submission.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats