@Hoffmeister25's banner p


American Bukelismo Enthusiast

8 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 22:21:49 UTC


User ID: 732


American Bukelismo Enthusiast

8 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 22:21:49 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 732

DR Twitter commentator Isaac Simpson (“Disgraced Propagandist”) has made this exact comparison, saying that “the competency crisis” risks becoming the right’s equivalent of “the climate crisis”. It’s an interesting and troubling prediction.

Oh believe me, I did plenty of research into the different countries that would be realistic destinations. I’d looked everywhere from Estonia to Macedonia and everywhere in between. I’d actually eventually settled on focusing my efforts toward non-EU countries like Serbia and Montenegro, just because of the greater ease of getting a job as a non-EU citizen.

Ultimately the issue is that English teaching in most European countries simply does not pay enough to make a living, and the long-term prospects of the industry on the continent seem to be very dire due to technological advances. I am certainly still interested in moving to Europe, but I’m likely going to need to rethink my path there around something other than TEFL.

Given that you are in your thirties, you chose to live there even if it was the default choice. You could easily have moved to Kansas City or Tulsa or whatever.

Kansas City is over 25% black - for comparison, San Diego is less than 6% - and has a very significant black crime problem. Tulsa is only 15% black - so, again, still nearly three times as black as San Diego - and also has higher rates of both violent crime and property crime. Moving to either city would not be an upgrade in any of the QOL issues I’m concerned with, with the possible exception of housing costs.

As far as I’m concerned, the central sociopolitical conflict in America is between white and black. The other racial groups in the country are, at best, big players in the centuries-long psychodrama that has always existed between whites and blacks here, since long before the United States was a country. As I’ve explicated many times in this community, I believe that if blacks were to peacefully separate, both politically and geographically from whites, America could pretty much deal with the remaining non-white groups without too much issue. The removal of blacks from the political picture would also almost necessarily mean the dismantling of the Civil Rights Commission infrastructure and the resulting racial spoils system; without any strong pragmatic incentives to define themselves as separate from whiteness, non-whites in this country would, I believe, assimilate quite effectively in time, assuming immigration numbers can be swiftly brought under control and a restoration of the once-default expectations around the cultural/political hegemony of European-descended people is achieved.

I do not seek the creation of a purely-white ethnostate on American soil, both because it would be impossible to achieve, and because it would be unnecessary and would exclude and alienate a great deal of valuable human capital. The situation in Europe is quite different, and I would like to see European states remain >80% white for the foreseeable future.

So, how archaeologically well-attested are these? I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but I’ve also encountered a number of hotep-adjacent spaces where tendentious claims are presented as “facts that YT doesn’t want you to know* and then it turns out to be a massive exaggeration or an outright fabrication. (Or to be claiming for black Sub-Saharan the accomplishments of non-black peoples like the Egyptians, etc.)

I appreciate you engaging. My views on race and my generally unfavorable attitude toward blacks are well-attested and easily searchable in this community, but I’d be quite happy to have some intelligent and open-minded black individuals to engage fruitfully with here. I’m cognizant of the effect that spending as much time in the dissident-right echo chamber as I do can have, and if you can provide valuable correctives to any shortcomings in my knowledge, I would appreciate it.

I assume that you did not select SoCal as a place to live on the basis of wanting to only live around whites.

I didn’t choose SoCal at all - I was born here, and have lived here my entire life. Certainly I would not have actively selected it, given my current views, had I been born elsewhere. (I also dispute your description of me as a “white nationalist”, although I doubt you would find my protestations about that term persuasive.)

But yes, obviously any individual white nationalist/white identitarian/race realist/etc. will have other desires and life goals competing with the desire to live exclusively among other white people. Nothing is stopping me from moving to rural North Dakota, except for the weather, the lack of jobs, the generally poor lifestyle, the fact that I don’t know anybody there and would not be even close to anyone I know or anything I care about. And those same complaints apply doubly to moving to a country where the people don’t even speak English or have any cultural reference points in common with me. Now, would I still rather live in Latvia than in, say, Jackson, Mississippi? Yes, certainly, even despite all of the issues I’ve just listed. But there are options in between - like moving to a college town or affluent suburb in a relatively white and conservative state - that achieve most of the same goals without presenting quite so many obstacles and tradeoffs. And racially-aware whites in this country are in fact making this choices in great numbers right now. I plan to do so myself in the near future.

Have you considered why white identitarians are not moving in greater numbers to white European countries?

I will use myself as an example. Right before Covid, I started looking into the possibility of becoming certified to teach English abroad. I was trying to figure out a way to get out of the U.S., at least temporarily, and to make a decent living while doing so. It seemed like one of the few ways for a non-highly-skilled immigrant to Europe to contribute positively, in a way that would not actively compete with or take jobs away from local citizens; my English fluency was something I could bring to the table that the average Eastern European can’t, and I could contribute positively to a local economy and culture.

However, the Covid lockdowns and their effects on travel decimated the TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) industry, and even if they hadn’t, the reality is that very few Americans can successfully get long-term well-paying jobs in Europe, due to EU labor regulations. I would have had to have invested in a Master’s degree in Education to have any hope of earning a stable and long-term salaried teaching job anywhere in the EU; without it, and without an established background as a professional teacher in the U.S., my job prospects in Europe would have been pretty entry-level. This is fine for recent college grads taking a “gap year”, or people who are just that desperate to get a chance to live abroad, but for someone like me, in my thirties and needing to earn a real living with the opportunity to save money, it just wasn’t financially realistic. And of course it would have been even less realistic if I already have a family and kids that I needed to bring over there and support.

There is also the issue of having nearly no established English-speaking expat community in many of those countries. The prospect of becoming fluent in Latvian, or Slovak, or Serbian, at this point in my life is quite dicey; I would be a very obvious foreigner, too late in life to truly assimilate into the local culture, for the entirety of my life in whatever country I’m moving to; if my entire stance on immigration is that it’s bad for people to move in large numbers to a country, despite not speaking the language and not being able to assimilate, it would be pretty hypocritical for me to then go and be exactly one of those immigrants.

And if Latvia did decide to open itself up to large-scale immigration by Americans, and to make its culture more accommodating to such people, the types of people who would come would be, overwhelmingly, liberal cosmopolitans who would immediately set about dismantling what made Latvia so functional and appealing in the first place. I was always aware that by coming over to Latvia to teach their children English, I would, as a matter of practical reality, be giving those children the tools to move away from Latvia, or to open their minds up to the poisonous ideology emanating from the Anglosphere and to sever them from their roots. In one sense, I would be selling them a valuable product that they desire, but in the other hand I would consider that product quite likely to be deleterious to them and to their native culture in the long run; I’d be little better than a pornographer or a drug pusher.

For white racially-aware individuals to start moving to European countries en masse, there would need to be clear reasons to believe that this would not lead to them being a ghettoized and distrusted population in those countries. Perhaps some right-wing European billionaire (do any such people exist?) could open a bunch of schools that would teach European kids English, but at the same time also teach them conservative Eurocentric values? This could maybe employ some smart DR guys like me who are temperamentally suited for teaching, but it’d still have to find some way to pay us a decent enough salary to make it worth it. Past that, I just don’t think the jobs are realistically there for most of the guys who’d be theoretically interested in them.

one of the fallacies that the majority of that crowd seems to subscribe to is the idea that literally all of Black Africa was in the Stone Age pre-European contact which I know for a fact is wrong.

I’m as deep into that “crowd” as anybody here, and I can say confidently that I have heard nearly nobody make anything close to such a claim. The existence of large-scale agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa is well-known, as is the Bantu Expansion and the fact that the Bantu were able to achieve the level of dominance they did partly because of their mastery of metalworking. So no, your characterization of the “HBD crowd” is uncharitable and misinformed.

What is usually claimed is that nowhere in Sub-Saharan Africa do we find any evidence of written language, of the invention of the wheel, or of two-story buildings. Do you dispute these claims?

Right, as I said to @hydroacetylene, I’m in agreement with you about the clear and obvious superiority of conservative, monogamy-centric sexual norms over the Wild West chaos we have now. However, if the chaotic world of presumed equal agency between men and women is going to continue to prevail, and women are going to continue to drink publicly and to at least sometimes fully consent to sex with men under circumstances which are inherently ambiguous, it strikes me as profoundly unjust to insist that men shoulder the full burden of consequences while women shoulder none.

I think if she'd never in a million years have sex with you after a moderate amount of alcohol, no.

How am I supposed to know this? What does even mean? She’s at a bar/club/house party - a milieu where everyone is aware that at least some number of people there are interested in meeting prospective sexual partners. She’s unaccompanied by a man, so I have no reason to believe she’s spoken for. She’s talking to me and hasn’t wandered off or thrown a drink in my face or whatever, so clearly she’s at the very least not actively repulsed by me. So why would I assume she would “never in a million years” have sex with me?

Okay fine, again, I’d be very happy with a return to traditional sexual morality, in which a man is guilty of criminal seduction if he has sex with a woman before getting to know her family and asking her father for permission to marry her. However, that world is very far away from the world we live in now. You are, for practical purposes, proposing a world in which women have exactly the same degree of recognized agency as they do right now in every single aspect of life except for sex. (If not, how do we get from here to a world in which women lose all of this agency they’ve accrued?) This is obviously insane and unsustainable, and I hope you would understand why so many men would vociferously object.

That's why the term 'statutory rape' exists uncontroversially

This term is, in fact, controversial - at least in the discourse space you and I are participating in. It is, in fact, an extremely tendentious framing, and I do in fact reject it. (The mere fact that the “age of consent” differs so dramatically between different jurisdictions worldwide illustrates that people do in fact disagree substantially about the validity of the framing.)

I presume we agree that if a man bought an eighteen year old woman- so old enough to consent to sex with him, not old enough to drink in the US, and not old enough to be presumed to know her limits with alcohol- alcoholic beverages until she was too drunk to say no, then took her back to his hotel room, we would agree that this qualifies as rape.

We absolutely do not agree on this. First off, we would have to ask a number of very important questions which you hand-wave away. Does the man know she’s 18, rather than 21? (If he met her in a bar, the answer is almost certainly “no”.) Does he know that she “doesn’t know her limits”? Why would he assume that a grown adult is unable to exercise basic agency over her own decisionmaking?

Your scenario doesn’t mention anything about misdirection, subterfuge, etc. (i.e. spiking a drink without her knowledge) He’s just offering her drinks, and she’s willingly accepting those drinks.

And once she’s finished all of those drinks, how “visibly drunk” is she, actually? Surely you are aware that there is a wide spectrum of intoxication; someone can be buzzed or tipsy without being genuinely unable to exercise basic control over his or her faculties. Someone can be drunk enough to make decisions which one would not make if stone-cold sober, and in some cases that’s the whole point of drinking in the first place. (“Liquid courage” is a term for a reason.)

And an observer cannot always reliably detect, based on observing outwardly-obvious behavior, a person’s internal level of confusion/inebriation. Nor can simply knowing how many drinks she has had reliably tell you the extent to which she has lost control of her faculties. I know plenty of people who can down five shots of tequila and still maintain quite a bit of mental acuity and functionality; I also know plenty of people who will have one mixed drink and then be a stumbling mess.

You are requiring this man to be able to accurately gauge everything about this situation, at penalty of going to prison for a substantial chunk of his life, and having a permanent felony record, if he misjudges any of it. I thought I was one of the more authoritarian and pro-law-and-order posters here, but apparently you put me to shame.

All of this would, of course, be quite different if we lived in a culture in which it was widely understood to be extremely aberrant behavior for a woman to consume alcohol and then have sex with a man she just met, or barely knows. If we lived in a culture where the vast majority of women were chaste, monogamous, and averse to the mere thought of having casual hook-ups, then in the rare scenarios when a woman does do that, we could at least assume that foul play and predatory behavior on the man’s part may be involved.

However, in the culture we do live in, women do in fact willingly and enthusiastically consent to hookups all the time - very often after consuming some amount of alcohol! In such a milieu, any man who capitalizes on this opportunity now has to accurately - usually while intoxicated to at least some degree himself - whether this particular woman is hooking up with him because she is so plastered she’s lost all control of her mind and body, OR because that’s just a normal thing that tons of women do willingly all the time these days.

I am strongly in favor of a sea change in cultural morality toward a far more sexually-conservative set of cultural norms. However, that whole suite of norms would have to develop basically simultaneously, with all parties involved holding up their respective ends of the bargain. In the meantime, you’re asking far too much agency from men and none at all from women, with predictably disastrous consequences.

One thing people haven’t brought up is the fact that the modern internet allows nude scenes to be stripped from their original context, slowed/brightened/zoomed-in, and widely distributed/collected for easy access.

In the 70s and 80s, a respectable actress could do an artistically-justified nude scene for some artsy, small-distribution film, and if people wanted to see that scene they would have to find a way to view or purchase that movie, and at least watch the whole movie up to that point. Now, if I want to see that scene, all I have to do is wait for some guy to get his hands on a digital copy, then post the scene to Reddit or to any of dozens of other places. A ten-second scene can be shared everywhere, with AI-upscaling and the ability to pause and rewind to make sure I see every detail as many times as I want to see it.

And that means also that that actress’ friends, family members, dentist, accountant, second-grade teachers, and everyone else can see it. And jerk off to it.

All while not only the actress makes no money whatsoever off of it, but the studio who’s paying her also makes nothing off of it either. There’s no upside anymore for anyone involved, unless the actress in question is just an exhibitionist and likes getting naked where people can see it. Certainly this does describe certain people who get into showbiz! However, most of the women with that personality type, combined with the kind of good looks required to make a living off of it, are probably better off just leaning into OnlyFans or a career as an influencer or something like that, since movie studios are no longer willing to pay them big bucks to get naked.

At the time he posted this comment, there had been no other posts in this thread, despite it having been up for several hours. I believe the joke is that the mods’ idea of “perfect moderation” is “no posts allowed at all.”

Right, I just wanted to have that formally documented for the mods to see. @cjet79 and others, if you were reconsidering the permaban, hopefully this might be useful.

Either you yourself are Travis LeBlanc, or you have simply lifted substantial portions of this essay without crediting the author.

IMHO she's easily the most attractive prominent Hollywood actress right now.

This is a dispatch from an alternate reality. The multiverse is leaking and those of us in our reality are staring at conclusive proof of the exist of other timelines where up is down, backwards is forwards, and Zendaya is gorgeous.

The most prominent white nationalist publication, American Renaissance, routinely discusses the average Asian IQ advantage over whites’. Other than the occasional contrarian crank like Neema Parvini (who is not a white nationalist, and who, as his name suggests, would not be invited into most white nationalists’ ideal state) few if any of even the most hardcore racialists dispute the data about Asian or Jewish IQ.

@HlynkaCG why don’t you pony up and answer his question? It’s been ten hours since this question was posed to you, and you haven’t replied, despite answering other, less incisive, questions more recently.

You constantly claim that “nobody ever answer your questions” (despite having received countless high-quality answers of the years, all of which you forget immediately after reading them) so your lack of a rejoinder to this (presumably very easy for you to answer) question is pretty conspicuous.

Yes, I understand that French people at this time generally believe that. I simply believe they’re wrong and that their naïvety about this issue is creating a ticking time-bomb.

The French do not care much for blood. Though one must recognize that genetics are a real thing that plays a real part in shaping who we are, it is not a part of our national conception at this time.

Buddy, this is the same stuff I’ve heard about “what it is to be an American” my entire life. It’s as fake and subversive here as it is in France. If a country has no genetic/ancestral continuity with its founding population, it is a completely new and fundamentally different entity. Just because you’ve been psyopped into believing it, doesn’t mean it’s “true”.

I’m not saying that France should not allow anyone to live here who is not 100% ancestrally French. (And I’m well aware of the complicated nature of what “ancestrally French” means.) But “becoming” French should mean, at a bare minimum, being married to an ethnically French person, having a child with at least two ethnically-French grandparents, and changing one’s name (given name and surname!) to a historically French name. This, of course, means that few if any Arab individuals living in your country are currently French; perhaps they will become French if they truly and sincerely want to be - or at least their children will - but it’s going to take a hell of a lot more effort than what’s being undertaken right now.

France will endure even if the ethnic French do not

This is self-contradictory. What is France if not the home of the ethnic French? Is it just an economic/geopolitical administrative zone? What are “the values of the Republic” and why is the existence of an Arab country 150 years from now which pays lip service to those supposed values something worth preserving?

Alternate timeline where Edward the Black Prince ascended to the throne.

But a lot of similarly brainless beat-em-up action movies have been released with women leads over the years, often with better objective craft and quality overall, and male audiences have generally rejected all of them.

The very obvious explanation is that neither men nor most women actually enjoy watching a woman act like a man. An action movie featuring a thin woman punching, shooting, or otherwise overpowering men is not only wildly unrealistic, but also just aesthetically revolting on a primal level. Women are not actually strong, hypercompetent, ruthless badasses. The number of women who have ever lived who could truthfully be described in this way could probably all fit inside an average-sized parking lot. The number of women who have been successful police detectives is probably a bit larger - maybe it’d take two parking lots to fit all of them - but the fact remains that this is also a heavily male profession, generally utilizing classically masculine virtues.

Now, it’s unclear if you’re identifying this phenomenon as “explicit misogyny”. The director could be fully correct that audiences reacted poorly to this show on account of its female leads, but also totally wrong that this is “sexist” or “misogynistic”. Men and women are different. The overwhelming majority of both men and women are aware of this. They strongly prefer media which accurately depicts men as men and women as women, and in which men and women embody the virtues typical of their respective sexes. I wouldn’t want to watch a film about a male nurse or caregiver; the only three films I can think of off the top of my head which feature males employed in those professions are Meet The Parents (including its sequels), Mr. Mom, and The Pacifier - all of which are comedies which treat this situation as inherently and hilarious incongruous and weird.

Whether we’re talking about action movies or romcoms - the two most broadly popular film genres of our age - the overwhelming default is men acting like men and women acting like women. To the extent that True Detective challenges this dynamic by treating two women as hypercompetent, dogged, logically-minded badasses, it’s doomed to fail. I haven’t seen any episodes of any season of the show, so I can’t comment on whether or not that’s the case, but if it is then perhaps instead of blaming misogyny the director and the writers should blame themselves for making media that people didn’t ask for and didn’t want to watch.

My first thought was, “Surely Salt Lake City…” I looked it up, and SLC’s current mayor is a leftist female activist with a bachelor’s degree in gender studies. What a nightmare. (To be clear, it does appear that part of her appeal was her promise to deal effectively with homelessness, and when I visited SLC about a year and a half ago the homelessness problem was not very bad from what I can tell, so I guess there’s that.)

My understanding is that Japan had a highly polarizing culture war in the 1950s, with street violence and riots, in which right-wing nationalist parties and organizations duked it out with communists, Weimar-style. This of course boiled over into the assassination of socialist political candidate Inejirō Asanuma by a hardcore ultra-nationalist on live television.

While I think there’s something real that you’re pointing to - and though I’ve never been to Japan (although that will change this year!) my naïve outsider’s impression jibes with what you’re saying. Knowing that Japan was roiled by bitter ideological civil conflict so recently, though, is enough to make me deeply skeptical of the claim that its current cultural/political harmony is the result of some deep primordial aspect of Eastern communitarianism, as opposed to Western individualism/idealism. (See also: the entire history of China.)