Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
No bio...
User ID: 732
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
To be very clear, I am a hardcore proponent of law and order, and I strongly desire a society where Daniel Penny would never have had to do what he did, because it wouldn’t have gotten to that point. I don’t hunger for an era of vigilantism and wanton interpersonal violence; there’s a reason that I’ve made it into my thirties without ever engaging in a single act of interpersonal violence. While I do believe that war and combat can be ennobling for some men under certain circumstances, I’m largely in agreement with you that the reduction of violence in favor of civilization has been, on balance, a significant improvement for mankind.
However, I do sincerely believe that the long-term maintenance of society does in fact depend on the application of severe violence by the state toward certain individuals within society. Treating schizophrenic repeat-offending criminals as “people who need help” is a cancerous attitude which will erode - and already has eroded - civilization. No, he did not “need help” and he did not deserve help; he was a useless scumbag, a burden on every other person around him, and we are better off without him in every possible way. I agree with you that it’s far from ideal that random strangers had to take matters into their own hands to do to Jordan Neely what the state should have already done, in a way that would have been legitimized by the imprimatur of state sovereignty and monopoly on violence. Somebody needed to permanently remove Jordan Neely from society, and if it’s not going to be the state - which, clearly, given the state of our civilization, it wasn’t going to be - the next best thing is 24-year-old former Marines.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
This is a very fair point and I absolutely don’t deny that a healthy civilization embraces hierarchy and allows the strong and the virtuous to impose their will upon the weak and the degenerate. My complaint here is that the structures of society that cultivate virtue and coordinate the actions of the strong in order to direct their actions toward the benefit and protection of the weak have broken down; in their absence, the strong are instead incentivized to act privately and purely for their own individual self-interest, and the weak are preyed upon instead of protected.
I am someone with a lot to offer society, but only if society creates the conditions that allow me to not need to engage in interpersonal violence in order to function. I have little to no interest in the libertarian ethos of self-reliance and rugged manly individualism; I acknowledge that this is good and healthy for certain people, and I want there to be outlets for them to express and experience that lifestyle, but count me among the people who thrive under precisely the “bug-man” strictures that such people are chafing against.
I do want and need the state to have my back and protect me; I would prefer the state not to be a nanny state, but rather a daddy state, where we send men who look like Daniel Penny to take out the trash, rather than sending nurturing female social workers to coddle and enable the Jordan Neelys of the world. I want the strong to be on my side, and to enact violence against the “weak” - in this case, the morally weak and the useless - on my behalf and in the service of a society that benefits both the Virtuous Strong and the Useful Weak.
all the stuff about "large, high-testosterone, social and biological inferiors" is just racial seething.
I’m not saying he’s my social and biological inferior because he’s black. He’s my social inferior because he’s a destructive parasite, incapable of contributing positively to society, constantly taking from those around him; he’s my biological inferior because he’s schizophrenic. His brain is incurably defective, and that condition is heritable and makes him a danger to others.
I don’t know how you got The Turner Diaries out of anything I’ve said; I do not advocate mass violence against non-criminal black individuals, and never have. We have hundreds of thousands of white bums, schizos, and scumbags in this country, and I advocate precisely the same treatment for them.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
Why not also kill or imprison your political opponents, the public school teachers spreading LGBT propaganda
Because they’re intelligent, talented, and public-spirited individuals whose skills and disposition can and should be directed toward prosocial ends.
the soft-on-crime district attorneys
Yes, these people should be lustrated and disallowed from practicing law or having any position of influence in our civilization moving forward.
Antifa members
Antifa draws its membership, at least at the street level, from the dregs of society. People who are defective and incapable of fitting into civilized society. I don’t care what happens to them, but I’m not particularly bothered that it will probably not end well for them.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
I go to the gym 4-5 times a week, but the results I get have not yet given me the physical tools I would need to contend with a large schizophrenic man with a nearly boundless capacity for brutal violence. I’ve thought about starting a regime of steroids, testosterone supplements, etc. in order to help me see better results, but I’m concerned about what the knock-on effects would be on the other parts of my life.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
The easiest solution here, as far as I can tell, is to have different legal regimes for rural life vs. urban life. Let urban life be for the bug-man law-and-order types like me, with a concomitant no-nonsense legal regime, and for the rowdy teenagers and drunkards who are concerned about their mischief falling afoul of that regime, let them go mess around in the rural areas where the legal regime is designed to provide an outlet for the barbarian lifestyle. (I don’t mean barbarian in a negative way, but simply to draw a contrast between that ethos and the cosmopolitan lifestyle I prefer.)
Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever done anything in my life that would have resulted in me being killed or severely punished under the type of legal regime I’m advocating. I’ve been drunk and stupid before, but never in a way that would cause strangers to feel threatened by me; maybe that’s just because I’m small and not physically-imposing, so my drunk behavior doesn’t present as menacing even if I’m performing the same actions as you and your friends did.
I do have the “privilege” of being white and middle-class-presenting, meaning that people are far less likely to assume the worst of me than they are of someone who looks and acts like Jordan Neely; fortunately, that disparity in perception is justified by statistical reality. People really should be less scared of me than they were of Jordan Neely; if they assumed he had a long rap sheet and was capable of violence, they were right to assume that - not only because we know that it’s true, but because people who look and act like him are, statistically, far more likely to have that be true of them than people who looks and act like me are.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
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.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
This is almost-certainly part of my problem.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
Do we really want to go down the road of defining how many arrests it takes before someone is legally considered scum and forfeits basic civil rights most of us enjoy?
YES. Is this actually supposed to be a difficult question?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
Alright, look, my totally-serious well-considered answer is something like this: every civilization in history, before the last century or so, had an understanding that there are irredeemably useless and/or dangerous people, and found a way to dispose of them. I am not suggesting that every society in history has employed an optimal and reasonable solution to the existence of these people, nor am I suggesting that all imaginable future societies will take approaches that I would consider acceptable.
The hypothetical dystopian panopticon that arrests or punished normal citizens hundreds of times a month for utterly innocuous behavior is not a society I’d want to live in. But we have to ask ourselves: how likely is such a nightmare scenario to become reality? Isn’t it much more likely that a future society will find a middle ground somewhere in between the maximally-tolerant legal regime advocated by today’s progressive elite on the one hand, and the maximally-draconian fever dream which you may imagine the hard-right is capable of implementing?
Surely the answer to “how many arrests does it take before we declare somebody scum and he loses his basically civil rights” has some answer that you would consider reasonable? If there were a guy who’d been arrested 4,000 times, and all of them were for things you and I would both agree are antisocial and destructive, that’s someone that it’s necessary to do something about… right?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
I definitely did not mean to imply that the cultivation of strength - nor even the cultivation of a capacity for interpersonal violence! - is beneath personal excellence. I advocate the pursuit of physical excellence right alongside intellectual/spiritual excellence. I’m just being honest about the limitations that my personal body/genetics has placed on the level of strength that I am likely to be able to successfully cultivate.
I totally reject this reading of history, which is probably the main reason why you and I disagree so strongly. I accept the reality of technological/medical advancement, but reject the narrative of monotonic societal/cultural improvement. I don’t think that most societies before a century ago were “really bad places to live”, especially if you weren’t a lunatic or a criminal.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
As I made clear in another comment, this passage had nothing to do with race - I get why people assume that everything is racial in my mind, but actually there are other things I care about as well - and everything to do with the fact that the guy has a massive criminal rap sheet, is homeless and wholly dependent on others, and is a drain on society; also the fact that he has a (currently) incurable mental illness that renders him a permanent danger to other people. He’s a perfect example of someone who needs to be removed from the gene pool, improving the genetic stock of humanity immediately.
As for whether or not I’d be fine with being humiliated by my betters… it depends on the reasons they’re humiliating me in this hypothetical scenario, and whether or not I stand to ultimately gain from it. While I’m skeptical about some elements of the structure and culture of military initiation - basic training, boot camp, etc. - I recognize that the whole “the drill sergeant treats you like dirt and makes a humiliating example out of you” thing has an impressive history of creating an effective fighting force. This would be a scenario where a man is being dominated by his social better, in order to forge him into something improved. He’s suffering a temporary loss in status in order to not only enhance his own status later on down the line, but also to increase the total quotient of effectiveness and status of the group as a whole.
This is markedly different from a situation in which I’m being dominated by my social inferior; it lowers my own status immensely, but produces no corresponding rise in status later on - unless, of course, I respond with force that could get me judicially lynched by a regime that hates me and finds the schizos useful/sacred - and it also immiserates others around me who watch the situation and either feel powerless to intervene, or who have to sublimate the shame of being too apathetic to care.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
I didn't say a word about racial and did not assume it. I think this is the case of protesting too much.
You literally asked me if my criteria for declaring someone my superior is “more Aryan”. Don’t pretend you didn’t make it racial.
As for everything else in your comment, I declare unequivocally that the eugenicists were correct, and that what the Third Reich did to Jews was an unforgivable travesty not only because industrialized mass murder is a moral abomination, but also because Jews are a generally high-quality, high-human-capital population. Real eugenicists, of the turn-of-the-century progressive-aligned variety, stayed focused on removing actually dysgenic elements from the population - not via murder, but via sterilization and other non-violent policies - such as the mentally retarded and degenerate populations. The fact that our society marginalized and repudiated them after WWII to retroactively legitimize the Global American Empire was a catastrophic blow to our civilization.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
No, Skibboleth correctly interpreted my comment. The bit about Neely’s death being a tragic and unforeseen accident is from the perspective of Dan Penny, who by all accounts did not intend to kill Neely and almost certainly does view the situation as tragic. I do not view it as tragic, and the measures I’m calling for would be neither unforeseen nor accidental.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
Not all of them, but a substantial portion. I would like to live under a state with the capacity, the credibility, and the sovereignty to effectively carry out this policy, with the legitimate support of the public, but given the current state of our ruling elite I would settle for mass vigilantism. Note that this is specifically about the chronically homeless, the ones who have conclusively and consistently demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to respond productively to less punitive opportunities for self-betterment. The ones with long criminal records, no recent record of employment or stable contributions to society.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
you're about 100x too extreme in the opposite direction.
I understand that, and I have no illusions that my very hardline position will be implemented. I’m anchoring the right end of the distribution of possible positions, and I recognize that the real future approach will ideally be somewhere in between mine and what we have now.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
What I meant by this is that it’s also possible that the future approach will be even farther left than what we have now. That the current regime not only persists but grows even stronger and more secure in its moral/legal hegemony. Compared to that outcome, I’d be happy with a compromise position located somewhere in the general direction of my position.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
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.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
Couldn’t it be that there are just far less mentally ill people in Japan, per capita? At least when it comes to the mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, which are likely to produce homelessness and street harassment? I’ve seen persuasive evidence that rates of schizophrenia differ by race/ethnicity, and it seems plausible that Japan would have significantly less homelessness than the U.S. no matter what economic/political arrangement were in place in either country.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
Right, I’m specifically talking about the mental illnesses that cause the types of symptoms we associate with homeless street harassers; I don’t doubt that Japan has high rates of depression, anxiety, etc., but those don’t make you homeless and don’t make you harass strangers.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
Here’s an analysis of race differences in psychotic personality. Huadpe also linked to a similar one up above. I’ll see if I can find one about schizophrenia.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
You’re right, and I should have been far more careful in my phrasing and distinguished those two things. Good call-out.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
Meanwhile the cynical bastard in my wants to believe that Id Pol is what people resort to when they are not secure in their own identity, which is why it's loudest advocates always seem to be some sort of sexual deviant (IE Gay, Trans, Furry, Pedo, Antinatalist, Etc...).
An absurd and unsupported claim, as per usual. Focusing only on white identity advocates, I find prominent figures such as Jared Taylor, a devoted family man with, as far as I’m aware, a spotless personal reputation and no signs of deviance - sexual or otherwise - whatsoever. Ditto for Taylor’s star writer at American Renaissance, Gregory Hood, who lives in rural West Virginia with his very normal family. Ditto for Peter Brimelow, Henrik Palmgren, and scores of other identitarian figures I could name. Not a sexual deviant among them.
And then expanding out to prominent black identitarian figures, I find guys like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi, who, despite any of the negative things I can say about them, are similarly devoted family men with normal wives and normal sex lives, as far as I’m aware. You can, of course, nut-pick the weirdoes and deviants in any movement - many here would gleefully oblige if asked for example of “Trad-Con” luminaries who have turned out to have scandalous secret sex lives - but I think an unbiased observer would find your claim mostly unsupported.
The identity of the man who choked Jordan Neely on the NYC subway has been made public.
The man now gets to become the center of a media firestorm, and will certainly be subjected to credible threats, to say nothing of the likelihood that the activists in charge of Manhattan’s criminal justice system will indict him. If he ever gets to live a normal life again, it certainly won’t be in New York, and probably not in any urban blue-heavy environment in this country. Future prospective employers will know him as the guy who murdered a defenseless man and beloved Michael Jackson impersonator who was experiencing homelessness and needed help. This will be how he’ll be perceived by a substantial number of important people who will have the power to determine important things about the future of his life, regardless of any legal outcomes for him, favorable or otherwise.
I told the story previously of how I was assaulted on public transit by a mentally-ill black lowlife, and how I was very close to being severely injured and nobody in the vicinity would have been able nor willing to stop it from happening. (Sorry, the comment search functions both here and on Reddit are terrible, such that it would be too much work for me to track down that comment thread.) Since posting that story, a very similar situation happened to me yet again - with a predictably similar antagonist - and once again, I was sickened and humiliated not only by the actions of the schizophrenic loser who accosted me, and by my relative inability to effectively defend myself if the guy had started attacking me, but also by the inaction of the other grown men standing nearby. Without telling the whole story, I ended up in that position because I attempted to stop the lunatic from harassing a different guy, and then that guy stood around and watched the assailant menace me and did not intervene in any way.
I have fantasized about doing exactly what Daniel Penny - the NYC subway hero - did. Except for in my fantasies, I didn’t unintentionally end the man’s life due to a tragic and unforeseen accident; I just kicked the absolute shit out of him, taking him by surprise and beating him within an inch of his life, or stabbing him before he could get a hand in me. These fantasies are just that: unrealistic power fantasies, the stuff I would do if I were a much stronger, taller, more physically-powerful, more experienced with interpersonal violence than I actually am. I’ve never been in a proper fistfight, and even if I knew how to properly defend myself, in both this situation and the previous one, I allowed the guy to close distance on me and get into an advantageous position, such that they had me right where they wanted me.
I’ve stewed and ideated about what I could have done differently, why I’m a grown man who let myself be treated like a pathetic plaything by individuals who are my social and biological inferiors in every imaginable way except for that I’m diminutive and even-tempered while they’re large, high-testosterone, and well-acquainted with violence because it’s literally the only tool in their toolbox.
I’ve also thought about what would have been the consequences for me if somehow I really had been able to put these guys in their place and seriously injure or kill them. I’ve imagined being at trial - a highly-publicized media shitstorm of a trial, given the demographics involved - and having to answer questions that are designed to get me to hang myself with their rope. I’ve thought about what would happen if they found my posts on The Motte. If they asked me, “Are you glad that Mr. Schizo is dead?” How could I credibly answer “no, this is a terrible tragedy, I never wanted to take someone’s life” when I’ve got a backlog of posts here saying explicitly that I believe that schizophrenic street criminals’ lives have no value whatsoever and that the world would be better if all of them were summarily rounded up and sent to gulags or executed? If they were to ask me “did you do this because Mr. Schizo is black”, no matter how sincerely I would answer “no, it’s because he was attacking me”, how can I be confident that they won’t drag up all my posts here and paint me as a “hate criminal”?
I have no idea how racially-aware Daniel Penny is. I have no clue if he has similar opinions about the scourge of worthless criminal crazies and what to do about them, and I have no reason to assume that his lawyers are lying when they say that he’s devastated that Jordan Neely died, that Mr. Penny never wanted nor foresaw this outcome, etc. It’s very easy for me to say “I’m glad Jordan Neely is dead, you did the world a favor, this was a wonderful thing you did and you shouldn’t feel an ounce of guilt or sadness about it”, but in the actual event that I did what Mr. Penny did, I probably would be pretty shaken-up about it. For most people, taking a life - especially when you hadn’t planned to - is probably pretty psychologically destabilizing, even if it was totally necessary and justified.
Still, though, what if Penny thinks the same way I do about the homeless population? What if he truly does believe, as I do, that Jordan Neely was human garbage who had no redeeming value, and that his death is a great boon to the entire population of NYC? He can’t say that in court, even if it’s true. He would be pilloried and convicted of manslaughter and sent to prison. His only legal hope is to vociferously insist that Neely’s death is a tragedy, that he would never have done what he did if he could have foreseen that it would result in a death, that he is 100% innocent of the crime of racial consciousness or animus toward the experiencing-homelessness population. His future depends on his ability to persuasively perform colorblind egalitarian liberalism, regardless of whether or not he believes in it or not.
Outside of the edgy dissident-right spaces I frequent, every other commentator, even putatively conservative ones, are doing the expected throat-clearing about how Neely’s death is a tragedy, that we all wish he “could have gotten the help he needed”, etc. If anyone believes, as I do, that the first step to saving our civilization is for tens of thousands of people to pull a Daniel Penny on their local subway-screaming bum, they’re sure not saying it out loud. The veil of self-censorship and paying homage to liberal pieties will persist no matter what happens to Daniel Penny, and nobody will get the public catharsis of hearing a powerful or important person say out loud that Jordan Neely’s death was a good thing and we need more of it. Those who do say something like that out loud better hope and pray that they’re never thrust into a courtroom and asked to defend those opinions under oath; the defense stand is no place for hard-nosed honesty, and neither is our society.
More options
Context Copy link