Fascism and White Nationalism/Supremacy

[Pogue]

I am making this thread to generate discussion on the nature of fascism and white supremacy.

In my opinion there needs to be made a clear distinction in anti-fascist activities between two. There tends to be alot of confusion on the nature of what fascism is, what it means, etc. Does it represent a coherent ideology? If so, what policies unify the ideology? What is and isn't fascism?

'Traditional' Fascism

I think alot of the confusion comes, as ever, from the fault of academics who try to define words without really engaging in the realit yof what they represent. The best definition of fascism is the one held by revolutionary socialists of all kinds. Fascism is the reaction of the ruling classes against working class power, when they fear revolution. The ruling class, in seeing its potential doom, resorts to ultra-conservative and authoritarian measures to defend its rule. This was seen in Mussolini's movement in Italy, but also in Franco's uprising against the left wing Republican government in Spain and more recently in Pinochet's coup against Allende in Chile.

In these cases fascism has been less an actual ideology and more an action - the most reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie showing their true colours to defend their class rule using violence. This means any government, party or national ruling class is capable of fascism, whenever they feel threatened.

White Supremacy

I think as distinct from this then would be more ideologically driven far-rightists. I think these could fall broadly under the camp of white supremacists. These are those who actively have a 'political theory' (not that it represents any mature or rational thought). These are those whose politics are motivated by the beleif that white people are in someway threatened and should assume total dominance of the world. There are various ways in which they wish to acheive this - either through violent revolution/control of the streets, as most fascists have tried at some point (in the UK, the National Front, the British National Party and the British Movement). All of these have either failed and become insigificantly small or resorted to electoralism, which in turns leads to a dumming down of their image. The main motivation however still remains a belief in racial supremacy, resulting in anti-immigration ideas and other ideas of racial seperatism, and general discrimination. For these groups anti-semetism is a main motivation. Many, if not all of these groups, whilst also maintaning that non-whites are bad just for being non-white and 'inferior', also see black and other non-white people as pawns of a 'Jewish conspiracy'. This current has run throughout history, obviously being a motivation of Nazi ideology from Adolf Hitler through to today's British National Party.

Confusion

Alot of the confusion in my opinion comes from the fact that far-right ideologies are obviously incoherent, immature and baseless. But aside with that is the fact there is alot of inter-connectedness. For example, I labelled the British National Party as falling into the white supremacist camp, yet I do not deny they could be useful to the ruling class praciticing its own fascism as described above in say, the same way the Golden Dawn are used by the Greek State to supress left wing acitivties of revolts in Greece.

Another confusing question is nationalism within the context of a nation state. The British National Party present their main concern as being the 'condition of the nation', to such an extent that in trying to find a scapegoat for a 'nations problems' they are willing to publicly (not privately) deny their anti-semetism in order to focus on Muslims. While for the rank and file blind nationalism is the motivation for this, this is distinct from the motivations of the leadership, for whom, whilst also holding a dislike of essentially anyone different from them (a position they hold because they are predjudiced twats), they also like to find an easy target they think they can recruit off of the back of. For example, Nick Griffin will not win support through being anti-semetic, as there is not widespread persecution of or resentment against Jews in Britain today - however, there is a significant amount more bad feeling towards Muslims from the reactionary press, politicians and some members of the public. The easy target becomes the focus of anger. A key thing to note would be that Nick Griffin and Mark Collet, leade rof the BNP and their youth section both have openly denounced Winston Churchill and the Allies for their position during WW2, instead siding with Hitler. It would seem odd for 'British nationalists' to side with Hitler, as indeed it is. Griffin and Collet's main alleigance is to the 'white race', thus positioning them on Hitler's side of that conflict. Nationalistic psoturing is something used by all elements of the far right, from the ultra conservatives appealing to that old fascist goal of 'national unity' and 'national strength' (the main goal of fascism) through to opputunistic Neo-Nazis/White Supremacists in groups like Blood and Honour, the National Front and the British National Party. Similar goals have led to alleigances and groups fitting under both banners (Hitler could be considered a hybrid of the original fascism and also white supremacism).

This does not however mean that these people are not predjudiced for the sake of it. Mixed in with racial theory are old notions of imperialistic superiority. Obviously idwas of racial dominance are rooted in British ruling class traditions of slavery and racism sued to justify imperialist expansion and also to divide the ruling class. Look at the likes of Enoch Powell and the Thatcher family, supporters of Apartheid and firmly opposed to immigration.

I hope I have cleared some things up here and opened room for debate. These ideas are just based upon my own experiences and findings and also things I have read or been taught by others. I will add to this and edit it as I see fit as discussion develops.

[Sasha]

sticky?

[Pogue]

i think the thread as a whole should be stickied, obviously this is just my opinion so people will disagree with it, but hopefully if discussion picks up we'll have a worthwhile thread here.

[Holden Caulfield]

I read it the other day and cba to read it again so forgive me if I don't meet the points as made exactly in the article. This response is also pretty shit because i've been travelling home all day and am shattered

I personally think, and no offence to Pogue who I adore as a father loves a son, its a lot of text to say very litte.

I think that fascism is defined by the role it plays and not by the characteristics of how reactionary, racist or prejudice it is, or by who it hates and why they hate them.

Fascism is used to crush the left-wing in times of crisis, and to protect the capitalist system. White power mentalists are fringe because they serve no purpose, the bourgeois control public opinion through the media and through reinforcing old stereotypes. White power groups in America are so pathetic as they, although very dangerous, are simply a handfull of derranged people. The bourgeois want racism, but they want enough racism to keep the working class divided, and so much to fully halt their exploitation of immigrant labour and manufactured unemployment.

Enoch Powell didn't get anywhere because the conditions didn't necessitate him getting anywhere.

Franco did get somewhere because the conditions did neccesitate him getting somewhere.

I don't think anti-semitism is as much as in issue in UK fascism as Pogue makes it. Griffin could be a ZOG hating type or not, it doesn't matter. I also assume that large sections of the BNP hold a grudge against Roman Catholic Irish types, but this doesn't matter either because it isn't the best way to divide us. Griffin might hate Jews, in time this will die out in the party, Griffin himself is a good example is how prejudices move out of 'fashion': A Roman Catholic leading the most prejudice party in mainstream UK politics.

If fascism becomes neccessary in the UK the fash and the bourgeois won't try to manufacture reinvigoured anti-semitism, they will just play on the same old stereotypes they do now and blame one or all of there groups: Muslims, Blacks, Asians, Gypsies, Communsits, etc etc.

I rambled a bit, but I hope I made some sort of point in there :s

[Pogue]

I think that fascism is defined by the role it plays and not by the characteristics of how reactionary, racist or prejudice it is, or by who it hates and why they hate them.

I believe this too and would like to apologise if I did not make this clear in the article.


Fascism is used to crush the left-wing in times of crisis, and to protect the capitalist system. White power mentalists are fringe because they serve no purpose, the bourgeois control public opinion through the media and through reinforcing old stereotypes. White power groups in America are so pathetic as they, although very dangerous, are simply a handfull of derranged people. The bourgeois want racism, but they want enough racism to keep the working class divided, and so much to fully halt their exploitation of immigrant labour and manufactured unemployment.


Hence my point that fascism and white supremacy are two distinct things.


Enoch Powell didn't get anywhere because the conditions didn't necessitate him getting anywhere.

I think Powell's opinions were reflected in the strong fa-rirhgt tendency present in the Conservatives at the time and also in the National Front who were on 'the rise' (just beginning) at the time. It just so happened he was in a mainstram party anyway.


Franco did get somewhere because the conditions did neccesitate him getting somewhere.

Franco was fascism in action - a representative of the ruling class representing the itnerests of the ruling class by crushing the rising power of the workers, demonstrated in their election of a left wing government.


I don't think anti-semitism is as much as in issue in UK fascism as Pogue makes it. Griffin could be a ZOG hating type or not, it doesn't matter. I also assume that large sections of the BNP hold a grudge against Roman Catholic Irish types, but this doesn't matter either because it isn't the best way to divide us. Griffin might hate Jews, in time this will die out in the party, Griffin himself is a good example is how prejudices move out of 'fashion': A Roman Catholic leading the most prejudice party in mainstream UK politics.

Ever since I first outlined this theory to you I think you have misunderstood what I ams aying mate. I don't think anti-semetism is something we have to worry about, but what I mean is that the main motivation of the leadership of these parties is anti-semetism - however this becomes less important as no one else agrees with it, so they start dropping it, adopting new enemies (black people, muslims etc). A mixture of a genuine hatred for these new targets anyway means we can almost ignore the anti-semetism which will probably never again manifest itself on a large scale as the BNP recognise its not a vote winner. My point however is that it still remains a motivation for the leadership - alongside general hatred of anything 'different' to them.


If fascism becomes neccessary in the UK the fash and the bourgeois won't try to manufacture reinvigoured anti-semitism, they will just play on the same old stereotypes they do now and blame one or all of there groups: Muslims, Blacks, Asians, Gypsies, Communsits, etc etc.

I never said they would create anti-semetism, I think this shwos the depths of your misunderstanding of what I was saying and if anything totally hilights my point perfectly.

If fascism existed in this country it would come about through the ruling class responding to workers power with nationalism and authoritarianism - they would build upon and incorporate the BNP into there project - and obviously it wouldn't be anti-semetic because that anger is not there. Thats my point, there is the white supremacist ideology which has its own ideological premises, the main one being anti-semetism, then the fascism of any ruling class doing what it takes to protect class rule.


I rambled a bit, but I hope I made some sort of point in there :s

You used alot of text to say very little :lol:

I think the main point is you've missed what I am saying, I think that was shown as I pointed out earlier in this post, I'm making a particular distinction that I think you have missed.

[Stand Your Ground]

When I hear the word fascism is immediately think of white supremacists. The only time I've ever heard either of those terms was linked with the other.

[Holden Caulfield]

I think the main point is you've missed what I am saying, I think that was shown as I pointed out earlier in this post, I'm making a particular distinction that I think you have missed.


meh we talked about it in private before you posted it and our discussion ended with Pogue saying "your disagreements with what I'm saying are hardly major and pretty predntic" and me respondind "I'm a marxist, thats just what we do"

If we keep on discussing it we will end up nowhere, agreeing on everything except the implied meaning of the choice of words.

The only thing I do have to say is that I think anti-semitism is so insignificant in the politics of the BNP that it isnt worth mentioning really, it only gives Griffin a platform to show how welcoming of different ethnicities he is.

On that note however, I would like to see a interviewer persue Griffin about the status of 'ethnic' Jews and Irish Immigrants. Should they be encouraged to go home or is it okay because they are 'white'? That could make him squirm a little perhaps. But that is just making him trip up, just because he won't want to mention the Jews in that way for his parties image, not because I care about any secret anti-semitism he holds

[Pogue]

meh we talked about it in private before you posted it and our discussion ended with Pogue saying "your disagreements with what I'm saying are hardly major and pretty predntic" and me respondind "I'm a marxist, thats just what we do"

If we keep on discussing it we will end up nowhere, agreeing on everything except the implied meaning of the choice of words.

The only thing I do have to say is that I think anti-semitism is so insignificant in the politics of the BNP that it isnt worth mentioning really, it only gives Griffin a platform to show how welcoming of different ethnicities he is.

On that note however, I would like to see a interviewer persue Griffin about the status of 'ethnic' Jews and Irish Immigrants. Should they be encouraged to go home or is it okay because they are 'white'? That could make him squirm a little perhaps. But that is just making him trip up, just because he won't want to mention the Jews in that way for his parties image, not because I care about any secret anti-semitism he holds

I hilighted the anti-semetism to show the white supremacist ideological element and how it fits in with the modern day 'populist' fascists, i.e. its still at the core of the leadership even though they are more dangerous and focus more on attacking other groups, i.e. muslims.

I guess there are other categories too, or a sub category, such as out and out white supremacists who have hidden it up to try and get votes, although they are still the same.

Anyone wanna tell me where they think le pen fits in?

[Tjis]

The goal of fascist movements is to break a class-conscious working class. Not by violence (though violence is usually a part of it), but by promoting someones nationality as their most important identity, as opposed to class. The exact form can differ. Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and falangist Spain were all different, but they all shared the concept that someone's nationality was their most important identity.

The reason for choosing nationality as identity is because it's an identity that the ruling class has full control over, through the state. Lower wages, longer work time, exhausting wars etc become acceptable when the working class considers themselves part of the group that profits.

But the only way to get people to put their nationality on such a high pedestal that it overrides all reason is if there's a big threat (usually perceived) to people of that nationality. In other words, an enemy group is needed. For example, the belief that there's a big jewish conspiracy with world domination as the goal. These days it is the similar fear that muslims will take over eventually (either through terrorism or because muslim immigrants supposedly have more children) and force sharia law on everyone.

Another necessary element is that someones nationality must be perceived by them as something really good. For example, fascists in Italy promoted the Roman Empire and it's success as something inherently Italian. Nazi Germany used various pseudo-scientific studies to show that the white race was superior.

So in short, fascists break working class movements by promotion nationality as the main identity, because this serves the ruling class' interest best, and they do this by praising their own nationality while scapegoating another group. This does not necessarily have to lead to white supremacy, but it is one of the possible outcomes.
It will however always lead to racism. It is impossible to have fascism without racism, because the supremacy of ones nationality is such a big factor. If one group considers their own nationality as superior, that means they consider other nationalities as inferior.

[New Tet]

I read it the other day and cba to read it again so forgive me if I don't meet the points as made exactly in the article. This response is also pretty shit because i've been travelling home all day and am shattered

I personally think, and no offence to Pogue who I adore as a father loves a son, its a lot of text to say very litte.

True, but gratuitous. To say the least.


I think that fascism is defined by the role it plays and not by the characteristics of how reactionary, racist or prejudice it is, or by who it hates and why they hate them.

I disagree. The measure of hatred in a person and their organized reflection can be inferred from the degree and intensity of their fears.

Fascism is a political manifestation of the once, anciently "justified" fear of the Jew. It is rooted in the Slavic and Germanic tribal mentality's encounter with a growing Jewish population in its midst.

In my mind, it is no coincidence that the birth and evolution of Christianity has kept almost equal pace with the birth and evolution of Jewish communities in Europe. Inseparable and impossible, one from the other.


[...]


Enoch Powell didn't get anywhere because the conditions didn't necessitate him getting anywhere.

Franco did get somewhere because the conditions did neccesitate him getting somewhere.

I am constantly reminded that the class struggle, in which both Powell and Franco were largely engaged, is not a struggle between individuals 'needing to get[ting] somewhere' but between contending socioeconomic classes, commercial groups, categories and corporations, all locked in a conscious or semi-conscious antagonism, vying for economic dominance; one over the other.


I don't think anti-semitism is as much as in issue in UK fascism as Pogue makes it. Griffin could be a ZOG hating type or not, it doesn't matter. I also assume that large sections of the BNP hold a grudge against Roman Catholic Irish types, but this doesn't matter either because it isn't the best way to divide us. Griffin might hate Jews, in time this will die out in the party, Griffin himself is a good example is how prejudices move out of 'fashion': A Roman Catholic leading the most prejudice party in mainstream UK politics.

If you had any idea how greatly some Catholics mistrust other equally devout Catholics, you'd drop the insinuation. Even in extreme ideologies Catholicism is a thorn on the side of the body politic. Ask St. Francis...


If fascism becomes neccessary in the UK the fash and the bourgeois won't try to manufacture reinvigoured anti-semitism, they will just play on the same old stereotypes they do now and blame one or all of there groups: Muslims, Blacks, Asians, Gypsies, Communsits, etc etc.

"Necessary" from whose point of view? And while they're blaming the "Communsits" et al, who will really be to blame?


I rambled a bit, but I hope I made some sort of point in there :s

Alarmingly so.

[Holden Caulfield]

Fascism is a political manifestation of the once, anciently "justified" fear of the Jew. It is rooted in the Slavic and Germanic tribal mentality's encounter with a growing Jewish population in its midst.



somebody better go tell Mussolini he is not a fascist then. Seen as A he isn't German B he isn't anti-semetic, C he predated German fascism.


It is rooted in the Slavic and Germanic tribal mentality's
Again, just no.

Fascism isn't a German/Slavic phenomenom, if you can prove it is with any kind of case study or decent argument it would be nice. It is a reaction to crisis in capitalism and a threatening left wing.

Fascism is more defined by its role in politics/society than its features.



In my mind, it is no coincidence that the birth and evolution of Christianity has kept almost equal pace with the birth and evolution of Jewish communities in Europe. Inseparable and impossible, one from the other

That is entirely unfounded. If you can support you claims please do. You mind must be a magical place comrade.


I am constantly reminded that the class struggle, in which both Powell and Franco were largely engaged, is not a struggle between individuals
I agree comrade, I was talking about, as everybody else except you assumed, Franco and Enoch as 'figure heads' so to speak. I don't buy into a great man view of history, if it wasn't Franco or Enoch it would have been somebody else because the conditions of the class struggle made a specific role (role of a group, but its easier to name the figure head) necessary or it didn't in the case of Enoch as I said.


"Necessary" from whose point of view?
Necessary from the view of capitalism. When capitalism fails and the middle groud drops away, as Trotsky spoke of, there is the left and the right left in struggle. The capitalists do not want revolution and so their system prefers fascism as a fail safe of the system. This has been seen through-out history in every example of fascism in power that comes to my mind.


And while they're blaming the "Communsits" et al, who will really be to blame
The capitalist system itself, obviously.



Alarmingly so.

I rambled, you made no sense, made unfounded arguments, it appears tried to throw some pesonal digs in there as well.
I do not think any member of this forum who has a basic grasp of revolutionary politics and/or fascism will agree with what you have just said.

I await your reply eagerly

http://www.revleft.com/vb/fascism-and-white-t119494/revleft/misc/progress.gif

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I think the sudden change over from the BNP sounding like a kid who has being turned psychotic due to skunk overdoes to the defenders of all things British from the enemy (nicely outlined for us by the press) shows how although it may take them a while due to egos Fascists do change there prejudices to tap into general discontent. The role of fascists is not that of yid haters or paki bashers but rather as a movement aimed at preventing the rise of a left wing movement by enriching the power of the state over social life , culture in order to be able to get away with ridiculous amounts of brutality against the working class and they will do anything to get into that situation so if there was widespread discrimination against say people with red hair then that would be the scape goat.

Fascists are primarily populists and this means that some form of racism in normally used however the two do not have to go together.

[New Tet]

somebody better go tell Mussolini he is not a fascist then. Seen as A he isn't German B he isn't anti-semetic, C he predated German fascism.

Italian Antisemitism predates German Fascism by several hundred years, at the very least! It was the Italians and the Greeks who had "first contact" with the Jews (via it's relationship with Egypt) and who gave us the racially tainted Latin words historically most associated with the persecution of Jews: Fascism and Ghetto.

Granted, present day racism, militarism and statism are strong today thanks largely to capitalist reaction. No doubt in my mind. However, the individual features of fascism are as old as the hills, and fascism itself (the unifying ideology) as old as the Roman empire, at the very least.

What I'm saying is that as Jews emigrated northwards into Eastern and central Europe and as the center of power of the Roman Empire waned and shifted east, toward Constantinople, Christianity spread north, east and west. And I would argue that it was the Jew, the Jewish Jew who helped spread Christianity throughout the civilized, western world; IOW, the virus of Christianity was carried into Europe by the Jews, I am happy to report.


Fascism is more defined by its role in politics/society than its features.

I don't know what that means but it sounds impressive.

Just kidding.

Actually, I think that an ideology is defined as much by its intellectual expression as by its practical application. We describe Fascism as we do because of its outward appearance, its effect on society: Militarism and war; racial, political, sexual and class oppression and exploitation of minorities and majorities and the imposition in all spheres of public and private life of state power through legal, extra-legal and through public and private economic institutions, etc.


That is entirely unfounded. If you can support you claims please do. You mind must be a magical place comrade.So you disagree that the growth of Jewish communities in Europe (and eventually America) kept almost even pace with the development of Christianity?

We can check the soundness of that assumption by an amusing process of elimination.

It's fun. Really:

Which island has the largest Jewish population, Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_in_Japan) or Long Island, New York? Take a guess...

And while you're thinking about that one think about this easy question: Which city in Europe had the largest number of Jewish residents before WW2?


[...]
I rambled, you made no sense, made unfounded arguments, it appears tried to throw some pesonal digs in there as well.If I did, I apologize. Name 'em and I'll repudiate them.


I do not think any member of this forum who has a basic grasp of revolutionary politics and/or fascism will agree with what you have just said.You're right, if that's all they have.


I await your reply eagerlyI'm properly flattered.

[MarxSchmarx]

The problem is that not only are fascism and white supremacy muddled in terms of practical, political terms, but frankly on a philosophical level as well.

Indeed, both ideologies have, as a core belief, that some humans are inherently better than others. And better not because of anything one can do in terms of upbringing and even effort, but are born better. It really matters little if one sees the capitalist class as financial geniuses and their progeny who are genetically endowed with a keen intellect of their ancestors, or of a race that is genetically superior in mental, if not physical, capacity. Moreover, people who hold these beliefs conveniently also see themselves as belonging to the "inherently" superior rulers. In essence, a lot of white supremacy comes down to the view that the fascist ruling class should be expanded to include almost all whites. Fascism won't go this far, but its just a matter of degree.

It is this strongly ingrained view that people are born with substantially different abilities, and those innate abilities determine (and should determine) rulers and ruled. And such a view of human nature goes to the core of fascism and white supremacy. Indeed, fascist regimes pay a lot of lip-service to meritocracy, and it's not accidental that relatively more meritocratic institutions like the military have played a greater role in fascist societies.

[Holden Caulfield]

Italian Antisemitism predates German Fascism by several hundred years, at the very least! It was the Italians and the Greeks who had "first contact" with the Jews (via it's relationship with Egypt) and who gave us the racially tainted Latin words historically most associated with the persecution of Jews: Fascism and Ghetto.

What has this got to do with anything comrade? Fascism means a axe bound by sticks it only has to do with the opression of Jews because of the Halocaust. Nobody said fascism when European Crusaders wiped out Jews in Eastern Europe, and nobody said fascism when pogroms raged in Russia. Who cares where words come from, it means nothing.

I'm not arguing with you on your point as they don't make sense, firstly you says its a german and slavic thing, now it is Italian. This isn't true at all, it develops where it is needed in accordance with the material conditions of the day.

You said fascism was to do with hating Jews, the Italian fascist had support from many Jewish people and had Jews in the high places. So your point isn't true.

You are talking shit my friend, and I don't want to continue this debate unless you start having actual foundations to your arguments.



Granted, present day racism, militarism and statism are strong today thanks largely to capitalist reaction. No doubt in my mind. However, the individual features of fascism are as old as the hills, and fascism itself (the unifying ideology) as old as the Roman empire, at the very least.


Rome had money lending, trade, merchants etc but that does not make it capitalist because it had the features of capitalism. Fascism is specifically a reaction to crisis of capitalism, if it is anything other than this it is not fascism. Was the British Empire fascist as it had concentration camps? No it was Imperialist because of the conditions of surplus value and the need to find new market that drove it on to the position it got itself in.


What I'm saying is that as Jews emigrated northwards into Eastern and central Europe and as the center of power of the Roman Empire waned and shifted east, toward Constantinople, Christianity spread north, east and west. And I would argue that it was the Jew, the Jewish Jew who helped spread Christianity throughout the civilized, western world; IOW, the virus of Christianity was carried into Europe by the Jews, I am happy to report.

That again is bullshit look at a map of missionary missions, and such it will disprove this. Look at how 'barbarians' from the steppes brought Christianity to Europe (not just the roman empire).

I am not comfrotable with your choice of words, please do not make such analogies in future.


Actually, I think that an ideology is defined as much by its intellectual expression as by its practical application. We describe Fascism as we do because of its outward appearance, its effect on society: Militarism and war; racial, political, sexual and class oppression and exploitation of minorities and majorities and the imposition in all spheres of public and private life of state power through legal, extra-legal and through public and private economic institutions, etc.

Again the British Empire is fascist because it has these features? The current British state is fascist because it had these features? The USA is fascist as well I assume. And China is fascist. The USSR was fascist. I suppose the 'despotic eastern' empires were fascist as well?

Or is it my analysis is correct and your is not.

Your next point is a common sense approach it sounds nice doesn't it but it is unfounded. I wouldn't make such an argument in the same way I would argue that Seaguls must only urinate when its raining because you never see Seaguls taking a piss mid flight.

The cities like Austin and Houston have large black communities, and large Christian communities, do black people carry the virus of christianity.

And Im glad you mentioned Japan, Christianity was taken there by Christians, Jesuits and the Portugese.


You're right, if that's all they have
Find one user who is widely accepted to be an authority on revolutionary politics, or even history to come and support your arguments. Ask RP the mod of history perhaps. Please do.

[New Tet]

I am not comfrotable with your choice of words, please do not make such analogies in future.


Stop being so dogmatic.