As someone who actually has the Platinum trophy for MGSV: TPP (PS4), I have no idea what you're talking about.
Noctocyanin was one of the last items I ever recall using (probably a late unlock), you are never forced to equip it, and I saw no reason to equip it. Consequently, I used it for no more than a few minutes in 200+ hours of gameplay, and not anywhere near '90% of the time'.
I don't think Noctocyanin made any visual changes to the game outside of how enemies appear, either. It's like you're conflating Reflex Mode (which I usually switched off), which indeed does greatly alter the game's appearance to remove colour for a few seconds, with it.
Acceleramin can be used to artificially induce Reflex Mode, but still doesn't do what Noctocyanin does for enemies.
I find it interesting that Carney seems to be failing even on the one thing he was expected by the masses to succeed at because of his banking background: muh economy. I remember looking at his website before he became Prime Minister: the list of things he was campaigning on was purely economic (housing, etc.), excepting climate change, which was bolted on at the very bottom probably to appease certain types of Green Leftists.
In part, he ended up being praised by the Left precisely because he was an economist, and they laughably dumped all of their anti-capitalism to rally around him because, well, surely an economist would be better than Trump, who, after all, is not an economist.
Turns out that to simply elect a deeply capitalistic 'anti-Trump' out of Trump Derangement Syndrome was - big surprise - a poor idea. Yes, Trump did communicate an unusual expansionism at the time (we'll regain the Panama Canal, we'll get Greenland, etc.), but that has predictably totally died off while Canadians are stuck with the consequences of their irrational fears of what are ultimately Trump's unrealizable pipe dreams. (Not that the Conservatives were any better, since, for instance, a lesbian Jewess would have became Deputy Prime Minister.)
They're just copying the Irish (everyone is good but the English) and Catalans (everyone is good but the Spaniards). Consequently, the Irish and Catalans are massive proponents of multi-racialism, because they see 'new Irish' and 'new Catalans' as fellow allies against the English and Spaniards, respectively.
Same thing in the Ukraine (everyone is good but the Russians: anyone who even speaks Russian is evil and is 0% Ukrainian, and Okechukwu and Oluwadamilola are 100% Ukrainian).
For some reason, quite a few peoples of European descent now only have a negative, hateful identity based on being 'not-X'. 'Not-English', 'not-Spanish', 'not-Russian', 'not-American', etc. In practice, that means that they desire a globalization that includes absolutely everybody except that one group, hence places like Dublin, Barcelona, Toronto, Vancouver, etc. being 'everywhere' cities with exceedingly little that is unique about them.
Somehow, I actually had the feeling that this would happen all the way back when I watched it, weeks ago. Specifically, that Armie would basically backstab Uwe Boll - without whom he would have remained cancelled - and refuse to do the sequel that Boll intends to do, because Boll has outlived his usefulness to him and continued association with Boll would be unlikely to help his reignited career.
Admittedly, the recent evidence for this happening is simply second-hand: so far, it is something like a reporter claiming that someone said to her that Armie Hammer called her while crying and called the final product hateful and disgusting.
When I read this, I thought that there are three possibilities:
Firstly, Armie generally didn't realize how the film would look. He sees it and the Judeo-Leftist in his paternal ancestry (e.g. Armand Michael Hammer was very friendly with the Soviets and seems to even have been a Soviet spy; Julius Hammer was a communist who helped get the CPUSA up and running) genuinely thinks: 'What on Earth have I done?', and starts calling people in hysterics. Even his name is Leftist: Julius cleverly named his son Armand because the symbol used by his particular communist group was an arm and hammer at the time (his name, then, was really a veiled way of saying 'arm and hammer'). Armand Michael Hammer then passed the name down to his son, Armand Douglas Hammer, that is, Armie Hammer. (It is, however, worth mentioning that 'Armand' is not pronounced like 'Ah-Manned' or 'Almond': the last letter in 'Armand' is silent, nor does the second syllable consequently become 'mon' rather than 'mond' as a result, but is like 'yarn' with the 'y' swapped for an 'm'. Pronounce it like 'Ah-marn'.)
Secondly, the performative interpretation, closest to my first paragraph. Armie knew what he was getting into, but as he was quoted as saying, he would even be willing to act in a dogfood commercial if that's what it would take to restart his acting career. Thus, Armie accepts the role for $250,000, but backstabbing Uwe was always at the back of his mind. Thus his calling people in hysterics, calling it hateful and disgusting is a pre-planned act with the goal of severing ties with Uwe.
Thirdly, the 'bs' interpretation: somebody (e.g. the original reporter, or the original reporter's source) is circulating lies about Armie. The evidence, admittedly, is currently weak. Let's consider Boll's perspective. It is worth mentioning that Boll's social media and interviews deny that this has happened. Boll instead says that Armie was present during much of the editing, and also saw a version (maybe not fully complete) of the film at a film festival back in November 2025. Consequently, the idea that Armie had no idea what the final film would look like seems slim.
My verdict at this point is that either interpretation 2 or 3 are correct. Interpretation 1 makes very little sense unless the editing and the film festival version that Armie saw in November differed very significantly from the final film.
In conclusion, my reasoning is this: it's either bs and Armie will be back for Citizen Vigilante 2 (interpretation 3) or Armie simply worked with Uwe to use him as a springboard to catapult him back to (relative) fame, with the intention of backstabbing him all along once association with him became more of a liability than an expedient (interpretation 2).
When I was an active gamer, I was doing what this guy was doing every Steam sale. I'd use some third-party site which brought up the Steam specials, I'd sort them by discount percentage and look closely at what was 80%+ off. Consequently, I amassed hundreds of games for very little money, the vast majority of which I'll probably never play.
Looking at this list:
Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition is 85% off and gets my general approval. I have completed this game. I can't remember whether it took dozens or over a hundred hours, however.
The others I either don't know or don't see as worthwhile, i.e. I probably wouldn't buy them with the benefit of foresight. So as for those I know but don't see as worthwhile (regarding the time to finish let alone complete them, that is, not the price):
The BioShock games I view as generic slop. I finished the second one, gave up on the first part way, and never bothered to complete any of them. Avoid.
The Mass Effect games are just 'whatever'. I finished the first game, completed and actually liked the second game (I'm far from the only one who thinks that the second game is a cut above the rest), and gave up quickly on the third. However, since the player character is carried over between games along with the results of certain decisions (e.g. I chose to save Kaidan over Ashley in ME1, which determines which of the two is in the subsequent games), you really want to commit to finishing or completing them in order. It's all or nothing. Today, I'd say it's too time-consuming to be worthwhile. (If you play them out of order, the game assumes a canonical decision, e.g. if you don't use an ME1 player character in ME2, ME2 will always assume that Kaidan is the surviving character of the two: replacing Kaidan with Ashley in the later games requires an ME1 game save in which Ashley was spared.)
The Metro games are very average, run-of-the-mill linear first-person shooters. I completed the first two but do not really have remarks to make on them. They are the closest thing that I'd make to a second recommendation.
It amuses me that pilpul actually has a positive meaning in Judaism as a sort of rabbinical skill. A Jew would say something like: 'Wow, that rabbi has proven that he is an excellent rabbi, because he excels at pilpul!'.
Somehow this term eventually became synonymous with something negative, such as sophistry or even bullshit. I imagine that this was once Jews became prevalent in other societies and non-Jews thus observed their rabbis arguing amongst each other. A non-Jew would have once said something like: 'These rabbinical arguments are full of bullshit and sophistry, and they call it pilpul. Well, let's just call all sophistry and bullshit pilpul.'
Then it took on, probably initially as a sort of joke, and here we are in the present day, calling bullshit of all sorts pilpul, with no real idea of how that came to be.
Other points you've missed are relativism (e.g. 'I'll grant that your argument X is only true in a specific time &or place, but false in our current time &or place') and subjectivism (e.g. 'I'll grant that your argument Y is true in your reality, but isn't it only true for you or people like you and not true for me or people like me because there is no objective reality that we jointly inhabit?')
Shifting Christian attitudes on 'anti-semitism', e.g. Catholicism pre- versus post-Vatican II, for instance, could easily be defended by downgrading things from objectivism to relativism: 'You say that because we have changed our mind on the Jews that therefore we were either wrong for two millennia or are wrong now, and therefore that our religion must be false. However, the truth is that God changed His Mind when man reached a certain level of progress. Thus, we were anti-semites back then and we weren't wrong, and we are not anti-semites now and we aren't wrong. When we were primitive, anti-semitism was in line with God's Will; but now that we are Enlightened, God has revealed His new Will, and opposing anti-semitism is now in line with His Will. We were never wrong because anti-semitism was actually in line with God's Will all along; that is, it was a stage God Willed us to go through until man reached a certain level of progress and God revealed to us that He had changed His Mind. He had changed His Mind because harbouring grudges is unbefitting of Him - He had chosen to forgive the Jews - and, after all, such tolerance is more befitting of our Enlightened Age.'
Notice that such an argument would get the defender out of a double bind.
Being university educated inculcates 'attack the message, not the messenger' even harder than liberalism does. Nevertheless, I still see it as erroneous.
There is a certain truth to it in the sense that even if some disabled Antifa trans-Jewlatto were to say '1 + 1 = 2', it remains as true as if anyone else said it.
But that's around about where it ends. As ideas become more interpretative, the messenger becomes more relevant.
Example 1: 'Leftists are always socialists or communists, and anti-capitalist'.
This is obviously a false statement. These people idolized 'big pharma' companies like Pfizer to the extent that they developed a trend of getting vaccine manufacturing company names tattooed on their injection sites, effectively becoming walking advertisements for said companies. They then proceeded to defend the liberal economics of the likes of Smith and Friedman against the Trump tariffs.
Generally, the key to understanding it is that the Left is increasingly reactive: if they sense their perceived enemies as taking a stance, they can't stomach holding the same stance, because they feel that this means that they've crossed the aisle to become 'Nazis' and the like. Consequently, when they see terms that suggest a distancing of their enemies from capitalism (e.g. 'Woke Capitalism'), they feel compelled to defend it.
The people who usually utter this are always either Far- to Extreme- Left (I once recall as a university student hearing a young man say: 'If you aren't a communist, you aren't really Left-Wing', implying that 'Left versus Right' is reducible to 'communist versus absolutely everything else') or Cold Warrior types who simply misattribute liberalism's myriad failings to Marxism. Both sides then reinforce each other's false beliefs: the Cold Warriors look at the Antifa types as continuers of Soviet-style Bolshevism whilst Antifa types see the Cold Warriors as the fascists they've opposed since the Weimar. Nobody else believes it. In short, the view can be discarded because the psychological mechanisms of its messengers are easy to infer.
Example 2: Leftist views of the 'Bible Belt' (See the following video: https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ATBlyYnYZ/biggest-selfown-of-all-time-/c)
Left-Wing nut-jobs will always go on and on about the statistics of the 'Bible Belt' and how said statistics supposedly confirm their worldview regarding White people.
However, this relies on a hidden false premise, namely, that the Bible Belt is actually White to begin with. As the video's last slide shows, the Bible Belt is, amusingly, also the blackest part of America, containing many black-majority areas.
Why blame MAGA-supporting Whites for a problem that almost certainly has significant contribution from Democrat-voting blacks?
It's simply the product of motivated reasoning: Left-Wing nut-jobs simply lack any motive to see black dysfunction in anything at all, and plenty of motive for misattributing said dysfunction to Whites. Any impartial observer would swiftly see that the correlation between the various maps he brings up and the map inserted at the end is far stronger than any correlation between them and Republican or MAGA support. Take the literacy map: observe that the most literate (most light blue) states are also mostly Republican - he, unsurprisingly, is oblivious to that, focusing solely on the most illiterate (most dark red) states also mostly being Republican - and thus any attempt to associate Republican support with illiteracy is mired in falsehood.
Again, the messenger's errors are easily exposed. Furthermore, I think that it is almost certain that this smug melon-ated muttoid is simply regurgitating nonsense that came from White Leftists and others. That, of course, is another reason he shouldn't be taken seriously: he doesn't exactly look the type to even be capable of looking through his own arguments for potential false premises.
Example 3: Ignorance leads to racism, racism stems from ignorance
This is easily refuted by the observation that they will freely admit that the most 'racist' area of the United States is the 'Bible Belt', but they must too admit that it is also the blackest area.
Here, Leftists actually have the truth standing on its head: closer proximity to blacks actually increases White racism (only a few Leftists like Andrew Yang are really cognizant of this), whereas they simply invert it into something false; namely, that closer proximity to blacks decreases White racism.
Of course, the messengers have obvious reasons for reasoning their way to falsehood: their entire multi-racial project is imperiled if they accept the reality. Ergo, the intelligent thinker already senses that something is wrong before he even looks at the relevant statistics and the like.
In conclusion, the messenger absolutely matters. Whilst you cannot with the utmost certainty dismiss a claim based on its bearer, you can, in all probability, still safely use the messenger as a premise against accepting it, e.g. 'If the argument about communism being the only real Left is true, why is it that only Far- to Extreme-Leftists seem to believe in it; if the argument that Bible Belt dysfunctionality says something about Whites but not blacks is true, why is it that only White Leftists and melon-ated muttoids whose social media accounts are full of anti-White vitriol seem to believe in it?'.
Never have I once found a claim from such people where I have decided to look into said claim to actually be correct, forcing me, as an intellectually honest person rather than a mere sophist, to reassess my own position.
Having "Platinum'd" Mad Max, I'd still insist it's average. The repetition wears you down, in particular. Some of the challenges or whatever they are called (especially the one to kill something like 8-10 enemies in a few seconds) were a real nuisance, and finishing all of them is required for one of the trophies. I think the last trophy that I got, however, was the one for finding all scrap in all camps.
The game does have its moments (e.g. blowing enemies to pieces with the thrown explosive, some of the combat finishing moves), and there is a certain kind of unexpected picturesque beauty to certain areas where I felt like a screenshot was necessary.
'Growing your legend', incidentally, is a lot of MGS:V, which does that far better than Mad Max. Right down to the specific usage of the term 'legend' in the game's copious dialogue.
Some people simply lose their Steam passwords and also lose the email with which they signed up such that they can't even change it. The same thing happened to me with a Facebook account: if I try and log in, it sends a verification code to an email address which doesn't even exist anymore.
That was the case with one of my close friends - very much still alive - who now has another Steam account that is only like 1-2 years old, instead of ten to fifteen years inactive. So one doesn't always have to fear the worst: the person might still be a Steam user who has simply long been using an account about which you have no idea.
My father had a saying from G. K. Chesterton: 'When a new book comes out, read an old one.'
I feel that holds more true about video games than books.
I never played the games you're talking about, but I have so many unplayed games on Steam (hundreds) that I see no necessary reason to even purchase another game, knowing that I won't even play most of those.
The PlayStation 1 and PlayStation 2 eras were quite something. The PlayStation 3 era was when the DLCs and microtransactions really picked up, and the PlayStation 4 era was when I really felt the degeneracy seeping in.
Physicality is fast disappearing - gone are the days of cases, manuals, and, growingly, even discs - indeed, most PlayStation 4 games did not contain a manual, and the PlayStation 5 is already split between models that have and do not have a disc drive, foreshadowing a soon-to-be discless future. I don't imagine any real improvements other than the technological - the graphical, maybe the player counts in online games. So there is no real appeal to even buying the PlayStation 5 for me. I imagine, for instance, that subscriptions will cost more and more and from them you will get less and less. Or that the console will simply be inoperable whenever your internet goes down. Or that simply not even playing a game for a few years will lead to both an erasure of your save games from the cloud and your loss of said game - the logical next step from what the OP's topic is.
If you use PCSX2 - nowadays very good as long as you have a decent PC - or similar software, there is no real reason why any gamer can't greater explore the myriad games of that time period rather than being constantly disappointed by, having his bank account drained by, and having his mind warped by, all the DLCs, microtransactions, degeneracy, etc. in whatever comes out these days. You don't actually need a PlayStation 2 to enjoy those games anymore. Some young gamer born in the 2000s or 2010s is far better off - better for his mind and his bank account - putting down the latest games that his Mum bought him last Easter, getting a good PC, and going back to playing those games from before his time, because he has no idea what he has missed.
The 'latest' games I played on PlayStation 4 were Mad Max (2015), Metal Gear Solid V (2015), and Far Cry: Primal (2016). Of those, I'd only recommend MGS:V to other gamers. The other two games are purely okay. That means that there's now ten years of video game releases where I've played nothing except the odd Android game or remaster. And, as previously stated, nor do I care. I have simply have too little curiosity about all that has came out since.
One difference I've noticed between Whites and all of the other races is what 'anti-racism' really means to them.
When Whites talk about anti-racism, what they overwhelmingly mean is that they should not be on the giving end, i.e. Whites need to stop being racist to others.
But when non-whites talk about anti-racism, what they overwhelmingly mean is that they should not be on the receiving end, i.e. others need to stop being racist to them.
Your stated situation encapsulates that perfectly: people who probably genuinely think of themselves as non-racist or even anti-racist have no compunction whatsoever about calling you a nigger or using other racial slurs, or making jokes about African countries when you almost certainly have never even set foot anywhere on the continent, because anti-racism to them almost always is not about being on the giving end, but about being on the receiving end.
I first began to cotton on to this in university. I noticed that even 'woke', pro-LGBT, anti-White, etc. Asians - people who probably genuinely think of themselves as anti-racist and as victims of racism - would on rare occasion label other Asians 'chinks', 'monkeys', 'undesirables', and some other terms. I thought that that was strange because Whites who are similarly 'woke', pro-LGBT, etc. wouldn't dare do that. Eventually it clicked that it's because anti-racism for these Asians simply means anti-being-on-the-losing-end-of-racism.
Consequently, they can behave in a racist manner all they like, it's just when they're on the losing side of racism that racism actually becomes a problem.
Thus, Indians hiring only Indians and calling other non-whites niggers and the like is fine because that's when they're on the winning side.
Being called a curry-crapping Ganges-guzzling poojidiot whose toilet has exploded from all the Chernobelly blasts being fired at it isn't fine because that's being on the losing side.
Q: What did Indians use before they began street-shitting?
A: Toilets
Imagine being one of the little soy-raging Predditard degenerates getting het up over this.
If they were so 'bad', they wouldn't even let her sit down - they'd take the seat for themselves and tell her to stand - let alone have the whole seat for herself.
She's unironically safer than she's ever been. She doesn't even look scared. Probably surprised that they were so non-hostile. Probably didn't even have any racial insults directed at her. They probably would have courteously moved if she had to get off the train before they.
In soy-rager world, they probably think that this photo shows an act of defiance. Deep down, she's really super scared but is putting on a brave act of stoic defiance. She only has the seat for herself because she successfully defended herself from prior attempts to take it from them, so they're all dejected in their defeat, having been BTFO'd by a strong empowered black woman.
All as though one black woman could really stop multiple White men from getting her seat if they were determined.
Must really suck living in the soy-rager world of lies, where this implausible interpretation is passed off as fact.
I haven't logged in for something like six years. There are so few video games that strike me as interesting from, say, 2015 onwards.
That was the time when I started to notice the pozz really creeping in, e.g. Mafia 3 and Battlefield 1. Nor do I miss it.
Feminists have a whole other thing coming if they are really stupid enough - and they are - to think that being surrounded by Okechukwu, Oluwadamilola, and poojidiots will actually lead to them having less to complain about.
Sure, I'll be the first to grant to the feminist that there are creepy men among the Whites. But they are surely mistaken if they think that these non-white men aren't at least twice as creepy, well, who am I kidding, some of these men are probably at least ten times as creepy.
Some of the older among today's feminists, who will remember a time when the worst they had to put up with was being wolf-whistled, will look at the 2030s, 2040s, etc. and it will slowly dawn upon them: 'I didn't realize how wrong I was about White men. The wolf-whistling that we had to endure back in the good old days is frankly nothing compared to the murders and rapes of women going on all day every day now. We didn't deal with a tenth of what women are dealing with now.' (Of course, many will be so utterly idiotic that they will never have that realization, and go to the deathbed insisting that White men are somehow the creepiest of all.)
That's even more bizarre and conspiratorial than I thought he would believe.
If yids attack Christianity to drive the small number of 'anti-semites' back to this 'Judaism for gentiles', how do they ensure that they do not drive far larger numbers of Christians away from this Judaism for gentiles altogether by means of the same arguments? 'Christianity bad' isn't an argument that only works on anti-semites.
The maths don't add up to me. Yes, you contain and neuter anti-semites by shunting them into a false oppositional belief system, but they're so miniscule in number as to be irrelevant. By contrast, if you peddle narratives like 'Christianity is bad' or 'Christianity is anti-Semitic' in order to get anti-semites to greater support it, you also risk losing the much larger number of people who also accept your arguments for why it is bad without being anti-semites, or who find anti-semitism repellant, respectively, who will drift from this Judaism for gentiles to other non-controlled opposition belief systems or atheism.
Furthermore, if the goal really was to simply corral and neuter anti-semites, why not simply argue 'Christianity is based and anti-semitic, so you should support it to oppose yids' rather than 'Christianity is bad, so you should support it because the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Seems like an inferior, weaker strategy to me. Associating Christianity with the Nazis is a much better way of getting anti-semites on board than simply arguing 'Christianity bad, and don't you know that what we say is bad is what you should say is good?'
Moreover, how does one explain yids like Johnathan Cahn who clearly promote certain types of Christianity whilst the others are attacking it? So some yids attack Christianity to drive anti-semites to it whilst other yids simultaneously promote Christianity (Pentecostal, dispensationalist versions of it) to create philo-semites? Seems schizophrenic to me, since one side is doing something counter-productive to the other: the likes of Johnathan Cahn are obviously grossly repellant to anti-semites.
I should add that I haven't paid much attention to Adam Green outside of his interviews with the intriguing David Skrbina. (This kind of thing is probably part of why.) Consequently, I apologize if this argument is not of the kind that Green or his supporters would make (although it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than the claim that some yids attack Christianity to corral and neuter anti-semites whilst others like Johnathan Cahn simultaneously [and counter-productively, insofar as this specific goal is concerned] promote Christianity in a way that will drive anti-semites far, far away from Christianity).
That first opinion is an interesting one. It isn't implausible because Western Christianity by the time of Descartes was essentially Aristotelianized Catholicism whilst Eastern Christianity was essentially Platonized Orthodoxy. Any kind of pure Christianity was already long gone by that time.
Thus the yid looks at these syntheses of Christianity with pre-Christian Greco-Roman philosophy and starts panicking because it no longer performs the full functionality that it once performed anymore.
That is certainly one way to reconcile the problem, raised further up in this comment section, of why Christianity is no longer a state religion if it serves a function for the yids. If it serves a function for them, why don't they continue to push it as a state religion? The answer in this scenario would be: 'It served a function for the yids, but all of these accretions from the goyim have transformed it into something that no longer serves them. Thus, they pushed it at its start but want to eradicate it - that is, the versions that they view as hopelessly corrupted by accretions - now.'
Islam
Theologically, Islam makes more sense where it differs from Christianity - no God-man; no binary or trinity; and has a scripture that reads as though it contains far less contradictions and general oddities, one which should be read as correcting rather than replacing the presumably erroneous Old and New Testaments (hence some Muslims referring to the Qu'ran as the Final Testament).
Just to take the first two examples that come to mind: Firstly, in the Bible, where did Aaron die? At the top of a mountain (Numbers) or in a village (Deuteronomy)?
Secondly, if Moses wrote Deuteronomy, as is traditionally believed, who wrote in it that Moses died at the age of 120? Unless he foresaw his own death, he obviously didn't write that. And who wrote earlier in Deuteronomy that, since the time of Moses, 'no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses'? Unless Moses could see the future, this is either a piece of self-aggrandizement or somebody else wrote it, ergo, again, the claim that Moses wrote Deuteronomy suffers from two problems.
Islam also lacks those arguably subversive statements that anti-Christian White nationalists like to copy and paste whenever they argue with Christian White nationalists. Just yesterday I saw someone post:
[Matthew 5:44] But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
It is easy to see why master moralists see words like 'love your enemies' and 'pray for those who persecute you' as subversive content. Indeed, if such words truly do not reflect the way that God has intended man to live, then all of the allure behind these words immediately dissipates: they are simply wicked, self-destructive, pathological lies, part of the most successful subversion of all time, appealing most of all to the most cowardly, most weak degenerates by passing off their cowardly weakness as the true Will of God.
The conclusion I have held these past few years since beginning to verse myself on religion is that, whether or not Adam Green and friends are right about Christianity, Islam lacks the same roots; that is, it serves no real function to the yids, despite the odd rabbi here and there casting upon it the same aspersions they do Christianity. Intriguingly, Islam has no counterpart to the Pentecostal, dispensationalist Christianity that is egregiously suspicious when viewed from a functionalist perspective: the yids are, very obviously, the greatest beneficiaries of this religion spreading rapidly across Africa and Latin America, since it transforms anyone who wants Jesus to return into a defender of the State of Israel.
Personally, I don't think these internet rabbis that Adam Green and friends like to post know much about the subject matter - they simply act as though they do because that's their profession - we need more proof that Christianity and Islam are simply yiddish 'psychological operations' than some smug rabbi saying the quiet part out loud because he believes that his audience is comprised only of yids who will be in awe of his supposed 'knowledge'.
One might say, for instance, that if Christianity was already successfully fulfilling a subversive function for the yids, what even would be the point in coming up with additional false religions? They would be effectively redundant. An obvious response might be that they need the goyim divided into multiple false opposition belief systems so that they will fight each other, but history shows that Christians have fought Christians and Muslims have fought Muslims much more than Christians have fought Muslims, ergo, only one system is actually needed to keep the goyim fighting amongst themselves.
Indeed, why not dismiss the obscure Sabianism/Mandaeism as another yiddish 'psychological operation' predating Islam, especially when, in line with Judaism, it declares Jesus a false prophet? Wouldn't that make more sense for yids to promote than Islam? If the yids have the power to propagate such false religions, why not push Sabianism on the goyim? Indeed, wouldn't that make more sense to promote even than Christianity, so that the goyim are all hating Jesus as a false prophet like they do, unlike the Christians and Muslims that revere him to this day?
Even the likes of Adam Green do not seem to argue that Christianity can be explained from a functionalist perspective all the way down to the present day. Rather, they claim that Christianity was designed to defeat the Roman Empire, implying that its intended function expired long ago. They simply saw no reason (or found it too difficult) to remove it afterward, but it does not necessarily mean that it is still fulfilling some kind of function for them.
Consequently, if I was a follower of Adam Green, I would respond: 'Your argument is prima facie compelling, but it misses the possibility that Christianity has outlived its purpose. Thus, the yids created Christianity because it served them a function, but today they attack it because they have a different belief system(s) to which they wish to move people towards. Furthermore, for all we know, perhaps the yids also attack it because today's yids are by and large unaware that it is a product of their ancestors' own scheming long ago against the Roman Empire, a history either forgotten or suppressed, and thus mistake it for something authentically of the goyim.'
This preserves your fair observation without necessarily leading to your conclusion, i.e. that Christianity being relentlessly attacked is proof that it is not a sort of 'false opposition'.
One might throw Marxism in as an example of another such 'thick' subversive belief system - a grand narrative of all history that deeply affects economics, politics, and society - that is indubitably 'Jewy' and yiddish (Marx, Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky, Lukacs, etc.) to the core, but was abandoned by them because of Stalin's turn towards 'anti-semitism'. Thus countless Marxist yids like Daniel Bell, Louis Samuel Feuer, Nathan Glaser, and Seymour Martin Lipset all switched from Marxism to become the 'neo-conservatives'.
The 'Holocaustianity' you allude to is of course a 'thin' version of such subversive belief systems, thin in the sense that it is modular and could be bolted on to almost any political culture, ideology, or system. It can clearly be viewed from a functionalist perspective as serving an anti-nationalist, globalizing function for the yids. What does 'Never Again' mean? It is to never again turn against the yids, to view the yids as a permanent feature of life that must never be excluded or eradicated. Holocaustianity does to the atheist what Pentecostal, dispensationalist Christianity does to the Christian: it makes him feel it is somehow 'wrong' to oppose the yids on anything at all.
New Zealand’s Whanganui River was legally declared as having human rights back in March 2017. The Maori actually regard it as an ancestor.
Thus, Canada - indeed, quite often the world's most insane country - was actually noticeably saner than New Zealand on the question of whether human rights should be extended all the way to actual insentient beings.
I saw that Elon Musk actually Tweeted the full film, and wondered to myself whether Uwe Boll himself approved that.
Uwe Boll's profile doesn't repost Musk's Tweet. However, I learned that the full film is freely available for 48 hours on X. Consequently, I assume that Musk isn't really doing anything of which Boll would disapprove.
I also learned that the movie had a $750,000 budget but has already made over $67,000,000. In other words, it seems to have been immensely profitable.
Of course, effectively being endorsed by Elon Musk will do wonders for the film, and I have also observed attention from all kinds of other high-profile people (e.g. Tristan Tate, Alice Weidel, Jack Posobiec) all of which will bring about even more awareness and views.
Having skimmed through the manifesto, Hatfield clearly defies easy classification, and might well be a somewhat original thinker. I have written up a brief, unpolished commentary (long relative to standard Reddit-style posts) of sorts but suspect I won't bother posting it anywhere. A cursory grappling with his ideas was an interesting intellectual exercise.
Far-Left
He's a Marxist, but jettisons equality between the sexes, in particular, out of it, and possibly jettisons equality of various other kinds out of it as well. He clearly rejected trans-sexualism altogether. Equality of sexual minorities would likely also be out in toto. Marxism becomes redirected towards a less egalitarian end-goal, in a way that almost all contemporary neo-Marxists would absolutely reject.
Anti-capitalist
Yes. Capitalism and the bourgeoisie for him drives feminism, which is how he arrives at the unusual combination of Marxist anti-capitalism and anti-feminism.
Pro-communist
Yes, but I detect no explicit anarchist, Antifa-style nonsense element. Possibly, the 'Hatfieldian' state never withers away, but rather ends up as a possibly permanent tool for liquidating degenerates, such as drug dealers, pedophiles, and pornographers, controlling the internet to make it 'devoid of degeneracy', and various other things.
Jew hating
No. Contra sources like Rebel News, he only mentions the yids once, and not in a wholly negative light.
Whilst I find plenty with which to disagree, I suspect that, with more polish, his manifesto would have been publication worthy, and possibly second only to that of Kaczynski in terms of its novelty and general value.
Can't say I'm bothered about Arabs being elected in a place where plenty of trannies have already been elected to public office for over two decades. See, for example: Aya Kamikawa (trans woman, 2003); Tomoya Hosada (trans man, 2017; also has the dubious distinction of being the first trans man to be elected anywhere in the world); Ayako Fuchigami (trans woman, 2019).
First world
Bad political values have bad consequences. When you've spent centuries figuring out how to do such things as maximize personal freedom (ergo, the necessary erosion of intermediate social structures like the clan, family, and guild) and level all hierarchies, especially all those that are non-economic, it turns out that globalization and the like become practically inevitable. Nothing really matters in late-modernity beyond these stupid values (anti-discrimination, human rights, social justice, etc.) and the economy.
In that sense, I don't think it could have 'remained'. Past generations screwed up long ago by listening to the wrong people and believing in the wrong ideas, and people today are simply living with and processing the consequences of actions that were carried out long before their own time.
Where our time differs from theirs is that the consequences are becoming increasingly perceptible and unignorable. It is increasingly harder for people to turn a blind eye, yes, even with all the entertainment and distractions about. Who really thinks that the world is not regressing? Almost nobody. They merely disagree - vehemently - on how to get things back on the right track, with our shared enemies doubling down on the causes and thus in no way able to provide solutions.
Japan
The past ten or so years have proved that Japanese intelligence isn't all that it has been drummed up to be. Imagine having the whole Western world as a big warning of what not to do and then choosing to follow it anyway.
Japan and China, in particular, were so impressed by the Western world that much of the past 200 years has been spent trying to 'out-West' the West. Both countries threw away their own heritage to translate and read Western works of such thinkers as Mill, Marx, and Dewey. Hu Shih was a perfect example of this: an American-style progressive in 'yellow' skin whose view of China's heritage was dismissive and that China must become as Westernized as possible.
In China, the path to Westernization ultimately came through the Marxist route. In Japan, it came through the liberal route instead.
The way that Japan fell so easily for Sanae Takaechi - under whom LGBT-whatever education is entering Japanese schools, under whom immigration is rapidly increasing - led me to conclude that Asians are not at all immune to the stupidity of the Whites. Of course, the signs were already mounting up for decades, e.g. the first tranny was elected to public office in 2003.
Over the coming years, alot of that 'based Japan' nonsense will slowly evaporate. They weren't 'based' at all: they were simply behind the West.
suffering
The children are always what we feel the most empathy for. Mencius' famous thought experiment of the child about to fall into the well, and all that. That is normal and very human. It might be fair to say that they are some of the only beings that I feel compassion towards, other than animals.
It would be wrong of me to feel anything but amusement about Leftists and other idiots getting harmed or killed. The good should be pleased by the suffering of the wicked. The world is better off without such people, the causers of suffering, without whom neither you would make this post nor I this comment.
This stuff actually bothers me less than it used to. You develop more of a hard 'shell' over time. I am less 'blackpilled' than a few years ago, because while things haven't improved, there is growing discontent and tension, and that is the environment that is ripe for transformative sociopolitical change that could ultimately somehow see ideas more acceptable to us victorious.
Notice now that we are growingly voting against rather than for parties and politicians? That winning an election by 1% is somehow considered a 'landslide'? That so few politicians have approval ratings above 50% even at their zenith and can only dream about the approval ratings of a Duterte or a Bukele, whose approval ratings were never below 50% even at their nadir? That the Left seems to stand for less and less and against more and more, are becoming purely reactive, e.g. embracing big pharma during Covid, embracing free trade during Trump's tariffs, indeed, even embracing closed borders when Trump wanted to bring a very small number of White South Africans in?
Imagine if such discontent could not exist? People would simply be watching the bakkaball going back and forth on that retard box they call a television and doing every other monotonous activity of all sorts even when their world comes crashing down around them. Be glad that the discontent is growing in the masses, because only that will build up willpower and bring about true change, and, paradoxically, lead to all this discontent and suffering becoming a distant memory sooner.
The hilarious thing about this is that there were apparently zero, that's right, zero trannies murdered in the entire state, let alone in Chicongo, all year.
Zero 'transfemicides' and you declare a State of Emergency? The stuff of comedy. Amuttrica is an open-air insane asylum. They closed the asylums because they became redundant: the whole country became one.
I think I first came across this YouTube channel when looking for information on the opioid epidemic in Frankfurt. It's pretty bad: predictably, a lot of Syrian migrants and other foreigners are involved.
I find it difficult to empathize with Spain. Their ancestors already kicked these Maghrebis and other foreigners out. They went on to have their Golden Age. The lesser of evils won the Spanish Civil War. By global standards, they have done quite well for themselves.
Then Franco's era ends. The Republicans effectively win the Civil War because Franco ensured that power would go to the wrong royal after his death, and Francoist coup attempts trying to reverse this mistake failed. With the Spanish Republic now consolidated, you rapidly vote your way to... this? Street-shitting? Drug dealing? Mass vandalism?
With Catalonia, the particular area in the video, I find it even more difficult to empathize. They only wanted to break away from Spain under Puigdemont because they did not see Spain as sufficiently like this. If the Catalan separatists were to succeed, they would actually double-down on this direction, because they see these people as becoming Catalans and Spanish people as non-Catalans. Their 'nationalism' is purely anti-Spain. Spaniards out, everyone else in! They are simply Spain's analogue of Ireland's Sinn Fein (Out with the Black and Tans, in with the Blacks and Trans!) or the Scottish National Party.
What, then, is the point of them becoming independent? It is obvious that under Spain they are getting most of what they wanted, especially insofar as multiracial immigration is concerned.
Spaniards will keep voting PSOE and PP, and even Vox is unlikely to change the overall direction wherever they get power, except perhaps beyond removing illegals and people from Muslim countries. Vox, as 'culturalists' rather than nationalists, love Hispanics, for instance, because they see Hispanics as culturally Spanish. What is the point of replacing Moroccans with Mexicans, or replacing Algerians with 56% European Argentines?
Catalans will continue to stay mad, because even PSOE are anti-separatist, let alone Vox and PP.
More like Homotomato.