Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
No bio...
User ID: 732
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I mean, James Lindsay is a prominent example of a “groomer” advocate who has, on many occasions, gone into painstaking detail about the academic origins of Drag Queen Story Hour, its connections to Queer Theory and radical Cultural Marxism more generally, and what it’s designed to do on a sociopolitical level.
To the extent that most “groomer” advocates aren’t doing this, it’s because they’re writing for/speaking to an audience that frankly isn’t smart enough or intellectually agile enough to really deal with the complexities of this stuff on a deep level. No amount of citing Judith Butler is going to animate the passions and political consciousness of normie burger-cons.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
To the extent that White Nationalists resemble leftist identitarians, I think it’s because both camps understand the deep power and vital importance of coalition politics, structural power, and communitarian thinking. Critical race theorists are absolutely correct that White civilizations constructed hierarchies of values which were designed to reproduce hegemonic culture and distribute power and resources to those who were best able to embody and perform the roles valued by that culture. I just disagree with them about whether or not that’s a bad thing, and I recognize the central importance to me and my posterity of preserving the power structures put in place by my ancestors to benefit their descendants.
The endless salami-slicing of the BIPOC category has been a result of the fact that it was a coalition designed to center and empower blacks, but which created a network of power in which non-blacks quickly began to dominate the hierarchy, given their manifestly undeniable advantage over blacks in the sorts of traits and talents that allow one to accrue political and academic power. That’s why the artifice had to be abandoned so quickly; blacks tried to design a club where they could have pride of place, but chose to (or had to, or were manipulated into) opening the doors of that club up to people who were never going to accept taking a backseat to blacks. (Hell, the most persuasive argument against my attempts to welcome Jews back into the White fold is that by doing so Whites would be committing an identical act of self-sabotage, opening our club up to people who will quickly and comprehensively out-compete and marginalize us.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I have my doubts about the long-term viability and security of Israel, given its extremely unfavorable geographic position, surrounded by nations whose enmity toward it shows no signs of abating. Now, I know it will never happen, but I’d be open to inviting all the Israeli Jews to basically take over the New York City metro area and turn that into the New Israel, if I wasn’t still wary about the long-term prospects of a détente between gentile Whites and Jews.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
This is something I’ve certainly thought about. What if instead of absorbing Jews into Whiteness, the only really viable long-term hope is to absorb Whites into Jewishness, through a calculated long-term campaign of intermarriage? It’s not something I currently advocate, nor do I have any hope of it getting off the ground as a widely-accepted cultural program, but it’s not clear to me right now whether or not it would be a bad thing.
You have failed to engage on even a cursory level with the distinction the OP is drawing between settlers and immigrants. If you think this distinction is specious or lacks explanatory power and utility, that’s fine and you should make an argument for it, but you appear to just be accusing OP of lying, whereas the failure here is on the part of your reading comprehension.
I actually just recently listened to OP’s (if I’m correct in assuming that OP is himself the author of the linked piece) appearance on Alex Kaschuta’s Subversive podcast, and he is indeed an engaging podcast speaker. Pleasantly surprising to see him posting on this forum!
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
And that is because at first we did not begin as a nation of immigrants. We began as a nation of settlers. And that’s, I think, a critically important distinction.
That’s the end of the sixth paragraph. If you couldn’t make it to paragraph six, that’s on you.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
He establishes the “settlers vs. immigrants” dichotomy at the end of paragraph six. I don’t think expecting people to read six paragraphs is an unreasonable burden.
The entire essay is an exercise in proving the controversial thesis which he lays out in the early part of the essay. This is a bog-standard way to approach to political/philosophical writing. Honestly, it seems like his thesis struck an emotional chord of disgust or epistemic injury in you, which rendered you unable to invest even the five-ten minutes needed to read through his entire essay to determine whether or not he satisfactorily developed an argument in favor of his thesis. I certainly think he ably defended his thesis, but even if he didn’t, it’s not like this essay is a particularly long, difficult, or high-investment read.
Right, the devil is very much in the details as far as @BurdensomeCount’s account of his noblesse oblige. The nobility of medieval Europe were expected to actually materially improve the lives of the people living under them, and to provide military protection for them. They were warlords - warlords with culture and at least the trappings of a genteel bearing, to be sure, but we’re talking about a network of guys who were expected to raise and lead armies in brutal combat.
I’m sure that @BurdensomeCount would say that he’d be happy to be a benevolent patriarch to the Western proles, and to provide for and protect them, if only they hadn’t pre-emptively spurned his noblesse with their gross insubordination. But could it be that he has gotten the causation backwards? Maybe the Western proles hate him and revolt against him because they are fully aware that he is in their country specifically to do something parasitic which produces zero actual value for anyone who isn’t a mega-wealthy vulture capitalist, and they don’t believe that he has anything remotely useful or beneficial to offer them.
A shake-up a few years ago in the executive suite of the multi-billion-dollar corporation with which I’m employed led to the ascension of an Indian Brahmin CEO, who then hired a few of his co-ethnics to major positions in the company. I’m sure that this guy probably sees himself precisely the way that Burdensome sees himself; as a paragon of superior breeding, here to rescue a flagging company with his immense and visually-obvious inborn talents. What most of us proles see, though, is a painfully awkward empty suit with not one iota of integrity or love for the common man in his bones. A parasite, here to bleed the company dry, dither about wage increases, and give a leg-up to other immigrants from his caste. A massively well-compensated parasite, and almost certainly a profoundly intelligent and numerate man, but someone I wouldn’t let into my home.
I would actually be fine with an immigrant overclass who displayed a genuine noblesse oblige. I agree with Burdensome that Anglosphere proles - I can’t speak to the state of Western proles more broadly - are degenerated and unworthy of the mantle of self-rule. They are crying out for someone to be their champion, but their shitty tastes and miscalibrated instincts keep leading them to elevate what, to the rest of us, are obvious grifters and charlatans. A ruling class with a combination of genuine erudition, hyper-competence, and noblesse oblige is exactly what these people need, and while I’m far from convinced that we’re past the point that we could construct such a class entirely from native-born talent, it’s at least plausible. The problem is that we can sense, with zero difficulty, that the overclass we’re actually importing are soulless sycophants and parasitic quants, saying whatever they need to say to get ahead while privately undermining and bleeding dry the people they’re ostensibly supposed to be protecting. Until the proles see concrete changes, of course they’re going to be insubordinate. You can play chicken-and-egg games all day, but from my perspective the ball is in your court to earn their deference.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
Dissident-right-adjacent writer David Cole (a Jewish filmmaker who got his start as a Holocaust revisionist, put that life behind him after being threatened by the ADL and the now-defunct JDL, became a respected Hollywood insider under a new name, then had his past exposed and suffered an early and very intense version of “cancellation”) recently pointed out that many of the high-profile dustups between black entertainers and Jews are a direct result of business disputes. Black athletes and entertainers (and, of course, many white ones as well) become wealthy despite having no financial literacy or business acumen, and they are extremely vulnerable to the predations of shockingly unscrupulous agents and lawyers - a great many of whom are Jewish. Examples such as Jerry Heller, Lou Pearlman, and Allen Klein come immediately to mind. Many athletes and entertainers feel that they are being exploited and victimized by Jews because they are, in fact, being exploited and victimized by Jews. (Of course, there are millions of Jews who are not involved with exploitative business practices in the entertainment and sports industries, but I can forgive individuals who have had millions of dollars stolen from them for focusing on what’s emotionally salient to them.)
So, yes, there certainly is a contingent of anti-Jewish sentiment in segments of the black community such as the Nation of Islam, the Black Hebrew Israelites, Hotep culture more generally, etc., but I think it’s useful and important to draw a distinction between those strains of thought and the type of Jew hatred you see among rich blacks, which is based on direct first-hand experience with the profoundly ugly underside of these industries. The average Hotep may not have ever even really interacted with Jews, so their antipathy is somewhat abstract and second-hand, whereas if you’re Kylie Irving or Kanye West (or Dave Chappelle) your interactions with Jews are constant and vitally important to nearly every aspect of your professional life.
Now, again, this is not true only of black entertainers. White entertainers and athletes are also, presumably intimately involved with Jewish lawyers, agents, executives, etc. However, most modern whites lack anything more than a rudimentary racial consciousness, and are especially uncomfortable with noticing anything about Jews, so it probably does not occur to a lot of these whites to even reflect on the Jewishness of those industries.
Most blacks, though, are primed for racial/identitarian thinking by their upbringing and cultural milieu, so they’re far more likely to Notice things like that. Black public figures have also come to enjoy a level of public immunity from mainstream criticism that white public figures don’t enjoy. The “shut up and dribble” mentality that used to be commonplace in audiences’ relationship to athletes has become extremely taboo and has been replaced by a fawning and indulgent tolerance of all manner of divisive public statements by black figures.
Frankly, I think that dissident rightists are really taking their eye off the ball by taking the side of insanely spoiled black multimillionaires who have accrued obscene amounts of money for things like throwing a ball into a net. Personally, if Kyrie’s cancellation is a price to pay for getting anti-white and anti-police activism back out of sports and music, it’s a price I’m more than happy to pay. Jews are absolutely correct to rain condemnation on the appropriation and theft of their history by black revisionists; now we just need whites more generally to begin reacting just as strongly to the theft of our own culture by Hoteps who would have us believe that blacks were the real first inhabitants of Britain, that blacks invented every major technology and that whites stole the credit, that blacks were Viking chieftains and Roman emperors, etc. Criticizing the Jewish scumbag agents who siphon off large portions of their earnings is understandable, but for me personally I feel no need to take the side of people who shouldn’t have anywhere remotely near that much money to begin with.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
This is an absolutely bizarre take, given that the actual academic, theoretical basis for the constellation of ideas popularly called wokeness is explicitly Marxist and was conceptualized by self-identified Marxists. These Marxists - who, again, are not subtle or covert about their Marxist analytics framework - then cultivated and recruited a legion of protégés and catspaws to populate a vast network of entities, both public- and private-sector, to institute this ideology on a mechanical policy level.
You can look up the Frankfurt School and its roots in Gramsci, or you can look up Paulo Freire (about whom I have previously spoken in this forum) and his profound and wide-reaching impact on modern “woke” education. You can look up Rudi Dutschke and his advocacy for a decentralized “march through the institutions” which was then implemented throughout North America and later Europe. These things are not difficult to research, and the only way these people’s explicit Marxist convictions and methods are not better-known is that they’re counting on people like you not to put in the effort of trying to learn about it.
It really seems like you don’t want to know about it. You have formed mental associations between anti-Marxism as an ideology on one hand, and your outgroup on the other hands. You’ve pattern-matched “hates Marxism and is vigilant about it” with “mustache-twirling villains and theocrats”, which is precisely what Marxists want you to do. They want you to continue to associate “socialism” with “lovely middle-class Sweden in the 80’s” instead of “Maoist Red Guards” and you seem to be perfectly comfortable with not seeking out the information that would undermine that association.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I think the problem with this definition is that it defines garden variety civic nationalism as a religion. In theory, I could agree with that, but if we define my actions as a citizen (voting, jury duty, taxes to pay for social and defense spending) as a binding agent with my fellow Americans -- which I unironically believe, then the entire idea of separation of church and state is nonsensical to members of the Church of American Democracy.
This is a bullet that I bit a long time ago. The “religion vs. ideology” distinction is fake, and is a result of Enlightenment thinkers who believed, incorrectly, that humanity could rise above religion and replace it with something fundamentally different that would act as a coordination mechanism for society. I think that on a primal evolutionary level, anything that can function as a large-scale non-physically-coercive coordination mechanism for non-kin individuals is indistinguishable from a religion. Whether or not one decides to deploy discussion of transcendent/supernatural elements as a rhetorical device is irrelevant to the underlying structure of the coordination mechanism.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
What a monumentally cynical take by you. First off, do you have any solid evidence of the specific motives of the shooter? Please recall the coverage of the Pulse nightclub shooting, which received massive and nonstop worldwide news coverage as the sine qua nom of anti-gay hate crimes. Well, it turns out that, as @Iconochasm notes below, the Pulse shooting had absolutely nothing to do with gay people, and the shooter literally picked it at random after he arrived at his planned target, the Disney entertainment complex in Orlando, realized that the security was too strong and that he stood no chance, and then searched “Orlando night clubs” in Google Maps and went to the closest one. We know this for a fact because it all came out in the trial of his widow. Still, to this day, Pulse is such a load-bearing part of the narrative that LGBT+ advocates continue to wield it totemically, either genuinely unaware of the truth or calculating in their dishonesty.
So, I think I’ll wait to render any judgment of the shooting (other than, of course, to unequivocally condemn it and its perpetrator) and hold off on assigning any blame to anybody.
That’s not even touching the obvious double standard which countless other commenters are noting, wherein catastrophizing about the perpetual threat posed by the very public existence of right-wing speech - let alone right-wing policies or actions - is routine, constant, and amplified daily and hourly by the most powerful people in the world. I don’t need or expect you to apologize for any of that - you have, as far as I’m aware, no power nor any significant public platform beyond this forum - but I find it profoundly cringeworthy that you would stoop to something like this.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
As I was reading the thread below started by @pointsandcorsi, regarding whether or not progressive women’s political values are motivated by unconscious psychological instincts which may not be legible even to those same women, I found myself reflecting on a particularly vexing conversation which I’ve had with a number of young women, and which has always perplexed me. (For the record, I believe that Points’ original comment was underdeveloped and poorly argued, even if it’s obvious that I share his essential politics and worldview.)
For some background: I’m in my thirties and have never owned a car. I live in a major U.S. city, with a (by American standards) extensive public transit network that can get me pretty much anywhere in the city with minimal difficulty. I’ve had a full-time job for over a decade, I have a number of hobbies and activities in which I participate regularly, and I have a healthy social life, all of which I’ve been able to manage without the use of a personal vehicle. Unlike in a city like, say, NYC, though, the vast majority of people living in this city own cars, and it is definitely considered very strange and eyebrow-raising for an adult to not drive. However, many people here do use public transit on occasion, especially to commute to and from sporting events or concerts. As an avid advocate of public transit during my twenties - I’ve soured on that advocacy post-COVID, as the transit network in my city has been thoroughly colonized by homeless drug addicts, and ridership has still not rebounded to pre-COVID levels - I’ve had many conversations with people in which I tried to pick their brains about why they don’t take transit more often.
When talking to men, especially non-leftist men, they have usually been very frank and unfiltered about their reasoning: transit often smells like piss, there are too many bums, it’s inconvenient and they bristle at the lack of control and autonomy which they would have if driving their own cars. All very good and understandable reasons. When talking to women, though - and I don’t think I’ve ever had this conversation with a woman (other than my mother) who wasn’t left-of-center) - one issue is nearly always brought up to justify their aversion to public transit. Nearly every young woman I’ve talked to has told me that they have been harassed, catcalled, ogled, or even stalked - literally followed! - by one or more “creepy” men when they’ve taken the trolley. (For non-Americans, when we say “trolley” in the U.S. we are generally referring to urban rail transit.)
The ubiquity of this story, told to me in nearly every conversation I’ve had with young women about this subject, has never sat right with me. I have ridden the trolley nearly every day of my adult life, normally multiple times a day. I’ve spent literally thousands of hours on public transit. I’ve taken it at every imaginable hour of the day, through every neighborhood of the city adjacent to the trolley lines. I’m a reasonably observant person, and have gotten into verbal (and in one case physical) confrontations with people acting antisocially on transit - it’s not like I usually have my eyes buried in my phone, avoiding taking in my surroundings. If anybody in this city would have a good idea of what things are like on public transit in this city, it would be me. I can count on two hands the number of times I have ever seen a man sexually harass or proposition a woman on the trolley. Supposedly it is happening to every young woman I’ve ever spoken to about public transit, yet it is so vanishingly rare in anything I’ve personally observed that I am always left absolutely baffled at how this could be happening right under my nose, all around me, escaping my notice. It strikes me as… well, frankly, as somewhat unlikely. Now, it would make sense, just as a matter of probability, for a woman who takes the trolley every day to tell me that at some point she has experienced harassment. However, these women I’m talking to usually say that they’ve taken transit maybe five to ten times in their entire lives - sometimes less! - yet every one has a harassment anecdote (usually lacking in specific details, although to be fair I haven’t generally solicited them) ready to go when asked why they don’t take transit more often, despite the fact that most of these progressive women could be expected to take seriously pro-transit arguments such as climate impact.
Since it strikes me as more than a bit implausible that every one of these women has truly experienced what they say they’re experiencing, I’ve tried to reason out what’s happening here. If my skepticism is unjustified, and sexual harassment of random women on public transit truly is this rampant despite my almost complete lack of perception of it, I’m happy to content myself with that! I don’t want to assume that all of these women are lying or otherwise telling me something untrue/exaggerated. That’s what it genuinely seems like to me, though. So, I’ve asked myself many times: Why? Why lie? Why not just say, like the men do, “I just think public transit is gross and low-status, full of misfits and losers, and honestly I’m just more comfortable driving because it’s what I’m used to and I’ve built my lifestyle around it, just like the vast majority of other normal adults that I know”? This is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. In my idealistic leftist days I used to chafe hard at the open contempt for the underclass, but that idealism has long since burned away and I’ve become acutely cognizant of just how sensible these complaints are. Why do these women feel the need to concoct a narrative of personal victimization and endangerment in order to justify their decisions? What is motivating their discomfort and deflection about discussing their true reasons - and, if those reasons are in fact different from their stated ones, what are their true reasons?
I want to throw out a theory, and I’m sincerely soliciting feedback on it, because I don’t know how plausible it is and I have a number of reservations about it. I’m cognizant of my own biases, and unlike a lot of commenters here I’m generally quite positively disposed toward women - even leftist women, a category which encompasses most of my female relatives and nearly all of my female friends. My theory is this: Riding public transit is a daily exercise in Noticing™️ the true diversity of humans, and frankly of different human groups. I don’t know how things are in Europe, but here in America it is impossible to ride public transit with any frequency without observing consistent patterns of behavior that correlate strongly with specific identity groups. The behavior of black Americans on public transit is notorious and would take willful blindness not to notice - blasting loud music from portable speakers, having boisterous and vulgar conversations with no consideration of volume, sometimes speaking/acting aggressively toward other riders (I’ve told the story here about my public assault on the trolley by a black guy) and a number of other unsavory aspects. Not all black riders are like this - in fact, probably most aren’t! - and not all the people who act like this are black. But, if we’re reasoning probabilistically about people, and noticing patterns, the correlations are unmistakable.
Similarly, you see the worst of mental illness, degenerate behavior by obvious drug addicts, and a variety of unsavory realities that threaten the liberal dream of egalitarian universalism. You see people who have no hope of ever being anything other than the underclass, and whose plight seems difficult to credibly blame entirely on external systemic factors. And I think that for a lot of young women, they just can’t handle this. It’s too much of an epistemic injury. It produces far too much cognitive dissonance. And so they can’t be honest - maybe not even to themselves - about it. Maybe they’ve truly convinced themselves that they’ve been personally harassed! Maybe they had a friend or relative who experienced this, and they incorporated that anecdote into their own internal narratives about their own lives. Human cognition is certainly malleable enough for this, and I wouldn’t even guess that this is a characteristically female phenomenon, although it’s plausible to me that it would be.
Am I missing something here? Do other people believe that all of these women (I’ve probably had this conversation with roughly two dozen of them) have been individually harassed on public transit, and I just have never noticed it? Despite being here every day of my life for over a decade? What is going on?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
You agree that a woman who uses public transit everyday will at some point experience harassment.
No, I agree that it’s plausible, although again it strikes me as still a low-probability event.
I also think it's perfectly plausible you just haven't noticed the harassment. You only see a small slice of the daily commute and not all forms of harassment are going catch your eye.
This would make sense if I hadn’t ridden the train thousands of times, at every imaginable hour (including after midnight) and in every part of the city, no matter how sketchy. How am I not observing it if it is happening this often and to every women to whom I have spoken about it?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
Again, as I mentioned, I’ve ridden the train thousands of times, at every possible hour (including after midnight) and in every neighborhood of the city. It’s laughable to suggest that I’m only seeing “the good side” of public transit, given that I was very explicit about my near-constant exposure to junkies and physically aggressive underclass types. Presumably those would be the same people harassing these young women, yes?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
Yes, absolutely; in fact, I would have no a priori reason to distrust any of the individual women that I’ve talked to about it. It’s when all of them are telling me the same somewhat fishy-sounding thing that I start to be suspicious.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
Thank you, this is a quality reply and addresses a lot of my reservations in a very credible and cogent way. Much appreciated.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I can very, very confidently say that I do not give off tough-guy vibes. I’m 5’7”, about 130 pounds, and have never been in a fight in my life.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I'm glad you haven't had unpleasant encounters with the scum that plagues public spaces, but I wouldn't be so quick to doubt others when they say they have. Is it possible that the type of things they pick up on are things you're tuning out?
As I noted, though, I have had numerous extremely unpleasant encounters with the bottom-dwellers of mass transit; my claim is that the encounters which I’ve observed, either directed at me or happening in my vicinity, have very rarely taken the particular form these women are talking about. I’ve seen countless people acting like assholes on transit, but I’ve seen very few of them specifically menace women in a specialized fashion. It’s that claim, and not a more general claim of bad behavior on transit, which I’m disputing.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
The harassment and anti-social behavior I’m witnessing is, notably, not subtle, not hidden or surreptitious, and not something an observant person on the same trolley car would be likely to miss. Again, I’m fully aware that harassment of a specifically sexual/gendered nature does occur - I acknowledged that I’ve observed it probably less than a dozen times - but that it does not appear to happen with the type of frequency implied by the fact that every single one of the women I’ve talked to reported experiencing it.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
As a fellow “unpopular ideology haver” in this space (though I think you’ve got me handily beaten when it comes to the relative unpopularity) I think you might be understating the potential value of presenting a compelling - or, barring that, at least not actively off-putting - face for your positions. This means that it can be valuable to make a sincere and concerted effort to respond - responsibly, respectfully, and with appreciable effort - to interlocutors, even after you are personally no longer interested in the conversation or you feel like you’ve gotten the most that you’re personally going to get out of it. You never know when your response, however perfunctory and unnecessary it might feel internally, may be what leads an interlocutor to see your position in a new light, or even to just become slightly more positively-inclined to you, and by extension others who may (hopefully) express similar views in the future.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
While I appreciate the shout-out, I’m very perplexed to see myself grouped in with the lefties. I’m a white identitarian and I’d classify most of my object-level political beliefs as “extremely right-wing”, though I did used to be a leftist and I feel like I do a pretty good job of steelmanning leftist positions when I make an effort to do so here. Apparently I passed the Ideological Turing Test on the occasions you happened to catch me doing so!
You can call it comical if you like, but perhaps white South Africans, due to their unique geographical circumstances, understood something about Whiteness which the rest of the White (and White-adjacent) world is only now beginning to grasp: that Whiteness is most useful as a way to exclude its opposite - Blackness. White as “not-Black” seems like a fairly important distinction, given the geopolitical and demographic outlook of the century to come.
More options
Context Copy link