Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
No bio...
User ID: 732
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I was first exposed to it on https://exploringegregores.wordpress.com/2017/07/20/introduction/
Apparently it originated in an ancient Hebrew apocalyptic text called the Book of Enoch, and was then reintroduced in the early 19th century.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I think it’s because you and I are both extremely easy to clock as Blue Tribe. I had this conversation on /r/CultureWarRoundup a while back, where regular users told me that I stuck out like a sore thumb, to the point where many openly accused or suspected me of being an infiltrator. Turns out that clues in my syntax, my approach to my arguments, and just all sorts of subtle clues gave me away as someone raised in a highly urban-coastal-liberal environment, which of course is entirely true. I always tell people that I’m “right-wing, but not conservative.” The same is clearly true of you as well, and is true of NrX and the extremely-online right more generally.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
To be clear, my position is much more in line with a non-coercive and mutually-beneficial Racial Divorce, resulting in the formation of a black/ADOS nation-state on the North American continent. You can call it a “partition” if you like, but I envision it much more like the official creation and recognition of an ethnostate, no different from any of the ethnolinguistic nation-states of Europe.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
Heads-up, you posted this as a top-level comment rather than a reply.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
How about David Cole, who is Jewish?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I’m going to let your uncalled-for use of the slur/exonym “white supremacist” roll off my back, but I do want to take extreme issue with your accusation that I went out of my way to “find that one Jew that agrees” with me. First off, I became familiar with David Cole’s work as a social/political commentator - specifically, his writing for Taki’s - long before I knew anything about his work as a revisionist. He’s far more well-known, by most on the online Right, for his more recent work. He hasn’t done any important new work on the topic of revisionism in nearly thirty years, and in the intervening years he made a name for himself first as a respected Hollywood screenwriter/producer and then as one of the most important figures behind Friends Of Abe, a secret society of sorts for Hollywood conservatives. He’s not some fringe figure or “token Jew” that I nut-picked as a fig leaf.
I think that Cole’s writing is actually extremely clarifying about the topic. Although he hasn’t done any new revisionist work in decades, he does still comment on the state of revisionism/denial as a phenomenon from time to time. Two examples would be this article from 2018, which is itself a re-evaluation of one of his earlier articles. His thesis, which I find very persuasive, is that there is a symbiotic relationship between so-called “denialists” (a field which has degenerated significantly due to the more intelligent and level-headed figures either aging out, dying, or realizing that their battle for public sympathy had been irrecoverably lost and bailing out) and the “anti-denial” lobby who build public careers as snarky “owned by facts and logic” debunkers.
When the average rational person with no strong opinions about the Holocaust over and above the standard narrative we’ve all grown up with wades into this dispute, they find it occupied on both sides by screaming lunatics and they wisely decide, as I have, that it’s probably not worth even trying to sift through the ocean of arguments. The only non-Jews who stick around to fight in that war at this point are people who love the fight. (Jews’ participation in the fight is a matter of direct ethnic self-defense and self-interest, which is healthy and normal and which I do not begrudge them, provided that they don’t stoop to transparently cynical concern-trolling like a couple of the comments below hand-wringing about this sub becoming too friendly to dissenting views on this, and only this, specific issue.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
Also, what's your beef with "white supremacist"? Do you just find it less palatable than "white nationalist"?
…Because I don’t think white people are “supreme”, nor do I have any desire for white people to be “supreme” over other people, to rule them, to dominate them, etc.? Like, the term you’re using has a specific meaning, which does apply to certain living people as well as to a great number of historical people. The logic of something like colonial empire is, explicitly, “white supremacist”. However, I’m not an advocate for empire - racial nor otherwise - but rather for peaceful, non-coercive racial separation. It’s the opposite of “white supremacy”, or at worst totally orthogonal to “white supremacy”.
This is less like a TERF objecting to being called “trans-exclusionary” and more like a TERF objecting to being called “misogynist”. (Because, see, trans women are women, and you hate trans women, therefore you hate women.”) It’s a blatant abuse of terms. Weaponized linguistic legerdemain.
Rudyard Kipling was a white supremacist. My beliefs are not like his beliefs, when it comes to the very centrally important questions of whether or not different racial groups should live together under the same political/geographic unit, and, conditional on one’s answer to that first question, the related question of how to best distribute relative power among those different groups. Since my answer to the first question is “no”, I don’t have to commit to any answer to the second question, let alone the “supremacist” answer that whites should hold the undisputed whip hand.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I think it says something incredibly dire about our civilization that we stopped publicly executing people such as this guy. I truly believe that the vast majority of people who watch this video and learn about this man’s history experience a powerful atavistic desire to see him humiliated and then hung from a tree in a public square. This is the healthy, normal human impulse that drove approaches to criminal justice in, as far as I’m aware, nearly every human society in history until practically yesterday. Maybe this is just me projecting - I’ve been the victim of a crime and very nearly the victim of several more, so my desire to see these people violently dispatched is overwhelming - but it seems to me that the level of cognitive dissonance that most people feel living in soft-hearted Western countries who treat irredeemable human detritus with kid gloves will necessary boil over in the near future, producing a law-and-order backlash like we haven’t seen in centuries.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I don’t want to speak for @Syo, but my proposed policy change would be to execute him, publicly, after the first offense. A home invasion and double murder is something that only the worst people alive would do. The odds of a not-guilty man being found guilty of that crime seems so astronomically low that I’m entirely comfortable baking that risk into an overall wildly-more-punitive criminal justice system than what we have now.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I mean, I feel like I made it pretty clear that I do not consider 25 to life a just sentence, insofar as he is still alive. I want him to no longer be alive anymore. I want not a single penny of Illinois taxpayer money to be used to keep this man alive. I have no idea why you or anyone else would actually care if he himself was the one who pulled the trigger in the death of those two people. He was invading an innocent person’s home with the intent to burglarize it. The appropriate penalty for that crime should be death.
The article in question also mentions that five years after the original home invasion which resulted in the murder of two people, Salas then plead guilty to a second home invasion in which yet another person was murdered. Surely even if you believe he deserved a second chance after his first deadly home invasion, the fact that he did it a second time should make it abundantly clear what kind of person we’re dealing with, and the right and proper steps should be taken to end his life, publicly and without delay.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
Parsons-Salas is already a convicted felon, released on parole in September after serving time for a 2009 home invasion in Albany Park in which two people were also shot dead.
Parsons-Salas was initially charged with murder in that case, but pleaded guilty to two counts of home invasion.
Five years later, then-23-year-old Parsons-Salas was charged with first degree murder, along with another man. But those counts against him were later dropped after he agreed to plead guilty to home invasion charges, which carried an eight-year sentence.
To me this obviously seems to refer to two separate crimes. He was charged with murder for the 2009 case, but pled down to home invasion and served an unspecified amount of time for that. Then in 2016 he was charged with murder, then pled down to home invasion and sentenced to eight years. Are you suggesting that he was tried twice for the same crime, five years apart, pled down to home invasion twice for the same crime, and served two different prison sentences for that same crime?
Either way, the prosecutor's statement for why they offered home invasion plea deal is that they lacked evidence to proceed with murder charges. I understand what you desire in terms of punishment, but how do you deal with the evidence issue?
This where obviously I need more information - information which the article does not provide - in order to comment on the evidence issue in this particular situation. There’s a big difference between these two scenarios: 1. Salas and one or more accomplices invaded someone’s home, and in the commission of that home invasion somebody was shot. Police couldn’t determine, given the evidence at their disposal, which one of the home invaders fired the shot, so they couldn’t pin the murder on Salas specifically. 2. Police could not muster the evidence to actually place Salas at the scene of the home invasion.
In scenario 2 I obviously don’t want him executed, but scenario 2 seems wildly implausible given that Salas did in fact plead guilty to the home invasion. (I’m aware that there is the possibility that he took a plea deal for a crime which he didn’t commit in order to avoid the possibility of being convicted of an even worse crime that he also didn’t commit. The probability of this just seems far lower than I think you believe that it is.)
In scenario 1, again, it makes no difference whatsoever to me who actually directly committed the murder. If Salas committed a home invasion and nobody died, he should be executed. Don’t commit home invasions, or it’s curtains for you. I genuinely do believe this. Yes, there are edge cases; divorced couple, nasty custody battle, husband technically isn’t supposed to be in the home even though he lived there for twenty years, he still has a key, lets himself in to see his kids while ex-wife isn’t home, overzealous prosecutor charges him with home invasion. This is the sort of non-central case that is so far from what I guarantee that Salas did, I don’t think it’s worth discussing them in the same conversation.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
My anecdotal experience from my work is that the "factually innocent" client exists but is extremely rare. What probability did you think I placed on it?
I apologize, I believe I probably imputed to your beliefs that you don’t actually hold. I’m aware of your choice of career and of your left-libertarian/anarchist-adjacent worldview, and I extrapolated that to assume that you’re more pro-defendant/anti-justice-system than you may actually be.
You agree with the felony-murder rule as it is but that you'd rather see the death penalty rather than the current "25 to life" sentence. Is that a fair characterization?
Yes, it is fair, although again I want to stress that my support of the death penalty in Salas’ case is independent of felony murder jurisprudence, and that I would like to see the death penalty expanded to a significantly broader range of crimes than that to which it is currently applied.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
So, just to clarify, you want me executed for… impotently posting on an obscure internet forum? Perhaps you imagine that my comments are part of a larger pattern of violent or discriminatory behavior, having tangible negative effects on the lives of real flesh-and-blood individuals. But, no, it really is just impotent posting. I have perfectly normal, functional, positive relationships with people of wildly different backgrounds, none of whom are aware of, or affected by, my Motte-posting. So precisely which specific charges would you have me executed for?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
See, I know that people in the rationalist sphere like to believe that thought experiments such as this one are very useful and compelling, but personally I see no value in entertaining something like this. You’re asking what would happen if humans were entirely different than they actually are, in a fundamental way, and if we had access to magic. Why is this worth spending time thinking about? Your hypothetical scenario is wildly implausible. We don’t have technology even remotely close to what you’re proposing. Do you have any concrete reasons, aside from general techno-optimism, to believe that anything like this will be possible, let alone affordable for the great mass of humanity? If not, you might as well ask, “If everyone woke up tomorrow with the ability to read minds, what would be the legal and philosophical ramifications of that?” Answer: They won’t, next question.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I mean, you’re pretty obviously eliding the whole Jewish angle and the fact that Leo Frank’s “whiteness” was very much a complicated question at that time. (And remains complicated now.) Like, this supposed irony resolves itself almost immediately once you drill down on that detail.
(For what it’s worth, I think that there were a number of reasons why Frank was targeted by locals that had nothing to do specifically with his Jewishness.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I think this would have benefitted immensely by the inclusion of somebody who has experience with non-Abrahamic or pre-Abrahamic religion: paganism, Shinto, various folk religions, etc. When I was into atheist Tumblr, I often encountered the idea that Western atheists, since their only point of reference for what religion can look like is Christianity - which makes explicit claims to universality and is full of propositional claims which its adherents are expected to accept on a personal epistemic level - they have an arrogant, overly-dismissive, and unjustifiably contemptuous attitude toward religion as a category.
Since I was indeed one of those arrogant Western Christianity-hating atheists, this always struck me as ludicrous - just more woke “white men do atheism like that, while us wise Atheists Of Color do atheism like this”. Now that I’ve started to dig deeper into pre-Christian religion, though, I’m starting to really appreciate what those people meant, and I wish this podcast had included the perspective of somebody who has experienced a type of religious community which does not resemble the Abrahamic religions-of-the-book.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I suspect they might both be members of, or related to, the mulatto elite which has maintained a position of elite prestige (secured via selective Brahmin-style breeding) in Jamaica for centuries. Kamala Harris’ father is another example.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
Is @Southkraut correct that Mottizens are dyed-in-the-wool Size Queens? Or, as @aqouta protests, is the motion of the ocean more important than the size of the boat? Perhaps this question is only girthy enough for the Small Scale Questions thread.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
In the last Culture War Thread, in a very interesting exchange about why white people in America (and the so-called West more broadly) tolerate being constantly denigrated from every corner of the intellectual elite, the always-insightful @FiveHourMarathon had an interesting comment that resonated with me. He finds the grievance-oriented, victim-mindset side of the white identitarian sphere viscerally off-putting and pathetic. Why, he asks, should I be proud to be white, if in fact being white means being weak and crying out for forbearance and mercy from the ascendant coalition of white-hating POCs whose power and vengeful intent increases daily? Why would one choose to identify as a powerless victim, and what appeal would that self-identification have for those well-adjusted, successful, thriving individuals whose allegiance the white race ought to covet most assiduously, especially if it is indeed true that whites’ prospects are at a historic low point? While the downvote totals indicate that his perspective was poorly-received by many of our pro-white posters (for understandable reasons upon which I will touch shortly), I found his comments extremely instructive and worth reflecting on - a splash of bracingly cold water which ought to invigorate those on my side who wake up every day and wonder how white people let ourselves get to this point.
The conversation dovetailed wonderfully with Jared Taylor’s excellent essay, adapted from a speech he gave at a recent American Renaissance conference, in which he delves deep into the historical antecedents of white people’s current malaise. In this essay, Taylor points out that the ethno-masochism which pervades Western elite consciousness is consistent with a more general philosophical framework that has characterized the European psyche for centuries. He illustrates that the individuals who drove many of the most influential social/political reform movements of the last 300 years - from the Jacobins and the abolitionists to the temperance movement - have all demonstrated a fairly consistent psychological phenotype: a sort of Protagonist Syndrome, obsessed with virtue (and particularly with displaying that virtue to other white people) and with uplifting the underdog, and driven by an atavistic hatred of fellow white people who don’t share that same temperament.
In a sense, the leftist psyche - and, as a former committed leftie, I think I understand this temperament pretty well, and am still an example of it in many ways - is an extension of the “Faustian spirit” that many right-wingers love to attribute to European Man. In this telling of history, the most important defining characteristic of the European soul is its driving need to conquer, to transform, to bend nature to one’s own ends. This boundless desire for conquest drove the great achievements of Western man - from conquering the globe, to unlocking the secrets of wielding nature’s forces to our own benefit, to curing disease, to landing on the moon - but I think it also drives the leftist desire to transform humanity itself. To improve humanity from its basic, crude, unworked Hobbesian “state of nature” and to unlock its true potential. Hermetic alchemy applied to the human spirit - never accepting limits, never taking “that’s just the way things are” as an answer, always believing that we can keep pushing the limits of what is possible. Combine this with an almost pathological altruism, the anguish one feels when contemplating the plight of the downtrodden, and it’s very easy to see why Faustian man is so driven to “correct” the obviously-unjust vicissitudes of random chance that have produced the current distribution of human fortunes.
I know that I personally still feel deeply this instinctive sympathy for the underdog. It’s so ingrained in our national psyche that it’s incredibly difficult to overcome it. It has characterized my experience as a sports fan, and it was a major formative element of my self-conception as a college progressive. Wresting myself out of that mental framework as I’ve drifted rightward has been, and in some ways still continues to be, a psychologically disorienting experience. On the one hand, the recognition that unequal distribution of talent and fortune is an unalterable fact of reality, baked into the human spirit, is a bedrock element of the right-wing worldview. Hierarchy is right and proper, and the strong and capable shall always prosper while the weak and mediocre will always vainly envy them. On the other hand, this offends Faustian man’s innate sense of limitless ability to transform the world. Much as Europeans looked at grim realities such as the ubiquity of deadly disease, or man’s inability to traverse the skies, and said, “I have the power to change that,” we have the unshakeable sense that the injustice of fate which has rendered some less fortunate than others is yet another so-called reality just waiting for us to apply our ingenuity and boundless power to correct. A mere engineering problem which our best minds are rapidly working to solve. And hey, if I’m the process of fixing this problem we also gain the opportunity to ostentatiously display our own virtue and gain relative status accordingly, all the better!
This instinctive desire to uplift the underdog is, ironically, only rational if one believes that one’s own interests are not threatened by that underdog’s success. If I can help the underdog get his piece of the pie while my piece stays the same size, that means that in reality I must have been stronger than both the underdog and the supposed overdog against whom he was striving - I was so far above the conflict that I could observe it as a spectator. The underdog becomes, then, a sort of prop or vessel through which I can achieve emotional satiation of my altruistic instinct, at little to no cost to myself.
Where, then, does this leave racially-conscious whites, who assess the state of the world around us and see genuinely foreboding trends which appear to pose a serious threat to our people? Who observe the rising chorus of hatred and envy echoing from the halls of power, who dismay at the ever-worsening fertility differentials, and who see our own elected representatives seem to revel in our decline? What is the optimal rhetorical strategy to appeal to successful white individuals in order to get them to see the disturbing portents and to realize that things are not looking good for us? That this isn’t, in fact, an idle game, but in fact deadly serious? Well, one very appealing strategy is to appeal to that characteristically-European sympathy for the underdog. It’s to say, “Look, guys, we are the weak and vulnerable party in need of special concern and uplift! I know that you’ve been trained by the media to view white people as the permanent bully in need of humbling and people of color as the noble and scrappy up-and-comer just looking for a fair shot - and yeah, at certain points in history that was even true! - but at this point in time the tables truly have turned. We lay ourselves at the mercy of the victors, and ask only for their mercy and indulgence. Quit picking on us!”
This is also, I think, the motivation behind much of the “JQ” discourse on the right; Jews can be portrayed as an all-powerful enemy, against which we defenseless whites are fighting an impossible uphill battle which we can only win through a herculean effort. “Feel bad for us! We, too, know what it is like to suffer systemic discrimination against our rapacious racial overlords! It’s not faaiiiiir!” However, for a lot of white people, feeling like a victim just doesn’t come naturally to them at all. They look at the history of European man and think, “You know, seems like we’re pretty fucking awesome. Whatever minor setbacks we’re suffering right now, it seems like we’ll get through it just fine. I like our chances.” And, historically speaking, that is a pretty damn astute assessment! The all-time scoreboard sure seems to back that up. There haven’t been a whole lot of limits or setbacks that we’ve faced in the past that we haven’t been able to overcome with some ingenuity and some elbow grease; why should something like collapsing fertility rates be any different? The only way we lose is if we beat ourselves, and we can choose to start winning again at any time once we put our mind to it.
This is, I think, a far healthier mindset than the doom-and-gloom, woe-is-me, why-won’t-the-Jews-stop-picking-on-me mindset that so alienates @FiveHourMarathon. Our problems are real, but they’re ones that we ourselves created, and they’re ones that we ourselves -and only ourselves - can fix. We haven’t even begun to conquer the stars yet - how are we going to let ourselves get bogged down by such comparatively quotidian setbacks? We only lose if we keep tying both hands behind our backs - all we have to do is untie them!
I don’t know, I’ve been sick with the flu all week and I might just be deliriously rambling. I’ve been ingesting a lot of blackpills as of late, so this line of thinking is a useful whitepill to counteract their toxic effects.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
I mean, I’m not really interested in picking a fight with Hlynka or with taking unprovoked potshots at his worldview, but it can simultaneously be true that 1. he has accurately identified that both the far-right and far-left have converged on a recognition that identity politics are valuable and that classical liberalism is a failed project, and 2. his proposed solution - “and that’s why everybody should be a Reaganite conservative who Doesn’t See Color™️ and worships at the altar of Martin Luther King, ‘content of their character’ yada yada yada” - is a total non sequitur and doesn’t even begin to address the actual reality we’re facing.
More to the point, yours is an understandable perspective; but one should note that contemporary leftist spirit is the opposite of Faustian. Barring unorthodox voices like Yglesias and Klein with their «supply-side progressivism» (presented as a novel vision and not a rebranding of common-sensical Modernist philosophy that follows from basic Enlightenment), current leftism is characterized by deep suspicion about technological solutions and by the expectation of dystopian scenarios that almost unites them with the trad far right, lack of commitment to specific conditional predictions – we know for certain what spells doom, but not what may positively suffice to avert it, short of doom with extra steps – and by utter reliance on zero-sum redistributive approaches. The best they can offer «underrepresented minorities» is more pablum about school funding, antiracist brainwashing and affirmative action. They scoff at AI and actively suppress genetic technology. They just want status quo with a revised gibs ratio. Self-professed Faustians like Musk freak them out.
This might be true of your average Democrat politician or shitlib bluecheck, but have you read any of the stuff the World Economic Forum is putting out? Or UNESCO? Say whatever you will about it - and I have endless negative things to say about it myself - but this is a group of people with an intense Will to Power and an unshakeable belief that they have the power to fundamentally transform humanity. They seem to have a boundless confidence in the power of technologies - both mechanical and social - to rewrite the bounds of what we consider possible. It is ultra-Faustian - here, some would helpfully remind us that Faust is, in fact, the victim of a demon, offering us a self-serving temptation which will lead us to ruin, and not in fact a role model to be emulated - and I completely understand why it appeals to so many capable and intelligent white people. It’s downright Promethean. The strain of European man who looks at every supposed limit or guardrail as an engineering problem to be overcome has a lot to be inspired by in the writings of the WEF, which is itself a recapitulation of the Hermetic mythos which has inspired so many generations of hyper-intelligent European aristocrats and autodidacts over the course of millennia.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
Right, this is all well and fair, and I don’t disagree with much of it. Where I differ from you and Hlynka is that I don’t actually believe Red and Blue are true enemies. They’re two complementary halves of a syncretic whole - two equally-valuable parallel strains of the European psyche, which function best when they can strengthen each other by checking each other’s worst impulses. They’re the two components of a Babble & Prune machine, cyclically working in ostensible conflict in order to ensure long-term mutual success. The fact that Red and Blue are locked into what appears to be an existential conflict is due to a complicated mix of factors, which have been discussed to death here already, but in the long run both must succeed equally for European man to continue in the next step of his cosmic journey.
specifically an unwillingness to accept the possibility that someone can be both "smart" and "wrong".
…….Hlynka, the reason why people like me get so frustrated with you is that a lot of the time it just seems like you don’t actually take any time to really read what people actually wrote or even make an effort to evaluate our actual arguments; you have a handful of stock arguments prepared and you deploy them, regardless of their precise appropriateness to the specific argument or interlocutor you’re responding to, as a way to sort of rhetorically pump your shotgun and let us know we’re not welcome on your property.
And it’s not fair for me to get frustrated at you for doing this, because that’s the correct and appropriate strategy for Reds! I don’t mean that as an insult or to infantilize you, although I’m acutely aware that this is how it will be received on your end. What I mean would be more clear to you, I think, if you made an honest effort to understand the arguments in the “Babble & Prune” essay that I myself linked. Surely you’ve been kicking around these spaces long enough to have stumbled upon that essay before.
The entire thrust of that essay is that Blues represent the “Babble” half of the dialectic, meaning that their whole purpose is to come up with a ton of ideas, the majority of which will be wrong. So, not only can people be both “smart” and “wrong”, it’s probably on average more likely that a given idea formulated by a smart person is wrong than that it’s right.
Furthermore, I have talked extensively about my own major change in worldview within my own lifetime. That means that not only can smart people be wrong, I was one of the smart people who was wrong. Like, really wrong. Like, potentially irretrievable damage to my life outcomes type of wrong. If I had listened to Reds, and adhered to one of their prescribed life templates, my life would be unspeakably better right now. But, if I’m honest with myself, I was never going to - not when I was young and shit-hot enough for it to matter - because I’m a Blue. Much like Blues gravitate toward lottery professions, the Blue phenotype is a sort of “lottery ticket personality”: maybe you figure out how to split an atom or write The 1812 Overture, or maybe you end up penniless with syphilis in a snow-filled gutter at 30. There’s obviously variation - almost nobody is a “pure Blue” or “Pure Red” - and I am gravely weighing out the feasibility of giving the Red template my most sincere try, but certainly the bimodal distribution is real.
I understand why you loathe Blues so much. At the historical moment in which we live, they’ve been able - through what I consider egregious subterfuge and bad faith - to artificially inflate their own power over Red, throwing the Babble & Prune machine wildly out of balance, and now they’re presenting a very real threat of trying to turn your kids Blue and trying to destroy what you hold dear. Trying to take the outside view, though, I think it remains true that neither Blue nor Red can destroy each other without destroying themselves in the process.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1yr ago
So, what does this mean for pre-Christian societies? It wasn’t Christians who built the Parthenon or all of those gorgeous Greco-Roman statues. You draw a distinction between “post-Christian” and “post-pagan” societies, but, at least in the entirety of Europe, Christian societies are all post-pagan societies. Pagan Europeans made beautiful representational art many centuries before they were converted to Christianity.
Nah, I was first exposed to it on https://exploringegregores.wordpress.com/2017/07/20/introduction/
Apparently it originated in an ancient Hebrew apocalyptic text called the Book of Enoch, and was then reintroduced in the early 19th century.
More options
Context Copy link