@Hoffmeister25's banner p

Hoffmeister25

American Bukelismo Enthusiast

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

				

User ID: 732

Hoffmeister25

American Bukelismo Enthusiast

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 732

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.

  • -10

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.

First off, even if I took seriously your contention that Indians will be less politically destructive than white PMC progressives, you’re still missing the heart of my argument, which is that white Americans are entitled to determine the political future of this country because we are direct descendants of the people who founded this nation, while Indians are not. White progressives are my people - when you insult them, you insult my mother, my sister, and nearly every person socially important to me. For all of the negative things I say about them, I am profoundly invested in their future and the eventual reconciliation of political tribes in this country, because they are my flesh and blood. That’s something they have which an Indian, no matter how congenial he may be as an individual, will never be able to lay claim to.

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.

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.

Okay fine, but you’ve already shifted the goalposts significantly. Your original argument was “nothing can be causeless, not even God”. Now you’ve switched to “okay, God could be causeless, but so could the universe even if it wasn’t God”. Two completely different and mutually-contradictory arguments.

I have made very similar arguments before, and I remain optimistic that Jews (and East Asians) will reconcile themselves to whiteness in due time, to the incalculable benefit of all involved. I’m very bullish on the Eurasian Imperium future, in which basically the most important categories will be Those Without Substantial African/Negrito Ancestry vs. Those With Substantial African/Negrito Ancestry. I expect Jews to come out on top in pretty much any major re-sorting of ethnic/racial alliances, so obviously it is in the best interests of my descendants to make sure that Jews’ stewardship of that alliance is as benevolent and mutually-beneficial as possible.

This was almost comical back when apartheid South Africa classified Japanese as "white" as it exposed how absurd any claims of basing white supremacy on actual genetics were.

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.

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants have flooded across the southern border this year. We have documented evidence that a great many of them are Africans. Nobody is stopping them from coming here. Why do you believe that the immigration status quo is insufficient to allow that number to balloon to the numbers @omfalos predicted? Who or what is going to stop all those Africans from coming here, without any change to the current formal immigration regime?

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!

The overwhelming majority of the people currently streaming across the border are military-age men. If shooting broke out, the odds of a family of children getting smoked is far lower than the odds of some brazen young men.

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

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

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

Optics are a spectrum, and this was as far along that spectrum as I was willing to publicly go. You’re correct that I could have gone less far, but I also could have gone farther, but didn’t.

For optics reasons, I’m going to be intentionally vague about what precisely I’m imagining.

To the extent that certain parts of the “Woke” coalition recognize that East Asians are “spiritually white” or “white-adjacent”, this is yet another example of a “The Woke Are More Correct Than The Mainstream” moment. And certainly there is a storied history within the race-realist philosophical/anthropological tradition of recognizing Asians as one of the “noble races”. White identitarians’ relationship with Asians has always been somewhat bipolar, with one extreme (such as our dearly-departed Sinophobe @Lepidus) viewing Asians as a bug-like overly-communitarian race, incompatible with free-spirited Europeans, and the other extreme seeing them as a brother race, every bit as capable of building and sustaining glorious civilizations as Europeans are. I lean strongly toward the latter extreme, as do many others. This isn’t some totally quixotic effort in which I’m going it alone.

As for recognizing Jews as white, this has pretty much been the normal mainstream view, even among race realists, for the majority of human history. The early American Renaissance conferences featured a number of staunchly white-identitarian Jews, who were unfortunately later sidelined by the more hardcore Jew-skeptical faction of the movement.

Where are the conquistadores today? Even if a caste system were created in Latin America today, the upper castes would still have a substantial amount of indigenous admixture.

Actually, from what I understand the political/cultural/financial elite in Mexico, Brazil, and the Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay) has very little non-European admixture at all. In Mexico they’re descended largely from conquistadors (hence Steve Sailer’s epithet “Conquistador-American” for people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), but in other parts of Latin America they’re just as likely to be of Italian and German ancestry. I can’t speak to the more undeveloped parts of Latin America.

Sorry I did not have an opportunity to respond to your original comment, so I’m now having to reply to your follow-up.

When it comes to the JQ, my stance is that it’s not a Yes-or-No question. There is a whole spectrum of possible approaches to dealing with this very thorny issue. The whole “are you anti-semitic or philo-semitic” thing is a false binary; one can have an attitude toward Jews that is neither wholly negative nor wholly positive.

Regarding the historicity of the Holocaust, I remain persuaded, based on the information I’ve read - including the work of prominent revisionists - that there was a concerted and large-scale effort, carried out by soldiers of the Third Reich and its vassal states on orders handed down from Berlin - to kill large numbers of Jewish people. I agree with you that the specific Auschwitz narrative, with gas chambers disguised as showers, and lampshades made of Jew skin, appears to have been either totally fabricated or substantially exaggerated. I also agree that the “6 million” figure doesn’t seem to hold up to scrutiny, let alone “20 million”. These issues don’t invalidate the central claim, which is that at some point between 1939 and 1945 the Third Reich’s initial policy of ghettoization and self-deportation morphed into a concerted effort to kill Jews. This effort may have been an ad hoc decision made in the heat of a rapidly-evolving situation, rather than some Final Solution which the Reich knew from the get-go that they’d eventually achieve, but either way, I remain persuaded that some limited form of the Holocaust did take place. Assuming this is true, it was an abomination, although it would be far from the first time in history that an invading army with designs toward imperial conquest did something similar. I don’t dispute for a second that you’re more knowledgeable about the minutiae of historical evidence on the topic than I am, and I’m open to having my mind changed in the future; this is my assessment of the information I’ve consumed up to this point, though.

As for how a white advocate and a believer in eugenics should think about Jews and their relationship with gentiles, it’s obviously super fucking complicated. I’ve offered some thoughts on the issue before, and I’m sure I’ll do so again in the future. Suffice it to say, my stance on the JQ is somewhere softer than yours, but that the issues you raise do weigh heavily on me and that my thoughts are still evolving.

The same thought occurred to me, but in this case I’m assuming that the Blues remain as averse to interpersonal violence as they currently are, and that Blues’ violent pets - people like Jordan Neely - are dealt with comprehensively and violently, rather than allowed (let alone encouraged) to run free and wreak havoc on hapless Reds. And I’m also assuming that in this scenario Reds are permitted to be armed to the teeth in order to guard against incursions from undesirables who push their luck.

I’m not disputing that the Epstein stuff happened; I’m disputing the interpretation of what it means, how important it is, how it connects to other political events/theories, etc.

I didn’t realize that FC had added significantly to his original comment, so I was unsure why you thought that this one single example was going to look like strong evidence in favor of his proposition. Now that I see your comment in relation to his edit, I at least realize why you picked this example, although I still consider it nowhere near strong enough evidence to refute my accusation that those using “groomer” are attempting to smuggle the most inflammatory connotation into their every use of the term.

Which MSM outlets are shilling for Ron DeSantis? Do you have specific examples?

@fauji had a good post about this very matter last month.

I have no complaints with this. I think it’s both reasonable and salutary to encourage people here to act like humans with varied interests and to inculcate some level of social participation in the community.

When you say “online”, what do you have in mind? Are we talking real-time sessions using some sort of VTT like Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds? Or more like an asynchronous text-based RPG format? And which edition were you thinking of playing?