Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
No bio...
User ID: 732
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1mo ago
You claimed that
currently the entire political spectrum is based on "my life sucks, boo out group".
Even if you can find example of the people I’m pointing to saying their outgroup sucks, you’re still missing the “my life sucks” part. Elon Musk’s life manifestly does not suck, nor does he appear to be under any illusions that it does. To the extent that he criticizes his enemies (political or otherwise) it is because he believes they’re making America worse, or making the world worse; he definitely doesn’t seem to be claiming that they’re making his own life worse. (Except for maybe on the trans issue specifically, given the way it has impacted his family life.)
Similarly, the main figures in the “Abundance Democrats” — assuming such a faction does indeed exist — focus their criticism on “NIMBYs” — again, let’s assume for the sake of argument that such people exist and are reliably identifiable — because they believe that such people are actively preventing American society from addressing a major issue that is negatively impacting the lives of many people. Notably, though, the Abundance Democrats are largely financially successful people who can currently afford housing without too much difficulty. (Or who live in subsidized housing, as students, academic faculty, etc.) The housing crisis isn’t wrecking their lives, and they’re not motivated by personal grievance. They do genuinely appear to want to fix a problem, even if that problem isn’t a problem for them specifically.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1mo ago
but currently the entire political spectrum is based on "my life sucks, boo out group".
You don’t actually believe that’s true, do you? Like, clearly there are many people — people well within the mainstream Overton window of the two major American political parties, and certainly those within the mainstream of other Anglosphere countries — who do not fit this description at all. One could point to the “Abundance Democrats” and the “Tech Right” as two ascendant factions made up very largely of successful, optimistic, non-resentful individuals.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1mo ago
There are many other things we could do with these people instead of killing them that will still make society safer.
Like what? I’m trying to imagine some institutional entity set up to try and maximize the productive labor value of people like this girl; such an entity would need to devote a very onerous amount of money, time, and resources just to making sure she doesn’t fuck something up massively. This is money spent just to make sure she isn’t a huge net negative; that’s long before we’ve gotten anywhere near turning her into a net positive. We also need to make sure such an entity does not give her access to anything important with which she could channel her obvious devotion to cause into a genuinely destructive action.
So, what sort of menial, non-impactful tasks are we setting her to, such that if she decides to do something horrible she can’t have much impact, but she still has the capacity to represent an economic (or even social) net positive, after taking into account everything required to keep her from doing something horrible?
Playboy magazine’s path to profit wasn’t selling subscriptions, it was setting the organization as a prestige knower of what made a hot woman hot, which it then as an organization certified and sold.
Sadly, this is where Hef is directly complicit in one of the great crimes against an entire generation: the promulgation of bolt-on tits — volleyball-sized, perfectly spherical breast implants — as the beauty standard preferred by the great unwashed mass of late Boomer and Gen X men. All three of the women featured on The Girl Next Door had them, and of course Hef’s greatest victim (though he was far from her only victimizer) was Pamela Anderson, who was turned from a girl-next-door with a gorgeous face and a natural figure into a dead-eyed plastic simulacrum of a woman. I thank God every day that we are finally free from the volleyball-titty, Living Barbie Doll era of female sex symbols — the specters of Jenna Jameson, Carmen Electra, and Anna Nicole Smith no longer haunting the boners of virile young Americans — and can, instead, just appreciate a tasteful set of naturals, like Hef could in the 70’s.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
Sure, all of these are good reasons to want more white British doctors. But, other than the paperwork thing, which can’t plausibly represent some massive expense passed on to the consumer, what does any of this have to do with making things cheaper, which was the original claim?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
The actual alternative for Brits is to kick out their unproductive, non-British population, tighten their belts, and spend a decade or two training up new doctors and nurses from the natives. That would drive down costs and reduce wait times in the long run,
What is the mechanism by which replacing foreign-trained doctors with native British doctors is supposed to make healthcare more affordable for patients?
My naïve assumption is that doctors from, say, the Indian subcontinent are willing to accept lower pay and less favorable conditions than comparable Brits, simply because the opportunity to live and work in Britain is worth so much more to them than it is to a native Brit who takes that opportunity for granted. This is, as far as I can tell, pretty uniformly the story of nearly all immigrant labor, skilled or unskilled, throughout the developed world. And presumably the ability to furnish such doctors lower wages and less benefits would in turn redound to the patient in terms of lower costs.
I’m extremely sympathetic to many of the arguments for deporting foreign laborers — even doctors — and thereby clearing the field for natives to move into their remunerative positions; however, the argument that it will make things cheaper for the end users of those services seems to be quite dubious. Perhaps I’m missing something. Am I wrong that Indian doctors accept lower pay and that this causes healthcare costs, ceteris paribus, to decrease relative to the counterfactual in which all doctors are white Brits?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
I didn’t need to read the entire Book Of Mormon to know that, either. You can even read just some small selections of it to get the gist of their theology, much as you can with the Bible.
Like, all of this is Google-able, Wiki-able, etc. Unless there’s some secret esoteric Mormonism going on in deep catacombs hidden not only from the public but also from run-of-the-mill members of the church — which I suppose we can’t rule out — none of the important doctrines of the church are remotely hidden from any curious outsider who is curious enough to access them. (Plus, you know, the church famously sends thousands of missionaries to publicly proselytize the faith.)
To the extent that most non-Mormons know almost nothing about the church’s theological claims is simply downstream of the fact that most human beings are profoundly incurious about other religions — particularly ones which they perceive as low-status. Hindus aren’t secretive about their beliefs, either, it’s just that almost no non-Hindus ever ask them about it, and would find a brief description befuddling.
There are plenty of things to criticize about the LDS church if one is so inclined, but “they’re hiding their beliefs from the public” is not one of them.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
I mean, the Book Of Mormon is freely available as an audiobook on, for example, Apple Podcasts. I listened to the entirety of it, plus the whole Pearl of Great Price and a decent chunk of the Doctrine & Covenants. It’s not difficult for a layman to access these texts.
I want to make sure I actually understand what you’re claiming here.
Is the claim something like: blacks, by being an unassimilable block and a thorn in the side of any project aiming toward American political/cultural reconciliation, are actually performing a positive service. They’re what’s preventing non-black Americans from coming together to form some sort of cultural consensus, and this is a good thing, because the rise of such a consensus — at least, if it were to arise under current ideological conditions — would be shaped largely by progressives. Therefore, blacks should be encouraged to continue to be a pain in the ass (or at least no active steps should be taken to force them not to be) because if they were marginalized or mollified, white people might start forming a “mass conformist” culture like the ones in Europe.
Am I getting this right? I don’t want to misinterpret or misrepresent your view.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
I remain baffled by the people, some of them commenters here, who seem to believe that if we could just sufficiently marginalize blacks, Red Tribe and Blue Tribe could lay their other differences aside and get down to productive cooperation.
Presumably I am one of the individuals you have in mind. I can understand why you find it baffling: your hatred of “the Blue Tribe” — a fictitious construct which, I maintain, exists more in your head than it does in the real world — verges at times on the atavistic. I don’t expect that a fully-committed partisan such as yourself will be able to put aside your grudges and live in comity with true-Blue progressives.
My perception is that the vast majority of Americans, though, are nowhere near as committed to hatred of those who vote for a different party, nor would they be so thoroughly filled with hatred and distrust of the other side in the event that the extremely live-wire issue of pervasive black criminality were removed from the everyday lifestyle calculations of so many people. In no way do I believe that issues related to crime and racial grievance are the sole motivating reason for political polarization in America; I simply believe that these issues have a far stronger valence than most others — at least for urban (and, increasingly, suburban) voters — given their intractability, the web of obfuscation and lies characterizing discourse about them, and the way that these issues reveal some vexing contradictions at the heart of the American individualist/liberal framework.
Perhaps I am the pot calling the kettle black, and that in fact it is I who am wildly overestimating the salience and centrality of my pet issue. No doubt I am, to some extent. But I truly do believe that most non-black Americans can return, with not insurmountable difficult, to the relative comity of the 90’s, if and only if there is a significant marginalization of blacks as a cultural and political entity.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
I’m about halfway through Anna Karenina. After that I’m finally gonna crack open Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
Why? As far as I know, none of the funding is going to Gungans…
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
Were it indeed Adam Silver (whoever he may be)
Commissioner of the NBA, and one of the wealthiest ayyylmaos in America.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
Would you expand the death penalty to public corruption? I'd would have rather seen Judge Michael Conahan hanged than pardoned.
I’m a bit conflicted when it comes to corruption committed by obviously intelligent, competent individuals whose talents can clearly still be put to good use. On the one hand, the crimes of powerful individuals can usually impact a much larger number of people than the crimes of low-level street criminals; in that sense, punishing the powerful is extremely important not only because of the gravity of their crimes, but also the punitive/restorative value to the public of seeing them laid low. On the other hand, Michael Conahan has abilities that can be put to good use, as a sort of intellectual chain-gang labor. I’d be wary about wasting him by executing him. Ultimately I think I’d come down on the side of execution, though.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
When there's just not that much crime that deserves capital punishment compared to how it was in the past (at least among the blue-blood races)
I mean, that’s the thing: in the American context, both execution and caning would be wildly disproportionately applied to the “non-blue-blood races”. I obviously have no objection to hanging or caning a white felon; the demographic disparities are, at least in the short term, simply the reality.
I'm curious: what crimes do you think deserve the death penalty (and while we're on topic, which deserve caning)?
When it comes to non-violent crimes, it’s more about the habitual aspect of crime. If someone commits shoplifting, I’m perfectly happy to see them caned once and then everyone can move on. If someone has committed shoplifting 47 times, this person is very obviously an intolerable burden and incapable of being rehabilitated. Career criminals are what I’m trying to focus on.
There are, however, certain non-violent crimes which I’d be perfectly willing to have someone very severely harmed for: scammers, for example. People who steal not from large impersonal entities, but from vulnerable individuals. A very close family member of mine lost his entire life savings to a scammer, who exploited his naïvety and conscientiousness. I myself had a phone stolen because a guy begged to use it to call his mother, then ran from me the second I handed it to him. These people are irredeemably sociopathic and must be culled. Generally any crimes which demonstrate a depraved mind must be dealt with through making it onerous or impossible for this person to reproduce.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
Your point about hanging is well-taken. I’m trying to optimize for a method that the American public could actually stomach. Hanging has a long and lindy history in Anglophone countries — although, much like my concerns about the optics of caning, hanging does of course suffer from the association with lynching, regardless of how long the practice existed both before and after the era of Lynch Law. Hanging can also be performed in a public square, using an apparatus which can be reused many times, and which can execute multiple individuals simultaneously. It is violent enough to make a point, but, at least in its long-drop form, not too gruesome to witness.
Current “medicalized” execution methods such as lethal injection are too sterile and do not carry any of the desired psychological effects, neither on the condemned nor on onlookers. The gas chamber is similarly medicalized, cannot be carried out before the eyes of the public, and of course suffers from an even more taboo optical association: that of the Holocaust.
The guillotine is far too gruesome and traumatic; watching someone get decapitated and bleed out from their neck stump is simply too much for most modern people to stomach. It also suffers from an inescapable and unacceptable association with the subversive, anarchic, populist aesthetics of the French Revolution.
As for the firing squad or other forms of execution by firearm, I feel they suffer from three major drawbacks: firstly, like the guillotine, they are simply very visually violent and not something a lot of psychologically-healthy Americans would wish to watch; secondly, it is the method of execution which, barring the old-fashioned execution by axe, might be the most traumatizing for the individual(s) tasked with carrying out the execution; thirdly, since my fervent hope is that in the long run America loses its fixation with guns, a method of execution by the state which prominently features firearms sends the wrong message.
I’m sure some enterprising inventor can (and hopefully will) develop a method of execution which more wholly satisfies the criteria I’m looking for. A method which requires the condemned to, directly before the eyes of the public, come to grips with the enormity of the consequences for his crimes, and to experience both the visible terror and the humiliating stripping of social status which are appropriate for the circumstances. I’m sensitive to avoid methods which overly select for sadism in the executioner(s), and those which risk inculcating such sadism over time. Methods like hanging which involve an apparatus, rather than a direct violent action by an individual, are preferable for that reason among others.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
What I’m saying is that getting from “self-ownership of my body” to “ownership of items I obtained using my body” is not a useful line of reasoning, because it doesn’t deal well with questions of why only the first person to obtain an item has eternal first priority of ownership over it, even when others expend equal effort and physical agency in order to obtain the item in turn. (It’s an especially incoherent line of reasoning when we get to talk about purchasing items at a store, wherein all of the items were harvested or built by the physical bodies of others, as as the “customer” the only sense in which my “physical body” gained “ownership” of the items is by swiping a piece of plastic acknowledging the transfer of imaginary “funds”.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
Ah yes, that’s fair. I’m a fairly ardent critic of mainstream Christian conservatives, and of the “conservative mindset” generally. I’d just say that I’m some third thing rather than a “liberal”.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
I mean look, I’m not interested in approaching this as a challenge. I want to avoid the temptation toward “vice signaling” so common on the right, so I’m not going to try and show off how “based” I am. If it turns out that you’re more authoritarian than I am, I have zero problem with that.
I wish to enshrine the principle that our justice/carceral system is, first and foremost, about punishment and about making an example of criminals. Rehabilitation is a pipe dream for the vast majority of felons in this country; there are bad people in this world, and they weren’t made bad by society. The death penalty has always been a salutary means not only of removing such people permanently from society, but also of making a public spectacle to impress upon potential future criminals the humiliating death that awaits them. We should expand the death penalty to be applicable to a far broader spectrum of crimes (including property crimes) than those for which it’s currently on offer. The method of execution should be public — I favor hangings, although I’m open to other methods which are similarly visually evocative without being overly torturous. The condemned should experience terror and humiliation — ideally visually obvious to onlookers — during the lead-up to the execution, but not too much actual prolonged physical suffering during the execution itself.
We should also stress the extremely low probability of a false conviction in the age of ubiquitous video surveillance, DNA, and advanced forensics. The entire “presumption of innocence” upon which our current system of jurisprudence rests is, in many ways, a relic of a bygone era. What does it mean to “presume the innocence” of a man caught on camera committing a criminal act, using a gun on which we can find his (scientifically verifiable) fingerprints and unique DNA? The massive amount of appeals, legal loopholes, and protections afforded to criminals in this country is a travesty. I would instead favor an inquisitorial model of criminal justice, with little or no room for the “jury trial” as a method of ascertaining guilt.
If I thought we could actually administer it in America, I would also favor the reintroduction of public corporal punishment (caning, etc.) as an alternative to incarceration and fines for certain crimes. The problem, of course, is that the optics of (mostly) young black men being publicly whipped would be intolerable to a plurality of white Americans. The ghost of slavery still haunts the American consciousness to a great degree, preventing us from being able to embrace a healthy punitive approach to crime. We can do prisons because they lock these men away from the view of squeamish right-thinking white people, but if they were to be corporally punished right out in the open it would be psychologically unbearable for too great a portion of the populace to bear.
I would also love it if we could reach a point where we could carry out an easing-out and eventual abolishment of nearly all personal firearm ownership. This is impossible and intolerable under current conditions in this country, due to the continued existence of a massive criminal underclass. If we could get that problem under control, though, the only ideological dragon left to slay would be the vestigial delusion of an armed populace “as a check against tyranny”, and frankly I think that paper tiger would be easy for a future government to slay. The simple example set by the obviously-not-tyrannical societies which are thriving in our world without widespread individual firearm ownership are simply too visible to most people. Japan is not a tyranny, nor are its citizens suffering under the yoke of oppression because they can’t own guns. Clownish sputtering about “COVID tyranny” aside, nobody can make any credible argument that the citizens of Australia live in a dystopian state of oppression.
I also favor a full redemption of eugenics as a means of improving the human capital of this country, although I’m ambivalent about the extent to which this could, or should, be achieved via coercive measures. I have no special attachment to “bodily autonomy” or “sexual freedom” as important philosophical considerations, but I’m cognizant of the limits of feasibility when it comes to applying those sorts of measures to a modern populace marinated so throughly in feminism, egalitarianism, and dystopian media like GATTACA and Brave New World. Eugenics is still fiercely opposed on both the mainstream right and left, and I don’t want to get over my skis in terms of over-committing to a wildly unpopular proposal.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
I use 'my' body to extract resources from the world, and because I own my body, I likewise have a claim to resources I gained control of using my body, and my claim is inherently stronger than any 'second-comers.'
So if some guy uses his body to attack me and physically obtain my possessions, what claim do I have over ownership of those items under your paradigm? He gained control of them using his body; ought I to have any recourse to regain possession of them, besides using my own body to take them back from him in turn?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
I am… perplexed as to why I was chosen as your representative of liberalism. I’m on record saying that the obsessive focus on the inalienable rights of the individual is the cancer at the heart of American society. You’re absolutely correct that I’m not a “social conservative”, but I also favor a more authoritarian approach to government/policing than I think almost anyone else on this forum does. (I’m also one of this forum’s leading proponents of “racism is good, actually”.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
I was literally composing a post about it, preparing to post it on Monday if the guy went undrafted, if the media meltdown about it rose to a fever pitch, if a major journalist/outlet stopped tiptoeing around and just flat-out accused NFL teams of racism, etc. Now that he got drafted in the 5th round and might actually get to legitimately compete for a starting job (including over the kid they just drafted two rounds ahead of him) I feel like there won’t be enough culture war meat on the bone to justify actually making a top-level post about it.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
The last civilized society run by an elite with Indo-European religious beliefs was what, Persia in the 600’s? Abrahamaic religions, Confucianism, and communism have all shown they can run a civilized and technological society. It may not be to your or my preferences, but they can. In contrast Indo-European religions have not.
Many pagan societies were at the same level of technological development as their Abrahamic/Confucian contemporaries, though. They weren’t comparatively primitive. They were defeated militarily, yes, but it’s nowhere near as simple as saying that this was because their societies were not able to maintain civilization and technology while the non-pagan ones were.
My ancestors stopped practicing Indo-European paganism under king Clovis for a reason. Some beliefs are just better.
A huge number of the “conversions” of pagans to Christianity were compelled by military force and just straight-up slaughter and torture. Charlemagne had to fight the brutal thirty-year Saxon Wars to conquer, subjugate, and forcibly convert the pagan Saxons, who were a peer society.
The Northern Crusades were fought in the 12th century to conquer and forcibly convert the pagan Slavic, Baltic, and Finnic people, who had managed to resist Christianization over a thousand years after the birth of Christ. These peoples were not savages living in mud-huts.
The Muslim conquest of the Zoroastrian Persians led to such brutal persecution of those who refused to accept Islamization that they had to flee all the way to the Indian subcontinent, where their modern descendants, the Parsees, are very disproportionately successful and wealthy relative not only to Hindus but also to the Abrahamic Muslims who, in your formulation, should be the ones who are the most successful and civilized.
Abrahamic religions didn’t simply “win in the marketplace of ideas.” Certainly a great number of conversion were sincere! A much larger number of them, though, were made either out of political/economic considerations — leaders wishing to become integrated into the political and financial networks emanating from the Christian Mediterranean — or by force. We didn’t have any opportunity to observe how a pagan society with a European level of human capital would have handled the Industrial Revolution, as they’d all been wiped out hundreds of years prior. The closest example we do have — Japan post-Meiji Restoration — is one of the most successful and civilized industrial societies on earth. I think it’s wildly dishonest to claim that paganism can’t sustain civilization or technology, when we simply have no idea whether or not it could. We have little to no data to work with.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
2mo ago
I would say you’re ignoring the upper crust of blacks — journalists, academics, high-ranking activists — who have built their lives and identities around an ostentatious anti-whiteness. I agree with you that there’s a large black middle class, among whom the percentage who’d be likely to donate to Karmelo Anthony is fairly small (though certainly non-zero), but I imagine there’s quite a bit of that money coming from affluent chattering-class blacks who’ve made that money spreading anti-white animus.
Correct, I was asking you to accept that position as well, at least for the sake of argument.
Correct, that definitely does not count as “my life sucks” in anywhere near the same way as Oliver Anthony style “I’m personally oppressed and downtrodden, and it’s my outgroup’s fault” populism.
I don’t think so. I think there’s an important qualitative difference between populist “rage and vengeance” grievance on the one hand — which is what the OP is attributing to Anglophone conservatism — and the technocratic/futurist “we’ve identified the problems, and it’s time to let smart and successful elites determine how to fix those problems” institutionalism of the factions I identified.
More options
Context Copy link