@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

I’m not sure I agree that it was a comedy - a couple of laugh lines, yeah, but I wouldn’t say I laughed more than twice. I’m not gonna bother commenting on the improbable diversity - that’s just what Hollywood is now, and there’s no point blaming anybody involved directly with the film.

I agree that the battle scenes were the most exciting part of the film, and frankly I wish they’d focused more on those, especially given that the film is about one of the greatest generals in history. Very few people are fascinated by Napoleon because of his marriage(s).

I don’t agree with the popular take that the film gave too much time and importance to Josephine; she genuinely does seem to have been a centrally-important part of his life. (I also don’t agree with the take that Vanessa Kirby is unattractive. I think she’s got beautiful eyes.) However, attempting to make a film that focuses extensively on that marriage while also making a film that gives adequate attention to his military achievements was a massively overambitious undertaking. Overambitious especially because Ridley Scott doesn’t really seem to understand Napoleon on any psychological level. Scott doesn’t offer a “take” on what made Napoleon tick. I guess that’s probably better than a total hatchet job that makes Napoleon an irredeemable villain (I disagree with your take that the ending paints him explicitly as a villain - I think it’s fair to point out how many men died in the wars, even if there were obviously more subtle ways Scott could have gone about this) but I think the lack of a coherent interpretation is one of the reasons the film feels so bloated and directionless at times.

This should have been at least two different movies, and if they’d cast an actor of appropriate age and charisma they could have achieved this and probably had success. Ultimately I feel like this was a waste.

Yeah, after watching it, my overwhelming impression was “this needed to be at least two movies.”

Maybe this is a total failure of reading comprehension on my part, but passages such as

the evolutionary telos of strength is the telos of evolution itself - that is, survival, domination and reproduction - and though strength makes it easier to attain excellence, it only does so reluctantly as a side effect when excellence is the least-resistance path to attain said domination. This, in turn, is actually more often the case when we do not grant strength the compound interest of celebrating it for itself, but instead denigrate it to force it to camouflage as something else

read as complete word salad to me. I genuinely have no idea what point you’re trying to make, or why strength is supposed to be a bad thing in this construction. Are you saying you hate strength because it’s instrumentally useful to rhetorically deploy expressions of hate toward strength, because strong people have to strive harder to achieve excellence if we don’t just let them use their strength to take the shortcut to excellence? That’s my read of what you’re saying if I squint, but honestly I’m not confident that I’m interpreting anything of value in your post.

But this is precisely the shell game I’m accusing you of. “Western countries happily lived one way for hundreds of years, and then very recently they decided to do things a different way. That means the original way they did things, which lasted for much longer than the more recent thing, was never actually Western at all.”

Again, it was England that had the Bloody Code, one of the most punitive and authoritarian legal regimes in European history. Any talk of “the natural rights and liberties of Englishmen” needs to grapple with that. It turns out that actually England does have a robust history of state institutions - such as secret police - that have intervened substantially into the lives of their citizens, no different from any other European state. So, if you’re going to make an argument about why state violence against citizens is a priori wrong, rather than trying to appeal to an extremely contentious and revisionist model of English history.

Are you suggesting that the death penalty - something eagerly practiced by every single country you would consider part of “the West” until practically yesterday, is “anti-Western”? Again, if you do, then you’re applying a definition of “Western Civilization” that didn’t exist until about forty years ago at the earliest.

It seems that you have an extremely progressive understanding of Western history, in which the West only started at the exact point in history in which your exact values became solidified. No Western person three hundred years ago cared about or believed in “human rights” in the way you’re using the phrase. Western countries were all totally fine with slavery at that point. Were they “not Western” at that point? England at least was executing thousands of people per year for even petty crimes. Was England not “Western” until it stopped doing so?

The sanctity of human life as a bright line between good and evil is an important load bearing principle of our civilization

Are you a staunch pacifist? Do you believe that no human being can ever kill any other human being under any circumstances? Even if your answer is yes, surely you can acknowledge that nearly no other person on earth, including in any nation you consider civilized, holds this belief. The vast majority of people believe that it is completely permissible to take another human life in at least some circumstance. That means that the line you are pointing at is not actually very bright at all, and is certainly not foundational to our civilization.

He died during childbirth. The baby couldn’t fit through his urethra.

Yes, he is precisely the one you’re thinking about. He is being intentionally obtuse for some inexplicable reason.

I believe someone recently was commenting on an episode of House where that exact plot took place; if I recall, the teenager in that episode was a young girl, and all she wanted from the (male) doctor was a kiss, rather than full-on sex. Is that what you’re referring to?

Obviously I am intimately familiar with that discourse, but when you are talking about literally wanting to personally kill white people because they’re white, that is not something I believe we’ve ever witnessed a white terrorist or mass shooter do. (Plenty of non-white killers have done so, but not whites as far as I know.)

White progressives who claim to hate white people usually advocate a variety of policies and cultural changes that would adversely affect white people if enacted. These changes would lower whites’ quality of life, deny them opportunities, punish expressions of their culture, dispossess them of the wealth of their ancestors, etc. But believing that it would be a good thing if currently-living white people were violently killed is something that only an extremely tiny fringe of white individuals do. The vast majority of white progressives, deluded as they may be about other things, are perfectly able to recognize the blatant self-destructive insanity of believing “somebody ought to murder me for being white!”. For Hale to believe white people should be murdered, despite being white her/himself, is a pretty clear sign of a deeply distorted and incoherent mind.

A number of DR figures were 100% certain that this manifesto was being intentionally concealed by The Powers That Be because it would reveal that the shooter hated Christians and committed the shooting as an act of trans rebellion against oppressive Christian conservatism. I am very interested to see if those same commentators will insist that they were basically correct, even though the manifesto as released does not seem to bear much resemblance to that at all.

Frankly, much like any other mass shooter, Audrey Hale appears to have been a garden-variety retarded angry kid, whose motivations were muddled, irrational, and incoherent. Hale was white, so the potshots at white people make no sense, and are merely expressions of untargeted contrarian edgelord rage. Honestly not that interesting, and doesn’t teach us anything of value about “what the trans movement wants to do to every conservative Christian” or “what the left wants to do to white people” or anything like that. Just the sad ranting of a useless retard.

I’ve heard the more (if only slightly more) polite word “Afrolatry” substituted when the speaker wants to be a bit less spicy. “Negrolatry” is certainly my go-to, though. That or the even more incisive “autonegrophilia”, in which white progressives desperately wish to be culturally black or to be perceived as culturally black.

People say men and women can't be friends.

I believe the actual claim is that men and women can’t be just friends. So, it is indeed possible for a man and a woman to develop a close friendship, but only if they’re attracted to each other, at which point that friendship will either escalate to a relationship, or fall apart when one party (usually the woman) romantically rejects the other party.

”Things all started to change in 2028 when JaQuarius Washington was smothered to death by the massive mommy milkers of officer Laura Campbell during a routine traffic stop gone horribly wrong…”

There isn't a new Israel/Gaza thread

Speaking of which, @naraburns, any chance we can get a third thread posted? Seems the previous one has died, and with the situation rapidly intensifying I would think a new thread would be extremely useful.

why you think so? have you checked how it worked so far?

That’s why I’m asking people who are more knowledgeable about specific history to weigh in. I’m not pretending to have any significant background knowledge on the topic. I have my intuitions based on my observations of human behavior, but I would like to have those intuitions confirmed or disconfirmed by actual examples or research. I wouldn’t really know where to start in terms of finding out how effective female soldiers have been throughout the history of the IDF, and I don’t think I would be able to trust the information I would find using my rudimentary searching skills.

I kept running into the same problem I always run into on these political self-report surveys: I had to answer “Neither Agree Nor Disagree” on a number of questions not because I don’t have a strong opinion or stance on the issue in question, but because I reject the framing or ideological vocabulary of the way the question is written. I fear that my responses may skew the survey toward seeming to reflect that I’m apathetic about a host of hot-button issues, when actually my opinion is too complex to be adequately expressed by answering a single-sentence question.

I can’t tell if your main objection is that you think they’re completely useless or if it’s a chivalry/”we must protect the eggs” thing. Every ‘defense’ of women on that subject straddles that line. Do you have any reason to assume male soldiers would have been more effective in the towers?

¿Por qué no los dos?

Look, I’ve never served in the military and never seen combat. I’ve never watched anybody die. I’ve never even been in a fistfight. It’s possible that my intuitions around this issue are totally miscalibrated.

But yes, it does seem very likely to me that the modal female soldier is substantially less effective in close combat than the modal male soldier is. There are very significant differences in temperament, personality, hormonal distribution, etc., between men and women. Testosterone levels alone would seem incredibly relevant to one’s performance in a fast-moving and harrowing scenario in which a combination of violent aggression, mental clarity under pressure, and quick and decisive reactions are required.

I’m not suggesting that women are useless, but simply that their usefulness in combat is considerably outweighed by the importance of their survival as future bearers of children. And also, as I mentioned, it seems that combat morale and unit cohesion are impacted significantly and negatively by the presence of women, at least according to studies that have been published. Again, the idea of large numbers of young women being put in direct harm’s way and then being captured to later be raped or tortured is utterly appalling to me, and would seem likely to have a significant mental effect on IDF soldiers in a way over and above the effect of a similar number of male soldiers being captured or killed.

The role of female soldiers in the IDF has always been somewhere between fascinating and horrifying to me. The below post by @CrashedPsychonaut mentions that the capture of an IDF garrison near the border fence involved a number of hapless young female soldiers, isolated at their posts and overrun. I imagine that some of these women were shot and killed, and I presume that others surrendered and were rounded up as hostages; the subsequent fate of these women is very distressing to imagine.

Some quick Googling indicates that approximately 40% of the IDF’s conscript soldiers were female as of 2021, comprising 25% of officers and 18% of combat soldiers. The latter two numbers, and especially the last one, are shockingly high to me. I had been under the impression that the IDF’s female conscripts were overwhelmingly shunted away into positions where a whole lot of things would need to go very unexpectedly wrong before there was any significant chance of them facing real combat. And, to be fair, it seems like in the case of that garrison, a whole lot of things did go very unexpectedly wrong. Still, it’s insane to me that a country with such overwhelmingly security concerns and so many threats surrounding it would put literally any important responsibility in the hands of female soldiers.

I’ve always been under the vague impression that the IDF’s inclusion of so many female soldiers was mostly a PR ploy; filling their ranks with photogenic young women makes people more likely to feel positively-inclined and prescribe towards it. It also allows them to circulate photos of busty women in camo wielding large guns, an archetype which seems to have significant (and, to me, inexplicable) appeal to a certain segment of the American mainstream right. The thought that these smiling young women could actually be sent to the front lines to do hand-to-hand urban combat against battle-hardened men is both inconceivable and appalling to me. I would expect most of them to surrender almost immediately if confronted with life-threatening combat situations. The impact on IDF morale of having a substantial number of its female soldiers captured or killed seems like it would be catastrophic, to say nothing of its practical strategic effects.

Can anyone offer more insight into the role of women in the IDF, and specifically their role in actual combat operations? Both historically and in terms of what we can expect to see in whatever upcoming operations are going to take place as a result of the current crisis?

I typed out and then deleted a longer comment - something which I’ve done several times before whenever the subject of Australian Aborigines comes up. There’s nothing I can say that won’t be perceived (correctly) as cruel and dehumanizing. As far as I’m concerned, they are an actual honest-to-god Stone Age relict population. Not the blue-eyed fake Aborigines who’d be empowered by this farcical “Voice” venture, but the real ones out there in the Outback sniffing gasoline. They appear to have somehow avoided most of the evolutionary pressures which have caused nearly every other human population to develop modern human physiognomy and cognitive aptitude. I get genuinely distressed when I look at them or when I think about what Australia could possibly do about this population, and it would be beyond the bounds of tolerable behavior in this community for me to comment in any detail about what I foresee for them moving forward.

The memes are already being made.


In another comment I explain why I don’t call myself a “white nationalist”, and it’s mostly exactly what you’re pointing to. It would be disingenuous of me to present myself as a white nationalist, with all of the assumptions and associations that come with that brand, but then privately believe in some other ideology so far removed from the central example of that ideology that the two are totally incompatible.

The term I generally use when I describe my worldview is “white advocate” or “white identitarian”. My whiteness is very important to me; I’m very proud to be a direct descendant of the Anglos, and the Europeans more broadly, who built everything important about the pre-20th-century world. I oppose any efforts to marginalizes whites within the countries whites built, and in which whites are still the majority of the population. I want whiteness to be centered in those countries, and for it to be widely understood that non-white people in those countries are guests and newcomers who must tread lightly and maintain a deep respect for their host societies. And I want the small number of non-European-descended individuals invited into those countries to be integrated not only culturally, but also by blood - marrying native whites, giving their children names which are indistinguishable from those typical of the host population, and hoping their children do the same, such that European ancestry will always predominate in those societies.

In the much longer-term future, I would like to see a mixing of white and Asian peoples, creating a race with combined ancestry from both. While I do have a strong aesthetic attachment to a world in which some not-insignificant number of women look like Blake Lively and Rachel McAdams, in the idea future probably more of them will look more like Mina Kimes, and that will be just fine as well.

The lower classes in America, meanwhile, will continue to interbreed with Latinos. It doesn’t matter whether I like it or not, it’s going to continue to happen. We could build the wall tomorrow in earnest and the Latino population would still be too massive to prevent this outcome. And look, I’ve lived in Southern California my whole life; the appeal of light-skinned Latinas is absolutely not lost on me. My sister is dating a guy who’s half-white, half-Mexican. Really nice guy, we all like him a lot, etc. Based on conversations I’ve had with her, I doubt she’s ever going to have any children, which is heartbreaking to me, but if she does marry him and have kids, they’ll probably look pretty much white, maybe with darker hair than average and the ability to tan, and that won’t be the end of the world. That’s probably what a very large percentage of the American population will look like in 100 years. Again, it’s not my perfect world, but we have to work with the materials we’ve been given and use them to construct the best possible future we can under those conditions.

As for your contention that I am careful not to openly say “I just don’t want to live around blacks” so I construct a whole edifice of fake ideology to avoid looking like a jerk, I think that’s a misrepresentation. Again, my worldview is more complicated than “everyone who isn’t black can just say ‘I’m white!’ and that’s good enough for me.” It’s more complicated than that, and involves a lot of genuine work and assimilation and careful interbreeding. Some dark-skinned Amerindian-looking guy from the jungles of South America can’t just say “I’m white and my whole family who looks like me is white” and that’s the end of the story. There are criteria people need to meet in order to be white, and it’s a multigenerational process.

It’s also not fair to just say “I don’t want to live around blacks.” By and large I don’t want to live around blacks, and I’m pretty explicit about that. But I’ve also said that there are black people in my life who cause me a lot of angst about my ideological commitments, and I spend time agonizing over “well, what if we were able to make an exception for her, because she’d fit right in…” and then I’m struck by how complicated the world is and how ideology is a prison, etc., same as any intelligent and thoughtful person ought to be. My understanding of Mormonism is that they square this circle by saying “If you try really hard to be a good Mormon, you’ll be white in Heaven even if you weren’t in life.” I think that’s charming, and is a more earnest and wholesome version of the RW Twitter memes where people joke about how Clarence Thomas will be invited into Hyperborea.

If more people knew what Castizo Futurism was, I’d probably use that word to describe myself. Unfortunately, that meme has pretty much died on the right. AmRen used to run articles about it, but they abandoned the term a king time ago and I don’t see it used anywhere. Too complicated to sell to normies, maybe? Or perhaps too full of contradictions, too milquetoast, too accommodationist. I’ve thought about trying to bring it back by writing more extensively and with more carefully-considered explications of the ideology, rather than spitballing like I’ve done here. Whatever I do, it’s not going to be disingenuous, although I can’t promise it won’t be incoherent.

They planned to send all the blacks back to Africa once they were no longer needed. Thomas Jefferson was very explicit about this, as I demonstrated in a reply to Hlynka above. Many of the greatest Americans, from James Madison to Andrew Jackson, and from Daniel Webster to Henry Clay, were members of an organization entirely dedicated to achieving this goal, as, again, I’ve noted in multiple comments in this thread. This effort was a dismal failure, resulting in the deportation of only a few thousand blacks to what became Liberia. So, yes, the importation of a massive population of black slaves was a disaster for this country, and the men responsible should indeed be roundly lambasted for their decision to do so. However, it’s not like it didn’t occur to the smart ones just how big a problem they had on their hands, nor the importance of dealing decisively with that problem at some point. Sadly, their descendants waited far too long and couldn’t execute the dismount.

The thing is, I was never all that “far left”. Even at the height of my “college socialist” phase, my opinions were squarely within what would in 2023 be the normie progressive Overton window. Opposing foreign wars and “imperialism”, wanting Wall Street bankers imprisoned, believing in economic redistribution and gay marriage. These were on the “far left” relative to the largely apolitical liberal-ish social scenes in which I had rolled prior to that point, but they would be bog-standard among any self-respecting PMC type today. My ideology now is massively farther outside of the Overton window than anything I believed ten years ago as a leftist.