I would not at all be surprised to learn that Margaret Atwood actually fantasized about being held down, raped & impregnated by Ronald Reagan the whole time she was writing Handmaid's Tale (one-handed of course).
Luce is supposed to be a pilgrim it seems, the scallop shells in her eyes are a reference to the routes of the Way of St. James (Santiago de Compostela where St. James/Santiago's shrine is being a major pilgrimage site since the Reconquista got underway, St. James himself being the 'Moor-Slayer'/Matamoros and the patron saint of Spain).
The Vatican once commissioned Osamu Tezuka to make a series on the Bible to rival Pat Robertson's Superbook, but he died before completing the Old Testament. (The series was finished by Osamu Dezaki.) Unfortunately, him dying also obviously precluded making a New Testament continuation, the furthest they got with that was the final episode being about the birth of Jesus.
They're just following in the footsteps of their predecessors, the Weather Underground (which is to say Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn & various other genocidally hateful Marxist kikes who unfortunately were not Hadrian'd as they deserved but instead lived to infect the American political & educational system).
At one point, the Weathermen adopted the belief that all white babies were "tainted with the original sin of "skin privilege", declaring "all white babies are pigs" with one Weatherwoman telling feminist poet Robin Morgan "You have no right to that pig male baby" after she saw Morgan breastfeeding her son and told Morgan to put the baby in the garbage. Charles Manson was an obsession within the group and Bernardine Dohrn claimed he truly understood the iniquity of white America, with the Manson family being praised for the murder of Sharon Tate; Dohrn's cell subsequently made its salute a four-fingered gesture that represented the "fork" used to stab Tate.[54][55]
Edwin Walker had the right idea with the Pro-Blue program. The politicization of the US military under Clinton & Obama with all the consequences on display today prove that, in fact, if it is to serve its intended function of defending the American republic (as opposed to another glorified welfare program for minorities, another tool for leftists to wield in the murder and imprisonment of their enemies, and a pathway to cushy top positions in the defense industry for the cannier politicos) then truly nobody but ultrapatriotic Christian conservatives has any business serving, much less leading in its ranks.
As far as fanmade mods/games go, I've always had a soft spot for The Nameless Mod for Deus Ex. It came out in 2009 (and had been in development since 2002!) but one of the old devs came back to give it a graphical overhaul, add a new level & redo all 60 of the existing ones in more recent years. IIRC this 'TNM 2.0' project is now more or less done as far as the main game goes and they might still add one final patch to cover the bonus game mode (a two level sidescroller) & add one more new level.
TNM itself takes place in a simulation of the old, long-dead DX forum the creators used to be members of in the early 2000s, when most of them weren't even out of high school yet. So there's plenty of impenetrable injokes & memes that the player almost certainly won't understand. But I've always found the passion they put into a mod of this size (and the fact that they finished it at all) admirable, banger soundtrack (made for free) too.
Above all it's also an incredible nostalgia trip to the Internet of the early 2000s. I miss it all, bros: the freedom, the creativity, lack of censorship, the old school pre-Reddit forums, the lasting online friendships, the people (even the jannies) actually being quite sane compared to today's overpoliticized and degenerate Redditors/Twitterati, even the fucking leetspeak. I compare TNM to something like Fallout Frontier and it always makes me sad - I never fail to find myself wondering, where did the Internet in general & modding communities in particular go so horribly wrong? Is it even possible to return to a fraction of those lost better days of yesteryear?
Almost every royal or near-royal line in consideration are terrible choices though. Anyone after the 'Glorious' Revolution (where Parliament broke their oaths to support a foreign invader, William III, in usurping the throne & turning Britain into the second great modern bankocracy after the Netherlands) is guaranteed to be a cuck puppet of globalist powerbrokers. So that rules out the Oranges, Hanovers & Windsors (Saxe-Coburg-Gothas).
While I understand Jacobite sympathies, their current claimant (Franz, Duke of Bavaria) is a German fag (literally). Not a viable choice either.
I think that leaves the Earl of Loudoun, that one Australian dude descended from George the Duke of Clarence. Also a backstabbing fag who deserved to be drowned in wine, but that was in the 15th century, so fine - let the sins of the distant ancestor not burden his descendant.
Alternatively maybe it's time for a new, actually English royal dynasty. The Wake baronets are purported descendants of Hereward the Wake, a famous Anglo-Saxon rebel against Bill the Bastard's tyranny, and have generally been OK guys not up to any globohomo skullduggery AFAIK. That could be interesting, while we're wishcasting for a new non-pozzed royal house.
*Feudal monarchies, rather, where the king's power was constrained by custom and rival interest groups (not just against him but also each other) in the Church, the nobility & the towns/burghers. Absolute monarchies emerged in the 1600s and quickly gave way to revolutionary regimes which took their centralist & bureaucratizing tendencies further in just 100 years.
Well, I guess there was also Imperial China, but that had its own problems.
Also from the interwar period there's Maurice Samuel and his Khazar supremacist creed You Gentiles (1924), where he boasts that the Jew cannot ever integrate into Gentile society and will forever work to undermine & warp the latter to serve Jewish ends, and that's a good thing! But I prefer to think of it as a 200+ page treatise as to why Hadrian and the Catholic Monarchs were right about his kind.
Yep, Sagramore. In the Matter of Britain Arthur does have Moorish/Saracen knights at the Round Table, but Sagramore himself isn't one of them (Moriaen is the Moor and Palamedes the Saracen IIRC), being Hungarian instead - I think Cornwell just condensed these 'foreign' knights into one guy for convenience's sake, and went with the most plausible ethnic background for a darker skinned dude in Dark Age Britain (the Hungarians wouldn't come to Europe for centuries later). And to be fair, the Mauri (original, Christian Moors) were both very real and a significant element to the late Roman imperial cavalry.
But man, this series clearly fucked everything up in usual DEI fashion. And not just that, but they seem to have not even tried their hand at the slightest pretense of an authentic late Roman/Dark Age setting. What the hell even are those black outfits on the guys in the article's photos? They look absolutely nothing like Late Roman/Romano-British civilians or soldiers, much less barbarians of either the native Celtic or invading Anglo-Saxon varieties. End stage GoT's fashion direction of overly dark and modern-looking outfits for everyone has been a disaster for the depiction of historical fashion on screen as much as woke racial politics have been for anything resembling accuracy in the ethnic makeup of every historical setting adapted to screen.
There was a movie on the Cristiada directed by a veteran of the production staff for the latter two LOTR movies, which of course was immediately bashed by those 'professional' critics who even bothered to watch it in the first place. Worth a watch, IMO. Of the Mexican internal conflicts where the bad guys won, that was definitely the most recent and will remain so, at least until the cartels finish toppling whatever facade of a government still exists entirely.
Shall we not also acknowledge that America has actually held the Black Hills region, for example, longer than the native Lakota/Sioux? (This would be the land that Sitting Bull was fighting George Custer & Nelson Miles over.) The Lakota conquered it with their usual brutality from the Cheyenne in 1776, and lost it to the Americans almost exactly a century later in 1877; the US, obviously, has held it in the 147 years since.
Oh who am I kidding, violent conquest & the displacement or assimilation of the people who were there before (accompanied with one's own settlement of the region) is only bad when whitey does it, amirite.
Just more sour grapes from the losers of history, turned into a wine everyone has been told is the finest of all time since the wrong side consistently won Mexican civil wars - the Reform War, Mexican Revolution, Cristero War, etc. - often with assistance from American liberals. Did you know that the Americans were backing Satanic Mexican Freemason leftists and indigenous malcontents against the Catholic criollo factions as early as before the civil war? Because they did just that.
Also the natives who teamed up with the Spanish to bring down the Aztecs (such as the Tlaxcalans) weren't screwed over, they actually made out very well for themselves and gained tons of privileges under the new order, even the right to self-government within their own autonomous vassal principalities under the Spanish crown. The Tlaxcalans never regretted their alliance and contributed auxiliary troops to support the Spanish in conquests elsewhere, ex. Guatemala.
He should start by demanding that he be given a favela gang-produced snuff film with De Moraes in the starring role. That tyrant in a robe has done worse than banning Xitter, he's also responsible for rigging the last Brazilian election in Commie Lula's favor.
They can and not just with one another, Morgoth was able to breed especially degenerate Men with his orcs to produce half-orcs/'goblin-men' in the First Age and Saruman did it again (using Dunlendings for the human half) in the Third Age. They served as elite troops & spies, IIRC one reported on the Hobbits' movements at Bree.
Even before we get to the Silmarillion, the appendices of Return of the King are actually already meaty af. (They're also the only place where Helm's canonically-nameless daughter was mentioned in the first place.) And those appendices already blow every lore book Martin's written for ASOIAF put together out of the water, much less these current-year hacks' mangling '''''additions''''' to Middle-earth.
Seriously, history is replete with examples of universally-acknowledged men of honor who were also absolute badasses across multiple cultures from Hector of Troy to William Marshal, the Seigneur de Bayard, Baron Jacob Astley of Reading and Hal Moore for a modern example - and these are all from the Western tradition alone. At no point has 'being a genuinely good guy' and 'kicking inordinate amounts of ass' been mutually exclusive categories, in fact I think it can reasonably be argued that honorable men are obliged to resist & fight evil where they find it (and has been in the past). This is, for instance, a summary of what Bayard was like according to his French biographer and recorded on his Wikipedo page:
For the investiture as a knight that he received in battle, Bayard always felt deeply linked to the chivalric code of honor. Absolute loyalty even towards enemies, charity and help were his rules of life, in fact he did his utmost for the recovery of prostitutes and personally assisted the sick of the plague. While his fellow countrymen indulged in violence and raids, Bayard always remained respectful towards the weak and the vanquished, doing his utmost for their defense, and burned with furious anger in the face of all cruelty and injustice. He even used to pay out of his own pocket for the goods he requisitioned for the need for provisions, while his fellow countrymen used to simply snatch them from the peasants with violence.[2]
Since he usually led the vanguard in the advances and passed to the rearguard in the retreats, he ordered his men to extinguish the fires that his colleagues had set in the villages, and placed sentinels in defense of the churches and monasteries to prevent the looting and rape of women who had taken refuge there.[2]
Such was the fame of the magnanimity of Bayard that the people of Italy, who fled into the woods and mountains when armed men arrived, instead came running to meet his troops, loudly acclaiming his name and offering him gifts.[2]
This did not prevent him from becoming a fierce and feared fighter in battle. He knew no mercy either towards his enemies or towards himself, and in this way he did not enter into contradiction with the vivid religious faith that he had nourished since childhood. God had wanted him to be a knight and he limited himself to fulfilling God's will; he always placed himself in God's hands immediately before every battle.[2]
Mr. 'Nearly-undefeated Saint of Battle, always with time & money to help the innocent, and always down to smite his enemies with burning anger' here wouldn't think twice about pulverizing an avowed enemy of his under the latter's own standards, especially if they were honorless maggots like the average modern soyjak (in fact in one of his most famous duels, he killed a dude who he had honorably treated as a prisoner but then lied & claimed Bayard was a cruel torturer after he was released - extremely dishonorable and ungrateful conduct). It's gotten to the point where I'm beginning to think works like ASOIAF which portray honor as something only braindead idiots have to hold them back & get them killed are another poisonous psyop to encourage atomization, nihilism and a disdain for actual virtues in Western society.
Funny they should mention this. Ohio was the #3 contributor of troops to the Union Army (behind only NY, which was drafting Irishmen fresh off the boats, and Pennsylvania, which was directly invaded by Lee and was where the Battle of Gettysburg was fought). In the decades after the war, Ohio dominated the Republican Party and many of the Republican presidents between Lincoln & Hoover were from Ohio (Hayes, Garfield, McKinley, Taft, Harding). If they want to make the case that Vance looks like an American nationalist willing and able to kill for the Stars & Stripes, a future agenda-setter for the GOP and also a future President, fine by me.
Vance was anti-Trump back in 2016. That said, he seems to have dropped opposition to Trump entirely - I don't know what's in his heart of hearts & all that, of course, but I'm not aware of him disparaging or even distancing himself from Trump in more recent years - and policy-wise he's been fairly solid AFAIK.
Especially on foreign & economic policy, he's been a consistent opponent of funding the Ukraine war (so much so that Ukraine put him on their kill list and he in turn personally got their tranny spokesman fired for advocating violence against people like himself) and a proponent of protectionist trade warfare. He's pro-tariff, pro-border wall & pro-trade war with China, which is a huge improvement over the older-school GOP 'free trade, free movement of workers & offshoring at all costs' business-as-usual. He's also on record opposing escalating shit in the Mideast to a war with Iran, which I'm guessing is the best any modern non-interventionist politician in office can do currently with AIPAC on a hair trigger & sure to bury any candidate who tries to take the next step & oppose funding Israel directly (as evidenced by what they did to Brandon Herrera and are still doing to the non-AOC Squad members). Socially he seems pretty standard for a Midwestern Republican - pro-life, voted against the law codifying fag marriage, is against trooning out children, etc.
At my most optimistic I'm hoping this is a sign that Trump is trying to groom a young successor (another advantage for Vance, he's only 39) who already has some name recognition to steer the GOP's future course: genuine conservative populists and American nationalists who actually want to conserve something other than Lockheed Martin's profit margins, are anti-immigration, anti-world policing, and prioritize domestic manufacturing & improving the livelihoods of Americans first over making the tycoons & Red Chinese richer than ever. At my most pessimistic, I still fear that somewhere very deep down, he may still be a Never-Trump sleeper agent and is waiting for a second attempt on Trump's life in hopes of playing LBJ in red. I guess we'll see soon enough.
One bad thing to come from this is that Vance just won his Senate seat in 2022, and him leaving it now means a replacement will have to be selected by the Governor of Ohio. Said governor is Mike DeWine, who's a RINO, so yeah.
Other way around, I believe. France is a presidential system, with most of the power concentrated in the office of the President (Macron) - especially anything to do with foreign policy & national (in)security. Macron himself was always going to remain in power until 2027 no matter who won the election just now, so even Le Pen winning wouldn't have changed a jot about France continuing to be flooded with shitskins or committing to one foreign policy blunder after another in Europe & Africa.
I think what we're about to see is the Muslim-friendly, child-raping commies of the French far-left propping up Macron's policies. Not dissimilar to what the NDP is doing for Trudeau in Canada, but on a larger scale since technically the NFP will now have a plurality of seats in the French Parliament larger than Macron's own party, whereas the NDP's seat count is smaller than the Canadian Liberals. If I were a younger fellow I might have hope that the young'uns who voted for the NFP would be disgusted at the party they just voted for promptly revealing themselves to be puppets of the establishment and continuing to sell them out, but I've seen enough leftardation these past few years to know that's exceedingly unlikely to happen in enough numbers to matter.
'Respectability' politics and its consequences have been a disaster for the political spectrum.
IIRC they're just opening an American subsidiary (whose job will apparently be to just focus on pushing sales & the planning of events in the States, not screwing around with the talents' content), not pulling a Sony and moving their HQ from Japan to California altogether, thank Christ. But yes, ideally Hololive will keep the West and its pozloading tendencies at several arms' lengths for much longer.
Those Freemasons claiming some Templar legacy were just LARPers making shit up to look cooler than they were, the real successors to the Templars (as in, they were literally just OG Templars with a rebrand and a smaller white cross slapped on top of their original red one) were the Portuguese Order of Christ. These guys were actually pretty cool and I have never read about them being up to any subversive shenanigans in the vein of the Jesuits or Freemasons, instead they were mostly involved in the early Portuguese colonial ventures under Prince Henry the Navigator & Vasco da Gama (both explorers were members of the order, Prince Henry was even their Grandmaster) or in fighting Muslims in Morocco.
I'd add that Germany cannot be construed to have started WW1 in any way, shape or form by any logical human being thinking about the situation in good faith. Its immediate trigger was the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian crown prince by a Serbian terrorist, we could talk for hours about the underlying causes but that's what set the actual start of the war in motion. Even if one were to try to argue that Germany shouldn't have stood by Austria-Hungary and issued its 'blank check' for retaliation against Serbia, by the same logic Russia should be held more responsible for starting the shitstorm on account of it mobilizing to defend its pet Serbia - an unambiguous state sponsor of terrorism which just murdered the future head-of-state of a Great Power.
The war guilt clause was obvious bullshit even back in the day, something even the French (the most vindictive of the Entente Powers) understood but just didn't care about, and I daresay the Nazis and in fact every other stripe of German nationalist out there (because even some democrats weren't willing to accept it and at least bleated about getting a slightly less shit deal, ie. Wilhelm Solf and Philip Scheidemann) were entirely justified in their grievances against it.
The Weimar Republic actually did ban the Nazi Party in 1923, BTW. Obviously this did not actually stop the Nazis from continuing to grow in popularity (because banning them in no way solved the problems which attracted people to their cause in the first place) & eventually taking control of Germany within 10 years. The Germans have in fact been here and seen & done all this before, but it would seem today's '''''democratic''''' politicians insist on operating as though they are unburdened by what has been.