#sure gandhi did it without protest

[fondwand]

catch me in the corner of every house party telling the cis white man who desperately wants to get away from me that ACTUALLY violence can be the answer sometimes and that it benefits the bourgeoisie to brainwash the masses into believing that exerting their power is, without nuance, morally wrong

[nokingsonlyfooles]

Brigitte Empire! She's just done a big move to escape TERF Island, and YT (and associated donations) are her only source of income right now. Listen, like, and reply to her video (you don't have to read the YT comments - though most aren't too bad - just say "hi") to help her out with the algorithm, and give money if you can.

And, while I have your attention, how DOES one differentiate between a nice, civil protest and a lawbreaking riot?

Well, is "one" an ordinary human being without a badge - press or police/security?

Like these BLM folks right here?

...Then your input is not required. Sorry. You don't actually get to define whether you're here to be heard or to break shit and ruin it for everyone. You have no authority over your message, and we do not believe you when you express your intent, especially if there's any (I mean ANY) property damage. Human lives are more important than some light vandalism and broken windows, you say? Well, lalalalala, 'cos we're not listening.

But if "one" does have a badge...

Aha! Behold, a miscreant!

Yes. Take that, you... you building-haters!

...one is allowed, nay, expected to put the proper framework around this chaos of, uh, human beings asking for human rights with their (theoretically) protected right to protest.

And this framework is subject to change!

...like, a lot of change. Within a single human lifetime, MLK goes from commie threat to conservative icon, and the protests he helped organize go from "tut-tut, so uncivil" to a triumph of nonviolent resistance. Gandhi and his tactics have gone through a similar rehabilitation/reclaimation.

And Stonewall? It's gone from a riot to a protest to a riot, with an ever-evolving cast of heroes, villains, and participants. Brigitte up there steered clear of who was involved and what their motivations may have been, and I suppose I will too, because we're all very attached to our own personal mythology. We all want to have been there, and there's some backlash and othering for people with queer identities that aren't part of the mythos.

I will say, though, that the man-o-sphere-centric film Buck Breaking sure did cough up an interesting interpretation for us. (Don't bother to watch it, I didn't, I just read/listened about it. It seems painful.) To the brain trust behind this propaganda piece, Stonewall was a BLACK riot - with no queer folks involved at all, certainly not any Black queer folks - and we STOLE it from them. I'm not gonna take that apart either, F. D. Signifier already did, and his experiences give him a better viewpoint than mine.

A riot is defined, and fueled by the police reaction in the moment, and afterwards, the media and politicians will carve it up however they see fit. Generally speaking, contemporary sources tend to err on the side of the police, and slowly get more revisionist as time passes. If the cops don't want you where you are, they will come up with a reason to remove you, provoking one if necessary. (See, my earlier post today, responding to efforts to make it more difficult to protest in the States.)

Cops are trained to parse any disturbance (even a bunch of kids singing patriotic music at the Capitol to score cheap points for the Republican House Speaker) as a threat, and they will minimize or remove it. A protest that does not cause a disturbance is not an effective protest. Thus, ANYTHING can be a riot. And, once the cops fire a few chemical weapons into the crowd, it sure will look like one. That's nice for any newspaper photographers who happen to be in the area!

This is why, when I talk about violent protests, I say the violence happens, like a rainy day or a sneeze. Speaking as a bleeding-heart lefty progressive (I don't show up for shit like January 6th), most people aren't looking to hurt anyone, they just want to be heard. If you do look like you're just there to start some shit, or you bring a weapon, someone will take you aside and ask you to go home, or at least leave that shit in the car. People with obvious weapons make a suitable excuse for the police to start some shit of their own - and we'd all rather not be pepper-sprayed or gassed, thanks. But if the cops want you gone, they are able to turn up the pressure until someone snaps, and then they'll start doing damage and making arrests anyway.

The first Pride was a riot, and a protest, and the participants repaid police violence against them with violence against the police. Police do their violence on behalf of the State, so we tend to overlook it, or spread the responsibility around until everyone is a little bit complicit. (We live in a democracy, right? Right?) But the truth is, a riot can be self-defense. It just doesn't look like it in the papers, because systemic oppression doesn't photograph very well.

Nothing about what's happening is "civil." "Civility" is not what anyone is after, here. What they want is silence. Silence just lets them keep doing whatever the hell they were doing, while pretending we're all OK with it. If you raise your voice, they will do whatever they can to shut you down. They lie, they cheat, they wound, and they kill.

Well, you can't make any noise if you're dead. So first, stay alive. And then, if you can, yell your fucking head off. Don't quiet down no matter what label they hit you with. If you're lucky, one day you'll be a triumph of nonviolent resistance too!

[gotnofucks]

Parts of Whole

(No images are mine, but I did edit them. If anyone knows the owners, do let me know so I can credit them)

Pairing: Sam Wilson x Bucky Barnes, Sam x Steve (platonic)

Summary: Steve would see his OTP’s ship sail, even from across the grave.

Words: 3.9k

Warnings: mentions of death (nothing graphic and not very sad), language, angst + fluff

A/N: I saw the trailer for tfatws and I just had to write this. This is also my entry for the amazingly talented @sagechanoafterdark and @sweater-daddiesdumbdork challenge (pic prompts above). Thank you for hosting this and being wonderful. The beautiful dividers are made by @firefly-graphics . Huge thanks to @the-inquisitive-hobbit for beta reading and giving me her very valuable insight.

 It never felt right in his hands. It was his to wield, his to claim, and yet it never felt more foreign. The concentric red and white circles with the star embedded in the blue center glared back at him from the mirror. It had been months, but Sam had never taken this shield with him to any mission. He couldn’t.

It felt starkly cold in his hands, lifeless and materialistic. It was Steve’s symbol of strength and hope. It used to hang on his back, warmed by his body heat. Now, it seemed like the shield only existed to remind him of Steve’s absence. This shield was made for Steve. It belonged to him, it always would. How could he ever stand where he stood? How could Sam ever be the captain that Steve was, take this shield that held more power than a crown on a head?

He put it down again, covering it with a cloth before shutting the door on it, leaning heavily against it. He missed him, he missed him like a throbbing wound that refused to heal. If only he could see the sun shining on those golden locks again, have those baby blue eyes smile at him again. What wouldn’t he give for that.

He didn’t notice he wasn’t alone until a heavy hand was on his shoulder, squeezing gently. Sam didn’t open his eyes, just let the weight of it anchor him, let it bring him back from the chaos that was his mind. The cold metal hand felt like a relief against the overwhelming burden of grief that penetrated his being whenever he touched the circular shield.

“I miss him too.” Bucky said, and Sam opened his eyes. Bucky’s eyes were blue too, slightly grey where Steve’s were green. He could see himself reflected in them and he straightened, looking away, hiding his weakness.

This mantle of Steve Rogers that he was supposed to assume, this legacy he was supposed to take forward felt like cheating. His friend, his mentor, his brother was no more. How could people just expect him to move on? But they did. It didn’t matter he was emotionally compromised, it didn’t matter he wanted to drown, like Steve nearly had at the Potomac all those years ago. The world didn’t wait to create one disaster after another. They needed Captain America then, and they needed him now. Like Fury said, trouble always sticks around.

Sam cleared his throat, making sure he was collected before looking at Bucky again.

“Everything loaded in the Quinjet?” He asked and Bucky nodded. They’ll be leaving for another mission soon, and Sam was glad he’ll have the sounds of battle to drown the war in his heart.

“Sam.” Bucky said once Sam started leaving. “Take it.”

Sam looked at Bucky over his shoulder, his gaze equal parts pain and accusation. Of everyone, Bucky shouldn’t be the one telling him this.

“I’ll meet you in the jet.” He said firmly and quickly marched to his room, shutting the door behind him. He hated coming back to the compound, the lingering memories of their fallen warriors whispering in his ears every time he was here. He preferred his little house in the woods where it was only Bucky and nature with him.

He took out his tactical gear, laying it on the bed and getting out his wings when he heard it.

“You are punishing yourself Sam.” Came his voice.

It was this moment where Sam broke, sliding down the wall and letting a few tears escape. He was gone but he never left him.

“How could you have been so selfish Steve. Why?” He asked, looking up to glare at Steve. Even dead he looked so handsome, so put together with his hands on his hips. He didn’t look like the old man they had buried a month after the battle. No. He was their Steve, their young, beautiful Steve who left them behind.

Sam didn’t know why he saw him. He didn’t know if this was a ghost or a creation of his mind. To him, it was Steve. It was Steve and it was a beautiful suffering to see him again every time he reappeared.

“I am sorry.” Steve said and knelt before Sam, looking apologetic. Sam didn’t try touching him. Not when the first hundred times his hand just went through him.

“You are? What for?” Sam asked. “For leaving behind your shield and title, for leaving me behind, or for abandoning a best friend you promised to walk till the end of the line with? What are you really sorry for Captain?”

Steve didn’t answer, he never did. He let Sam take out his hurt and anger, and Sam cried. In the privacy of his walls, he cried. He was so tired of pretending to be strong, to be happy. He hid behind his jokes and smiles, fooled the world which was so ready to move on while Sam was buried somewhere with Steve in the cemetery, half dead, half alive.

“I am sorry Sam, for everything.” Steve insisted. “But you need to stop punishing yourself for mistakes you never made. You can’t live this way.”

Sam snorted a laugh for even in death Steve was a humanitarian bastard. He didn’t come back to haunt his enemies; oh no the centenarian came back to help his friends. Why didn’t people see that he could never be Steve? That Sam Wilson can never, won’t ever be the Captain that Steven Rogers was.

“I hate you so much Steve, I really do.” Sam whispered, wiping his nose and getting up. Steve watched him getting changed, no barriers of shame between them from that side of the grave.

“You always said that. I have never heard a ‘I love you’ more pronounced than I do in your hate.” Steve commented with a soft smile, it widened when Sam gave him a half-hearted glare. It was amazing how they could go from having a painful conversation to joking, but that was how it worked with Steve. He knew Sam, he knew everything that made him laugh and made him smile.

“What are you doing here anyway? Don’t you have a tea party with Gandhi or some other do-gooder like you in the afterlife?” Sam grumbled, tightening the belt in his suit and attaching his wings to it. Steve chuckled, sitting on the chair and watching Sam with a relaxed smile.

“They are too uptight for me. Mother Teresa tried to adopt me the other day” Steve said, and Sam laughed. His wings were the colours of American Flag, a new change. He grabbed his weapons and fixed Steve with a look, hating and loving him for being so him.

“I’ll see you after the mission?” He asked tentatively. He would never admit it, but he feared one day Steve would disappear again. It was crazy, it was not normal to see dead people, but Sam would rather have a shadow of Steve than just a memory.

“I’ll be here as long as you need me Sam. Always.” Steve said, a sad smile on his face when he saw Sam leaving without the shield.

Sharon greeted him in the jet, talking to Bucky and the other agents over the blueprint spread before them. Sam nodded his hello, snatching the half empty pack of Cheetos from Bucky’s hand and munching on it.

“So now you want to steal the show and my food. You’re such a dick Wilson.” Bucky said, poking Sam in his shoulder and Sam poked his tongue out at him, a gap-toothed smile on his face. Their previous somber interaction would not be mentioned, filed again like so many inside the neglected corner of their minds.

“Bitch, I paid for grocery this month. This is technically mine.” Sam replied, making Bucky scowl. Sam knew there was a 70-30 chance he’ll find his bed crawling with centipedes when they got back home.

“Charming, boys.” Sharon remarked rolling her eye. “What are you guys doing for Christmas? Must be nice to have a holiday.”

Bucky shrugged, sharing a look with Sam. It was their first Christmas without Steve, a 6 feet 2-inch void always between them.

“Nothing special. Stay home, watch movies, eat a lot.” Bucky said. A lot remained unsaid, but they rarely needed words to communicate anymore. Sam bumped his shoulder in his, offering him some Cheetos to munch while he silently grieved.

“Well, I’ll leave my address here for you to deliver your presents to me.” Sharon joked and Sam laughed softly, mentally making a note to get her something.

“Alright then, and I’ll just casually remark that my phone and laptop are both in serious need for an upgrade. Just saying.” Sam said. “Hey Buck, what are you going to gift me?”

Bucky crumpled the empty chips packet before sending Sam an amused glare, flipping him off.

“A ball gag, so that I can hear something other than your stupid voice.” He snarked.

“Damn dude, at least ask me out for dinner before getting kinky.” Sam winked and Bucky swelled with indignation, pointing an accusing metal finger at Sam.

“I cook dinner 3 times a week you bastard, and I don’t even burn it!” He protested making Sam laugh louder than ever. He loved making Bucky mad, teasing him into an incensed rage that usually ended in a pillow fight or sometimes with Sam’s head in a headlock.

They straightened as they saw the incredulous looks on the new agents’ faces, baby agents as Bucky liked to call them. It was times like these, when both the battle-hardened veterans missed their lost teammates, the inside jokes that were shot around with as much precision as bullets and arrows on the battlefield.

They got to work again, discussing the mission and its details with the other agents. Sam would run point on scaling the territory and fly down to the enemy base with two agents while Bucky would guide him from up here and take out potential threats. They just needed to secure a technological innovation and it didn’t seem too like much work. As Sam poured over the briefing, his eyes subconsciously went over to Bucky who was fiddling with the equipment, making sure everything was in working condition.

If someone had told him a few years ago that Bucky would become his anchor, his solace in his darkest hours, Sam would have punched them in the face. But as it happened, they came to lean on each other, the only unchanged part of their older lives, the only person who made each feel that were still real, still alive. They were still annoyed by each other, but the arguments were more of a routine than an actual expression of resentment.

He didn’t realize he was staring until someone deliberately coughed behind him.

“He is so pretty, isn’t he?” Steve asked, though it was a rhetorical question. Bucky Barnes was a beauty, from his blue grey eyes to the new golden streaks running through his new arm. Sam tried not to notice the way Bucky’s armor clung to his muscles, his face looking almost boyish as he forgot the world and focused on his task.

“I thought you said I’ll see you after the mission.” Sam muttered, taking care that no one noticed him talking to air. He hurriedly looked away from Bucky when their eyes met, a heat rising in his cheeks that made Steve chuckle.

“I said I’ll be there when you need me. And it seems like you do.” Steve commented. He took the seat next to Sam, so near that Sam swore he could feel the heat emanating from his body.

“I don’t know what you mean.” Sam snapped, the smug look on Steve’s face making him wish he could touch him if only to be able to punch him. Stupid blonde best friends with perfect teeth and beautiful smiles and an ass that looked just as round after being dead.

“Oh, I think you do.” Steve said, shifting his gaze to Bucky. “I liked his hair longer but the shorter is going well with the new arm. Don’t you think?”

Despite himself Sam found himself nodding, admiring Bucky as he’d done a thousand times before. He liked his longer hair too, but without them falling in his face, he could see him better. And the arm. The new arm that gave Sam tingles in the most delicious ways, it had him flustered for three whole weeks after Bucky first showed up with it on him.

He didn’t know when it started, but Bucky had somehow become the most beautiful person to Sam. From the way he would make him the perfect mug of coffee to their little kitchen garden they started to keep themselves busy, he loved everything about him. Those moments where he would sense the turmoil inside Sam and silently slip his hands in Sam’s to assure him that he was there, these little moments endeared him even more.

Sam had lost count of how many times Bucky and he had woken up on the couch, sharing a blanket, both silently afraid to sleep alone. He had forgotten how many times he had spent kneeling at Bucky’s bedside, coaxing him out from a nightmare. Every moment spent in each other’s company, laughing, joking, mourning together, it brought them together in a way Sam had never imagined before.

“Tell him” Steve said, a wistful look on his face as he looked at his best friend. “He feels the same. I know.”

Sam shook his head, tearing his eyes away from Bucky with reluctance. He’d already lost so much, he wouldn’t lose Bucky too. Not because he has a minor, very minor teensy tiny crush on him.

“Man, shut the hell up.” He snapped.

“Who’re you talking to?” Bucky called out from across the jet and Sam’s head snapped up, mouth parting a little before he mumbled out a ‘no one’ and focused on the papers in his hand. Sometimes he felt guilty for keeping Steve a secret, for keeping Bucky away from his best friend. He knew Bucky cried into his pillow at nights, he knew because he’d held him then, tried his best to fill the cracks that appeared in the walls of Bucky’s heart as well as his own.

But then, Steve chose to come to him. Chose to talk to Sam. And he was afraid that telling anyone would disturb this magic, whatever this was. That he would once again have to bury Steve. So, he kept quiet. He buried this secret in the deep recesses of his mind, the initial worry of insanity long forgotten in favor of seeing his friend again.

“Do you even have a plan?” Bucky questioned, watching him prepare for the jump. Sam had a job for every agent accompanying him, but the idiot had not outlined anything for himself.

“I do.” Sam said, and when Bucky looked unconvinced, he lightly punched his shoulder. “You’re my plan, my backup. I scream, jump down and get my ass back up.”

Saying this, Sam jumped, the exasperated look on Bucky’s face imprinted behind his eyelids as his wings flared out and he floated.

Everything that could have gone wrong on this mission did, and Bucky was hysterical even before Sam’s call for backup came. He was going to kick Nick Fury’s ass, but before that he was going to bring his friend back in one-piece and chew him out for giving him a heart attack.

Sam’s wings took most of the weight of the fall, so he came back with a sprained ankle and bruises. Bucky was getting increasingly irritated when they came back home, their little secluded spot in the woods welcoming them with the smell of pine and wild grass.

“It’s not my fault Fury gave us shitty intel.” Sam groaned, “You can stop being salty now.”

Bucky remained quiet, the silent treatment going for almost the third day in row and Sam was at his wits end. It was stupid and ridiculous because Bucky almost always pulled the stupidest moves in the field, like stopping a bomb with his hand or listening to the villain’s evil monologue.

Steve was grinning as he leaned against the edge of the table, and with every suggestive wink he gave Sam, the new Captain America resisted the urge to throw a vase at him.

“He cares so much that he’s speechless.” Steve commented and Sam flipped him off. Dickhead has been giving running commentary of the thick tension in the air since they came back, and Sam was on the verge of calling for an exorcism.

“Why do you do that?” Bucky asked suddenly and Sam was so glad to hear him talk again it took him a while to understand the question.

“What?”

“This thing, looking somewhere and talking to yourself, or – I don’t know, you keep being weird.”

“You’re the one with the cyborg brain and arm and I’m weird” Sam tried deflecting. Bucky frowned, coming closer to sit near Sam, leaving abandoned Christmas decorations scattered around them. Clint had delivered it for them but neither had the heart to put them up.

“Sam.” Bucky deadpanned, and Sam sighed, resting his head back and avoiding eye contact. He looked at Steve who was still smiling, his beautiful face like a slap on the face and caress on the head at the same time.

It was more difficult than one would assume to explain. Why did Sam see Steve, and why did only Sam see Steve? Was it a hallucination, or his spirit? Would Steve go away if Sam confided in Bucky? Would Bucky be mad he didn’t tell him? There were so many questions, so many doubts, and yet as Sam looked into Bucky’s eyes, shining like sapphires, he couldn’t keep it to himself.

“Its…Its Steve.” He said, looking down and playing with the soft lint on his blanket. He didn’t hear Bucky say anything but moments later a metal hand gripped his, stopping its nervous movements.

“Steve?”

Sam gulped, the coolness of Bucky’s hand in his warming his heart, swelling it with hope and an emotion Sam was too afraid to acknowledge.

“Steve, he – he talks to me.” Sam confessed and tentatively looked at Bucky whose eyes were brimming with emotion. He expected him to call him crazy, or to get mad, but what he did not expect was Bucky to shift closer and take Sam’s other hand in his too.

“He talks to me as well.” Bucky said. Sam was breathless, both by the slight smell of cinnamon that came from Bucky and the way Bucky came even closer, close enough that he could count the flecks in his eyes.

“He does?” Sam asked and Bucky nodded.

“I don’t know how he does it with you, but whenever I need him, miss him, I feel him speak to me from here.” With this Bucky placed one of Sam’s hand on his chest, the beating heart under thumping strongly. Unconsciously, Sam’s hand caressed Bucky’s chest, mapped its muscles and the jagged scars that bulged under his left shoulder.

“I see him.” Sam admitted, unable to look away from Bucky. “I can see him”

Tears blurred his vision until they dropped on his cheeks, sliding down, and forging a river down, leaving a trail of hurt, betrayal, and loss in their wake. Bucky’s hand came up to wipe them away, staying on Sam’s cheek, playing with the soft hair on his chin.

“I see him too. In you.” Bucky said and they didn’t know who moved first, but their foreheads were touching and then their lips met in a chaste, hesitant kiss. Sam melted into his touch, molding himself to fall into Bucky’s larger frame, his arms circling his waist and pulling him closer. They kissed as if they had walked a hundred miles just to kiss each other, as if they had saved every last breath just to live this moment.

“I – I, Buck –” Sam began but Bucky shushed him, pulling him into another soul-searching kiss before pulling away.

“I know.�� He murmured.

As Sam relaxed in Bucky’s warm embrace, lost himself in the blues of Bucky’s eyes, he noticed Steve from the corner of his eyes. There was sadness on his face, the pain of a goodbye in the creases around his eyes. But when he smiled, he smiled with genuine love and happiness. The two parts of his soul he’d left behind seemed to have found themselves, and with them Steve felt himself complete.

“Till the end of the line pals.” He whispered.

Sam never saw Steve again.

Their Christmas was not very festive in terms of decoration. There was still too much pain, too much suffering in their hearts. Steve and Nat’s pictures beamed at them from the walls, and Sam sent Pepper the confirmation that they’ll come over for New Years.

It was a beautiful thing about human nature, about how one rises from the ashes to become stronger. Sam and Bucky lost someone, but they found each other. In the shared grieve of their hearts, they discovered the love long buried in there, eagerly waiting to be spread and shared.

They stayed warm under the blanket, wearing oversized sweaters that they wouldn’t be caught dead wearing outside. The sweaters may or may not have been Steve's; the soldiers mutually decided to hold Steve close in this way. Sam’s heart was tripled in size, as his head rested in the crook of Bucky’s neck, the smell of chocolate and cinnamon melting together to make a little world of their own. Sam wondered if he would mind growing out his hair again.

“So, what did you get me?” Sam asked, knowing he wouldn’t mind if Bucky did get him that ball gag. Part of him almost hoping for it.

“How rude Wilson, here I’ve given you all of myself and you still thirst for more.” Bucky mocked and Sam tackled him into a hug, peppering kisses all over his face.

“Bitch, you’re lucky I lo-” Sam cut himself off, suddenly shy. The smirk on Bucky’s face melted into a smile, a hungry look in his eyes.

“Say it” Bucky ordered. And Sam did. The Captain obeyed his Sergeant without hesitation.

“I love you. I love you so freaking much! I got us the cheesiest gifts.” Sam said in excitement. He pulled away long enough to grab his gift from under the bed, giving it to Bucky to open. He watched with his bottom lip between his teeth as Bucky opened the box to pull out two chains, each dangling with a rectangular pendant.

Dog tags.

Their dog tags. Bucky raised his eyes to Sam’s, fisting his hand in Sam’s t-shirt to pull him closer into a searing kiss, all tongue and teeth and moans, hips grinding as passion merged with love and emotion.

“I love you!” Bucky growled and kissed Sam again. “And I got you chocolates that look like dicks. I didn’t know this would happen between us when I bought them, and I was going to give you a hint with them.”

Sam’s laughter echoed around their small house, the dopey smile on his face remaining intact as they ate candy and burnt sparklers into the night. In the colourful light that played on their faces, they held hands together, filling the void that was there with the warmth of each other.

“We can use the shield as a sleigh until you’re comfortable using it as a weapon.” Bucky mused and Sam smiled into his neck, thinking of a certain blond asshole who may have gone away, but will never be lost.

Permanent Taglist: @what-is-your-wish @shooting-star-love @stanmysoul @sweeterthanthis @scentedsongrebel @muralskins @rayofdawnworld @donutloverxo @just-one-ordinary-fangirl @angrythingstarlight @rockyrogers @slothspaghettiwrites @nerdygirl8203 

CE & Steve : @littlegasps @bluemusickid @harrysthiccthighss @abeyyaaar @slytherinandoutasgard @empath-bunny 

SebStan & Bucky : @sebastiansthot @its-izzys @harrysthiccthighss @empath-bunny

For this fic : @barnesandco​

[peachandmark]

Day6 Jae as your college senior (Political Science major since he’s one)

Jae is the senior who’s in charge in freshmen orientation and head of poli sci association, a very charismatic leader. He’s a sophomore. His tall figure, fair skin and cute eyes under those glasses caught you off guard.

Super friendly and jokes a round to make the juniors comfortable, always asks “Do you have any question?” with a cheeky smile.

Most girls in your batch probably having crush on him because you too. He’s even famous in the entire faculty. Super respectful towards everyone.

But you’re competitive so you’re a step ahead, asking for his number in case you have any question without anyone noticing even your new friends. At random times you will chat him first tru katalk

Though he would gladly answer but instead he suggest to meet you face to face to explain further. He always chooses library as a place to meet you.

He’ll explain all about the course and the subjects in every semester, a little bit introduction of the lecturers and some tips to excel the subjects of your first final. He’ll also tell his experience during first year over coffee, in which he treats you

Sometimes you’ll came across him on your way to the class and you’ll greet him first and he replies as friendly to you that Brian, his closest friend and also your fellow senior, teases him over his over friendliness to you. And Jae will hit him and shut his mouth after that. You chuckles and yes your day has been made just by looking at that handsome figure

Would try hard to explain why Nicollo Machiavelli’s thought is not as evil as you think and is necessary in modern politics because you’re such a softie and more likely into Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy in which govern the nation with “love”

He would suggest some helpful tips and inspirational books/movies in politics to help you understand the whole field better

He would hit you up to ask how you’re doing on midterm quiz and if you’re doing bad he’ll cheer you up and continue supporting you. “Actually there’s formula in understanding World Politics, it’s heavily based on realism theory with three key points; Identity, Geography and Power. Anyway, let’s have a tutor lesson on Saturday. I will explain later. For now let’s grab a lunch, are you free now?” he says

Whenever it’s just the two of you, Jae becomes flirty but not too much that it makes you uncomfortable. He’a really keep it slow and not too much. Complimenting you has becomes one of his die-hard habits. Some of your female seniors (his fans) are annoyed with you. But you brush them off, because who cares? Whenever Jae see some of them trying to bully you, he becomes more protective of you

You will go supporting him for every debate competition he participates in. He’ll teach you the right way to debate too and make sure you’ll go practice with him whenever there’s time. He does that because he saw potential in you to replace him next year in the debate team. But stop the lesson if you’re too worn out in which you feel thankful for. He can be persuasive at times but knows too well about the limits. Anyway he’ll make sure you will do your best at it.

You and Jae will be in the same party in your campus. Besides, he would also run for campus elections and you’ll accompany him when he’s campaigning here and there even though it gets dark. He’s so thankful for it and always checks you up to make sure you’re okay. He would aslo asks your opinions on his manifesto and how he deliver his speeches

Whenever there’s issues regarding the university administration and national politics, he would lead the protest with all the students. Students and leaders from other universities also joining him. He and his friends will help solving the issues and if they’re successful, both of you will go out celebrating first then he’ll meet up with his friends later because you’re with him through thick and thin, giving ideas and supports, becoming his source of energy to go through it all

All of his friends know you even the political activist outside the campus because he won’t stop talking about you in front of them. You’ll be so shy but later on and change the subjects. You’re super comfortable and friendly with most of his friends and sometimes he’ll get jealous over it. “I shouldn’t tag you along!” He says with a cute pout while driving to your dorm

Jae will send you random memes and ugly pictures of himself when he gets bored in class and you will do the same. At the end you can’t concentrate in the class because it’s too funny. Your lecturer noticed that your mind is elsewhere and warns you. So whether you want it or not you have to keep your phone in your bag but still can’t stop laughing because of him.

When he holds a visit to the parliament/UN building for the freshmen to expose themselves to, you’ll sit beside him in the bus. You lost your breath a bit at how dashing he looks in suits (usually he’s looks fine but at that moment he’s looks the finest!)

Well, later Wonpil spill the tea that Jae purposefully bought a new one just to tease you. But Jae also secretly likes you in suits too, he captures your new look in his mind.

Whenever Jae is sick, you’ll take care of him, makes sure he’ll take his medicine on time and make him rest. Sometimes you’ll ask Brian about his health because he’s his roomate. Brian will guide you at what to do, what he can eat, wht he cannot eat etc. Usually Jae won’t be open so much about his health condition beacuse he doesn’t want to worry you

Jae likes to frame you in his lyrics and composing songs with his acoustic guitars, you probably not knowing this except Brian and Sungjin, a Music major who would help him with the composition.

Your faculty holds an annual dinner. You dressed up because Jae will be your date. You kind of want to sweep him off his feet that night. “Wow y/n, you’re...beautiful tonight” he says breathily. Yup, your mission cleared. “Shut up, Jae sunbaenim” you reply shyly.

To you surprise, he performed with a guitar in his hands that night on the stage. The song he sings is so unfamiliar, something you never heard of.

Sungjin whispers to you “He wrote this song himself”. “Oh really? He’s so good at it. Just how perfect a human can be?”

From the way he keeps looking at you while letting his beautiful vocals charm everyone, you kind of have a hunch that he sings about you. But you just be silence about it, don’t want to be upset if it’s the otherwise. Maybe he sings for another girl in this hall, no one that she knows of. Everyone claps and whistles for his amazing performance. His circles and your friends especially being loud for it.

“Being oblivious is one of her talents, does she?” Said Brian to Wonpil and Wonpil just laugh it off. “Hey, let Jae suffer a bit dude. It’s fun to watch”

“Ah...ahh... Sungjin asked me to perform tonight. Hahaha...he said it will make my popularity rise among the students, so...it’s kind of important for the campus election, if you know what I mean hehe” , “But you’ve always been popular among the students what do you mean? I can see the girls almost...fainted” you pout and Jae captures this sight again in his mind

He shut you up as he takes your hand in his “Well don’t you know my name? ‘Jae’ means ‘fame’ in Greek. I born with it ya know. It’s the most natural thing to happen hahahah” He laughs out loud at his lame joke. You just laugh along with him since his laugh is that contagious. If he’a not Jae, you will slap this boy for sure with savage remark

“Hey you’re cute when you’re jealous, y/n.” Jae said while tapping his fingers on the steering. “Shut up, sunbaenim!”

After that you’ll bug him to make him sing again, so he had no other options but to send you several videos of him jamming or when he’s practicing

But when you’re having bad time, concerns or trouble sleeping, he’ll sing to you while face timing with you. At that time you never know you need a voice to put you to sleep since your busy parents never did that

Whenever Jae gives a speech at any events, because he won the elections and become one of the student leaders, you’ll take photos of him and once he recognises it, he looks at the camera with a smirk and you sequeled over it

Study week is approaching, apart from your own circles doing revision together, sometimes you’ll ask Jae for help. So you guys will go to library together and have a little library “date”. He would also share some of his old notes with you. After teaching you something, he would go ask you some questions to test your understanding. “What’s the differences between oligarchy and aristocracy? Which one is better in Aristotle philosophy?” He asks but then you failed to answer it to his liking so he pinch your cheeks as a punishment

The library date is so fun, apart from being serious when it has has to be, Jae is so damn playful. He would tell some jokes about his friends, mostly about Dowoon and Wonpil, and make a fool of himself whenever you’re stress. The librarian sometimes will warn you guys to keep it down a little

Your last paper has ended and Jae finished his first so he picked you and your friends up from the examination hall. Later he make excuses so that your friends get the fuck out of his car and that you’ll go on date with him peacefully. As usual, your friends kind of expected it and fake sulking about it but got out of the car nevertheless, warning him to take care of you and get you to the dorm safely that night

After both of you got the result, you asked him first. He doesn’t want to reveal it unless you reveal yours. So you sent him your cute selfie, he doesn’t have a choice but to let you the screen shot of it. His cgpa is higher than you but regardless both of you are in the dean list. He sincerely hapy for you and deliver a bouquet of flowers to your house. Roses and baby breath to be exact because it’s your favourite

As the new semester begins, both of you’re able to meet now. It’s not a secret anymore that you and Jae are a thing now. Though both of you want to keep it low but he lowkey want to let the world know. Event the lecturer noticed and smirked to him whenever he see you guys talking while walking to the class

Jae asks you out the first day of the semester and both of you going to his favourite lobster restaurant. Yup, after working so hard saving up for this moment. He’s a simple person and you like that a lot bout him. Since you’re new to eating lobster, he cracks the lobsters for you and feeds you

Nothing too fancy, as he damn sure about his feelings and the probability of you liking him back, he asks you to be his girlfriend on the way to grab coffees before sending you back to the dorm. You hide your face with the sleeves of your hoodie and turn your face away from him as you say yes.

“Do I have to call you oppa now?”, “You can when it’s just the two of us. But if it’s in front of other people, just use sunbaenim, will you be okay with it? Either way my heart flutters whenever you said both hehe” , “Aren’t we obvious enough to hides it anymore?” , “You’re right but let’s just keep it simple, okay?” , “Sure Jaehyung oppa” you smile while locking hands with his free hand

(Since I’m also a poli sci and ‘Jae’ major so why not?)

[didanawisgi]

by Robin Koerner

“Jordan Peterson, the Canadian professor of psychology who in the last year has become North America’s most popular public intellectual, has spent many decades studying tyranny and its antecedents. As a result, he frequently warns his audiences of the unparalleled destructive power of “ideological possession.”

As someone who has long been writing about the threat posed by this all too prevalent epistemic disease, I am delighted to see the attention that is now being paid to it.

Ideological possession is to healthy political discourse as scientism is to science.

Any ideology has the potential to be deadly.

The most important thing to know about diagnosing ideological possession is that you can’t do it by looking at the content of the possessing ideology.

As I have said elsewhere, it’s not the content of your belief that makes you dangerous, it’s the way you believe it.

Any ideology has the potential to be deadly when advanced by those who are so sure of their own knowledge and moral outlook that they would impose it against the protestations of those affected by it. To the ideologically possessed, the imposition can always be justified because “it’s the right thing to do,” “it will start working if we keep at it,” “the complaints are coming from bad people,” and so on. (Yes. The logic is as circular as it seems.)

So, with apologies to Dr. Peterson and an open invitation to him to amend and augment the following (he is the clinician, after all), here, for diagnostic purposes, is a list of symptoms of ideological possession—that most fatal of epistemic diseases.

Cautions and Caveats

The symptoms of ideological possession manifest differently according to the possessing ideology.

So, for illustrative purposes, the following list of symptoms is presented with example manifestations, labeled to indicate their association with so-called “progressive” (P), so-called “conservative” (C), and so-called “libertarian” (L) possessing ideologies.

For instance, the fact that someone believes the world is out to get them doesn’t necessarily mean they are paranoid.

To be fair, it is not the case that all people who present with manifestations similar to those listed below are exhibiting symptoms of ideological possession. It is, after all, quite possible to hold apparently simplistic or radical views that are very carefully arrived at with an open mind, good data, and intellectual honesty.

For instance, the fact that someone believes the world is out to get them doesn’t necessarily mean they are paranoid (B does not imply P). More interestingly, as the old saw goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that the world isn’t out to get you (P does not strictly mean  B is false).

Nevertheless, believing the world is out to get you is a very good diagnostic marker for paranoia (B is highly causally correlated with P).

So with that caution, the manifestations below are offered because I have witnessed each one, and when I did so, had reason to believe it was symptomatic of at least the early stages of the onset of ideological possession.

List of Symptoms for Diagnostic Purposes

Major Symptoms

The possessed insists that anyone who disfavors a specific view or policy must also reject the basic moral value that, to the possessed individual, justifies that view or policy. This is the fallacy of the assumed paradigm. (L: “If you won’t let mothers protect their children with guns, you’re a misogynist.” C: “People who favor gun control don’t value freedom.” P: “People against regulating firearms don’t care about violence against children.”)

The possessed uses one-dimensional labels for people they’ve never met and who clearly aren’t one-dimensional as a means of dismissing the value of all their beliefs or actions. (L: “Churchill was a mass-murderer.” C: “Gandhi was a pedophile.” P: “Thatcher was a witch.”)

Related to the above, the possessed will regard a few quotes or actions by an individual as proof that the individual is evil without regard to context, appreciation that everyone is a product of his time, recognition that people change over time, or consideration of other quotes and actions that provide evidence against the claimed ill intent of the individual in question.

The possessed advocates worse treatment of people within a specified group than others. (P: “Straight white men have privilege and so should have their opinions discounted or suppressed.” L: “People who work for the state initiate violence, and it is ok to use violence against those who initiate violence.” C: “People who burn the flag are traitors and should be punished as such.”)

The possessed believes that a single principle provides answers to most important moral and political questions, disregarding reasonable moral intuitions to the contrary (precisely because they are to the contrary) and any uncertainty regarding the precise meaning or application of the principle. (P: “Equality.” L: “Non-aggression.” C: “Biblical authority.”)

When the results of an ideologically justified action are the opposite of those intended or used to justify that action in the first place, the possessed is convinced that not only is the action not the cause of any resulting problem but that more of the same action will eventually solve that problem. (P: “Venezuela needs more socialism.” C: “We need more unprovoked military involvement in conflicts that don’t involve us.” L: “Europe should open its borders immediately to everyone.”)

Minor Symptoms

The possessed enjoys opportunities to defend what he believes more than opportunities to make his beliefs more accurate.

The possessed collects data that support her beliefs instead of seeking data that would help her correct false beliefs.

The possessed offers unsolicited opinions without any empathic engagement with the recipient or any interest in whether she is in any state to be positively influenced by them.

The possessed would rather reform society’s institutions to better serve his ideology than reform his ideology to better serve people.

Immunity, Pathology, and Cure

Fortunately, the epistemic immune system of most mentally healthy people protects them from ideological possession. The core of the immune response—and indeed an effective cure—is Love of Truth, specifically the holding of Truth as the highest moral value.

Love of Truth, in fact, provides a near-perfect protection against ideological possession.

Pathologically, ideological possession may even be understood as the substitution of that highest value by another.

Love of Truth, in fact, provides a near-perfect protection against ideological possession because the disease, while deadly, has no defense against the honest admission by the afflicted of his or her symptoms.

Nevertheless, the most pernicious and subtle feature of the disease prevents the possessed from seeking treatment or treating himself: ideological possession can disguise itself in the mind of the afflicted as that very same Love of Truth that, in its authentic form, would cure it.

What conditions, then, enable those in the grip of ideological possession—whose love of Truth may have already been replaced by a counterfeit—to cure themselves?

To answer that, it is important to understand the symbiotic relationship of the disease with its host.

Although epidemics of ideological possession can be fatal to entire societies, the disease provides immediate benefits to the individual who is afflicted, such as intellectual certainty and stability, feelings of moral superiority, an apparent simplification of life’s difficult decisions and questions, avoidance of true moral responsibility, and a sense of belonging among others similarly afflicted. All of these tend to prevent self-treatment.

The painful shock activates the Love of Truth long enough to locate the cause of the pain.

Accordingly, the cures for ideological possession tend to be external and unsought. They nevertheless exist and fall into two broad categories—fast cures and slow cures.

Fast cures tend to be triggered by a catastrophic failure of one or more of the above benefits to the afflicted individual. This may occur when, despite the highly motivated perception and reasoning of the possessed individual, she experiences an unexpected, painful, and shocking outcome of an ideologically motivated action. The painful shock activates the Love of Truth long enough to locate the cause of the pain, forcing the afflicted to admit the symptoms, and therefore identify the disease for what it is, effecting the rapid cure.

Slow cures tend to involve a rising awareness by one afflicted individual of the same disease in friends or others with whom she identifies. This can be induced when the individual sees inconsistencies in those others’ words and actions that cause direct harm to others and to the stated goals of the possessing ideology. (In theory, this slow cure could be induced by observations of one’s own actions under ideological possession, but this is prevented by the self-righteousness that is felt when one acts in the grip of the disease.)

Maintaining Good Epistemic Health

To protect oneself from the terrible epistemic disease of ideological possession, epistemic nutrition and exercise are extremely effective.

The good news is, if you’re chasing Truth hard enough, it is very unlikely that this particular disease will ever catch up with you.

With respect to the former, the regular consumption of great thinkers like J.S. Mill (“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that”), George Orwell (“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle”), and Dostoevsky (“Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer. Nothing is more difficult than to understand him”) will keep you in good epistemic health. Supplement these basics with a more varied diet of thinkers with whom you disagree on things that matter, and you’ll be in even better shape.

With respect to the latter, a comfortable regime of epistemic exercise—which takes a little time and effort but is immediately rewarding—involves maintaining real friendships with people who have very different assumptions, experiences, and declared moral and political priorities from your own.

The good news is, if you’re chasing Truth hard enough, it is very unlikely that this particular disease will ever catch up with you.”

[inallherhonesty]

What I hear.

WHEN IT IS ROITS YOU CALL FOR PEACEFUL PROTESTS, OUTRAGED AT VIOLENCE.

WHEN THERE ARE PEACEFUL PROTESTS YOU SCOFF AT THE TIME THE PROTESTORS WASTED DOING NOTHING.

YET YOU USE MAHATMA GANDHI FOR THE EXAMPLE OF A PEACEFUL PROTEST.

YET WHEN A WOMEN DOES WHAT GANDHI DID, SHE IS ARRESTED ON THE SPOT.

It's just a mistake, you say. Never happened, you say. If only the whole protest was like her, you say. I'm sure she is okay, you say.

WHEN NAZIS SHOW UP WITH GUNS AT A PROTEST IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO PROTEST PEACEFULLY WITH GUNS, BULLETS SHOT IN THE AIR.

It was an accident they shot, maced, hit, or axed someone, you say. It never happened, everyone is lying, all fake videos, you say. They were protecting themselves, you say. Opposers attacked them first, you say. Their right to protest peacefully is under attack, you say.

YET WHEN INDIGENOUS PEOPLE PROTEST ON THEIR LAND WITHOUT GUNS, BUT MUSIC AND DANCE, YOU STAY SILENT AS THE MILITARY OPENS FIRE ON UNARMED PEOPLE.

You say, they should get out of the way. Protesting is useless, you say.

WHEN A PROTEST IS TRULY A PEACEFUL PROTEST, NO GUNS, NO GEAR BUT THE CLOTHES ON THEIR BACKS, YOU LOOK AWAY AND MOCK THEM.

Time wasted, you say.

WHEN IT'S VIOLENT, ROITS AND GUNS, YOU CRY, WHERE ARE THE PEACEFUL PROTESTORS?

Where are the time wasters that will never be Mahatma Gandhi?

I hear you say.

[l-enfer-c-est-les-autres]

just had a long argument with my roommate about how “violence doesn’t solve anything”,  “violence is never the answer, if we kill we’re just as bad as them, look at gandhi”, and “everyone has the right to live/no one deserves to die, even murderers/rapists/fascists/etc”, “if a woman’s being abused she can just walk out the door while the abuser is sleeping”, and how “there’s always jobs available nearby for everyone if you work hard enough, that don’t require transportation and are sustainable for you and your family and you magically qualify for and don’t require any luck”. she’s absolutely a good person, and generally well-informed, but this is where white, middle class privilege shows.

1. self defense IS NOT EQUAL to assault. there is no moral comparison, and those who argue this are brainwashing their victims into allowing themselves to be victimized, to not fight back, to roll over and make things easier for them. if it’s kill or be killed, the aggressors should absolutely be the ones to die.

2. no, i do not value the lives of murderers/rapists/fascists/etc as equal to that of their victims. if it’s kill or be killed, they should absolutely be the ones to die.  it’s not about the morality of the death penalty; in the USA, the ‘justice’ system is blatantly broken: prisons are for profit, black kids who smoke weed go to prison for 6 years while white rapists get 1 week of jail time, sexual predators and offenders become president. when the system not only fails to protect you, but is part of the oppression against you and your loved ones, fighting back is self-defense, and you should and must fight back with all the means at your disposal, including violence.

3. india rebelled violently against britain, there was violent armed conflict between indians and british, gandhi just became the figurehead of the movement, and there were other factors such as economics at play; it is total bullshit myth that india achieved independence solely through pacific protest. resisting and fighting against the depredation of a colonizing aggressor is self-defense.

4. sexism, classism, racism, fascism - there is a war going on. people, lots of people, especially the poor and POC, are dying every day, murdered deliberately and though the negligence of the government and the society that is supposed to serve and protect them. you cannot “vote them out” because a) in the USA, the popular vote DOES NOT MATTER, the electoral college chooses the president and most americans don’t vote enough at the lower levels of government to claim any measure of democratic power (not to mention the US has been an oligarchy since Reagan), b) the system is designed by the people in power so that they remain in power. the system literally CANNOT be fought from within. ex: a good number of dictators were originally democratically elected; then once in power they change the laws so the presidency becomes a lifetime office. corrupt governments - and all governments become corrupt over time because enough/too many humans are selfish, greedy, stupid creatures - are self-sustaining and will legalize evil and corruption. bribing officials and buying elections? legal in the USA. under the trump administration, getting rid of the EPA means legalizing known dangers to public health and safety such as toxic waste dumping. the water crisis in flint? perfectly legal for the government to do nothing for 5 years and let an entire city suffer without clean water and get lead poisoning (the citizens are suing the government for damages, but this will not undo their suffering or restore their health). this is why revolution is the only means of destroying corrupt government and restoring power to the people, and revolution is self-defense.

5. the rights we have today - women’s rights, equal rights, LGBT rights, children’s rights, human rights - our grandparents and parents absolutely fought and died for them, they did not wait around pacifically waiting for those in power to give them some, and too many of us today are still fighting for ourselves and others. suffragettes were imprisoned, assaulted, and had their lives ruined; martin luther king jr. was assassinated by the FBI only 50 years ago when my mother was a teenager (don’t let those black and white photos fool you into thinking it was further away than it really is), and countless others died protesting and fighting; the LGBT at stonewall rioted and physically fought the police for 5 days. so many of the LGBT+ community are still fighting today, and being harassed, physically and sexually assaulted, and murdered, and teenagers are especially vulnerable and often are kicked out of their homes and forced into homelessness. those in power never voluntarily relinquish, share, or give power, because it doesn’t benefit them; they have to be forced to do so, including through violent means, and this is self-defense.

6. no there aren’t magically convenient jobs for everyone everywhere, and it is nearly impossible to climb out of poverty. when you’re living paycheck to paycheck, losing a job for even a week can be enough to force you and your family into homelessness, and from there it’s nearly impossible to find work without a permanent address, a phone number, access to regular showers and food, and god forbid you need healthcare in america, etc. you’re disabled or it’s freezing winter outside? financial insecurity and homelessness is a death sentence. in france the gilets jaunes movement began to protest a tax on cars that would have crippled the working poor, because while it’s good in theory to reduce carbon emissions and save the environment, there is not the infrastructure necessary to replace those cars. in north america, you can’t go anywhere without a car; if you live outside the city or in certain neighborhoods there’s no public transportation or it’s unreliable, or what would be a 10min trip from my house to the grocery store would take >2h30 by bus because there’s a highway to go around, which is simply not doable: the more time i spend commuting, the less time i can spend working, sleeping, feeding myself, taking care of dependents, etc. in contrast, you could live without a car in most of Japan because they have amazing public transportation. fighting to maintain the means of self-subsistence is self-defense.

7. i asked her: have you ever had to worry about where you were going to sleep tonight, or whether you could eat? no, she hasn’t. how many homeless people do you know, when you’re talking about how you and your friends all managed to find work within bicycle distance of your house? none. when is the last time you or your loved ones were threatened and endangered, harassed, discriminated against, or killed by neo-nazis, mass shooters, the police, etc? never. (ironically, she agreed that World War II needed to be fought) . when confronted with bigots whose proudly self-professed goal is mass genocide of you and your people, fighting back and killing them to prevent them from killing you is self-defense.

8. nazis, school shooters, domestic abusers, ARE NOT MENTALLY ILL. the majority of them, and this is proven by many, many studies, don’t have mental illness, and ALL of them have VALUE PROBLEMS. as in, they don’t value the lives of POC and women, they hold as a core belief that they are less and deserve to be killed and treated poorly. “if a woman’s being abused she can just walk out the door while the abuser is sleeping”: even discounting the psychological effects of abuse (hopelessness, feeling of being trapped, dependence, fear of repercussions and punishment, etc) abused women usually don’t have any money or means of earning money; if they have children it’s even harder. women’s shelters will only let people stay for a limited amount of time, and an abuser can easily find out the address. i used to live by the only women’s shelter in the area, the gate was dented from all the men who would come and beat it, with their hands, baseball bats, ramming their cars into it, shouting and threatening; i’m sure that more than one woman was caught leaving and beaten even worse for the attempt, and they are often too afraid to ask the police for help, or the police refuse to help because they’re poor/uneducated/POC/don’t give a fuck/don’t believe them because the abuser is an upstanding pillar of the community/etc, or in the USA the abuser is often a cop. and if the police do show up, the abuser might not go to court or serve jail time, meaning he’ll be free to retaliate against the woman and children, and in many cases abusers retain parental rights over their children; even if a restraining order is issued, that doesn’t guarantee it will be enforced, and it will not prevent an abuser from harming the woman and children, only punish him for it after it’s too late. for the woman and her potential children, leaving means homelessness, starvation, immense psychological stress, and huge risk of retaliation up unto being murdered. so if, since she cannot resist or escape her abuser while he’s beating the shit out of her, she decides to take a kitchen knife and kill him while he’s passed out drunk, that’s self-defense.

yes, we can and must educate people, especially children, and yes this is the only way to bring lasting change on a societal level. but in the meantime, my roommate and her loved ones aren’t the ones suffering from chronic poverty, threatened and degraded by discrimination, being denied job opportunities and basic rights, or dying from completely preventable lack of food, shelter, and medical care, or being murdered because they and their lives are considered trash. no violence is not always the only solution, but sometimes it is, and sometimes it is the best solution.

obviously her understanding of the world is going to be heavily influenced by her experience of it. and the reality is, she’s blonde, thin and conventionally attractive, from an educated financially secure family, can afford to be vegetarian and buy high-quality food every day, and she can single-handedly pay her own university tuition (in canada) with her part-time job. but it’s easy for her to say that “violence is never the answer” when she has never, and likely will never, have to fight for her life, her rights, or those of people like her, will never have to defend her inherent worth to people who genuinely don’t care. and this is a good thing, because no one should have to do any of this, but it needs to be true for everyone. so repeat after me,

PACIFISM IS FOR THE PRIVILEGED.

THE LAW IS NOT JUSTICE.

CAPITALISM IS FAKE AND NON-SUSTAINABLE, IT IS A VIOLENT, SYSTEMATIC, MURDEROUS ATTACK AGAINST THE 99%. there is no reason other than the greed of the 1% for the way our society is currently structured or how resources are being distributed. jeff bezos is currently worth 165 billion USD. if you divided that equally among all 7 billion people on this planet right now, we would each have over 22 billion, can you wrap your heads around that? or let’s convert that into time, $1 for 1 second: if i earn 50k/year, i get to live for not even 14 hours; jeff over there will live for 5232 years. so yes, EAT THE RICH. it is horrifyingly evil to have that much money, knowing the only way to have that much is to make it at the expense of the vulnerable, off of slave labor and the exploitation of human suffering, and even worse to choose not to use it to improve the world around you and help your fellow man.

[galeahad]

Live Not By Lies

There was a time when we dared not rustle a whisper. But now we write and read samizdat and, congregating in the smoking rooms of research institutes, heartily complain to each other of all they are muddling up, of all they are dragging us into! There’s that unnecessary bravado around our ventures into space, against the backdrop of ruin and poverty at home; and the buttressing of distant savage regimes; and the kindling of civil wars; and the ill-thought-out cultivation of Mao Zedong (at our expense to boot)—in the end we’ll be the ones sent out against him, and we’ll have to go, what other option will there be? And they put whomever they want on trial, and brand the healthy as mentally ill—and it is always “they,” while we are—helpless.

We are approaching the brink; already a universal spiritual demise is upon us; a physical one is about to flare up and engulf us and our children, while we continue to smile sheepishly and babble:

“But what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength.”

We have so hopelessly ceded our humanity that for the modest handouts of today we are ready to surrender up all principles, our soul, all the labors of our ancestors, all the prospects of our descendants—anything to avoid disrupting our meager existence. We have lost our strength, our pride, our passion. We do not even fear a common nuclear death, do not fear a third world war (perhaps we’ll hide away in some crevice), but fear only to take a civic stance! We hope only not to stray from the herd, not to set out on our own, and risk suddenly having to make do without the white bread, the hot water heater, a Moscow residency permit.

We have internalized well the lessons drummed into us by the state; we are forever content and comfortable with its premise: we cannot escape the environment, the social conditions; they shape us, “being determines consciousness.” What have we to do with this? We can do nothing.

But we can do—everything!—even if we comfort and lie to ourselves that this is not so. It is not “they” who are guilty of everything, but we ourselves, only we!

Some will counter: But really, there is nothing to be done! Our mouths are gagged, no one listens to us, no one asks us. How can we make them listen to us?

To make them reconsider—is impossible.

The natural thing would be simply not to reelect them, but there are no re-elections in our country.

In the West they have strikes, protest marches, but we are too cowed, too scared: How does one just give up one’s job, just go out onto the street?

All the other fateful means resorted to over the last century of Russia’s bitter history are even less fitting for us today—true, let’s not fall back on them! Today, when all the axes have hewn what they hacked, when all that was sown has borne fruit, we can see how lost, how drugged were those conceited youths who sought, through terror, bloody uprising, and civil war, to make the country just and content. No thank you, fathers of enlightenment! We now know that the vileness of the means begets the vileness of the result. Let our hands be clean!

So has the circle closed? So is there indeed no way out? So the only thing left to do is wait inertly: What if something just happens by itself?

But it will never come unstuck by itself, if we all, every day, continue to acknowledge, glorify, and strengthen it, if we do not, at the least, recoil from its most vulnerable point.

From lies.

When violence bursts onto the peaceful human condition, its face is flush with self-assurance, it displays on its banner and proclaims: “I am Violence! Make way, step aside, I will crush you!” But violence ages swiftly, a few years pass—and it is no longer sure of itself. To prop itself up, to appear decent, it will without fail call forth its ally—Lies. For violence has nothing to cover itself with but lies, and lies can only persist through violence. And it is not every day and not on every shoulder that violence brings down its heavy hand: It demands of us only a submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit—and this suffices as our fealty.

And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!

And this is the way to break out of the imaginary encirclement of our inertness, the easiest way for us and the most devastating for the lies. For when people renounce lies, lies simply cease to exist. Like parasites, they can only survive when attached to a person.

We are not called upon to step out onto the square and shout out the truth, to say out loud what we think—this is scary, we are not ready. But let us at least refuse to say what we do not think!

This is the way, then, the easiest and most accessible for us given our deep-seated organic cowardice, much easier than (it’s scary even to utter the words) civil disobedience à la Gandhi.

Our way must be: Never knowingly support lies! Having understood where the lies begin (and many see this line differently)—step back from that gangrenous edge! Let us not glue back the flaking scales of the Ideology, not gather back its crumbling bones, nor patch together its decomposing garb, and we will be amazed how swiftly and helplessly the lies will fall away, and that which is destined to be naked will be exposed as such to the world.

And thus, overcoming our temerity, let each man choose: Will he remain a witting servant of the lies (needless to say, not due to natural predisposition, but in order to provide a living for the family, to rear the children in the spirit of lies!), or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries? And from that day onward he:

· Will not write, sign, nor publish in any way, a single line distorting, so far as he can see, the truth;

· Will not utter such a line in private or in public conversation, nor read it from a crib sheet, nor speak it in the role of educator, canvasser, teacher, actor;

· Will not in painting, sculpture, photograph, technology, or music depict, support, or broadcast a single false thought, a single distortion of the truth as he discerns it;

· Will not cite in writing or in speech a single “guiding” quote for gratification, insurance, for his success at work, unless he fully shares the cited thought and believes that it fits the context precisely;

· Will not be forced to a demonstration or a rally if it runs counter to his desire and his will; will not take up and raise a banner or slogan in which he does not fully believe; · Will not raise a hand in vote for a proposal which he does not sincerely support; will not vote openly or in secret ballot for a candidate whom he deems dubious or unworthy;

· Will not be impelled to a meeting where a forced and distorted discussion is expected to take place;

· Will at once walk out from a session, meeting, lecture, play, or film as soon as he hears the speaker utter a lie, ideological drivel, or shameless propaganda;

· Will not subscribe to, nor buy in retail, a newspaper or journal that distorts or hides the underlying facts.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of the possible and necessary ways of evading lies. But he who begins to cleanse himself will, with a cleansed eye, easily discern yet other opportunities.

Yes, at first it will not be fair. Someone will have to temporarily lose his job. For the young who seek to live by truth, this will at first severely complicate life, for their tests and quizzes, too, are stuffed with lies, and so choices will have to be made. But there is no loophole left for anyone who seeks to be honest: Not even for a day, not even in the safest technical occupations can he avoid even a single one of the listed choices—to be made in favor of either truth or lies, in favor of spiritual independence or spiritual servility. And as for him who lacks the courage to defend even his own soul: Let him not brag of his progressive views, boast of his status as an academician or a recognized artist, a distinguished citizen or general. Let him say to himself plainly: I am cattle, I am a coward, I seek only warmth and to eat my fill.

For us, who have grown staid over time, even this most moderate path of resistance will be not be easy to set out upon. But how much easier it is than self-immolation or even a hunger strike: Flames will not engulf your body, your eyes will not pop out from the heat, and your family will always have at least a piece of black bread to wash down with a glass of clear water.

Betrayed and deceived by us, did not a great European people—the Czechoslovaks—show us how one can stand down the tanks with bared chest alone, as long as inside it beats a worthy heart?

It will not be an easy path, perhaps, but it is the easiest among those that lie before us. Not an easy choice for the body, but the only one for the soul. No, not an easy path, but then we already have among us people, dozens even, who have for years abided by all these rules, who live by the truth.

And so: We need not be the first to set out on this path, Ours is but to join! The more of us set out together, the thicker our ranks, the easier and shorter will this path be for us all! If we become thousands—they will not cope, they will be unable to touch us. If we will grow to tens of thousands—we will not recognize our country!

But if we shrink away, then let us cease complaining that someone does not let us draw breath—we do it to ourselves! Let us then cower and hunker down, while our comrades the biologists bring closer the day when our thoughts can be read and our genes altered.

And if from this also we shrink away, then we are worthless, hopeless, and it is of us that Pushkin asks with scorn:

Why offer herds their liberation? Their heritage each generation The yoke with jingles, and the whip.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

February 12, 1974

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: The Short Life and Curious Death of Free Speech in America

The Short Life and Curious Death of Free Speech in America

No one expected their words to be enlightening or their tone harmonious. Hatred rarely comes in such flavors. It spills out as an ugly, incoherent mess infused with the rotten odor of willful ignorance. And so it was with the Nazi wannabes — self-styled white supremacists determined to make their mark on the world, committed to convincing anyone who might listen that their superiority was both evident and inevitable. The setting was downtown Charlottesville, Virginia, August 2017. Their mission was unity — of like-minded hate mongers. Their leader, Jason Kessler, was a 33-year-old who lived with his parents and had once supported Barack Obama. He had learned that many demographers thought whites would eventually become a minority race in the United States. That news was so unsettling that Kessler remade himself into a white-rights activist. He styled himself as “a civil and human rights advocate, focused on the Caucasian demographic” in the mode of “Jesus Christ or Mahatma Gandhi.” His “Unite the Right” rally, observed the Christian Science Monitor, “was supposed to be the movement’s coming out party, an emergence from the shadows of internet chat rooms into the national spotlight.” Kessler was inspired in part by fellow University of Virginia graduate and white supremacist Richard Spencer who, in May 2017, led a band of racists in Charlottesville chanting “Russia is our friend” and “Blood and soil,” a Nazi-inspired slogan. Why they were enamored of Russia is anyone’s guess; I presume it had something to do with President Trump. The reason for the Nazi chant was evident; they thought it allowed them to channel the spirit of General Robert E. Lee, who had abandoned the U.S. Army in a doomed quest to preserve race-based slavery in the South. Charlottesville’s leaders recently had voted to remove Lee’s statue from the downtown park that no longer carried his name. Spencer and his crew opposed that effort and everything they thought it implied, including hostility to the legacy of whiteness. The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan were similarly motivated by the perceived threat to American whiteness. Its members — 50 strong — converged on Charlottesville that July to march around and shout “white power” as hundreds of counter protesters responded with “racists go home.” How did the mad ravings of a bunch of intellectually confused, racially paranoid misfits end up spurring a national debate over the limits of free speech, the meaning of the First Amendment, and the moral obligation of the president of the United States? One reason is that — despite Kessler’s efforts to cast himself as the Martin Luther King Jr. of white rights — the rally engendered fears of made-for-TV-scale violence. As news of the event spread, and some sense of its size became clear, several local businesses announced they would temporarily close out of concern for the safety of their customers and employees. The University of Virginia, located in Charlottesville, asked students to stay away. Many rally participants showed up armed with rifles and other deadly weapons (thanks to Virginia’s open carry laws). Indeed, even before the rally’s scheduled noon start time, Kessler’s congregation had ignited so much hostility and ugliness that local authorities labeled the gathering an “illegal assembly” and ordered participants to leave. In the end, the racist, anti-Semitic hate-fest caused three deaths. Two of the dead were state troopers. Berke Bates and H. Jay Cullen, assigned to monitor the gathering from the sky, died when their helicopter crashed. The third victim was Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old paralegal. James Alex Fields Jr., a 20-year-old Adolf Hitler fanatic from Ohio, killed Heyer by intentionally plowing his car into a crowd of counter protesters — injuring some 19 people in addition to Heyer, who died from blunt-force injury to her chest. Following the tragedy, Donald Trump famously condemned the “hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides.” His words provoked a controversy that went on for months as Trump proved incapable of criticizing the racist mob without also condemning those who opposed it. Heyer’s mother, Susan Bro, was so sickened by the president’s words that she refused to take his condolence call. “I’m sorry. After what he said about my child,” Bro told CNN, and added, incredulously, “I saw an actual clip of him at a press conference equating the [counter] protesters … with the KKK and the white supremacists.” James Fields’ lawyers sought mitigation by stressing his history of mental illness. A psychologist testified that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the age of 6 and later with schizoid personality disorder. His lawyers also delved into his childhood traumas, which included coping with the murder of his grandmother by his grandfather, who had subsequently killed himself. “James’s mental illness causes him to lose emotional and behavioral control in stressful situations,” said his attorneys, who claimed he had taken himself off his meds when he was 18, meaning he was medically untethered when he murdered Heyer. After pleading guilty, Fields received two life sentences — one in state court and the other in federal court. Even with Fields confined to prison, questions raised by Heyer’s murder — and the rally that caused it — reverberated. Trump’s troubling insistence on calling bullying bigots “very fine people” was perhaps inevitable given his need to placate a base that contains more than its share of people like David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard who promoted the rally as an effort to “take our country back” and who, after Heyer’s murder, thanked Trump via tweet for his “honesty & courage.” Duke also tweeted, “This is why WE LOVE TRUMP and WHY the FAKE NEWS MEDIA HATES TRUMP. He brings to light what the lying, Fake News Media Won’t. The truth is the media covers up horrific numbers of racist hate crimes against White people!” But putting the president and his behavior aside for the moment, what about the free speech community — the civil libertarians who successfully fought in court for Kessler’s right to hold his rally in downtown Charlottesville? The city had wanted to move Kessler’s parade of bigotry to another park, one farther from the heart of town that officials claimed would be easier to police. But Kessler had said no; and the American Civil Liberties Union, along with a local outfit called the Rutherford Institute, had sued the city on Kessler’s behalf. Following the event, the ACLU was heavily criticized — and also lauded — for standing up for the racist rabble-rousers. Glenn Greenwald, best known for reporting on U.S. surveillance programs brought to light by whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcefully defended the ACLU. Civil liberties advocates, he argued, “defend the rights of those with views we hate in order to strengthen our defense of the rights of those who are most marginalized and vulnerable in society.” Others were not so sure. The Guardian reported on an erosion in “the belief that the KKK and other white supremacist organizations are operating within the bounds of acceptable political discourse — rather than as, say, terrorist organizations — and therefore have a moral right to be heard.” Jessica Clarke, a law professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, pointed to studies showing that bigots routinely hid behind free speech arguments as a cover for racism. Highly prejudiced people, she noted, “were less likely to voice First Amendment objections when the threatened speech was race-neutral, suggesting their free speech concerns were more about the freedom to express racist prejudice than free speech in general.” Legal scholar Laura Weinrib noted that the ACLU had never blindly supported free speech but had done so in the fight for a better society; and she wondered whether “a dogged commitment to free speech” was still the best strategy for an organization pursuing social justice: “The balances have shifted dramatically since the 1930s. In recent years, nearly half of First Amendment victories have gone to corporations and trade groups challenging government regulation. Free speech has served to secure the political influence of wealthy donors. Labor’s strength has plummeted, and the Supreme Court is poised to recognize a First Amendment right of public sector employees to refuse to contribute to union expenses. Long-settled principles of American democracy are newly vulnerable, and hate has found fertile terrain.” Even Susan Herman, president of the ACLU, questioned whether old assumptions about free speech still applied: “We need to consider whether some of our timeworn maxims — the antidote to bad speech is more speech, the marketplace of ideas will result in the best arguments winning out — still ring true in an era when white supremacists have a friend in the White House.” Leslie Mehta, the young black attorney who was legal director of the ACLU of Virginia when it took the Kessler case, seemed confident, when I interviewed her in the aftermath of Heyer’s death, that she had made the right decision. “There were certainly lots of conversations between myself and the executive director. There were a lot of revisions back and forth with briefs and having discussions about potential implications, but nobody has a crystal ball and no one [knew] exactly what [would] ultimately happen. I do think that the First Amendment has to mean something. And at the time, it was my understanding … that there was no evidence that there would be violence.” Mehta, a native of Woodland, North Carolina, is intimately familiar with the South and with the United States’ legacy of brutal racial oppression. She went to historically black Howard University School of Law because of its reputation for creating lawyers devoted to “social activism and social justice.” But she also is adamantly committed to the idea of free speech. “I think one of the reasons why free speech is so important to me is because … it exposes what you disagree with. And for me, I think it’s important to hear things like our president saying … ‘Well, there are good people on both sides.’” Mehta also thought it was important to consult with her mother and her 92-year-old grandmother as she proceeded with the Kessler case. Her grandmother, she confided, “never said that she fully agreed or disagreed [with Mehta taking the case], but she did not think that I was wrong.” As anyone trying to understand the Charlottesville fiasco quickly discovers, the issue of speech — particularly in a society polluted by racism and largely defined by economic inequality — is endlessly complex. So let me begin this journey with a brief exploration of how the U.S. came to embrace such a broad notion of free speech, and let’s look at some decisions made in its name. ••• We tend to think our current conception of free speech has been around essentially since the beginning of the republic. In truth, our firm and collective embrace of the First Amendment is a relatively recent phenomenon. The Constitution was drafted at a time when the Founders had rejected foreign tyranny. They were wary of the potential power of a centralized state. So the Bill of Rights was a balancing act, weighing not only the rights of individuals versus government in general but also the rights of states versus the federal government. Indeed, at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, the First Amendment did not apply to the states. As legal scholar David Yassky has pointed out, the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech was “quite weak — at least to contemporary eyes. A citizen in 1800 had no absolute right to free speech; if the speech-restricting law was a state law, the Constitution was silent.” Eventually that changed, and that had a lot to do with the Civil War, the end of slavery, the 14th Amendment, and assorted court decisions. But even after the Reconstruction era, free speech, as we understand it today, was nothing but an aspiration, which is one reason that Southern states could effectively outlaw agitation for abolition. Free speech is very much an invention of the 20th century. And that concept of speech is very idealistic, inextricably linked to the notion that in the competition of ideas, good ideas generally crowd out bad. That argument received its most famous articulation in a 1927 case: Whitney v. California. At its center was Charlotte Anita Whitney, a wealthy California blueblood convicted of joining the Communist Party. She argued that her prosecution violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. But even in disagreeing with her position, Louis Brandeis (joined by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.) produced a brilliant and eloquent exegesis on the potential of free speech to enact social change: “Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine.” As Brandeis saw it, free speech was virtually a sacred right and an awesomely powerful force that would expose “falsehood and fallacies” and “avert … evil by the processes of education.” Hence, the remedy to bad speech was “more speech, not enforced silence.” That piece of writing has been deemed one of the most important commentaries ever crafted on the First Amendment. But Brandeis assumed something that has not been borne out by facts, which is that the better argument would generally win. He also assumed that relevant people on all sides of a question were equally capable of being heard and that skeptics were interested in listening. That fallacy continues to inform the thinking of those who see speech as inherently self-correcting. Much as many of us admire Louis Brandeis’s mind and spirit, the society he envisioned has never existed. Instead, we have created a society in which lying is both endemic and purposeful. We have brought the worst values of advertising into the political sphere and wedded that to long-established tactics of political propaganda, even as our political class has learned to use social media to spread disinformation that propagates at a breathtaking rate. The very idea that political speech would expose and therefore vanquish “falsehood and fallacies” now seems incredibly naïve. Free speech always had limits. But because of our new technological reality, because of the unexpected weaponization of speech, we are having to consider those limits in a new light. We live in a world where it is far from clear that the answer to bad speech is more speech; and where a foreign power, thanks to our freedom of expression, may well be responsible for the election of a U.S. president. We live in a time when a frightened white minority within the larger white majority fights to maintain control of our country; and when large corporations and cynical functionaries — eager to exploit fear — have a bigger megaphone (including their own television news networks) than anyone speaking for the powerless and dispossessed. We live in an era when the U.S. awarded its presidency to a man who lost the election by roughly 3 million votes, and who, with the cooperation of a submissive Senate, has appointed judges determined to thwart the will of the public; has proposed policies, supported largely by lies, designed to further divide an already polarized nation; and caters to an irrational mob whose most fanatical elements want to refight the Civil War. All of this raises a host of difficult questions: If the Brandeisian view of speech is fatally flawed, what is a better, or at least a more realistic, view? Is it possible to reverse these trends that are destroying our democracy? How do we balance an array of important societal values that compete with the value of free speech? How, in short, do we enable a relatively enlightened majority to rescue our country from an embittered, backward-looking minority? And what happens to speech — which has never been totally free — in the process?

Excerpt adapted from The Short Life and Curious Death of Free Speech in America by Ellis Cose. Published by Amistad. Copyright © 2020 HarperCollins.

Published September 21, 2020 at 01:40PM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/3iRPsAm) via ACLU

[nancydhooper]

The Short Life and Curious Death of Free Speech in America

No one expected their words to be enlightening or their tone harmonious. Hatred rarely comes in such flavors. It spills out as an ugly, incoherent mess infused with the rotten odor of willful ignorance. And so it was with the Nazi wannabes — self-styled white supremacists determined to make their mark on the world, committed to convincing anyone who might listen that their superiority was both evident and inevitable. The setting was downtown Charlottesville, Virginia, August 2017. Their mission was unity — of like-minded hate mongers. Their leader, Jason Kessler, was a 33-year-old who lived with his parents and had once supported Barack Obama. He had learned that many demographers thought whites would eventually become a minority race in the United States. That news was so unsettling that Kessler remade himself into a white-rights activist. He styled himself as “a civil and human rights advocate, focused on the Caucasian demographic” in the mode of “Jesus Christ or Mahatma Gandhi.” His “Unite the Right” rally, observed the Christian Science Monitor, “was supposed to be the movement’s coming out party, an emergence from the shadows of internet chat rooms into the national spotlight.” Kessler was inspired in part by fellow University of Virginia graduate and white supremacist Richard Spencer who, in May 2017, led a band of racists in Charlottesville chanting “Russia is our friend” and “Blood and soil,” a Nazi-inspired slogan. Why they were enamored of Russia is anyone’s guess; I presume it had something to do with President Trump. The reason for the Nazi chant was evident; they thought it allowed them to channel the spirit of General Robert E. Lee, who had abandoned the U.S. Army in a doomed quest to preserve race-based slavery in the South. Charlottesville’s leaders recently had voted to remove Lee’s statue from the downtown park that no longer carried his name. Spencer and his crew opposed that effort and everything they thought it implied, including hostility to the legacy of whiteness. The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan were similarly motivated by the perceived threat to American whiteness. Its members — 50 strong — converged on Charlottesville that July to march around and shout “white power” as hundreds of counter protesters responded with “racists go home.” How did the mad ravings of a bunch of intellectually confused, racially paranoid misfits end up spurring a national debate over the limits of free speech, the meaning of the First Amendment, and the moral obligation of the president of the United States? One reason is that — despite Kessler’s efforts to cast himself as the Martin Luther King Jr. of white rights — the rally engendered fears of made-for-TV-scale violence. As news of the event spread, and some sense of its size became clear, several local businesses announced they would temporarily close out of concern for the safety of their customers and employees. The University of Virginia, located in Charlottesville, asked students to stay away. Many rally participants showed up armed with rifles and other deadly weapons (thanks to Virginia’s open carry laws). Indeed, even before the rally’s scheduled noon start time, Kessler’s congregation had ignited so much hostility and ugliness that local authorities labeled the gathering an “illegal assembly” and ordered participants to leave. In the end, the racist, anti-Semitic hate-fest caused three deaths. Two of the dead were state troopers. Berke Bates and H. Jay Cullen, assigned to monitor the gathering from the sky, died when their helicopter crashed. The third victim was Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old paralegal. James Alex Fields Jr., a 20-year-old Adolf Hitler fanatic from Ohio, killed Heyer by intentionally plowing his car into a crowd of counter protesters — injuring some 19 people in addition to Heyer, who died from blunt-force injury to her chest. Following the tragedy, Donald Trump famously condemned the “hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides.” His words provoked a controversy that went on for months as Trump proved incapable of criticizing the racist mob without also condemning those who opposed it. Heyer’s mother, Susan Bro, was so sickened by the president’s words that she refused to take his condolence call. “I’m sorry. After what he said about my child,” Bro told CNN, and added, incredulously, “I saw an actual clip of him at a press conference equating the [counter] protesters … with the KKK and the white supremacists.” James Fields’ lawyers sought mitigation by stressing his history of mental illness. A psychologist testified that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the age of 6 and later with schizoid personality disorder. His lawyers also delved into his childhood traumas, which included coping with the murder of his grandmother by his grandfather, who had subsequently killed himself. “James’s mental illness causes him to lose emotional and behavioral control in stressful situations,” said his attorneys, who claimed he had taken himself off his meds when he was 18, meaning he was medically untethered when he murdered Heyer. After pleading guilty, Fields received two life sentences — one in state court and the other in federal court. Even with Fields confined to prison, questions raised by Heyer’s murder — and the rally that caused it — reverberated. Trump’s troubling insistence on calling bullying bigots “very fine people” was perhaps inevitable given his need to placate a base that contains more than its share of people like David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard who promoted the rally as an effort to “take our country back” and who, after Heyer’s murder, thanked Trump via tweet for his “honesty & courage.” Duke also tweeted, “This is why WE LOVE TRUMP and WHY the FAKE NEWS MEDIA HATES TRUMP. He brings to light what the lying, Fake News Media Won’t. The truth is the media covers up horrific numbers of racist hate crimes against White people!” But putting the president and his behavior aside for the moment, what about the free speech community — the civil libertarians who successfully fought in court for Kessler’s right to hold his rally in downtown Charlottesville? The city had wanted to move Kessler’s parade of bigotry to another park, one farther from the heart of town that officials claimed would be easier to police. But Kessler had said no; and the American Civil Liberties Union, along with a local outfit called the Rutherford Institute, had sued the city on Kessler’s behalf. Following the event, the ACLU was heavily criticized — and also lauded — for standing up for the racist rabble-rousers. Glenn Greenwald, best known for reporting on U.S. surveillance programs brought to light by whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcefully defended the ACLU. Civil liberties advocates, he argued, “defend the rights of those with views we hate in order to strengthen our defense of the rights of those who are most marginalized and vulnerable in society.” Others were not so sure. The Guardian reported on an erosion in “the belief that the KKK and other white supremacist organizations are operating within the bounds of acceptable political discourse — rather than as, say, terrorist organizations — and therefore have a moral right to be heard.” Jessica Clarke, a law professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, pointed to studies showing that bigots routinely hid behind free speech arguments as a cover for racism. Highly prejudiced people, she noted, “were less likely to voice First Amendment objections when the threatened speech was race-neutral, suggesting their free speech concerns were more about the freedom to express racist prejudice than free speech in general.” Legal scholar Laura Weinrib noted that the ACLU had never blindly supported free speech but had done so in the fight for a better society; and she wondered whether “a dogged commitment to free speech” was still the best strategy for an organization pursuing social justice: “The balances have shifted dramatically since the 1930s. In recent years, nearly half of First Amendment victories have gone to corporations and trade groups challenging government regulation. Free speech has served to secure the political influence of wealthy donors. Labor’s strength has plummeted, and the Supreme Court is poised to recognize a First Amendment right of public sector employees to refuse to contribute to union expenses. Long-settled principles of American democracy are newly vulnerable, and hate has found fertile terrain.” Even Susan Herman, president of the ACLU, questioned whether old assumptions about free speech still applied: “We need to consider whether some of our timeworn maxims — the antidote to bad speech is more speech, the marketplace of ideas will result in the best arguments winning out — still ring true in an era when white supremacists have a friend in the White House.” Leslie Mehta, the young black attorney who was legal director of the ACLU of Virginia when it took the Kessler case, seemed confident, when I interviewed her in the aftermath of Heyer’s death, that she had made the right decision. “There were certainly lots of conversations between myself and the executive director. There were a lot of revisions back and forth with briefs and having discussions about potential implications, but nobody has a crystal ball and no one [knew] exactly what [would] ultimately happen. I do think that the First Amendment has to mean something. And at the time, it was my understanding … that there was no evidence that there would be violence.” Mehta, a native of Woodland, North Carolina, is intimately familiar with the South and with the United States’ legacy of brutal racial oppression. She went to historically black Howard University School of Law because of its reputation for creating lawyers devoted to “social activism and social justice.” But she also is adamantly committed to the idea of free speech. “I think one of the reasons why free speech is so important to me is because … it exposes what you disagree with. And for me, I think it’s important to hear things like our president saying … ‘Well, there are good people on both sides.’” Mehta also thought it was important to consult with her mother and her 92-year-old grandmother as she proceeded with the Kessler case. Her grandmother, she confided, “never said that she fully agreed or disagreed [with Mehta taking the case], but she did not think that I was wrong.” As anyone trying to understand the Charlottesville fiasco quickly discovers, the issue of speech — particularly in a society polluted by racism and largely defined by economic inequality — is endlessly complex. So let me begin this journey with a brief exploration of how the U.S. came to embrace such a broad notion of free speech, and let’s look at some decisions made in its name. ••• We tend to think our current conception of free speech has been around essentially since the beginning of the republic. In truth, our firm and collective embrace of the First Amendment is a relatively recent phenomenon. The Constitution was drafted at a time when the Founders had rejected foreign tyranny. They were wary of the potential power of a centralized state. So the Bill of Rights was a balancing act, weighing not only the rights of individuals versus government in general but also the rights of states versus the federal government. Indeed, at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, the First Amendment did not apply to the states. As legal scholar David Yassky has pointed out, the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech was “quite weak — at least to contemporary eyes. A citizen in 1800 had no absolute right to free speech; if the speech-restricting law was a state law, the Constitution was silent.” Eventually that changed, and that had a lot to do with the Civil War, the end of slavery, the 14th Amendment, and assorted court decisions. But even after the Reconstruction era, free speech, as we understand it today, was nothing but an aspiration, which is one reason that Southern states could effectively outlaw agitation for abolition. Free speech is very much an invention of the 20th century. And that concept of speech is very idealistic, inextricably linked to the notion that in the competition of ideas, good ideas generally crowd out bad. That argument received its most famous articulation in a 1927 case: Whitney v. California. At its center was Charlotte Anita Whitney, a wealthy California blueblood convicted of joining the Communist Party. She argued that her prosecution violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. But even in disagreeing with her position, Louis Brandeis (joined by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.) produced a brilliant and eloquent exegesis on the potential of free speech to enact social change: “Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine.” As Brandeis saw it, free speech was virtually a sacred right and an awesomely powerful force that would expose “falsehood and fallacies” and “avert … evil by the processes of education.” Hence, the remedy to bad speech was “more speech, not enforced silence.” That piece of writing has been deemed one of the most important commentaries ever crafted on the First Amendment. But Brandeis assumed something that has not been borne out by facts, which is that the better argument would generally win. He also assumed that relevant people on all sides of a question were equally capable of being heard and that skeptics were interested in listening. That fallacy continues to inform the thinking of those who see speech as inherently self-correcting. Much as many of us admire Louis Brandeis’s mind and spirit, the society he envisioned has never existed. Instead, we have created a society in which lying is both endemic and purposeful. We have brought the worst values of advertising into the political sphere and wedded that to long-established tactics of political propaganda, even as our political class has learned to use social media to spread disinformation that propagates at a breathtaking rate. The very idea that political speech would expose and therefore vanquish “falsehood and fallacies” now seems incredibly naïve. Free speech always had limits. But because of our new technological reality, because of the unexpected weaponization of speech, we are having to consider those limits in a new light. We live in a world where it is far from clear that the answer to bad speech is more speech; and where a foreign power, thanks to our freedom of expression, may well be responsible for the election of a U.S. president. We live in a time when a frightened white minority within the larger white majority fights to maintain control of our country; and when large corporations and cynical functionaries — eager to exploit fear — have a bigger megaphone (including their own television news networks) than anyone speaking for the powerless and dispossessed. We live in an era when the U.S. awarded its presidency to a man who lost the election by roughly 3 million votes, and who, with the cooperation of a submissive Senate, has appointed judges determined to thwart the will of the public; has proposed policies, supported largely by lies, designed to further divide an already polarized nation; and caters to an irrational mob whose most fanatical elements want to refight the Civil War. All of this raises a host of difficult questions: If the Brandeisian view of speech is fatally flawed, what is a better, or at least a more realistic, view? Is it possible to reverse these trends that are destroying our democracy? How do we balance an array of important societal values that compete with the value of free speech? How, in short, do we enable a relatively enlightened majority to rescue our country from an embittered, backward-looking minority? And what happens to speech — which has never been totally free — in the process?

Excerpt adapted from The Short Life and Curious Death of Free Speech in America by Ellis Cose. Published by Amistad. Copyright © 2020 HarperCollins.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/the-short-life-and-curious-death-of-free-speech-in-america via http://www.rssmix.com/

[ajapablog]

The Gift of Tropes

In The Legend of Korra, the second generation Avatar series from Nickelodeon, the creators return to the origin story for the Avatar—the bridge between the spiritual and the human world, able to harness all the elements to maintain the balance of the universe. The origin story tells us that it was a fight between Raava, the light, and Vaatu the darkness, in which the first man to become an avatar, Wan, interceded on behalf of Vaatu to realize the mistake he made to eventually help Raava to restrain Vaatu. The story of lightness and darkness as opposing but co-existing forces is as old as time. Lightness and Darkness, Ying and Yang, the female and the male. The symbols are reductionist when universalized but they become so pervasive that they become prone to universalization and I am not sure that that is a very bad thing. I am someone who has been drawn to and have found immense strength from Jungian psychology so archetypes appeal to me. They are tropes that make social and cultural navigation possible. After all, anyone who has been to therapy will know that it is when we narrativize our experiences that we begin to feel better and narratives are impossible without tropes. Sometimes, we invent and construct tropes, but it is fine. A little bit of magic and imagination goes a long long way. 

Civilization has historically been considered a masculine force and the excess of which has been seen to diminish our capacity to regenerate, heal. The narratives of civilization from its various critiques: Gandhi to Ruskin to the Romantics is that of lament, of loss of the vital spirituality that sustains the soul. Even as we know that the binary of the masculine and the feminine is deeply fraught, we also know that patriarchy has structured society so that these binaries are constantly performed and reconstituted. The relegation of domains and gendered social norms are not without consequences even as we say men and women are hurt by patriarchy. In history, some hurts are greater than others. I am not an extreme relativist supporting status quo and I am certainly not a deny-er. What patriarchy has denied us is the opposing currents and tendencies within ourselves. These tendencies like the desire to conquer, to cultivate the mind and the desire to fold into oneself and be compassionate and develop deep empathy  might not always have historically been opposing or even gendered. The constitution of these tendencies as opposing and gendered might have been ways for human societies to divide labor, value and institute patterns for social organization. This is speculation. But the point is:  I like Jungian psychology which talks about the masculine and feminine principles because at some level it allows us to access the tropes that have structured our society. As the pandemic has gone to show, with busy lives in the public domain, many people had left their domestic space, the home and the hearth uncultivated. When everyone started baking and cooking, perhaps they realized that certain portions of society always did these things as important. But perhaps, those who always devalued the domestic continued on to think of the rituals of basic self sustenance as measly and low.  As Laurie Penny’s piece suggested, women have historically borne the burden of affective work. As Bonnie G Smith has shown, men have historically thrived on the denial of affect. With the blurring of the lines between public and private, the pandemic went to show that compartmentalizing our lives is arbitrary and it is only for civilizational goals. But humanity has also been evading and wary of civilizations for years. Many lived in hills, many roved and moved. But I pray that this pandemic makes us rethink civilization and its constraints. As the Western coast of the US blazes in an orange haze of fires making people suffocate, as otters die and the waters become warm, as businesses die and anger erupts, I think about what it takes for unchecked dominance and power to break. I think denial is what makes a person at an individual level break and I think civilization that turns its face away from this will have to fold if not break.

If autonomy means the indivisible individuality of a person, it is when we hand our sovereignty to those who are more powerful in return for protection, we lose autonomy. This is the paradox of liberty and security. Those who offer us security, do not understand that this exchange where we give them our liberty is one where they too have much to gain as power. But we very well have the capacity to take back our liberty and reconstitute ourselves whole. This is human history — of wars and revolutions and protests and resistance buried in the loud harsh voices of victors. Such is the lopsided nature of civilization. I have not been fond of civilization. Others’ emotions make me weep, I feel deeply about justice and I turn to those who see the emotive as the affective as the site at which we make norms and define ourselves. Many have told me that this is impractical and unrealistic way of living. To feel too much is a curse they say. But the price of not feeling is too much. I might be fine materially in this world but who wants to live in a world where others have it worse than me and others much? It is simply not possible to equalize different kinds of suffering, that is simply unjust and cruel. But affect is my compass in the world. I have been extremely resourceful. I draw on the kinds of resources that others do not see as resources— things that nurture the soul even as they help me define my place in the world. I am more individuated than many others because I have configured and reconfigured myself through multiple, plural dialogues. I thrive through, and grow with the dialogues with other, which often shatter me and each time I find more courage to be a bridge between different worlds. Power and strength are so seductive but what those of us who don’t feel at home in civilization need to remember is that courage is more difficult to muster, the courage to turn to those many beautiful things that have been devalued. When civilization breaks us, we can pick up the pieces. This much I believe. 

[tripotomaniac]

New Post has been published on Tripotomaniac - Anirban's blogsite

New Post has been published on https://www.endlessvista.com/2020/02/delhi-election-a-five-point-analysis/

Delhi Election - A Five Point Analysis

In last five years, Delhi faced problems no less than any other states. In fact, we can say, the problems were much more in terms of their uniqueness coupled with a new party ruling the State lead by an inexperienced Chief Minister and team of novices. Problems were varying from pollution to women security to water to crimes and what not. According to a report, over sixty thousand deaths reported in Delhi in last five years due to pollution. Therefore it would have been natural if people of Delhi wanted a new Govt run by experienced team so as to rescue Delhi from this so called agony. On top of that, this agony was multiplied by both Congress and BJP through their interviews, social media campaigns, rallies etc. Even the things tried out first time in India were criticized to the extent possible. So, if anyone from a distance saw Delhi, it might have occurred to him that this Govt would see its end in 2020. However it didn’t but something very unique happened that we can say is a new beginning in Indian Politics where Aam Aadmi of Delhi chose a party with which they could connect and approve as one of them.

If one starts analyzing, what are the factors that made this possible, answers will be many. Some will say good work by AAP, some will say wrong timing and declarations by BJP, some will say freebies by AAP but no one said people wanted to test one more time like they wanted BJP at center once more in 2019. People of this country witnessed how things change and development stops with a new Govt coming in and how old developmental works takes a U-turn. Recent example of Andhra Pradesh and daily news from this state is an example which people of Delhi never wanted to create. They also understood, no Govt is perfect neither can do things overnight, however whatever unique things done by AAP in Delhi may not even progress an inch if another Govt comes to power and thus decided to vote in favour of AAP.

In the midst of all these, the two most important entities that changed the equation in favour of AAP are Arvind Kejriwal and BJP. Similar to the campaigns of Rahul Gandhi contributing sometimes to BJP’s win, BJP’s campaign and wrong timing of some actions bent the needle to AAP’s favour. People who earlier decided to vote for BJP seeing Modi and national interests also took a U-turn post the brigade of BJP representatives came from other states to do campaign. And on top of that, absence of a local dependable face for CM but trying to win the state election by keeping the gun on PM’s shoulder were rejected by Delhi strongly.

Local Vs National: In the entire campaign of AAP, Arvind Kejriwal only spoke on development and chose words carefully even when criticizing the oppositions. While BJP was busy on promoting their actions taken on national level at local level and Congress was trying hard decide what to say except bashing central Govt, Kejriwal evolved as a seasoned politician and kept silence in all these CAA/NRC but was showing himself more receptive to arguments etc. In spite of BJP trying to show him as Anti CAA, people actually didn’t find any reason to consider him Anti CAA or Pro JNU or Anti Hindu or Pro Muslim. This balanced stand with the “Prashant Kishore Effect” worked damn well.

Talk Vs Action : The whole campaign of AAP was on highlighting development, revenue of Delhi going up in spite of the free and subsidized amenities, Open house Report card and interview with Media. Very evident was the confidence of AAP and Mr. Kejriwal on their works which is possible only when people worked at ground zero, know what is going on and what’s being done. Be it Mahalla Clinic or Water or Education, good amount of work has been done considering all roadblocks and time to time issues with Lt Governor or CBI etc. On the other hand, BJP campaign was confusing due to absence of local level candidate except the guest appearance of Manoj Tiwari time to time with his laughable style that irritated the people of Delhi. While Arvind Kejriwal was talking about development similar to what brought BJP to Centre, BJP candidates were busy in mudslinging thereby creating a complete contrast between their ideology and intent. The infusion of Modi, Yogi, Shah and others didn’t work out since, Modi being PM is supposed to say what as PM he did or plan to do which is completely national and excellent from emotional point of view which actually brought him to power at centre but its state election. Yogi told in language which may be applicable to Uttar Pradesh but couldn’t affect people of Delhi. And in all these drama, Delhi people continued their search for new BJP CM and got disappointed. I should say, even Smriti Irani could have bagged 15-20 seats had she be announced as CM face of Delhi.

Face Vs No Face: Gone are those days when elections were used to be won with loyal supporters of parties. In this age, the same person votes for Congress at municipality level, BJP at centre and AAP at state purely on three things- Aspiration or emotional level like how his country is represented at global arena, respect and strength against neighbors etc, State level on how overall security, development, day to day need, prices are being controlled, education is managed, healthcare facilities available etc and on municipal level on how the road to his home is being done, whether the roads at his area are illuminated, is there patrolling happening at night etc etc.  So no voter is loyal and thus, unless a face with a track record is there to see, people will feel unsecured and confused and with already so much confusion already around, people don’t like any more confusion especially in such areas where it is not a big challenge to remove. And AAP didn’t fail the people of Delhi but projected a face already dear to them or became dear due to the work done in past few years.

Free Vs Chargeable: Even if the freebies given by AAP sometimes are not appreciated considering money from taxpayers being utilized in such free or subsidized things, the strong protest by BJP on this freebies scared people. And when assumptions are easy to be spread today, many must have thought, it’s not only going to be chargeable but may be more that what is reasonable as new Govt has to recover the deficit. When BJP is not fully aware of how this is being done by Kejriwal, they should not have spoken on this. And the simple easy to understand explanation by Arvind Kejriwal in layman’s language on how this is being done convinced people to a large extent apart from the dream and taste of free things for another five years.

Sense Vs No-Sense: Kejriwal also lost his cool once and told there is some settings between Modi and Pakistan but in most of the campaigns, while whole agenda of AAP was highlighting only the work they did with a control on language being used against oppositions, both BJP and Congress continued that strong one side agenda. Sense was prevailing more on AAP and Kejriwal on choosing words vis-à-vis what BJP did. The issue is not only choosing the words, but propaganda through social media showing Delhi people themselves in poor lights thereby creating an enemy without any reason. Showing Delhi people as beggars who long to have only freebies, or as anti-nationals or as divided Hindus actually turned even the pro BJP to anti BJP. Moreover when the controversy on CAA was already going on fueled further by  religious sentiments and instigating violence through fear of losing Indian citizenship, using that card or harping again and again on the religion was detrimental.  I can surely say, had there been no other representatives of BJP from other states but only a battle between one right candidate of BJP vs Kejriwal, a few more seats could have come to BJP.

All said and done, what I personally like is the evolution of two men i.e., Modi and Kejriwal from humble background to the power that shows the power of Democracy and the intelligence of citizens in voting the right candidates for the right positions and overall disposing the “Dynast Politics” with a ZERO.

************************************************************************************

Disclaimer: Views expressed are entirely my own and do not have any connection with any organization, individual, association or Religion.

[politicaltheatre]

Kill The Messengers, pt.1

Lie to us. Tell us what we want to hear.

Tell us how great we are, how great we were, how great we can be again.

Give us someone to blame. Give us someone to hate. Give us someone to root against, if only so we don’t have to find someone worthy of rooting for.

Whatever you do, though, just don’t tell us how we failed, or how we failed others, or how others might have succeeded if only they had they never met us. Whatever you do, don’t ever tell us that. That’s bad news, and we don’t like bad news.

This is normal. None of us is immune. We all want it, even just a little. It’s natural. It’s nurtured. It’s very human.

This is what no one ever tells us about politics. Why would they? We don’t want to hear it. We have so many options not to hear what we don’t want to hear, seemingly more every day, so why should we ever have to? If they dared, most of us would just tune them out. Part of you is doing that right now even as you read this, and that’s okay.

It’s what we don’t want to talk about, what we don’t want to hear, that makes politics everything it is. It is what makes it necessary to have government, and what corrupts governments once we have them.

Which brings us to so many current events, doesn’t it? Won’t it always?

Where to start? Impeachment? Too easy? The 2020 campaign? Too on the nose? OK, how about Iran? Too far away? Too scary? Too boring? Too bad.

On this day on which we celebrate a peace maker and champion of social and political justice (or should), events in a place seemingly so far away, scary, and boring as Iran matter and deserve our attention.

Forty-one years ago, the people of Iran lived under a corrupt, despotic regime. They’d had enough. Not all of them had bought into the religious zealotry of the Ayatollah Khomeini, but few could argue against his assessment of the corruption and cruelty of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and those around him. Wildly imperfect messenger that he was, Khomeini was right: the shah had to go.

The United States government supported that regime and was blamed, quite rightly, for complicity in its worst atrocities. This, as we know (or should) led to the storming of the United States embassy in Tehran and the taking of hostages.

There can be no justification for any atrocities committed by Iranians or their proxies in the four decades since, but what we witnessed then was a violent reaction to decades of abuse, made possible by a physically and politically weakened Pahlavi, and expertly exploited by Khomeini for his own personal and political gain.

What Khomeini stood for, and what his successors still stand for, is an ideologically conservative form of Islam. Theirs is not so extreme as the Saudi Wahhabi form, the one that begat Al Qaeda and ISIS, but it is every bit as orthodox as sects in Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, and others that are known to tie their faith to a kind of nationalism. The religion is the state, and the clergy are not accountable to the people. That’s dangerous anywhere.

Few Americans at the time wanted to admit that we shared accountability for what our ally had done to his own people, so we vilified all Iranians everywhere, including American-born Persian-Americans, just as we would do a generation later with muslims after 9/11.

As we saw after 9/11, if you dared call that persecution unjust, you may have found yourself persecuted, as well. Sikhs, Hindus, and others paid the price for our silence. Many still do.

That the storming of another embassy, this time in Iraq, has led to protests against those same ayatollahs is not without irony. A raid on an American embassy should be a pretty safe play for Iran, a symbolic echo of their revolutionary success in 1979. Had it not been for an entirely predictable and preventable tragedy, it might have been.

As we all now know, or should, Donald Trump responded to the Baghdad embassy pageant by pulling the trigger on a plan to assassinate Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s top general in Iraq and a man credited by all sides with the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers there.

This was, of course, immensely stupid.

Whatever Soleimani had done, he was no Osama bin Laden. He was high ranking member of another country’s military. Killing him didn’t just escalate cold war tensions to just about open warfare, it was a violation of international diplomatic standards as well as international and, yes, domestic law (enacted by Ronald Reagan!). At best, it only served to alienate Iraqis and other international allies; at worst, it primed the entire region for still more bloodshed.

There was no good justification for it, so Trump just did what he always did and spun some BS to please his expectant base (and muddy the waters on any legal case against it). Politics by other means, indeed.

His justification that attacks on other American targets were “imminent” was laughable for any number of reasons, from his inability to provide proof - which he as president must do to justify killing people - to the fact that Soleimani’s death wouldn’t have prevented any attack anywhere. Seriously, it’s a bit like the Nazis killing General Dwight D. Eisenhower in the hope of preventing an allied invasion of Europe. Stupid.

So, yes, Donald Trump and his trigger-happy stooges got lucky. They likely won’t face any legal action, domestic or international, for killing a man few outside Iran’s sphere of influence liked, and they picked a fight with a country that has the sense to de-escalate when it knows it can’t win.

No one with first hand experience with warfare seeks it out. That’s something President Eisenhower would have known. Iran’s Islamic revolution led to a decade-long war with Iraq that devastated both countries’ populations. However much they want nuclear weapons, they don’t have them and certainly don’t want to be targeted by them.

So, they did what outgunned countries around the world have done time after time in order to save face: they fired a few rockets at enemy bases, all targeted to avoid casualties, and then let their allies and proxies pass non-binding resolutions condemning their enemy’s recklessness and violence, and demanding that the enemy military go home.

It’s a strategy as old as colonialism, and in this case the Iraqi parliament’s non-binding resolution might actually have the effect of succeeding where Soleimani’s violence had failed.

Soleimani was himself a horrible messenger. If his death ultimately proves anything it will be that the aggressor is always seen as the villain. His violence was meant to stir up support among his government’s base and to distract from how it fails its people, but it was never intended to convert. If anything, it created fear and with it enemies all too happy to see him go.

No, it was his death at the hands of a country and government capable of even greater violence and greater cruelty than he could ever claim that will likely do what his violence all but ensured would never happen. Those on the receiving end of violence who de-escalate and draw our attention to the brutality needed to justify injustice are the ones who ultimately win.

Mohandas Gandhi understood this. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood this. Hopefully, somewhere in the Middle East, maybe even somewhere in Iran, somebody has come to understand this, too.

The world will still expect some sort of attack, somewhere the United States has an economic interest sometime down the road. That, as with violent embassy protests, is what Iran has become known for, “asymmetrical warfare”. But that, normally, would be that. The saber rattling would be done and the status quo would be restored. The Iranian regime even stood to come out ahead with the American military preparing to pull out more of its troops.

And then.

There are people who would call the 176 killed on Ukrainian International Airlines 752 “collateral damage”. There are some who read the news with glee, hoping that news that Iran’s own military shot it down and then lied about it might lead to another revolution. But, no.

Sure enough, there was outrage in Iran. There have been protests. Public figures have broken with the regime. But this is no Hong Kong.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has never promised western freedoms. Why would it? It was and remains a political system built on the power of the clergy. Whatever lip service the country has paid to democracy, there is no such thing as a balance of power within the government, let alone a balance of power between the government and its people.

Not only does the government count on this, but a sizable portion of the Iranian people do, too. Days after the protests against the government, a rally led by Ayatollah Khamenei stoked the growing legend of the martyr Qassem Soleimani and of the evil, American monsters who killed him.

Anger at stupid mistakes subsides. Anger at the government lying to you subsides. Anger at a foreign enemy seeking to force its will upon you, that lasts. If you cultivate it and have a willing idiot eager to play the role of bogeyman, it can last for generations.

We are that bogeyman. Not just Trump. Not just Trump and the idiots who surround him. Us.

The weapon our government used to kill Qassem Soleimani and those with him was a drone, the same kind of drone that has slaughtered thousands of innocents without mercy, that has ended and forever changed even more lives than we could ever hope to tie to Soleimani’s own evil.

Just this past Thursday the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, compared the United States to a “high school bully”. He did so on Twitter. It wasn’t the first time, nor will it be the last. He said so a week earlier while meeting with his Chinese counterpart, who agreed with him. Before that meeting he met with his counterpart in Russia; after it, he met with his counterpart in India.

In the space of two weeks, Zarif met with three of the most powerful economic and military powers in the world, all rivals to each other, and they all openly agreed: The United States acts as a bully on economic policy; The United States acts as a bully on military policy; The United States assassinates people.

Is Zarif lying? Are they all wrong? Should it matter what the Iranian government does to its own people when considering that? Should it matter what the Chinese or Russian or Indian governments do to their own people or people elsewhere when they call us out for what we do and for what we allow to be done?

It shouldn’t, but clearly it does. It makes it easier for us to push them far away, easier for us to cast them as scary, easier for us to call them boring and ignore them. Worse, it makes it easier for us to call them liars. It does, just as it makes it easier for them and their people to push us away, to call us scary, to ignore us, and to call us liars.

The truth really does hurt. The lengths we will go to avoid it and keep it far away define us and lead us to define others. It takes that much more effort to hear it. That’s why it takes so much more effort to tell it.

- Daniel Ward

[didanawisgi]

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Ideological Possession

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Ideological Possession | Robin Koerner

by Robin Koerner

“Jordan Peterson, the Canadian professor of psychology who in the last year has become North America’s most popular public intellectual, has spent many decades studying tyranny and its antecedents. As a result, he frequently warns his audiences of the unparalleled destructive power of “ideological possession.”

As someone who has long been writing about the threat posed by this all too prevalent epistemic disease, I am delighted to see the attention that is now being paid to it.

Ideological possession is to healthy political discourse as scientism is to science.

Any ideology has the potential to be deadly.

The most important thing to know about diagnosing ideological possession is that you can’t do it by looking at the content of the possessing ideology.

As I have said elsewhere, it’s not the content of your belief that makes you dangerous, it’s the way you believe it.

Any ideology has the potential to be deadly when advanced by those who are so sure of their own knowledge and moral outlook that they would impose it against the protestations of those affected by it. To the ideologically possessed, the imposition can always be justified because “it’s the right thing to do,” “it will start working if we keep at it,” “the complaints are coming from bad people,” and so on. (Yes. The logic is as circular as it seems.)

So, with apologies to Dr. Peterson and an open invitation to him to amend and augment the following (he is the clinician, after all), here, for diagnostic purposes, is a list of symptoms of ideological possession—that most fatal of epistemic diseases.

Cautions and Caveats

The symptoms of ideological possession manifest differently according to the possessing ideology.

So, for illustrative purposes, the following list of symptoms is presented with example manifestations, labeled to indicate their association with so-called “progressive” (P), so-called “conservative” ©, and so-called “libertarian” (L) possessing ideologies.

For instance, the fact that someone believes the world is out to get them doesn’t necessarily mean they are paranoid.

To be fair, it is not the case that all people who present with manifestations similar to those listed below are exhibiting symptoms of ideological possession. It is, after all, quite possible to hold apparently simplistic or radical views that are very carefully arrived at with an open mind, good data, and intellectual honesty.

For instance, the fact that someone believes the world is out to get them doesn’t necessarily mean they are paranoid (B does not imply P). More interestingly, as the old saw goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that the world isn’t out to get you (P does not strictly mean  B is false).

Nevertheless, believing the world is out to get you is a very good diagnostic marker for paranoia (B is highly causally correlated with P).

So with that caution, the manifestations below are offered because I have witnessed each one, and when I did so, had reason to believe it was symptomatic of at least the early stages of the onset of ideological possession.

List of Symptoms for Diagnostic Purposes

Major Symptoms

The possessed insists that anyone who disfavors a specific view or policy must also reject the basic moral value that, to the possessed individual, justifies that view or policy. This is the fallacy of the assumed paradigm. (L: “If you won’t let mothers protect their children with guns, you’re a misogynist.” C: “People who favor gun control don’t value freedom.” P: “People against regulating firearms don’t care about violence against children.”)

The possessed uses one-dimensional labels for people they’ve never met and who clearly aren’t one-dimensional as a means of dismissing the value of all their beliefs or actions. (L: “Churchill was a mass-murderer.” C: “Gandhi was a pedophile.” P: “Thatcher was a witch.”)

Related to the above, the possessed will regard a few quotes or actions by an individual as proof that the individual is evil without regard to context, appreciation that everyone is a product of his time, recognition that people change over time, or consideration of other quotes and actions that provide evidence against the claimed ill intent of the individual in question.

The possessed advocates worse treatment of people within a specified group than others. (P: “Straight white men have privilege and so should have their opinions discounted or suppressed.” L: “People who work for the state initiate violence, and it is ok to use violence against those who initiate violence.” C: “People who burn the flag are traitors and should be punished as such.”)

The possessed believes that a single principle provides answers to most important moral and political questions, disregarding reasonable moral intuitions to the contrary (precisely because they are to the contrary) and any uncertainty regarding the precise meaning or application of the principle. (P: “Equality.” L: “Non-aggression.” C: “Biblical authority.”)

When the results of an ideologically justified action are the opposite of those intended or used to justify that action in the first place, the possessed is convinced that not only is the action not the cause of any resulting problem but that more of the same action will eventually solve that problem. (P: “Venezuela needs more socialism.” C: “We need more unprovoked military involvement in conflicts that don’t involve us.” L: “Europe should open its borders immediately to everyone.”)

Minor Symptoms

The possessed enjoys opportunities to defend what he believes more than opportunities to make his beliefs more accurate.

The possessed collects data that support her beliefs instead of seeking data that would help her correct false beliefs.

The possessed offers unsolicited opinions without any empathic engagement with the recipient or any interest in whether she is in any state to be positively influenced by them.

The possessed would rather reform society’s institutions to better serve his ideology than reform his ideology to better serve people.

Immunity, Pathology, and Cure

Fortunately, the epistemic immune system of most mentally healthy people protects them from ideological possession. The core of the immune response—and indeed an effective cure—is Love of Truth, specifically the holding of Truth as the highest moral value.

Love of Truth, in fact, provides a near-perfect protection against ideological possession.

Pathologically, ideological possession may even be understood as the substitution of that highest value by another.

Love of Truth, in fact, provides a near-perfect protection against ideological possession because the disease, while deadly, has no defense against the honest admission by the afflicted of his or her symptoms.

Nevertheless, the most pernicious and subtle feature of the disease prevents the possessed from seeking treatment or treating himself: ideological possession can disguise itself in the mind of the afflicted as that very same Love of Truth that, in its authentic form, would cure it.

What conditions, then, enable those in the grip of ideological possession—whose love of Truth may have already been replaced by a counterfeit—to cure themselves?

To answer that, it is important to understand the symbiotic relationship of the disease with its host.

Although epidemics of ideological possession can be fatal to entire societies, the disease provides immediate benefits to the individual who is afflicted, such as intellectual certainty and stability, feelings of moral superiority, an apparent simplification of life’s difficult decisions and questions, avoidance of true moral responsibility, and a sense of belonging among others similarly afflicted. All of these tend to prevent self-treatment.

The painful shock activates the Love of Truth long enough to locate the cause of the pain.

Accordingly, the cures for ideological possession tend to be external and unsought. They nevertheless exist and fall into two broad categories—fast cures and slow cures.

Fast cures tend to be triggered by a catastrophic failure of one or more of the above benefits to the afflicted individual. This may occur when, despite the highly motivated perception and reasoning of the possessed individual, she experiences an unexpected, painful, and shocking outcome of an ideologically motivated action. The painful shock activates the Love of Truth long enough to locate the cause of the pain, forcing the afflicted to admit the symptoms, and therefore identify the disease for what it is, effecting the rapid cure.

Slow cures tend to involve a rising awareness by one afflicted individual of the same disease in friends or others with whom she identifies. This can be induced when the individual sees inconsistencies in those others’ words and actions that cause direct harm to others and to the stated goals of the possessing ideology. (In theory, this slow cure could be induced by observations of one’s own actions under ideological possession, but this is prevented by the self-righteousness that is felt when one acts in the grip of the disease.)

Maintaining Good Epistemic Health

To protect oneself from the terrible epistemic disease of ideological possession, epistemic nutrition and exercise are extremely effective.

The good news is, if you’re chasing Truth hard enough, it is very unlikely that this particular disease will ever catch up with you.

With respect to the former, the regular consumption of great thinkers like J.S. Mill (“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that”), George Orwell (“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle”), and Dostoevsky (“Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer. Nothing is more difficult than to understand him”) will keep you in good epistemic health. Supplement these basics with a more varied diet of thinkers with whom you disagree on things that matter, and you’ll be in even better shape.

With respect to the latter, a comfortable regime of epistemic exercise—which takes a little time and effort but is immediately rewarding—involves maintaining real friendships with people who have very different assumptions, experiences, and declared moral and political priorities from your own.

The good news is, if you’re chasing Truth hard enough, it is very unlikely that this particular disease will ever catch up with you.”

[bigyack-com]

Symbol of power and control, a lathi story - delhi news

When Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation, visited Ghorghat village in Bihar’s Munger district in 1934, the villagers wished to gift him a lathi.The Mahatma said he would accept it only under one condition — the villagers would have to stop making lathis in the interest of the nation as it was the Britishers’ weapon of choice against unarmed freedom fighters.At that time, Ghorghat made and supplied lathis all across north India. The villagers readily agreed and Gandhi accepted their gift. Ever since, the village celebrates a ‘lathi mahotsav’ to commemorate the gifting of a lathi to the Mahatma.Their decision, however, did not stop the colonial rulers as they found other sources.Lathi-charge regularly made headlines during the colonial rule-- and it continues to do so 72 years after Independence, most recently as the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests intensified across the country.The lathi was introduced by the British in the late 19th century and used extensively from the 1920s to the 1940s to crush dissent and disrupt protest marches by freedom fighters.“It was given to the colonial constabulary as most of them came from the peasant classes. They were specially trained in the use of lathi through proper drills. The lathi became a symbol of the British Raj,” says historian Anirudh Deshpande.In 1928, police officer James Scott lathi-charged a protest march led by Lala Lajpat Rai —hailed as the Lion of Punjab — against the Simon Commission. Rai suffered severe head injuries, which led to his death. But it had no sobering effect on the colonial police, and its use of the lathi as a weapon against freedom fighters only increased. In the 1930s, the British came up with a lathi drill for the police that consisted of commands such as “jabbing” (hitting people in the gut), “cutting” (targetting the neck and head).“There was a massive lathi-charge on the freedom fighters during the Dandi March led by Mahatma Gandhi,” says Deshpande.So brutal was the use of the lathi that Henry Noel Brailsford, a British left-wing journalist wrote an essay “India under the Lathi”, describing how the country was witnessing a repressive reign of lathi.“During the struggle for Independence, nationalists passively accepted the blows that the colonial police rained down on them, as a form of satyagraha. Their cause – the overthrow of the colonial state – was just, and this made the injustice of the assault on them more unjust,” he wrote.

Women police braving rain at Boat Club New Delhi ( HT photo from archive ) A symbol of powerLast week, an image of young women attempting to shield a student as the police rained lathi blows on him, went viral. It showed defiance of the youth in the face of the lathi’s tyranny.The lathi first originated as a martial art weapon in ancient India—and continues to be part of sports, drills, and parades.It has not just been a weapon of the police, but also many zamidars (feudal lords) who hired lathaits (men trained in lathi fights), often using them to keep a leash on tenants (worker- peasants), to grab land and collect rent. The more lathaits a zamindar had, the more powerful he was. Lathi’s significance in rural India is summed up by the popular adage — jiski lathi, uski bhais (The one who wields the lathi owns the buffalo).“The lathi was an integral part of peasant life. Trained ‘laithats’ from Bihar and UP were employed by zamindars in Bengal,” says Deshpande.The lathi continues to be a symbol of farmers’ power too in modern times – many farmer organisations and other outfits have often taken out what they call ‘Lathi Rallies’.An outdated weapon?Many believe that the police lathis should be replaced with shorter, lighter batons across the country. A case in point would be the recent riots in Hong Kong, when security forces were seen using arm-length batons.But Prakash Singh, former DGP of Uttar Pradesh Police, believes that as of now there is no perfect substitute to the lathi yet. “A policeman will have to get very close to a protesting crowd to use a baton, which is dangerous in Indian conditions. In India, the mobs are huge and violent,” says Singh. “But yes, the police should follow the proper drill of using the lathi. We were trained to move together in a formation when dispersing a mob. It helps push back the crowds without much danger to policemen. Lathis are not supposed to be used to beat individual protesters.”The Delhi Police says it has been phasing out the old wooden sticks since 2013. Today, it has about 85,000 polycarbonate lathis, and about 15,000 bamboo ones.Deepak Mishra, former special commissioner of Delhi Police, said that the Delhi Police switched to polycarbonate lathis due to supply constraints. “There wasn’t enough supply of bamboo lathis , which mostly came from northeastern states such as Assam and Tripura, so we shifted to polycarbonate lathis,” he said.However, a senior Delhi police officer, who asked not to be named, said one of the main reasons for phasing out the bamboo lathis is to reduce the chances of injury. “The impact of bamboo lathi sometimes may result in fatality if the person is hit hard on the head. Its impact is visible on the body as it leaves scars on the skin,” said the officer.But police constables still swear by “the good old’ bamboo lathi”.“It is wrong to assume that crowd control is the only use of lathis. Over the years I have used it to deal with unruly rickshaw pullers and auto drivers creating traffic jams. The bamboo lathi instills a fear, and my waving it menacingly more often than not resolves the problem, ” says a Delhi police constable not wishing to be named.Guarding with lathiKunwar Vikram Singh, chairman, Central Association of Private Security Industry ( CAPSI), says that the lathi is the most important tool in the private security guard’s kit—in most cases their only weapon.“In the past, guards on night duty used to move with a lantern in one hand and a lathi in other. For security guards, it is mostly an instrument of defence and not attack. Lathi is part of our training manual for security guards. The ideal length of a lathi is the height of the person using it for better manoeuvre,” says Singh.And like the police constables, most private security guards will tell you how a bamboo lathi helps them scare away the trouble makers. “I make sure that I whack the lathi on the ground every few minutes in the night to convey to potential thieves that I am armed and awake. The sound of big solid lathi hitting the ground keeps them away,” says Rajesh Singh, who is posted as a guard in a market in Noida. “I will feel very unsafe without it.”The lathi businessThere are wholesale traders on the outskirts of the city in places such as Bawana , Najafgarh, and Chhatarpur who sell lathis. They say they procure their lathis from Meerut , where there are some units that manufacture lathis.Deepak Gupta, who runs BambooMart in Samaypur Badli says that while police may be phasing out bamboo lathis, private security agencies still buy a lot of them.“Polycarbonate lathis have not affected our sales. Our lathis cost ₹50 to ₹80 depending on the size and quality,” he says.Anuj Gupta, owner of Roorkee-based GM Trading Company that supplies polycarbonate lathis to Delhi Police, says, “Bamboo lathis had many other issues such as finding a straight lathi of the right weight and thickness. Polycarbonate lathis do not have such issues. To make polycarbonatnate lathis, long pipes are cut into size as per demand. A handle and support are fixed and the lathi is ready,” said Anuj Gupta. Read the full article

[republicstandard]

This Year In Jerusalem

My Dearest Comrade,

You asked me in your last letter how we did it, how after the long and bitter struggle we finally put paid to the white man.  It's an interesting question.  How did this once proud and confident people, rulers of the globe, find themselves at the short end of history, evaporating like morning mist?  How conquered by an alien ideology?  How did rule Britannia become out of bounds?  Who lost America?  Now that it's all over, and long since really, I feel free to speak my mind to a friend, though it goes without saying there's no reason to save this in any way, there is no reason our children or their posterity should ever know too much about this, not now that we have prevailed.  As a keeper of records I am privy to all kinds of information, some of it astonishing, some of it provocative, the lies, the propaganda, for I like to think a Jew is nothing so much as a sophist, proceeding by misdirection.  But, in the interest of time, this will be a truncated version.  Does one really need to know too much of the ins or the outs of the Marranos, the Masons, or the Illuminati?  Arcane banking records?  How we put the squeeze on Cromwell, or ran a slave ship?  Marriage certificates, baptismal records? No, the genius of what we did was what we did in broad daylight, the goyim is ever gullible. No less a personage than Spengler spent his entire career without writing anything of what the Jews had done or were doing, remarkable.  So much for him. So much for them.  And remember as you read this, we did what we did out in the open, and that the crucial factor in our ultimate victory was neither our animal cunning nor our indomitable will, but the fact that we were white.  How lucky!  Had we been blue or purple or red we never would have got away with it.  A star would have done nicely to serve them as a reminder, to remind them of the danger in their midst, and the peril that they faced, but we put a stop to that, amen.  Anyway, I hope you enjoy this brief foray, this ex post facto meandering. I am a humble man, and we are a humble people, so if this ever sounds like bragging it just means I get carried away from time to time, apologies ahead of time and all around.

As you know we are an ancient people.  Thousands of years and all that. We waxed and we waned like them, and like the others tried our best to increase our power, little of it though there was.  However, from nearly the first the other peoples always thought us strange, our famous peculiarity, the dietary laws and the way we clung tenaciously to our ancestral God when they were perfectly willing to share theirs with those of any mongrel people they came across, and we would not let ours mingle freely with the others.  Yes, they thought us barbaric and odd, repugnant really, but for the Romans at least, so focused on power, beneath the surface there was an uncanny fear, for we we had a principle other than honor that we would lay down our lives for.  They knew of honor but ours was truth so-called—the most risible in their eyes.  Yet despite their contempt they couldn't help from feeling uneasy, this they thought was something more than an army, this was either insanity or an enemy to keep an eye on.  It's probably apocryphal but it's said that when Pompey cast custom aside and thrust himself into the holy of holies he found an empty and white shining space. Every other people would have cluttered theirs with images of gods or animals, but we had pure emptiness, pure shining white emptiness, and it's said he was shaken, though it's doubtful that dullard had the strength of character to be disturbed. And it's telling that later the rumor went around that in the inner sanctum set on a pedestal was a donkey. They said we worshiped an ass!  Ha Ha.  He who laughs least laughs best, it's what I hold to.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

But other people were stronger, first Greece, then the Romans.  We finally became a fully subject people and many of us, understandably, chafed at this.  And though I thoroughly disapprove of the hotheads among us the one who threw that torch and caused Rome to level the city did us a favor, looking back.  It dispersed us and we could do a lot more good (for ourselves, that is) roaming abroad in search of monsters to destroy than sitting by ourselves in our mountain fastness.  We've always excelled as the stranger in the land, casting a cold and jaundiced eye on the natives, always ready to lend a hand to the leaders.  We are a numerically small people, so to adapt we let others build what one day we will own. That first holocaust (they say not stone was left on stone!) also gave us the great story (fictional of course) of Masada, which, like the Warsaw uprising, would be put to such salutary use.  The plucky little Jew, the eternal underdog, the mouse that roars, wedded to eternal principles, dying for an idea, for their jealous god.  Who would believe such rot?   Them, that's who.

Perhaps it was the memory of ancient defeat that spurred our later attacks; revenge is after all an underrated motive in history.

Some call it the grace of God, I call it a freebie, but either way, for sure, we got an unexpected and serious break in the person of Jesus Of Nazareth. Some vagabond wanders up the mountain and on his own authority deifies himself and the next thing you know an entire civilization is wrecked.  By means of his admittedly somewhat poetic ramblings and, even more so, by means of his bulldog, Paul, we injected a poisoned chalice deep in the heart of Europe, a Trojan horse smuggled in like the taking out of the key beneath the keeper's nose.  As I'm sure you know later on it would be the fusion of a universalized Protestantism and an aggressively subversive Judaism which would be the stake in the very heart of these people; which, long story short, makes The Book Of Acts the story of another itinerant vagabond proselytizing the virus of subversion.  Freud is said to have said, before disembarking in America, that he was bringing them the plague; so did we for Europe with this alien creed.  It didn't start out that way, for though no one could have known it at the time it was Christianity, with it's scribbling monks copying for no discernible reason, with it's unifying power, which strengthened the white race for centuries, made them a towering and indomitable world presence, which one day we would ride and vault on and over; until it turned sour like curdled milk and burned the building down. For when the time finally came we managed to fool them into believing that that great hater Jesus Of Nazareth, that man who walked around terrifying people, excoriating people, and viciously slandering public officials, calling the Jewish power structure irredeemably corrupt, shook dust off his shoes, brought a whip for the money-changers, scared the living daylights out of random passersby, said he brought nothing but fire to this mortal earth of ours, that this tremendous hater had no hate in his heart, that all you need is love.  You got that:  he had no hate in his heart. Fools like Leo Tolstoy served us admirably here, when he wasn't making shoes that fell apart he was telling the world that Jesus Christ would not have hurt a fly.  In truth real self hating Jews like Jesus of Nazareth are a dime a dozen, another madman Bobby Fischer comes to mind, and we know what to do with them. Hitler said to shoot Gandhi.  We agree.  Killing that man was the best thing we ever did.   Like I say, a freebie.

For Europeans Christianity was a mixed bag, it gave them Bach and baizuos, but in the end it's the order they came in that mattered. Wokeness is Christianity's hangover, the after-birth of a once proud religion.

Calvinism and Puritanism were already Judaism, some of Cromwell's men were so forward thinking they wanted to create a Zion on the Thames and thought that the notion of the divinity of Jesus Christ was blasphemy.

Later in the 1870s one of ours named Felix Adler would preach that the Jews should universalize themselves out of existence, for the good of humanity.  He got select Protestants to go along, the elect now meant those who commit suicide.  Arch WASP (and son of a universalist crank) William James said that moral values supersede survival, and his notion of pluralism later formed the foundation of multiculturalism. As can be expected the Jews declined the offer of race suicide but a century later whites took to it with a vengeance.  So you can see when we finally did wreck their country we were plowing in a fertile field.  You read about those American cranks in the 1850s on their farms growing rutabagas in their long johns and preaching universal ethics and the love of all mankind, they're portrayed as charming but really they were the first growth of our ideology, they did our work avant la lettre, harbingers of collapse.  For after all from Unitarianism to dismantling whiteness is but a step.  By the grace of a jealous God, as specified.

We're often called a rootless people but this is wrong, we're not at all, certainly not just just because we had no home, we were at home wherever we were, we made ourselves at home.  Indeed, we're one of the few people now who really have roots, they are just not tied to a land, a country, or a nation, little Israel notwithstanding. We're tied to us, not to the idea of us, to the reality of us.  We know how to stick together, to work together, to network, to remain ethnocentric, ethno-obsessed, to practice nepotism, over centuries, over time and space, though thick and through thin, over vast geographic areas.  Everyone knows of our checkered history, the famous one hundred and nine, the expulsions, the migrations, the conversions, the inquisitions, the pogroms so-called, the burning hatreds, the harassment, ejected, but always returning, always returning. We blend in, we creep up on you when you're not aware, we're blatant as can be but seep into the background. We throw fairy dust in your eyes, or we proceed by indirection.  And so it went for centuries. We would ingratiate ourselves with kings, be awarded patronage, be prized middlemen, do their dirty work, earn the ire of the populace, be banished, and brought back.  Always brought back because they couldn't do without us, we made sure of that, as useful as can be.  And slowly we built up secret and fantastic wealth, fantastic networks, webs of subterranean influence, intersecting directorates, interlocking systems,  always moving a little closer to the our goal, never stated but always in mind.  We'd drop out of sight, become one of them, convert, and be indistinguishable from what we were subverting.  They call us foreign, alien, parasite, and that's not far off; but neither is predator, and for them neither is prey. For these many centuries we were outsiders, we infiltrated the elites, we kept to ourselves, the power behind the throne. But that's never enough when the throne beckons. Which of course it always does, particularly among a people seemingly intent on abandoning it.  They were strong when faith was in the saddle but they loosened the reins, and money came in, and us not far behind.

I believe it was that Jew Karl Marx who said that in emancipating the Jews the Europeans themselves became Jews, for all practical purposes. They say he hated Jews but he's in the fold, he's one of us; once a Jew always a Jew's what I say.

In the early nineteenth century the idea of humanity began to spread like wildfire through Europe; now that it's all over we can see that this was the death of them all.   We Jews were still on the margins at this time; but a word began to circulate, circulate in the name of humanity: emancipation. It was a deceptive word, meaning freedom.  Give freedom to the Jews, let them join civil society, base membership in the clan on an idea.  Assent to a proposition!  A German was one who lived in the German states.  What madness comes from the temples of reason!  But for us from then on every year was the Current Year, every year was Year Zero.  We would never bow before other Gods but their civil society we'd salute, mingle freely in their society was fine.  It was to be ours soon enough in any event.  Yes, emancipation, it was certainly an idea whose time had come. It would not be the fist time that freedom could easily be construed as to our advantage.

Some Jews themselves were uneasy with it.  But some Jews are fools. Their concern was that if we blended in we'd lose our fervor....we would cease to be Jews, as if that could ever happen.  No, they needn't worry, we can go underground for however long is needed and we'll arise on the earth no one but ourselves.  Once a Jew always a Jew. Atheist, secular, orthodox, reform, international, indifferent, no difference, always a Jew in the end.  In the meantime be baptized, go into the professions, make a mark, become distinguished, become a European, become English or Italian, marry up, call yourself white, become civilized, speak the native tongue, German, French, whatever, abandon Yiddish, cut your hair, dress in a suit, put on a top hat, put on a bowler, wear a tie, whatever it takes, rise, rise, rise, make a pot of gold, interpenetrate the ruling classes, crash the directory, become doctors, lawyers, judges, writers, editors, publishers, reporters, you name it we're there, the more we're them the more we remain ourselves. And so we did. The long nineteenth century was a banner one for us, we came into our own, came into our power, we were the chimpanzee who put on a suit and rolled around on roller skates: see, they said, they're just like us, and so we shattered a world.

Europe was always just a staging ground for America.  As early as the 1830s Alexis de Tocqueville saw that Russia and the USA would be the twin stars around which the world would one day revolve.  And it was from the so-called pogroms (trumped up as they were) in the latter that we got ejected into the former, it's what led to that poem at the base of that statue, it's what made the liberals cry, it's what made a mass of Jews leave for the New World.  We were under siege you see, and for no reason at all. And so we headed out for our new hunting grounds.

Tocqueville said in the 1830s that the 20th Century would belong to Russia and America, eighty years later we controlled both.

When the Jews first came to America from Eastern Europe the Jews that were already there, who had come from Germany, who were a well dressed, assimilated and prosperous lot said: this could be trouble for us. And no doubt those new arrivals must have been quite a stinking crew. But we clean up nice, don't we?   Once we had undergone out civilizing ordeal.

America with it's ideals, it's openness, it's all men are created equal, it's nation of immigrants, it's huddled masses, it's making the world safe for, it's dedication to a proposition, it's shining city on a hill, it's exceptionalism, it's missionary bent, it's self-made men, it's rugged individualism, was always immensely subject to hijacking by a determined outsider, and by the end we were pushing on an open door.  Otto Von Bismarck said that the most important event in world history was when the first Englishman set foot on the American continent and that was true when he said it; but it was soon eclipsed when the first wave of Jews from Eastern Europe began walking around Manhattan.  Just look at the record. An ancient people living in miserable hovels on the spine of Europe, speaking a barbaric and snarling Yiddish, going in wave after wave into a young country, one about to become a world power; going to an intellectually backwards people susceptible to high sounding balderdash; it's young people ready to leave behind the nation of villages; a rather simple and moral people prone to pangs of conscience; we would soon make them a raceless people capable of offering no defense.  A country created on paper is eternally vulnerable to someone overwriting their script, when you are created by words someone can come along with different ones, or give new meanings to the old.  If a nation is just an idea what happens when we change our mind?  What happens when we win the war on the battlefield that is your children's minds?  By the end it was like walking into a sacred space and finding it empty, abandoned.  No, Hitler had it right: in America we finally found our perfect hunting ground. They even let this alien race scrawl graffiti on their venerable temples.  

The end of the nineteenth century was a fatal time.  After that there was no going back.  It's been said that if the Protocols are fake then a mad unknown genius was in the employ of the czar.  That is definitely true. Whoever he was he was a seer, a man after out own hearts, by violence and make-believe we rule the world!  Spoken like the poet he was.

The two fatally twinned movements, the movements which contradicted each other, complimented each other, completed each other, competed with each other, fed off each other, grew up together, fought each other, if only one could survive in the end, were  Zionism and Scientific Racism. That the latter is world famous and the former confined to the sewers of history is no reflection on their relative merits; ideologies are just masks for power, the power of peoples, and these two were no different; a last ditch effort to save, respectively, the Jews and the Europeans; daggers drawn is war to the knife.  These two, in the scope of history, appearing at the same time, were the twin stars in the drama to come, fatally entwined; one the dream of a homeland, the other of annihilation, or vice versa, if you will,  for by the time it was all over both dreams were the same for those dreaming it, staying alive and decimating the enemy.

It's said that American scientific racism started on a bison range and ended up in Nuremberg.  And it's true, it started on those hunts, ran through conservationism, immigration restriction, birth control, sterilization, progressivism, eugenics, and finally got applied in Germany where it's bible ended up in the famous trial as exhibit 151.  If it seems a declining trajectory it's only because we've made it so; had someone wanted you to think it was something ascending and been able to they would have; but they weren't, they didn't; the arc of history bends only towards those who bend it; the rest get crushed beneath it.  So even the mention of racism coupled with science sends heads spinning, horrifies and scandalizes; but in truth it is rather elementary, if you are a people who loves nature and beauty and purity why wouldn't one want it to remain unblemished, perfect?  The word ecology was dreamt up by a fascist, which was no coincidence, the Nazis were obsessed by personal purity, they banned smoking in public places, they eliminated asbestos, assured that no additives and nothing artificial made it's way into food.  In word they wanted to rid the world of it's toxins, anything foreign, anything extraneous to the initial plan, and of course to them what was a more bitter toxin than a Jew? What more alien presence?  What more corrosive, like an acid bath?  What more foreign pestilence?  With the end in view it seems clear that from our first northern migration it was set in stone that we and the Europeans were headed toward a climactic, shattering moment, one where everything would hang in the balance, for a while; we are drawn to flourishing like moths are to flame, we circle like vultures over carrion, over killed carcasses.  And when we talk about their trying to protect the astonishing success they had, four hundred years of going purely vertical, we get to a man who sensed this, and of whom I speak with nothing but admiration.  For the most part, and once the fighters passed away, it was like playing tennis with the nets down; but earlier, some men had spines of steel.  Some were willing to put their very souls in the balance.  Some were willing to do whatever was necessary to assure the survival of their race, their people, their country, their culture, their dominance and, as such, were worthy foes.  The others, our propaganda to the contrary, are the ones with blood on their hands.

Albert Johnston was a hard drinking newspaperman from a small town in Washington State.  When he became acquainted with the elite scientific racists of Manhattan he was gratified to learn that his old fashioned racism was cutting edge theory.    

When the 1924 Immigration Restriction Bill was passed Madison Grant told a friend that they had finally got rid of the Jews, but he spoke too soon.

In 1931 in Dyerville, California the world's tallest tree was dedicated to Madison Grant, Grant created the science of wildlife management, and he became fascinated by the possibilities of racism after his successful efforts to save animals from extinction by culling the herd.

The scientific racists in America were jealous of their German friends for having a leader who was finally applying their theories.

Nearly the entire American scientific racism establishment was on intimate terms with their Nazi counterparts, Madison Grant knew the Nazis well too but just before his death in 1937 he expressed an ambivalence about this close connection, fearing it could backfire......

There was a de-lousing facility in Poland used for Jews who might immigrate to America, the Nazis later took it over and supposedly used it for other purposes, after the war they said that limiting immigration was fascist because there once was a facility in Poland for Jews.....

The last people who could have saved White America were the WASP scientific racists of the 1920s, Franz Boas feared that there would be wave upon wave of these men with their spines of steel, but it turned out they were the last of a dying breed, and now their names are mud.

Madison Grant liked to brag that the key to political success was organization, and that he could create a group out of thin air and with the right stationary and the right letterhead he could work miracles, though anyone who knew him could have told you that a cold heart never hurts.

As late as the 1930s Franklin Delano Roosevelt could say that America was a Protestant country, and Jews and Catholics were only there on sufferance.

The list of the accomplishments of Madison Grant is a testimony to an industrious age (and takes one's breath away).  He founded the Bronx Zoo, helped build the Bronx River Parkway, was a leader in the movements for immigration restriction, birth control, eugenics, sterilization, led the effort to save the Redwoods, was instrumental in creating the California State Park System, Denali National Park, Yosemite National Park, the Everglades, helped save numerous species from extinction including the elephants of Africa, the Koala, the chinchilla, the gorillas of the Congo, the giant tortoises of the Galapagos, the ibex of Spain, the zebras of South Africa, the elephant seals of Mexico, the giant sable antelopes, the nyalas, the white rhinos, the wisents, and many kinds of whales, though with his one true love, that most charismatic of megafauna, the white race, his luck ran out.  Now as far as nature goes I'm with the American President who said "if they think I give a flying fuck about nature—they're wrong"—but white people seemed to care a lot about it, and so did Grant, and so did that entire generation of scientific racists.  And, of course, along the way he wrote the book that Hitler called his Bible which, I may say, is praise from Caesar.  And more than anything else it was the indefatigableness of the man that impresses.  The fact is that nearly the entire American ruling class in the 1920s was racist and in favor of eugenics, then after the war, or before it really, when our propaganda about Nazi "excesses" (so-called) started filtering back to America, they flipped to a virulent form of anti-racism--and so the game was lost.  It's that simple.  But those men in the top hats in Eastern cities at the turn of the century, they were the last ones who could have beat us.  And the reason they could have was that they were willing to do anything that it took.  And they had the right idea too-—eliminate us.  Don't treat with us, don't try to convert us, don't assimilate us, don't keep us down, don't discriminate against us, don't keep us out of the country clubs, don't keep us out of the colleges, don't stop us from marrying your daughters—or, rather, do all that, but don't stop there—yes, eliminate us, for the game of global domination is the game of total control.  Truly astonishing the unadulterated hate they had, they wanted to make us universal outcasts, to separate their lives from ours in every way possible, to banish us from the realm.  Grant himself in private is bracing—no nonsense about humanity, no treacle about universal anything.  And looking back over the records of my forbears they feared that their advent might spell the denial of their dream, but the fear soon dissipated in the fog of their dying gasp, the last gasp of the final cohort.  As they strode their way around Manhattan like they owned the place, because they did, they must have been an intimidating lot, and for a while they went from victory to victory, strength to strength.  Their later imitators at best would talk of deportation or remigration, as if it were gentleman's tea, but no one wanted to really do anything about it, or put one's soul in the balance.  It still surprises me how people don't grasp the fundamental nature of war. Even after you explain it to them they simply don't get it.  

Henry Adams said that when he saw his first Issac or his first Jacob walking on Boston Commons, straight from the misery of a Cracow Ghetto, speaking a barbaric and snarling Yiddish, he identified with the Indian, as one who had been ejected from his heritage. He was right.  And had he been born Cohen on the Temple mount, he'd have still had it.  

I can say without doubt that the raging battle that was waged between Madison Grant and Franz Boas was the hinge upon which world history pivoted and was, if I can say it, the cross upon which the white man continues to hang.  If that seems extravagant, pay attention, if I seem to give it overmuch attention, look again.  Consult the record. There were others of course, Dewey, Bourne, Kallen, but it was Boas who knew for certain what was at stake, the man keeled over in Manhattan in 1942 while preaching the evils of racism. Lined up behind Grant was the WASP elite, the American Establishment, prominent politicians, the best people on the East Coast, the media, propagandists, magazine editors, magazine writers, amateur scholars, gentleman scholars, folks across the American political spectrum who had rightly and finally woken up to the prospect of race suicide.  But along with Boas was the wave of the future, the Jewish intellectual, some early Protestant misfits, some East Village malcontents, New York Cosmopolites, some professors.  But he had one crucial advantage over the long term, the discipline of Anthropology was in it's infancy and he was a professor, a professional scholar, he had made some serious inroads in the universities.  And just imagine anyone after the war being taken seriously who was not a professor, a certified scholar, a monkey dressed up in a natty suit and tie, or a Bohemian loser talking down the master narratives, another one of our unsung accomplishments, the professionalization of opinion; and Boas would seed these budding hothouses of nonsense, sedition, truckling, and treason with his own kind and they would carry all before them, eventually.   And that, in short, would be that.  

America was started by words on paper and has never lived it down, it was the death of them all.  There is something inherently blank slatist about a country that begins this way, that is conjured out of thin air in some Quaker meeting hall, and when a more powerful and more determined outsider comes in to overwrite the script there is little reservoir of defense.  And this is true, we simply overwrote the script, we wrote our graffiti on the walls of their temples, we unrwote them and wrote ourselves in in indelible ink.  That it would be so easy was what was so surprising, it was like, well, pushing on an open door.  At first though the enemies arrayed against our race seemed quite formidable, quite daunting.  Any dispassionate observer looking on in the early 1920s would have been unlikely to predict the eventual outcome, let alone how much of a rout it was in the end, how we in time went from strength to strength and imposed on them our alien ideology. It's true that a most incredibly acute observer might have observed some cracks in their walls, a crumbling of their facades, some Churches going wobbly, some whites in the wilderness preaching the erasure of themselves, but in the main the fight did not seem fair. But in truth, had one been able to see all the wheels spinning, the issue was already decided the other way...the WASP you see was out of breath...he had become the default position....and no one gets too worked up about a default position.  That some among them valiantly and harshly stirred for a last ditch defense is to their everlasting credit.  Them we can save.  But in the end it was as if they used up every last bit of energy their people had and when they were vanquished (on paper, mind you) they were vanquished the only way you can be, for good. In some outdated history books I have lying around it says that in the old days when a battle was won one person from the losing side would rush the victors, immolating himself in the fire of defeat; they were like that, those great men.

Arthur Gobineau was the first European to talk about the races in a coherent way, he came up with the idea of the Aryans, Alexis de Tocqueville, who was at heart a timid soul, once told Gobineau that with his brilliance he would go far, and with his ideology would do much evil.

It didn't help that frequently the ones who flocked to their banner, though possessing truth, how much truth they knew not, more often than not had a little bit of the crank in them, just a shade of the charlatan.  It started with Gobineau, went on to Galton, went through Chamberlain, and finally made it's way to that Valhalla in Long Island, Cold Springs Harbor.  I always wondered if reputable circumspect American biologists had come to the fold, professional and even keeled men, who had been measured in saying what they knew, and what they didn't, but argued persuasively that genetics held the keys to the coming kingdom, what would have transpired, had they put racism on a respectable basis.  Better for them, worse for us, to be sure.  But instead they got bogged down in catch phrases, Nordic, cephalic, unit characters, family traits, which contained kernels of truth, more than kernels actually, but unprovable at the time, and that easily could be portrayed as bogus and which tended to obscure the eternal truth they possessed.  They focused on stories about Revolutionary War heroes bedding whores and breeding dullards, they interviewed old timers and took what they said about ancient hair lips as stellar incontrovertible evidence.  And so they were like people who possessed gold but muddled the selling of it, and when the gold became obvious generations later our propaganda machine had been so effective, had prevailed so thoroughly, that in Britain the Indian offspring of millennia of high caste genetics could screech in the pages of the Guardian that:  race does not exist!  Had they put all their money into IQ tests, and rode that horse hard, they likely would have prevailed, I mean you scratch a negro and you get what you scratch right?  It wouldn't have taken much to get people to accept that your average African was not going to put on short pants and take us to the moon.  But cranks is cranks and if there's anything America perfected it was cranking out cranks, unless it's doing away with itself.

If you got Madison Grant on the subject of cephalic indexes you had a happy man but Franz Boas ridiculed the notion that a cephalic index (the size of the brain) was related to IQ, and as it wasn't provable then his ridicule won out, when years later magnetic resonance testing proved the racists right it made no difference, so completely had Boas prevailed.

Among the genteel scholars Mr. Grants stands out.  No petering out for him, he knew that with an indomitable will, and a vicious hatred for the alien races, victory could be his, and it was, for a while. When I look back on his career the thing I think most is that at one point in the early 1930s he began to warn of the Southern Border and the Mexican Menace, and said to close the border now, and everyone looked at him like he had three eyes.  What a visionary!  What an implacable will!  What industry! The question is always was the decline and burial of the WASP murder or suicide and of course it was both, it was assisted suicide, it was euthanasia, but if the patient had seen clearly what was happening and got up off the table in time the doctor would have been eliminated.  Well, our Mr. Grants sounded the toscin, raised the alarm bell in the night, his conscience is clear.  There is absolutely no blood on his hands.

It truly is amazing that just as we were coming into our power a small committed minority of them were as well.  They advocated forced sterilization (in fact three generations of imbeciles is three too many), protected the environment, advocated both positive and negative eugenics, came out against smoking, against drinking, saved species, saved trees, went in for birth control, preached the Great War as the White Civil War, warned of the rising tide of color, identified the Jews as collectively a mortal threat to the white race, saw that Jews acted corporately, moved to restrict all non-Nordic immigration, spoke of race suicide, in a word—seers.  But for the final showdown not enough of them could keep up their head of steam.  They should have knocked us out while we were relatively weak.  They could have done it easily.  Instead they let us slip through their fingers.   And the thing about a Jew is if you give us two chances we'll never need a third.

I assume Franz Boas was a sincere man, meaning he was an idiot.  But of all the Jews he was truly the Jewiest, that is, he did us an incalculable service, he put paid to the America Of The Villages.  There is really no one close.  Against every ounce of common sense that most people had he argued that the concept of race, which had been so universally accepted for millennia that most never even thought about it, had no existence whatsoever.  No existence and yet they are all equal!  It would be some time before this absurdity would be amplified to it's logical absurdity by saying not only don't they exist and are all equal but that some are more equal than the others, more equal than whites that is, but an immortal race has nothing but time.  And, moreover, he argued, that race had no impact whatsoever on anyone's capacities or characteristics or proclivities or tendencies, or brains for that matter, eons of evolution and man had somehow-—broken free!  Everyone was a tabula rasa. Indeed, looking back on it those environmental anthropologists resemble nothing so much as the creationists that at the time they deemed the most absolute know-nothings.  You see, for them, a person's personality and capabilities sprung ex nihilo from the social world, environment was all, take the most benighted Australian Negroid and put him Berlin at just the proper moment, and he'll be composing sonatas, just like that, as if sonatas weren't bred in the bone.  And Boas took this cock-eyed idea, that there were no races or that there was only one race, the human race, and he beat them down. And you see the thing about it is, if environment is everything, and there is no human nature, if man is infinitely plastic, totally malleable, if you think about it, there can be no limit to our tyranny.  

When it came to Americans at large and the nature-nurture question there was always something latent boding well for our side, Lincoln in the log cabin and all that ridiculousness, every man a king, the optimism of a people always starting over, always lighting out for the territory, wiping the slate clean, picking up stakes, assuming new identities, as it were, so they were particularly stupid when it came to the big picture.  And of course the depression we engineered (banking minutiae) played into our hands, normally when things get scarce people turn on each other, but such was the brilliant homogeneity of the American people at that time that hard times actually drew them closer, in deep sympathy one with the other, and no one was wanting to hear about a master race, a hard doctrine, I'll admit.  In fact, since 1933, really, we ran the show.

So Grant and Boas had their little duel.  It played out in University Anthropology Departments, in access to government grants, in magazines, in newspapers, on boards, in meetings, in letters, in government institutions.  Each of the two would review a book of the other, or have their proxies or surrogates do it, they vied for votes on committees, each circling the other warily,  knowing that the other was too respected in certain quarters for an all out assault.  Relative to the other they generally kept their mouths shut in public, though in private one was the worst thing of all—a Jew, an alien—and the other was the worst thing of all—a non-scientist, a charlatan.  What particularly galled Grant and his circle was that Boas was turning Anthropology into a study of the marriage and sexual habits of savages, they'd travel thousands of miles to see the ritual aspects of some defunct tribe—why study a beaten people? Why romanticize an extinguished race?  Prior to that Anthropology was always the study of race and now it was the study of what?—pottery shards? What galled Boas and his henchmen and henchwomen was the smugness of them all and that they weren't practicing--wait for it--science!

And to give you an idea of how the wind blew over time Grant's protege Lothrop Stoddard was a widely respected writer in the 1920s and could speak comfortably against Jews in popular magazines, the everyday Jew hate of the average man in the street, the small change of life, really; but by the mid 1930s he confided in friends that the subject had become delicate and he found himself watching his tongue on the matter.  In his lectures at the Army War College he dropped the subject of Jews altogether and after Hitler's racial ideology was beaten he would die socially discredited and in obscurity in 1950.  This is how this country remembers it's prophets and great men.  And Linbergh, whose prestige was unparalleled, found himself at the short end of our wrath and paying the price for his untoward and ill-timed words about us.  In private letters Anne Morrow said that even though she agreed with him she wished her husband hadn't said those things about the Jews, that nothing was worse than the prospect of pogroms on Jews in America, nothing was worse than anti-Jewish violence, that even war was better than that, even losing one's country was better than that.  Better to die, apparently, than to hate! Better to die than to live!  Lindbergh!  This was a man who to wake himself up on his way to Paris dipped his craft into the troughs of the waves to have the water splash his face. But we are fiercer than any ocean.    

It didn't help them that we (we being the Jewish media arm) glossed over the much worse things the Soviets were doing and pointed to the little upsets of Germany.  In the 1930s the Soviet Union had murdered murdered millions of people and for these pains the Roosevelt's administration recognized their government, and spoke warmly of them. Hitler knocked off a few of his own followers and broke some windows and in the American media (see Jews, above) they were a byword for pure evil. We could point to the interlocking directorate between Nazis and the Americans, normal business of a people who wish to survive, and they fell all over themselves with a sickening remorse.  And then there were those those trodden on little Jews, that ship that got turned back!  We could say: you don't want to be like Nazis, do you?  Do you?

How Boas did it was by working through the very institutions that not too many years prior would have barred us outright (when they still possessed sense).  We really did, you see, overwrite the script.  While the young discipline of Anthropology was still growing and the opposition was allied with the government and putting out periodicals Boas was seeding with his acolytes the vanguard of the future—the universities.  While they had great stationary and sterling names on the letterhead and were taking Rockefeller money Boas had students and soon heads of departments all over the country—and they were teaching the next ones, to control the future control the minds of children, for the minds of children are eternal and universal battlefields.  And it must be said the race scientists, though they had eternal truth on their side, were preaching a hard dogma, we an inviting one.  As a poet who was no fan of our race said truly:  human kind can bear very little reality. And nothing was more inviting than equality, universal brotherhood, egalitarianism, a fair chance for everyone, all men are after all created equal.  It says so right there on the dotted line.  Would Thomas Jefferson lie?

Of course we had more work to do but in truth the deal was done.  It amuses me to no end to read the books of the early 21st century and see how they describe "race science", admittedly a forbidding name, as discredited.  Most of those scholars are Jewish, of course, and take their cues from one ours, a true hack but serviceable for sure, Gould, but even the ones that are not are obedient to the general plan, knowing all too well how bread gets buttered.  But how such "scholars" can be so ignorant of the epochal work going on even then in genetics, and now even more so, is beyond me.  Or perhaps they knew but wanted to keep it under wraps, with humans the race between stupidity and duplicity is always a close run thing.  Either way, they kept repeating the bromides. It's been discredited!  Everyone knows it!  You're not a Nazi, are you? But they served their purpose in the last push of the great awakening.  They are gone now, of course; being of no use.  

On the eve of the Second World War the race scientists were all dead or were outcasts, or soon to be.  Men in top hats were already dinosaurs. Their name was mud, we dragged them through it.  Boas as mentioned died during the war keeling over in Manhattan inveighing against them. But his pupils lived on, his ideas lived on.  And were about to make a killer entrance into the annals of history.

In the 1920s men who held the views of a later time's Dissident Right were deeply respected, socialized with Presidents, sat on boards, referred to FDR in letters as "Dear Frank",  thirty years later men with the same views were nearly universally looked on as moral monsters.

The question remains, how did it happen?  Into the early 20th century the American people were a materialistic people but a stern and a forbidding one.  We think of Rockefeller handing out thin dimes to street urchins.  But if there is one thing true about immigration it's that every people you mix in effects the blend, changes the people in ways subtle and unsubtle, and there is no doubt that by the 1920s the Americans, with their novel and at times exotic mix of ethnics, were fast becoming a sensual people, a ravenous people, a lazy people, the tone got lowered, as is said.   And with the Depression they became a frightened people, and when a sensual people becomes a frightened people they do not go looking for bad ideological news, it's only hope and optimism that they can bear.  So the flinty Yankee gave way to the little dark eyed brunette—and all soon being swept up in the rancid patriotism of the war  so that the nation of villages was left behind, left behind once and for all, without really too much of a look back.

Now to the annals of history such as they are, such as they were, for we Jews are nothing if not sophists, we proceed by misdirection.

Germany was the end of the line for the universalizing mission of Rome, they got ambushed in a forest and had to give up, had to turn back, wept over their legions, but we had better luck.  For it's true that until the end of time (last week) the German people had always been the bone caught in the throat of anyone who would rule the world.  For any universalizing mission it's always Germany that must perish.

Hitler was always the horse we always wanted to ride, no sooner was he dead than we symbolically dug up his corpse and have ever since continually paraded it around the public square so when anyone gets out of line we can point to it and say don't forget, Hitler....

I'm not saying he wasn't our implacable foe, he was, or that he was a pilgrim, he wasn't, or that he didn't cross and re-cross a line or two, or engage in excesses, he did, that much is obvious, but just that unlike the reports of his death the reports of his crimes, such as they were, were greatly exaggerated.  Did he have blood on his hands?  Hardly. For is it a crime to want a country of your own? Is it a crime to want your people to survive? Is it a crime to want to secure one's future for oneself and one's posterity?  It would seem to me the real crime is the opposite, a crime unprecedented, to deliver your people to being replaced by another.  No, we fought Hitler with all our might and main, and then turned him into the ideological gift that keeps on giving not because he was a criminal, he wasn't.  We did it because he was in our way. It still surprises me how slowly some are to grasp the laws of war, the laws of biology, and the laws of demographic conflict, and how shocked they are to hear them.

Nazism was an experiment in applied eugenics.  It was putting the broad, solid, eternal laws and principles of biology to use for social and political life, in the service of the people.  

Written in 1925 The Great Gatsby is the only book published prior to 1945 that contains both the words "holocaust" and "swastika", my staff assures me of this, they've done the cross-checking of this seeming anomaly. Fitzgerald complained to Ed Wilson that the southern Italians were practically Negro (there goes the neighborhood!), and that American naturalization should be limited strictly to English and Swedes.  In Gatsby Nick enters Manhattan in a car and sees, he says, two black bucks being chauffeured by a white man and notes, accurately, that one never knows what one will see when one enters Manhattan. And of course there is Wolfsheim, the predator, the Jew to out Jew all Jews.  And of course he was published by Scribners, the same firm that published Grant and Stoddard, the latter being famously being referenced in the novel, unless it was that other guy the allusion was about, the one who wrote about the hair lips and the morons, even my excellent staff can't yet say for sure, so we'll put a pin in it, for now.  Thus it's not a leap to put two and two together, that this great American novel is not in anyway about something as banal as the fragility of the American Dream, as untold numbers of English teachers, obedient to the general plan, have said, but rather how the clean green breast of the New World was destroyed and desecrated by Jews, Blacks, and assorted mongrels, causing decent folk to retreat to the German Midwest.  That's the theory, a least, but one I hold with.  They got to beat us down.

The Passing Of The Great Race was exhibit 151 at the Nuremberg Trials.   It started on a bison hunt.......

The USA entered the First World War only after Britain promised a homeland in Palestine to the Jews and the Jews gave the signal to Wilson that it was safe to make the world safe for democracy, that is, safe for Jews.  Hitler remembered this perfidy of Albion perfectly well, having cause to.......

After the war we concocted the allegation that Hitler was supposed to have said near the end that he never loved Germany, by then we had a cross between a stranglehold and a death grip on world media so the famous last words slipped into the realm of history, people only know what they read in the papers, our papers......

The message to the Germans was:  neither should you, you shouldn't love Germany either.   Had we wanted them to believe something else they would have.

If someone was in in the mood they might have thought that equally on trial those months in Nuremberg was the scientific racism of the Americans in the 1920s, that the so-called liberators were the real Nazis; in this way we had our view to the future. We brought in the American sterilization laws, the three generations of imbeciles is enough, the various eugenics movements, the close connection between German and American racists, and so we planted seeds that would bloom in a million flowers in the glorious anti-racist future.  We got them thinking: were the liberators really all that different from the ones they conquered?  Indian Genocide?  Slavery?  Jim Crow? The Klan?  The color line?  Weren't they just part and parcel of the same authoritarian system,  all far down on the F Scale?  White man Nazi, that was the lesson and message, one the white man learned all too well in coming years, being an eager and obedient student, an apt pupil—white man Nazi.  Patton is said to have said that the trials weren't cricket--that they offended his Saxon sense of fair play—indeed they must have! What a world of difference between Saxon fair play and eternal Jewish victory. As for Patton himself he is said to have said some bad things about some little Jews, and it must have been quite a shock for such as him to discover that he and his men had been used as a blunt instrument in the furtherance of an international criminal conspiracy.  Imagine his chagrin!  But we all need to wake up sometime, smelling the coffee is good for the soul.  And had he lived he would have been a minor irritant, at most, his prestige was enormous, but we had laid the groundwork with how he treated the men, that slap was truly unfortunate, boo hoo hoo, etc.  Even he would have seen that there are some things you just can't say about us, at least not with impunity. But he didn't live, you'll recall.

When one starts thinking one starts thinking about Adolf Hitler.

Hitler!   Now there was a man!  One after our own hearts, who saw things as we did, eye to eye, a brother under the skin.  To have utterly defeated such a worthy foe makes the victory all the sweeter.   Had he never existed it certainly would have been necessary for us to have invented him.   Yeoman's work for sure he did us, he's the gift that keeps on giving. I had one of my students who was looking  through the archives wonder if the H Logo for the long defunct History channel stood for Hitler and, clever as I am, I said no, it stands for Holocaust.  When I think of Hitler (which is the beginning of wisdom) I think of the question: could it have been different?   For certainly Hitler was their very last stand, the last thing that could have possibly withstood us, compared to him even Grant and the rest were bush league, for we could not make peace with that, we could not possibly let the white man have a country to call his own.  And they couldn't have a country to call their own with us. It's as simple as that.  The old us/them binary, who/whom and Jew/Gentile, the selfish gene is an amoral monster pursuing a blind and relentless will to power. Could it have gone different?  If perhaps he had had the later concept of whiteness and brought the whole flock into the fold he could have prevailed, perhaps; and had he, prevailed that is, there would be statues of him in every city in Europe.  But now, alas, his name is a byword for absolute evil.

It was always the German people who got in the way of every international dream, and we were not going to make Rome's mistake and get bogged down in some godforsaken German forest, where they say Freedom was born (though it was stillborn), that we could not allow.  Anyway it was never by arms but always by make-believe that we rule this world, an uncanny something that is more than any army.   How many divisions do we have?   How many have you?

Germany must perish!    A rallying cry, no doubt.  When I think of how history was falsified on the spot, at the time, how little the American people were allowed to know.  Hitler wants an alliance with the white world, I can't hear you, Hitler wants peace with Britain, scrambled in the telling.  We bamboozled them, really.  Only let filter out what was consonant with the general plan.  But we knew, and our surrogates in government knew, and that was all that mattered.  Hitler had to be stopped.  Germany needed to be pastoralized, pacified, they were our ancient enemy of only a century or so.  And, really, it's fascinating that we even had the chance, that we could stand up on our hind legs and say: we're Americans!   American as you, or more American, really, we believe all are equal, and we have our right to our opinions.  And in our opinion the Nazis represent the apex of evil and American boys (our boys!) should drive them from the face of the earth, they should be used crudely as a blunt instrument in furtherance of our international criminal conspiracy.....

In the 1920s there were three components to the Democrat party: rural Southerners, Northern Ethnics, and Jews.  When we all hit the jackpot in 1933 the first two clamored for jobs and patronage, lined up dutifully at the trough, but not us, instead we became very interested in foreign policy, for as a people we always keep our eye on the main chance.......  

And the timing was something, how we made our nearly vertical and sudden ascent up the back of America, letting it launch us into the stars, how we came from miserable Cracow ghettos speaking a snarling Yiddish, and nearly found ourselves, just like that mind you, atop the world of this brand new colossus—and no sooner had we than---came a man who could stop it.  It really was a pretty brilliant pas de deux, it was because we were we and you were you!  When you think about it he was the only one who saw clearly what was happening and was willing to put his soul in the balance, if that was even necessary, to redress it.  Worthy adversary!  Implacable foe!  Many can talk but who can kill?  Who is willing to take the existence of his people in his hands and kill for it? Animals in the wild have no compunction.  He saw that with our infinite network we were circling the globe, that finance was becoming a god, the rabble as bankers, that markets would soon suck in everything that was not firmly rooted, and even that would be a close run thing, we'd jar that loose too in the end; that we had the rising power of the West, even if we would ultimately lose that of the East, we had this stupid rising power, this Goliath in short pants, wrapped around our gold ringed fingers, in our deep pockets.  And we would stand atop it.  And with this wind at our backs, after centuries of scheming and manipulation from mere pockets of power, what could we not accomplish? Everything, that's what.  The whole world would be at our feet. And he saw with crystal clarity that it must be stopped, now not later, there was no time after the present.  He saw that what was needed was more than autarky in one country but, at the least, autarky in one continent.  There came a movement in the teens of this century of those claiming that the European Union was nothing but Nazism writ large, a direct lineage and genetic descendant, but they mistook means and ends, two men may get in an identical hand basket but only one will be going to hell.  And for our incipient EU (one world is enough for all of us......), our game of global domination, Hitler knew that Germany needed to assert a rival reign to supplant it, to combat it, if not defeat it, this was really the stuff of high drama, the true story of that war, the crucial one, it would make great reading were anyone alive to tell it. Instead we got syrupy pablum, stories of Democracy and Tyranny, and pious speeches at Normandy, and old battle-axes and womanly men preaching and screeching about the liberal order even as it crumbled at their traitorous feet.  For the propaganda surrounding the Second World War, then as well as now, was that it was a war against totalitarian dictatorship and for freedom, but really it was that a sharp eyed Germanic people saw clearly the net that was being thrown over the world by us and tried to elude it, but missed.  The rest of it is just catnip for the masses. Of course we covered that up in Old Glory, our new calling card, and the UN, and world peace, and boo hoo hoo about the Jew and his six million, and anti-communism when it came to that and, well, you know the rest. No, Hitler is a man we can respect, and not even begrudgingly, a man after our own hearts, a man who fought for his people, as we fought for ours.  It would make no more sense for us to bear him any personal ill will than to be upset by animals killing in the wild.  For surely at this late date it is a truth universally recognized that a people who are unwilling to defend themselves deserve to perish.   He was never that, God bless him.

When I think of him now I think of him as a man with tremendous courage, who educated himself to the truth, the truth of what we were doing, and said it plain.  Of course it was easy to brand him as a lunatic, as a clown, the ludicrous dictator, because who could believe we were doing such a thing, or who could admit to it, it seemed so warped, even as we were doing it right out in the open.  No, by that time we had trained them well to hate Jew hate above all and even the smallest hint of it was in bad odor among their elites, it's why the Lindbergh wife dreaded it, better they perish than hate.  I can tell you, comrade, as one who has savored it, there is no more perfect crime than getting away with it and calling all who object criminals and insane ones at that, it really is looping the loop, getting your victims to defend you, a species of madness some used to call the Amy Biehl syndrome, named after a seditious white women who went to help the blacks in South Africa, and paid the predictable price (help the coal, pay the toll, as was once said).  Ms. Biehl's parents later traveled to the rainbow nation and forgave the ones who hit their daughter in the head with a rock (one liberal, one grave).  As for us cranking up the propaganda machinery to enforce a general obedience to the general plan, and a Talmudic taboo against deviating from it, take Hitler's book.  If you believe what we say about it his style was poor, shoddy, and disjointed, pedestrian at best, his thoughts confused, but of course few read it, though it's sold freely on the open market.  But when one reads him with an open mind one finds him to be perfectly lucid, workmanlike perhaps, with the faults of the self-educated, but a fine serviceable workingman's style nonetheless.  And, needless to say, a penetrating analysis.  But we've attached the stigma to him, that he was some unlettered bumpkin, an unreconstructed racist rube rallying the racist rubes, an atavistic reversion, some self made monster, when in fact he was nothing of the kind.  He was a man who looked at things slowly and deeply, scratched his head, stared at them, stared at them again, studied them, took deep breaths, went back over and over them until it was all finally clear in his mind, and so over long periods of time worked things out for himself.  But if you only read the papers, our papers, you'd never know the truth. Indeed, his book shows that he did have a great struggle, had a great overcoming, to see though everything, and elucidate it perfectly, and then get cast as a joke, a criminal.  It's ironic that his last inheritors and imitators would label the intermediary world that we cast over the old one, that we overwrote the script with as "clown world", which is getting close to the bone.  But of course to the honest observer he was anything but a clown, though one of ours pictured him as the clownish dictator.  It's true, he had no pedigree, no lineage, came from common stock, but then Lincoln was born in a cabin, and his high sounding phrases were stultifying and stupid--—dedicated to a proposition indeed, any nation not dedicated to it's own survival will be gone soon enough.  When he arrived on the scene we knew we had to handle him with special care, to go all in on defaming him, on anathematizing him, on placing him well beyond the pale, off the reservation, others wrote him off but we never did.  When the reprisals started we knew that this was to be a war to the knife, we knew that he and we were fatally entwined, knew that this was the final showdown, winner take all, and everything would be swept before it.  For instance how much of the ultimate reaction against scientific racism came from it's association with Hitler?  See, we said, this is what it means, see?  This is what it comes to.  Few had the stomach for it when you put it that way. Indeed, in the annals of subversion the 1930s are an underrated time, textbooks were changing, history was being re-written, public officials were being re-educated, mouths were being closed, people were being shut up, a chill went over the land vis-a-vis the Jews, what one could say about us was being curtailed, the story line was subtly changing, and all from our perspective, all at our behest.  If anyone objected we said: Hitler? That's not what you are is it?   And so quickly, before he even did a thing, we ratcheted up our propaganda to warp and wailing speed, and he became the world historical monster of our own making.  I tell you had he never existed it would have been necessary for us to invent him, which we did after all.   Which we did.

Seen from a certain angle it's easy to see Hitler as barbaric, certainly his racial ideology has gone out of fashion, at least when it's articulated, we live it of course as a matter of course as do you my dear friend.  But the ideology's passing was only because in the years following the war civilization had reached a kind of plateau, one from which it was really impossible to see the past, the war had been a cataclysm no one wanted to peer back over except to be rid of it.  When the state of war returned, or at least an intimation of it, things looked somewhat different. What no one could think at the time was that he was doing what was necessary, he was acting in the extremity of the future, his future, his people's future, seeing the cold hand of total defeat that his people were being subtly dealt; but then such is the general fate of visionaries, we forget too  easily that the canary in the coalmine as often as not comes up dead.

There's a scene in The Stranger (1946) when an ex Nazi played by Orson Welles in order to cover his tracks tells Edward G Robinson that the German is incorrigibly evil and must be destroyed and driven from the face of the earth.  Mr. Robinson emigrated to the USA and fabricated some personal small-scale pogrom he witnessed in the old country, not his country, but the old one, and said when he came to the USA at age ten he felt for the first time free.   I'll bet he did, I know many people felt the same way, many people like Robinson, who were Jewish, more than a few up my family tree.

Gemany Must Perish!  We laid it on with a trowel, it's true, you can never lay it on too thick.  Germany Must Perish!  My god, read from the perspective of a later humanity what a dreadful book that was, one probably unwise to publish, but we got a away with it, we always do.  We were on the side of the angels by then, or damn close to it. What was the small change of life regarding what you could say about us not ten years before was now viewed with distaste, and so Jew hate was driven underground, where it belongs, if you could say boo about the Jew by then you could just say it barely. And in the first glow of our slow acceptance we made Hitler the pariah he is today; we truly created a monster, anathematization on a cosmic, industrial scale. Prior to that a man such as Lindbergh would think nothing of getting a service cross pinned to his chest by Nazi officialdom, little did he know that soon enough he would be seen as having supped with Satan with an exceedingly short spoon!  How could he have known?  He was just following the protocols of  the Knights of old.  But the reins were about to loosened, faith dimmed, chivalry dead; this new world we were creating was not going to be cricket.

But they had the right idea alright, they were taking hygienic caution, it was a racial prophylactic, they were seeing the world with clear eyes and taking the measures that were necessary for survival.   One can only laud that, most people want to live, though when not faced with having to prove it most will deem it a reversion, they are a squeamish lot; looking back there were the race suicide prophets in America, the alarm bell in the night about the rising tide of color, which by the fifties simply seemed odd; but everything in the post war world blurred reality, the battle between Russia and America froze it in an ice from which it was released in 1989, history resuming just as the neoliberals were saying it was ending; but the ones who saw clearly in 1940 knew that they were at the choking point, and theirs was the only way to save a civilization, a culture,  people, a race, a way of life.  For what we have now is not that, a civilization that is.  The machines goes on like before but no one can really distinguish it from the operators.

Germany did perish, thank god.  With them out the way it was smooth sailing, for the most part.  Some unreconstructed Southern racist was no match for our Fuhrer.  We wailed at the dogs on chains, and the water hoses, and the lunch counters, and cried them rivers about the back of the bus, and the eternal corpse of Emmett Till (may God rest his useful soul), but a man who can walk into a hospital and put  patients to sleep-—that man means business, that man would throw fire down on a school rather than let a black girl walk in.  

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

But, comrade, I must leave dear Adolf for now, otherwise I'd go on forever, he is truly inexhaustible. Here at the Ministry I have employees look up and bring me odd arcana about him, I think I must be one of the few remaining experts on him, for most he's just some vaguely evil spirit from a dead past, something with which to startle the horses and scare the womenfolk from time to time but little more.  I have the misfortune to be an historical man in an unhistorical age.  And now that all the tension has gone out of history it's hard to understand that at one point, when the outcome was not apparent to all, any political or social issue could be resolved by reference to him, it was as if he had subsumed in his person everything from the past and brought it to it's primal and irreducible level. His thought and his life are the gifts that will always repay attention for he brought history down to it's focal point, shorn of everything superfluous, in his itinerary is the entirety of human existence; his works, his words, his deeds are endless.  Even I, old cynic that I am, learn something new from him now and again, from time to time.  But basically he reminds us of the law of life, prevail or perish. And one should never feel any guilt for wanting to prevail or for prevailing. Otherwise you have been captured by an eighteenth century paradigm, when the living was easy.  That, I assure you, was never our problem.

William James said that for a people being moral is more important than survival.   Jean Raspail said that if the white man was to survive he was going to have to do things that will put his soul in the balance.  I suppose that is true for everyone, either way, you must choose.  Hate or die?   Which will it be?

Before we turn to the post war era, the era of desultory mopping up, there's one last question I have for Adolf.  Was he wise in all he did?  The question is asked again and again.  A last gasp is one thing but a foolhardy thrust is another.  HP Lovecraft was thrilled by Hitler's emergence, by his advent, he said that he thought that the man could and would  rejuvenate the European peoples.  That was in 1933 but just before his death in 1937  Lovecraft said he worried that Hitler was becoming too extreme in his policies and in the end he might have the exact opposite effect of what he intended, which he did, we know by now. Was he right? History has many cunning passages....could he have taken the Junger route?  Drawn a circle around Germany and wished the world of color away?  Simply expelled the Jews?  Got them a homeland in Palestine? Made a nice little white country of his own?  I think not.  I think he sensed not only the gravity of his situation but the finality of it, that after him was the deluge.  Hitler was an impulsive man, but in this instance I think his impulse was correct.  He sensed which way the wind was blowing, he saw the French pour coloured troops into Germany, he saw anti-colonialism rearing it's ugly head, he saw the various ideologies of race-mixing being bandied about and finding a receptive audience among fools, he saw the American Negro looking for a place in the sun and, above all, he saw that we Jews were getting more and more powerful every year.  The white world around him was becoming morally weak and no country is an island, and unless the rot was excised then or soon it would soon engulf them all. Look at Eastern Europe in the 20s, they made their stand, they had their mini baby booms, but were unable to withstand the rising tide of...what do we call it...color...yes, color....they made their half-hearted try but our markets swamped them in the end, they were small peoples unable to withstand the tsunami.  Hitler rightly knew or sensed that racial autarky was an incredibly difficult thing to maintain, amidst prosperity that is, prosperity coupled with moral weakness, that race is that promiscuous thing, it's hard to make it impermeable, there's always someone sneaking off to the hay bale, that unless it is vigorously and jealously guarded it always bastardizes, it always becomes unstable, there is always a fox in the hen house somewhere, and there's always a negro in her wood pile, safe to say.  And we held the Anglo world in our clutches and Weimar, well, Weimar was just dormant, incubating, ready as ever to return, break out, a virus poised to become an epidemic. So it was, as the Americans used to say, when they were a much more confident lot, do or die.  And who knows, if he had punched through to the oil fields the world might have become a very different place.  If he had went pan-white, perhaps? Of course there was the bomb, the Jew Bomb. Would goy have bombed goy? Gentile on gentile?  Would they have been that obedient to the general plan?  Ah, who knows. History not only has many cunning passages, it always deceives by vanity in the end, but now no more, not now that it has ended.  But who can think of anything more dramatic, a man, a great man, a world historical man, the world historical man, makes one roll of the dice for the white man, come up snake eyes, but just barely; and the die is cast.  It's a story someone really ought to tell.

There are other theories too, that Weimar wasn't so bad and would have reformed, that Strasser could have threaded that perfect needle, Hitler never should have abandoned Feder, etc, that Nietzsche detested petty bourgeois anit-semites, the same old tripe, and I notice that the people who promote these theories tend to be over-serious Christians, so see poisoned chalice, see Trojan Horse, above, if you even bother.

Once Hitler was presumed dead and we put those pictures of bulldozed bodies on American movie screens History, with a capital H, was over. Just like that, amazing.   We eternal sophists had to blind our eyes.  Even we were a little startled by the suddenness of it.  It's true that the Holocaust, with a capital H, and that stands for trouble, did not emerge for some time, but one belt, one road, right?  All we have is time, we are the immortal race after all.  And now that we have allied with our equally stout and unwavering Han brothers (who also wanted to live forever and never hesitated for a single moment as to how to deal with their undesirables) all we have is the future.  Standing there in 1945 for all intents and purposes we might have seemed a defeated race, but for all intensive ones we had prevailed, we were on the cusp of a true breakout.  Who could see it?  A few.  Patton belly-ached....but what could he do?  He was dead, not having been obedient to the overall plan.  The others had been discredited.  No one knew or cared, but L. Stoddard lived on until 1950, a relic, a vanquished relic, an ideological husk.  Our enemies had been vanquished before us, our moral enemies, our mortal ones, and the world breathed new air, the air of An American Dilemma, a watered down American Creed, and the UNESCO statement on race. Safe to say that no one had a good word to say for racial ideologies, or racism or, even, race, that non-existent thing.  Oh, racism had turned Europe into a field of ruins, but anti-racism would level it all, we made sure of that. We would soon make genocide a right of the peoples, we would clothe tyranny in tolerance.  And it really wasn't all that hard when you're dealing with a weakened people. If you want to destroy a people you sever their roots, you destroy their history, you destroy their classics....you know the drill. Soon dead white males would be the red headed step children of the world.  But let us not move too fast.   Let us linger over the intervening four decades, the beginning of what was really little more than a clearing of accounts.

With Hitler dead and buried we had our totem, our talisman, our bogey-man, our thing-that-goes-bump-in-the night, our salutary example to the goyim, with him in our pocket there is nothing we could not do, he was truly the horse we always wanted to ride.......

No one writes history any more as we don't like to overmuch burden our youth with useless trivia but if one were to write the history of Modern America they should divide it like this:

1890 to 1950:   Softening Up

1950 to 2000:  The Great Unraveling

2000 to 2030:  Knock Out Blow

2030 to Present:  Death And Burial

One theory of social movements is that they succeed to the extent that their leaders possess "social capital" in the form of ties to the mass media, corporate cultural intermediaries, and the state intelligentsia---where dominant interpretations of reality are generated.

Of course we were a racial movement not a social one and we didn't have ties, we were it.  After the war we had New York, Hollywood, the universities, newspapers, all were in our pockets and we generated the dominant interpretation or reality which was of course: white man bad; and later on, when the time was right, white skin bad, dark skin good.  We like to keep it simple, by make believe we rule this world.

What happened in the decades after the war was not a cultural revolution it was something much more, and much better, it was a social revolution, everything solid melted into air.  If in 1960 one wanted to see pornography it was certainly possible but one would need to go to the weirdo part of town, to the weirdo theater, or to the weirdo book shop.  In short, one would be a weirdo.  A half century later not only would one be saturated with pornography, up to one's eyeballs in it, filled to the very gills with it, by watching it one would not be a weirdo, the weirdo would be the one who still said you were a weirdo (hang-ups you see).  A world turned upside down is one that can be ruled by violence, and of course by make believe, inversion is the best kind of magic.

They had rights but we gave them human rights in order to take them away.

And that's all it ever really was from May, 1945 on, a mopping up exercise, an index on the end-ex, a collecting of our winnings.  Just how massive was the win? As a for instance it's a sign of how America was overtaken by an alien ideology that what for over a century was an icon of Liberty was changed to mean they must submit to being invaded by alien races whose rule over them meant the end of their Liberty.

We overwrote the script.  Let me say that again: we overwrote the script. A country created on paper, out of thin air, created in a Quaker meeting hall, was particularly subject to this horrible indignity.  Better for a nation to be born in the mists of time beyond recall, any nation created on a rational basis will evaporate like morning mist.

We employed a long term and multi-faceted strategy to destroy White America but it boiled down to this, our strategy was very simple, very simple from beginning, from the time we washed up on their shores:  it was to mongrelize the in group until there is no in-group, mongrelize the in group until they have lost not just the ability to survive but the will do it.

Leslie Fiedler said that in the 1950s in Manhattan every gentile who came to the big city to become a big intellectual immediately started taking on the role of the little Jew, dressing like a Jew, acting like a Jew, speaking like a Jew, assuming the aspect and accents and affect of a Jew, and in this way American culture become thoroughly Jewish, which is an homage to power indeed......

We of course had our Frankfurt Group, our Adorno, our F scale, but I'd like to point out one that is often overlooked. It was the Civil Rights movement after all the was the dagger in their hearts, the subversive movement that was the paradigm for all the insanity that followed, it took their rights away and racially degenerated them.  And it was Brown v. Board which was the camel's nose in the tent, little black boys and girls and little white boys and girls and all of that disgusting nonsense, our lawyers saw to that, we Jewed up the Courts until they buckled like a cheap suit. They dragged their feet on implementing it, but it was the principle that mattered, nine robed visionaries properly shamed and coaxed could degrade the racial character of a nation of 200 million.  And behind that scam was an actually fairly little known (and less read, understandably) book by a guilty Swede, Myrdal's An American Dilemma (funded by the Carnegie Corporation, Yaweh love it). A stealth bomb that book, the unheralded keys to the kingdom.

Myrdal himself was a rather obtuse fellow, and his theory was that America was racist and had always been racist, and that in order to remove this stain it had to stop being racist.  They were wrong to defend themselves he says.  The color line, the only thing standing between anyone and the abyss, was made anathema.  It was written in 1944, weighing in at a dull thousand plus pages, just at the time the stampeded goyim were doing our dirty work in Germany; and the Swede did a number on America's elite, not hard you say, and you're right, they were a thinned out and rather unimpressive lot.  It's also the book that gave us the phrase "The American Creed" (see countries created out of thin air, above).  The book had a unique and undue influence in all the right quarters and was the key to Brown, etc., indeed a generation of white folk were inculcated in the idea that there should be no white folk.  The Swedes, my god, what a godforsaken people.

And some time in there, a little before or after, was the UNESCO statement on race, that there are no races and that they are all equal, that miscegenation does not lead to racial decline, that race was a social myth, etc., all of it certified by FDR's ghost, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Alger Hiss. That nominally serious people could have taken so seriously such child like fantasy beggars belief, it wasn't even high sounding balderdash, it was low-brow balderdash, but what was said of the Germans was true of white folk in general, they were always at your throat or at your feet.  Indeed, if we had a guiding star, it was that there are no races, that there was only one race, the human race, and that racism, something endemic and perfectly natural to humans, so natural that for thousands of years no one gave it a second thought, was anathema. We are racialists preaching anti-racialism, racists selling anti-racism, even as we are sophists proceeding by misdirection.  But then if you can believe that Ashley Montagu is a reasonable sounding name for a Jew you'll believe in anything, however far-fetched it is.    

Civil Rights (meaning no rights for the white man) was the vanguard but so much came in it's wake, and though it was ostensibly for blacks you can be sure we Jews lawyered the shit out of it.  And it's true:  equality is a weapon. If we had a theory it was if it was standing knock it down, knock it down until there was nothing left, nothing left for them but their eyes to see their own destitution. Kinsey, the Pill, free speech, psychedelics, rock and roll, imagine there's no country, race riots, assassinations, Miranda, no payer in schools, feminism, women in the work place, the two parent trap, outsourcing, abortion, gay rights, trans rights, the Loving ruling, pornography, the sexual revolution, the cultural revolution, the social revolution, globalism, libertarianism, Vietnam, anti-racism, no fault divorce, Dead White Males, the patriarchy, affirmative action, anti-colonialism, black power, Chicano Power, nothing comes between me and my Calvins, fists in the air at the Olympics,  Stonewall, Lady Chatterly, Playboy, Jackson Pollock, Pop-Art, modern art, an end of the great narratives, I could go on but, safe to say, to the average white man watching this all on television it must have been one massive  indignity after another.   It was the great unraveling. Everything solid melted into air........

Somewhere in there too (1976) a Jewess with a jaw-locking prose style named Judith Butler announced to the world that biological sex did not exist but rather there was something called gender which existed only in the mind.  Only in the mind, mind you. By the time she died she had been given every award a society can give to a scholar and so in the end we did to the sexes what we had done to the races, first we fused them and then we simply made them disappear.  

If you want to destroy a people you destroy their heritage, you destroy their history, you destroy their classics, their past, their heroes, their culture, their language, their literature; perhaps in the end you leave them only with their eyes so they can witness their destitution. A people who are without the voice of their ancestors are like a plant that has been uprooted and is living above ground synthetically with chemicals. Without lineage, without blood, without time, without identity, they are just a cipher waiting for a more dominant interpretation of reality.

Now that the Germans were gone we knew that the final bone in our throat would be the American White Man, White America.  They never had a full blown policy named after it, and that was the problem.  We turned all of our attention to him, to make him a stranger in his own home.  We knew that the white man in the end would always stick to his mores, his traditions, that after years of their being submerged, he would stick to them even more. We always knew that the white man was the last obstacle to our universal dreams, the very last.  And, as such, he had to go.  He had, after all, or so we put it about, blood on his hands, and tomorrow belonged to us.

The author of that defeatist Serenity Poem (a favorite of losers everywhere) was Reinhold Niebuhr, in the 1950s he also authored the so-called "truce" between the big three religions, essentially gutting any notion of religion in the public square, thus removing another ancestral claim of the white man to his own country.  Two percent and we got a rabbi at all of the governmental functions, "Judeo-Christian"--what a crock and what a coup, put a menorah on the White House lawn and call it surrender.

When I think of yeoman's work being done I think of little Emanuel Celler, in Congress at the time of the 1924 immigration restriction act, a brand new congressman from Brooklyn, on the losing side, but sticking around and re-emerging 41 years later to lend his Jewish name to the stake put into the heart of White America.  Imagine that! Forty-One Years!  Being a little pipsqueak Jew speaking up bravely to the WASP establishment, taking a drubbing, then not so much licking his wounds as rubbing his hands, and watching as the long decades rolled by, and as his enemies became more and more deracinated, their identity thinned out, more and more in disarray, more and more exhausted, more and more demoralized, waning while we were waxing, dying out and dying off, until that great day in New York Harbor where, as referenced, the representative of a once great Anglo-Saxon nation referred to the 1924 Act as a "cruel and enduring wrong", a "harsh injustice", and an affront to the American Creed of judging every man on his merits.  Imagine it!  A cruel and enduring wrong! Injustice!  Merits!  A people wanting to survive and have a country of their own cruel!  He spoke like one of us, or he was as dumb as Texas cow shit. And of course little Manny Cellar, Jewish little Manny Celler, was there that day and had to hold in cold contempt the people who would sign their own death warrant in full view of the Statue Of Liberty, a veritable suicide note it was.  As for the poem at the base, that was a fine bit of work, which reminds me that no self respecting people lets aliens scrawl filthy graffiti at the base of their temples. That poem, barely literate and indicative of suicidal tendencies for anyone who would adopt it, had started out inside the statue getting no attention, until a rich WASP socialite named Georgina Schulyer paid for it to go at the base.  It continued to sit there in obscurity until we played it up as of 1938 in order to get more of us in from Europe, and then a half a century later it was holy fucking writ, it was damn near the law of the land, a statue become like statute.  And on that fateful day when the America President, charged with protecting a 90 percent white nation, signed that people's suicide note, the Vice President chimed in too and he said the Act would prove that in America there were no second class citizens; he was wrong though, that designation was reserved for the white man.  It would not upset the ethnic balance of the nation, it was said, it was not a revolutionary bill, wrong on all counts, we are liars and we operate by misdirection. We were fully aware that we were delivering the death blow, that we got the unsuspecting white man to herald it as the triumph of the American spirit, and to do it in full view of Lady Liberty, that was just insult to injury.

If your ideals can be used against you you have the wrong ideals.

And that poem of course was occasioned by the so-called Russian pogroms that were largely fictional, we sold those too via innuendo, rumor and lies.  By make believe we rule this world.

The first way we work is by means of race-mixing, race-mixing in the sense of miscegenation (the flood of images of white women and black men coupling) and race-mixing in the sense of mixing the races together, multi-racialism, multiculturalism.  We flooded their nations with nearly sub-human mongrels, we mongrelized the nation until there was no nation left, the destruction of White America was beautiful to behold.  In 1960 it was a nice white country but by the year 2000 it was a disparate amalgamation of alien races, an international flop house, and more importantly a machinery had been set in place whereby over a million green cards were issued each year, a vast machinery for nation wrecking and, short of the political will to stop it, and there was none, it would go on til the crack of their doom. We turned this nice white country into little more than a legal entity, an economic zone, and a universal refuge situated at the crossroads of the world.  Everything that was solid melted into thin air....evaporated like morning mist.....

The money spigots of the neoliberal order are free trade, open borders, and war, the exact things which were the death of White America.

Amazing too is how slowly we got the left to be outriders for global capital, in the name of humanity they did the work of the ones they once called robber barons, and in a final reduction to absurdity even unions got on board with mass immigration and the decimation of the working man.  

For most of American history a tariff was a reasonable idea, but we moved around a lot so for us the free movement of people and goods became our ideology and our God, free trade and open borders, to reject these ideas meant a people wanted to have a country of their own, and if they were sane enough for that the Jews knew they'd be the first to go.

Open borders, and free trade, behind these twin ideas we put an enormous amount of effort, the jobs went out, the people came in and so all sides conspired against the middle, and so in earnest the American middle class was hollowed out.  We made "industrial policy" into a dirty phrase, but all industrial policy is is a people wanting to have a country of their own, so we made it a dirty phrase and free trade became a god, finance became a god, the usual neo-liberalism being the preferred method of societal suicide.  We had charts, graphs, a wide variety of voodoo, and luckily the Americans were suckers for anything with the word free in it.  You could take the rattiest old couch in the world, toss it out on your curb and slap the word free on it and it won't be too long before some asshole will come along to pick it up.

There is a reason after all they say Uncle Sucker.

The neoconservatives were Jews who started out as Marxists, moved on to Trotsky, when the USSR became anti-jew they turned cold warriors, they didn't like the hippies so they became conservatives, whereupon they proceeded to hijack the Republican Party and led them happily into social liberalism and eternal war.

Neoconservatism was simply the realization on our part that we needed to play both sides of the fence, that to destroy White America a pincer movement was required.

We worked from the right via neo-conservatism and after all the good work the traditionalists did to build up the Republican Party we hijacked it just as that great friend of ours, that great nitwit Reagan, took over the country.  We stole the Republican Party like the key from under the keeper's nose!  Just like that, as is said. And by the mid eighties we had the three-legged stool, we tossed in social conservatism just to keep the rubes interested, but sending that great gentleman and scholar Mel Bradford packing was a sign of which way the wind blew—at our backs. Ah, the Paleos—we did them in with our amen corner.  War, trade, open borders, it's not that hard to bring a once mighty people to their knees (simultaneously loosen social and economic controls).  You see after the war America was really the only one left standing, everyone else was wading through the rubble, and it was a golden age for the average person, and we worked hard on the re-proletarianization of them, never forget that the etymology of that word is the making of slaves.  And so the left got rid of social controls, the right got rid of economic ones and we played all sides against the middle---some things are so nice you need to write them twice.

And you my young friend, you know this drill better than anyone, your people bled America dry there for a while, they should have left you stagnating in your billions but they were a greedy lot, they couldn't leave well enough alone, global order and all that suicidal rot.  Indeed, after letting us in bringing you into the world economy was their biggest mistake, perhaps they could have survived the one, or the other, but that one-two punch was deadly.  The jobs went out, the people came in, the wages went down, the price of a housing went up, the fertility rate went down, men didn't make enough money for women to want to marry them, however counter-revolutionary that is, so bring more people in, more people in, wash, rinse, repeat, kaput.  It really was that simple.  It really was Satan's circle.  Combine it with the rising of other countries which their foreign policy facilitated, the web of finance needs so to become global, and then when we threw in automation on top of it, it was too much for them to withstand, they buckled then they collapsed, eating bugs in sparsely appointed pods.  Though I must say on the robots we held back a little, slowly in the wind and all that, there was never any reason to startle the horses or scare the womenfolk, better to let them slowly and gradually get acclimated to and even somewhat comfortable with their extinction.  Satan's circle has all the time in the world to spread it's basic message.

The left got rid of social controls, the right economic ones.....

Sometime in there a famous movie was made called Falling Down.  The hero is your average white collar white guy who's had enough and isn't going to take it any more and he starts mowing people down.  It was adduced as an example of the angry white male phenomenon.  But let's not forget that the movie was called Falling Down.

Middle American Radicals they were called. They had the right idea, of course.  Go third position on us, resurrect the dead ghost of the even then living Junger, it would have been very popular in the right hands, could have carried a lot before it.  A leader can always arise.  But we had a stranglehold on the parties, so it was a no go, we made sure of that, donors, networks, the media, the networks, the newspapers, the magazines, the schools, we had a tight little control on things.  From time to time those of us still interested in such things in the Ministry  (and there are fewer and fewer as I grow old) ask each other: when was it finally over?   There are still some among us that say Hitler's death was not the end and that, in theory at least, they could have sublimated the racism for the new age and have slaughtered us hard from the left and the right.  It could have worked, true, in theory; but it was always an odd brew, that chimerical Third Position, that unicorn world-view, that gossamer ideology as fool's errand; and anyway no one picked up the cudgel. Well, in truth Duke did and Buchanan did, and Perot did, at least a little, taken together they were by hook and by crook honing in on a white man's third position, but they faded away and no one seemed interested in taking up a viable mantle.  The problem was they were small fry and, like I said, we had a stranglehold on the parties.  And so we were able quell democracy, take over the courts, make the living constitution the death of them all, and split the sides against each other; where if a leader had emerged to join the far left and the far right and bring a lot of the heartland along they could have given us a run for our money, maybe.  And you know why they couldn't?  Race, that's why.  It was race that the conservatives were scared to deal with, wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, it was race that the far right made frightening, and that the left treated the way vampires treat holy water.  The far right and the far left were naturally matched, almost peas in a pod, they were anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-capitalist, anti-corporation, anti-war, anti free trade, anti-establishment, anti-finance, but race got in the way.  That's what kept these perfectly natural allies from greeting up and making one last stand: race.  How funny. The issue of race will always be the cross upon which they will always hang.  And it's why our basic strategy was so sound: mongrelize the in-group; and their's should have been always keep it white, through thick or thin, my god, just keep it white, and all will be well, all manner of things will be well......

And it was not really true to say that whites were being dispossessed, not all of them, many came over to our side and did fine with their possession, were fine with being obedient to our general plan, it was the Paleos, the nationalists, the white nationalists, the supremacists, the middle American radicals, the alt-righters and the right dissenters, the average white man, in short, who got disestablished, but then those are just other names for the losers.  That is, what was dispossessed was nothing less that whiteness itself, for they were always a people in themselves, but never for themselves, alas.  

And it's not too much boasting to say we decimated the middle class. There was a time when a man could work, the wife stay home, and they could have a nice white life in a nice white city and in a nice white country, take nice white vacations, have nice white neighbors, look forward to nice white retirements, but then suddenly it all vanished, things got pinched and both husband and wife needed to work and even at that they couldn't meet the standards that they had before.  How did that work? Fortress America could have saved them, autarky on one continent.  But the jobs went out, the people came in......  

When the epitaph of America is written it will say that this was a people who loved freedom but who from the first slave ship, to all the steamships, and to the last special exemption visa loved cheap labor more.  True that.

The left got rid of social controls, the right economic ones, the jobs went out, the people came in, and all sides were played against the middle.

America really was a husk of itself by this time though it continued to live off it's admittedly dwindling accumulated capital before the law of diminishing returns took effect, something you were too young to see.  If not quite eating bugs they were experiencing power outages, crowding, housing prices through the roof, under our tutelage it's always inevitable that Metropolis becomes Modern Times becomes Soylent Green....

Make Room!  Make Room!

Internationally,  anti-colonialism had the same goal of targeting the white man wherever he was and the promotion of the rising tide of color.  White skin bad, dark skin good, we had our mantra, simple is as simple does. Rhodesia, South Africa, two once thriving white countries that we turned into test cases, then black basket cases. And you'll notice how the white power structure all around the world heaped massive opprobrium on the only countries who had the right idea, the ones with the spines of steel, their backbones still intact, the ones who could have resurrected the chances of the white man, in embryo true, but one must start somewhere. But to get the white man to kill the white man's chances, to sell out their brothers in arms, it's rather easy when you've ruled rule Britannia out of bounds.  We know who lost America.

We might pause here to say: and the Jews were behind all of this?  Yes, we were, we were very much indeed, we most emphatically were.  I don't and won't supply footnotes to this, but safe to say find a movement, a tendency, an attempt to tear down something Christian, something traditional, something American, something white and behind it you're sure to find more than a few Jews in the woodpile, we have our fingers in every pie, if none in the dike.  After us, my lord, the deluge.

Someone once asked me what my social philosophy was and in lieu of anything else I told him: dark skin good, white skin bad.  And though we don't believe a word of it it's true: our stroke of genius was to get enough white people to believe that white people were immoral, there was the slavery, the colonialism, the treatment of women, the Indians, the aboriginals, it's life you say, but we made them hate life, made them hate living, made them hate their people.  So naive were they, so enmeshed in a bubble of their own making, that they believed the nonsense, believed the lie.  The white man immoral!  But who isn't?  One shoots Gandhi doesn't one?   The American generation that came of age in the mid sixties will go down as simultaneously the most lucky, the most stupid, and the most evil ever born; they literally inherited the world and their response was to fuck in the mud.  What can one say about such a people save good riddance?

We hit our true genius, really, well after the miraculous decade of the 1960s.  When did it start?  When is the fist time you heard the phrase political correctness?  When did you first hear that even more important phrase: dead white males?   Dead white males, more of them please!  In a very real way the madness that came to fruition in the teens of the next century, all of it,  can be traced back to that single phrase from the 1980s: dead white males! smash the patriarchy!  down with the classics!  Hey Hey Ho Ho Western Civ has got to go!  It seemed harmless or amusing at the time to many but these were  our poisonous growths that bore deadly fruit.  That a so-called serious nation would countenance such refuse is justification enough for it's demise but here's the truth: they ate it up, the flagellants ate it up, or enough of them did.   When a nation becomes busy abrogating it's past perk up your ears, something big is going on.  It's true that in the grand scheme of things the 1960s made the splash but my heart's always been with the 1980s, for the sheer audacity of subversion. That's when multiculturalism and the "studies" revolution got into full swing, that's when immigration hit it's ongoing fever pitch, when neoconservatism made it's vertical ascent, that's when the American mind finally closed.  Reagan and Thatcher were supposed to be leading some kind of counter-revolution but in fact those two were not even speed bumps on the road to degeneracy: they were it's necessary accelerants, neo-liberals always are.  Mr. Enoch Powell once told the Thatcher woman that he'd defend England to the death were it to become communist, which baffled Maggie, which is the difference between a being a real racial patriot and being a mercenary bitch.

And here we get to the heart of the matter, or near it, or near enough. When you can get them codify their own racial destruction, to exalt it as their ideal, to grant it the legitimacy of an ideology, to get them them to work for it and defend it as moral, you've achieved something.  And such was multiculturalism, the famed French living together.  Some time in the 1950s some idiot came up with the theory called Contact Theory.   He had noticed that racial tensions seemed endemic to all societies and he thought that it was because the races didn't really know one another, and that the more they did, the more they lived among one another, the more they lived together, the more contact they had, the more the tensions would be eased or erased, the more contact the more getting along; but of course he had it basackwards, the tension was due to the fact that they knew each other all too well, and contact theory was a theory that was stillborn, dead in the cradle, contact theory was a theory that did not survive it's first contact with reality; life is nothing but a state of nature, a state of war, the war of all against all, is nothing but demographic conflict, no matter how much prosperity papers it over, for a while.  Which is why, of course, we went in so big for the mixing.

The remarkable thing about Bowling Alone is not that it shows that the presence of diversity means that there is less social trust between the groups, that much is obvious, but that even within the groups the trust decreases, as if the presence of several out groups makes the in group turn on themselves........  

It's what we counted on.

I've heard that multiculturalism was just an ex post facto rationalization for the surprise of diversity.  This doesn't give us enough credit. We've known from the beginning that the 90 percent white country was bad for us, that every bit of white racial decline meant our power grew; and if society was split up among many factions we would be the most powerful, it really was as simple as that.  It took us half a century but when the civil rights movement made race hatred out of bounds, how could they deny their tolerance to the rest of the world?  Of all the things that happened in that era it was the one on October 3, 1965 which was the most important. Everything else could have come later, would have come later, eventually.  But once starting out on the road to race diversity, to race mixing, to race amalgamation, to social miscegenation, to the destruction of White America, there was no turning back.  And we did it at the time when their wealth had put them asleep and when they woke up they found that their decline and then demise was completely entrenched in the system, it was an unstoppable and vast machinery of undermining the fabric of the country, Mr. Johnson signed a suicide note......

Pavlov was never prouder of his dinner bell than we were of our "racist"—salivating is one thing but making them grovel is a difference of an order of magnitude.

In the 1970s a moderate form of scientific racism returned in the guise of sociobiology, the so-called return of human nature.  It was a measure of how successful we were that when Nixon called Dan Moynihan to discuss Herrnstein's book the first thing that the latter says is be sure no one in the White House knew he was reading it, Nixon agreed, as if he were reading a dirty book, which he was, which he was.

Richard Dawkins was the man who put forth the idea that genes were amoral monsters blindly pursuing a relentless will to power but who in his dotage became a dreamy humanitarian.  So much for him, so obedient to the plan.

And you have to admit that in our time period it was a real coup d'etat, though the outlines of it could not be seen until years later.  It was even more, truly, than an overwriting of the script, it was the engrafting of an alien ideology onto a healthy host, a healthy body.  And it was a real rout. The master narratives were dead and we placed chaos at it's heart.  If it was standing we knocked it down.  In 1997 President Bill Clinton said that his country was on the cusp of the third great American revolution, when America ceased to be a European Country.  The first two had been disasters, the third would mean death, but his Oregon audience of young white people applauded their own demise, they clapped not for themselves, and certainly not for their posterity.....

If we have just left the long period of the great unraveling, we now move on to the penultimate one, the Knockout Blow (2000—2030). Unfortunately by the time the 2010s had arrived the catch phrase "cultural revolution" had been taken; really it was perpetual; perhaps we could call it the Social Revolution.  Some of have said it was that old American favorite, a Great Awakening, with more than a few burnt-over districts.

In 2005  Sam Huntington, scion of The Mayflower generation, wrote his civic nationalist screed Who Are We?  He opened it with flags in Boston which reminds me by then more than a few had been ejected from their heritage. The flags had come out in honor of 9/11, and it was good that we channeled the righteous anger into good old fashioned patriotism that was as American as your mother.  A smarter country would have seen that it was the very notion of exceptionalism that had brought on this discontent, the belief in mission, the universalizing mission, the making the world safe for, the shining city on a hill, the dedication to, all to be tied bewilderingly, if not inexplicably, to the idea and reality of the Jewish state (miracle of god). When Truman recognized us in 1948 nearly the entire American foreign policy establishment was against it, they knew America was hooked in with the oil and why antagonize 100 million people?  But that ex-Klansman was the same guy who said that the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act went against the wishes of no less a personage than Jesus Christ himself and he wanted to be King Cyrus, the fool.

Decades later, and decades ago, a similar irrational orgy of Old Glory broke out in your province of Hong Kong, and as I saw it on the television I had to laugh up my sleeve, these Hong Kongers unfurling a symbol that was by then long dead, by then no one on the left believed it, no one paying attention on the right did, only a few old war horses dreamt of Ronald Reagan in the night, wave it for the Gipper, you know, but those protesters they were just the pallbearers of a dead ideology, appealing to a defunct ghost.

A smarter country would have become a hermit kingdom, would have created Fortress America, would have thrown up walls, and tariff walls, closed the draw bridges and brought everyone home, instead they plunged into the world and brought in more Muslims and more of everyone than ever, suicidal tendencies die hard.    

We are a patient people and we had our Witzes and our Bergs, and our Wolfs, and our Steins in the Defense Department for decades, blueprinting little Israel's wars as America's wars, it took us a while but soon enough we cashed in; our amen corner is very powerful; when Patrick J. Buchanan opposed the first Gulf War he said only two groups favored it, the IDF and that American amen corner; when he opposed the second we brought in one of our own from Canada to call him un-American which, in hindsight, was laying it on a little thick, that was one glint-eyed black Irish who would kill for America.  But it worked, the war fever brought out the worst in them, discredited the Paleos, to the point where some of them must have been thinking they used to be outraged by the allegation that America was the Great Satan but now they saw the point, it's a phrase that has traveled well.  And so they got bogged down in endless, pointless, expensive wars, our wars, wars without end, the ones we inveigled them in, split the country further; Huntington noted that the flags on Beacon street eventually dwindled but the chaos we left behind endured; it always does.  

I myself was ambivalent for a while about the value of Israel.  It put us too much on the radar, it was nice to flee to, but why wave a flag to point out how obvious what one is doing.  But I think I was wrong, broad daylight was best, flagrant is the best disguise, and we had those Americans groveling at our feet, hands on that wailing wall with a look on their face like they just had a religious climax, small hat on head, ours, ours, all ours; one elected official once said that they got their morality not from government but from us, yes sir.  And when they fought our wars, sent their very own children, flesh of their flesh, blood of their blood, to die for us it just put the most emphatic of periods on the last words of their suicide note.

The word goy does not strictly speaking mean cattle, that's a sort of slang, what the word means is one who is a little dim, a little obtuse, not too quick on the uptake, not the brightest star in the firmament, nor the deepest river in the forest, is too trusting, and with a singular inability to detect deceit.

The neocons were a strange breed, flagrant in their allegiances, they started out as anti-American reds, but when the USSR turned on Jews they got on board with the liberal establishment, wormed their way in you may say.......

In 1981 Hollywood made a television movie called Skokie, with several major stars, celebrating the fact that the ACLU defended the rights of Nazis to march through what they called a Jewish neighborhood filled with Holocaust survivors; the chances of Hollywood making such a movie forty year later were exactly zero.  See obedient comma general plan.

And yes from 1981 to, say, 2017, was a real sea change (consult the demographic charts for the reason).  Some put the great awakening in the year 2013, which is as convenient as any.  It's when we cast any caution aside and began to dismantle whiteness in a big way, brick by brick, really, so that no one stone was any more atop the other. And when they asked me later why we wanted to dismantle whiteness I always said that every criminal wants to be rid of the evidence of their crime, especially when they have no plans on fleeing scene, having long since taken possession of it.

Look at free speech.  Look at the record.  Mario Savio went to a sit in, and they clamored for it.  Hollywood made a film by one of our own celebrating the First Amendment, The People v. Larry Flynt.  As long as we were injecting them with degeneracy, lies, subversion, and filth we loved free speech, fought to the death for it, but if they tried to defend White America we put them in a cage.  Safe spaces became the fashion, making the world safe for us.

Some cry out as they strike you, others say sorry as they're struck.

And what happened at this time was really phenomenal.  It was as if every poisonous fruit that had been stored since the mid sixties had suddenly threw off perfect spores and bloomed--—the 'woke' arose as one to reap their rewards.  Statues were toppled with abandon, genders blurred, reputations smeared, pictures taken down, heroes debunked, streets re-named, whiteness pilloried (from pillar to post), murals from the 1930s were trashed, masculinity was reviled, books were banned, people were purged, channels were deleted, anti-semitism was deplored, anti-racism took center stage, fascists were de-monteized, campuses were taken over, professors were shouted down, Nazis were punched, conferences were cancelled, speech was curtailed, it was a Talibanic orgy, I tell you if it was standing we knocked it down, a great erasure was in place, as whiteness every where was under assault.  Imagine that!  Whiteness under assault!  White America was no more!  No self respecting people allow a race of aliens to scrawl graffiti at the base of their temples, and no self respecting people allow themselves to become servants in their own homes.  But we were not dealing with a self  respecting people; we were dealing with a fentanyl addled, opioid addicted, self-flagellant, guilty, cringing, dying race, a defeated people having been ejected from their heritage.  There were exceptions, of course, there always are.  But just because some take to the hills doesn't mean we haven't pacified the countryside.

The retroactive criminalization of the past is a sign post of revolutionary dictatorship, it says as much right there in our manuals.  

And somewhere in their too capital got woke, and antifa became the ground troops of the establishment, the left became complicit in global capitalism, in the new world order, no mean feat really, that.  It is a truth universally recognized that mass immigration is nothing more nor less than a transfer of wealth from the working class to investors.  I always imagined some multinational CEO watching the left scream for open borders, and the cold contempt that he must have for them as they did his bidding, did it with such vehemence. Well, they were doing our bidding too, as was the CEO, as was nearly everyone, let me repeat again, the left got rid of social controls, the right economic ones, and all sides ganged up on the middle.  But the way in which Big Technology, the corporations, went left, if in name only, how they bought off the radical's complaints, how they were somewhat taken aback by Occupation Wall Street, so went all in on men in women's bathrooms and drag queens flashing little children in public libraries to nip an outbreak of class warfare in the bud, was a thing to behold.  The Democrat Party became the party of the rich, the Republican party remained a hand maiden and we, as ever, prevailed.

The thing about the Great Awakening was it's burnt-over areas, it's moral puritanism. People need to believe in something, and unlike us, they were not able to believe in their race.  So they glommed on to a "morality" which was fine as long as their morality was the morality we spoon fed them—"white skin bad, dark skin good".  And they took it up with a vengeance, as if to our manner born.........

And of course every action has a reaction but by this time everything was dyed in the wool.  I say the ship had sailed for Europeans in 1945 but my more cautious colleagues in the ministry say they still could have resisted, that 1990 was more like it.  They could be right.  But certainly the so-called "populist movements" which reared their ugly heads in 2015-2016 were a pop gun in a thermonuclear blast.  They were going to take back their countries! As if they weren't already ours.  Reporters went on safaris in the hinterland of Pennsylvania to see what the natives were thinking which was: we're fucked.  Ah, by then they were walking across moonscapes filled with opium eaters.  And to be fair, of course, to get the chronology right, you can trace the lineage back before that, there were the old school die-hard and preeminent racists like Oliver and Pierce, hell, at his death the latter, who had taken over an ill run and defunct organization, was  raking in millions a year—but he died. As for Oliver, their true crown prince, the pristine defender of whiteness in it's purest form, our boy Buckley put paid to him like he did so many,  it's always nice to see an exaggerated high WASP accent so in sympathy with our needs. And of course their ilk had the right idea but we had so prevailed that they were the skunks at the garden party, pariahs to our paragons, their names were mud.  And as specified you had your Paleos and then the alt right and then the Dissident Right and then the—again on the right track but Hitler sent his goons to bust up our shops due to one of ours being an assassin—it was a far cry from that, you need broad popular support and a leader to kill your enemies.  As for the populists they were supposedly White America fighting back, but it was a last gasp of a dying people, as the next decade proved. If you want your people to survive keep a ninety percent majority, and stay in fighting trim, that's what I would have told them at the time, had they asked.

They would have been better off had they resigned themselves that they were not going to stop society's leftward drift, they were not going to stop globalism, they were not going to stop the market's voraciousness, they were not going to reverse white demographic decline, they were not going to deport thirty million people, and instead put all their efforts into becoming an unreconstructed white minority that would become the sharp bone that gets caught in our throat, which we could neither swallow nor digest.  But they wanted to get their country back, not realizing it had long since been lost.

That arch racist Jean Raspail wrote a novel called Who Will Remember The People? It is about the eradication of an indigenous South American tribe as the result of repeated encroachment and invasions, and he wrote it because he believed that nothing on earth is sadder than to witness the passing away of a people, any people, or to witness the passing away of a distinct way of life.  

And indeed the year 2020 was the year that anyone who had been following the bouncing ball could see everything clearly, it was after all our jealous god who made this joke.  And of course the 20s were the watershed, when it went from this to that, and after that, truly, the deluge. Prior to that the man on the street may have thought the matter was in doubt (it wasn't) but by the middle of that decade everyone had thrown in the towel.  They spoke of civil war, they spoke of boogaloo, but too many were obedient to our upward drift, and using a gun was getting increasingly legally perilous.  We had the full might and main and force of the most powerful government in the history of the world at our backs, we had the technology companies, we had the entire media including the controlled opposition, we had the entertainment complexes, we had the universities, the secondary schools, we had the internet channels, we had both parties, and each and every one blared out the slow drum beat of a victorious and irreversible world-view and, as a backstop, should things ever get dicey, we had the military, we had the big city police departments. And too we had totally completed the job of labeling anyone and everyone who spoke the truth as a thought criminal and worse.  The back of the American people was totally broken, though not all really realized it, they thought they were being moral; but nothing is more degrading  than being a servant in your own home, or enjoyable than ruling in a stranger's land.

And over time we amped up our war on the thing we hate the most, hate.   We perfected our algorithms to the point where if you searched for Adolf Hitler you got redirected to Yad Vashem.  

And oh how they took to canceling whiteness, that incubating virus, that cancer of world history (or so we said). They had their invisible knapsacks, their white skin privilege, they handed over microphones, they granted everyone else special privileges, they honored foreign races, they enshrined minority heroes, they ruled themselves out of bounds, they sat in the back of the bus for a change, they made way for their replacements, they dug their own graves, they deemed themselves immoral, they befriended their daughter's rapist, they forgave their child's murderer, they paid for their own demise, they universalized themselves out of existence, they excused themselves for living, they broke faith with their ancestors, they anathematized their own history, they took down their own statues, they erased their heritage, they surrendered to the tyranny of guilt.

We made up the word genocide, so it seems like it's up to us to employ it. And the thing about this White Genocide (for let's drop the charade and call it by it's proper, formal name) is that when you've combined humanism and genocide you've really accomplished something, if there were to be any future historians they would surely see this genocide as unique among genocides in that they would take as a given that the perpetrators are the good guys.  And of course I don't need to tell you that there are plenty of white people around, you see them every day, but whiteness is a dead letter, it's kaput, has crapped out.  We don't ask for much in exchange for living, just obedience and attention and a good word for ourselves now and again.

Human rights was our battle cry, but it was human rights turned upside down, to commit a crime against humanity in the name of humanity is quite a feat, to dress up tyranny as tolerance, enslavement as freedom, standardization as diversity, genocide as the rights of peoples.  By violence and make believe we conquered the world.

There were pockets of resistance, of course, there always are, some dyed-in-the- woolers routinely take to the hills for their ritual Masada, as we said there is always the pruning of the weeds and the mopping up to do, from time to time, now and again, one must mow the lawn.  The nationalist populist movements of the teens fizzled out, still born in their cradle, the last gasp of the white man before the death rattle could be heard clearly by all.  Those dissenters online, the tin pot Nazis, liked to play name that Jew.  Occasionally some white man would go armada like into one of our places of worship and mow down a couple dozen but they were pariahs before the fact, and whatever last rights to guns they had would be curtailed further in the fire and brimstone hysteria we cranked up in the wake of it.  The fact is they were like the alleged folks at Masada, no match for the Romans in a mood.  And as you know even these are now few and far between, symbolic Germany has finally been pastoralized, the people subject to a universalizing mission, to complete pacification. And, really, what is a score of slain Jews placed along side eternal victory?  At the drop of hat I'd buy it cheap even as I'd sell it dear.  Hell, I'd pledge six million if forced, not that we did, but if we had to, mind you.  Wave that bloody shirt boy, wave it until the cows come home, call it a steal at the price.  We no longer cry out as we strike them.

Somewhere in there an aging aesthete gave the bootless cry:  you will not replace us!, and this big replacement of his gained a tremendous currency in dissident circles, and was ridiculed by us, articles were written, etc., umbrage taken; we of course laughed up our sleeves knowing that we replaced him long ago; portrayed him as a Nazi and responsible for all sorts of crimes, standard operating procedure, pretty perfunctory.  And this was the same man who a little while previously had glorified random sex with rough trade in the bushes, he did our work for us when he had the chance, he was fully obedient to the general plan; and then on the other end, to soften the cushion of his graceless fall from society, he ran around screaming that the replacers were the real Nazis—while the opposite was apposite—at least the torch bearers had the courage to name names: Jews will not replace us! Jews will not replace us!  The magic word! Talmud and Taboo!   But you, you sly fox, you of the large replacement, you aging aesthete, you Gay Icon, you changed it to You.  Good one.  So much for him, so long Marianne.

The Great Replacement was the most important event in world history.   When the first Englishman stepped foot in Virginia it rocked the world, but when English culture went it was ten times as shattering.

Relative to their present mongrelization it's interesting that a first century Roman described his beloved city as the universal pot into which the cloaca of the entire world is emptied.  It's what happens when you become nothing more than a legal entity, an economic zone, and a universal refuge, situated at the crossroads of the world.

And truly all of the so-called Greats, the Great Plague, The Great War, and the Great Depression, were all small relative to this Great Replacement (because of course the theory was true): and what antiquarians there are will wonder is how this once proud and confident people ended up getting History's backhand.  Low numbers can't explain it.  With that large a lead they could easily have set a glide path for themselves, doing decolonization, say, in the 1970s rather than the 1950s, parceling out rights gradually, under tutelage, white man's burden, etc., and slapping them down in the meantime, but they didn't have the stomach for it.  Had they, their future would have been secure.  But, oh, they were greedy bastards and they engaged in the Great White Civil War, and then it was my God what have we done!---and they self-immolated in an orgy of self-recrimination.  A man can survive anything except a bad conscience.  

And so we created the universal slum, the global favela. Make room! Make room! We were going to have them living in pods and eating bugs which, while not quite true, was nice to slip into the stream, paranoid fantasies are the stuff of future plans.   But we did and have proletarianized the masses, and they are on their way to being the coffee colored serfs, docile and compliant, that we've always wanted for our world-wide plantation.

And in so doing what we did was make the world safe for Jews.  Can there be any other proper aim for a people?  We proscribed them, we outlawed them, we made them illegal, we de-platformed them, we de-monetized them, we branded them as criminals, we stigmatized them, we made them unacceptable in polite society, we held hearings on them, we called them immoral, we called them evil, we targeted them, took down their channels, we demoralized them, we banned speech, we banned words, we banned hand gestures, we cancelled people, we made certain that everyone knew that it was certainly not ok to be white, and left them in disarray, and all of this in their own home.  Our home now.  Who's even going to think about saying boo about a Jew?  No one: that's who.

As for your people and mine, comrade, we reached an honorable stalemate, one could not do without the other, the chessboard was complete and no further moves to be made.  And so we reached our accord, our separate peace.  When you think about the great peoples of the world, the Japanese, the English, the Germans, it's only us who will last and that's really the only metric that matters.  You'll run the machine and we'll be your lawyers and media consultants, you'll supply the violence, we the make believe.   For after all a master race is one that masters.  

Now that whiteness is little more than a rumor.

Any country created on paper is subject to hijacking by a different people with different words or that can give new meanings to the old ones.

And that my good friend is about how we did it.  If I went a little rapidly over the latter years it's because I know that was when you came of age and at that time your country still paid particularly close attention to the baiuzo, as a curiosity, as a weakness to be manipulated or exploited, though now they are smart and don't teach much history other than the bare minimum, like we won, they lost and so forth.  Like us you are a practical people and don't go around digging up graveyards, the past is now just a fable we dreamt up.  

But to answer your very good question:  how did we put paid to the white man?

Two police officers in No Country For Old Men are in a Texas diner in 1980 and one says he saw a boy with green hair and a hoop through his nose, never thought he'd ever see such a thing, never thought he'd see the like, and the other one says well, once they stop saying sir and ma'am, everything else follows.

It's so true, it's the little things that count.

Few individual in history have the honor of being simultaneously utter geniuses and complete nincompoops.  Leo Tolstoy is one, John Lennon another.  A third is Thomas Jefferson.  So befuddled was he that when he got one of his state of the art coaches from London and found he didn't have the cash he was surprised to be told by his creditors that his slaves could serve as collateral; and he signed them over forthwith, pleased with the discovery.  He did invent the swivel chair, however, to his eternal credit. As a matter of fact I'm sitting on one right now.

The white man had a good run in North America but it didn't take, it turns out it wasn't just the republic they couldn't keep, it was the continent

Jefferson  was going to Germanize the Great Lakes in this endless farming republic of his, freedom would be reborn in the city of Big Shoulders.  Herrs and Fraus up to their eyes in liberty and manure, all the live long day.  But in fact it was mild mannered professors in that second city who would drive daggers into that wonderful creation of his, that beautiful small scale nation of villages.

If there was one idea which served us in good stead, did us yeoman's work (in honor of the sage of Charlottesville) it was that America was a proposition nation.  A people become an idea!   Universalize oneself out of existence!  Rather a people is blood, time, history, heritage, lineage, ancestry.  The railsplitter and logic chopper came along and said that his nation was better than those that came before, it was dedicated to a proposition.  Better it should have been dedicated to itself.  Had it been it might have lasted.

And so we return to our old question, your question, or two really.  How did we do it? The answer to that is to answer when there was no turning back, when it was written in stone, when did the white man prove to have his identity graven in water?

It was all right there in the beginning really—that ill advised rhetorical flourish—all men are created equal.  It did us yeoman's work, stillborn, dead in the cradle.

Some people are born in the mists of time; others in a Quaker Meeting Hall.

As you know working in the ministry I have access to all kinds of records, deep in the minutiae, and from time to time I have time on my hands. When I do one of my underlings who knows my sense of humor will send me something.  Just the other day I found in my box an old commercial that ran for a while on one of our Jew networks. It was a white man, a southerner by lineage, one of our collaborators, a traitor obedient to the general plan, a middlebrow historian of some repute, the kind of person they trotted out when something serious was going on, the way in the old days you knew it was important when they served you up that hoary old bag of bones Doris Goodwin.  His voice over was simple, the message was clear.  He said that America was not a nation founded on a birthright but on the ascent towards an idea, an idea enshrined in-----

An ascent to an idea, an assent to an idea, I could not have put it better myself had I tried.

Whites created the civilization that we inherited, it's their world, but we are the only possessors, the only inheritors, and what succeeded their civilization is not a civilization but an anti-civilization, an anti-culture, an anti-history, the machine goes on as before but becomes more and more indistinguishable from what operates it.

It's one thing to be able to create a world but it's another thing to take it over.  We were a numerically small people so our adaptation was to feast on what other's had made; from a survival point of view it makes perfect sense, finding the niche that expands to a world; because what is survival but inheritance, being an inheritor?  

And when I take in the grand sweep of this history it takes my breath away.  A small people hemmed in all sides by enemies, beaten back by all, but always pushing back and making gains, but still by the beginning of 20th century most of us were mired in miserable Cracow ghettos and speaking a snarling and barbaric Yiddish, or just filing off of the boats in New York Harbor and catching a first glimpse of the green breast of the New World.  A hundred years later we controlled the levers of government, the commanding heights of the culture, the movie studios, the technology companies, the universities, had the military committed to making the world safe for Israel-—you know the list.  Yes, we went straight vertical, hoisted ourselves on the petard of this new colossus, it was always the horse we were going to ride.

Yes, it was our century, just as the present one will be yours and mine.

That once they got a taste of capitalism China would morph into a Western style democracy was classic neoliberal folly, steeped as it was in a defunct 18th century paradigm, they were baffled that race, blood, history, time, lineage, ancestry are all older than ideologies which they've already vanquished.

It is impossible for two percent of the population to generate a country's dominant ideology without millions upon millions of collaborators.  A people unwilling to defend itself deserves to perish.  They say that every nation builds it's monuments and writes it's epitaph, but in their case they built them, we tore them down and, in the end, we wrote it.  It went:  we wish die.

Seemingly eons ago some egghead and fool announced the end of history, just when it was resuming.  The cold war had locked it in amber but glasnost was appearing—and we were just coming into the completeness of our power.  But now history has come to a close, we have ended it.  They went gently into that good night in the end, what else could they do, we having won the game of global domination; we had to, really, win it that is, because we realized early on that the future is much too important to leave to humanity.  

Tomorrow belongs to us.

The arc of history bends toward those who bend it.    Those who believe otherwise bend beneath it.

Those who knew Bill Pierce remarked that he seemed to bear no personal animosity towards the Jews, it was as if he knew that to do so would be as absurd as to be outraged that animals kill one another in the wild when that is simply the nature of what they do.   I agree, there was never anything personal about it, nothing personal at all, it's just that it was always going to be us or them.   You see, they were in our way, and I really hope there are no hard feelings.

A thousand year Reich is child's play to the likes of you and me, a perfect example of shot term thinking—a sprint.  Which is nothing for an immortal race.  Only the strong can inherit the earth, only the ascendant can possess it.

And here we come to an end, their end, though our beginning.  This turned out longer than I hoped, though I could have gone on; I hope I haven't bored you.  If against my advice you do choose to keep a copy of this I flatter myself that I've hit the nexus of it, and that in some future time some recondite scholar of odd lore may think it contributed perhaps a little to this vexed and fascinating question.

But anyway, enough of them---to us, comrade--a glass!

Yours Obediently,

Jacob

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2q0pJ1P via IFTTT