Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
No bio...
User ID: 732
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
14d ago
If I said: "The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the Jewish race" do you think Ignatiev would regard that as anti-semitism? Obviously he would. So you just switch "White" from "Jew" in his own rhetoric and it goes from "moral good" to "crime against humanity."
He would simply point out that there is no example in history, with the exception of the few brief periods in which Israel has existed as an insular sovereign political entity, in which Jewish people have had the power to openly privilege themselves as a dominant racial group at the expense of other groups. Whereas there was a period of several centuries wherein white people — conscious of their whiteness and the way it made them different/better than other people — had both the means and the willpower to travel around the world establishing states in which they were made the supreme/privileged race and others were treated as less-than as a result. And, Ignatiev would argue, this power differential favoring white people has continued to the present day. He would argue that Jewish people simply lack the concentrated power and the racial solidarity to place themselves in a position of supremacy over white people even if they wanted to.
Therefore, there is a context around the claim that “Jewishness must be abolished” — namely, that such a project has been actively attempted multiple times within fairly recent history and had demonstrably catastrophic results for Jewish individuals — that simply doesn’t exist (at this time) around the superficially-similar claim that “whiteness must be abolished.” Even if there were some not-insignificant number of powerful people working together to abolish whiteness, the methods they would realistically have at their disposal would not look anything like large-scale pogroms or the Holocaust or whatnot. White people do in fact still have the lion’s share of the money, the power, the resources, the access to nice things and prestigious employment, etc. Their enemies are forced to resort to more long-term abstract tactics such as tipping demographics through facilitation of mass immigration — something which affects countries on a long time scale, but doesn’t actually produce significantly negative impacts on the quality-of-life of individual white people in the present.
Now, of course, this is where you and I both disagree strongly with Ignatiev, given that we recognize that some ethnic groups actually are quite bad on average and have the ability to introduce a lot of pretty substantial negative externalities in a pretty short period of time when given any power/leeway. That being said, I would hope you can acknowledge that none of those externalities, as of yet, have risen to anywhere near a level of badness comparable to racial chattel slavery, industrial-scale pogroms, apartheid, etc. (You may believe that things could get that bad for a significant number of white people within our lifetimes. I think the probability of this is low but that it’s worth taking at least some basic measures to guard against. Ignatiev believes such an outcome is totally implausible, and that none of his political allies would ever dream of doing something like this even if they could.)
And again, as far as I call tell Ignatiev does believe that he personally benefits from a system of white supremacy. Unlike you, he doesn’t appear to just see himself as “white-passing, but exempt from all the really bad criticisms of white people because he’s Jewish.” He, like most people who are honest about it, recognizes that he’s white in every way that counts, and that this has benefited him tangibly. (Police officers are less likely to apply a heightened scrutiny to him upon clocking him visually. Service staff are more likely to treat him deferentially rather than warily. And so on and so forth.)
Most people, whose “Jewdars” are quite weak, would probably have no idea Ignatiev is Jewish unless they asked him, or unless they happened to have a reason to look up his early life on Wikipedia. Therefore, if Ignatiev does genuinely believe that a visibly white/European phenotype confers material advantages in this country, then he is advocating stripping himself of those advantages. I don’t think he sees “abolishing whiteness” as being in his cynical self-interest, in the way that Ben Shapiro sees pro-Jewishness as in his self-interest. Again, Ignatiev does not seem to have any affinity with the Jewish community, does not seem to wish to avail himself of protection within it while whiteness is being abolished, and opposes the continued existence of an Israeli state where Jews could escape to if they fall afoul of “anti-white” activity.
You, Hoffmeister, accuse me of being an equal-offender racist- racist against everyone
I have never called you a “racist”, and I don’t ever unironically use that word. What I do believe is that your identity commitments are too parochial. That you’re thinking too small by focusing on the centrality and purity of European-derived people only. That you’re unnecessarily excluding millions, potentially billions, of valuable contributors to the human race, because you’re too micro-focused on reifying whiteness.
It's telling then that you are defensive of Ignatiev who defends Black Identity on the basis that it musters resistance to White Identity. So his real position is the precise opposite of what you imagine. He supports using Black Identity as a tool to undermine White Identity
Does he? Genuinely, are there specific passages of his writing in which he does so? I’m not aware of any, although I’m far from a connoisseur of his work. If you have evidence of this it would likely change my assessment of him considerably.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
I will echo @erwgv3g34 and say that this is ultimately probably the only sustainable solution. Maybe rope instead of bullets, or lethal injection or whatever other painless and visually non-icky method of execution our society wants to come up with, but the general idea of executing the chronically homeless or profoundly mentally ill is entirely sound.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
13d ago
But saying "I don't really mean X" when there are plenty of people in your coalition who do mean X is indistinguishable from giving them cover and encouraging them even if you pinky swear that that isn't really what you mean.
Right, so, I acknowledge that this is by far the largest problem with Ignatiev’s beliefs. Again, I don’t think people should agree with him, I comprehensively reject his political project, and I want him to fail miserably and to die knowing that his entire life’s work was a pointless, cancerous failure.
There is a way for naïve white progressives — even ones who are as clearly maladjusted and full of spite as Noel Ignatiev — to be reintegrated back into a politically healthy discussion, but only once they have persuasively demonstrated that they understand the extent to which they’ve directly empowered the most worthless, destructive, spiteful, irredeemable elements of our society. Since that’s not happening any time soon, we can keep trying to crush the Ignatievs of the world. I just think we can do so without calling them liars and hypocrites.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
14d ago
Jews do not have anywhere near the level of explicit racial solidarity that whites had in, say, apartheid South Africa, or the Antebellum American South. Whatever covert influence some powerful Jews have to influence things in their favor at the expense of others, surely you can acknowledge that their actions (outside of, arguably, Israel) are of a qualitatively different form than, say, passing laws explicitly forbidding non-Jews from owning property, voting, patronizing the same businesses as Jews, etc. The worst thing a powerful Jew can do to white people in 21st-century America is write a mean book about us, produce a TV series where we’re the bad guys, and attempt (with intermittent success) to legislatively block border enforcement. Contrast that with the worst era of White Supremacy, in which a white person could own a black person as property. The two situations are not comparable.
This doesn’t mean I don’t think discriminating against white people is bad! It shouldn’t happen, it shouldn’t be tolerated, and it certainly shouldn’t be celebrated on grounds of retributive justice, balancing the cosmic scales, etc. I’m white, I’m planning to continue to be white, and I will do what I can to resist efforts to dispossess me or to dissolve cultural norms which are good for me and mine. But I don’t believe that Noel Ignatiev has the power to make me a second-class citizen, or that there’s any realistic American future in which white people are explicitly and systemically oppressed based on group identity. Whereas there are plenty of countries where it’s at least realistic to believe that Jews could suffer that fate again, as they have in the past. (This doesn’t give anyone, Jew or gentile, a blank check to tear my culture to shreds in order to obviate the hypothetical possibility of future pogroms, to the extent that any of them are doing so.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
14d ago
You are being intentionally obtuse. You are obviously intelligent enough to parse Ignatiev’s actual beliefs, yet you intentionally flatten their nuance whenever they appear to deviate from your simplistic framing.
Let’s assume for a moment that Ignatiev is forthrightly representing his own beliefs. He wishes to abolish the cultural belief that appearance and ancestry should confer any prestige or preferential treatment upon any individual. He, like any committed critical theorist, believes that an inherent quality of “whiteness” — not simply a broadly European phenotype, but the cluster of meaning and historical importance retroactively applied to people with that phenotype — is a belief in a hierarchy in which white people are in some sense more important, more valuable, etc., than non-white people are.
In that sense, it is also true that he wants to “abolish the black race”; not to abolish the African phenotype, but to abolish the idea that anyone should care what ancestral group an individual appears to descend from. However, it means something different to lead with a call to abolish a powerful, hegemonically-empowered group than it does to lead with a call to abolish a more vulnerable, historically-persecuted group. When it comes to Jews, it makes sense for Ignatiev to say that Jewish people have just as much a right to their own private religious beliefs as anybody else, but that these religious beliefs should not be made into a template for policymaking, nor should Jews be treated as any more special than anyone else. (As they are in Israel, which is why Ignatiev has repeatedly expressed opposition to the existence of Israel.)
In this framing, anti-Semitism is bad specifically because it is one example of a larger category of beliefs: namely, that an individual’s ancestry or inherited religious beliefs should have any bearing on one’s treatment of, or expectations about, that individual. It happened that the context of the conversation Ignatiev was having centered around a Jewish-specific issue. (And one on which, as @Stefferi pointed out, Ignatiev came down on the side that did not advantage Jews rather than the one that did.) Had that conversation been about a black-centric issue, he would have said that anti-blackness is a crime against humanity.
Now, if all of these beliefs are his actual beliefs, there is no hypocrisy there at all. He is a standard-issue hardcore blank statist secular progressive who wants to abolish nations, dissolve unchosen bonds between individuals in order to liberate them to pursue a life of pure self-discovery and voluntary commitments. There’s no secret undercurrent of wanting to see Jewish people secretly privileging themselves while dissolving other macro-scale unchosen identities.
And of course you can say he’s lying, and that in fact his commitment to blank-slate liberated individualism does actually have a secret exception clause for Jews. (This appears to be your claim.) But then, if you’ve opened the door to accusing him of cynically lying, why are you certain that he’s honest about wanting to abolish whiteness, but also certain that he’s lying about not thinking anti-Semitism is any worse (or any better) than any other form of bigotry? Why couldn’t he be making a bombastic call to “abolish whiteness” because it’s catchy, provocative, and likely to get him a lot of attention, interview requests, and speaking engagements? Why is it that you believe Jews are liars, except when they say negative thing about white people?
Like, Ignatiev’s contention is that there is a society-wide belief that phenotypically-European people are more special than other races, and that’s it’s somehow important to keep them pure and make sure they continue to hold all the important positions of power in as many advanced first-world countries as possible, both because they’re entitled to those countries (“we built them”) and because they’re more qualified to competently run them, whereas other races would fuck it up. That’s what he means when he talks about “whiteness” and what he has explicitly argued for abolishing.
And this appears to be a pretty accurate descriptor of your beliefs! You do think those things about white people! When I’ve expressed enthusiasm about miscegenation between white people and East Asians, you’ve reacted with shock and horror, because you take it for granted that preserving the genetic purity of the white race is of considerable importance. When others have argued in favor of skilled non-white immigration into white countries, you’ve expressed fervent opposition because you don’t think non-whites would be responsible, capable, conscientious wielders of power within white countries. Basically you want non-white people to stay in the parts of the world that currently have all the non-white people, because you want them to stay separate from white people. You’ve made this explicit! The caricature of “whiteness” which Ignatiev attacks — one which, in truth, vanishingly few white people in the 21st century believe in — is the reality of your belief system.
If you want to claim that Ignatiev is making sone larger, more genocidal claim about wanting to directly harm all people of fair skin, or all people of European descent — and also that he wishes to exempt himself from this by retreating into a defensive and subversive Jewish identity — then you have to actually contend with the substance of his stated arguments.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
9mo ago
Right, I’m not even saying most of them have done anything morally wrong or worthy of prosecution or anything like that. I’m saying that in my ideal justice system most of their jobs would simply be obviated. They wouldn’t be needed anymore, because there would no longer be a need for trials for most criminal proceedings, and therefore no need for this whole process of haggling over plea deals. Many criminals would also not be entitled to legal representation, so there wouldn’t need to be this mass of public defenders.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
13d ago
We're already systematically and explicitly oppressed based on group identity! That it's not naked slavery doesn't matter one lick.
This is the crux of our disagreement. I just think it’s manifestly untrue that white people are “systemically and explicitly oppressed” in any country on earth. There are at least some number of people who want us to be — I’ve even met a couple of them — but those people have vanishingly little power at this moment. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t point them out and oppose them. It just means that you seem like a catastrophizing propagandist when you claim that those people are already actively oppressing white people right now, in America.
I don’t believe that having one’s culture disrupted/dismantled is oppression. I want very badly for many cultures in the world to be dissolved, including some within the United States. I don’t think it’d be oppressive at all for a government to do so. Mainstream early-20th-century white culture was one of the better and more functional cultures on earth. I want to preserve many of the remaining remnants of it; however even if we wanted to bring it back, it has been irreparably disrupted by technological advancements and the globalization of the world economy. That’s not inherently a bad thing.
What’s specifically bad is that, in the case of the United States, it has been partially usurped by a vulgar, consciously-hateful, anti-human gutter culture. Jews are by no means the primary creators of this culture, although many individual Jews have been influential in promulgating it. (Just as many Jews were influential in promulgating important parts of the previous American cultural era, the one you like; look up how many of the compositions in the “Great American Songbook” were written by Jews.)
I’m more-or-less fine with governments using heavy-handed tactics, including targeted population replacement, to change aspects of the culture(s) over which they have control. I just also want them to do so in favor of changes that are better for humanity, rather than worse. Smashing ghetto black culture should be a priority for future U.S. policymakers; they’ve already (probably not intentionally) partially achieved this in some major cities by facilitating mass Mexican immigration to those cities; the Mexicans have displaced blacks, taking over their neighborhoods and replacing their culture with a new one. There are plenty of things about Mexican culture I find grating, but it’s pretty much a wholesale improvement over ghetto blacks. This is one way in which population/cultural replacement can be a good thing.
Obviously this doesn’t mean that all mass immigration is good, or that every culture on earth should be smashed, or that every immigrant group will similarly be an improvement on what was there before it arrived. It’s pretty obvious that Sweden was better before a bunch of Somalis and Syrians showed up. (It remains unclear whether the counterfactual world in which Sweden did not embrace mass immigration, but also its fertility rates continued to plummet unabated, would be sustainable as a long-term project.) However, if, say, the Swedish government had invited in a bunch of Japanese immigrants, I think Sweden would have benefited quite a bit from that in the long run. Some cultural/population displacements are an improvement, some are a lateral move, and some are a downgrade. Smashing Appalachian hillbilly culture would also be a salutary goal of a future American regime, and that would potentially involve replacing white hillbillies with some non-white ethnicity. Depending on which ethnicity, that could be a strict improvement!
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
14d ago
Again, I’m not saying that Ignatiev’s beliefs are good — I oppose pretty much every aspect of his worldview — but simply that they are sincere and internally consistent. They’re not hypocritical. He doesn’t appear to want any special carve-out for Jewish people, nor does he seem to have any special affinity for Jewishness on account of his own personal ancestral background.
Like, yes, many Jews, Ignatiev himself, are hardcore believers in deracinated progressive abolishment of blood ties. So are many non-Jews! If you want to oppose their beliefs — and I do! — it is a useless distraction to try and smoke them out as secret Zionist special-pleading hypocrites. We can just oppose their actual stated beliefs, which are bad enough, instead of grasping at straws to call them liars.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
5mo ago
I’m not trying to “invent” reasons why global white racial consciousness can’t become a reality. I’m simply observing that up to this point, it has not happened, and I’m trying to identify the reasons why. I also want a global imperium of sorts, although my vision of it is not limited only to people of European descent. I want to be clear-eyed about what the obstacles to that are.
You are correct to note that European identities are far less insular than they were a few centuries ago, let alone a thousand years. Nearly nobody cares about being a Burgundian, or a Moravian, or a Cornishman; those identities have been subsumed into larger and more inclusive identities. That process could certainly continue to erode petty-nationalist concerns. (Or it could see reversals — see the reawakening of Welsh language and consciousness, or the growing Catalan separatist movement.)
However, there are still very significant and (on a human-historical scale) very fresh wounds of enmity preventing integration of certain white countries into a larger pan-European project. (Russia most obviously, but also in the Balkans.) When I hear a Swede take potshots at a Norwegian, or a Fleming express enmity toward a Walloon, I find it as exasperating and cringeworthy as you do. It’s a bit harder for me to dismiss out of hand a Pole’s or Finn’s suspicions and hypervigilance about Russians. There are still very serious geopolitical tensions and conflicts of interests which seem to present a considerable impediment to full “pan-Aryan imperium”.
And yet... there's still a Congressional Black Caucus. And the NAACP. And many, many, many other organizations dedicated to black advocacy. All of these arguments also apply to Jews who often disagree among themselves vehemently.... And yet....
Those are two groups of people with a very specific history of persecution and conflict with larger and more powerful ethnic groups, though. Their ethnogenesis was forged in defensive struggle. Whatever you and I think about how much difficulty whites have suffered as a result of the black presence in this country, it’s simply not comparable in any way to racial chattel enslavement. Whites in Europe, even during the headiest days of the Saracen and Mongol invasions, have not suffered collective persecution on the level of the anti-Jewish pogroms. Whites have not had any good reason to assume a collective defensive identity, defined to exclude another more numerous group. Whites were too busy making war on each other.
I’m a big fan of an “aspirational white identity” (although my conception of “whiteness” is considerably broader than yours), and since we’re responding to OP’s post about Gregory Hood, I’ll bring up that Hood has made the point that “America was the original European Union.” In America, people of European descent had at least two distinct outgroups — blacks and Amerindians — against which to contrast themselves. It’s easier to recognize one’s similarities to other whites when they’re thrown into such stark contrast by the existence of a very different Other.
I am desperately hoping that whites, Asians, and other advanced peoples are able to develop a collective consciousness, without needing to first go through our own crucible of collective persecution by a dominant collective enemy. We need to be looking toward the future and projecting out threats which are, at this early stage, mere potentialities, and to start thinking collectively before they become stark realities.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
6mo ago
Did he hate Germans? Or did he hate the German government? I haven’t seen any evidence of the former, although I’d be perfectly happy to be confronted with some.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
7mo ago
I think Liberalism can be tweaked and refined significantly. For example, its claims of universal human equality made more sense in the context under which they were developed. However, now that we have a much larger exposure to the full breadth of global humanity, we can observe conclusively that this supposed equality is not the reality on the ground. So, we can refine liberalism to take that into account - either by limiting its universalist commitments, or by using the technologies we have available — and the even better ones yet to be developed! — to actually make that equality a reality through eugenics.
Liberalism is built for 130-IQ Anglos — so, let’s make the rest of the world more like 130-IQ Anglos! I also think we can syncretize liberalism with the more communitarian aspects of Asian societies, strengthening both traditions through fusion. There’s a lot of room for intellectual and political developments to obviate some of the worst and most deluded/obsolete aspects of Classical Liberalism.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
9mo ago
The Rams weren’t missing half their receiving corps in that game.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
There are historical figures and movements that understood this, and centrists love to sneer at them. Going so far as to cast the doom of the western people in a salvageable light rather than admit they're wrong.
You’re being coy here, but in other comments you’ve been more explicit that you think we should look to the National Socialists for a model. Now, I’m happy to point out the things the Third Reich got right, and their interest in eugenics is probably the best argument for not totally discarding their legacy.
That being said, the legitimacy of their eugenic project is severely compromised by the fact that arguably the central thrust of it was rounding up massive numbers of Jews - a very high-quality population with a proven track record of great achievements, both in Germany and beyond - and causing their deaths via either negligence or outright murder, depending on which sources you believe.
This is compounded by the fact that they clearly expressed a desire to take military actions which they readily expected to lead to the deaths of some substantial number of white Slavs, another population who, while at that time not quite on par with the Germanic peoples due to a bunch of factors we can debate, were clearly at worst a near-peer brother civilization to the rest of Europe. Even casting the Reich’s foreign policy in the best light by presenting it as a noble war against Bolshevism, you’re still left questioning just how much destruction they were willing to visit upon the populations of Eastern Europe in order to achieve such an aim.
All of this to say, you might want to attempt a bit more empathy regarding the specific reasons why intelligent people who share your basic goals and values might still think that the fascists were and are a terrible and counterproductive model for the achievements of those goals and the furtherance of those values. One can believe that eugenics is a fundamentally good and important project while being reasonably squeamish about the specific actions historically taken in the interest of that project, as well as reasonably suspicious of some of the ulterior motives held by the most visible and historically-impactful proponents of the project.
Most places on earth have people with many great qualities. East Asia, maybe, in particular. However, I don't want to live in China, Korea or Japan. I want to live where I live now and I want my future descendants to be afforded the same luxury. I am very much not in favor of introducing the sort of status and award obsessed 'Asian' into my immediate environment. It leads to the same toxic study and work culture on display in those countries and I very much prefer mine over theirs.
What about a synthesis of both cultures, which incorporates the best aspects of both and seeks to sand off the worst and most obsolete aspects of each culture? I would argue that modern Japan and Korea are already a sort of prototype version of this: Western military occupation and cultural-political influence has, since the 1940s and 50s, already been moving those countries in a more Westernized direction; however, they’ve married those Western influences to the core Eastern aspects of their society, producing something that is in a great many ways superior to both extremes. It really is a best-of-both-worlds situation. Now, I agree that this process is incomplete, and that some parts of those cultures still need ironing out; I agree that the work/study culture is too extreme. That being said, there are many ways I would like to see Western cultures become more like Asian ones.
I think that a long-term melding of West and East is unequivocally the best outcome for not only both cultural spheres, but for humanity as a whole. Perhaps influenced overmuch by the black-and-white thinking of the National Socialists, you seem to be trapped in an either/or framing, in which one culture’s norms must be jealously guarded against influence by another. I think that’s the wrong approach. The ubermensch in my mind is a hapa race of diligent, creative, orderly but passionate, aristocratic in spirit without allowing status obsession to crowd out virtue, maintaining the capacity for violence while still holding it at arm’s length. For that to happen, some Asians are going to have to show up in Western societies and be able to do their thing; ditto for whites in Asian societies. Unlike you, I do not perceive this as an invasion by those who will wreck something precious about my society. (Note that I have said unabashedly that there are many groups whom I perceive as dangerous invaders; I just don’t see East Asians as one of them.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
20d ago
Right, I understand that much, I just don’t understand what their existence is supposed to imply about social relations on this continent. Are people able to suppress the appearance of spren related to an emotion they’re currently feeling but would like to conceal? Can actors cause spren to appear which outwardly indicate the appearance of a particular emotion, even when the actor is not authentically experiencing that emotion internally? Maybe some of these things get explored later in the series, but for right now they just seem like a weird decoration or curiosity.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1mo 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
3mo ago
This is why I ask people to identify whether the American or French revolution was a more central example of the Enlightenment. My impression is that the consensus answer is the French revolution is the more Enlightened
The consensus among whom? Which proponents of the Enlightenment today do you believe would earnestly claim that the Jacobins better encapsulated the positive core of their beliefs than the Founding Fathers did? Surely you’re aware that a substantial majority of the users of this site would self-identify as fans of the Enlightenment, broadly construed; of those users, how many do you believe agree with the supposed “consensus” that you’re claiming exists? My support for the Enlightenment is guarded and contingent at best, so perhaps I don’t count, but I would certainly say that the naked bloodlust evinced by the Jacobins — the ardent, unthinking zeal with which they pursued their aims, the hasty and slapdash nature of their kangaroo courts, and the resulting devolution into vengeful recriminations and purity spirals — pretty clearly mark them as failing, in a catastrophic way, to hew to the better natures to which the Enlightenment purports to urge us all to aspire. (Note that I’m no great booster of the American Founding either, so this isn’t meant to let them off the hook.)
Now that bedazzling scientific advancements are slowing down
This strikes me as a disastrously shortsighted comment. You’re just begging to end up looking foolish, making predictions like this. I see no signs that technological advancements (“bedazzling” or otherwise) are slowing down any time soon. My accusation of Traditionalism Of The Gaps is, I’m sad to say, somewhat vindicated by your comment.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
3mo ago
They didn’t support the government doing that executing, though. That would be a very significant change in position.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
3mo ago
I dunno, it’s had multiple articles a day for as long as I was reading it. (I finally bailed on the site a few months ago, but I was a regular reader for a few years.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
3mo ago
I mean this is pretty much word-for-word the apology offered by Richard Hanania in regards to his past writing for white nationalist publications under the pen name Richard Hoste, and the apology appears to have been broadly accepted. His substack is popular and, as I understand it, widely read among very powerful people in America, and his book (about the need to dismantle and repeal the Civil Rights Act, no less!) doesn’t appear to have suffered any decline in sales as a result of the revelation of his past views. I think an apology seen as sincere because it’s backed up by an observable alteration in behavior is easy for most people to accept in good faith.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
4mo ago
There is an inherent, intrinsic spiritual bond between Yahweh and the Jews. This is so incredibly undeniable.
And yet you yourself actually seem to deny it. You answered one of Rafa’s other comments about your own spirituality by saying you believe religion is merely social technology. If this is the case — if there is no actual divine entity who has real and revealed demands and preferences — then it what sense can it be true that Jews have an inherent, spiritual bond with Yahweh? (Or with any other nonexistent deity?) At best you can say that pious Jews sincerely believe that they have an inherent spiritual bond with Yahweh, even though in actuality that Yahweh is merely an ancient literary device.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
5mo ago
Enslaved Africans (and indentured servants from, among other places, Ireland) have been here since before the arrival of the Puritans in New England, and only about a decade after the establishment of Jamestown. Even if you exclude the Amerindians (which, fair enough, so do I) it’s simply a fact that a substantial portion of non-Anglo-Saxon people have always been a sizable part of the populace of this country, even if they were not integrated into the political fabric of society.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
5mo ago
As one of the most pro-law-and-order posters here, I would like to register that I think this is an awful decision — a total betrayal of those of Trump’s supporters who were (and still are) hoping that he will be an effective avatar for our ideology. Starting off your presidency by pardoning violent rioters is a highly counterproductive act as far as what I want from Trump is concerned.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
5mo ago
I believe @Celestial-body-NOS was referencing Oliver Hardy, not Charlie Chaplin.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
5mo ago
I’m not even talking about “moving out”. I’m saying that black people, like anyone else, can do all sorts of things outside the neighborhoods where they live. Even ones who don’t move out of their neighborhoods can still cause problems and discomfort for people living in other neighborhoods.
There are plenty, including within China, who want to see “the Han nation” — as in, a national self-understanding in which Han people are believed to be the central example of what a Chinese person is, in which their language and their customs are given pride of place, and in which they are “supreme” over other ethnic groups within the borders of the country” — abolished as such. This can be true even while also believing that every individual Han-descended person should live a happy, thriving life as a deracinated invidual.
I agree that this would be a foolish thing for me to advocate were I to move to China. It would also be laughable because I have no power whatsoever to effect such an outcome in China. Ignatiev does believe, with some justification, that he can do his part to move the needle closer to that outcome in America. He has been extremely open about that, and has also been equally extremely open about not wanting to replace the cold American white-centric paradigm with a new Jewish-centric one. He is, so far as I can tell, a sincere believer that the entire concept of a hegemonic “national ethnicity” should be abolished everywhere. This inherently means taking power away from hegemonic groups; there’s no time-sensitive reason, and therefore no reason to expend any political/intellectual capital, in also trying to abolish the folkways of minorities whose ethnic preferences are already not given pride of place within America.
Ignatiev does not expect to live to see the day when any non-white ethnic group(s) have achieved hegemonic dominance over America (and I assume he believes that such an outcome is both implausible and undesirable) so why would he waste his time distracting from the far more urgent need to discomfit and dispossess (culturally and otherwise) the dominant group? Thus, again, the “double standard” makes perfect sense and is entirely intellectually justifiable, given Ignatiev’s priors.
More options
Context Copy link