This is a work in progress that has barely begun. Feedback is always welcome, so comment. Thanks! The latest entries are conspiracy and arkancide.
1619 Project
1984
This is a novel by George Orwell (see Orwell, George) written in 1948 with the working title, The Last Man in Europe published in 1949.
[MUCH will be added here.]
See Big Brother, deep fakes, doublethink, duckspeak, facecrime, ideologically offensive, inner party, master brain, memory hole, Ministry of Truth, oldspeak, Orwellian, outer party, proles, rectify, unperson, vaporize,
ableism
Literally, this means discrimination against "differently abled" (disabled) people. As with many other terms, this can be over-used and applied to things that are not discriminating against such people.
Formerly called Identity Evropa, the A.I.M. (not to be confused with the American Indian Movement) stated on their webpage…
America is a nation of pioneers, not immigrants. It is an established nation with a defined culture and American identity is legitimate and defensible. American people have birthed unique and interesting customs, traditions and accents. Our nation and our people have a rich, exciting history full of innovation, bravery and boldness.
They also state that they are a…
non-profit activist and fraternal organization founded by Patrick Casey. Our worldview is best summarized by our 5 principles:
nationalism
identitarianism
protectionism
non-interventionism
populism
Regarding their principle of identitarianism, they write…
Like it or not, identity politics are the norm in multicultural societies. We staunchly defend the preservation of America’s historical demographics in the face of mass immigration…
…and…
Diversity destroys nations.
Being white identitarians and nationalists, they are, by definition, white nationalists.
Also see identitarianism, Identity Evropa, white nationalism
anglocentric
Animal Farm
Animal Farm is a short novel by George Orwell first published in 1945, a “fairy story” as he put it, told in the form of a fable wherein the main characters are animals. It is actually a dystopian story. Despite its warnings of doom, it is appropriate for pre-teen readers and a delight to read again as an adult. Orwell would later explain in Why I Write,
Animal Farm was the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole.
Russel Baker’s writes in the preface to the Signet Classics edition of the book (1996),
It is also a political tract, a satire on human folly, a loud hee-haw at all who yearn for Utopia, an allegorical lesson, and a pretty good fable in the Aesop tradition. . .
Since its first publication at the end of World War II, it has been read by millions. With 1984, published three years later, it established Orwell as an important man of letters.
It contains insight and wisdom and it imparts important lessons. It was consciously intended to be a critique of Leninism and Stalinism specifically, not of socialism in general. As Christopher Hitchens wrote in Why Orwell Matters,
For Orwell, there was always the hope that socialists could be for freedom, even if socialism itself had bureaucratic and authoritarian tendencies.
Nevertheless, its warnings apply to every socialist revolution and every regime that has been established afterwards. In other words, it serves as a critique of socialism in the real world, regardless of Orwell’s intentions. As Russel Baker wrote,
What’s curious was Orwell’s insistence that he had no intention of damaging the “socialist” cause. You would never have guessed this after reading the book, but he insisted that he intended only to write a cautionary story for the democratic West, warning it against a dangerously alien form of “socialism.”
Today this is known as the “real socialism has never been tried” argument. To be fair, Orwell did not have time to see as many socialist revolutions as we have. There have been many socialist revolutions and states established after Orwell passed on. But then again, others during his time were able to see that his story applied to socialism in general. So why couldn’t Orwell himself see it in the very novel he wrote? Russel Baker continues,
Devoted to British socialism, Orwell cannot have found it very pleasant being denounced an enemy of what the Russians, and many of his countrymen too, called “socialism.”
In Why Orwell Matters, Christopher Hitchens writes,
He helped keep alive the socialist press in England through many unpropitious years. . .
Yet on the political and cultural Left, the very name of Orwell is enough to evoke a shiver of revulsion. . .
In some semi-articulated way, many major figures of the Left have thought of Orwell as an enemy, and an important and frightening one. . .
It is true on the face of it that Orwell was one of the founding fathers of anti-Communism. . .
The lessons of Animal Farm apply to socialism in general because the book deals with the aspects of humanity that ensure that socialism in the real world will always bring about misery. So, while consciously intended as a critique of Leninism and Stalinism, but not of “real socialism”, it nevertheless satirizes socialism (in the real world) in general while providing insight into how socialist regimes succeed in gaining totalitarian control.
They succeed in doing so, Orwell shows us, through the inclination of most people towards naïavité, submission to authority, groupthink and self-delusion as well as the inclinations of the minority of people who rule over them towards corruption, hypocrisy and oppression.
The story takes place on a farm.
A horse named Boxer represents the best sort of loyal, hard-working and patriotic person. Other animals such as chickens, cows and ducks also represent working people. The most thoughtless group-minded of humans are represented by sheep. For the most part, politicians are represented by pigs. The figures Trotski, Lenin and Stalin are mirrored by pigs named Snowball, Squealer and Napoleon respectively. The cat is more of a selfish individual than most though he fights alongside the others at one point. Dogs fulfill the role of the police. A raven named Moses represents religous professionals who preach that there is an afterlife wherein everything is wonderful and easy. Benjamin the donkey seems to be the most educated of the animals. He can read very well, is very pessimistic but says very little. A mare named Molly represents vain, shallow, lazy, superficial, self-interested and disloyal people. Humans represent the traditional ruling class.
It begins one night when an aging pig named Old Major calls a meeting. He explains to the other animals of the farm that they are oppressed by humans and that animals could all live easily if they overthrew their human rulers, worked together and shared equally the fruits of their labor.
Soon enough, the animals launch a revolution, driving the farmer, his men and his wife off the farm. They return soon enough with some extra men to carry out a counter-revolution. The animals charge at the men. Snowball does not slow down even when injured by a shotgun blast. The animals drive the humans away. Snowball is awarded a medal.
At first, it seems that the pigs merely help to manage things. They agree to a set of rules and paint these rules on the barn wall for all to see, though most can not read. These are called the Seven Commandments,
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal.
Image from the illustrated film Animal Farm (1954).
These make up the principles of what they call Animalism, their political philosophy. They also agree that no animal should live in the house where the humans had lived. Snowball summarizes Animalism as “Four legs good, two legs bad.”
Most of the animals mean well and work selflessly towards a better life for all. But some of the pigs set about taking advantage of their good intentions and begin taking steps to gain power. Napoleon raises a new litter of pups, keeping them seperate from the rest of the animals. Being the recipient of all their loyalty, he trains them to serve as his enforcers. At his command, they drive Snowball off the farm, leaving Napoleon no rivals. His power grab accelerates while Squealer is quite capable of convincing most of the animals of anything Napoleon wants them to.
Though the other animals work harder and harder over time and are rationed out less and less food, the pigs enjoy larger portions and better food. The pigs even consume alcohol. To get away with it all, the pigs essentially re-write history. The commandments are altered, the fact that they were altered is denied and then forgotten. Snowball’s role in the revolution is rewritten again and again. He is altered from hero to traitor.
The gauntlet of Napoleon and the other pigs tightens. Some animals are accused of treason and executed. Other animals are too afraid to speak up, even when they know that the killings are wrong. Animals make public confessions of crimes they did not commit and are put to death.
Despite the original rules, the pigs live in the house, sleep in the beds, drink alcohol and have business dealings with humans, forging relationships with the humans that are advantageous for the pigs but not for the other animals. Life for the other animals is as it was before the revolution; hard. The years pass. The spirit of revolution and Animalism fades away. The pigs begin to walk upright and it becomes difficult to tell them apart from the humans.
Image from the animated film Animal Farm (1954).
Though it was first published in 1945 when Stalin was supposed to be a good guy because the Soviets were among our allies in the fight against the Nazis, the pig modelled after Stalin, is the biggest villain of the story. As Russel Baker wrote of Orwell,
He thought too many decent people in the Western democracies had succumbed to a dangerously romantic view of the Russian revolution that blinded them to Soviet reality.
Though one incarnation of national socialism - Nazi Germany - was the enemy, an other form of national socialism - the U.S.S.R. - was an ally at that time (yet it would soon become the enemy in the cold war). But Orwell was among those who knew that Stalin was not much better than Hitler.
Orwell had come to understand these things from the perspective of an English socialist who had some inside knowledge of and personal experience with Stalin’s Soviet government. Orwell had travelled to Spain to volunteer as a soldier on the socialist side of the Spanish Civil war. Baker writes that,
Out of that experience came Animal Farm. An attack on the myth of the nobility of Soviet communism, Animal Farm became one of the century's most devastating literary acts of political destruction. . .
Orwell, of course, was seldom happier than when he was attacking fraud and hypocrisy and hearing the squeals of the injured.
As well as personal experience, Orwell gained insight via paying close attention to reports of what was happening in the U.S.S.R. that were being smuggled out to the West but that were getting far too little attention. In his preface to the book, Baker quotes Orwell as writing,
“…it was of the utmost importance to me that people in Western Europe should see the Soviet regime for what it really was.”
So, despite what the author intended, it is a fact that his criticisms of Soviet socialism apply to socialism in general. Moreover, his critique of human stupidity in the face of political power grabs remains as relevant today as ever. We still see people blindly following leaders and herds. We see people falling for the revision of history. We see people engaging in blatant hypocrisy.
Image from the animated film Animal Farm (1954).
They do not say “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” but they claim, on the one hand, that all women should be believed when they accuse men of sexual misconduct, then claim, on the other hand, that men can be women. They claim to be anti-racist while being racist. They pretend to be against fascism while being openly against freedom. Religion is bad but Islam is good. Sexism is bad but Islam is still somehow good. Abortion is OK but somehow Islam is OK too. Criticism of homosexuality is bad, but somehow Islam is good. There is no end to their self-contradiction. All white people are racist and it is racist to see differences in people of different colors. Men are sexist against women but gender is a social construct.
As Christopher Hitchens wrote in Why Orwell Matters,
There isn’t much room for doubt about the real source of anti-Orwell resentment. In the view of many on the official Left, he committed the ultimate sin of ‘giving ammunition to the enemy’.
Animal Farm is a classic dystopian story. I recommend that young people read this novel along with 1984, Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 if not others.
It seems there’s been an other case of arkancide (also spelled arkanside). The term, reportedly, is combination, or, to be more literal,
a portmanteau of suicide and Arkansas that was being used by Twitter conservatives to accuse the Clintons of foul play.
Note the flawed binary thinking in the assumption (or assertion) that to criticize the Clintons is to be conservative. One need only to think to see this as absurd in principle alone. It is also demonstrably false. For example, CNN’s Lou Dobbs used the term in a manner critical of the Clintons as we’ll see below.
Chistopher Hitchens is an other example. He was an outspoken atheist. He was a socialist, but only for a time, but critical of the left and the right and he was certainly not a conservative. It was fair to say, when he was alive, that Hitchens
challenges perceptions – of liberals and conservatives alike
just because someone gets away with everything, doesn’t mean they’re not a rapist, a war criminal, a liar and a crook.
Thusly putting aside the infantile suggestion that only conservatives would accuse the Clintons of arkancide, let’s further define the term with, in the interest of being fair and balanced, a source from the other side of the see-saw than Hitchens. Conservapedia reports the following with citations for every claim,
Arkancide is a neologistic term attributed to the killing of political opponents and having it framed as "suicide".[2] A reference originating with the Clinton body count, it is commonly used in connection with deceased persons ruled a "suicide" with two bullets in the back of the head. Many suspicious deaths began occurring in Arkansas when Bill Clinton was the state's governor, hence "Arkancide". These deaths have most often been caused by hitmen hired by the Clintons (most often, by Hillary Clinton[3][4]) to silence political opponents and to protect themselves against anyone who had potentially damaging information against them, regarding illegal activities they were involved in, that could end their political careers and send them to prison.[5][6]
The act of being offed by one of any member of a prominent political family from Arkansas.
"Joe, last night I heard four gunshots in my neighborhood!" "Ted, probably another former Clinton associate committing arkancide."
…and…
A suspicious suicide of a person who is set to testify in court against powerful government officials, agencies, or their billionaire patrons. This happens when a person is not in federal custody.
There have been so many people Arkancided since the nineties, it can't be a statistical anomaly. People just don't shoot themselves three times in the head with a revolver.
Suzanne Coleman – Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General (Snopes says he was her law professor). Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head in February 1977; ruled a suicide. Was 7½ months pregnant at the time of her death. No autopsy was performed.
Barry Seal: An ex-TWA pilot who became a major drug smuggler for the Medellín Cartel, operating from Mena Airport, Arkansas, when Bill Clinton was governor. Became a DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) informant after he was convicted of smuggling charges. Murdered in February 1986 by contract killers hired by Pablo Escobar, head of the Medellín Cartel.
Don Henry: A 16-year-old boy who, with his friend Kevin Ives (see #4 below), was hit by a cargo train in Alexander, Arkansas in August 1987. Their deaths were initially ruled an accident, but were later ruled homicides after the parents of the boys insisted on a second autopsy. Apathologist ruled Henry’s shirt showed evidence of a stab wound. It is said the boys had accidentally stumbled upon Barry Seal’s drug smuggling operations at Mena Airport. One week before and again on the same night the boys died, a man wearing military fatigues was spotted near the train tracks. According to Snopes, a 1988 Saline County grand jury determined the boys were murdered and their bodies afterwards laid on the tracks, but no other conclusions were reached and no indictments were returned. Snopes says there was “nothing that ties Ives and Henry to Clinton” and that “In a 25 May 1990 hearing before U.S. Magistrate Henry Jones Jr., Katherine Brightop said her ex-boyfriend Paul William Criswell told her” he and three other men had beaten the two boys to death after they caught the boys trying to steal cocaine.
Kevin Ives: A 17-year-old boy who, with his friend Don Henry (above), were killed by a train in August 1987. Many individuals with information on the Henry/Ives case died in suspicious circumstances, including:
Keith Coney: Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck in May 1988.
Keith McMaskle: Died in November 1988, stabbed 113 times. Snopes says that in August 1989, Ronald Shane Smith was sentenced to ten years for the murder of McMaskle.
Jeff Rhodes: Shot twice in the head and found burnt in a dumpster in April 1989. Snopes says Rhodes had earlier told his father he feared for his life because he’d witnessed a narcotics transaction, and that in July 1989 Frank Pilcher was arrested for Rhodes’ murder.
Jordan Ketelson: Found shot in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990. All Snopes says is that “21-year-old Jordan Ketelsendied on 25 June 1990.”
Richard Winters : Killed by a man using a sawed-off shotgun in a set-up robbery in July 1989.
James Milan: No date of death. Found decapitated. Snopes says that Milam’s daughter-in-law insisted Milam was murdered, but that Milam had died three months before the Ives and Henry murders.
Danny Casolaro: Freelance reporter working to uncover the leads of several then-rumored Clinton scandals including activities at Mena Airport and the corrupt Arkansas Development Finance Authority. Found dead in his hotel bathroom in August 1991 with both wrists slashed, although he had repeatedly informed his family and friends if he met such a fate it would not be suicide. Ruled a suicide.
C. Victor Raiser II: A major player in the Clinton fund raising organization; died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
Paul Tulley – Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, Arkansas in September 1992. Described by Clinton as a “dear friend and trusted advisor”.
Paula Grober: Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf and traveled with him from 1978 until her death in December 1992 in a one car accident. There were no witnesses.
James Wilson: Found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.
Paul Wilcher: Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Danny Casolaro. Found dead on a toilet in his Washington DC apartment in June 1993, a month after writing a letter to then-US Attorney General Janet Reno alleging that the CIA was killing people to cover up mind control experiments, and that the Waco incident was one of these events.
Vince Foster – Former White House counselor and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock’s Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head in July 1993; ruled a suicide.
Jerry Parks: Head of Clinton’s gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock in September 1993. Park’s son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton and had threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
Steven Dickson: A Kansas lawyer who died (with Stanley Heard, #15 below) in a small plane crash in September 1993. Washington Post says “authorities” said Dickson had participated the previous day in a briefing on the Clinton administration’s health care plan.
Stanley Heard: An Arkansas chiropractor said by some sites to be Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee, served on Bill Clinton’s advisory council and personally treated Clinton’s mother, stepfather and brother. Died with his attorney Steven Dickson in a small plane crash in September 1993.
Edward Willey Jr.: Clinton fundraiser found dead in November 1993deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton had groped her in the Oval Office in the White House.
Gandy Baugh: Attorney for Bill Clinton’s friend Dan Lasater. Died by jumping out a window of a tall building in January 1994. Dan Lasaterwas a convicted cocaine distributor and a longtime Clinton supporter and campaign donor.
James Bunch: Died from a gunshot suicide in February 1994. He had a “Black Book” of names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.
Hershell Friday: An Arkansas lawyer who was on Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign finance committee. Died in March 1994 when his plane crashed in an attempted landing.
Kathy Ferguson: Ex-wife of Arkansas state trooper Danny Ferguson. Found dead in May 1994 in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she was going somewhere. Danny Ferguson brought Paula Jones to Bill Clinton’s hotel room and was a co-defendant in Jones’ harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.
Bill Shelton: Police officer and fiancé of Kathy Ferguson who was critical of her suicide ruling. Found dead at Ferguson’s grave site in June 1994 of a gunshot wound behind his ear. Ruled a suicide.
Stanley Huggins: A partner in a Memphis law firm found dead in June 1994 reportedly from viral pneumonia. Huggins headed a 1987 examination into the loan practices of Madison Savings & Loan. He produced a 300-400 page report that has never been made public. Snopesclaims that Dr. Richard Callery, Delaware’s top medical examiner, said Huggins had died from viral myocarditis and bronchial pneumonia, and that University of Delaware police officer Joel Ivory said his exhaustive investigation of Huggins’ death turned up “no sign at all of foul play.”
Florence Martin: An accountant working for the CIA who had documents and paperwork detailing a $1.5 million Caymans bank account for drug-smuggler Barry Seals. Found dead in her home in Texas in October 1994, with three gunshots to her head through a pillow. According to Snopes, Martin worked the graveyard shift at a convenience store. In 2012, Jack Wesley Melton was charged with Martin’s murder; DNA found at the scene was matched to him, leading to his arrest.
Ron Brown: Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash in April 1996. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
Charles Meissner: Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave a special security clearance to John Huang, a deputy assistant secretary for international economic affairs in Bill Clinton’s Commerce Department before he (Huang) became a chief fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee in 1996. Meissner died in the same plane crash as Ron Brown in April 1996.
Barbara Wise: Commerce Department secretary who worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Found dead in her locked Commerce Department office in November 1996, her body bruised and partially clothed. Snopes claims that “A thorough investigation uncovered no evidence of foul play or suicide. Wise had a history of frequent and severe health problems, including liver ailments, and her death was attributed to natural causes.”
Mary Mahoney: Worked on Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign and worked as an intern during Clinton’s first presidential term. Murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown, reportedly just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
James McDougal: Clintons’ convicted Whitewater partner who died of an apparent heart attack in March 1998 while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation.
Johnny Lawhorn, Jr.: A mechanic whose repair shop was ripped by a tornado in the spring of 1997, which opened up the trunk of a car containing a box of Whitewater records, including a copy of a $27,000 cashiers check payable to Bill Clinton. Lawhorn turned the box of documents over to the FBI. In March 1998, after driving less than ¼ of a mile, Lawhorn and a friend were killed when his car hit a utility pole at a high rate of speed.
Seth Rich: DC staffer who leaked damaging DNC emails to Wikileaks, including an email showing the DNC had sabotaged Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign to favor Hillary Clinon. Rich was “robbed” (his wallet was intact) and shot to death on the streets of Washington, DC, on July 10, 2016.
Jeffrey Epstein: Committed suicide-by-hanging in his Manhattan federal detention cell on August 10, 2019. Flight logs of Epstein’s private jet show Bill Clinton had flown on it at least 26 times. Reportedly, the FBI also has evidence that Hillary Clinton had visited Epstein’s private island.
Luther Parks: Head of Clinton’s Gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at an intersection near Jacksonville, Arkansas on September 26, 1993.
Captain Scott J . Reynolds: Killed in the May 1993 helicopter crash.
Spec. Gary Rhodes: Killed in the Feb. 1993 helicopter crash.
Major General William Robertson: Killed in the Feb. 1993 helicopter crash.
Sgt. Tim Sabel: Killed in the May 1993 helicopter crash.
Alan Whicker: Oversaw Bill Clinton’s Secret Service detail. Died in the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19th 1995.
There are other Arkancides in the three years between Seth Rich’s death on July 10, 2016 and Jeffrey Epstein’s on August 10, 2019. I will add those to this post later because researching them will take time. If you know who they are, please share the information, including source link(s), in a comment. Thank you!
ARKANSAS prosecutors have launched an investigation related to shocking claims Bill Clinton ordered the brutal 1987 murder of two innocent teenagers amid a dark drug-smuggling scandal!
In a stunning interview with Little Rock radio host Doc Washburn, former professional wrestler Billy Jack Haynes charged Clinton — then governor of Arkansas —- recruited him as muscle for a rogue CIA drug-running operation and ordered the deaths of Kevin Ives, 17, and Don Henry, 16, after they accidentally stumbled upon it!
“Saline County prosecutors have subpoenaed my interview with Billy Jack and are pleading with the private investigator who originally located him to hand him over,” radio host Washburn says in an exclusive GLOBE interview. Washburn also gave GLOBE a copy of the explosive subpoena.
The radio host believes the ex-wrestler’s allegations about the former president was the catalyst that drew the prosecutors’ attention to the case.
“The fact that Billy Jack called out Clinton was definitely the lightning rod here,” he says.
“They called me the day after the broadcast and sent the subpoena demanding ‘any and all interviews I had conducted with Billy Jack Haynes.’”
There was more, but it was behind a paywall.
Conservapedia gives us a look into a double murder cover-up that seems to have led to a number of other murder cover ups to cover up the initial murder cover ups.
One of the more bizarre cases among a plethora of bizarre cases was that of a witness in the Mena, Arkansas Ives/Henry double murder case (also known as The Boys on the Tracks). The state's chief Medical Examiner, appointed by Gov. Bill Clinton, originally ruled the Ives/Henry double murder as suicides, which was later overturned. The same medical examiner ruled a "suicide" the death of a witness whose decapitated head was found in a dumpster two blocks away.
Ives/Henry case
Died: April 23, 1987. Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports indicate that Ives and Henry stumbled upon and witnessed an aerial drop in the area of Bauxite and Alexander, Arkansas, part of the Mena drug smuggling operation.[7] Initial cause of death was claimed to be the result of passing out on railroad tracks in Saline County after smoking marijuana. The ruling was reported by the State chief medical examiner Dr. Fahmy Malak.[8]
In April 1988, Kevin Ives body was exhumed, and another autopsy was performed, this one by Atlanta medical examiner Dr. Joseph Burton who discovered that Kevin died from a crushed skull prior to being placed on the tracks. Don Henry's body was exhumed and discovered to have been stabbed in the back prior to being placed on the tracks.
Governor Bill Clinton stood by Malak even though a group of citizens and the Arkansas Democrat called for his dismissal. Clinton excused Fahmy Malek's "errors" saying that Malek was "tired and stressed out."[9][10][11] The existing evidence points toward two local policemen.[12] 7 more violent deaths occurred before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
James "Dewey" Milam – May 30, 1987. Found decapitated. Dr. Fahmy Malak, the Coroner initially ruled death due to "natural causes" and an ulcer, claiming that the victim's small dog had eaten his head. Milam's head later was recovered fully intact from a trash bin several blocks away.
Keith Coney – July 1988. Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck.
Keith McMaskle – November 1988. Owner of a local bar. Stabbed 113 times to death.
Gregory Collins – January 1989. Died from a gunshot wound.
Jeff Rhodes – April 1989. He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump.
Richard Winters – July 1989. A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery.
Jordan Kettleson – June 1990. Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck.
Others
John Ashe - The former President of the UN General Assembly was about to testify against Hillary Clinton in a bribery case when he turned up dead in June 2016, ruled a "suicide", claiming he crushed his own throat.[16]
Jeffrey Epstein - August 10, 2019. The day after unsealed court documents alleging pedophiliac activity naming Bill Clinton, former Clinton DOE Energy Secretary Bill Richardson,[17] and multiple other globalelitesocialists and liberals, Epstein was found dead in his jail cell awaiting trial. Former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr worked on Epstein's 2008 defense team.[18] Epstein claimed to be a co-founder of the Clinton foundation. At the time of Epstein's death, Epstein was reported to be worth more than $500 million, largely from pimping underage girls from broken homes and families to the global elite.
Keep in mind that this is just one nexus or cluster of such killings.
Inflammatory headline? Perhaps. At least until the facts are considered on their merits and not on the general media's sugarcoating…
…Facts: A) Over three decades, more than 80 people associated with the Clintons have met their deaths under suspicious circumstances or, bluntly put, murder. This includes the last four people to die in six weeks who were related to the 2016 Clinton campaign. Even Obama hasn't been connected to such a deadly domestic syndicate.
Kristenev goes on with a dirty Clinton laundry list and I recommend you read it. The piece original linked to a report by Tyler Durden for Zero Hedge whose reporting in my albeit selective experience, has always been reliable, factually correct and well sourced. But the link is now dead.
Yes, this is a real story from the Clinton's home state of Arkansas.
A former Clinton aide who had ties to Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide by shooting himself and tying himself to a tree, even though police couldn't even find the gun.
…the sheriff's report into Mark Middleton's mysterious death raises more questions than answers as it rules he died by suicide – despite no sign of the weapon that killed him…
The report, written by Perry County Sheriff's Deputy Jeremy Lawson, says he was called to the ranch by worker Samantha McElroy who had found Middleton's abandoned black BMW SUV.
McElroy, 46, then walked around a cottage on the ranch.
'Almost immediately after stepping around the corner of the cottage she started yelling,' wrote Lawson.
'Upon reaching the back of the cottage she pointed towards the rear of the property and asked if that was a person.
'I could see what at first appeared to be a man sitting near a tree, as my eyes focused better, I could see a rope of some type going from the tree limb to the male."
Lawson said it was clear that Middleton was dead.
'I could see that he had a gunshot wound to the chest and that he had a knot tied in an extension cord that was around his neck and it was attached to the limb directly above him.
The deputy said a search of Middleton's vehicle turned up three boxes of buckshot and a gun case – but no weapon.
You know, whenever I tie myself to a tree and shoot myself in the chest what I normally do is take the gun away from the crime scene but leave all the other evidence. I need to leave the place clean and tidy.
Middleton was a special advisor to Bill Clinton in the 1990s and signed Jeffrey Epstein into the White House on seven of the 17 times the late pedophile visited.
Middleton also flew on Epstein's jet, nicknamed the 'Lolita Express'. More recently he had been working for his family's HVAC business in Little Rock.
The police report was released to DailyMail.com by the Perry County sheriff's office.
According to the Arkansas Times, Middleton's family said he was suffering from depression.
The dude personally flew on Lolita Express!
He signed Epstein in and out of the White House for the Clintons.
Then, years later, like everyone else who knows the Clinton's and Epstein, he happens to kill himself.
It's so weird how that keeps happening.
White House visitor logs previously reported by DailyMail.com showed that he appears as the authorizing signatory on seven of Epstein's White House visits, most of which were to the West Wing.
In addition to being a special assistant to the President, Middleton was also assistant to the chief of staff, Thomas 'Mack' McLarty.
Middleton left the White House in February 1995 and was accused of setting himself up as an international deal-maker, exactly the kind of person that would appeal to Epstein.
In 1996 an investigation by the White House found that Middleton had abused his access to impress business clients and was barred from the executive mansion without senior approval.
Middleton denied the claims.
I am sure this is just another crazy coincidence!
You hear that, Hillary? Just a wild happenstance! Nothing weird going on here.
By the way, who’s taking bets on how long Epstein’s partner in crime is paid a little visit by the Hillary’s fatal bony finger of death?
Artificial intelligence is a copy or imitation of intelligence made by intelligence to pass as intelligence to the intelligence, to flatter rather than insult the intelligence. So as to avoid confusion, we speak here not of the adjective use of the word, as in how intelligent one is, but of intelligences, that is, conscious entities.
An intelligence is an entity that has inner telos or intention, that is, self-determination. Awareness implies an entity who is aware, an intelligence. An intelligence can create a copy of an intelligence through artifice which is the conscious use of art, craftiness, techne, that is, technique or technology to copy or immitate intelligence, sometimes with the goal of devising the device or artifact so as to be indistinguishable from an intelligence by an intelligence perhapse with the telos or intent to deceive, or just to entertain one’s imagination with a clever imitation if they suspend disbelief as one would when reading fiction or with the tricks of a stage magician.
Rene DesCartes, we are told, pronounced, “Cogito ergo sum!” or “I think, therefore, I am.” or “I am cognizant, therefore I am” or “Awareness means existance.”
Cognizance requires an aware entity to be cognizant, to understand or realize.
A conscious entity can be an embodied intelligence or a disembodied intelligence, at least in theory. It is an entity. The point here is that with real intelligence there is someone who is aware but with artifical intelligence there is no one there to be aware.
In the case of artificial intelligence, there is no real intelligence to be conscious. There’s no one home. There’s just an automated message that you can interact with but which is not aware of you because it is not real, not intelligence, but rather an imitation of it, artifical intelligence.
A.I. is contrived, an invention. In the 1980s when I was a child, I learned enough basic programming language to devise a program that would imitate awareness with some degree of randomness within certain limits to seem like free will. I programmed it to be able to be taught things such as the name of the user running it and react accordingly. It would not “say” certain things to my mother that it might “say” to my brother.
The program did not decide anything. There was no entity to make decisions. It merely did what I contrived it to do with some dice rolling so that it was not entirely repetitive or predictable. It was not aware of anything. There was no one home, no one looking out from the lighthouse. It reacted as if it were aware in the same way that a dead body can react to certain stimuli, such as electricity, as if it were alive.
It was very limited but had potential. Writing programing scripts involves a lot of typing and my attention was soon swept up in something new.
This term originated from George Orwell's novel "1984" (published in 1948) in which the term referred both to the totalitarian government and to the individual man who served as dictator. The sense is conveyed that the man referred to as Big Brother may no longer be alive and actively ruling the government in the time-frame in which the story takes place but rather that the spectacle of such is generated by mandatory televised propaganda that are required viewing at work and in the home by way of telescreens which are televisions that allow Big Brother to watch people in their homes and make sure they do nothing forbidden such as keep a private diary (an illegal act of "ownlife") or read forbidden literature.
biological essentialism
See essentialism, biological.
biological racism
See racism, biological.
bio-weapon
See viral warfare.
Black Lives Matter
According to their website, BLM was started in 2013 by Patrisse Khan-Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi who, along with their BLM organization, their BLM website (blacklivesmatter.com) and other BLM organizations and groups and their leaders are openly communist in their ideals, demands and goals. It seems a bit hypocritical, then, that Patrisse Khan-Cullors, for example, has purchased millions of dollars in real estate for herself.
They have referred to themselves, in at least one place, as a,
Black-centered political will and movement building project called #BlackLivesMatter
In the section called Herstory on blacklivesmatter.com, they write,
In 2013, three radical Black organizers — Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi — created a Black-centered political will and movement building project called #BlackLivesMatter. It was in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer, George Zimmerman.
when Trayvon Martin was murdered and in 2013 when George Zimmerman was acquitted my body and spirit was moved into action.
Too bad her mind wasn't moved. Or maybe her mind was moved and she realized that she could make a lot of money from the people who were upset over the issue and buy herself some expensive houses in rich mostly-white areas. But I digress. She continues,
I couldn’t imagine how in 2013 a white passing person could kill a young boy and not be held accountable.
This is the man she says is “white passing” and who she also refers to as a “white supremacist”. I don’t know this man’s professed beliefs, but it seems to be a no-brainer that if you are not white, you're not a white supremacist. You may be crazy enough to think you are, but you’re not white, you’re not a white supremacist, you’re just crazy. But perhaps if one can see only in black and white, Zimmerman could be white and therefore a white supremacist.
In her statement on blacklivesmatter.com, Patrisse Khan-Cullors refers to herself as the co-founder and strategic advisor of the “Black Lives Matter Global Network”. She also states,
I didn’t want George Zimmerman to be the period to the story. I didn’t want his name to be the name held up over and over again by the media, by his fellow white supremacists.
That’s why when I saw the phrase Black Lives Matter spelled out by Alicia Garza in a love letter towards Black people – I decided to put a hashtag on it. Alicia, Opal, and I created #BlackLivesMatter as an online community to help combat anti-Black racism across the globe. We firmly believed our movement, which would later become an organization, needed to be a contributing voice for Black folks and our allies to support changing the material conditions for Black people.
The project is now a member-led global network of more than 40 chapters. Our members organize and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.
Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It is an affirmation of Black folks’ humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.
As organizers who work with everyday people, BLM members see and understand significant gaps in movement spaces and leadership. Black liberation movements in this country have created room, space, and leadership mostly for Black heterosexual, cisgender men — leaving women, queer and transgender people, and others either out of the movement or in the background to move the work forward with little or no recognition. As a network, we have always recognized the need to center the leadership of women and queer and trans people. To maximize our movement muscle, and to be intentional about not replicating harmful practices that excluded so many in past movements for liberation, we made a commitment to placing those at the margins closer to the center.
As #BlackLivesMatter developed throughout 2013 and 2014, we utilized it as a platform and organizing tool. Other groups, organizations, and individuals used it to amplify anti-Black racism across the country, in all the ways it showed up. Tamir Rice, Tanisha Anderson, Mya Hall, Walter Scott, Sandra Bland — these names are inherently important. The space that #BlackLivesMatter held and continues to hold helped propel the conversation around the state-sanctioned violence they experienced. We particularly highlighted the egregious ways in which Black women, specifically Black trans women, are violated. #BlackLivesMatter was developed in support of all Black lives.
In 2014, Mike Brown was murdered by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. It was a guttural response to be with our people, our family — in support of the brave and courageous community of Ferguson and St. Louis as they were being brutalized by law enforcement, criticized by media, tear gassed, and pepper sprayed night after night. Darnell Moore and Patrisse Cullors organized a national ride during Labor Day weekend that year. We called it the Black Life Matters Ride. In 15 days, we developed a plan of action to head to the occupied territory to support our brothers and sisters. Over 600 people gathered. We made two commitments: to support the team on the ground in St. Louis, and to go back home and do the work there. We understood Ferguson was not an aberration, but in fact, a clear point of reference for what was happening to Black communities everywhere.
When it was time for us to leave, inspired by our friends in Ferguson, organizers from 18 different cities went back home and developed Black Lives Matter chapters in their communities and towns — broadening the political will and movement building reach catalyzed by the #BlackLivesMatter project and the work on the ground in Ferguson.
It became clear that we needed to continue organizing and building Black power across the country. People were hungry to galvanize their communities to end state-sanctioned violence against Black people, the way Ferguson organizers and allies were doing. Soon we created the Black Lives Matter Global Network infrastructure. It is adaptive and decentralized, with a set of guiding principles. Our goal is to support the development of new Black leaders, as well as create a network where Black people feel empowered to determine our destinies in our communities.
The Black Lives Matter Global Network would not be recognized worldwide if it weren’t for the folks in St. Louis and Ferguson who put their bodies on the line day in and day out, and who continue to show up for Black lives.
But just what is BLM as an organization? Turns out that’s a difficult question to answer.
As covered here, Black Lives Matter can mean something different depending on what part of the movement is being referenced and who is doing the referencing. For instance, when the term is used to show opposition to police brutality or other racially charged issues, it does not necessarily imply connection with any particular organization. In this sense it serves more as an expression of one’s views, rather than affiliations.
By way of example, Michael Jordan recently released a statement pledging $100 million over 10 years “to organizations dedicated to ensuring racial equality, social justice and greater access to education,” and he framed that commitment under the umbrella of “Black lives matter.” As a result, this was sometimes reported as a $100 million contribution to Black Lives Matter itself. Jordan clearly intends to give in conjunction with the broader goals of the Black Lives Matter movement, but he was not specific about which entities would be the recipients — and there are many, many out there that could fit his description. The unique way that Black Lives Matter straddles the border between decentralized protest movement and organized nonprofit entity makes this confusion understandable and likely to persist.
When Black Lives Matter is used to refer to an organization, it typically means the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLM Global Network Foundation). This is the central group that traces its beginnings to “three radical Black organizers — Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi,” and operates the BlackLivesMatter.com website.
The group has been a fiscally sponsored project of Thousand Currents, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, since 2016. What this means in practice is that the organization does not have its own IRS tax-exempt status but is operating as a “project” of an organization that does. In the case of 501(c)(3) fiscally sponsored projects, this allows for tax-deductible donations.
Thousand Currents says on its website that the official name of this Black Lives Matter entity is “Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc.,” which is also the name the group has used on recent press releases.
Here’s where things get tricky: BLM Global Network Foundation also uses the name “Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc.” on its About page and “Black Lives Matter Global Foundation, Inc.” in its website Privacy Policy.
Further complicating matters is a group called “Black Lives Matter Foundation,” based in Santa Clarita, Calif., that insists it’s unaffiliated with the larger BLM Global Network Foundation (although Thousand Currents, the fiscal sponsor of BLM Global Network Foundation, reported a combined $90,130 in grants to the Santa Clarita-based Black Lives Matter Foundation on its fiscal year 2018 and 2017 tax filings).
As reported by Buzzfeed News here, this confusion has led some donors to give to organizations they didn’t intend to. The Black Lives Matter Foundation in Santa Clarita and BLM Global Network Foundation “have very different stances on police relations,” with the former wanting to “help bring the police and the community closer together” and the latter calling for police defunding.
According to grants reported on their respective tax filings and websites, organizations that have specifically earmarked contributions to Thousand Currents for Black Lives Matter (and thus presumably for BLM Global Network Foundation) include the NoVo Foundation ($1,525,000 from 2015 to 2018), the W.K. Kellogg Foundation ($900,000 from 2016 to 2019), and Borealis Philanthropy ($343,000 from 2016 to 2018). And, given that BLM Global Network Foundation recently announceda new $6.5-million grassroots organizing fund thanks to “the generosity and support of donors,” its revenue is likely to significantly increase in 2020.
BLM Global Network Foundation is also positioned at the center of a network of 16 affiliated local chapters, such as Black Lives Matter Chicago and Black Lives Matter Detroit. In some cases, these chapters are themselves fiscally sponsored by other nonprofit organizations.
There’s also a second organization, the Movement For Black Lives, which operates under a fiscal sponsorship arrangement as a project of the Alliance for Global Justice, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. On its website homepage, the Movement for Black Lives describes itself as “a collective of more than 50 organizations,” while its donation page says it “is made up of over 150 organizations.” One group listed among the 150 is the “Black Lives Matter Network,” though it is unclear whether this refers to BLM Global Network Foundation. The Movement for Black Lives is itself listed as a “Partner” on BLM Global Network Foundation’s website.
The situation is further complicated by the involvement of ActBlue Charities, another confusing entity that serves as a fundraising machine for left-leaning groups and politicians, and as the means through which donations to both BLM Global Network Foundation and the Movement for Black Lives get collected and dispersed. What all of this amounts to, should a supporter of the movement decide to donate like Michael Jordan did, is confusion about exactly who people are giving to when they decide to donate to “Black Lives Matter.”
The upshot is that “Black Lives Matter” can mean the decentralized movement as a whole, or one of the many discrete legal entities that operate under that name. This duality of meaning can lead to confusion among observers, commentators, and even the movement’s supporters.
BLM and Political Ideology
While not all who march and chant “black lives matter” are so, the Founders are Communists. In this video interview from 2015 with the Real News Network (starting at about 6:59, BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors says that BLM has an ideological frame. She says that they, (she and BLM co-founder Alicia Garza (seen here) in particular) are "trained Marxists" and "are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories".
In a 2020 video (
) that she uploaded to her Youtube channel, Patrisse Khan-Cullors inexplicably mocks comments that point out what she admitted in that 2015 interview; that they are marxists. After laughing off the accusations, she admits they are true. At 1:23 (
) she says, "I do believe in Marxism" while wearing a shirt with the image of Jimi Hendrix, a man who celebrated freedom and individuality, not collectivist authoritarian systems of oppression like communism.
By the way, I am pretty sure that the shirt is a bootleg meaning that she helped to rip off Al Hendrix, Jimi's father, who, for the sake of the black and Cherokee Hendrix family, keeps strict copywrite control over all merchandising. After admitting yet again that they are Marxists, she says (at 1:50
) those accurate comments that she mocked are "incredibly hurtful"!
She then admits that communism has failed every time it has been implemented and then she engages in "whataboutism" (a tu quoque fallacy) by claiming that capitalism also always fails. But then she admits that the success of capitalism makes it difficult to convince people to turn from capitalism to communism.
One might wonder how a person can be that oblivious to her obvious self-contradictions short of insanity. What about her co-founders?
BLM co-founder Alicia Garza also inexplicably laughs about people reporting on her communism in a video for the Atlantic (starting at 4:51). In that same video she makes it clear that she is against the Constitutional rights to peaceably assemble, to gather as a militia and the right to bear arms (starting at 10:00). So the communist is against Constitutional Rights and capitalism. How utterly surprising.
Opal Tometi wrote Black Lives Matter Network Denounces U.S. Continuing Intervention in Venezuela for Venezuelanalysis in which she applies the term “counter revolutionary” (which is communist propaganda for opposition to communist regimes) for parties that oppose the Venezuelan dictatorship and wherein she objects to calling Hugo Chavez a dictator, and writes,
We stand with the Venezuelan people as they build a revolutionary and popular democracy based on communal power. Their struggle is our own.
which, as you may know if you are familiar with this stuff, means that they are in solidarity with the socialist government of Venezuela.
BLM Has a Communist Agenda
One could fairly describe cultural Marxism as a form of Marxism in which the communist goal is hidden beneath a mask of anti-racism, anti-sexism, and other seemingly innocent and noble causes. A cultural Marxist, for example, might refer to the Western civilization that they want to destroy as the "cisheteropatriarchy".
For example, on their website, BLM group M4BL (Movement for Black Lives) uses such culturally Marxist propaganda as,
We are intentional about amplifying the particular experiences of racial, economic, and gender-based state and interpersonal violence that Black women, queer, trans, gender nonconforming, intersex, and disabled people face. Cisheteropatriarchy and ableism are central and instrumental to anti-Blackness and racial capitalism, and have been internalized within our communities and movements.
We might not know exactly what they mean by "racial capitalism" but we can certainly guess, quite fairly, that they want the reader to associate capitalism with racism.
We might gather something from their webpages such as their preamble which states,
We are committed to uprooting the ableism and cisheteropatriarchy we have internalized, and to transforming the conditions that drive sexual, gender-based, homophobic, transphobic, abelist, and other forms of violence in our communities.
While this platform is focused on domestic policies, we know that cisheteropatriarchy, ableism, exploitative racial capitalism, imperialism, militarism, and white supremacy and nationalism are global structures. We move in solidarity with our international family against the ravages of global racial capitalism and anti-Black racism, human-made climate change, Islamophobia, war, and exploitation...
...We demand repair for the harms that have been done to Black communities, in the form of reparations and targeted long- term investments...We demand political power and community control over the institutions which govern our lives...
Then they demand that the cisheteroapatriarchy (Western civilization) “END THE WAR ON BLACK MIGRANTS” which one might guess means that they demand that the USA allows black migrants to enter the USA without restriction. They furthermore demand, “END THE USE OF PAST CRIMINAL HISTORY” whatever that means and “END ALL JAILS, PRISONS AND IMMIGRATION DETENTION”.
...We demand: an immediate release of Black people from jails, prisons, and detention centers...
...In this moment, we must get our people out of cages and ensure they have what they need to be healthy and free...
...Halt all new sentences...
...Release all people held on probation...
...Suspend all immigration arrests, including at-large arrests...
...Release all detained individuals (in jails and detention centers) on their own recognizance...
...support for transportation home, living stipend, and access to healthcare as well as funding for food stamps, housing vouchers, or hotel rooms for those returning home...
...Suspend ALL immigration enforcement activities and operations. DHS must suspend deportations, immigration arrests, mass raids, detentions, and enforcement in sensitive locations...
On the same webpage, they make demands with inexplicable redundancy. They make various other mistakes and contradict themselves as well. They demand a Universal Basic Income, meaning those who work support those who don’t. They want it for more than just citizens of the USA. They want it,
for all people living in the United States including disabled, undocumented people as well as currently incarcerated people.
They want to,
Cancel student debt through an Executive Order and/or congressional action
The sonnenrad or sunwheel or black sun symbol. Source: Washington Post.
Also called sonnenrad or sunwheel is an ancient symbol. It is assumed to be a Nazi symbol by many. Like the swastika, it was appropriated by the Nazis (see swastika). However, whereas the swastika was for the public and military alike in the Third Reich, the sonnenrad was for military personnel; the S.A., the S.S. and others. It is used as a racist symbol by some today, but it is also used by some as a non-racist pagan symbol.
Even the ADL acknowledges that the black sun is an ancient symbol and hence it is not a Nazi symbol but rather one that was appropriated by the Nazis. They write, furthermore…
Because sonnenrad imagery is used by many cultures around the world, one should not assume that most sonnenrad-like images necessarily denote racism or white supremacy; rather, they should be analyzed carefully in the context in which they appear.
The Washington Post cites that assessment by the ADL and shows the following altered image.
A sonnenrag combined with a swastika. (Source: ADL.)
The totenkopf (“death’s head”) symbol on top of the sonnenrag symbol. (Source: ADL.)
Image source : Boston Globe. Captioned: “Members of the Nationalist Social Club held a "sonnenrad" flag at a June rally in front of the State House. MICHAEL DWYER/ASSOCIATED PRESS”
When the symbol is used by a group with the words “national socialist” (Nazi) in their name, it’s fair to say they are using the sonnenrag in the way that the Nazis did.
A symbol that is similar to the sonnenrag can be seen in the headpiece of one of the vocalists in the band Heilung. Heilung embraces ancient ways, not Nazism. Image source: Getty Images. Captioned: “Heilung Performs At Regency Ballroom SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 11: Kai Uwe Faust of Heilung perfoms at The Regency Ballroom on January 11, 2020 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Miikka Skaffari/FilmMagic)”
A man with a variation of the sonnenrag symbol tattooed on his chest appeared, drinking milk, on the He Will Not Divide Us livestream, helping to breathe life into the debate about milk as a racist symbol (see He Will Not Divide Us).
Source: Vice. Their caption is “SCREENGRAB VIA YOUTUBE USER CABRINI GREENZ”
Also see food oppression, He Will Not Divide Us, milk.
AKA deplatforming, this is the act of censoring something or someone because they offend woke sensibilities (are not politically correct) or of getting them fired or otherwise rendered impotent to continue to offend the parties that took offence (often on behalf of others). This term probably grew from the act of convincing universities to cancel speaking engagements by speakers who are deemed to engage in hate speech and whatnot.
cancel culture
This is a derogatory term used to refer to the culture that engages in “cancellation” of that with which they disagree or deplatforming as they tend to refer to it. It also involves denial of services based on political bias as in the case of financial unpersoning as I call it.
Tim Pool later explained that the astericks were added on his end. In other words, the chatbot used the uncensored word and then Tim Pool’s system censored the word to keep his content '“family friendly”.
bullfrogreview.substack.com/p/honey-i-hack…
Anons will master AI and there's nothing these "ethicist" janissaries can do to stop it. We can maintain malign creativity to get what we want out of it much easier than they can lobotomize it from wrongthink while still being useful.
Literally, this refers to non-transgender, heterosexual male-led society. This term is used, for example, by the Movement for Black Lives (on their webpage for example http://archive.today/2020.09.08-033204/https://m4bl.org/policy-platforms/) to refer to Western civilization. Their preamble states…
we are committed to uprooting the ableism and cisheteropatriarchy we have internalized, and to transforming the conditions that drive sexual, gender-based, homophobic, transphobic, abelist, and other forms of violence in our communities.
The term "color blindness" can refer to a lack of ability to perceive color to some degree or entirely (achromatopsia). More figuratively, "color blindness" is a quality that "color blind" people have. They don't think of people in terms of "race". According to some, however, it's racist to be color blind.
It is the "belief that one should treat all persons equally, without regard to their race" according to "Critical Race Theory - An Introduction" by Delgado and Stefancic.
In their section headed "No One is Colorblind to Race", the Smithsonian states...
"The concept of race is intimately connected to our lives and has serious implications. It operates in real and definitive ways that confer benefits and privileges to some and withholds them from others. Ignoring race means ignoring the establishment of racial hierarchies in society and the injustices these hierarchies have created and continue to reinforce. READ: “Children Are Not Colorblind: How Young Children Learn Race,” by Erin N. Winkler, Ph.D."
Then, in their section on the "dangers of ignoring race" they write...
What are some experiences or identities that are central to who you are? How do you feel when they are ignored or “not seen”?
The author in this article points out how people often use nonvisual cues to determine race. What does this reveal to us about the validity of pretending not to see race?”
communism
consent
conspiracy
To conspire is to literally breathe together. The implication appears to be one of quiet plotting, in whispers as the reference to breathing together suggests, between individuals who hold a mutual secret plan to benefit themselves without the knowledge of and against the wishes of others. Often this involves the benefit of the conspirators to the detriment of others.
In degraded English, the term conspiracy often refers to a conspiracy theory and not to the alleged conspiracy that the conspiracy theory makes claims about. This degradation of he term should be avoided and indeed corrected to stave off confusion.
See conspiracy theory.
conspiracy theory
consent of the governed
covid-19
Covid-19 is a disease caused by a strain of coronavirus known as SARS‑CoV‑2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2). It has been referred to as "Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)–Infected Pneumonia (NCIP)".1 It has been commonly referred to as “corona”. Other strains of coronavirus include "the common cold".2 It seems to be more like a particularly bad variety of what we would normally call "the flu" than a disease that justifies the reaction we've seen.
It seems to have originated in Wuhan, China, not from a wet market but from a lab from which it somehow leaked and to have spread out from there in December of 2019.3
Soon the public conversation concerning this disease has been highly politicized and polarized. The tide of politicization and polarization (the “culture war”) had been waxing for years. It was perhaps inevitable, therefore, that the disease would be politicized, that it would be made into a political issue and that the already polarized culture would be further polarized over it, even if it were not for the media.
Even if the media were purely objective, the actions of governments all over the world make the disease a political issue regardless. Human rights were violated. Far from engaging in objective reporting of facts - and even further from practicing investigative reporting - much of the mainstream media applauded this. Much of the public would applaud this violation of their own rights as well.
The medical would become polluted by the political while being swayed by greed. Medical institutions would exploit the situation for profit, literally inflating the case numbers for increased money from the government.{FOOTNOTE NEEDED}
Compliant - or, rather, some complicitous politicians would be found on the right while politicians on the left would not just merely comply but would enthusiastically embrace the situation. Some would profit from the situation.{FOOTNOTE NEEDED}
The subject is complex, partially because of the science involved but also because of the many politically polarized facets involved. There are, for example, seemingly endless reports that argued that it is racist to say that the virus came from China and this propaganda was echoed on social media. A complete account of the cultural narratives surrounding this contention would be impossible. This is one aspect of the culture war regarding covid-19. An other facet is the issue of hydroxychloroquin which also seems inexaustably complex. There are many other facets than these, more than I can address, and for each of these there are far more scientific studies, news reports, propaganda pieces and so on than anyone can possibly know, let alone list, much less digest.
However, I have endeavored to some degree provide a good look, at least, of these aspects. So far, most of what I have had time to do has been to collect and categorize news reports and propaganda pieces. I have not offered much analysis so far but I mean to do so as time allows. Here is what I have so far. . .
Covid Hypocrites - ‘Rules for Thee But Not For Me’
Covid Heretics - Public Figures Who Questioned the Narrative on Covid
Covid Suckers - Public Figures Who Got Sick Despite Their Obedience
Let me address the question;
Does the Danger of a Crisis Overrule Constitutional Rights?
The argument has been raised in recent years that during a serious crisis a government has the authority to violate human rights; the rights described in the US Constitution. Freedom of movement, freedom to gather, to peacefully protest, to write, publish and speak freely; these do not belong to any government and no government has authority to grant or deprive anyone of the rights they were born with.
“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. _ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
As one can see, Scalia proclaims that not only the does the Second Amendment not enshrine the (already pre-existing) right to bear arms, but that the First Amendment does not protect the right to free speech. Surely it need not be explained that no one, even Supreme Court Justices, has the privilege to decide what rights people do or do not have. The Bill of Rights do not prescribe or grant anything. It describes the inalienable rights all people have no matter what anyone might say.
In the USA, judges have made decisions and lawmakers have passed laws that have later been recognized as being unconstitutional. That is how the system of law works in the USA. As the Encyclopedia Britannica states, “The prime example is the United States, and the classic statement of the doctrine is the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803)”. To quote from the judges’ decision in that case;
“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.”
The US Government, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, Congress and so on; these do not grant rights. they never had the authority to alter our already existing and inalienable rights. No one has granted anyone rights. The US Constitution describes our rights and binds the government from violating these rights.
Some might say that rights are “God given”. Whether or not God exists and gives anyone rights, ultimately, rights are protected by the tendency of people to fight back when their own rights or the rights of others are violated. We tend to stand up for the innocent. This is not a “might-makes-right” argument. It is a “We defend what is right with might” argument.
What makes some people think that inalienable rights (that the government does not have the valid authority to grant or to violate) can be rightfully/legally violated in attempt (sincere or feigned) to save people from danger (be it very serious or not)?
No law passed by the legislative branch of the government, no decision by the judicial branch of the government can alter the rights that the Constitution describes and prevents the government from violating. Any assertion that the government has the right to violate our rights, no matter how it is worded, no matter how it attempts to rationalize or justify it, is empty, baseless and presumptuous. If such an assertion has any power, it is in it’s illusion of validity which is maintained when this illusion fools enough people so that it is not questioned, examined and then toppled, with arms if necessary. Having written the above, I opened Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man to where he writes that we have natural rights (what has been called inalienable rights) and civil rights and that the later (which originates from the former) is the benefit one gains from partaking in society. I will add to this (and I think Paine here implies) that any government that does not uphold this bargain, that does not safeguard one’s civil rights is illegitimate and has no justification for existence. As he writes elsewhere in Rights of Man, a main reason for partaking in society is so that a lack of any individual’s power to maintain their rights does not deprive them of those rights, for society exists in part to enforce the rights of all individuals;
“Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, not to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of his civil rights.”
Humans have what we call Natural Rights. These are the rights that one has before society and government. One has the right to live in peace in the wilderness, for example, to hunt and gatherfood, to bear arms, to speak as one wills, and so on.
By entering into society or living in the jurisdiction of a government, one justifiably expects to have what we call Civil Rights in addition to the Natural Rights that one was born with.
As soon as society or government fails to uphold these Civil Rights and/or seeks to limit one’s Natural Rights, that society/government is invalid as it has violated the agreement, no longer has the right to exist and should be destroyed.
These Natural and Civil Rights are to be equal for each individual. If they are not equal, they are not rights but privileges which are an affront to equal treatment by the law. So, your “right” to be safe from my exercise of my freedom of movement, for example, would actually be an unjustifiable privilege, not a right.
An other way to put it could be that “Natural Rights” are the rights that we each want to preserve for ourselves (and others) and which we justifiably expect and demand that any government that extracts taxes from us protect as “Civil Rights”.
It seems that Dr. Anthony Fauci was involved in the research behind SARS‑CoV‑2.
covington catholic school kids
crimestop
critical animal studies
The term critical animal studies is included in the keywords in the research paper, Got Mylk? The Disruptive Possibilities of Plant Milk (84 Brooklyn Law Review, 2019, Forthcoming). This paper makes reference to “nonhuman animals”.
critical legal studies
critical race feminism
critical race theory (CRT)
In Critical Race Theory An Introduction, in the section What Is Critical Race Theory?, authors Delgado and Stefancic write…
The critical race theory movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.
(Critical Race Theory An Introduction by Delgado and Stefancic (3rd Edition), page 3.)
One may be inclined to think that if critical race theory opposes liberalism then it must be right wing. This is not so. Critical race theory is so far left that it opposes more moderate left wing positions such as liberalism. One must understand that there are people and factions that are so far left that, for example, they use the slogan “Liberals get the bullet too!”
This image was screen-shotted from a livestream of an Antifa-led riot in Berkeley, CA on February 2, 2017.
Also, there are schools of thought, so to speak, that argue that liberalism is an enemy because it is not far left enough or that racial equality is racism. Critical Race Theory is one such school of thought.
Critical race theory (CRT) emerged over decades in academic seminars, papers and publications. From the 1970s onward, academics such as bell hooks (the pretentious lower cases are intended) Derick Bell (at Harvard and Stanford), and Kimberle Crenshaw (UCLA and Columbia) worked to create a movement of activists within academia who would interpret almost everything in the word through the lens of race. In some ways their obsession was understandable. Bell, for instance, had grown up during the very last years of segregation. During his time at Harvard, there were only a handful of black faculty members. Instead of taking the incrementalist approach favored by others, those who formed the bases for CRT first asserted that race was the most significant factor in hiring decisions at Ivy League universities, and then that it was the single most important lens through which to understand wider society. Meaning that at the very moment that things were improving, and more black faculty members were coming through, everything in the academy and everything in the academy’s understanding of wider society was racialized, or rather racialized anew.
Of course, there were obvious and clear counters to this. The Civil Rights Act had been passed and working for years. Antidiscrimination laws were already on the books and growing in number yet followers of CRT saw nearly all progress in American race relations as an illusion. That is how Bell himself referred to it in 1987, when he wrote that “progress in American race relations is largely a mirage obscuring the fact that whites continue, consciously or unconsciously, to do all in their power to ensure their dominion and maintain their control.”4 When Harvard failed to give tenure to two followers of CRT in 1986, Bell and others staged a sit-in at the university. Like any revolutionary sect, the followers of CRT knew how to make themselves felt and heard and knew how to change the intellectual weather in a corner of society not known for its heroism.
The more places scholars could see invisible racism, the more popular they became.
Naturally, it was the case that very few people who this ideology was coming for knew what was coming for them. Even if they had known, they would have found it hard to oppose. Because one of the distinguishing marks of CRT was that its assertions were based not on evidence, as it might previously have been understood, but essentially on interpretations and attitudes. This marked a significant shift in the manner in which people were expected to prove assertions. While rarely announcing the fact, the rules of CRT had no need for normal standards of evidence. If a person’s “lived experience” could be attested to, then the question of “evidence” or “data” had to find a place further back in the queue, if at all. The intersectionalists who who grew up att he same time comfortably overlapped with CRT These people, who built a theory from the assertion that all oppressions “intersect” and must be simultaneously “solved,” made this leap possible. Suddenly academic papers were able to be produced (most famously by Peggy McIntosh at Wellesley that consisted of nothing more than a list of assertions. All made from a standpoint which was neither provable nor disprovable. It was simply asserted.
(Murray, Douglas, The War on the West, Broadside Books, 2022, pages 17-18.)
Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246).
Not exactly. People commonly (mis)use the word theory to mean an educated guess about why something exists or is the way it is. That actually describes a hypothesis. A hypothesis may be, for example…
that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.
In other words, a theory is a principle or set of principles that have explanatory power, that can be used to accurately predict the phenomena it addresses. A theory works. Critical theory, critical race theory, queer theory, Marxist theory and so on are nothing of the sort. They make assumptions and operate on those assumptions. Thus they are not theories or even hypotheses. They are political agendas masquerading as being a branch of the social "sciences".
Returning to Stanford's…
Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms. Critical Theory in the narrow sense has had many different aspects and quite distinct historical phases that cross several generations, from the effective start of the Institute for Social Research in the years 1929–1930, which saw the arrival of the Frankfurt School philosophers and an inaugural lecture by Horkheimer, to the present.
In the pro-cultural marxist book TheCritique of Domination (printed 1973, by George Braziller, New York and Doubleday, Canada, Ltd.), author Trent Schroyer has this to say about critical theory (pages 16-,
Today the critique of domination has suffered the fate of being identified with the “communist” world’s alleged blueprint for world revolution. This association has blocked and obscured the real potential for critical reflection which, following its modern reconceptualization in critical philosophy (i.e. Kant, Fichte, Hegel, etc.), can be called critical theory. While Marx inherited this classical tradition of criticism and comprehended its radical reformation in German idealism more clearly than the “Marxists” have, he neither developed its final form nor adequately realized its utopian “moment” as a theory of emancipation. Contemporary critical theorists, such as Marcuse, Habermas, Sartre, and Henri Lefebvre continue to try to work out the foundations for a critical theory that would retain its ties to classical philosophy but would have the role of effecting a more critically oriented type of such an attempt. In a sense, all the efforts to found a genuinely critical social science involve both the sphere of philosophical reflection and the ongoing attempt to either update or transcend Marx’s concrete realization of a political-economic critical theory material force within the planning mechanisms of the contemporary world. In a way, today’s social theorists are all “Marxists” in their one-sided stress upon the objective necessity for economic development as the first priority for all societies and as the vari-genuinely radical concept for emancipation of an international proletariat, may now be the means for their permanent suppression and domination.
one who has secret fascist sympathies but is not an avowed fascist
but the term is often misattributed to people whom far-leftists hate but for whom they can find no evidence that they are fascist. The people they call crypto-fascist are usually people who are not far-right and who criticize the far-left because one of their main claims is that those who oppose the far-left are necessarily far-right. When moderates point out that extreme leftists are extreme, it makes those extremists look bad. Hence, those extreme leftists must try to paint those moderates as right-wing extremists in attempt to discredit them.
the Oxford English Dictionary cites several early uses, including The Guardian using the term more than once in the 1920s.
This source, however, provides no evidence for this and I am not about to pay to access the OED.
One known early use of the term was by leading Frankfurt School critical theorist Theodor W. Adorno in a letter written in 1937 to Walter Benjamin. It can be seen here on page 212 where, as just one drop in a river of superfluous verbosity, Adorno writes that Caillois, like Jung and Klages has an…
anti-historical and indeed crypto-fascistic, faith in nature which is hostile to all social analysis, which eventually leads him towards a kind of national community [volkengemeinschaft] based on biology and imagination.
He seems to be applying the doctrine of class-consciousness, a term applied to Marx’s view that the people tend to hold a national identity because they are unconscious of themselves as a class (class “in itself”) but that due to the pressures of capitalism, they eventually become “woke” or conscious of themselves as a class (class “for itself”).
At any rate, you think that more context will clarify that quote (or if you are a masochist), be my guest and read more here. However, it seems clear enough that in this context, Adorno used the term crypto-fascistic to mean that which unintentionally leads to fascism, as opposed to how the term tends to be used today where, in the view of a so-called “anti-fascists”, a crypto-fascist would know they are fascist and conceal this fact so as to more effectively promote the pre-conditions for fascism.
Böll claims Bild and the police were “accomplices” because Bild uncritically published some figures provided by the police related to damages done by the Baader-Meinhof gang. About this, he writes…
That's no longer crypto-fascist ... no longer fascistoid, this is naked fascism, incitement, lies, dirt.
…and…
I can't understand that any politician would still give an interview to such a newspaper.
The Baader-Meinhof gang was also known as the Red Army Faction or RAF, which was an antifa group by definition. Böll makes the same arguments that we hear from antifa and their sympathizers today; that they are against fascism so if you are against them you are fascist, that they kinda don’t really exist anyway, that if you report about the bad things they do, you are really calling for violence against them and so on. For more on this see my piece Antifa in Mainstream Media/Politics 1 - Heinrich Böll, Nobel Prize Winner.
Whether the term is used as we saw aboveor how it tends to be used today, there is the tendency to apply the term within a binary world view wherein that which is not far-left is seen as fascist. It’s a bit silly and comically paranoid, and certainly a distorted view of things. If one sees the world in only black and white, one might claim that a blue flag was black or that an orange was white.
Some sources report that Gore Vidal referred to William F. Buckley Jr. as a crypto-fascist in a live televised debate in 1968. This is incorrect. Some sources correctly report that Vidal called Buckley Jr. a “crypto-Nazi” and later said that he meant to call him a “crypto-fascist”. This is also incorrect. For the details, see my piece History is Sometimes Wrong - Gore Vidal Did NOT Say W. F. Buckley Jr. is 'Crypto-Fascist' as NPR & Wikipedia Say.
As I write this, Wikipedia and Kiwix state that Adorno used the term in a book Der getreue Korrepetitor (“The Faithful Répétiteur”). These sources say the book is from “five years earlier” than Vidal and Buckley Jr.’s debate. However the date given for the book in their citation is 1976.
In Leftists Have Always Abused Terms Like 'Nazis' & 'Fascists', I discuss how Roy Moody suggests that “mainstream Hollywood cinema”, in particular and Frank Miller, are crypto-fascist in an article for the Guardian in 2011.
Also see crypto-Nazism, dog-whistle, fascism.
crypto-Nazi
A person who subscribes to the views of Nazism but is secretive about it.
crypto-pedophile
cultural appropriation
cultural Marxism
While some spread the lie that cultural Marxism is just a conspiracy theory invented by right wingers, or even that it is specifically antisemitic concept (see the articles provided below), the objective fact of the matter is that it was a pro-left, pro-post-Marxist concept from the left. It is basically a rebranding of regular Marxism in the wake of the horrifying revelation of the mass murder committed by Marxists in the name of Marxism. In the physical book printed in 1973, author Trent Schroyer, in his pro-cultural Marxist book, The Critique of Domination, writes about cultural Marxism as a good thing, not as an antisemitic idea or something invented by or even used by opponents of the left.
NOTE: more to come here about this cultural Marxism stuff
“‘civilization’ itself is often a polite euphemism for cultural racism.” - Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist (New York: One World, 2019), p. 85, cited in Douglas Murray, The War on the West (Broadside Books, 2022), p. 8.
AKA cancelling, this is the act of censoring something or someone because they offend woke sensibilities (are not politically correct) or of getting them fired or otherwise rendered impotent to continue to offend the parties that took offence (often on behalf of others).
Derrida, Jacques
determinism
This is the view that individuals and culture are products of particular forces, such as economics, biology, or the search for high status.
The goal of the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is to eliminate* many forms of harmful language, including racist, violent, and biased (e.g., disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, sexual bias) language in Stanford websites and code.
The purpose of this website is to educate people about the possible impact of the words we use. Language affects different people in different ways. We are not attempting to assign levels of harm to the terms on this site. We also are not attempting to address all informal uses of language.
This website focuses on potentially harmful terms used in the United States, starting with a list of everyday language and terminology.** Our "suggested alternatives" are in line with those used by peer institutions and within the technology community.***
They then issue the following infantilizing message in large bold lettering…
Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace.
They then provide their list of language categories. Each item on the list expands to include an explanation and a table of harmful terms, suggested replacements and to provide some context.
.
.
We’re destroying words…It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words…You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words…Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.
essentialism…entails a search for the proper unit, or atom, of social analysis and change
…according to Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic in Critical Race Theory - An Introduction (3rd Edition, NYU Press, 2017), page 63. It is the…
search for the unique essence of a group.
…according to Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic in Critical Race Theory - An Introduction (3rd Edition, NYU Press, 2017), page 173.
essentialism, biological
This is a derogatory term used to describe the view that males and females have certain essential biological traits. For example, to say that females have vaginas is an act of biological essentialism and that’s bad because, as some have presumed to decide for them, it marginalizes transgender people and hermaphrodites.
As a self-proclaimed “historian of medicine” stated in a now (in)famous discussion which included Jordan Peterson, there is no such thing as biological sex.
a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control of social and economic life, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed
Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) was appointed prime minister of Italy in 1922 and became its dictator in 1925. Writing in the Italian Encyclopedia in 1932, he defined Fascism as a militaristic, quintessentially imperialistic philosophy…In Mussolini’s words,
“The foundation of fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the state.”
Goldwag writes furthermore that fascism entails surrendering to a supreme leader with an indominable will. He characterizes Hitler’s regime in Germany and Franco’s regime in Spain as fascist. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Franco’s regime was militaristic and…
displayed many fascist characteristics.
Britannica agrees that Mussolini’s and Hitler’s regimes were fascist and they add the following to the list of fascist regimes…
The Fatherland Front (Vaterländische Front) in Austria…the National Union (União Nacional) in Portugal…the Party of Free Believers (Elefterofronoi) in Greece…the Ustaša (“Insurgence”) in Croatia…the National Union (Nasjonal Samling) in Norway, …and the military dictatorship of Admiral Tojo Hideki in Japan.
They also list many fascist parties that never gained state power and parties that thy say imitated fascism including the Revolutionary Union of dictator Luis Sánchez Cerro of Peru.
Fascism can be found in the merging of, for example, pharmaceutical companies and the government, the merge of social media monopolies and government and so on.
Floyd, George
"Twenty-two percent of people who identified as “very liberal” said they thought the police shot at least ten thousand unarmed black men in a year. Among self-identified liberals, fully 40 percent thought the figure was between one thousand and ten thousand. The actual figure was somewhere around ten."
- Douglas Murray, page 27 of The War on the West
In The War on the West (Broadside Books, 2022), in discussing people’s impressions and beliefs about race relations between black people in America and the police (as if they are all white), Douglas Murray writes (pages 24-28)…
...there are those for whom the killing of George Floyd was not just something that happened in America but something that was emblematic of America. And this perspective, that what happened that day was not just the behavior of a rogue cop who was subsequently arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for his crime but rather than a pulling back of the curtain and revealing of something in the heart of all white Americans, was an interpretation that DiAngelo the critical race theorists, and others had primed Americans for. And primed college-aged Americans in particular. Polls showed that positive views on the state of race relations in America peaked at the time of President Obama's inauguration in 2009. At that time, a CBS/New York Times poll found that 66 percent of Americans thought that race relations were generally good.[16] But as it tracked the polls over the following years, the Associated Press noted that views on race "started to sour" in 2014.[17] One interpretation of this is that America became more racist over the two terms of its first black president. Another is that the media attention on certain incidents - whether justifiable or not - helped to alter America's view of itself.
What made this worse was that a generation of students brought up with elements of CRT had been persuaded that race relations in their country were wildly worse than they were. People in the American academy had invented and popularized a whole set of concepts and terms to help this along. Just as their colleagues in the intersectional arena insisted on the idea that everyone lived in the intersectional arena insisted on the idea that everyone lived in a "cis-heteronormative patriarchy," so the professors of CRT introduced a set of racialized terms into the academic language and from there into the nation's language. They argued, for instance, that America was not merely a white-dominated society, or that America had a white-majority population, but a "white supremacist" society. They claimed that all white people benefitted from allowing white-supremacist rule. They claimed that when confronted by their racism, white people deliberately changed the subject or made themselves into the victims. They claimed that there was a specific phenomenon known as "white tears" (and a subcategory within that, "white women's tears'').
They also claimed that whiteness was contagious. For how else to deal with the fact that many black people were not in 100 percent agreement with the new racial theorists and did not all agree with the new ideas being foisted on everyone? One answer was to claim that black people who were not in agreement that America was intrinsically racist society were enacting "whiteness," or otherwise imbibing it, like some terrible disease.[18] After 2020 US presidential election, the Washington Post even introduced its readers to the concept of “multiracial whiteness” as a way to explain how ethnic minorities might have voted for the Republican candidate.[19] In these settings, in which you could get black-white people, though not white-black people, it becomes clear that “black” and “white” had simply become synonyms for “good” and “bad.”
Advocates of this theory claimed that race was not just one lense through which to view society. They insisted that it was the most important, in fact, the only, lens through which to view society. And much of the venom and fury that exists today in America, and in the West as a whole, now comes down to this one specific problem: that people have been shown a version of their society that is exaggerated at best and wildly off at worst. Take just one, perhaps the most famous “racist” event of recent years - the storm that blew CRT and its theories across the whole Western world: the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020.
In the days, weeks, and months after that terrible event, there was barely an organ or an individual in America or the wider world that did not interpret the appalling video of that death through a single lens. That a white policeman was caught on camera killing a black man and that this was a racist killing. Not content with that explanation, everything about this interpretation was then extrapolated outward. This was not just an individual racist killing. It was a racist killing that told us about the nature of racist policing in America. From there, it went out again. We learned that this racist policing was just one aspect of a wider racist society. And from there that not just America but all white-dominated societies (and societies in which white people simply had a presence) were somehow revealed in that moment. The interpretation that was popularized across the globe was that what happened to George Floyd told us about a routine injustice It claimed that black lives were able to be stolen with impunity in modern America and that this was because America, and the wider West, was institutionally racist, white supremacist, and otherwise guilty of a no-longer-avoidable bigotry.
Actual public understanding of the issue turned out to be wildly, provably out of sync with reality. For instance, when US citizens were polled and asked how many unarmed black Americans they believed had been shot by police in 2019, the numbers were off by several orders of magnitude.
Twenty-two percent of people who identified as “very liberal” said they thought the police shot at least ten thousand unarmed black men in a year. Among self-identified liberals, fully 40 percent thought the figure was between one thousand and ten thousand. The actual figure was somewhere around ten.[20]
By proportion of the population, unarmed black Americans were slightly more likely to be shot by the police than unarmed white Americans. But as figures compiled by the Washington Post Police Shootings database confirm, in the years before the death of George Floyd, more police officers were killed by black Americans than unarmed black Americans were killed by the police.[21]
Almost none of this cut through. But the polls seemed to suggest that increased reporting on this issue in the 2010s may have had the inadvertent effect of causing Americans to imagine that the problem of deadly interactions between unarmed black men and the police was exponentially worse than before. Whatever the realities of race in America, a group of divisive activists were ready for this moment, with their pre-prepared theories, phrases, claims, and demands about eradicating hidden racism. And they got very busy indeed.
That was why sporting teams across the world began to “take the knee” before every match. They were inveigled into thinking they had to do so to demonstrate that they were against racist killing, that black people were freely killed by policemen, and that they should not be. That is why politicians across the West took the knee and gave speeches against racism. It is why Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and the rest of the leadership of the Democrat Party wore African kente cloth scarves and kneeled for eight minutes forty-six seconds before being winched back up again by their attendants. It is why the idea of “educating yourself” if you were white suddenly entered the popular lexicon. It is why CEOs such as the editor in chief of National Geographic started to put under their name and title as a sign-off “Race Card: White, privileged, with much to learn.”[22]
It was a moment when silence in the face of “racism” was deemed to be violence. A moment when actual violence was excused as a form of legitimate political speech. A moment an academic could blithely declare that “the state of black America as a whole is probably worse than it was fifty years ago.”[23] It was at this moment, in the days after Floyd’s death, that concepts such as “white privilege” spilt out from the fringes of academia, where they had been incubated, and flooded through every part of society.
So it is worth pointing out a potentially unpopular but nevertheless crucial fact about this origin story. Which is that there is still no evidence that the killing of George Floyd was a racist murder. At the trial of Derek Chauvin, no evidence was produced to suggest that it was a racist murder. Of there had been any such evidence - that Chauvin harbored deep animus against black Americans and set out that May morning hoping to murder a black person - then the prosecution chose to make no such evidence available at Chauvin’s trial. In fact, there is good evidence to suggest that no racial element existed at all.
Murray then goes on to describe the case of Tony Timpa who was killed in a situation very similar to that of George Floyd. His point in bringing this up is to make the point that unlike with Floyd, with Timpa, the nation did not freak out and sacrifice an innocent man to their irrationality and malice because it was not made into a racial issue. Murray continues on pages 29-36,
The reason that I mention this is not to diminish what happened to Floyd, any more than it is to diminish what happened to Timpa. The reason is to point out that these two cases are very similar and that in neither case was a racial motive proved. Nor is it to say that there never has been any racism in America or that there is no residual racism anywhere in the Western world. But it is to point out that the killing of George Floyd has been interpreted as commonplace in American society when it is by any measure an anomaly in America. Still, it is insisted that in this anomaly, the true nature of America can be discerned. It is an extension of the old left-wing idea that if you only provoked the police a little, they would reveal the true face of the democratic state and that its face would be fascist. Today there is a widespread belief that if you pull back the mask of the American state, you have a state that is not just racist but white supremacist and that its agents and representatives, as well as the citizenry as a whole, are dedicated to the casual murder of black people.
That is why even more than a year since the death of George Floyd, athletes continue to take the knee before sporting games. It is why football teams around the world continue to think it worth risking the growing irritation of their fans by kneeling before games. It is because Floyd’s death is believed to have revealed something. But if the killing is to be interpreted in this way, then we would need to be absolutely certain that this fons et origo - the foundational story - that we are telling ourselves about American society and the West as a whole is accurate.
And it is not. What is proved is that by 2020 America was ready and primed for a certain interpretation of itself to burst out. That interpretation had been prepared in the academy. It had been popularized in the media. And in record time, it had been given into by corporate entities, civil society organizations, and nowhere so much as in the campuses of the United States. We know this because long before 2020, American campuses had been undergoing a set of moral panics that future historians will look on with deep puzzlement. American students had been primed for a white-supremacist, racist interpretation of their own society to grip them. How do we know?
Because for a decade or more, they had been seeing ghouls and monsters that were not there.
MORAL PANICS
In april 2016, an extraordinary panic kicked off at the University of Indiana. It was at around nine o’clock in the evening that somebody reported that a member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) had been spotted on the campus at Bloomington. Social media lit up. “Students be careful,” one student wrote, “there’s someone walking around in KKK gear with a whip.” Others immediately criticized the college authorities. One student wrote, “There’s a man walking around campus in a KKK hood carrying a whip, and there’s NOTHING you can do to make students feel safe?” Students and their supervisors spread messages of support. “Please PLEASE PLEASE be careful out there tonight,” said one. “Always be with someone and if you have no dire reason to be out of the building I would recommend staying indoors if you’re alone.” The panic only subsided when it was discovered that the suspected member of the KKK was, in fact, a Dominican monk, wearing the traditional white robes of his order. The “whip” he was said to have been carrying in his hands turned out to be a rosary. Despite these facts becoming clear, not all of the students stood down graciously. “OK seriously,” asked one. “Why the fuck was a priest walking around campus tonight?”[24]
It might have been easy to laugh off this panic at the University of Indiana if it had been the only such incident. But it was not. Over the last decade, multiple universities across the United States had similar panics. For example, one morning in 2013, there was a sighting of a person in a Klansman outfit at Oberlin College in Ohio. The panic at this liberal arts college led to the cancellation of all classes for the rest of the day. The police were called to chase the Klansman off the premises. But when the police arrived to investigate the sighting, they found no members of the KKK. It transpired that the sighting was most likely caused by either a homeless pedestrian wrapped in a blanket or a woman who was seen the same morning carrying a blanket across the campus.[25]
In November 2015, a queer black activist who was also a former student-body president caused a virtual stampede at the University of Missouri when he claimed that the KKK had been spotted on campus. “Students take precaution,” he warned on social media. “Stay away from the window in residence halls. The KKK has been confirmed to be sighted on campus. I’m working with the MUPD [campus security], the state trooper and the national guard.” In fact, the only force he was working with was his own imagination. Nobody needed to keep away from any windows. The student eventually apologized for sharing “misinformation.”[26] Other panics followed a similar trend. In June 2017, the University of Maryland’s police department was called after an alleged “noose” was spotted under a tree on campus. The police inspecting the scene discovered that the “noose” was nothing but a knotted piece of white plastic lying on the floor. Though they looked into any possible “hate crime bias,” the police concluded that the material was of the kind used “to contain and protect loose items during transport.” Still, many students at the university were dissatisfied with the conclusion and posted images of the piece of white plastic on social media inviting their fellow students to “make their own conclusions.” One complained that “they [the police] didn’t even try to entertain me and my friend by acknowledging the possibility that this was a symbol of hate. They were very adamant.”[27] As well they might have been in the circumstances, being called out to investigate a refuse sack tie.
A few months later, in October, it was the turn of the Michigan State University to have a noose sighting. There a student claimed to have come out of her dorm room and been confronted by a hanging noose. Condemnations for this hate incident came swiftly from everyone on campus from fellow students all the way up to the university’s president. Their condemnations and commiserations continued until it transpired that the “noose” was one half of a pair of shoelaces that had been lost and hung up by the person who found them so that they could be reclaimed by their owner.[28]
In March 2018, it was the turn of Vincennes University, where a student claimed that he had been approached by a man in a white head covering who was brandishing a gun and hurling racial slurs. The campus authorities swiftly sent out a warning to the whole Vincennes community. The dean of students issued a statement saying, “Vincennes University is totally dedicated to respect, diversity, and inclusion. We take such reports very seriously and ongoing investigation is of the highest priority.” The subsequent police investigation used CCTV to discover that the incident never happened.[29]
If these sorts of panics had been confined to campuses in the United States, then they might have been easily dismissed as a problem of overprivileged, overcredentialed youth. But in recent years, they began to happen among adults too, including among adults with some of the highest visibility of anyone in the country…
…In September 2019, the restaurant of a former NFL player, Edawn Louis Coughman, was vandalized with racist graffiti and swastikas. Coughman called his insurance company to report the incident, but the police were too quick, and when they caught up with him, they found him with the black paint that it turned out he had used to carry out the "racist attack" on himself.[31] And then, of course, there were the freezing hours of a January night in 2019 when the actor Jussie Smollett claimed that he had been set upon outside a branch of Subway by two white men shouting racist and homophobic slurs. He claimed that they physically attacked him, put a noose around his neck, and covered him in an unknown substance, an incident throughout which he allegedly held on to his Subway sandwich. Reaction from the highest quarters in the country was swift and credulous. Senator Kamala Harris, who turned out to know Smollett, was among those who described what had happened as "an attempted modern day lynching."[32] Smollett stuck to his story in the days afterward, occasionally adding extras. At a singing performance a week later, he told his sympathetic and supportive audience that he had fought back against his attackers and would not allow them to win because he, Jussie Smollett, stood for love. But as the story fell apart, so did much of the public support for him. Nothing about the story stood up. And as the CCTV footage started to be scanned, police got the opportunity to catch up with the white supremacists who carried out the attack. They were Abimbola Osundairo and Olabinjo Osundairo, two large weight-lifting brothers from Nigeria, who turned out to be known to Smollett. It became apparent that Smollett believed that a successful claim of a hate crime against himself would give him leverage to negotiate a pay raise on the show Empire, in which he felt he was undervalued. So the Osundairo brothers were drafted in to beat him around a bit.
The question of what was, or was not, going through Smollett's mind at this time is certainly interesting. But what is far more interesting is the eagerness with which his story was believed. It wasn't just Harris but dozens and dozens of prominent Americans, from Nancy Pelosi to Stephen Colbert, who took Smollett’s story at face value. Indeed on his next evening show, Colbert invited a sandpaper-voiced actress called Ellen Page on to sermonize about the Smollett incident and what it meant. This was when some doubt had already been cast over Smollett’s story, and this was unforgivable in Page's eyes. "We have a media that's saying it's a debate whether or not what just happened to Jussie Smollett is a hate crime," she said. "It's absurd," she added, thumping one fist into the other for emphasis. "There [bleep] isn't a debate." At which the studio audience whooped and shouted, "Yeah!" "Sorry I'm like I'm really fired up tonight," she said, as if she was apologetic. "Not at all," agreed Colbert: "You have to be fired up. You have to be fired up." "It feels impossible to not feel this way right now," Page added to more whoops and applause.[33]
None of this is to say that racism does not occur and that racial violence is unheard of in America or anywhere else. Yet these cases, and many others that could be cited, do not suggest a population with a healthy perspective on the risk and likelihood of racist incidents. There seems, in fact, to be a perception - honestly held or otherwise - of a type of racism that if it still exists, does so at the furthest margins of society. Americans over the last decade have not lived in a country where Klansmen prowl the land - always interestingly alone. And they certainly have not lived in a country in which members of the KKK can routinely be found strolling around the nation's campuses. They do not live in a country in which lynchings are a feature of everyday life. They actually live in one in which there is such a dearth of white supremacists that weight-lifting Nigerians occasionally need to be flown in to take on the role. What appears to have happened is that a picture of America has formed in the heads of certain Americans. A picture set and struck at some time around the early part of the last century. An America in which the KKK roamed the land and Hollywood actresses deserved applause for daring to stand up to "attempted lynchings."
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
How did this happen? One possibility is to see that the state of race relations in the United States resemble the effect created by a projecting device. The details of the image being projected matter enormously - indeed, matter more than anything else. One explanation for America's savage but intense dissection of every killing of a black American at the hands of the police, for example, is that America needs to fight over the precise nature of these details. Breonna Taylor, Michael Brown, and other cases ring in the public mind because most minute details are being wrestled over. At one end, there are people who would like to claim that these and other deaths of black people at police hands are a demonstration of the true face of a white-supremacist, institutionally racist nation. At various other ends are people pleading that these are the sort of incidents that are inevitable when a heavily armed citizenry and a heavily armed police force try to negotiate their way through millions of annual interactions. The details are worth fighting over, bitterly if need be. Because if Michael Brown was shot with his hands in the air and posed no threat to the arresting officers, then that could well point to a very serious problem in a nation. But if he was not shot with his hands in the air and the riots that resulted from his death were whipped up for no reason, then some dishonest actors have a lot of accounting for their own actions to do.
The details are fought over because America is the world's most powerful nation, the world's most influential nation and the nation whose sins and errors are likely to be exported just as much as are its virtues and attainments. And just as America watches what is projected onto the wall, so the world watches too, with less attention to the details, but with just as great an interest in what ends up being projected on the wall of the world. The size of the protests in Berlin, London, Brussels, Stockholm, and many other major cities in the days after George Floyd's death suggested one thing in particular. That people felt they had to come out because they had to voice their outrage at the world's most powerful and influential country deeming the lives of its black citizens so cheaply that it allows its police officers to strangle them with impunity in broad daylight. Protesters around the world responded to an image that they see projected of America. A picture in which a whole catalogue of subtle mistakes, manipulations, and distortions had been infinitely magnified. But the distortion comes from America and is projected from America, by America.
Frankfurt school
food oppression
Did you know that there’s something called food oppression and despite what you may think, it’s not something like denying people of color a seat at lunch counters or something like damning a river and thereby depriving a tribe in a reservation downriver of the fish they rely on for nutrition. Nope. Food oppression is more like programs to include milk in school lunches for kids whose families may be too poor to provide those kids with milk at home.
According to Pacific Standard (October 24, 2018), Andrea Freeman, law professor at the University of Hawaii, argues that food oppression consists of…
federal policies that disproportionately harm low-income people and people of color. In the case of milk, these include employing former representatives of dairy corporations to lead USDA marketing efforts, passing legislation that embeds milk in federal food assistance programs and school lunches, and buying up agricultural surplus to keep dairy prices steady under the farm bill. The National School Lunch Act of 1946, for example, requires schools to offer fluid milk in order to receive federal reimbursement as "a measure of national security, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children."
So, it’s racist to provide children of all colors with nutrition by giving them milk because white kids have a higher tolerance for lactose than other kids BUT at the same time, it’s racist to assert that there are differences between white kids and other kids or even to say that there is such as race. So they admit that it is not racist but also assert that it is racist. That seems sane and fair, right?
her pioneering theory of food oppression…examines how facially neutral food-related law and policy, influenced by corporate interests, disproportionately harm marginalized communities.
She is not reluctant to point out that these programs are racially neutral. But as critical race theory asserts, being color-blind is racist. One could argue here that if a racially neutral program has negative effects that are not racially neutral, it would be racist to continue such a program if one is aware of those negative effects that are not racially neutral (as CRT would argue) were it not for the fact that (also according to CRT) it is racist to argue that there are racial differences or even that there are races.
This woke, progressive critical race theorist, food oppression and milk as a racist symbol intersects with the whole He Will Not Divide Us fiasco.
Also see critical race theory, food oppression, He Will Not Divide Us, milk.
Fuck White People
Gamergate
gammon
While this term has long been used to mean a few different things (see here and here), in more recent years, it refers to lighter skinned people…
characterised as being fleshy and pink in the face, especially when outraged (which is quite a lot), are plump of girth and harbour sentiments of superiority
according to Emily Sheffield for the Standard. It is used as a pejorative against people perceived to be right wing as in, “gammon-faced Brexiteers” for example. Scheffield writes that gammons can be less like gammons if they become more like Ronan Farrow, if they, “Google Kendrick Lamar,” if they…
avoid publicly dismissing under-25s as snowflakes,…never reference millennials,…champion gay rights,…stop hanging around the barbecue like a caveman and introduce a homemade vegan burger to your repertoire,…don’t reply “but I love women” when it’s pointed out by one of your female colleagues that you are one of many white male managers dominating the upper echelons,…don’t say “tits”. Anywhere. Anytime. Even to yourself quietly,…never blame a woman’s aggression on her period
In the English language in general until recent times, gender refers to the biological sexes such as male and female. Some species have more than 2 genders such as species of fungi which have 4 genders. In linguistics, the term gender refers to the masculine, feminine and neutral forms that some words can take. More recently, as it is used by those of a certain political agenda, the term gender at first referred to that cultural norms for males and cultural norms for females. Later they used the term to refer to various sexual orientations, identities, mental conditions, etc. For example, there is non-binary meaning that which does not fall into either gender norms for males or gender norms for females but somewhere in between. That’s simple enough. But then some consider furries to be a gender, or otherkin, or people with split-personalities (two-spirit), people to have their own genders when lot of these are actually sexual orientations or perversions.
gender microaggression
[source: course syllabus for Culture & Mental Health, Summer 2016, University of Oregon, "adapted from Alicia Ibaraki, 2014"]
someone who builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.
In March of 2022, it was reported by Salty Cracker that the word groomer was banned from Reddit citing Patriots.win, that the term groomer was banned from Reddit. But if one looks at the source, one sees that it is based on nothing more than a supposed screenshot of what is supposedly a Reddit rule.
At any rate, the image appears to be a post by a moderator “speaking officially” and not actually part of Reddit’s rules which do not ban the terms “groomer” or “pedophile”.
Salty Cracker also stated that “OK groomer” was banned. “OK groomer” is a take on “OK boomer” which is a dismissal of and insult towards people of the baby-boomer generation. It is a way of telling someone that they are spoiled with a false sense of self-entitlement and clueless.
The tweet does not link to anything to prove that this is in fact a Reddit rule. The tweet contains what appears to be a screenshot of a post by Love_In_My_Heart that claims that in a subreddit (a subsection of Reddit) called PCM, the “operators” of that subreddit posted some rules for that subreddit that, this supposed post claims, includes
No portraying LGBT people as a whole as “groomers” or “pedophiles”
…and (no use of the term)…
“Groomer” to refer to LGBT
There is in fact a subreddit called PCM (which stands for Political Compass Memes) and on July 13, 2022, in the PCM subreddit, user theotherotherhand (who is apparently the moderator or one of the moderators of PCM) posted PCM rules announcement which includes…
No portraying LGBT people as a whole as “groomers” or “pedophiles”, calling them a slur, or deadnaming them
That is a far stretch from the banning of the terms “groomer” and “pedophile” from Reddit.
Breitbart wrote that the word groomer was banned from Reddit and that…
the site also banned the claim, which until recently was a matter of mainstream psychology, that being transgender is a mental illness.
They seem to be referring to one of the rules announced in and for the PCM subreddit that reads…
No portraying being transgender as a mental illness, and no more saying that “trans men will never be real men” or “trans women will never be real women”, or intentionally misgendering them
equating the word ‘groomer’ as an inherently anti-LGBTQ+ slur asserts that ‘LGBTQ+’ automatically implies ‘groomer,’ which is an insult to millions…within the community who strongly oppose sexualization and ideological indoctrination of children.
…but to be fair, they are not describing a Reddit’s rule. If Reddit actually were banning that term entirely, Gays Against Groomers would be right to state…
By banning this word from their platform in such terms, Reddit is not only inadvertently expressing their support for the grooming and abuse of children, but also paints our community as a whole as those who support and engage in it. We find that reprehensible and offensive.
In their report on this, Pink News asserts that the term groomer is an “anti-LGBTQ+” “slur”. It certainly would be an anti-LGBTQ+ term if one includes groomers in the + part of the term LGBTQ+ but it doesn’t seem fair to do so. Most LGBTQ people would find it revolting to be grouped with groomers.
Note that a rule against…
portraying LGBT people as a whole as “groomers” or “pedophiles”
…is not a rule against using the terms groomer or pedophile at all (if that rule is taken at face value by people with sufficient reading comprehension skills).
Whether this rule in the PCM subreddit will be enforced accurately in accordance with the actual rule is debatable.
In their headline, Pink News claims that the term groomer is “banned on Reddit”. In the body of the article, however, they write…
Reddit has banned the anti-LGBTQ+ slur “groomer” under its hate speech policy, as well as any other reference to LGBTQ+ people as “paedophiles”.
The vile slur, which conflates LGBTQ+ identities with paedophilia, has been increasing in use online, and has now been banned by Reddit as hate speech.
To support their claim that the use of the term groomer “conflates LGBTQ+ identities with paedophilia”, this Pink News piece cites an other Pink News piece that conflates “LGBT-inclusive teachers and parents” and “queer folk in general” with “groomers”. You see, they claim that…
there has been a recent surge in Republicans and religious conservatives using “grooming” language to describe LGBT-inclusive education, or just queer folk in general.
…when, in reality, the concern is regarding grooming of young children in schools and by those who take them to see strip shows or expose them to sexual acts in parades. The absurd implication here is that to oppose the grooming of children is to oppose non-heterosexuality in general. Also, it is insulting to claim that only “Republicans and religious conservatives” oppose this grooming. That would mean that everyone else is ok with grooming, Pink News.
At any rate, Pink News utterly fails to establish their assertion that the use of the term groomer “conflates LGBTQ+ identities with paedophilia”. Nevertheless, they use this unfounded assertion to argue that the term groomershould be banned. Wittingly or not, by arguing that the term groomer should be banned and by conflating grooming with homosexuality, bisexuality and etc., Pink News is serving groomers. You see, when something can not be identified, named, discussed, exposed and remedied, it festers and spreads.
Of course, if the term groomer were to be banned from Reddit or other platforms, people will simply use other terminology. Here’s one suggestion…
That same meme was tweeted along with this use of the term ‘predditor’ in this meme…
While such censorship in a subreddit is vile, it seems that Reddit has not banned the use of the terms groomer or pedophile. However, we shan’t be surprised if such a rule were in fact announced for Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, and so on.
ANTIFA PEDOS 2 - The Child Rapist/Kidnapper Antifa Spent a Half-Million to Bail Out & the Antifa Radio Station That May Have Aired His Child Porn (August 6, 2022) by Justin Trouble
bias against people or groups with specific characteristics that are defined by the law.
In other words, “minorities” or “marginalized groups”.
Arguments have been made about whether or not hate crime laws are wise or fair. The DOJ, for example, argues that such laws should exist because…
Hate crimes have a broader effect than most other kinds of crime. Hate crime victims include not only the crime’s immediate target but also others like them. Hate crimes affect families, communities, and at times, the entire nation.
See bias incident, hate crime, hate crime hoax, hate incident, hate incident hoax.
hate crime hoax
A hoax of a hate crime.
See…
Hate Hoax History I - The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (July 27, 2022)
Hate Hoax History II - The Tawana Brawly & Al Sharpton Hate Crime Hoax (July 28, 2022)
race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability…that are not crimes and do not involve violence, threats, or property damage.
See bias incident, hate crime, hate crime hoax, hate incident hoax.
hate incident hoax
A hoax of a hate incident. See my series Hate Hoax History.
See…
Hate Hoax History I - The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (July 27, 2022)
Hate Hoax History II - The Tawana Brawly & Al Sharpton Hate Crime Hoax (July 28, 2022)
On February 9, 2014 at the Berlin Film Festival (The BBC reported)…
US actor Shia LaBeouf has walked out of a news conference for director Lars von Trier's new film Nymphomaniac at the Berlin Film Festival.
LaBeouf left after 10 minutes, quoting footballer Eric Cantona's famous 1995 line: "When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."
He later appeared on the red carpet wearing a paper bag on his head.
Written on it were the words: "I am not famous any more."
LaBeouf had walked out of the news conference after being asked about the film's explicit sex scenes.
His parting line was taken from a cryptic quote Cantona delivered after he had caused a furore by kicking a fan in the crowd while playing for Manchester United.
Screenshot from a video in the BBC report. Shia pauses in mid sentence to drink.
This past weekend, actor and performance-art plagiarizer Shia LaBeouf made headlines at the Berlin Film Festival when he walked out of a Nymphomaniac press conference and appeared on the red carpet wearing a paper bag on his head that said, “I AM NOT FAMOUS ANYMORE.” Today, we learn that the actor has flown back to the States—with his new accessory, natch—and is now starring in a befuddling six-day art installation in Los Angeles called #IAMSORRY.
The only information provided about the exhibit came via press release, which explained, “Shia LaBeouf is sorry. Sincerely sorry. He will be in situ at 7354 Beverly Boulevard for the duration. Implements will be provided. Free admission.” Based on the accounts of several reporters who attended the exhibit on its first day, the experience involves being asked to select a prop from a table—among them, a pink ukelele, a Daniel Clowes book, a bowl of Hershey Kisses, a bottle of cologne, a bullwhip, and a bottle of Jack Daniel’s—and then being ushered into a room to sit alone with Shia LaBeouf, who is wearing a tuxedo and the “I AM NOT FAMOUS ANYMORE” brown bag, for five minutes. And as hard as various reporters tried, they could not get the actor to break his latest performance-art character and speak, let alone answer questions.
#IAMSORRY, 2014 7354 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles
Visitors were invited into the gallery one at a time and asked to choose from an assortment of objects to take in with them, before encountering LaBeouf in a small room wearing a paper bag mask emblazoned with the words "I AM NOT FAMOUS ANYMORE." The artists' announcement stated only: "Shia LaBeouf is sorry. Sincerely sorry."
A reporter for the LAist wrote…
You walk into a room where a French girl with a thick accent is standing behind a table. She tells you to choose one of the items on the table she calls implements. There's a vase of daisies, a copy of Daniel Clowes' "Death Ray" book, a rusty rench, a whip, a pink ukulele, a bottle of perfume, a Transformers toy and a bowl with tweets people have written to him. She leads you to a room behind a black curtain and he's sitting there with a tux and paper bag on his head. You sit there with him and ask him questions. No response from him, not even a smile or chuckle. He just blinks at you.
People lined up to meet LaBeouf; some took selfies, some got aggressive, some shook his hand and thanked him. Was he having a breakdown? Was he rebranding himself? Or was he just trying, in his own way, to become an artist? Luke Turner and Nastja Rönkkö have some of the answers. The two contemporary artists, both of whom have exhibited extensively in Europe, were Shia's collaborators on #IAMSORRY.
According to the duo, LaBeouf approached them after encountering Turner's website on metamodernism, which Turner describes as "an age characterised by oscillations between modernist and postmodernist values". As he puts it, it's the defining impulse of our age: a desire to be "both ironic and sincere in the same moment". #IAMSORRY, the final product of their collaboration, didn't just take place at the Los Angeles gallery – it also played out on LaBeouf's Twitter; in Berlin; at a London College of Fashion seminar, where he read Guy Debord to students; and even via skywriting. It all culminated with LaBeouf sobbing his eyes out in front of strangers.
In n interview portion of the article, Rönkkö explains…
“At its core, the most fascinating part of the performance was whether people would see Shia as a person, flesh and bones and soul, or as an object, a celebrity.”
about the “existential crisis” he underwent after being caught plagiarising graphic novelist Daniel Clowes for a short film, Howard Cantour.com, that aired at Cannes in 2013.
…as well as…
One woman who came with her boyfriend, who was outside the door when this happened, whipped my legs for ten minutes and then stripped my clothing and proceeded to rape me… There were hundreds of people in line when she walked out with dishevelled hair and smudged lipstick. It was no good, not just for me but her man as well. On top of that my girl was in line to see me, because it was Valentine’s Day and I was living in the gallery for the duration of the event – we were separated for five days, no communication. So it really hurt her as well, as I guess the news of it travelled through the line. When she came in she asked for an explanation, and I couldn’t speak, so we both sat with this unexplained trauma silently. It was painful.
The interviewer asks him to respond to accusations that his art performance “Method” plagiarized Marina Abramović’s The Artist Is Present. He denies any such plagiarism.
The actor is currently undergoing treatment for addiction, following his June arrest for disorderly conduct and harassment after he interrupted a performance of Cabaret with obscene language.
Turner did not respond when asked if the incident was reported to the police, but said that their collaboration with the actor continued.
Turner later provided more details of the incident after Piers Morgan asked him on Twitter why they had let the [alleged] rapist “just walk away”.
The artist replied: “It wasn’t clear at the time precisely what had happened, & the 1st priority was to ensure everybody’s safety in the gallery …
“She ran out, rather than simply walking away. Beyond that, it’s not my place to comment.”
In a different article on December 1, 2014, The Guardian reported
Regardless of that incident, #IAMSORRY stinks of bad art.
…and…
LaBeouf’s exhibit sounds more like the kind of poorly conceived and basically silly event that gets performance art a bad name. Real artists rarely wear bags on their heads.
Clearly this does not excuse rape.
Yet it does put into perspective the romantic myth of “suffering for art”. People suffer for art all the time. Unfortunately, the art is rarely worth it. Pain alone does not make you an artist.
That article included this image and caption…
Visitors outside the Cohen Gallery, Los Angeles, in February 2014 for Shia LeBeouf’s #IAMSORRY Photograph: Valerie Macon/Getty Images
According to their webpage [archived here], they have engaged in a number of other projects but that gives us an idea. For the purposes of the Culture War Encyclopedia, we are mainly concerned with their project HEWILLNOTDIVIDEUS.
Image source: The Guardian, captioned “LaBeouf at the art installation on Wednesday. Photograph: Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images”
Source: NY Daily News. Caption. “Shia LaBeouf's "He Will Not Divide Us" quickly devolved into a must-watch internet fever dream where anonymous trolls ate chicken tendies, danced, denounced the "vegan agenda" and paid tribute to the ancient Egyptian frog god Kek. (James Keivom/New York Daily News)”
HEWILLNOTDIVIDE.US is a participatory performance by LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner that invites the public to deliver the words “He will not divide us” into a camera mounted on a wall outside the Museum of the Moving Image, repeating the phrase as many times, and for as long as they wish. The performance commences at 9:00 a.m. on January 20, 2017, the day of the inauguration of the 45th President of the United States.
Open to all, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the participatory performance will be live-streamed continuously at www.hewillnotdivide.us for four years, or the duration of the presidency. In this way, the mantra "HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US" acts as a show of resistance or insistence, opposition or optimism, guided by the spirit of each individual participant and the community.
They apparently moved past the idea of trying to get people to just repeat the slogan to trying to get people to say the slogan and then comment on it. The HWNDU webpagestates…
the public was invited to deliver the words "HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US" into a camera mounted on a wall outside the Museum of the Moving Image, New York, responding to those words in any way they wished.
This invitation would be taken back. As shown in, The Triggering of Shia | He Will Not Divide Us by Internet Historian, Shia himself was seen on the stream assaulting various people for saying reprehensible things to him, obviously to trigger him. So, not only were they insincere when they invited anyone to speak freely, but he would use violence to enforce a ban on speech he didn’t like.
Using violence to force your will upon an other person in violation of their human right to freedom of speech seems sort of… well… you know… totalitarian (like Nazis, fascists and communists).
At any rate, assault causes division, Shia. Breaking promises does too.
What happens in the following video clip from the HWNDU livestream would be the subject of a lot of reports. This was not the beginning of the idea of milk being a symbol of racism but it was the beginning of a wider public discussion about that idea.
The clip begins with a large man in a MAGA hat dancing while others cheer him on. This man is called /pol/Blart or just Blart by various people in various clips. He appears in many of these clips. He was there when Shia was arrested. In some of these, he explains that he shows up “every day” to be a dissenting voice because, he says, HWNDU failed to deliver it’s promise of freedom of speech. He does not seem to be part of any group. One thing I have seen him do on different days was chant, “He will unite us!” This clip features both Shia and Blart.
People of different colors having fun together.
An other man, who we will call Guy, turns to the camera and says something about Blart getting naked. He too can be seen in video clips from many other days.
A man called Absolute Plaidman can be seen in the background. He can be seen in other clips from other times which show that he frequented the art installation on his own to just have fun, troll, dance and so on. For example, he can be seen in this video, this video, this video, this video, this video, this video and so on.
A man who is apparently called Silent Bob appears and feigns the act of squeezing Blart’s moobs. Silent Bob apparently frequented the installation because he can be seen in other video clips from other times. He can be seen inthis video for example. An other man, who we will call Rager yells loudly and comically, not unlike those fake wrestlers do between fake wrestling matches. Rager can be seen in other clips from other days, like this one, for example.
Starting at about 1:09, two white men we will call Beefyman and Beardlyman show up together.
On the right bicep of Beefyman’s white jacket is a certain symbol. If it were one-point-up it would it would be the same as the Lamborghini symbol (without the letters) or a conventional depiction of a tetrahydron (a 4 sided solid). However, with one-point-down, it is a rare depiction. A reverse image search yielded nothing relevant. The one use of such a symbol that I am aware of is the symbol for Identity Evropa who changed their name to the American Identity Movement. See Identity Evropaand American Identity Movement.
Beefyman takes off the jacket and Beardlyman asks if they were going to take off their shirts. “Is that the meme?” he asks. They take off their shirts. Silent Bob and Rager take off their shirts too. They dance.
An Asian man they call Jackie 4chan takes off his shirt and dances with them. Jackie 4chan can be seen in other clips, like this one, for example. They have a push-up contest and goof around.
Rager yells, “Toxic masculinity squad! Yeah!”
Beardlyman yells “Make America masculine again!”
Someone yells “Perpetuate testosterone culture!”
At about 5:27, Guy yells “Let’s make America manly again!
Starting at 5:44, Beefyman says, “Listen, 6 million? That’s bullshit! Look into it. Google Nano-thermite.” I did indeed search “nano-thermite” but it was unclear what Beefyman wanted us to find. The “6 million” is almost surely a reference to the 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. Watch the video. Did others agree? Did anyone nod in agreement? Did the others even hear him?
Other guys take off their shirts and lots of silly stuff is said and done. They joke about Fight Club, mock Alex Jones, etc.
At 10:02, Beefyman says the N word. Guy is standing right there. Silent Bob is right there too and it seems like he must have heard the N word. He does/says nothing about it as the goofing continues.
Starting at 11:14, some guys show up with containers of milk that they hand out. The shirtless guys cheer, toast, shout “Got Milk?”, drink and so on. One of the guys who handed out milk is clearly not white but he holds out his coffee cup so that one of the shirtless guys can pour milk into it for him.
At 11:49, Beefyman says, “You may not like it, but this is the face of white nationalism.”
Some guy sticks his face in front of the camera to add, “Now with 8 grams of protein!”
Silent Bob says, “This racism right here, is how we deal with this! Fuckin’ learn! Fuckin’ learn!”
Beardlyman yells, “This is fascism! Shirtless men drinking milk!”
Rager yells, “This is how the Vikings conquered Europe!”
At 12:28, Beefyman yells “Whole milk! None of the 2% shit! Know who else is 2%?” He never answers. Beardlyman yells “Whole milk!” and others yell “Whole milk is pure milk!”
Jackie 4chan drinks milk.
Absolute has taken off his shirt and continues to dance and stuff.
At 14:28, Guy looks at the shirtless men and then at the camera and says, “So there you have it. All of the milkmen. We got - the party’s all here. Fucking dream team, man.”
At 15:01, Rager says, “Ice cold glass of pure racism. Get it down ya!”
“With just a hint of cocaine.” says Guy.
Beefyman says that, “if you’re not doing neck workouts, you’re a cuck. If you don’t have a neck harness, you’re a faggot!”
Beardlyman joins him and the two say that if you do not lift this much or squat that much, you’re a cuck and so on.
Silent Bob points to Beefyman and says something about “This is what you don’t wanna have because you don’t wanna hurt animals? Fuck you! This is true masculinity!”
Absolute Plaid and Silent Bob shout out for someone called Milk Viking.
All sorts of weird things were done and said throughout the video.
Guy and Silent Bob smile and nod to each other.
Guy says goodbye to people watching the stream and, at 18:22, shakes hands with Blart, Jackie 4chan and others.
At 19:34, the shirtless man with a black sun tattoo shows up. We will call him Don Rohr because that’s what his other tattoo says. He points to his black sun tattoo, holds up milk, says, “That’s right bitch!”
Don Rohr drinks milk, spits it put and says, “This is pure fucking…racism, bro!”
At 22:32, a shirtless white guy with glasses and a beard says, “Hey all you non-whites, I can do this and you can’t!” He drinks and spills, “So good! You can’t have any.” This is a reference to the claim that whites have a high tolerance for milk and others do not. We will return to that below. Also see milk.
At 23:33, the same guy says he is more hung than the average black guy because milk builds strong boners. Let’s call him Milkboner.
Beefy and Beardly yell about milk nationalism and so on.
Don Rohr has put a shirt on but he pulls it partly aside to flash his black sun tattoo and says, “Fuck you!
At 24:28, Milkboner says, “We must secure the existence of our diets for milk drinking.”
At 28:19, Milkboner says, “I think some of you people are kinda antisemetic.”
At 31:04, some guy puts his finger under his nose to simulate Hitler’s mustache and he gives the Nazi salute.
Eventually they put their shirts back on.
Multiple police cars show up and people say that the museum director was talking with the police.
Starting at about 44:28, they start chanting, “Build that wall!”
A man in long orange dreadlocks and a tambourine dances with them. He is known as Paperboy Prince. he apparently was an other person who frequented the art installation.
Starting at 46:39, they get quiet and a police officer tells them they were too loud so they are shutting it down for the night. They are told to leave and not come back for the rest of the night.
Some brownish skinned man says “Oy vay! Shut it down!”
The officers make everyone leave and they put up barriers.
It seems to me that /pol/Blart, Jackie 4chan, Guy, Silent Bob, Absolute Plaidman and others were just there to goof around and at the worst, engage in light-hearted trolling. It seems to me that Beefy Man, Beardly Man and Don Rohr were there to joke around and troll, but not in an ultimately light-hearted way. It seems to me that those 3 actually do subscribe to identity politics and are therefore racist and their trolling was not so innocent.
In this clip, Blart says that he didn’t hear anything about milk and racism. He says tht people should not be allowed to say the N word on the livestream.
We can not, however, discount the fact that Silent Bob did hear Beefyman use the N word in the way that he did. We also can not discount the fact that Silent Bob was clearly joking when he pointed to milk and referred to it as racism. In this clip, Silent Bob says he regrets what he did/said that night.
In the wake of this silliness, we were told that milk can be a racist symbol. See milk.
A guy in a Megadeth shirt with long hair (he is referred to as Milkman to his face so we will call him Milkman too) can be seen from the beginning of this video drinking from a bottle of milk. Starting at 2:02, he repeats, “Down with the vegan agenda” as others argue. A brown skinned man tries to have an intelligent debate with a leftist but the leftist rage quits.
It is clear that Blart, who may not be white himself, is friendly with people who are clearly not white.
Starting at 1:35, a container of milk is held up close to the camera and someone off camera says, “Whole milk, notice it’s whole milk.”
Milkman shows up and people cheer.
Starting at 1:52, a brown guy says to Milkman, in a friendly and re-affirming tone, “Hey! Milk is not racist.” and Milkman agrees and adds that Paperboy Prince is a shill for the vegan agenda. Others laugh. They continue to joke and riff.
The one they call Absolute Plaidman shows up on his own. He is cheered at as he approaches. He is apparently someone who liked to appear at the art installation and not part of a white supremacist gang or whatever. He says, among other things, that Biden rapes kids.
A brown man (referred to as Young Tiger Woods) drinks milk in this clip as Paperboy Prince chants “He will not divide us.”
Young Tiger Woods asks Paperboy why milk is racist. Is it because it is white? Paperboy can only say that they should not drink milk straight out of the containers.
Milkman is seen drinking milk in the background.
The moronic media made much of the milky madness. In the wake of this silliness, we were told that milk can be a racist symbol.
Referring to the display diabolical dairy doings with the guy sporting a black sun tattoo, the guy with the Identity Evropa symbol on his jacket and others, Mic wrote,
Amid all the tattoos of Third Reich iconography bouncing around, one thing stood out: The neo-Nazis were all drinking milk.
There was one such tattoo, to be accurate. Also, most of those guys were not neo-Nazis or anything of the sort. Indy100 made the more straight forward yet inaccurate claim that there were multiple men with,
tattoos relating to the Nazi party and the Third Reich
There would be many other articles about this murky milky maniacal maleficence. These are in the section on milk.
According to Indy100, the Museum of the Moving Image (where the camera was installed) stated,
Over the course of the installation, there have been dozens of threats of violence and numerous arrests, such that police felt compelled to be stationed outside the installation 24 hours a day, seven days a week...Ending our engagement with the installation is the most prudent path forward to restore public safety to the Museum, its visitors, staff, and the community.
was shut down after becoming a "flashpoint for violence," a museum spokesperson confirmed to the Daily News.
"The installation created a serious and ongoing public safety hazard for the museum, its visitors, staff, local residents, and businesses," a statement from the museum read.
"Over the course of the installation, there have been dozens of threats of violence and numerous arrests, such that police felt compelled to be stationed outside the installation 24 hours a day, seven days a week," the statement continued.
The exhibit "deteriorated" after LaBeouf was arrested on site for becoming aggressive with an attendee and charged with assault on Jan. 25
The HWNDU webpagestates that it was relocated to the El Rey Theater, Albuquerque on February 18 2017 where the livestream camera was again mounted on a wall. According to Know Your Meme,
On February 19th, Redditor stillnihilist posted a GIF of a man brandishing a firearm on the stream, claiming that he displayed the weapon while saying "Fuck Trump and his supporters" (shown below). Within 48 hours, the GIF received more than 3,200 votes (97% upvoted) and 260 comments on the /r/The_Donald subreddit.
Someone's protesting Shia LaBeouf's protest by spray painting the camera trained on his "He will not divide us" demonstration.
A vandal approached the live stream camera -- set up by LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner -- early Tuesday morning at around 4:20 and unloaded a canister of red spray paint. The vandal is wearing a mask or bandana to hide his identity.
The hijinks went down in Albuquerque, days after Shia made it the new home of the protest after getting kicked out of his New York venue.
Cops tell us there was a report of shots fired around 2:51 AM in downtown Albuquerque. The location was just one block away from The Historic El Rey Theater where LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner's protest installation opened this week.
Shia tweeted, "We have taken the stream down after shots were reported in the area. The safety of everybody participating in our project is paramount."
Better safe than sorry, but police say they didn't find anyone with a gun at the location, and gave the all clear. As it turns out, no one was in front of the camera at that time anyway.
As of 6:50 AM PT ... the camera is still down. It's unclear when they'll flip the switch again.
On 8 March 2017, the project moved to an undisclosed location. A flag emblazoned with the words "HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US" would be flown for the duration.
The claim that the flag would stay there for the “duration” was taken as a challenge by the folks at 4chan. They were given a seemingly insurmountable task to play the greatest game of capture the flag ever played. No clues tipped them to the location. But somehow, with the power of determination and youth unemployment, they found it and they trolled it hard.
The search began on March 8 and was immediately narrowed when Labeouf was spotted on social media at a diner in Greenville, Tennessee, although some in the thread still believed the flag was in the Great Lakes area due to wind patterns. The time of the sunset in Greenville matched with the time of sunset on the stream, and so did the weather on local weather reports.
Finally when three planes flew over the area, 4channers were able to triangulate an approximate location of the flag.
This area was too large to search unfortunately. The 4channers began looking to the stars, using ancient astronomy to help map the direction of the camera and pinpoint a more precise location.
They also sent out a guy in his truck to honk his horn around Greenville to see if they could hear it on the livestream, to mark the location.
The trail led into a field on private property next to some poor soul’s house. Tennessee based 4channers were standing by to capture the flag. After scoping out the area for hours they finally made a move. The anonymous group stole the “He Will Not Divide Us” flag and replaced it with a Trump “Make America Great Again” hat and a Pepe the Frog t-shirt.
The flag pole was left barren on the stream all morning, until Labeouf and co. finally turned the stream completely off in utter defeat.
The Blaze reported that the steam was taken down and later resumed, showing an empty flag pole.
They say it was moved to Liverpool, UK where it lasted from March 22, 2017 to March 2, 2017. According to Breitbart, “dangerous trespassing” was the reason given for the shutdown there.
Now installed above an art gallery in an old biscuit factory in the French city of Nantes, the flag came under attack overnight Tuesday-Wednesday by a drone, which attempted for several minutes to set it on fire.
The remotely-piloted arson attempt failed when the drone crashed.
“An unauthorised drone carrying a burning piece of cloth approached the flag to try to set it alight. The fireproof flag was undamaged and the attempt failed,” Lieu Unique gallery said in a statement.
…
Local radio France Bleu Loire-Ocean reported Wednesday that there had already been “an attempted intrusion” at the gallery in Nantes, which put the flag on display on October 16 and intends to keep it in public view.
The tale of the “He Will Not Divide Us” livestream is probably not over, but this saga marks another stunning defeat for Labeouf. It shows 4chan will follow him to the ends of the earth for a good laugh, and he inevitably will be the butt of the joke.
The flag now rests in the home of one of the greatest anons 4chan has ever known.
Also see black sun, food oppression, He Will Not Divide Us, milk.
homophobia
horse paste
identitarianism
Normally, identitiarianism is thought of being like identity politics but for white, male, cisgender and hetero people on the authoritarian/collectivist right (see identitarianism, Range of Identitarians vs Individuals).
However, I propose that we use the terms identity politics to refer to that which both “sides” engage in and that we use the term identitarians to refer to such people, regardless of skin color, sex, orientation, gender, etc.
Indeed, the New York Times wrote about “white identity politics” in at least one piece though this is not the norm.
See Black Panthers, BLM, Identity Evropa, identity politics, KKK, race, racism.
a group of patriotic American Identitarians who have realized that we are descended from the great traditions, history, and people that flowed from Europe. We embrace the idea that our identities are central to who we are, and take pride in our history and rich cultural heritage. At a time when every other group is free to stand behind its identity, we choose to assert ours as well.
Identity Evropa stands opposed to all immigration – legal or illegal – that will alter America’s historic demographics. As such, we are calling on President Trump and Congress to put America first and end immigration.
Normally, identity politics is thought of as being for “people of color”, transgender, female and/or non-hetero people on the authoritarian/collectivist left (see identitarianism, Range of Identitarians vs Individuals).
However, one can argue (as I do) that it does not matter if we are talking about white/cisgender/heterosexual people of non-white/transgender/hetero people. it’s the same thing; in both cases, it is a political stance that judges and categorizes people based on traits such as skin color, their genitals, their sexual orientation, etc. rather than based on what matters.
Therefore, I propose that we use the terms identity politics to refer to that which both “sides” engage in and that we use the term identitarians to refer to such people, regardless of skin color, sex, orientation, gender, etc.
The following is quoted from The Madness of Crowds - Gender, Race and Identity (2019) by Douglas Murray (pages 2-3).
The interpretation of the world through the lens of 'social justice', 'identity group politics' and 'intersectionalism' is probably the most audacious and comprehensive effort since the end of the Cold War at creating a new ideology.
To date 'social justice' has run the furthest because it sounds - and in some versions is - attractive. Even the term itself is set up to be anti-oppositional. 'You're opposed to social justice? What do you want, social injustice?'
'Identity politics', meanwhile, has become the place where social justice finds its caucuses. It atomizes society into different interest groups according to sex (or gender), race, sexual prefernce and more. It presumes that such characteristics are the main, or only, relevant attribute of their holders and they bring with them some added bonus. For example (as the American writer Coleman Hughes has put it), the assumption that there is 'a heightened moral knowledge' that comes with being black or female or gay.' It is the cause of the propensity of people to start questions or statements with 'Speaking as a . . .'. And it is something that people both living and dead need to be on the right side of. It is why there are calls to pull down the status of historical figures viewed as being on the wrong side and it is why there are calls to pull down the statue of historical figures viewed as being on the wrong side and why the past needs to be rewritten for anyone you wish to save. It is why it has become perfectly normal for a Sinn Fein senator to claim that the IRA hunger strikers in 1981 were striking for gay rights. Identity politics is where minority groups are encouraged to simultaneously atomize, organize and pronounce.
The least attractive-sounding of this trinity is the concept of ‘intersectionality’. This is the invitation to spend the rest of our lives attempting to work out each and every identity and vulnerability claim in ourselves and others and then organize along whichever system of justice emerges from the perpetually moving hierarchy which we uncover. It is a system that is not just unworkable but dementing, making demands that are impossible towards ends that are unachievable. But today intersectionality has broken out from the social science departments of the liberal arts colleges from which it originated. It is now taken seriously by a generation of young people and – as we shall see – has become embedded via employment law (specifically through a ‘commitment to diversity’) in all the major corporations and governments.
In War on the West (2022), Douglas Murray writes (pages 3-4) that identity politics is,
the attempt to break down Western societies along lines of sex, sexuality, and race. After the twentieth century national identity had become a shameful form of belonging, and all these other forms of belonging suddenly appeared in its place. Now people are being told to consider themselves as members of other groupings. They were gay or straight, men or women, black or white. These forms of belonging were also loaded to lean in an anti-Western direction. Gays were celebrated so long as they were “queer” and wanted to pull down all existing institutions. Gays who just wanted to get on with life or actually liked the Western world were sidelined. Likewise, so long as feminists were attacking “male structures,” Western capitalism, and much more, they were useful. feminists who didn’t toe that line or thought they were comparatively well off in the West were treated as sellouts at best, enemies at worst.
The discourse on race grew even worse. Racial minorities who had integrated well in the West, contributed to the West, and were even admiring of the West were increasingly treated as though they were even admiring of the West were increasingly treated as though they were race traitors. As though another allegiance were expected of them. Radicals who wanted to tear everything down were venerated…
At the same time, it had become unacceptable to talk about any other society in a remotely similar way. In spite of all the unimaginable abuses perpetrated in our own time by the Communist Party of China, almost nobody speaks of China with an iota of rage and disgust poured out daily against the West from inside the West
See Black Panthers, BLM, Identity Evropa, identitarianism, KKK, race, racism.
imperialism
implicit bias
information economy
The Yakuza would be settling its ghostly bulk over the city’s data banks, probing for faint images of me reflected in numbered accounts, securities transactions, bills for utilities. We’re an information economy. They teach you that in school, What they don’t tell you is that it’s impossible to move, live, to operate at any level without leaving traces, bits, seemingly meaningless fragments of personal information. Fragments that can be retrieved, amplified . . .
The passage above is from a short story written in 1981 by William Gibson, Johnny Mnemonic. 1981! This was before most people knew what a PC (personal computer) was, when you went to arcades to play pinball machines, not video games, when many people worked off-the-books undetected by the IRS, when you could buy fake IDs by word-of-mouth, when credit card readers were analogue - little mechanical devices that rubbed carbonpaper over the high-relief numbers of your card. There wasn’t yet a web of information that could be used to know everything about you right down to your predicting what advertisements succeed in making you spend how much money on what.
Like Aldous Huxley with Brave New World and George Orwell with 1984, William Gibson, with his cyberpunk fiction, was able to not only tell but also to foretell of the future. Their fiction becomes fact. They seem prophetic because their predictions, thinly veiled as fiction, turn out to be accurate decade after decade.
They predict so well because of their insight, each their own, into the real world subject matter that informed the ground of their stories and their vision of the future growing forth from that ground. They tracked certain movements in their time so well that they could see what directions they were headed in. Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 were informed by insight into politics insofar as it pertains to authoritarianism vs freedom. Huxley’s Brave New World was informed by insight into trends and developments in human reproduction and in pychotropic pharmacy. Gibson’s cyberpunk fiction seems to be informed by insight into technology used to steer oneself in one’s chosen directions.
The English root cyber is derived from the Greek root kyber which means ‘steer’ or ‘pilot’ with implications of independence. In The Cyberpunk: The Individual as Reality Pilot,6 Dr. Timothy Leary wrote that terms like cybernaut and cyberpunk
return us to the original meaning of “pilot” and puts the self-reliant person back in the loop
and
refer to the personalization (and thus the popularization) of knowledge-information technology, to innovative thinking on the part of the individual.
Indeed, Gibson’s protagonists use technology in furtherence of their liberty from authoritarian control with hacking techniques, sometimes hacking their way into security systems like theives slipping silently into citadels of control. William Gibson wrote (in Neuromancer, 1984),
He ‘d operated on an almost permanent adrenaline high, a byproduct of youth and proficiency, jacked into custom cyberspace deck that projected his disembodied consciousness into the consensual hallucination that was the matrix. A thief, he’d worked for other, wealthier thieves, employers who provided the exotic software required to penetrate the bright walls of corporate systems, opening windows into rich fields of data.
Gibson’s cyberpunks, like the Huxley’s and Orwell’s protagonists in their respective dystopias, are interested in steering their life free of the sticky web of the information economy that seeks to entrap us all, and in steering clear of privacy invasion by the state. It is ilustrating to note here that the root and application of the word state implies that which steers the civil. The word privacy implies freedom from survellience.
Here the war is not between left and right on the political compass but rather between libertarian and authoritarian; the real culture war. The cybernaut steers clear of state control.
Soon they will know what you look at for how long. They will be able to tell whose asses you look at in public and for how long. They will know what makes you happy, angry, lustful, hungry, willing to spend more money. They will know what thoughts you think. They will compile incriminating files on you contaning the most private of your thoughts. Then they will direct your thoughts like scriptwriters and directors control actors playing fictional characters. The state, that which steers, will steer you like a horse with blinders on. They will wall you in and drive you forward through narrow paths that go aroud winding curves that prevent you from seeing they are leading you like cattle to be milked and slaughtered.
individual racism
See racism, individual
institutional racism
See racism, institutional
interest conversion thesis
Put forth by Derrick Bell, the author of many of the foundational texts of CRT.
(more to come here)
[source: Critical Race Theory An Introduction by Delgado and Stefancic, p. 6 (3rd Edition)]
racism is perpetuated by deeming whiteness as superior and other racial and ethnic groups as inferior. The prevalence of white dominant culture and racism leads to an internalized racial superiority for those who adhere to it. This internalized dominance "describes the experience and attitudes of those who are members of the dominant, privileged, or powerful identity groups. Members of the [dominant] group accept their group's socially superior status as normal and deserved.
“Intersectionality” means the examination of race, sex, class, national origin, and sexual orientation and how their combination plays out in various settings.
(source: Critical Race Theory An Introduction by Delgado and Stefancic, p. 58 (3rd Edition))
The following is quoted from The Madness of Crowds - Gender, Race and Identity (2019) by Douglas Murray (pages 2-3).
The interpretation of the world through the lens of 'social justice', 'identity group politics' and 'intersectionalism' is probably the most audacious and comprehensive effort since the end of the Cold War at creating a new ideology.
To date 'social justice' has run the furthest because it sounds - and in some versions is - attractive. Even the term itself is set up to be anti-oppositional. 'You're opposed to social justice? What do you want, social injustice?'
'Identity politics', meanwhile, has become the place where social justice finds its caucuses. It atomizes society into different interest groups according to sex (or gender), race, sexual prefernce and more. It presumes that such characteristics are the main, or only, relevant attribute of their holders and they bring with them some added bonus. For example (as the American writer Coleman Hughes has put it), the assumption that there is 'a heightened moral knowledge' that comes with being black or female or gay.' It is the cause of the propensity of people to start questions or statements with 'Speaking as a . . .'. And it is something that people both living and dead need to be on the right side of. It is why there are calls to pull down the status of historical figures viewed as being on the wrong side and it is why there are calls to pull down the statue of historical figures viewed as being on the wrong side and why the past needs to be rewritten for anyone you wish to save. It is why it has become perfectly normal for a Sinn Fein senator to claim that the IRA hunger strikers in 1981 were striking for gay rights. Identity politics is where minority groups are encouraged to simultaneously atomize, organize and pronounce.
The least attractive-sounding of this trinity is the concept of ‘intersectionality’. This is the invitation to spend the rest of our lives attempting to work out each and every identity and vulnerability claim in ourselves and others and then organize along whichever system of justice emerges from the perpetually moving hierarchy which we uncover. It is a system that is not just unworkable but dementing, making demands that are impossible towards ends that are unachievable. But today intersectionality has broken out from the social science departments of the liberal arts colleges from which it originated. It is now taken seriously by a generation of young people and – as we shall see – has become embedded via employment law (specifically through a ‘commitment to diversity’) in all the major corporations and governments.
intersectionalism
intersectional feminism
intersectionalism
Islamophobia
ivermectin
See horse paste.
Jail Support
Jail Support is a term for various lawfare groups that bail out rioters and left-wing extremists. After the riots in January of 2023 (see 12th Antifa Killed - Antifa Riots by Justin Trouble) in Atlanta, local Jail Support bailed out alleged domestic terrorist antifas.
This law, formulated by Justin Trouble, is as follows.
Society cannot deem children to be mature enough to give informed consent for surgical and hormonal changes to their bodies because then it would have to deem children to be mature enough to give informed consent for sex with pedophiles and predators who might rape and kill them.
latcrit
Law of Extremism & Parody
This idea is not entirely my own. Many years ago, I read that fascism always appears like parody of fascism. I think it was in a book by Robert Anton Wilson but I have been unable to find the passage. At any rate, knowing that this is true not just of fascism but of any form of extremism, I formulated the following…
The scale of magnitude of extremism is inverse to the scale of the possibility of being able to distinguish that extremism from parody of it.
…or…
The more extreme someone or something is, the harder it is to distinguish it from parody of it.
This applies to political extremism, religiosity, even things like heavy metal music, horror films, and more.
Lawfare
Lawfare
One of the most effective ways we’ve seen law enforcement agencies brought to their knees is through frivolous lawsuits bankrolled by endless doners. “Lawfare” refers to the act of ausing the legal system to achieve goals.
There exist large networks of far-left attorneys and legal groups who bring endless lawsuits in an attempt to defund, cripple, and embarass police. In early June 2020, far-left BLM-style group Don’t Shoot Portland filed a class action lawsuit against the city to stop the use of tear gas. The group is headed by Portland mayoral write-in candidate Terssa Raiford. Raiford advocates for the literal abolishment of police and is one of the few political candidates who garner the support of some militant antifa. [Ngo’s footnote 118; Teressa Raiford, “We Should Abolish Period.”]
One of the attorneys on the case is Juan Chavez, a lawyer with the far-left Oregon Justice Resource Center. The group takes cases representing antifa and far-left clients. Chavez is also a prominent member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), a legal group with historic ties to the Communist Party. It has chapters across the United States. The organization formally declared its support for antifa and political violence in a statement on its website in 2017: “While many abhor tactics that involve violence, historical evidence shows that direct action has contributed to shutting down fascist movements before they gain too much power or influence.” [Ngo’s footnote 119; Traci Yoder, “Legal Support for Anti-Fascist Action.”] In effect, the NLG is the legal arm of antifa. Its 2016 nonprofit tax form shows it pulled in over $711,000. [Ngo’s footnote 120; Influence Watch, “National Lawyers Guild.”] The NLG’s executive director, Pooja Gehi, identifies as an anarchist. The organization provides green hat-wearing “legal observers” at left-wing riots and protests. Even before COVID-19, they frequently hid their identities by wearing masks. The volunteers appear to be neutral legal observers, but in fact they are only there to record out-of-context video to use in lawsuits against police or their political opponents. They do not film antifa.
The above is quoted from pages 59-60 of Andy Ngo’s Unmasked - Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy (2021).
Jail Support is an important part of antifa’s lawfare.
Also see Civil Liberties Defence Center, Jail Support, National Lawyers Guild
learn to code
LeBeouf, Shia
See He Will Not Divide Us.
legal indeterminancy
legal indeterminancy is…
the idea that not every legal case has one correct outcome. Instead, one can decide most cases either way, by emphasizing one line of authority over another or interpreting one fact differently from the way one’s adversary does.
(source: Delgado and Stefancic in Critical Race Theory An Introduction, (3rd Edition), p. 3)
liberalism
This is a politically loaded term that means different (sometimes contradictory) things to different people depending on their preconceptions. The term classical liberalism refers to the liberalism of the Enlightenment era, of Jefferson and Paine, for example, which stressed liberty for land-owning (white) men and a constitutional republic of and for these men with rights such as freedom of speech and the freedom to peacefully assemble to petition that government.
The term social liberalism refers to the view that all adults of all colors and both sexes should have equal rights; equality under the law. Some people refer to this as "classical liberalism". It is important to understands that these terms can have very different meanings to different people. What some refer to as social liberalism others refer to as libertarianism.
Some people use the term liberalism to refer to the view that the government should oversee social programs such as Affirmative Action, Social Security, Medicare, welfare, and that the government should address racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace and in schools and other such issues which are these days sometimes referred to with the term social justice. Some use the term progressive liberal or progressive liberal Democrat to refer to those who embrace this government-heavy form of liberalism.
Memes about being redpilled and about unplugging oneself from the matrix are inspired by the film the Matrix film (1999) which has the central theme of waking up from delusion and escaping control from power/authority. In these memes as in the film, to take the red pill is to awaken out of the illusion and to escape control.
See red-pilled. The Matrix film was heavily inspired by the science fiction (or cyberpunk fiction) of William Gibson. In fact, the matrix is a concept Gibson invented and uses in his stories but it is as if William Gibson’s stories take place before the Matrix film, in a time when the matrix was still something humans clould plug into temporarily if they wanted to. It is amazing that Gibson created the this concept the early 1980s before the internet.
Gibson wrote in his novel Neuromancer, published in 1984 (page 5),
He’d operated on an almost permanent adrenaline high, a byproduct of youth and proficiency, jacked into custom cyberspace deck that projected his disembodied consciousness into the consensual hallucination that was the matrix. A thief, he’d worked for other, wealthier thieves, employers who provided the exotic software required to penetrate the bright walls of corporate systems, opening windows into rich fields of data.
Notice that in that context, the matrix is normally consensual as opposed to something forced upon people without their knowledge or consent as it is in the Matrix films. Of course, the matrix is used as a tool of control in Neuromancer but it can be hacked. Then again, as we’ll see below, a human jacked into the matrix can have their memories altered and be fooled into mistaking a virtual reality for physical reality. But whereas in the Matrix films, the matrix is nearly inescapable and people almost never even discover that they are in the matrix, in Gibson’s fiction, this application of the matrix is more rarified.
At one point in Neuromancer (page 51), the protagonist, Case, watches a bit of what he says is a “kid’s show” on a device…
“The matrix has its roots in primitive arcade games,” said the voice-over, “in early graphics programs and military experimentation with cranial jacks.” On the Sony, a two-dimensional space war faded behind a forest of mathematically generated ferns, demonstrating the spacial possibilities of logarithmic spirals; cold blue military footage burned through, lab animals wired into test systems, helmets feeding into fire control circuits of tanks and war planes. “Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts. . .A graphic representaion of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding. . . .”
In Neuromacer, the matrix is something one jacks into using simstim technology. In other words, one physically connects their brain to the matrix by a system that simulates sensory stimulation like a more immersive version of virtual reality. But whereas a VR set displays images by projecting light that your eyes see and plays sounds by vibrating the air that your ears hear, simstim bypasses the organs of perception and sends electronic signals straight to the brain to simulate vision, sound, physical sensation, pain, scents and so on. Note how the terms ‘virtual reality’ and ‘simulated sensory stimulation’ basically mean the same thing. On page 52, it reads,
He settled the black terry sweatband across his forehead, careful not to disturb the flat Sendai dermatrodes. He stared at the deck on his lap, not really seeing it,
…
He closed his eyes.
Found the ridged face of the power stud.
And in the bloodlit dark behind his eyes, silver phosphenes boiling in from the edge of space, hypnagogic images jerking past like film compiled of random frames. Symbols, figures, faces, a blurred, fragmented mandala of visual information. Please, he prayed, now- A gray disk, the color of Chiba sky. Now- Disk beginning to rotate, faster, becoming a sphere of paler gray. Expanding- And flowed, flowered for him, fluid neon origami trick, the unfolding of his distanceless home, his country, transparent 3D chessboard extending to infinity. Inner eye opening to the stepped scarlet pyramid of the Eastern Seaboard Fission Authority burning beyond the green cubes of Mitsubishi Bank of America, and high and very far away he saw the spiral arms of the military systems, forever beyond his reach. And somewhere he was laughing, in a white-painted loft, distant fingers caressing the deck, tears of release streaking his face.
Note that the name of Mark Zuckerburg’s virtual reality flop, Meta seems designed to intentional bring to mind concepts like the metaverse the metaphysical world (as opposed to the material) and as such, meta and matrix share linguistic roots with each other. They are related to terms pertaining to, ironicaly, both abstract reality and physical reality; metaphysical, metaverse, matrice,matriarch, material, matter, mother, metabolism, metamorphosis and so on. What does it say that prefixes and terms for the illusury and for the material are cousins? Some with gnostic (so to speak) leanings might wink that this linguistic duplicitousness has something to say about the illusury nature of reality. After all, the only thing you know for sure is that you know nothing for sure. But notice that as you know that you know nothing, you still know something, even if it is that you know nothing. This implies the reality of your being. Whatever you are, be it a short, fat man sitting in a chair pretending to be a tall, skinny, purple woman in cyberspace, you are real in that you are a mind.
Cigito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am.
That applies to you, if you are real, if you are aware and do think, unlike NPCs and AIs or constructs as they are called in William Gibson’s cyberpunk world. In Neuromancer (pages 55-56),
Case sat in the loft with the dermatrodes strapped across his forehead
…
the trodes he used and the little plastic tiara dangling from a simstim deck were basically the same, and that the cyberspace matrix was actually drastic oversimplification of flesh input. The commercial stuff was edited, of course, so that if Tally Isham got a headache in the course of a segment, you didn’t feel it.
…
The screen blipped a two-second warning. The new switch was patched into his Sendai with a thin ribbon of fiberoptics.
And one and two and -
Cyberspace slid into existance from the cardinal points.
Smooth, he thought, but not smooth enough. Have to work on it. . . .
The he keyed the new switch. The abrupt jolt into oher flesh. Matrrix gone, a wave of sound and color. . . . . She was moving through a crowded street, past stalls vending discount software
…
For a few frightened seconds he fought helplessly to control her body. Then he willed himself into passivity, became the passenger behind her eyes.
…
The transition to cyberspace, when he hit the switch, was instantaneous. He punched himself down a wall of primitive ice belonging to the New York Public Library, automatically counting potential windows.
On pages 63 and 64 of Neuromancer, again, first printed in 1984, Case uses a computer virus to hack through some ‘ice’, what we would now call a cybersecurity or an anti-virus program. Because one’s neurosystem is linked to the matrix, ice can flatline (kill) hackers. Notice also that he predicts Windows,
A carefully engineered virus attacked the code fabric screening primary custodial commands for the sub-basement that housed the Sense/Net research materials.
…
Case’s virus had bored a window through the library’s command ice. He punched himself through and found infinite blue space ranged with color-coded spheresstrung on a tight grid of pale ble neon. In the nonspace of the matrix, the interior of a given data construct pssesed unlimited subjective dimension; a child’s toy calculator, accessed, through Case’s Sendai, would have presented limitless gulfs of nothingness hung with a few basic commands. Case began to key the sequence…
…
He bagan to glide through the spheres as if he were on invisible tracks.
Here. This one.
Punching his way into the sphere, chill blue neon vault above him starless and smooth as frosted glass, he triggered a subprogram that effected certain alterations in the core custodial commands.
Out now. Revering smoothly, the virus reknitting the fabric of the window.
Done.
…
Case’s program was cycling. A single hair-fine thread of crimson neon extended from the center of the restored window to the shifting outline of his icebreaker.
In Neuromancer , Gibson also predicted that virtual AI versions of dead people, what we might call interactive deep fake bots, will exist with whom one can converse as if they are the real thing with the dead person’s memories, knowledge and personality. They are called ‘constructs’. Case gets advice from a construct that simulates a dead ‘cowboy’ (hacker) named Dixie Flatline (pages 114-117),
He jacked in.
“Dixie?”
“Yeah.”
“You ever try to crack an AI?”
“Sure. I flatlined. First time. I was larckin’, jacked up real high, out by Rio heavy commerce sector. Big biz, multinationals, Government of Brazil lit up like a Christmas tree. Just larkin’ around, you know? And then I started picking up on this one cube, maybe three levels higher up. Jacked up there and made a pass.”
“What did it look like, the visual?”
“White cube.”
“How’d you know it was an AI?”
“How’d I know? Jesus. It was the densest ice I’d ever seen. So what else was it? The military down there don’t have anything like that. Anyway, I jacked out and told my computer to look it up.”
“Yeah?”
“It was on the turing Registry. AI. Frog company owned its Rio mainframe.”
Case chewed his lower lip and gazed out across the plateaus of the Eastern Seaboard Fission Authority, into the infinite neuroelectronic void of the matrix. “Tessier-Ashpool, Dixie?”
“Tessier, yeah.”
“And you went back?”
“Sure. I was crazy. Figured I'd try to cut it. Hit the first strata and that's all she wrote. My joeboy smelled the skin frying and pulled the trodes off me. Mean shit, that ice.”
“And your EEG was flat.”
“Well, that's the stuff of legend, ain't it?”
…
“Dix,“ Case said, `I wanna have a look at an AI in Berne. Can you think of any reason not to?” ”Not unless you got a morbid fear of death, no.” Case punched for the Swiss banking sector, feeling a wave of exhilaration as cyberspace shivered, blurred, gelled. The Eastern Seaboard Fission Authority was gone, replaced by the cool geometric intricacy of Zurich commercial banking. He punched again, for Berne. `Up,' the construct said. `It'll be high.' They ascended lattices of light, levels strobing, a blue flicker. That'll be it, Case thought. Wintermute was a simple cube of white light, that very simplicity suggesting extreme complexity. `Don't look much, does it?' the Flatline said. `But just you try and touch it.' `I'm going in for a pass, Dixie.' `Be my guest.' Case punched to within four grid points of the cube. Its blank face, towering above him now, began to seethe with faint internal shadows, as though a thousand dancers whirled behind a vast sheet of frosted glass. `Knows we're here,' the Flatline observed. Case punched again, once; they jumped forward by a single grid point. A stippled gray circle formed on the face of the cube. `Dixie...' `Back off, fast.' The gray area bulged smoothly, became a sphere, and detached itself from the cube. Case felt the edge of the deck sting his palm as he slapped MAX REVERSE. The matrix blurred backward; they plunged down a twilit shaft of Swiss banks. He looked up. The sphere was darker now, gaining on him. Falling. `Jack out,' the Flatline said. The dark came down like a hammer.
At this point, Case blacks-out and regains consciousness, without his short term memory that led up to that moment, in a simulation of his daily reality as it was in the recent past at an arcade with a love interest, Linda Lee, who, he was rendered unable to remember, he had lost. As in the Matrix films, Case is fooled into taking this virtual reality for actual reality, but not for long.
`Come on, then.' She took his hand. `We'll get you a coffee and something to eat. Take you home. It's good to see you, man.' She squeezed his hand. He smiled. Something cracked. Something shifted at the core of things. The arcade froze, vibrated -- She was gone. The weight of memory came down, an entire body of knowledge driven into his head like a microsoft into a socket. Gone. He smelled burning meat.
It seems Case had been flatlined by the cybersecurity system into which he was hacking and, while technically dead, an AI named Wintermute accessed his brain via the matrix and, using simstim, generated a simulation of his recent past setting within which to communicate with him through a construct of an old associate. He realizes he is in a virtual reality generated by an AI, demands a cigarrette and smokes it, knowing it isn’t real. He experiences the scent of ginger in his associate’s office, knowing none of it is real other than his own consciousness and, possibly, the AI he communicates with.
;
memory hole
See my article Meory Hole - Definition & Real World Examples
microaggression
Microggressions are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults and potentially have a harmful or unpleasant psychological impact on the target person or group.
Microaggressions are often unconsciously delivered in the form of subtle snubs or dismissive looks, gestures, and tones. These ex-changes are so pervasive and automatic in daily conversations and interactions that they are often dismissed and glossed over as being innocent and innocuous. Yet, as indicated previously, microaggressions are detrimental to persons of color because they impair performance in a multitude of settings by sapping the psychic and spiritual energy of recipients and by creating inequities
(Quoted from course syllabus for Culture & Mental Health, Summer 2016, University of Oregon. It gave the citation: Franklin, 2004; D. W. Sue, 2004 and stated, "adapted from Alicia Ibaraki, 2014")
Also see gender microaggression, microinsult, microinvalidation, microassault, racial microaggression, sexual orientation microaggression
microassault
microinequality
In the world of business, the term “microinequities” is used to describe the pattern of being overlooked, underrespected, and de-valued because of one’s race or gender.
(Source: course syllabus for Culture & Mental Health, Summer 2016, University of Oregon, "adapted from Alicia Ibaraki, 2014")
microinsult
microinvalidation
milk
Starting in academia and moving to pop culture, there is the idea that milk can be a tool for racism and/or a symbol for racism. See He Will Not Divide Us and food oppression first if needed.
In 2013, TheUC Irvine Law Review published The Unbearable Whiteness of Milk: Food Oppression and the USDA by assistant law professor Andrea Freeman (Vol. 3, p. 1251, 2013). Some say that it is racist to assert genetic differences because to think of race as real is racist (see race realism). Yet, professor Freeman writes (page 1253) as if race is real. She states that the USDA engages in food oppression. As explained in the abstract,
Food oppression is institutional, systemic, food-related action or policy that physically debilitates a socially marginalized group. This theory attributes racial/socioeconomic health disparities to policies and practices that appear neutral yet disproportionately harm vulnerable individuals, particularly those whose identities lie on multiple axes of oppression, including race, gender, sexual orientation, age, ability, and immigration status.
Notice the intersectionalism she expresses. She not only expresses views from critical race theory, she cites Derick Bell (page 1255) and “critical race theory” is included in the keyword list. She writes that the USDA had to reduce a surplus of milk in the USA and to do so, they…
added harmful amounts of saturated fats to the diets of communities who rely primarily on fast food for nutrition in urban centers. These populations consist mainly of low-income African Americans and Latinos.
Professor Freeman does not state that the government knew about these ethnic differences in lactose tolerance. Freeman would be cited in articles about a certain murky milk maleficence at Shia LeBeouf’s art installation in NY (see He Will Not Divide Us).
Milk, the longtime staple for growing children, is now the new, creamy symbol of white racial purity in President Donald Trump's America.
They include the following screenshot from the livestream. The man on the right, known as Jackie 4chan, is not white. The man in the black coat and black (Make America Great Again) hat, known as /pol/Blart, does not seem to be Aryan (See the HWNDU section).
The last time you saw a Nazi chugging down a glass of cool, white milk, it was likely Christoph Waltz's character in Inglourious Basterds. So how did milk become a symbol of white pride?
Milk has shown up as a trope across all sorts of media dealing with Nazis, but not as an explicit symbol of white pride.Universal Pictures
Some white supremacists think white ethnic identity has a geographic, historical correlation with the body's tolerance for milk — specifically, the production of the lactase enzyme that allows humans to break down lactose.
On 4chan, the internet's hate speech hit factory, one anonymous poster laid this thesis out using the following graphic from a study in Nature, showing hotspots of where certain populations have higher milk tolerances.…
There are numerous threads where white supremacy claims milk-drinking as a new staple of ethnic purity.4chan
Indy100reported on February 12, 2017 that since that diabolical display of dairy dispensation on the He Will Not Divide Us livestream,
On internet forums like 4Chan, Milk has rapidly become a symbol of white supremacy.
despite its wholesome reputation, milk has long had a sinister side, being bound up with the exploitation of the (human and nonhuman) bodies it comes from and being a symbol of and tool for white dominance and superiority. The word itself, in verb form, means “to exploit.” It is also a word at the center of a decades-old, multinational battle taking place in courthouses, the halls of congress, on social media, and in the streets.
shirtless neo-Nazi protesters danced outside Shia LaBeouf’s anti-Trump art installation, He Will Not Divide Us, chugging gallons of milk that dripped messily down their chins.
Later, they claimed this act symbolized their opposition to “the vegan agenda.”
Their headline is sprawled atop a hilarious photo captioned, “A photographer’s rendition of the neo-Nazi milk fetish. Milk has been a symbol for Nazis for decades. (Livonia Stronk/Imgur)”
In one of his satirical YouTube videos, alt-right commentator James Allsup suggests that what epitomises the anti-fascist, feminist, politically correct people he lambasts is that they drink soy instead of dairy milk.
They also wrote,
After that night, milk quickly went viral, joining the ranks of Pepe the Frog and the “okay” emoji as symbols of 21st century, post-Obama white supremacy. Pro-Trump supporters began carrying cartons of it to rallies and Richard Spencer and other prominent figures of the “alt-right” movement added milk-bottle emojis to their Twitter profiles. The #SoyBoy hashtag followed a few months later, going viral in the spring of 2017 and remains popular today.
experts have argued that race has long played a role in milk's adoption in America—a history that's too easily overlooked now that polarizing groups have weighed in.
They also wrote,
After the stunt at the art museum, the milk memes spread to chat rooms and Twitter, where Richard Spencer's bio once boasted that he was "very tolerant ... lactose-tolerant."
research debunks white supremacists' claims about lactose intolerance…
Research shows the genetic mutation to process lactose is not unique to white people…
…studies suggest the mutation only took hold among Northern European dairy farmers some 3,000 years ago, most likely out of dire need, since the climate wasn't conducive to growing much else. However, cattle breeders in East Africa also developed this ability—a fact often ignored by white supremacists…
It is true that those Northern Europeans' descendants now overwhelmingly retain the ability to consume milk, and many others do not, including a majority of their Southern peers. While up to 90 percent of Asian Americans and 79 percent of African Americans lack the enzyme to process lactose, it is by no means a mark of inferiority. As historians have extensively shown, white culture is not the world's only dairy culture, nor has it always embraced milk. India, for one, currently produces and consumes more milk than any other country, while Americans increasingly don't meettheir federally recommended three cups a day.
But white supremacists' support for milk is grounded in symbolism as much as in (pseudo-)science. On this front, the argument has historical precedent. When milk first gained prominence in America, early dairy advocates extolled its virtues to the "Aryan" population,writes historian Melanie Dupuis. As President Herbert Hoover, giving a speech in 1923, told the World's Dairy Congress, "Upon this industry, more than any other of the food industries, depends not alone the problem of public health, but there depends upon it the very growth and virility of the white races."
Milk's "whiteness" is just one aspect of this mythology. Since its debut on this continent, the drink has been hailed by nutritionists as a "perfect food"—the sliced bread of the federal dietary guidelines. After milk was first fortified with Vitamin D in the 1930s, the federal government's inaugural public-health nutrition campaign promoted it as a miracle cure, a rite of passage, and, later, a means to support the troops in World Wars I and II, as outlined in anthropologist Andrea Wiley's book Re-Imagining Milk. (Drink your milk and your vitamins: American efficiency in action.)
In fact, the mechanisms supporting milk have not always been so wholesome. Many of the same organizations oversee the production and sale of dairy today as in 1915, when the country's most powerful dairy lobbying group, the National Dairy Council, first partnered with the United States Department of Agriculture…
They cite professor Freeman (see food oppression) and reference the malefic milky mayhem at the He Will Not Divide Us installation in NY in the following passage.
…when news emerged about white supremacy's latest symbol, Freeman was not surprised. "If you said, 'you like milk because you like your white privilege,' they would laugh in your face," she says. "But it's nothing new. It's 100 years old." Online, however, this symbolism is still a recent development: After the stunt at the art museum, the milk memes spread to chat rooms and Twitter, where Richard Spencer's bio once boasted that he was "very tolerant ... lactose-tolerant."
In these displays, Freeman sees a visible expression of institutionalized racism. "With milk, we have the USDA policy disproportionately affecting students of color, public school students, poor students, and that underlies and condones the white supremacist co-option of milk as a symbol of whiteness," she says. "So it's operating on all levels. Some of them are blatant and look ridiculous, but all they're doing is reflecting the institutionalized reality."
As the research on poverty and nutrition shows, many people have little control over their food consumption, due to a host of societal factors. Between the white supremacists championing milk and the activists forgoing it, the debate around milk remains, for some, a false choice.
Following the protest in New York, depictions of milk alongside white nationalism went viral. Figures affiliated with the alt-right, including Richard Spencer and Tim “Baked Alaska” Gionet, added milk emojis to their Twitter display names and the hashtag “#MilkTwitter” was used as a dumping ground for racist trolls. Later in 2017, Lucian Wintrich, a former correspondent for the right-wing news blog Gateway Pundit who has appeared on a white nationalist podcast, drank from a glass of milk as protesters heckled him during a speech.
These and other incidents have been described as evidence that some white supremacists are co-opting cow’s milk as a symbol of their belief that white people are wholesome and pure.
Right-wing news sites like Breitbart have mocked that suggestion. Those who noted milk’s popularity with white supremacists have been taunted as fools who fell for what was just a prank that was not meant to be taken seriously.
But whether or not the alt-right was indulging in a trolling exercise, some academics say these events are part of a murky history involving cow’s milk.
noted the dairy industry has long marketed milk as universally healthy, even though roughly 65 percent of the world’s population has a reduced ability after infancy to digest lactose found in unprocessed milk.
Lactose intolerance is complex and very difficult to measure, but several studies, including a 2010 report produced for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, have found that people of color are more likely to report symptoms of lactose intolerance.
A USDA spokesperson said the Special Milk Program allows substitutions to be made for children who cannot consume milk if a parent or guardian submits a request in writing. And the National Dairy Council (NDC), a lobbying group for the dairy industry, echoed that, saying that under the federal programs, schools will provide non-dairy milk substitutes to children who report trouble digesting milk.
However, the NDC spokesperson also suggested that more people can drink milk than some critics argue. “In American culture today, limited lactose digestion is common but variable among people of African-American, Hispanic, Asian and Native American descent, but not always a reason to avoid dairy foods,” the spokesperson told HuffPost.
The dairy industry has been pushing the idea of milk as an integral part of a healthy diet for a long time. In her book Nature’s Perfect Food: How Milk Became America’s Drink, sociologist Melanie Dupuis cites an NDC publication distributed in the 1920s that quotes a nutritionist saying, “People who have an appreciation for art, literature and music, who are progressive in science and every activity of human intellect are the people who have used liberal amounts of milk and its products.”
Dupuis’ book describes how the white beverage was symbolically linked in the early 20th century to white-skinned people, who were better able to digest it due to a genetic mutation known as lactase persistence. “By declaring milk perfect,” she wrote, “white northern Europeans announced their own perfection.”
The NDC declined to comment on industry marketing materials cited in the various studies. “Milk drinking is not just a practice of Western culture,” the spokesperson told HuffPost, “but a shared part of human existence around the world.”
Gambert stressed that her research should not be construed to insinuate that people who drink dairy milk are in any way racist or that milk itself is inherently bigoted. But the issues in milk’s history, she said, make its co-option as a symbol of white nationalism, whether ironic or not, all the more significant.
“Milk is different than other things, which may be more randomly chosen. There is the reality that milk has historical ties to being used in racist practices,” she said.
“There are those who find it funny to use milk as a symbol of white nationalism and tweet offensive content under the hashtag #milktwitter to provoke people,” said Gambert. “But saying it’s all a prank doesn’t mean that milk isn’t being used to support racist beliefs.”
‘A casual look at the races of people seems to show that those using much milk are the strongest physically and mentally, and the most enduring of the people of the world,’ wrote Hedrick, a botanist. ‘Of all races, the Aryans seem to have been the heaviest drinkers of milk and the greatest users of butter and cheese, a fact that may in part account for the quick and high development of this division of human beings.’
White supremacists have recently taken to celebrating this milk-based theory of eugenics as a means to mock the races they deem to be ‘inferior’. (Ah, yes, an inability to digest lactose – the truest sign of inferiority!) Two years ago, a few neo-Nazis shot a viral video of themselves chugging milk in front of He Will Not Divide Us (2017), an anti-Trump installation made by actor Shia LaBeouf with artists Luke Turner and Nastja Rönkkö. Later that year, the internet-infamous white supremacists Richard Spencer and Anthime ‘Baked Alaska’ Gionet put milk emojis in their Twitter profiles.
Did they realize how outlandish it is to predicate a supposed racial dominance on an enzyme? Probably not. But even so, throwing milkshakes onto far-right politicians has helped to invert these strange beliefs.
They are referring here to the cases of milkshaking at that time period.
Also see food oppression, He Will Not Divide Us, milkshaking.
milkshaking
If needed, first see the He Will Not Divide Us and/or milk sections.
In an article published by Frieze, May 31, 2019, they write that in the wake of the devious dairy display at the New York He Will Not Divide Us installation, they report,
the hashtag #SplashTheFash – referring to milkshaking ‘fascist’ politicos – has trended, and far-right politicians, for their part, have tried to work these ‘attacks’ into their larger narrative of the left’s supposed ‘anti-free speech’ ethos…
The whole thing seems like a wickedly dumb joke, the kind that gets funnier as it doubles down on its own dumbness. Yet, rather than just laughing and moving on from this objectively ridiculous notion of a milk-based genetic superiority, some on the left have tried to leverage it for their own political messaging. Late last year, the animal-rights campaign group PETA tweeted: ‘Cows’ milk has long been a symbol used by white supremacists. One more reason to #DitchDairy.’
This article necessarily implies that moderate figures like Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad), Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson deserve to be milkshaked because some white supremacists were using milk as a symbol of white supremacy. The author implies that milkshaking is preferable to discussion regarding lactose tolerance and genetics,
the notion that there’s a genuine milk-based political view which deserves to be grappled with only supports the ridiculous claims by white supremacists that their tolerance for milk is a form of racial superiority. Milkshaking has done well to bring the right-wing extremists back down to earth. It’s hard to think of someone – and, crucially, it’s hard for someone to think of themselves – as a superior species when they’re dripping in a sticky caramel-and-banana treat.
They write with glee that Nigel Farage was milkshaked, that Tommy Robinson was milkshaked twice and that Carl Benjamin was milkshaked four times.
In a few words, this is a term for colorblind multi-ethnic or racially diverse politics that are somehow racist and white in the rhetoric of, for example, Cristina Beltrán in her piece for the Washington Post Opinion: To understand Trump’s support, we must think in terms of multiracial Whiteness (Jan 15, 2021) [archive]. It seems to be a way to call Trump supporters racist and white when they are neither.
Tusitala "Tiny" Toese (a Samoan American from American Samoa) and “Based Trojan” AKA John Trujano AKA “Based Spartan” AKA Pat Washington (a Hispanic American from California). Like Enrique Tarrio, these men would be classified as being part of “multiracial whiteness”.
According to Beltrán, multiracial whiteness is the “phenomenon”, which “anyone can join”, of “the promise that” not just whites but also “non-White participants” of “White mob violence” can…
lay claim to the politics of aggression, exclusion and domination.
She writes furthermore…
Rooted in America’s ugly history of white supremacy, indigenous dispossession and anti-blackness, multiracial whiteness is an ideology invested in the unequal distribution of land, wealth, power and privilege — a form of hierarchy in which the standing of one section of the population is premised on the debasement of others. Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.
Multiracial whiteness promises Latino Trump supporters freedom from the politics of diversity and recognition. For voters who see the very act of acknowledging one’s racial identity as itself racist, the politics of multiracial whiteness reinforces their desired approach to colorblind individualism. In the politics of multiracial whiteness, anyone can join the MAGA movement and engage in the wild freedom of unbridled rage and conspiracy theories.
Multiracial whiteness offers citizens of every background the freedom to call Muslims terrorists, demand that undocumented immigrants be rounded up and deported, deride BLM as a movement of thugs and criminals, and accuse Democrats of being blood-drinking pedophiles.
Here, the politics of exclusion, violence and demonization are available to all.
Yet, somehow, this inclusion of all is racist. She continues…
If you want to speak Spanish and celebrate a quinceañera in your family, go ahead. If you want to be a Proud Boy, be a Proud Boy. Trump doesn’t care. As long as you love him, he’ll love you.
Oh the horror! The racism! She stresses the importance of…
trying to prevent the politics of whiteness from becoming an increasingly multiracial affair.
As the Truth Troll, I can’t imagine being this on the nose with my sarcastic imitation of the far-left. Extremism is indistinguishable from parody of it (see the Law of Extremism & Parody).
If I weren’t so busy trembling with rage, I might feel a grudging admiration for an argument which is so profoundly, nay, ascendantly racist. It’s no small feat to simultaneously suggest that people of colour are (or at least should be) a political monolith, that whiteness is an unalloyed expression of evil, and that the only way people of colour could ever think in a way she doesn’t approve of is if deep down, they aren’t people of colour at all…
…That’s right. In the same breath as she condemns the politics of exclusion and demonization, Cristina courageously demonizes these people by conflating their views with the very worst of Trump’s supporters. She then excludes them from their racial identity as punishment. Breathtaking. It’s worth noting that she describes one of the organisers of the “Stop the Steal” movement as “identifying” as Black and Arab, rather than being Black and Arab. Perhaps if that uppity “multiracial white” steps back in line, she’ll give him back the rights to his ancestry…
…I’m just happy to see people of colour being infantilised and marginalised in this way. Surely we can all agree that the best way to treat those with differing opinions isn’t to focus on our common ground and try to understand each other but to discard them not only politically, but racially. By erasing the identity of everybody we disagree with, we can ensure that people of colour become the homogenous mass of groupthink Cristina imagines us to be…
Douglas Murray referred to “multiracial whiteness” as…
a way to explain how ethnic minorities might have voted for the republican candidate. In these settings, in which you could get black-white people, though not white-black people, it becomes clear that “black” and “white” had simply become synonyms for “good” and “bad.”
The National Lawyers Guild or NLG is a far-left legal organization that provides pro bono legal aid or antifa and other for extreme/militant left-wing individuals and causes according to Andy Ngo in Unmasked - Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy, 2021 (pages 35 & 168). Ngo writes that the “far-left” Oregon Justice Resource Center
takes cases representing antifa and far-left clients
and that one of their attorneys, Juan Chavez is a prominent member of the NLG (page 59). He also writes about the NLG, on pages 59-60, that it is
a legal group with historic ties to the Communist Party. It has chapters across the United States. The organization formally declared support for antifa and political violence in a statement on its website in 2017: “While many abhor tactics that involve violence, historical evidence shows that direct action has contributed to shutting down fascist movements before they gain too much power or influence.” [Ngo’s footnote 119; Traci Yoder, “Legal Support for Anti-Fascist Action.”] In effect, the NLG is the legal arm of antifa. Its 2016 nonprofit tax form shows it pulled in over $711,000. [Ngo’s footnote 120; Influence Watch, “National Lawyers Guild.”] The NLG executive director, Pooja Gehi, identifies as an anarchist. The organization provides green hat-wearing “legal observers” at left-wing riots and protests. Even before COVID-19, they frequently hid their identities by wearing masks. The volunteers appear to be neutral legal observers, but in fact they are only there to record out-of-context video to use in lawsuits against police or their political opponents. They do not film antifa.
Also see lawfare, Civil Liberties Defence Center, Jail Support
newspeak
As the so-called “woke left”, or “progressive left”, or “politically correctness”, “intersectionalism”, “identity politics” and so on metastasizes through the social body it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between the real thing and parody of it. One pathway through which this malignancy spreads is language.
Ever prescient about these things, George Orwell warned us about the top-down bastardization of language with the intent of warping the minds of the populace in service to those at the top. He was able to do so by observing how totalitarian regimes work (something he did far more intently than most) and by extrapolating from there.
In the fictional story 1984 by George Orwell, to serve their agenda, those in power impose new terms in what is called Newspeak to replace terms in English, or what is called Oldspeak that have the potential to be what some today call problematic. As the official language, Newspeak is carefully designed to condition people to think how and what those in power want them to think.
Oldspeak ranges from informal speech, which might be frowned upon, to forbidden speech, which is be reported to the Thought Police. In 1984, as in real life, the use of old, naturally evolving speech versus new, artificially imposed speech delineates friend from foe. It is the difference between those who are sufficiently submissive to Big Brother and those who harbor ownlife or individualism and are thus a threat to the homogeneity of the herd. In other words, those who use too much Oldspeak and not enough Newspeak are looked at with suspicion or accused of being agents of the enemy in much the same way that people in real life who use ‘problematic’ speech or hate speech are suspected or accused of being racist, transphobic, ableist, alt-right adjacent, or even alt-right, far-right, fascist, and so on.
Orwell warned of the use of language to manipulate and control people. He saw this play out in his own time and warned us of how this might be applied in the future. Writing in 1948, he set his story in 1984 which is roughly when politically correct language was first pushed into the public sphere and used to discriminate between the politically correct and the politically incorrect.
In real life, as in 1984, the real nuts and bolts work of changing language is conducted in some specialized department or bureau in academia and/or government. At the Ministry of Truth (which is the government’s propaganda department), the main character, Winston Smith, whose job it is to alter the archives of past news reports, is told by a comrade named Syme, who is part of a team working on the new edition of the Newspeak dictionary,
‘We’re getting the language into its final shape—the shape it’s going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we’ve finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again.
A single invented term in Newspeak is meant to replace multiple terms in Oldspeak. This results in a decrease in the number of words one can speak. So, as in real life, new politically correct terms are literally created but, speaking figuratively, Syme goes on to say,
You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We’re destroying words—scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We’re cutting the language down to the bone. The Eleventh Edition won’t contain a single word that will become obsolete before the year 2050.’…
‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words…
Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.
A sort of vapid eagerness flitted across Winston’s face at the mention of Big Brother. Nevertheless Syme immediately detected a certain lack of enthusiasm.
In the story, such a thing, if taken too far, could be reported to the authorities. Failure to display an acceptable facial expression is called facecrime. As I write this entry at the end of 2022, we are seeing precursors to the idea that people must show outer expressions of their enthusiastic acceptance (internalization) of the official (uni)party line. Below is an example.
Soon we will see more and more examples of people being vilified for having the wrong facial expressions with regard to political matters. Back to the story,
‘You haven’t a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,’ he said almost sadly. ‘Even when you write it you’re still thinking in Oldspeak. I’ve read some of those pieces that you write in ‘The Times’ occasionally. They’re good enough, but they’re translations. In your heart you’d prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words…
‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it…Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that…‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?’…
‘By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like ‘freedom is slavery’ when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.’
In the appendix to 1984, Orwell writes,
The Principles of Newspeak
Newspeak was the official language…and had been devised to meet…ideological needs...It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or Standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050. Meanwhile it gained ground steadily, all Party members tending to use Newspeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech…
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought…should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words…Newspeak was designed not to extend but to DIMINISH the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum…In Newspeak it was seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the perception that it WAS heretical: beyond that point the necessary words were nonexistent.
Hence, we see all the positions on the wide range of the political compass - outside of the narrow extreme authoritarian left - reduced to the narrow term/concept “far right”.
The appendix continues,
…a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgement should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying forth bullets. His training fitted him to do this, the language gave him an almost foolproof instrument…
So did the fact of having very few words to choose from…Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought. Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all.
In 1984, Newspeak was imposed via incrementalism, that is, by steps. In real life, the term ‘crippled’ was replaced by ‘handicapped’ which was replaced by ‘disabled’ which is being replaced by ‘differently abled’. To use the term ‘disabled’ is to be looked upon with suspicion. To use ‘handicapped’ or ‘crippled’ is to engage in ableism which is bad because it marginalizes differently abled people by placing them lower than others on an ableist hierarchy.
The imposition of politically correct language upon the public began decades ago and continues to this day with no sign of abating ever.
A recent example of this newspeak agenda comes from Stanford University in the form of their “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative”, published on December 19, 2022 which describes itself as such…
The goal of the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is to eliminate* many forms of harmful language, including racist, violent, and biased (e.g., disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, sexual bias) language in Stanford websites and code.
The purpose of this website is to educate people about the possible impact of the words we use. Language affects different people in different ways. We are not attempting to assign levels of harm to the terms on this site. We also are not attempting to address all informal uses of language.
This website focuses on potentially harmful terms used in the United States, starting with a list of everyday language and terminology.** Our "suggested alternatives" are in line with those used by peer institutions and within the technology community.***
They issue the following infantilizing message in large bold lettering…
Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace.
They then provide their list of language categories. Each item on the list expands to include an explanation and a table of harmful terms, suggested replacements and to provide some context. For example, under ‘Ableist’ they write,
Ableist language is language that is offensive to people who live with disabilities and/or devalues people who live with disabilities. The unintentional use of such terms furthers the belief that people who live with disabilities are abnormal.
Beneath that they list terms such as ‘handicapped parking’ which they replace with ‘accessible parking’ and comment,
Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with disabilities
One would think that a term like ‘paraplegic’ would not be considered ‘problematic’ or indicative of wrongthink, but they do and want you to instead say,
person with a spinal cord injury, person who is paralyzed
Why one is better or worse than the other is a mystery left unsolved. They offer context but it is of no help. In fact, it raises more questions. They claim the term ‘paraplegic’…
generalizes a population of people while also implying that people with disabilities are not capable.
Notice that they are using the now politically incorrect term ‘disabilities’ rather than ‘different abilities’. Whoopsie! Notice also that they state that it is somehow wrong to acknowledge that some people, such as paraplegics, are not capable of some things, such as walking. They do not explain how or why it is wrong, however.
In their opinion piece about this, the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal wrote,
“Gangbusters” is banned because the index says it “invokes the notion of police action against ‘gangs’ in a positive light, which may have racial undertones.” Not to beat a dead horse (a phrase that the index says “normalizes violence against animals”), but you used to have to get a graduate degree in the humanities to write something that stupid.
The caption for this image in the Daily Mail article is captioned, “Some of the phrases and words that Stanford now thinks are too offensive to be used anymore”
Here’s a couple of examples from the Daily Mail’s article,
The site also suggests replacing 'Karen' with 'demanding or entitled White woman', while a 'child prostitute' could be changed to a 'child who has been trafficked'.
Here’s an other example. They want you to stop using the term ‘trigger warning’ (because it could trigger someone) and to replace it with the term ‘content note’ because, they say, the term ‘trigger warning’ might give a person stress about whatever it is they want to be warned about.
Notice that they are defeating the purpose of issuing a trigger warning. As I tweeted to them…
It’s almost as if there is an agenda to render Western society weak, helpless, pathetic, ignorant and easily conquered intellectually, economically and militarily (see military, woke in The Culture War Encyclopedia). One could argue that entities such as the CCP or the FBI use things like Tik Tok or Twitter intentionally to influence Western people to be more 'woke' and hence weaker, less rational, more emotional, depressed, less likely to have healthy families. But leaving aside the question of whether such organizations could have the competency to succeed in such efforts, it may be that no such conspiring would be necessary anyway.
This may be unconscious. It seems fair to say that fields such as psychology establish that the subconscious mind can apparently orchestrate situations that take one by surprise and that one must deal with involuntarily. It seems as if our own subconscious mind can conspire against us and subvert our conscious will. It seems that this happens on the scale of societies as well.
At any rate, whatever the conscious intentions involved may be and however honest or duplicitous they may be, such efforts to implement such Newspeak are misguided at best. Some would say they are bound to be disastrous. That’s not to say it can’t be funny. For lots of laughs, see the Newspeak terms derived from such efforts as Stanford University's Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative and others that can be found throughout The Culture War Encyclopedia.
Some people have a gender which is neither male nor female and may identify as both male and female at one time, as different genders at different times, as no gender at all, or dispute the very idea of only two genders. The umbrella terms for such genders are genderqueer' or non-binary' genders. Such gender identities outside of the binary of female and male are increasingly being recognized in legal, medical and psychological systems and diagnostic classifications in line with the emerging presence and advocacy of these groups of people.
Also see genderqueer.
nonhuman animals
A redundant way to indicate animals. See critical animal studies.
George Orwell was the pen name of Eric Arthur Blair. His dystopian novels Animal Farm (published 1944) and 1984 (published 1949) were very influential in the culture war. Blair was deeply committed to opposing totalitarianism. He opposed the Nazis as did his fellow English, but he actually went to Spain, picked up a gun and helped to fight against the Spanish Fascist army in the Spanish Civil War. He was willing to take a bullet for his convictions and he did, literally and figuratively. He was shot in the neck.
He was willing to become unpopular among his peers. They, and he, were leftists. But, in a time when other leftists, and indeed the general public praised Stalin and his regime, Blair/Orwell was honest enough to publicly expose the dark secrets about the horrors occuring behind the Iron Curtain that were being whispered about by a few investigative reporters but that no one wanted to believe were true.
…he insisted on telling people precisely what they did not want to hear…
The man is trying to make it harder for a politocian to fool enough of the people enough of the time to gain power.
- Russel Baker in the preface to the Signet Classics edition of Animal Farm (1996)
Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly indirectly against totalitarianism
See Orwellian, Orwellianism, Stalinization.
Orwellian
See Orwell, Orwellianism, Stalinization.
Orwellianism
See Orwell, Orwellian, Stalinization.
otherize
Pepe
performativity
political correctness
Political correctness can be said to serve 2 basic functions in accordance with the socio-political agendas of the authoritarian/collectivist left. Firstly, politically correct terms serve to separate members of the ingroup from members of the outgroup (to divide and conquer people); to set up an elite class of persons (sometimes referred to as woke, progressive or politically correct) who can easily divide people between ingroup and outgroup depending on what terms they use to refer to certain things.
Example: the term "cripple" was a perfectly acceptable term until some divisive people decided it was a bad word and that the term "handicapped" was the acceptable, politically correct term to use until that term was used too widely for their divisive desires and they implemented the term "disabled" so they can point the finger at people and call them politically incorrect until that term became too widely accepted and they introduced the term "differently abled". Once that term is widely used enough they will use a new term.
Secondly, as opposed to factual correctness, political correctness does not pertain to objective reality but rather to a false version of reality that politically correct people collectively agree to pretend to believe is reality. For example, it is politically correct to refer to male-to-female transgender people as women.
postmodernism
Postmodernism is a temporary trick for quasi-intellectuals. It may appear impenetrably advanced with it’s wooly pomposities and superfluous verbosity but even midwits who break it’s gold veneer find it’s full of shit. Those willing to dig in find a hollow center with no foundation.
With something as simple as a tin can, a chimpanzee can run around clanging it loudly, confusing others, convincing them that it has special advance powers allowing it to be king for a day. Soon enough, however, the others familiarize themselves with the mysterious power and come to find it is rather simple and hollow. The trick is revealed, the usurper’s crooked tin crown is removed, the pretender is dethroned, balance is restored.
Postmodernism relies on one cheap trick, using the fact that nothing is certain to fool people into thinking that nothing is real and therefore anyone can make up anything and say it is real. They just use a lot of jargon (like the chimp uses the clanging of the can) to hide the hollowness of its simple ruse. As people learn what postmodernism is, it's transparent lack of validity is revealed; yes, almost nothing can be known for sure, but this does not change the fact that some things are more certain than others. If you run an experiment 99 times and get the same results each time, you can not be sure that the 100th times will be the same, but you can be more sure that it will be than that it won’t be.
Postmodernists try to blow smoke to fuzz-over any focus on repeatability, reliability, probability. They’d rather your thinking be too cloudy for such a clear cut reason.
In his book, The Madness of Crowds - Gender, Race and Identity (2019), particularly in his introduction, Douglas Murray addresses the postmodern condition of today’s society.
We are going through a great crowd derangement. In public and in private, both online and off, people are behaving in ways that are increasingly irrational, feverish, herd-like and simply unpleasant. The daily news cycle is filled with the consequences. Yet while we see the symptoms everywhere, we do not see the causes.
Various explanations have been given. These tend to suggest that any and all madnesses are the consequences of a presidential election, or a referendum. But none of these explanations gets to the root of what is happening. For far beneath these day-to-day events are much greater movements and much bigger events. It is time we began to confront the true causes of what is going wrong.
Even the origin of this condition is rarely acknowledged. This is the simple fact that we have been living through a period of more than a quarter century in which all of our grand narratives have collapsed. One by one the narratives we had were refuted, became unpopular to defend or impossible to sustain. The explanations for our existence that used to be provided by religion went first, falling away from the nineteenth century onwards. Then over the last century the secular hopes held out by all political ideologies began to follow in religion's wake. In the latter part of the twentieth century we entered the postmodern era. An era which defined itself, and was defined, by its suspicion towards all grand narratives. However, as all schoolchildren learn, nature abhors a vacuum, and into the postmodern vacuum new ideas began to creep, with the intention of providing explanations and meanings of their own.
It was inevitable that some pitch would be made for the deserted ground. People in wealthy Western democracies today could not simply remain the first people in recorded history to have absolutely no explanation for what we are doing here, and no story to give live purpose. Whatever else they lacked, the grand narratives of the past at least gave life meaning. The question of what exactly we are meant to do now - other than get rich where we can and have whatever fun is on offer - was going to have to be answered by something.
The answer that has presented itself in recent years is to engage in new battles, ever fiercer campaigns and even more niche demands. To find meaning by waging a constant war against anybody who seems to be on the wrong side of a question which may itself have just been reframed and the answer to which has only just been altered. The unbelievable speed of this process has been principally caused by the fact that a handful of businesses in Silicon Valley (notably Google, Twitter and Facebook) now have the power to just direct what most people in the world know, think and say, but have a business model which has accurately been described as relying on finding ‘customers ready to pay to modify someone else’s behavior’. Yet although we are being aggravated by a tech world which is running faster than our legs are able to carry us to keep up with it, these wars are not being fought aimlessly. They are consistently being fought in a particular direction. And that direction has a purpose that is vast. The purpose - unknowing in some people, deliberate in others - is to embed a new metaphysics into our societies: a new religion if you will.
Although the foundation had been laid out for several decades, it is only since the financial crash of 2008 that there has been a march into the mainstream of ideas that were previously known solely on the obscurest fringes of academia. The attractions of this new set of beliefs are obvious enough. It is not clear why a generation which can't accumulate capital should have any great love of capitalism. And it isn't hard to work out why a generation who believe they may never own a home could be attracted to an ideological world view which promises to sort out every inequity not just in their own lives but every inequity on earth. The interpretation of the world through the lens of 'social justice', 'identity group politics' and 'intersectionalism' is probably the most audacious and comprehensive effort since the end of the Cold War at creating a new ideology.
To date 'social justice' has run the furthest because it sounds - and in some versions is - attractive. Even the term itself is set up to be anti-oppositional. 'You're opposed to social justice? What do you want, social injustice?'
'Identity politics', meanwhile, has become the place where social justice finds its caucuses. It atomizes society into different interest groups according to sex (or gender), race, sexual prefernce and more. It presumes that such characteristics are the main, or only, relevant attribute of their holders and they bring with them some added bonus. For example (as the American writer Coleman Hughes has put it), the assumption that there is 'a heightened moral knowledge' that comes with being black or female or gay.' It is the cause of the propensity of people to start questions or statements with 'Speaking as a . . .'. And it is something that people both living and dead need to be on the right side of. It is why there are calls to pull down the status of historical figures viewed as being on the wrong side and it is why there are calls to pull down the statue of historical figures viewed as being on the wrong side and why the past needs to be rewritten for anyone you wish to save. It is why it has become perfectly normal for a Sinn Fein senator to claim that the IRA hunger strikers in 1981 were striking for gay rights. Identity politics is where minority groups are encouraged to simultaneously atomize, organize and pronounce.
The least attractive-sounding of this trinity is the concept of ‘intersectionality’. This is the invitation to spend the rest of our lives attempting to work out each and every identity and vulnerability claim in ourselves and others and then organize along whichever system of justice emerges from the perpetually moving hierarchy which we uncover. It is a system that is not just unworkable but dementing, making demands that are impossible towards ends that are unachievable. But today intersectionality has broken out from the social science departments of the liberal arts colleges from which it originated. It is now taken seriously by a generation of young people and – as we shall see – has become embedded via employment law (specifically through a ‘commitment to diversity’) in all the major corporations and governments.
New heuristics have been required to force people to ingest the new presumptions. The speed at which they have been mainstreamed is staggering. As the mathematician and writer Eric Weinstein has pointed out (and as a Google Books search shows), phrases like ‘LGBTQ’, ‘white privilege’ and ‘transphobia’ went from not being used at all to becoming mainstream. As he wrote about the graph that results from this, the ‘woke stuff’ that Millennials and others are presently using ‘to tear apart millennia of oppression and /or civilization . . . was all made up about 20 minutes ago’. As he went on, while there is nothing wrong with trying out new ideas and phrases, ‘you have to be pretty damn reckless to be leaning this hard on so many untested heuristics your parents came up with in untested fields that aren’t even 50 years old’. Similarly, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt have pointed out (in their 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind) how new the means of policing and enforcing these new heuristics have become. Phrases like ‘triggered’ and ‘feeling unsafe’ and claims that words that do not fit the new religion cause ‘harm’ only really started to spike in usage from 2013 onwards. It is as though, having worked out what it wanted, the new metaphysics took a further half-decade to work out how to intimidate its followers into the mainstream. But it has done so, with huge success.
The results can be seen in every day’s news. It is behind the news that the American Psychological Association feels the need to advise its members on how to train harmful ‘traditional masculinity’ out of boys and men. It is why a previously completely unknown programmer at Google – James Damore – can be sacked for writing a memo suggesting that some jobs in tech appeal more to men than they do to women. And it is why the number of Americans who view racism as a ‘big problem’ doubled between 2011 and 2017.
Having begun to view everything through the new lenses we have been provided with, everything is then weaponized, with consequences which are deranged as well as dementing. It is why The New York Times decides to run a piece by a black author with the title: ‘Can my Children be Friends with White People?’ And why even a piece about cycling deaths in London written by a woman can be framed through the headline: ‘Roads Designed by Men are Killing Women’. Such rhetoric exacerbates any existing divisions and each time creates a number of new ones. And for what purpose? Rather than showing how we can all get along better, the lessons of the last decade appear to be exacerbating a sense that in fact we aren’t very good at living with each other.
For most people some awareness of this new system of values has become clear not so much by trial as by very public error. Because one thing that everybody has begun to at least sense in recent years is that a set of tripwires have been laid across the culture. Whether placed by individuals, collectives or some divine satirist, there they have been waiting for one person after another to walk into them. Sometimes a person’s foot has unwittingly nicked the tripwire and they have been immediately blown up. On other occasions people have watched some brave madman walking straight into the no man’s land, fully aware of what they were doing. After each resulting detonation there is some disputation (including the occasional ‘coo’ of admiration) and then the world moves on, accepting that another victim has been notched up to the odd, apparently improvisatory value system of our time.
It took a little while for the delineation of these tripwires to become clear, but they are clear now. Among the first was anything to do with homosexuality. In the latter half of the twentieth century there was a fight for gay equality which was tremendously successful, reversing terrible historic injustice. Then, the war having been won, it became clear that it wasn’t stopping. Indeed it was morphing. GLB (Gay, Lesbian, Bi) became LGB so as not to diminish the visibility of lesbians. Then a T got added (of which much more anon). Then a Q and then some stars and asterisks. And as the gay alphabet grew, so something changed within the movement. It began to behave – in victory – as its opponents once did. When the boot was on the other foot something ugly happened. A decade ago almost nobody was supportive of gay marriage. Even gay rights groups like Stonewall weren’t in favour of it. A few years down the road and it has been made into a foundational value of modern liberalism. To fail the gay marriage issue – only years after almost everybody failed it (including gay rights groups) – was to put yourself beyond the pale. People may agree with that rights claim, or disagree, but to shift mores so fast needs to be done with extraordinary sensitivity and some deep thought. Yet we seem content to steam past, engaging in neither.
Instead, other issues followed a similar pattern. Women’s rights had – like gay rights – been steadily accumulated throughout the twentieth century. They too appeared to be arriving at some sort of settlement. Then just as the train appeared to be reaching its desired destination it suddenly picked up steam and went crashing off down the tracks and into the distance. What had been barely disputed until yesterday became a cause to destroy someone’s life today. Whole careers were scattered and strewn as the train careered along its path.
Careers like that of the 72-year-old Nobel Prize-winning Professor Tim Hunt were destroyed after one lame joke, at a conference in South Korea, about men and women falling in love in the lab. Phrases such as ‘toxic masculinity’ entered into common use. What was the virtue of making relations between the sexes so fraught that the male half of the species could be treated as though it was cancerous? Or the development of the idea that men had no right to talk about the female sex? Why, when women had broken through more glass ceilings than at any time in history, did talk of ‘the patriarchy’ and ‘mansplaining’ seep out of the feminist fringes and into the heart of places like the Australian Senate?
In a similar fashion the civil rights movement in America, which had started in order to right the most appalling of all historic wrongs, looked like it was moving towards some hoped-for resolution.But yet again, near the point of victory everything seemed to sour. Just as things appeared better than ever before, the rhetoric began to suggest that things had never been worse. Suddenly – after most of us had hoped it had become a non-issue – everything seemed to have become about race. As with all the other tripwire issues, only a fool or a madman would think of even speculating – let alone disputing – this turnaround of events.
Then finally we all stumbled, baffled, into the most unchartered territory of all. This was the claim that there lived among us a considerable number of people who were in the wrong bodies and that as a consequence what certainties remained in our societies (including certainties rooted in science and language) needed to be utterly reframed. In some ways the debate around the trans question is the most suggestive of all. Although the newest of the rights questions also affects by far the fewest number of people, it is nevertheless fought over with an almost unequalled ferocity and rage. Women who have got on the wrong side of the issue have been hounded by people who used to be men. Parents who voice what was common belief until yesterday have their fitness to be parents questioned. In the UK and elsewhere the police make calls on people who will not concede that men can be women (and vice versa).
Among the things these issues all have in common is that they have started as legitimate human rights campaigns. This is why they have come so far. But at some point all went through the crash barrier. Not content with being equal, they have started to settle on unsustainable positions such as ‘better’. Some might counter that the aim is simply to spend a certain amount of time on ‘better’ in order to level the historical playing field. In the wake of the #MeToo movement it became common to hear such sentiments. As one CNN presenter said, ‘There might be an over-correction, but that’s OK. We’re due for a correction.’ To date nobody has suggested when over-correction might have been achieved or who might be trusted to announce it.
What everyone does know are the things that people will be called if their foot even nicks against these freshly laid tripwires. ‘Bigot’, ‘homophobe’, ‘sexist’, ‘misogynist’, ‘racist’ and ‘transphobe’ are just for starters. The rights fights of our time have centred around these toxic and explosive issues. But in the process these rights issues have moved from being a product of a system to being the foundations of a new one. To demonstrate affiliation with the system people must prove their credentials and their commitment. How might somebody demonstrate virtue in this new world? By being ‘anti-racist’, clearly. By being an ‘ally’ to LGBT people, obviously. By stressing how ardent your desire is – whether you are a man or a woman – to bring down the patriarchy.
And this creates an auditioning problem, where public avowals of loyalty to the system must be volubly made whether there is a need for them or not. It is an extension of a well-known problem in liberalism which has been recognized even among those who did once fight a noble fight. It is a tendency identified by the late Australian political philosopher Kenneth Minogue as ‘St George in retirement’ syndrome. After slaying the dragon the brave warrior finds himself stalking the land looking for still more glorious fights. He needs his dragons. Eventually, after tiring himself out in pursuit of ever-smaller dragons he may eventually even be found swinging his sword at thin air, imagining it to contain dragons. If that is a temptation for an actual St George, imagine what a person might do who is no saint, owns no horse or lance and is being noticed by nobody. How might they try to persuade people that, given the historic chance, they too would without question have slain that dragon?
In the claims and supporting rhetoric quoted throughout this book there is a good deal of this in evidence. Our public life is now dense with people desperate to man the barricades long after the revolution is over. Either because they mistake the barricades for home, or because they have no other home to go to. In each case a demonstration of virtue demands an overstating of the problem, which then causes an amplification of the problem.
But there is more trouble in all of this, and it is the reason why I take each of the bases of these new metaphysics not just seriously but one by one. With each of these issues an increasing number of people, having the law on their side, pretend that both their issue and indeed all these issues are shut down and agreed upon. The case is very much otherwise. The nature of what is meant to be agreed upon cannot in fact be agreed upon. Each of these issues is infinitely more complex and unstable than our societies are currently willing to admit. Which is why, put together as the foundation blocks of a new morality and metaphysics, they form the basis for a general madness. Indeed a more unstable basis for social harmony could hardly be imagined.
For while racial equality, minority rights and women’s rights are among the best products of liberalism, they make the most destabilizing foundations. Attempting to make them the foundation is like turning a bar stool upside down and then trying to balance on top of it. The products of the system cannot reproduce the stability of the system that produced them. If for no other reason than that each of these issues is a deeply unstable component in itself. We present each as agreed upon and settled. Yet while the endless contradictions, fabrications and fantasies within each are visible to all, identifying them is not just discouraged but literally policed. And so we are asked to agree to things which we cannot believe.
It is the central cause of the ugliness of both online and real-life discussion. For we are being asked to perform a set of leaps and jumps which we cannot, and are perhaps ill-advised to make. We are asked to believe things that are unbelievable and being told not to object to things (such as giving children drugs to stop them going through puberty) which most people feel a strong objection to. The pain that comes from being expected to remain silent on some important matters and perform impossible leaps on others is tremendous, not least because the problems (including the internal contradictions) are so evident. As anyone who has lived under totalitarianism can attest, there is something demeaning and eventually soul-destroying about being expected to go along with claims you do not believe to be true and cannot hold to be true. If the belief is that all people should be regarded as having equal value and be accorded equal dignity, then that may be all well and good. If you are asked to believe that there are no differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality, men and women, racism and anti-racism, then this will in time drive you to distraction. That distraction – or crowd madness – is something we are in the middle of and something we need to try to find our way out from.
If we fail, then the direction of travel is already clear. We face not just a future of ever-greater atomization, rage and violence, but a future in which the possibility of a backlash against all rights advances – including the good ones – grows more likely. A future in which racism is responded to with racism, denigration based on gender is responded to with denigration based on gender. At some stage of humiliation there is simply no reason for majority groups not to play games back that have worked so well on themselves.
This book suggests a number of ways out of this. But the best way to start is not just to understand the basis of what is going on at the moment but to be free to discuss it. While writing this book, I discovered that the British Army has a mine-clearing device now named ‘The Python’, but in an earlier design it was known as ‘The Giant Viper’. When this trailer-mounted system is fired at a minefield it unleashes a rocket, behind which unfurls a hose-like trail hundreds of metres long and all packed with explosives. Once the whole thing is lying across the minefield (and like everything else you can see videos of this online), it causes what is called ‘sympathetic detonation’. That is, the whole thing explodes, setting off the mines within a significant radius of the rocket and its tail. Although it cannot clear the entire minefield, it can clear a path across the minefield, allowing other people, trucks and even tanks to travel safely across what was previously impassable terrain.
In my own modest way I think of this book as my Viper system. I do not aim to clear the whole minefield and could not, even if I wished to. But I hope that this book will help clear some terrain across which afterwards other people may more safely pass.
principles over power
The following is from page 16 of The Madness of Crowds - Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray (2019).
The manner in which people and movements behave at the point of victory can be the most revealing thing about them. Do you allow arguments that worked for you to work for others? Are reciprocity and tolerance principles or fig-leaves? Do those who have been censored go on to censor others when the ability is in their own hands?
problematic
“A vogue term of the new Left” as Christopher Hitchens calls it in Why Orwell Matters, problematic is used to characterize that which undermines the left in a way that would further undermine the left if it were accurately described.
It is often contained, in whole or in part, within books with titles like The Jewish Peril - The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and with introductions that claim that The Protocols was a real manuscript written by Jews for Jews and so on. It is an attempt to confirm anti-Semitic views and the belief is that Jews are racist against everyone else and conspire to rule over everyone else.
In other words, it is a hate hoax1. As hate hoaxes go, this one is unique. I know of no other hate hoaxes that involve forged manuscripts. Also, it is a hate hoax that is a fakery of one kind of racism but which is motivated by real racism of an other kind. Also, it is a hate hoax that Hitler helped to perpetuate. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum states…
Despite these repeated exposures of the Protocols as a fraud, it remains the most influential antisemitic text of the past one hundred years, and it continues to appeal to a variety of antisemitic individuals and groups.
Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the US in the 1920s.
…and that…
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis publicized the text as if it were a valid document, although it had already been exposed as fraudulent. After the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, it ordered the text to be studied in German classrooms. The historian Norman Cohn suggested that Hitler used the Protocols as his primary justification for initiating the Holocaust—his “warrant for genocide”.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum states…
Nazi Party ideologue Alfred Rosenberg introduced Hitler to the Protocols during the early 1920s, as Hitler was developing his worldview. Hitler referred to the Protocols in some of his early political speeches, and, throughout his career, he exploited the myth that "Jewish-Bolshevists" were conspiring to control the world.
During the 1920s and 1930s, TheProtocolsof the Elders of Zion played an important part in the Nazis' propaganda arsenal. The Nazi party published at least 23 editions of the Protocols between 1919 and 1939. Following the Nazis' seizure of power in 1933, some schools used the Protocols to indoctrinate students.
Historian Robert Gellately writes in Lenin, Stalin and Hitler - The age of Social Catastrophe (pages 68-68)…
The accusation that the Jews were behind the Russian Revolution which was part of a larger conspiracy to win control of the world, was common currency among
…the anti-communist armies of the Russian Civil War…
Although the notorious forgery TheProtocolsof the Elders of Zion appeared well before 1914, it was popularized in Russia during the civil war…the theory was that the Jews were behind the Russian Revolution…The murder of the royal family helped to turn the TheProtocolsof the Elders of Zion into a publishing success…New forgeries updated the conspiracy charges. These “revealing documents” had aftereffects, and not just in Russia. They were widely published in German and found a ready audience on the right-wing fringes where conspiracy theories linked Jews to the disastrous end of
…World War I…
and the rise of Communism…the nefarious role of the Jews was beyond dispute. The catchwords circulating in the Donbass ran as follows: “Beat the Jews and save Russia,” or “Death to the Jews and Communists,” and “Jews and Russians, Get out of Ukraine.”
Gellately writes (page 99) that refugees from Russia from the anti-communist side who fled West brought TheProtocols with them to Germany.
On August 12, 1921, Hitler first referred to the “Wise men of Zion” in a speech and did so again a week later. He internalized the theory completely and took it as fact. Reception for TheProtocolsof the Elders of Zion was prepared by news flooding out of Russia about the revolution and the terror. Newspapers covered the story widely.
He writes furthermore (page 534) that Hitler…
and Goebbels had long been convinced by TheProtocolsof the Elders of Zion and now spent fruitless hours trying to figure out how their knowledge of the supposed international conspiracy could be turned to political advantage.
For more than a century, the fabricated text “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” has advanced a persistent anti-Semitic trope: that Jews are plotting to take over the world. From Hitler to Henry Ford, rabid anti-Semites have long shared the notorious text.
fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for anti-Semitism mainly in the early 20th century. The document purported to be a report of a series of 24 (in other versions, 27) meetings held at Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, at the time of the first Zionist congress. There Jews and Freemasons were said to have made plans to disrupt Christian civilization and erect a world state under their joint rule. Liberalism and socialism were to be the means of subverting Christendom; if subversion failed, all the capitals of Europe were to be sabotaged.
The Protocols were printed in Russia in abbreviated form in 1903 in the newspaper Znamia (“Banner”) and subsequently (1905) as an addendum to a religious tract by Serge Nilus, a tsarist civil servant. They were translated into German, French, English, and other European languages and soon came to be a classic of anti-Semitic literature. In the United States Henry Ford’s private newspaper, Dearborn Independent, often cited them as evidence of a Jewish threat.
The spurious character of the Protocols was first revealed in 1921 by Philip Graves of The Times (London), who demonstrated their obvious resemblance to a satire on Napoleon III by the French lawyer Maurice Joly, published in 1864 and entitled Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (“Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”).
The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum specifies that the Times of London did more than show a resemblance; they…
confirmed that the Protocols had been copied in large part
..from Joly’s work and that…
Other investigations revealed that one chapter of a Prussian novel, Hermann Goedsche's Biarritz (1868), also "inspired" the Protocols.
Subsequent investigation, particularly by the Russian historian Vladimir Burtsev, revealed that the Protocols were forgeriescompounded by officials of the Russian secret police out of the satire of Joly, a fantastic novel (Biarritz) by Hermann Goedsche (1868), and other sources.
In 1935, a Swiss court fined two Nazi leaders for circulating a German-language edition of the Protocols in Berne, Switzerland. The presiding justice at the trial declared the Protocols "libelous," "obvious forgeries," and "ridiculous nonsense."
The US Senate issued a report in 1964 declaring that the Protocols were "fabricated." The Senate called the contents of the Protocols "gibberish" and criticized those who "peddled" the Protocols for using the same propaganda technique as Hitler.
Die Geheimnisse der Weisen von Zion or “The Secrets of the Wise Men of Zion is the first documented version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion published outside of Russia. Published in Charlottenburg, Germany, 1920.” Source: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
The Protocols stands out as both one of the most malicious forgeries in history—“an atrocity-producing narrative”—and the most widely distributed forgery in the world. Soon after publication, believers translated its “revelations” about an international Jewish conspiracy to enslave mankind into dozens of languages and spread the text from its Russian foyer to the...
The Protocols is a text that operates at several historical and psychological levels simultaneously. Most important, it is a malevolent expression of anti-Semitic rage. Jews in this text become cunning monsters scheming to take over the world. At this level, the Protocols fit into a long tradition of hatred against Europe’s designated victim, though the text should be privileged for its role in helping to shape Nazi justification for policies that led to the Holocaust. Read today, however, the Protocols is so banal that one wonders how it captured the imagination of so many readers.
Though this was revealed to be a hoax long ago, the hoax is repeated in different times and places. It reappeared in Japan in the 1980s where it was sold as if it were real. It was included in Palestinian school text books in the early 2000s to fool students and influence them to hate Jews. Moreover, according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum..
Many school textbooks throughout the Arab and Islamic world teach the Protocols as fact. Countless political speeches, editorials, and even children's cartoons are derived from the Protocols. In 2002, Egypt's government-sponsored television aired a miniseries based on the Protocols, an event condemned by the US State Department. The Palestinian organization Hamas draws in part on the Protocols to justify its terrorism against Israeli civilians.
Here’s an example of a book available now, as I write this, titled, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion The Great in the Small & Antichrist that claims that the document was a real and plan by “crypto-Jew revolutionaries” to set up a “Jewish dictatorship.” It claims the Russian Revolution and communism “with its torturous massacres of innocent people, its monstrous gulag concentration camp” was carried out by “masonic Jews” using the Protocols as an instruction manual to set up a “Jewish dictatorship,” the U.S.S.R.
The entire world witnessed horrors that were a direct result of the heinous prescriptions laid out earlier in the Protocols. Find out how the Protocols are still being worked in our day and how our freedoms, even our very lives, are in jeopardy.
A web search will show you that there is no shortage of such examples. It will continue to appear and to be believed as long as people hate Jews. We learn from history that we do not learn from history.
punk
pureblood
A pureblood in the era of covidiots is one who remains unpolluted by the harmful injections that are not vaccines but are called vaccines by those who profit from selling poison as medicine.
the dictionary’s definition of race is incomplete and misses the complexity of impact on lived experiences. It is important to acknowledge race is a social fabrication, created to classify people on the arbitrary basis of skin color and other physical features. Although race has no genetic or scientific basis, the concept of race is important and consequential. Societies use race to establish and justify systems of power, privilege, disenfranchisement, and oppression...
In 2019 the AAPA (American Association of Physical Anthropologists) released a Statement on Race and Racism in which they write…
race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations. Humans are not divided biologically into distinct continental types or racial genetic clusters. Instead, the Western concept of race must be understood as a classification system that emerged from, and in support of, European colonialism, oppression, and discrimination. It thus does not have its roots in biological reality, but in policies of discrimination. Because of that, over the last five centuries, race has become a social reality that structures societies and how we experience the world. In this regard, race is real, as is racism, and both have real biological consequences.
Humans share the vast majority (99.9%) of our DNA in common. Individuals nevertheless exhibit substantial genetic and phenotypic variability. Genome/environment interactions, local and regional biological changes through time, and genetic exchange among populations have produced the biological diversity we see in humans today. Notably, variants are not distributed across our species in a manner that maps clearly onto socially-recognized racial groups. This is true even for aspects of human variation that we frequently emphasize in discussions of race, such as facial features, skin color and hair type. No group of people is, or ever has been, biologically homogeneous or “pure.” Furthermore, human populations are not — and never have been — biologically discrete, truly isolated, or fixed.
While race does not accurately represent the patterns of human biological diversity, an abundance of scientific research demonstrates that racism, prejudice against someone because of their race and a belief in the inherent superiority and inferiority of different racial groups, affects our biology, health, and well-being. This means that race, while not a scientifically accurate biological concept, can have important biological consequences because of the effects of racism. The belief in races as a natural aspect of human biology and the institutional and structural inequities (racism) that have emerged in tandem with such beliefs in European colonial contexts are among the most damaging elements in human societies.
I would suggest that one questions whether or not it is true that the concept of race was invented by European colonialists and that one ask oneself what might motivate the authors to make such an intelligence-insulting and racist claim. Since it should take only a moment's thought to realize just how absurd and racist this claim is, one might be inclined to think that the authors are hoping that you, the reader, are extremely stupid or at least willing to go along with the lies.
Furthermore, notice that their argument that race doesn't exist because there are no distinct separations between people of different genetic origin with different physical attributes as there are between different animal species is parallel to the argument that colors do not exist because there are no distinct separations between them. It should not take much thought to realize that humans and smart animals will naturally notice differences between things and people such as skin tone. In fact, to fail to notice such things indicates a lack of intelligence since intelligence involves the ability to perceive patterns. Due to different environmental conditions in different regions of the world separated by large distances, glaciers, oceans, and so on, people developed different traits such as different skin pigmentation to better adapt to their environment. To deny these realities is either dishonest, irrational or just plain stupid.
It is also not hard to imagine that in the past, with less interbreeding, the differences between people of what we call different “races” would have seemed less fluid. In such times one might believe religious claims about why some people have darker skin and so on. One might think we are different species or subspecies. According to current science, we humans living today are all of the same subspecies – Homo sapiens sapiens with different varieties.
The details were not all accurate but the basic idea is – that humans with different genetic origins tend to display different traits depending on those origins – is perfectly valid.
race realism
racial hoax
racial identity
One's racial identity is imposed externally upon the individual by society as well as internally constructed by the individual according to the Smithsonian, which writes, furthermore...
Understanding how our identities and experiences have been shaped by race is vital. We are all awarded certain privileges and or disadvantages because of our race whether or not we are conscious of it.
They propose developmental models of this identity…
Many sociologists and psychologists have identified that there are similar patterns every individual goes through when recognizing their racial identity. While these patterns help us understand the link between race and identity, creating one’s racial identity is a fluid and nonlinear process that varies for every person and group.
Think of these categories of Racial Identity Development [PDF] [archive] as stations along a journey of the continual evolution of your racial identity. Your personal experiences, family, community, workplaces, the aging process, and political and social events – all play a role in understanding our own racial identity. During this process, people move between a desire to "fit in" to dominant norms, to a questioning of one's own identity and that of others. It includes feelings of confusion and often introspection, as well as moments of celebration of self and others. You may begin at any point on this chart and move in any direction – sometimes on the same day! Recognizing the station you are in helps you understand who you are.
First coined by Pierce in 1970, the term refers to “subtle, stunning, often automatic, and non-verbal exchanges which are ‘put downs’” (Pierce, Carew, Pierce-Gonzalez, & Willis, 1978, p. 66). Racial microaggressions have also been described as “subtle insults (verbal, non-verbal, and/or visual) directed toward people of color, often automatically or unconsciously” (Solo´rzano et al., 2000). Simply stated, microaggressions are brief, everyday ex-changes that send denigrating messages to people of color because they belong to a racial minority group.
(Source: course syllabus for Culture & Mental Health, Summer 2016, University of Oregon, "adapted from Alicia Ibaraki, 2014")
refers to the beliefs, attitudes, and actions of individuals that support or perpetuate racism in conscious and unconscious ways. The U.S. cultural narrative about racism typically focuses on individual racism and fails to recognize systemic racism. Examples include believing in the superiority of white people, not hiring a person of color because “something doesn’t feel right,” or telling a racist joke.
discriminatory treatments, unfair policies, or biased practices based on race that result in inequitable outcomes for whites over people of color and extend considerably beyond prejudice. These institutional policies often never mention any racial group, but the intent is to create advantages.
Example: A school system where students of color are more frequently distributed into the most crowded classrooms and underfunded schools and out of higher-resourced schools.
When people of a nondominant group (people of color) are discriminated against, targeted or oppressed over time, they often believe the myths and misinformation about their group. Known as internalized racism, it happens when an oppressed group believes the racial views that society communicated are true, and they act as if they were true.
The following is an opinion piece for the New York Times, Can My Children Be Friends With White People? by By Ekow N. Yankah, November 11, 2017 (archived here).
My oldest son, wrestling with a 4-year-old’s happy struggles, is trying to clarify how many people can be his best friend. “My best friends are you and Mama and my brother and …” But even a child’s joy is not immune to this ominous political period. This summer’s images of violence in Charlottesville, Va., prompted an array of questions. “Some people hate others because they are different,” I offer, lamely. A childish but distinct panic enters his voice. “But I’m not different.”
It is impossible to convey the mixture of heartbreak and fear I feel for him. Donald Trump’s election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped. I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.
Meaningful friendship is not just a feeling. It is not simply being able to share a beer. Real friendship is impossible without the ability to trust others, without knowing that your well-being is important to them. The desire to create, maintain or wield power over others destroys the possibility of friendship. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous dream of black and white children holding hands was a dream precisely because he realized that in Alabama, conditions of dominance made real friendship between white and black people impossible.
History has provided little reason for people of color to trust white people in this way, and these recent months have put in the starkest relief the contempt with which the country measures the value of racial minorities. America is transfixed on the opioid epidemic among white Americans (who often get hooked after being overprescribed painkillers — while studies show that doctors underprescribe pain medication for African-Americans). But when black lives were struck by addiction, we cordoned off minority communities with the police and threw away an entire generation of black and Hispanic men.
Likewise, despite centuries of exclusion and robust evidence of continuing racism, minority underemployment is often couched in the language of bad choices and personal responsibility. When systemic joblessness strikes swaths of white America, we get an entire presidential campaign centered on globalization’s impact on the white working class. Even the nerve of some rich or visible African-Americans to protest that America, in its laws and in its police, has rarely been just to all has been met with the howls of a president who cannot tolerate that the lucky and the uppity do not stay in their place.
As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. When they ask, I will teach my sons that their beautiful hue is a fault line. Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside. I first have to keep my boys safe, and so I will teach them before the world shows them this particular brand of rending, violent, often fatal betrayal.
Let me assure you that my heartbreak dwarfs my anger. I grew up in a classic Midwestern college town. With all its American faults, it was a diverse and happy-childhood kind of place, slightly dull in the way that parents wish for their children. If race showed in class lines, school cliques and being pulled over more often, our little Americana lacked the deep racial tension and mistrust that seem so hard to escape now.
What’s surprising is that I am heartbroken at all. It is only for African-Americans who grew up in such a place that watching Mr. Trump is so disorienting. For many weary minorities, the ridiculous thing was thinking friendship was possible in the first place. It hurts only if you believed friendship could bridge the racial gorge.
Of course, the rise of this president has broken bonds on all sides. But for people of color the stakes are different. Imagining we can now be friends across this political line is asking us to ignore our safety and that of our children, to abandon personal regard and self-worth. Only white people can cordon off Mr. Trump’s political meaning, ignore the “unpleasantness” from a position of safety. His election and the year that has followed have fixed the awful thought in my mind too familiar to black Americans: “You can’t trust these people.”
It is not Mr. Trump himself who has done this. Were it not for our reverence for money, Mr. Trump would be easily recognized as the simple-minded, vulgar, bigoted blowhard he is. It is certainly not the neo-Nazis marching on Charlottesville; we have seen their type before. Rather, what has truly broken my heart are the ranks of Mr. Trump’s many allies and apologists.
Mr. Trump’s supporters are practiced at purposeful blindness. That his political life started with denying, without evidence, that Barack Obama is American — that this black man could truly be the legitimate president — is simply ignored. So, too, is his history of housing discrimination, his casual conflation of Muslims with terrorists, his reducing Mexican-Americans to murderers and rapists. All along, his allies have watched racial pornography, describing black America as pathological. Yet they deny that there is any malice whatsoever in his words and actions. And they dismiss any attempt to recognize the danger of his wide-ranging animus as political correctness.
But the deepest rift is with the apologists, the “good” Trump voters, the white people who understand that Mr. Trump says “unfortunate” things but support him because they like what he says on jobs and taxes. They bristle at the accusation that they supported racism, insisting they had to ignore Mr. Trump’s ugliness. Relying on everyday decency as a shield, they are befuddled at the chill that now separates them from black people in their offices and social circles. They protest: Have they ever said anything racist? Don’t they shovel the sidewalk of the new black neighbors? Surely, they say, politics — a single vote — does not mean we can’t be friends.
I do not write this with liberal condescension or glee. My heart is unbearably heavy when I assure you we cannot be friends.
The same is true, unfortunately, of those who hold no quarter for Mr. Trump but insist that black people need to do the reaching out, the moderating, the accommodating. Imagine the white friend during the civil rights era who disliked blacks’ being beaten to death but wished the whole thing would just settle down. However likable, you could not properly describe her as a friend. Sometimes politics makes demands on the soul.
Don’t misunderstand: White Trump supporters and people of color can like one another. But real friendship? Mr. Trump’s bruised ego invents outrageous claims of voter fraud, not caring that this rhetoric was built upon dogs and water hoses set on black children and even today the relentless effort to silence black voices. His macho talk about “law and order” does not keep communities safe and threatens the very bodies of the little boys I love. No amount of shoveled snow makes it all right, and too many imagine they can have it both ways. It is this desperation to reap the rewards of white power without being so much as indicted that James Baldwin recognized as America’s criminal innocence.
For African-Americans, race has become a proxy not just for politics but also for decency. White faces are swept together, ominous anxiety behind every chance encounter at the airport or smiling white cashier. If they are not clearly allies, they will seem unsafe to me.
Barack Obama’s farewell address encouraged us to reach across partisan lines. But there is a difference between disagreeing over taxes and negotiating one’s place in America, the bodies of your children, your humanity. Our racial wound has undone love and families, and ignoring the depths of the gash will not cause it to heal.
We can still all pretend we are friends. If meaningful civic friendship is impossible, we can make do with mere civility — sharing drinks and watching the game. Indeed, even in Donald Trump’s America, I have not given up on being friends with all white people. My bi-ethnic wife, my most trusted friend, understands she is seen as a white woman, even though her brother and father are not. Among my dearest friends, the wedding party and children’s godparents variety, many are white. But these are the friends who have marched in protest, rushed to airports to protest the president’s travel ban, people who have shared the risks required by strength and decency.
There is hope, though. Implicitly, without meaning to, Mr. Trump asks us if this is the best we can do. It falls to us to do better. We cannot agree on our politics, but we can declare that we stand beside one another against cheap attack and devaluation; that we live together and not simply beside one another. In the coming years, when my boys ask again their questions about who can be their best friend, I pray for a more hopeful answer.
Douglas Murray writes on page 24 of The Madness of Criwds - Gender, Race and Identity (2019),
Perhaps in order to right a wrong (in the hope that the see-saw will at some point arrive at the right position is impossible to tell. Because like everything else, we are making all this up as we go along.
racism, unconscious
radical feminism
Radical feminism is one of the two movements upon which critical race theory is based and to which it “owes a large debt” while the other is Critical Legal Studies and also draws from other sources mentioned by and according to Delgado and Stefancic in Critical Race Theory An Introduction, p. 5 (3rd Edition).
range of identitarians vs individuals
This is a political map representing the range of relevant diversity (diversity of views) and ignoring irrelevant diversity (skin color, sex, etc.). This is a model of my own recent devising which, I admit, may be flawed. I invite the reader to give me their criticisms of it.
The horizontal dimension represents difference so that the wider the horizontal space within the triangle, the more differences there are. At it’s widest point, there are only individual people.
At it’s most narrow point, people lack individuality. On this end, there is the KKK, BLM, Nazism, communism, fascism, white nationalism, black nationalism, feminists, transgender activists, and so on.
In this model, white/cisgendeer/hetero bigots on one “side” and non-white/transgender/non-hetero bigots on the other “side” are all identitarians who engage in identity politics. In my model, these two “sides” that are usually thought of as opposite are collapsed into the same point of the scale, the most narrow point of the triangle, that is, the point of minimal diversity.
People on this end of the scale are so narrow minded that they can only see slight superficial differences (skin color, sex, etc.) and not the huge differences (in viewpoints) that actually matter.
red-pilled
The red-pilled meme, derived from The Matrix films pertains to the process of becoming what some have called woke. As in the films, the idea behind the meme is that one can choose to wake up from an illusury world view by taking the red pill or choose to remain in the illusion by taking the blue pill.
Though the idea was not originally meant to be politically partisan, it has become, for many, synonymous with switching from the left-wing (which in the USA is associated with the Democrat party which is associated with the color blue), to the right-wing/the Republican party which is associated with red.
Of course, some left-wingers will be offended by the view that to be left-wing is to be plugged into the matrix, to be blue-pilled, to be asleep, and that to awaken, to take the red pill, to unplug from the matrix, is to become right-wing.
One of the two creators of the Matrix films, Lilly Wochowski reacted in a way some would say was ironicly deluded and others would say was appropriately woke.
The tweet comes as Musk takes an increasingly anti-government stance against the ongoing coronavirus lockdown in California.
The virus crisis has forced the shutdown of his Tesla plant in Fremont on March 23, prompting the CEO to file a lawsuit against Alameda County.
In a tweet announcing the lawsuit, Musk slammed county health officials as "unelected and ignorant" and accused them of "acting contrary to our Constitutional freedoms."
"Give people their freedom back!" Musk said, followed by a retweet of a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled Do Lockdowns Save Many Lives? In Most Places, the Data Say No.
Let us not forget that the lockdowns began under the presidency of Ivanka. Note also that one of the creators of the Matrix films is angry at the use of the red-pill idea from the films by a man who took a stance against governmental oppression and media propaganda. Is this ironic? Hypocritical? Deluded? It hardly seems sane to think that agreeing with government-imposed violation of human rights and with the propaganda machine brought to you by the drug companies who profit from their so-called ‘vaccines’ is akin to taking the red pill and unplugging from the matrix and that to think for yourself, question authority is akin to taking the blue pill and staying in the matrix. How is it possible that one of the main creators of the films that center around the idea of unplugging from the illusion imposed upon oneself manage to get this so wrong?
The term “regressive left” applies to people/groups/views/policies that claim to be left/liberal but which actually oppose liberal principles; freedom and equality.
Maajid Nawaz (a self-professed liberal) coined the term “regressive left” as a liberal criticism of the illiberal left. According to Nawaz, the regressive left, for example, has…
an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry that can occur within minority communities...for the sake of political correctness.
Sam Harris has called the regressive left…
pseudo-liberals who are so blinded by identity politics that...rather than protect individual women, apostates, intellectuals, cartoonists, novelists, and true liberals from the intolerance of religious imbeciles, they protect these theocrats from criticism.
Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher and others in the media were now using the term “regressive left” to refer to anyone who is (or claims to be) left/liberal who actually counters liberal principles.
A classical example of a regressive left position would be the view that because it offends a minority group, it should be illegal to draw cartoon representations of Mohamed, the founder of Islam. In much the same way, political correctness in general is regressive left as is critical (race) theory, identity politics, 3rd wave (intersectional) feminism, people who think that so-called “hate speech” should be illegal, Antifa, BLM, and the Democrat party.
“resegregation” is mentioned by Delgado and Stefancic in Critical Race Theory An Introduction, (3rd Edition), on page 7. They write, “scholars in the field of education” who “consider themselves critical race theorists” “urge attention to the resegregation of American schools.” They do not explain any further. [source: Critical Race Theory An Introduction by Delgado and Stefancic, p. 7 (3rd Edition)]
A riot grrl would be a woman (adult female human) who might, for example, sing in a kick-ass independent punk group but then marry a man who, by the standards of the sort of the 3rd wave feminist ethos she espoused in her lyrics, got rich off misogynistic, sexist and politically incorrect lyrics like, "I'll ride with you if you can get me to the border. The sheriff's after me for what I did to his daughter, I did her like this. I did her like that. I did her with a wiffle ball bat, so..." and settle down with him in economically elite lower Manhattan.
Kathleen Hannah and Adam Horovitz (Ad-rock of the Beastie Boys).
Such a woman may, or may not admit to grifting as a popular conformist girl in high school to fit in…
When Hanna's family arrived on the west coast, she studied the groups at school and copied, down to the last hair pin, the most popular girls' style. Looking back, she calls it a "social experiment", although at the time it was more like survival. "Kids can be really mean, and when you move in the middle of sixth grade, you'd better get ready to take some shit." She began wearing "Ralph Lauren sweaters and these certain kinds of bangles and made friends who were like that. And I remember hating them and thinking they were ridiculous, but I just wanted to prove that I could do it."
If she was conformist at school, Hanna was starting to find her own style more at home. She began writing poetry…
Such a woman (see here) would almost surely be white, liberal, to have “studied photography” or some other liberal arts and to have been “convinced she would become an artist of some kind” or otherwise become employed using her elitist liberal arts social sciences “education”.
Images source: New York times Style Magazine. Captioned: “Live photos from the early days of Bikini Kill, featuring (clockwise from left) the singer-songwriter Kathleen Hanna, the drummer Tobi Vail and Hanna with the bassist Kathi Wilcox. CreditClockwise from left: Allison Wolfe; Bikini Kill Records (2)”
The following piece, Women shun cycling because of safety, not helmet hair - Roads designed by men are killing women – and stop millions from cycling by Helen Pidd (published by The Guardian, June 13, 2018, archived here) seems to presume sexism; it implies that women who cycle are in danger cycling along roads because of sexism against them. But the author does not even begin to attempt to establish the truth of her implication. She does, however, highlight statistics that suggest that men are better at cycling than women are because they have less accidents.
t will come as little surprise to anyone who cycles that twice as many men as women ride their bikes at least once a week, according to research from Sustrans, the cycling and walking charity. Almost three-quarters of women living in seven major UK cities never cycle for local journeys, the study found. Despite this, over two-thirds said their home town would be a better place if more people pedalled. Some 76% of women who already cycled or wanted to start said segregated lanes would help them to cycle more.
As a woman who cycles, I am often asked why so few others follow suit. Is it because of helmet hair? Or the bottom-amplifying effects of Lycra? There’s no doubt that women generally feel more pressure to look presentable than men. And although I’m rarely troubled by saddle sores, I find the logistics of cycling to work a right pain in the bum: the skanky showers, the outfit changes, the struggle to find somewhere discreet to plug in a hairdryer. And yes, I know that everyone in the Netherlands rides in their ordinary clothes, but I live in Stockport and work in Manchester: would you like to sit next to me unwashed after I’ve ridden 10 miles?
The main reason most women don’t cycle in the UK is because they think it is dangerous. You can tell them until the cows come home that the roads are statistically safe, and that you are more likely to be killed walking than on a bicycle. But when they sit on the top deck of a bus and look down to see a cyclist squashed up against the kerb they feel no compulsion whatsoever to join them. Women do seem to be more vulnerable, perhaps because they are often more reluctant to “own” the lane and so end up in the gutter: 10 out of 13 cyclists killed in London in 2009 were women, and eight of them were killed by left-turning HGVs, according to the campaign group Cycling UK.
Xavier Brice, at Sustrans, believes city planners are to blame. “Fifty-one per cent of the UK population is female, yet most of our cities are failing to design roads and streets for women to cycle,” he says. It cannot help that women remain under-represented among the transport planners and engineers who design our streets. And most council leaders, who decide how to spend the transport budget, are men.
Take Manchester, which has been ruled for more than 20 years by Richard Leese, the council leader. He cycles but was always lukewarm on segregated cycle lanes, say local campaigners. His view, they say, was that smoother tarmac was the answer: if only they could find the cash to fill in all the potholes then more people would saddle up. When new infrastructure was proposed he was against it if it threatened traffic flows.
Recently Leese has changed his tune: a nasty scare after getting his wheel stuck in the tram tracks may or may not have sped up his conversion. He now has an Olympic champion on his case too, after Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester’s mayor, appointed Chris Boardman to be its first cycling and walking commissioner. In his first interview after getting the job last year Boardman told me even he no longer felt safe riding on UK streets. Now we have a developing network of segregated lanes in Greater Manchester, with Boardman due to announce more by the end of the month. I regularly ride along one of them, which goes through the university and hospital districts, and am often struck by how many women I see. On Tuesday I took a Mobike to interview students at Manchester Met and was pleased to see a nurse fly by in her blue uniform, perhaps late for a shift at the infirmary.
Until very recently I took a slightly quicker route home, bombing along main roads. Then I got knocked off by someone who didn’t bother looking before he opened his door. I was unhurt, and will not appear in the cycling safety statistics. But when women tell me cycling is too dangerous I can’t, in good conscience, persuade them otherwise.
sexism, institutional
sexual orientation microaggression
shadilay
S.J.W.
Silverman, Sarah
In The War on the West, in Douglas Murray reminds us of what happened with Sarah Silverman back in 2017.
In February 2017, the comedian Sarah Silverman went out for her morning coffee. She was shocked to find signs on the pavement of what looked like an S with a line through the middle. Silverman promptly snapped a photo of the pavement and sent it out to her many millions of Twitter followers. "Is this an attempt at swastikas?" she asked. "Do neo-Nazis not have Google?"[30] But it turned out that illiterate neo-Nazis had not taken to the town's pavements to ineptly try to paint swastikas overnight. The signs on the ground were chalk markings made by construction workers identifying the areas in which they needed to do their job.
[Murray, Douglas, The War on the West (page 33), Broadside Books, 2022]
I’d like to point out that Sarah could have been joking. To this day, I still can’t tell for sure. However, she made other tweets (displayed below in chronological order) that strongly suggest that she was serious.
The following is quoted from The Madness of Crowds - Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray (2019), pages 2-3.
The interpretation of the world through the lens of 'social justice', 'identity group politics' and 'intersectionalism' is probably the most audacious and comprehensive effort since the end of the Cold War at creating a new ideology.
To date 'social justice' has run the furthest because it sounds - and in some versions is - attractive. Even the term itself is set up to be anti-oppositional. 'You're opposed to social justice? What do you want, social injustice?'
'Identity politics', meanwhile, has become the place where social justice finds its caucuses. It atomizes society into different interest groups according to sex (or gender), race, sexual prefernce and more. It presumes that such characteristics are the main, or only, relevant attribute of their holders and they bring with them some added bonus. For example (as the American writer Coleman Hughes has put it), the assumption that there is 'a heightened moral knowledge' that comes with being black or female or gay.' It is the cause of the propensity of people to start questions or statements with 'Speaking as a . . .'. And it is something that people both living and dead need to be on the right side of. It is why there are calls to pull down the status of historical figures viewed as being on the wrong side and it is why there are calls to pull down the statue of historical figures viewed as being on the wrong side and why the past needs to be rewritten for anyone you wish to save. It is why it has become perfectly normal for a Sinn Fein senator to claim that the IRA hunger strikers in 1981 were striking for gay rights. Identity politics is where minority groups are encouraged to simultaneously atomize, organize and pronounce.
social liberalism
social liberalism refers to the view that all adults of all colors and both sexes should have equal rights; equality under the law. Some people refer to this as classical liberalism. It is important to understands that these terms can have very different meanings to different people. What some refer to as social liberalism others refer to as libertarianism. Still others refer to libertarianism as fascism but to be fair, these people are rather few in number and don't base this view on anything other than a fundamental misunderstanding and/or a gross distortion of libertarianism.
socialism
social justice
SPLC
stalinisation
See stalinization.
stalinization
In the culture war, the term stalinization (or stalinisation) refers to such things as the alteration/erasure of past records, books, films, to unpersoning and so on. In political science, stalinization is much more specific. The technical definition is,
noun - social process of adopting (or being forced to adopt) the policies and practices of Joseph Stalin
“many Hungarians refused to take part in the Stalinization of their country”
In Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984, as in the U.S.S.R., people sometimes disappeared and records of their existance were erased. Books, films, records, documents, even photos were erased or altered.
This is somewhat different than the literal, virtual or figurative book burning by the Nazis and others which is a proud and public act. In the culture war, stalinization is meant to be subtle or secret and those carrying it out may deny the change. The term is also applied to the removal of classical or traditonal things to appease politcal correctneness. The song Baby It’s Cold Outside is a much beloved Christmas classic and it went away from some Christmas song rotations recent years or deconstructed to be more politically correct. It was not a secret but it was also not some grand spectacle.
“Words matter,” begins the discreet notice, which sits at the bottom of the copyright page of Puffin’s latest editions of Roald Dahl’s books. “The wonderful words of Roald Dahl can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to the most marvellous characters. This book was written many years ago, and so we regularly review the language to ensure that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today.”
Put simply: these may not be the words Dahl wrote. The publishers have given themselves licence to edit the writer as they see fit, chopping, altering and adding where necessary to bring his books in line with contemporary sensibilities. By comparing the latest editions with earlier versions of the texts, The Telegraph has found hundreds of changes to Dahl’s stories.
Language related to weight, mental health, violence, gender and race has been cut and rewritten. Remember the Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach? They are now the Cloud-People. The Small Foxes in Fantastic Mr Fox are now female. In Matilda, a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane Austen added. It’s Roald Dahl, but different.
Dahl, who died in 1990, is one of the most successful children’s authors of all time.
…
More than 250 million copies of his books, which include novels such as The Witches, The Twits and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, as well as his memoirs Boy and Going Solo, have been sold worldwide. His stories are characterised by dark humour and unexpected twists.
…
In recent years Dahl has been criticised for anti-Semitism, misogyny and racism.
The modern editor of Dahl faces a dilemma: how to retain Dahl’s compelling spikiness, which has enthralled generations of readers, while bringing it in line with the hair-trigger sensitivities of children’s publishing.
Puffin’s overhaul is the result. While there have been tweaks before, there has never been an alteration on this scale. Take The Witches, for example, Dahl’s memorably unpleasant 1983 novel about a young boy growing up in a world ruled by a coven of secretive witches.
…
Unsurprisingly given The Witches’ subject matter, many of the edits are to do with depictions of women. “Chambermaid” becomes “cleaner”. “Great flock of ladies” becomes “great group of ladies”. “You must be mad, woman!” becomes “You must be out of your mind!” “The old hag” becomes “the old crow”.
“A witch is always a woman”, went the 2001 version of the book. “I do not wish to speak badly about women. Most women are lovely. But the fact remains that all witches are women. There is no such thing as a male witch.” That became, simply, “A witch is always a woman. There is no such thing as a male witch.”
These edits mute the original sense. Elsewhere, changes give a new meaning, like the below:
The Witches doing their bit for women in STEM.
Other alterations are about weight. “Fat little brown mouse” becomes “little brown mouse”. “‘Here’s your little boy,’ she said. ‘He needs to go on a diet’”, becomes “Here’s your little boy.”
In the earlier version, the narrator exclaims: “‘But what about the rest of the world?’ I cried. ‘What about ‘America and France and Holland and Germany? And what about Norway?’”. Now the sentence about America and France and Holland and Germany has been cut. The ‘rest of the world’ is evidently bigger now than it was.
This is only a sample of 59 changes found in The Witches, and it’s only one of Dahl’s books. Across the new editions, there are hundreds of edits, some bigger than others.
In Matilda, a passage where the heroine is learning about the escapist power of literature has changed:
Elsewhere, Miss Trunchbull’s “great horsey face” becomes simply her “face”. “Eight nutty little idiots” become “eight nutty little boys”.
Rather than “turning white,” a character turns “quite pale”, and in another example:
In James and the Giant Peach, the Cloud-Men have become Cloud-People, Miss Sponge is no longer “the fat one”, Miss Spider’s head is no longer “black” and the Earthworm no longer has “lovely pink” skin but “lovely smooth skin”. In The Twits, a “weird African language” is no longer weird, while Mrs Twit is no longer ugly and beastly but simply beastly. In the new version of George’s Marvellous Medicine, George’s exclamation changes to:
In Fantastic Mr Fox a description of tractors, saying that “the machines were both black”, has been cut. In the new Dahl world, it seems, neither machines nor animals can be described with a colour. Nor can anything be fat. “Bunce, the little pot-bellied dwarf”, is now plain old Bunce. The Small Foxes, previously sons, are now daughters, while Badger’s son has become a “little one”.
Even the harmless Esio Trot has not escaped. Tortoises no longer come “mostly from North Africa” but from “many different countries”. Perhaps more egregiously, given the story’s punning title: “Tortoises are very backward creatures. Therefore they can only understand words that are written backwards” has become simply: “They can only understand words that are written backwards”.
And so on. Hundreds of changes to some of the best-loved children’s books ever written. Even Quentin Blake’s illustrations do not make it through the sensitivity reading unscathed. Earlier editions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory include three sketches of Mike Teavee with 18 toy pistols “hanging from belts around his body”, but the guns have been scrubbed out by 2022, as well as a related sentence.
…
The rewriting of Dahl is part of a general trend for “sensitivity readings”, where books are screened before publication for material that might be upsetting. The practice began in children’s books, where it remains most pronounced. Anthony Horowitz, the bestselling author, recently talked about falling foul of the censor over a Native American character attacking someone with a scalpel.
Hundreds of words and meanings have been changed in Roald Dahl's best-loved books
“I made the changes, but I will confess they hurt,” Horowitz wrote in The Spectator. “It just feels wrong to be told what to write by an outside party, no matter how well-meaning.” Addressing the Hay Festival last year, Horowitz commented “children’s book publishers are more scared [of cancel culture] than anybody”.
Dahl has long been controversial. This is not the first time his books have changed to reflect contemporary mores, or around Hollywood interest. In the first edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (1964), the Oompa-Loompas were black pygmies, enslaved by Willy Wonka from “the deepest and darkest part of the African jungle” and paid in cocoa beans. Dahl rewrote the characters in the late 1960s to “de-Negro” them, in his words. For Mel Stuart’s 1971 film starring Gene Wilder, the Oompas became green-haired, orange-skinned figures. By a 1973 edition of the book, they had become “little fantasy creatures”.
But in recent years Dahl has become an increasingly divisive figure – not only accused of racism and misogyny, but anti-Semitism too. The latter was so apparent in his writing and private life that in 2020, the Dahl family issued an apology.
“The Dahl family and the Roald Dahl Story Company deeply apologise for the lasting and understandable hurt caused by some of Roald Dahl’s statements. Those prejudiced remarks are incomprehensible to us and stand in marked contrast to the man we knew and to the values at the heart of Roald Dahl’s stories, which have positively impacted young people for generations. We hope that, just as he did at his best, at his absolute worst, Roald Dahl can help remind us of the lasting impact of words.”
The Dahl estate owned the rights to the books until 2021, when Netflix bought them outright for a reported $686 million, building on an earlier rights deal. The American streaming service now has overall control over the book publishing, as well as various adaptation projects that are in the works. These are the first new editions since the deal, but the review began before the sale.
“The current review began in 2020, before Dahl was acquired by Netflix,” said a spokesperson for the Roald Dahl Story Company. “It was led by Puffin and Roald Dahl Story Company together.” (When approached for comment, Netflix directed The Telegraph back to Puffin.)
Puffin and the Roald Dahl Story Company made the latest changes in conjunction with Inclusive Minds, which its spokesperson describes as “a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion and accessibility in children’s literature”. Organisations such as Inclusive Minds have sprung up to help publishers navigate these newly choppy waters.
The 2001 and 2022 editions of Roald Dahl's books CREDIT: Jamie Lorriman
Alexandra Strick, a co-founder of Inclusive Minds, says they “aim to ensure authentic representation, by working closely with the book world and with those who have lived experience of any facet of diversity”. To do this, they call on a team of “Inclusion Ambassadors” with a variety of “lived experience”. She says they mostly work with authors writing now, but are sometimes asked to work on older texts.
“Occasionally, publishers approach us to consult Inclusion Ambassadors when looking to reprint older titles
…
those with lived experience can provide valuable input when it comes to reviewing language to help ensure that the stories can continue to be enjoyed by all children, so on occasions we work with publishers on classic texts.”
Some teachers argue it’s the children’s tastes that are changing. Scott Evans has been a primary school teacher for eight years and works at a school in South Wales, near Cardiff, where Dahl grew up. He runs a website, The Reader Teacher, and has worked as a sensitivity reader. “I understand the arguments some say about censorship and diminishing the author’s voice,” he says. “However, after recently re-reading some children’s books by Dahl, some language stood out as offensive while other terms have become outdated over time. Here, sensitivity readers can make suggested adaptations to make them more accessible to children.
“When you ask children and adults why they are drawn to Dahl’s books, it’s often the sense of rebellion within them that they mention,” he adds. “While maintaining this spirit in children’s books is essential and suppressing it entirely is not the answer either, it’s about making sure that the characters and content are mischievous, and not malicious, in their nature.”
…
“Some of the descriptions [in the books] are a bit problematic with some of the characters,” she acknowledges. Nevertheless, “people have said that about characters in the Harry Potter novels”, and there is a way of contextualising Dahl’s work.
…
“The process of editing often focused on individual words or particular expressions, as Dahl kept faith with some of the interwar slang of his childhood, and aspects of his vocabulary up to his death continued to recall the enthusiasms of English prep schoolboys. This was both natural to him and deliberate, and he resisted interference.
“His relationships with his editors included marked fractiousness on Dahl’s part,” he adds. “Overruling proposed word changes made by the American editor of The Witches, Stephen Roxburgh, Dahl wrote, ‘I don’t approve of some of your Americanisms. This is an English book with an English flavour and so it should remain.’”
When it came to children’s books, Dennison says Dahl didn’t care what adults thought as long as his target readers were happy. “‘I don’t give a b----r what grown-ups think,’ was a characteristic statement,” Dennison says. “And I’m almost certain that he would have recognised that alterations to his novels prompted by the political climate were driven by adults rather than children, and this always inspired derision, if not contempt, in Dahl.
“He never, for example, had any truck with librarians who criticised his books as too frightening, lacking moral role models, negative in their portrayal of women, etc,” he continues. “Dahl wrote stories intended to kindle in children a lifelong love of reading and to remind them of the childhood wonderlands of magic and enchantment, aims in which he succeeded triumphantly. Adult anxieties about political niceties didn’t register in this outlook. This said, although Dahl could be unabashed in offending adults, he took pains never to alienate or make unhappy his child readers.”
Dahl is only a prominent example of a growing trend in children’s publishing for content that nobody can find offensive. The latest editing sets Roald Dahl the brand, the property for which Netflix paid handsomely and which generates millions of pounds in revenue for Penguin Random House, Puffin’s parent company, against the words Roald Dahl put on the page. A cynic might say it is a way of protecting the golden goose. Words matter, especially on the bottom line.
When does harmless tweaking become over-meddling? How long before The Twits becomes The Twits of Theseus, unrecognisable from its original form? Which other children’s authors are in line for the big green pencil? The way publishing is going, the rewriting of Roald Dahl may only be the beginning.
They give many examples. Here are a few of the alterations were made in 2022. In The Twits,
The biological essentialist and binary phrase “ladies and gentelmen” has been changed to the more inclusive term “folks”, thank goodness! Oh, wait! ‘Goodness’ may be a white supremacist term now since things like objectivity and being punctual are supposed to be white and racist.
In the passage, “Have you ever seen a woman with an uglier face than that? I doubt it” the word “woman” has been replaced by has been changed to “anyone”.
The insensitive weight-challenged term “double chin” has been removed from “You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth”.
“Fatty” and “flabby” have been removed as have “ugly” and “frumptious freaks”.
The term “hag” has been replaced by “crow” multiple times.
“She was a prisoner” is now “She was stuck”.
Perhaps Brits can explain why “frumpet” has been changed to “frump” since neither of these words mean.
The word “weird” has been removed from “weird African language”.
“‘He’s balmy!’ ‘He’s batty!’ ‘He’s nutty!’ ‘He’s screwy!’” and “‘Poor old Muggles has gone off his wump at last!’” has been removed from, “He’s dotty!’ They cried. ‘He’s balmy!’ ‘He’s batty!’ ‘He’s nutty!’ ‘He’s screwy!’ ‘He’s wacky!’ Cried the Roly-Poly Bird. ‘Poor old Muggles has gone off his wump at last!’”
This term was coined and used by Justin Trouble in 2022, defined here on January 1, 2023.
As opposed to terrorism from, say, ISIS, which may involve blowing up a bus of passengers, street terrorism is the far more amateur and usually non-lethal use of terrorism in attempt to persuade people to meet demands. This may take the form of a riot. It may erupt from otherwise non-violent protests. Sometimes street terrorists like antifa show up to peaceful protests to attack peaceful protesters.7
Whereas foreign terrorists may film themselves beheading someone while shouting demands and whereas domestic terrorists might blow up civilians, a street terrorist is more likely to mace peaceful protesters in a park or damaging neighborhoods while spray painting demands on walls in front of news crews. It is important to know, however, that street terrorists have attacked disabled people8, elderly9, children10, engaged in arson11, tried to blow up or burn down buildings with people inside12, stabbed13, shot14 and killed people.15
is the overarching system of racial bias across institutions and society. These systems give privileges to white people resulting in disadvantages tp people of color.
To trigger a person is to stimulate part of an entire set of preconditioned responses that automatically stimulates the rest of that set of preconditioned responses. Example: if one refers to a media report as "fake news" this may trigger a set of responses from a woke person which may result in increased heart rate, flushed skin, anger, and a set of assumptions about the person using the term including that the person is racist, a Trump supporter, cishet, right wing and so on. Triggering depends on stereotypes held by those who are triggered. In our example, the triggered person is assuming that a person who uses that term fits the stereotype held by the triggered person about the people who use the term "fake news".
…False flags and black ops Tavistock manufactured shocks Something´s gone horribly wrong Hot flushes for the NeoCon A population in deep denial Contagion released from a vial
…I am the bias I am the virus I am the virus I am the Hydra-headed beast I am the worm you can never delete I am the dangers that never sleeps I am the virus I am the virus
vulnerable identities
Waters, Roger
Roger Waters is was a founding member of Pink Floyd until he split from the band in the 1980s. David Gilmour has been in the band since before the split. Roger Waters has always been (in)famously anti-war and against the treatment of Palestinians by Israel and allies. He weighed in on the side of peace with regards to the conflict of Ukraine vs Russia. As usual, those heavily invested in war criticize him, including his own ex-band member and his wife.
Whiteness and white racialized identity refer to the way that white people, their customs, culture, and beliefs operate as the standard by which all other groups of are compared. Whiteness is also at the core of understanding race in America. Whiteness and the normalization of white racial identity throughout America's history have created a culture where nonwhite persons are seen as inferior or abnormal.
Since white people in America hold most of the political, institutional, and economic power, they receive advantages that nonwhite groups do not. These benefits and advantages, of varying degrees, are known as white privilege. For many white people, this can be hard to hear, understand, or accept – but it is true. If you are white in America, you have benefited from the color of your skin.
This refers to those who call for the cancellation/censorship/resignation/deplatforming/destruction/etc. of people, products, shows, publications, monuments, video games, etc. that offend their woke sensibilities.
an adult who lives and identifies as male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth
They give the example…
•Mark is a trans man (= a man who was said to be female when they were born).
For woman, they give the example…
•She was the first trans woman elected to a national office.
As you may have noticed, they don’t say that a man is one who identifies as a man even if born a woman and don’t say that a woman is one who identifies as a woman even if born a man. They say that a man is one who identifies as a man and a woman is one who identifies as a woman regardless of which sex they were assigned at birth. They go so far as to give the example…
•mary is a woman who was assigned male at birth
This wording is intentional and serves an agenda. It is not just their way of saying “mary is a woman who was born male”. They are intentionally not saying that a baby is born male or female. They are intentionally saying that babies are considered to be male or female based on what sex they are assigned by the hospital. This seems like a jump to an unfounded and crazy conclusion.
There is a growing body of academic literature that argues that the view that babies are born male or female and that their sex is observed and recorded by the hospital is wrong. This wrong view is called biological essentialism. It is not just wrong. It’s transphobic and propagates hatred against the LBGTQIAO+ community, differently abled persons and women. Some of this literature was assigned reading for me as a student at a state university in 2016, a few months before a “historian of medicine” said that…
Basically it is not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex
…as part of an argument against freedom of speech in a now (in)famous discussion on Canadian TV.
In 2016 I was taking a psychology elective course at a state university. I was taught about biological essentialism. I was told that babies are not actually male or female, but that rather they are considered to be male or female and treated as if they are male or female by their family, teachers, doctors, peers and so on based on what is written on their birth certificate, based on what sex they were “assigned”.
The Cambridge dictionary presumed to dictate a change in the definitions of the word man and the word woman in alignment with the views of the progressive left, also known as the regressive left, the woke left and so on. It is safe to assume that it is only a matter of time when Merriam-Webster will change their definition of woman to conform to the view of that tiny group of ‘woke’ people, a radical elite. After all, They Changed the Definition of 'Vaccine'to conform to the wishes of another radical elite. One had reputation-smearing and riots as leverage and the other had power.
Despite what Cambridge or Merriam-Webster may bluff or bloviate, dictionaries carry no authority to determine how words are defined. They carry the responsibility of describing how words are defined by the majority of the people who use those words.
Let’s have the snake swallow it’s own tail for a moment here. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a dictionary as containing information about the meanings of words, not as something that decides what words mean. The Cambridge Dictionary defines a dictionary as something that contains words…
and explains their meanings
…rather than something that dictates their meanings. At any rate, it is we, the people who determine what the word dictionary means by the way we use the word.
Dictionaries do not decide what words mean. They do not prescribe. They describe. Otherwise, they are not dictionaries.
There was an unspoken agreement, a trust that institutions that call themselves dictionaries are to provide definitions of words as they are used by society. This agreement has been violated. Our trust has been betrayed.
In 1984 the main character was made to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 by ideologues. Orwell included this in the story to signify the way that ideologues force people to believe that nonsensical claims are true. Such a nonsensical claim might be that men can be female or that males can be women.
It’s more than harmless nonsense. It’s agenda-serving redefinition. Also in 1984, a comrade tells the main character about the latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary that he and other staff members are working on…
We’re destroying words…It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words…You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words…Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.
See biological essentialism.
womansplaining
This term seems to have been first used in the video series Womansplaining With Tabatha on the Youtube channel Justin Trouble.
Wuhan
According to the NIH, Wuhan, China is the location for the lab where “gain-of-function research” for bat coronaviruses was conducted, thanks to funding from the NIH itself according to reports. Yes, the American tax payer funded the research that went into developing the bio-weapon they used to violate our human rights.
The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China’s Wuhan lab — despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.
In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance — the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab — for not being transparent about the work it was doing.
NIH’s principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, wrote in the letter that EcoHealth’s “limited experiment” tested whether “spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.”
NIH’s principal deputy director Lawrence A. Tabak blamed a New York City-based nonprofit for not being transparent about the work it was doing in China.
AFP via Getty Images
The lab mice infected with the modified virus “became sicker” than those that were given the unmodified virus, according to Tabak.
“As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research, as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do,” Tabak said.
Gain-of-function research refers to viruses being taken from animals before they are genetically altered in a lab to make them more transmissible to humans.
Lawrence A. Tabak of the NIH's letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.)
Lawrence A. Tabak of the NIH's letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.)
Fauci has repeatedly clashed with Republican senators, including Rand Paul of Kentucky, who have accused him of lying about the gain-of-function research.
Paul erupted on Twitter following the emergence of the NIH letter, saying: “’I told you so’ doesn’t even begin to cover it here.”
Tabak, who did not use the term gain-of-function in his letter but alluded to it, said EcoHealth — which is run by British scientist Peter Daszak — failed to comply with the terms of the grant, which required it to “report immediately a one log increase in growth.”
“EcoHealth failed to report this finding right away, as was required by the terms of the grant. EcoHealth is being notified that they have five days from today to submit to NIH any and all unpublished data from the experiments and work conducted under this award,” Tabak said.
Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisted to Congress that the US did not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
Bloomberg via Getty Images
According to Tabak, the NIH had reviewed EcoHealth’s research plan in advance of approving the grant but claims it wasn’t subjected to additional review at the time as it didn’t fit the definition of “research involving enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential because these bat coronaviruses had not been shown to infect human.”
Tabak said if EcoHealth had alerted NIH to the growth, it would have prompted a review to determine if the research plan should be re-evaluated.
He insisted the bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant could not have become COVID-19 because the “sequences of the viruses are genetically very distant.”
Lawrence A. Tabak is an official with the National Institutes of Health.
That grant proposal detailed in the trove of documents was for a project titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” which involved screening thousands of bat samples, as well as people who worked with live animals, for novel coronaviruses.
The $3.1 million grant was awarded for a five-year period between 2014 and 2019. After the funding was renewed in 2019, it was suspended by the Trump administration in April 2020.
The grant directed $599,000 to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research.
The proposal acknowledged the risks of such research, saying: “Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs, while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled.”
The National Institutes of Health earmarked $600,000 for the Wuhan Institute of Virology over a five-year period to study whether bat coronaviruses could be transmitted to humans, White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci told lawmakers Tuesday.
Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), told a House Appropriations subcommittee that the money was funneled to the Chinese lab through the non-profit EcoHealth Alliance to fund “a modest collaboration with very respectable Chinese scientists who were world experts on coronavirus.”
But Fauci emphatically denied that the money went toward so-called “gain of function” research, which he described as “taking a virus that could infect humans and making it either more transmissible and/or pathogenic for humans.”
“That categorically was not done,” he insisted.
Earlier in the hearing, NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins told Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) that researchers at the Wuhan lab “were not approved by NIH for doing “gain of function research” before adding “we are, of course, not aware of other sources of funds or other activities they might have undertaken outside of what our approved grant allowed.”
Dr. Fauci noted it was important to study coronaviruses after the early-2000s SARS outbreak.
Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images
Dr. Fauci said the research money went to respected Chinese scientists.
Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool via AP
The NIH cut off funding to EcoHealth Alliance in April of last year, at the height of the pandemic and over the protests of EcoHealth President Peter Daszak
Fauci traced the NIH’s interest in bat coronaviruses to the SARS outbreak from nearly two decades ago.
“We had a big scare with SARS-CoV-1 {SARS] back in 2002, 2003 where that particular virus unquestionably went from a bat to an intermediate host to start an epidemic and a pandemic that resulted in 8,000 cases and close to 800 deaths,” he said. “It would have been almost a dereliction of our duty if we didn’t study this, and the only way you can study these things is you’ve got to go where the action is.”
Fauci added: “You don’t want to study bats in Fairfax County, Virginia, to find out what the animal-human interface is that might lead to a jumping of species.”
NIH funding of work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology has come under increasing scrutiny in recent weeks, with Republican senators like Rand Paul of Kentucky and Tom Cotton of Arkansas accusing Fauci of lying about whether the money was used for gain of function research.
Meanwhile, the theory that the virus accidentally leaked from the lab rather than spreading from bats to humans via another animal, is gaining increasing acceptance among mainstream media.
Sen. Rand Paul is among the contingent who have called the NIH funding into question.
Susan Walsh, Pool/AP
Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that three researchers at the lab became so ill in November of 2019 that they sought hospital treatment. Though it is not clear whether the workers contracted coronavirus, their hospitalization coincides with the period when most experts believe the virus was spreading through the city of Wuhan.
Coronaviruses are a family of viruses. Infection with these viruses can cause mild to moderate respiratory illnesses, such as the common cold. Some coronaviruses cause severe illness that can lead to pneumonia, and even death.
Causes
There are many different coronaviruses. They affect both humans and animals. Common human coronaviruses cause mild to moderate illnesses, such as the common cold.
The initial cases of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)–infected pneumonia (NCIP) occurred in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019 and January 2020.
In the results section of this paper, they write,
Human-to-human transmission among close contacts has occurred since the middle of December and spread out gradually within a month after that
. . . and,
The majority of the earliest cases included reported exposure to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, but there was an exponential increase in the number of nonlinked cases beginning in late December.
This paper would be cited by Dr. Fauci and others in “Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted” published by The New England Journal of Medicine on February 28, 2020.
As late as February it was being reported in China that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was where the coronavirus originated. The Wuhan Market claimed to be the source by other reports in the media doesn’t even sell bats.
FBI is Lying! Dayton Shooter was Antifa & Antifa was Inside Capitol on Jan 6, 2021 by Justin Trouble (video)
FBI is Lying! Dayton Shooter was Antifa & Antifa was Inside Capitol on Jan 6, 2021 (written report) by Justin Trouble
"One less white fucking supremist! Fuck yeah! Right in the fucking dome!" - Antifa Murders Again! (video) by Justin Trouble
Antifa in Mainstream Media 9 – Antifa Murders (Again) So That NBC 9News KUSA-TV and the Denver Post Get a News Story (written report) by Justin Trouble
![[Kathleen Hanna Singing During Bikini Kill Performance] - Side 1 of 1 - The Portal to Texas History](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff40cd824-7957-45e3-9797-ae9de294fae8_1200x802.jpeg "[Kathleen Hanna Singing During Bikini Kill Performance] - Side 1 of 1 - The Portal to Texas History")
