ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '24
No bio...
User ID: 1012
A USG-sanctioned breakaway hierarchy might be our only shot at getting real Catholicism back.
Saint Liebowitz, pray for us.
That sounds really interesting as well. I'm halfway through the last book, so I'll check it out next.
I have the same aesthetic aversions that you do, I think. There is no girlbossing, women are portrayed as either passive victims, clever manipulators of the egos of men, or wild eyed semi-feral holy women, all of which are (to me) very plausible and period accurate.
The author justifies his revisions by putting the story in the mouth of a narrator with a very specific POV. The narrator is a pagan, a warrior, and a commoner who by chance learns how to read a bit when young and who is at the right place at the right time to witness or participate in many of the greatest eventa of Arthurian legend. One of his best friends, a noble born Christian cavalryman ("knight") would have told the same story but with different emphases and interpretations, and it would sound much more familiar to fans of "Le Mort D'Arthur."
I get the sense that the author is both a fan of Arthurian legend and of 5th century British history and has done his best to reconcile the two without doing a disservice to either. It's gritty and real, but it's not "grimdark." And there is no projection of 20th century morality back in time.
I'm not a huge Arthuriana buff. He does change some characters I think, but in a way that leaves the door open for the later "canonical" interpretations of them to still make sense. Arthur, for example, has the air of confidence, nobility, and invincibility you've come to expect when leading men or speaking publicly. But in private, when confiding to the main character, he reveals that he is sometimes wracked with doubt or grief or barely-controlled anger. I think it's pretty clever. Instead of tearing down or subverting the Arthur you expect, or making him into the bad guy, the author shows the psychological toll that singlehandedly bearing the destiny of Britain on his shoulders takes on him.
Excalibur, the third and final book of the Warlord Chronicles. Enemy of God was even better than the first book. The author has already covered all the scraps of Arthuriana I'm familiar with, so I have no idea where the story will go next. 10/10 would recommend.
Sorry, might post might have been unclear. I was saying that European mockery of the US is analogous to NE or NW USians' mockery of Southeastern USians. In both cases, the mockery is rooted in an overestimation of one's understanding of the target of mockery, as well as a feeling of superiority that inoculates against any curiosity about the target.
As I said in another post, I think it's perfectly fair for Europeans to criticize American foreign policy, and I do not take it personally when I hear such criticisms.
I don't doubt that. I was speaking about my own IRL experiences. Social media is designed to maximize heat, and the lowest quality members of the new Right live there 24/7. I dont feel compelled to defend the opinions of those people, nor do I expect you to defend the opinions of Europeans who post nothing but "do Americans really?" tweets and posts all day.
I took an OCEAN quiz recently and scored low on agreeableness. This was bit shocking to me because as a child and young adult I was always very agreeable, sometimes almost a doormat. After reflecting a bit I concluded that the quiz was right and I really have become a less agreeable person. I think that the weight of responsibility and the limited amount of time I have now has just reduced my patience for pleasantries and circumlocution. I'm not an "asshole" (I think), I'm just direct and to the point.
My neuroticism also dropped from moderate to low. But everything else stayed the same.
How has your personality changed over your life?
I suppose that as an American my problem with Europeans' opinions of "the path [America] has gone down" is that the average European really knows very little about what it's like to be an American, what America as a country is about, and why America does it what it does domestically.* But because they watch Hollywood movies or CNN they believe they understand America as well as (or even better than) the average American.
This isn't a unique phenomenon. As someone from the Southeast US, when I lived in the PNW, I would occasionally get knowing smirks when I mentioned my home state as my conversation partner assumed I was a refugee from "Jesusland" or "Dumbfuckistan" or whatever the popular slur was and would make some nasty remarks about the place my family comes from to try to ingratiate themselves with me. You see, they've seen Forrest Gump and Deliverance and finished the Grade 8 social studies unit on the Civil War and Jim Crow, so they know all about where I'm from. Have they visited? Well, no, they drove through once and cracked some jokes with their buddies at the time but they certainly never stopped to look around. Why bother? Everyone knows what those people are like.
*For the record I'm not irked by criticism of American foreign policy from Europeans. I'm not a fan of the GAE myself, so I just agree and shrug and say something to the effect of "if only votes mattered in the empire."
You're right, I was mostly talking about white collar/upper middle class Europeans. The working class or lower working class Europeans I have met have been very chill and friendly. Good folks.
The seething contempt long predates Trump. It was like that in the 90s when I lived there.
Also, contrary to the European stereotype of Americans, we can tell the difference between good-natured ribbing and thinly veiled hostility. I have friends who rip on the U.S. in good fun. And I have acquaintances who clearly have a chip on their shoulder.
I am fairly confident that if circumstances were reversed - if the military and economic security of the US turned on the impulses of European voters, or we were staring down the barrel of an economic crisis because European leaders did something retarded - Americans would be at least as cool on Europe as Europeans appear to be on us right now.
Americans would probably be less anti-European than Europeans currently are anti-American. This is because there's an element of snobbish contempt and reflexive ego preservation in the European attitude that really doesn't exist in American attitudes towards Europeans outside of extremely online spaces.
Normie Americans think Europe is Notre Dame and Big Ben and Oktoberfest and Italian cafes, oh and don't they have some issues with terrorism? Still, beautiful place, would love to visit one day.
Normie Europeans think America is a country full of backward nouveau riche troglodytes who make houses out of wood and probably plastic and styrofoam and drive big stupid cars and kill each other with guns and eat nothing but McDonalds, Velveeta, and probably plastic and styrofoam and call it "cuisine," and worst of all they have the gall, the absolute gall to think they are equal or even superior(!!) to us and that they can tell us what to do! They won't say all that directly to your face, but 2 out of 3 Euros are unable to contain their seething contempt and will eventually have to get in a "witty" (passive-aggressive) dig about guns/racism/big cars/food/etc apropos of nothing in an otherwise friendly conversation.
Early Americans thought their political system was superior to European monarchy, but they copied European styles and imported European fine goods and high culture. Europeans have never had anything but contempt for American culture, and this contempt and wounded ego greatly amplifies their dislike for America.
To the extent that there is a distaff counterpart to "toxic masculinity"
Top-tier Freudian slip.
Edit: apparently this was intentional
Do you have an elevator pitch for Catholic transhumanism? I thought that they were diametrically opposed.
I am just astounded at the sheer arrogance. Not offended, but genuinely astounded that you can be so lacking in perspective and awareness.
It's just a bit that he enjoys doing. And I suspect that he enjoys it because it never fails to get a bunch of responses. He's kind of like Kulak in that way. Kulak used to annoy me until I realized that his tough guy schtick was just a character he played online to get engagement. When you switch to analyzing the performance instead of the (thin) content of the argument, these characters become much more interesting and enjoyable to read. Unlike Ilforte/Dasein, they at least appear to be having fun. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles. Just finished "Winter King" and now starting "Enemy of God." Listening to the audiobooks read by Jonathan Keeble and having a great time.
I always found the supposed paradox amusing. "Tolerance" just means "Enlightenment liberal orthodoxy" and intolerance just means "heretics." When you translate the terms into what they actually mean in practice, the alleged paradox quickly vanishes.
Japanese and Koreans also believe this and are open about it. Some normie Dutch and Belgians are pretty open about it too, although they will use softer language and qualifications. This "nation of immigrants" idea is really just an American meme that infected the Anglosphere.
A distinctive mark of fascism is its conception of politics, best captured by Carl Schmitt, an early-20th-century German political theorist whose doctrines legitimized Nazism. Schmitt rejected the Madisonian view of politics as a social negotiation in which different factions, interests, and ideology come to agreement, the core idea of our Constitution. Rather, he saw politics as a state of war between enemies, neither of which can understand the other and both of which feel existentially threatened—and only one of which can win. The aim of Schmittian politics is not to share the country but to dominate or destroy the other side.
This is either ignorance or dishonesty. Schmitt differentiated between "inimicus," the private enemy with whom you disagreed about e.g. tax policy, and "hostis," the public enemy whose way of life is fundamentally incompatible with yours and who threatens your ability to continue your way of life. AIUI he argued that democracies treated both groups as "inimicus" which allowed the "hostis" to undermine the existing culture unopposed. It's actually a pretty anodyne description; I think that outside of a few dogmatic ideologues, people of nearly any political leaning would agree with it.
Those sound like pretty standard "old GOP" positions to me. Fiscally conservative, fanatically supportive of Israel and Jews.
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. Really sad stuff.
This would make it all add up for me. And adds an extra layer of tragedy to the whole affair.
I have the same question I had last time this came up. When she repeatedly passed out for hours only to wake up later with body aches and sore and messy private parts, did she not suspect anything? This seems like the sort of thing you only get away with a few times before even the slowest people wise up, but somehow he did this to her 2-3 times per week(!) for 9 years(!) including sex acts she wasn't willing to do, such as anal(!), and apparently these strange men were sometimes forcing her to gag on their members while she was unconscious(!). I do not understand how you she could not out the pieces of the puzzle together.
I'm really not trying to blame this victim here as the husband seems like an absolutely awful person, but there must be more to the story. Did the wife have some psychological issues that caused her to miss the signs? Was she aware of it but refused to report it because she feared for her safety? Was she hiding the abuse because she was too ashamed to reveal it? Did she have some mild kink that her husband just took way, way too far?
His username was different than the site name. And I think he was a pretty high quality poster back when he posted. Can't remember who it was.
Tell us more about which countries are which. As a burgerstani I cannot begin to guess.
- Prev
- Next

I always found this ridiculous. If you trip over a European history book and land face first on a random page your eyes will fall on a paragraph about a Catholic monarch with the title "Defender of the Faith" whose imperial regalia is festooned with crosses who rules a Catholic confessional state flagrantly ignoring direct papal orders and doing whatever he finds politically, socially, or sexually expedient. The pope is not nearly the boogeyman-puppetmaster he's made out to be. But I expect most educated people know that and are making these accusations in bad faith.
More options
Context Copy link