A little known fact: Marx & Engels advocated for Genocide of "Primitive Nations".

[Fishalt]

These primitive nations included Scottish Highlanders, and Serbs.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmI7_SWBUK4&t=6s

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

I believe Marx was a racist, in a quite classical sense of the term. Of course nowadays it means anything an anti-white wants it to mean

He had quite a brilliant but very bitchy sense of humour. The thing is that often racism is hilarious.

 

[willow]

Given their background, I suppose they really meant a talmudic type of inferior. All goyim are inferior, and only appear in human form in order to not offend the sensibilities of the Chosen Ones. And none may remain if the messiah is to return. I think this explains a lot of our current predicament.

 

[Esatdigiwank]

Given their background, I suppose they really meant a talmudic type of inferior. All goyim are inferior, and only appear in human form in order to not offend the sensibilities of the Chosen Ones. And none may remain if the messiah is to return. I think this explains a lot of our current predicament.

The messiah has returned. he is a shaggy haired, smelly , deranged looking psychiatric patient from North Leitrim. I saw him.

 

[AUL LAD]

Given their background, I suppose they really meant a talmudic type of inferior. All goyim are inferior, and only appear in human form in order to not offend the sensibilities of the Chosen Ones. And none may remain if the messiah is to return. I think this explains a lot of our current predicament.

it explains our past and our future .
all invasions of Ireland were paid for by Jewish people .
Strongbows was paid for by Josce OF Glouster .
Cromwells by Ebenezer Pratt.
William of orange by Solomon de Medina and lopes Sausso and others ,
Solomons son came to Dublin to oversee the battle of the Boyne .
All wars and revolutions are serving just one group on the planet .
my Jewish uncle whose family died in Auschwitz and Triblinka and TheresIenstadt told me in 1976 that the WW1 armistice "" dwo brozzers dey do dis thing"" i thought he was unhinged until the internet arrived and i found out Paul Warburg founder of the usa federal reserve was a signatory on the American side and his brother Max Warburg who was a banker and head of German military intelligence signed for Germany.
Paul Warburg was a partner in Kuhne Lobe and co of new York and his co partner was Jacob Schiff who funded the Russian revolution by giving 22 million to Trotsky which killed 100 million Russians and he also funded Japan in its war against Russia which was calculated to weaken the czar just before the revolution.
The emperor of japan presented him with japans higest honour the treasure of japan .
from this office america and the world was robbed and many millions were killed and starved to death.
we are the goy --we are cattle our wives are not wives---- as real chosen human beings have wives ours are called ""shiska "" whores .
we are demonised in order to rob and kill us .

 

[tldr]

These primitive nations included Scottish Highlanders, and Serbs.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmI7_SWBUK4&t=6s

Good find, can't recall if I've seen it before but I was aware of the events.

The was released in 2008 and has an entry in Rotten Tomatoes. Apparently it was considered boring but can't say I thought so.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/soviet_story

It was sponsored by two Latvian MEPs, both are respectable (although they did belong to the same parliamentary grouping as Fianna Fáil).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ģirts_Valdis_Kristovskis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inese_Vaidere

Here's the full length documentary. One can see the cause of the depth of resolve exhibited in those countries behind the Iron Curtain to the re-emergence of Russia as a regional hegemon. It's an academic work that cannot be casually brushed off.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oubHCubm4y8



Here's a piece published in America in 1912 by Anton Pannekoek about Marxism's relationship with Darwinism. True to my pseudonym both the quotes below and the pamphlet itself are tldr.

As pointed out in the documentary, the principal difference between National Socialism and Communism was its location of the progressive mechanism in the biological rather than the social - where Nazism wanted to eliminate other races, Communism wanted to eliminate non-proletarian classes. The mechanisms and methods that were the most rational and necessary to them were the same and so their activity in practice were of the same type. National Socialism was part of the eugenics movement and this is directly linked to Darwinism through Galton - it's "consciousness" is still coded into the system, regardless of the lip service.

Note how lucid and persuasive Pannekoek appears to be and, thus, how attractive. It's not the work of the sort of sterile minds that were produced by the system it proposed. In light of Marxism's multiple catastrophic failures, these must have been very discouraging to its internationalist adherents. Human nature revolted against it as well as the inconvenient counter-examples of Western freedom and prosperity. To the committed Marxist, human nature and Western functionality, then, were the principal adversaries that must be re-formed and dismantled.

It makes some very interesting points about the commodification of society. I've not provided any commentary instead used the Frankfurt School's technique of juxtaposition (something you might come to recognise to identify how media stories are placed together to leak credibility or disapproval into each other and subliminally influence its audience).

 

[tldr]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm

All these new experiences could not, however, raise the theory to a strongly proved truth. The best proof for the correctness of this theory would have been to have an actual transformation from one animal kind to another take place before our eyes, so that we could observe it. But this is impossible. How then is it at all possible to prove that animal forms are really changing into new forms? This can be done by showing the cause, the propelling force of such development. This Darwin did. Darwin discovered the mechanism of animal development, and in doing so he showed that under certain conditions some animal kinds will necessarily develop into other animal-kinds. We will now make clear this mechanism.
...
When a gardener [Marxist revolutionary] wants to raise from a certain plant a variety having large blossoms, all he has to do is to kill before maturity all those plants having small blossoms and preserve those having large ones. If he repeats this for a few years in succession, the blossoms will be ever larger, because each new generation resembles its predecessor, and our gardener, having always picked out the largest of the large for the purpose of propagation, succeeds in raising a plant with very large blossoms.
...
“In October, 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long continuous observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work.”
...
If we turn to Marxism we immediately see a great conformity with Darwinism. As with Darwin, the scientific importance of Marx’s work consists in this, that he discovered the propelling force, the cause of social development. He did not have to prove that such a development was taking place; every one knew that from the most primitive times new social forms ever supplanted older, but the causes and aims of this development were unknown.
...
Those classes predominating under the old process of production try to preserve artificially their institutions, while the rising classes try to promote the new process of production; and by waging the class struggles against the ruling class and by conquering them they pave the way for the further unhindered development of technique.
...
Such, for instance, was Newton’s theory of gravitation. This theory is the foundation of astronomy, and it is owing to this theory that we have our knowledge of heavenly bodies, and can foretell the arrival of certain planets and eclipses. Yet, when Newton’s theory of gravitation made its appearance, a few English scientists were its only adherents. The broad mass paid no attention to this theory. It first became known to the mass by a popular book of Voltaire’s written a half century afterwards.

There is nothing surprising about this. Science has become a specialty for a certain group of learned men, and its progress concerns these men only, just as smelting is the smith’s specialty, and an improvement in the smelting of iron concerns him only. Only that which all people can make use of and which is found by everyone to be a life necessity can gain adherents among the large mass.
...
Justice and morality change with the productive system, and every class has different conceptions of them. Socialism can only be gained by the class whose interest lies in Socialism, and it is not a question about a perfect social system, but a change in the methods of production leading to a higher step, i. e., to social production.
...
Darwinism came at the desired time; Darwin’s theory that man is the descendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation of Christian dogma. It is for this reason that as soon as Darwinism made its appearance, the bourgeoisie grasped it with great zeal. [see Nietzsche]
...
The struggle carried on by the liberal bourgeoisie against feudalism was not fought to its finish. This was partly owing to the fact that everywhere Socialist proletarians made their appearance, threatening all ruling powers, including the bourgeoisie. The liberal bourgeoisie relented, while the reactionary tendencies gained an upper hand. The former zeal in combatting religion disappeared entirely, and while it is true that the liberals and reactionists were still fighting among each other, in reality, however, they neared each other. The interest formerly manifested in science as a weapon in the class struggle, has entirely disappeared, while the reactionary tendency that the masses must be brought to religion, became ever more pronounced.
...
As soon as Darwinism made its appearance, the proletarian vanguard, the Socialists, hailed the Darwinian theory, because in Darwinism they saw a corroboration and completion of their own theory; not as some superficial opponents believe, that they wanted to base Socialism upon Darwinism but in the sense that the Darwinian discovery, – that even in the apparently stagnant organic world there is a continuous development – is a glorious corroboration and completion of the Marxian theory of social development.
...

 

[tldr]

[outlines use of darwinism to criticise marxism]
...
'Socialism is a theory which presupposes natural equality for people, and strives to bring about social equality; equal rights, equal duties, equal possessions and equal enjoyments. Darwinism, on the contrary, is the scientific proof of inequality. The theory of descent establishes the fact that animal development goes in the direction of ever greater differentiation or division of labor; the higher or more perfect the animal, the greater the inequality existing. The same holds also good in society. Here, too, we see the great division of labor between vocations, class, etc., and the more society has developed, the greater become the inequalities in strength, ability and faculty. The theory of descent is therefore to be recommended as “the best antidote to the Socialist demand of making all equal.”'
...
'Socialism wants to abolish competition and the struggle for existence. But Darwinism teaches us that this struggle is unavoidable and is a natural law for the entire organic world. Not only is this struggle natural, but it is also useful and beneficial. This struggle brings an ever greater perfection, and this perfection consists in an ever greater extermination of the unfit. Only the chosen minority, those who are qualified to withstand competition, can survive; the great majority must perish. Many are called, but few are chosen. The struggle for existence results at the same time in a victory for the best, while the bad and unfit must perish. This may be lamentable, just as it is lamentable that all must die, but the fact can neither be denied nor changed.'
...
'The English philosopher Herbert Spencer already had a theory on social growth before Darwin. This was the bourgeois theory of individualism, based upon the struggle for existence.The English philosopher Herbert Spencer already had a theory on social growth before Darwin. This was the bourgeois theory of individualism, based upon the struggle for existence. “In the animal world,” he said, “the old, weak and sick are ever rooted out and only the strong and healthy survive. The struggle for existence serves therefore as a purification of the race, protecting it from deterioration. This is the happy effect of this struggle, for if this struggle should cease and each one were sure of procuring its existence without any struggle whatsoever, the race would necessarily deteriorate. The support given to the sick, weak and unfit causes a general race degeneration. If sympathy, finding its expressions in charity, goes beyond its reasonable bounds, it misses its object; instead of diminishing, it increases the suffering for the new generations. The good effect of the struggle for existence can best be seen in wild animals. They are all strong and healthy because they had to undergo thousands of dangers wherein all those that were not qualified had to perish. Among men and domestic animals sickness and weakness are so general because the sick and weak are preserved. Socialism, having as its aim to abolish the struggle for existence in the human world, will necessarily bring about an ever growing mental and physical deterioration.”'
...
[returns to his argument of how social darwinism corroborates marxism]

...
When a number of animals live in a group, herd or flock, they carry on the struggle for existence in common against the outside world; within such a group the struggle for existence ceases. The animals which live socially no longer wage a struggle against each other, wherein the weak succumb; just the reverse, the weak enjoy the same advantages as the strong. When some animals have the advantage by means of greater strength, sharper smell, or experience in finding the best pasture or in warding off the enemy, this advantage does not accrue only to these better fitted, but also to the entire group.
...
Such an animal society becomes, in some respects a unit, a single organism. Naturally, the relation remains much looser than the cells of a single animal body; nevertheless, the group becomes a coherent body, and there must be some power that holds together the individual members.

This power is found in the social motives, the instinct that holds them together and causes the continuance of the group. Every animal must place the interest of the entire group above his own; it must always act instinctively for the advantage and maintenance of the group without consideration of itself. As long as the weak plant-eaters think of themselves only and run away when attacked by a rapacious animal, each one minding his life only, the entire herd disappears. Only when the strong motive of self-preservation is suppressed by a stronger motive of union, and each animal risks its life for the protection of all, only then does the herd remain and enjoy the advantages of sticking together. In such a case, self-sacrifice, bravery, devotion, discipline and consciousness must arise, for where these do not exist society dissolves; society can only exist where these exist.

These instincts, while they have their origin in habit and necessity, are strengthened by the struggle for existence. Every animal herd still stands in a competitive struggle against the same animals of a different herd; those that are best fitted to withstand the enemy will survive, while those that are poorer equipped will perish. That group in which the social instinct is better developed will be able to hold its ground, while the group in which social instinct is low will either fall an easy prey to its enemies or will not be in a position to find favorable feeding places. These social instincts become therefore the most important and decisive factors that determine who shall survive in the struggle for existence. It is owing to this that the social instincts have been elevated to the position of predominant factors.
...
The sociable animals are in a position to beat those that carry on the struggle individually. This so-called degenerating and deteriorating race carries off the victory and practically proves itself to be the most skilful and best.

Here we first see fully how near sighted, narrow and unscientific are the claims and arguments of the bourgeois Darwinists. Their natural laws and their conceptions of what is natural are derived from a part of the animal world, from those which man resembles least, while those animals that practically live under the same circumstances as man are left unobserved.
...
Our ape-like ancestors and the primitive men developing from them were all defenseless, weak animals who, as almost all apes do, lived in tribes. Here the same social motives and instincts had to arise which later developed to moral feelings. That our customs and morals are nothing other than social feelings, feelings that we find among animals, is known to all; even Darwin spoke about “the habits of animals which would be called moral among men.”

It is in the nature of the origin of these moral feelings that they do not spread further than the social group to which the animal or the man belongs. These feelings serve the practical object of keeping the group together; beyond this they are useless. In the animal world, the range and nature of the social group is determined by the circumstances of life, and therefore the group almost always remains the same. Among men, however, the groups, these social units, are ever changing in accordance with economic development, and this also changes the social instincts.
...
The social feelings are strongest among members of the same class, for classes are the essential units embodying particular interests and including certain members.
...
Every animal is so formed as to fit into some definite place. Their actions must become strong habits. These habits are not unchangeable. Animals are not machines, when brought into different circumstances they may acquire different habits. It is not in the quality of their brains, but in the formation of their bodies that animal restrictions lie. The animal’s action is limited by its bodily form and surroundings, and consequently it has little need for reflection. To reason would therefore be useless for it and would only lead to harm rather than to good.
...
His tools make him master of all creation, the king of the earth.

 

[tldr]

...
With the invention of these implements, man got to be a divine power, and he takes possession of the earth as his exclusive dominion. The peaceful and hitherto unhindered development of the organic world ceases to develop according to the Darwinian theory. It is man that acts as breeder, tamer, cultivator; and it is man that does the weeding. It is man that changes the entire environment, making the further forms of plants and animals suit his aim and will.
...
The human brain had to develop together with tools; and, in fact, we see that the difference between the higher and lower races of mankind consists mainly in the contents of their brains.
...
Men do not struggle by means of their natural organs, but by means of artificial organs, by means of tools (and weapons we must understand as tools). Here, too, the principle of perfection and the weeding out of the imperfect, through struggle, holds true. The tools struggle, and this leads to the ever greater perfection of tools. Those groups of tribes that use better tools and weapons can best secure their maintenance, and when it comes to a direct struggle with another race, the race that is better equipped with artificial tools will win. Those races whose technical aids are better developed, can drive out or subdue those whose artificial aids are not developed.
...
The particular form that the Darwinian struggle for existence assumes in development is determined by men’s sociability and their use of tools.
...
Formerly the people were not isolated; they belonged to some corporation; they were under the protection of some lord or commune, and in this they found strength. They were a part of a social group to which they owed duties and from which they received protection. These duties the bourgeoisie abolished; it destroyed the corporations and abolished the feudal relations. The freeing of labor meant at the same time that all refuge was taken away from him and that he could no longer rely upon others.

Every one had to rely upon himself. Alone, free from all ties and protection, he must struggle against all.

It is for this reason that, under capitalism, the human world resembles mostly the world of rapacious animals and it is for this very reason that the bourgeois Darwinists looked for men’s prototype among animals living isolated.
...
The working class organizations start with ending the competition existing between workers and combine their separate powers into one great power in their struggle with the outside world. Everything that applies to social groups also applies to this class organization, brought about by natural conditions. In the ranks of this class organization, social motives, moral feelings, self-sacrifice and devotion for the entire body develop in a most splendid way. This solid organization gives to the working class that great strength which it needs in order to conquer the capitalist class. The class struggle which is not a struggle with tools but for the possession of tools, a struggle for the right to direct industry, will be determined by the strength of the class organization.
...
With the abolition of classes the entire civilized world will become one great productive community. Within this community mutual struggle among members will cease and will be carried on with the outside world. It will no longer be a struggle against our own kind, but a struggle for subsistence, a struggle against nature. But owing to development of technique and science, this can hardly be called a struggle. Nature is subject to man and with very little exertion from his side she supplies him with abundance. Here a new career opens for man: man’s rising from the animal world and carrying on his struggle for existence by the use of tools, ceases, and a new chapter of human history begins.

 

[tldr]

Schrodinger's Sociology
...

According to Goffman, social interaction may be likened to a theater, and people in everyday life to actors on a stage, each playing a variety of roles. The audience consists of other individuals who observe the role-playing and react to the performances. In social interaction, like in theatrical performances, there is a 'front stage' region where the actors are on stage before an audience, and their consciousness of that audience and the audience's expectations for the role they should play influence the actor's behavior. There is also a back region, or 'backstage,' where individuals can relax, be themselves, and [relieve themselves of] the role or identity that they play when they are in front of others.

Central to the book and Goffman's theory is the idea that people, as they interact together in social settings, are constantly engaged in the process of "impression management," wherein each tries to present themselves and behave in a way that will prevent the embarrassment of themselves or others. This is primarily done by each person that is part of the interaction working to ensure that all parties have the same "definition of the situation," meaning that all understand what is meant to happen in that situation, what to expect from the others involved, and thus how they themselves should behave.

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-presentation-of-self-in-everyday-life-3026754


The greater the knowledge of others, Goffman contends, the more likely a person is to predict their behavior and prepare for it and indeed even control it.
...
All of these specialized roles [informational conveyancing], Goffman contends, face a “strong moral prohibition not to take advantage of the position in which their occupational duties place them” (Goffman, 1953, p. 108). Despite these prohibitions, abuses occur and people make “inappropriate use” of the information with which they are entrusted. ... In other words, someone may be eavesdropping and using the information received for their own interests.
...
The matter of secrets is introduced in a chapter titled “Discrepant Roles” where Goffman discusses a “basic problem” for many performances as one of information control. For performances to be accepted, certain information -- what Goffman now calls “destructive information” – must be excluded. “In other words,” Goffman writes, “a team must be able to keep its secrets and have its secrets kept.”

Goffman (1959, pp. 141-143) begins by presenting a typology of secrets and, with it, a nascent sociology of information control in modern societies. “Dark secrets” refers to information that a team knows and conceals that is incompatible with the image that the team is attempting to maintain before its audiences. The name of this type of secret is suggestive, and one expects a revealing analysis. In fact, Goffman gives it very little attention other than to refer the reader to another part of the book where marital secrets are discussed. “Strategic secrets” – Goffman mentions as examples the practices of business and the military – denotes information that a team may use in the future against the opposition. The key difference between dark and strategic secrets is that the former is a dangerous or discrediting secret that one “holds on” to, perhaps forever, and the latter is one that is used, or potentially used, in some imminent or future strategic interaction. By “inside secrets” Goffman means the kind of information that serves the function of exclusion, helping one group to distinguishes itself from others. Secrets are not, however, only about the concealed information that a group or team has about itself. They may also denote information that one group has about another. Here Goffman compares “entrusted secrets,” information that one is granted and obligated not to share, and “free secrets,” or information that one learns from means other than entrusted sharing, such as through independent discovery or indiscreet admission.

The chapter follows with an examination of “the kinds of persons who learn about the secrets of a team and with the bases and the threats of their privileged position” (Goffman, 1959, pp. 143-144). Here Goffman takes up themes, such as those discussed above, of the opportunities of “drafters” and “couriers” to inappropriately use the information with which they have been entrusted... But in Presentation, Goffman takes these themes in a darker direction by exploring a wider range of roles with access to “destructive information.” In addition to “drafters,” “couriers” and “service specialists,” Goffman now writes of “informers,” including traitors [Russel Brand], turncoats, and spies. He writes of “shills”, those who are secretly in league with the performer, including “protective agents” and “spotters” [MSM?]. He writes of the “go-between” or mediator. He writes of the “non-person,” people who are present in a region but who are treated as though they were not there. He writes of the “confidant” and of “renegades” [IDW].

https://www.academia.edu/44412259/G...ception_of_Simmels_das_Geheimnis_des_Anderen_

 

[tldr]

social illusion
economic gridlock
organisational gigantism
gene editing
mass death anxiety
control and censorship of discursive spaces
institutional subversion
dismantling of contrasting social groups
ressentiment cultivation
incongruent application
cognitive dissonance
milieu control

Presently, the scholars of the previous age are considered renegades given their ability to describe the schematics of the preparations for "a new chapter of human history". That was why universities, and the education system in general, were among the first to be purged and reconstituted. However, prior to the universities, the religious institutions were felled for the same reason.

In America, a place where - given the mosaic of communities - law has a special prominence due to the lesser binding presence of universal custom, the legal schools were important targets. The products of the success of this program is something we are seeing particularly deployed presently, knowing this helps to make sense of current affairs there.

A note on the sterility of mind exhibited by those who have been "ideologically possessed". It is of ever greater urgency that the private is abolished given the serious disadvantage that sterility of mind creates in open competition where the better is the measure of success. Thus, every effort is put into methods of intrusion and control of the private space and social arrangements. Whereas, previously, it was a disgrace to one's self-respect to violate the private realms of others to the degree that it became thought of as unthinkable - it is now considered that struggle sessions initiated from companionable speech is a normal hazard of everyday life. (A point here when dealing with such persons. Since they operate on set mental routines, and have had their interior life so deeply suppressed that it is reduced to only a dull impotent whisper, it is important not to feed the machine if one wishes to successfully undertake a task as anything articulated will be targeted for disruption or used to pyschologically disconcert)

Another type of renegade, of which Alex Jones is an example - a person who's talent and authenticity is in no doubt, is drawn from the civic laity. Now, there is a sense of alarmism in these broadcasts that sits uneasily with those of calmer dispositions.

The principal objection, and one which is persuasive within the polite mainstream, being that there is a mechanism within the human brain which produces a condition of hypervigilance. This hypervigilance produces such a mass of misconstrual that those exhibiting it should not be taken seriously since it is a danger to balanced consideration in both its content and its effects on novices - it should, rather, be properly considered as a sort of nervous disorder.

Now, given the evidence presented by the documentary which is the subject of this thread, it cannot be said that the concerns that Jones articulates are groundless and the occurrences uncommon - rather they are a hallmark of the C20th where there were numerous instances of pathological regimes running amok. Indeed such pathocracies have a recognisable modus operandi that he endeavours to track. That he has gained credibility over the past number of years cannot be gainsayed. While it is perhaps prudent to withhold judgement on some of his more exotic claims, it is fair to acknowlege him as a participant who should be met with argument rather than expulsion. His site is a resource of events that is frequently filtered out of the approved sources.

The term Pathocracy was coined by Łobaczewski in his book Political Ponerology. This was written during the occupation of Poland and drawn from his experience under the National Socialists and the Soviets. Samizdat in nature, it was only published by chance after his emigration. It is something of a forbidden book and it was strange to see it used for an article in Pyschology Today, given its suggestion that Ashkanazi Jews have a rate of 4 to 5% as opposed to the standard 1%. (It is a condemnation of Trump so I expect this got it through) This speculation is unhelpful to an otherwise intelligent book that, at least, tries to analyse the social madness of such regimes. Note that he locates the source of this pathology in lesions caused by impacts to the brain, so, if you have a chance to get your head scanned to check, take it. The link above to an article in SOTT (one of those lay sites) has a better sample of his writing to get a sense of it. Those of sterile mind control information because they believe that others are a blank slate that are programmed by inputs - the existence of critical thinking is a nonsense to them, political consciousness determines all.

In any case, the documentary The Soviet Story discloses the secrets of communism and, while a tight rein was kept on information getting out to the outside world, it was shown that there was enough known about it to legitimately raise the alarm after WWII. It took an America, shook out of isolationalism, to lead that resistance. The massive crimes evidenced by it were repeated in every example of this ideology's instantiation. It was not the personalities that were primarily responsible (though they are guilty) but the coding itself that led to these outcomes. Let's hope they haven't succumbed to it. While their Constitution may be a dead letter - being maintained by the institutions - the Bill of Rights - being maintained by the citizens - is not as yet.

 

[Esatdigiwank]

@tldr.. that’s a heck of a lot of copy & pasting. And nobody will read it fully cos it’s far too long.

 

[tldr]

@tldr.. that’s a heck of a lot of copy & pasting. And nobody will read it fully cos it’s far too long.

Just to clarify, the reference is to the political uses of Darwinism, and how its conceptualisation both legitimated mass killing, and aided and abetted psychopathic behaviour, rather than its suggestion that organisms remap their bodies in response to environmental opportunities and challenges.

It was popularised as a rational pretext for colonialism, and an ethics free methodology for the application of scientific theories through laboratory and mass experimentation, in addition to its use as "a weapon in class struggle" (as described by Pannekoek above).

There are two pending if you're hungry for more. As for the length, gotta live up to the handle, its much abridged from the original article - oh the irony Joaquin.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Another type of renegade, of which Alex Jones is an example - a person who's talent and authenticity is in no doubt, is drawn from the civic laity

Alex Jones left red-faced over royal 'error' in toe-curling moment

In a toe-curling moment during Monday's show, Alex Jones was pulled up by a comedian after they encouraged viewers to enter the BBC's 500 Words competition for a chance to meet "Her Majesty the Queen".

The One Show's Alex Jones left red-faced over royal 'error' in toe-curling moment

Alex Jones was corrected by comedian Frank Skinner in an awkward moment during Monday's edition of The One Show. Find out what happened here...

uk.yahoo.com

 

[clarke-connolly]

Alex Jones left red-faced over royal 'error' in toe-curling moment

In a toe-curling moment during Monday's show, Alex Jones was pulled up by a comedian after they encouraged viewers to enter the BBC's 500 Words competition for a chance to meet "Her Majesty the Queen".

The One Show's Alex Jones left red-faced over royal 'error' in toe-curling moment

Alex Jones was corrected by comedian Frank Skinner in an awkward moment during Monday's edition of The One Show. Find out what happened here...

uk.yahoo.com

So ~ Alex Jones has change sex ! ! !

 

[tldr]

Alex Jones left red-faced over royal 'error' in toe-curling moment

In a toe-curling moment during Monday's show, Alex Jones was pulled up by a comedian after they encouraged viewers to enter the BBC's 500 Words competition for a chance to meet "Her Majesty the Queen".

The One Show's Alex Jones left red-faced over royal 'error' in toe-curling moment

Alex Jones was corrected by comedian Frank Skinner in an awkward moment during Monday's edition of The One Show. Find out what happened here...

uk.yahoo.com

I blame this on his recent close association with Steven Crowder.

I'm pleased to see you've read my thoughts. Our relationship is improving! In that vein, by way of kind suggestion, I offer the below for your enjoyment.

​