Skip to content

Original Sylvester & Tweety storyboard surfaces

This past month, someone on the Cartoon Research FB group posted the “Evolution of Sylvester & Tweety” video by a YouTuber named Dave Down Under. Right in the middle of it, when discussing the period when Bob Clampett left the studio, it actually shows a portion of a storyboard for his version of Sylvester and Tweety, which was said to be “recently uncovered”.

I first heard about this way back in Jerry Beck’s I Tawt I Taw a Puddy Tat: Fifty Years of Sylvester and Tweety, on p45 where he says “When Clampett left Warner Bros. in 1946, he was working on Tweety’s next film, pairing him with the cat (later named Sylvester…)”. p.38, he mentions a size comparison chart drawn by Clampett unit layout artist Tom McKimson that was the first sketch to show them as a pair. Lenburg’s Cartoon Encyclopedia p.140 also mentions that a “preliminary story” had been done by Clampett, but I didn’t know if that meant simply written out (text), or a storyboard. So here now, we get six panels of an actual storyboard! And we also even get a title: “FAT RAT AND THE STUPID CAT”!

At the time I first read these books, I was just getting married, and we didn’t have cable yet, but reading this and the Looney Tunes & Merrie Melodies guide the Sylvester & Tweety book was scaled down from, was becoming more interested in the “pre-48” Looney tunes, which were never shown on the network TV shows I was familiar with, but by this time were strictly on Turner cable, including the brand new Cartoon Network, and which I was awaiting.

I had vaguely remembered the pre-48’s from syndication on ch.5, which I would generally be forced to watch whenever me and my ENTJ cousin were in the same house. So I saw the early Bugs, and the early Elmer, including him being fat at times, etc. Pepe Le Pew actually pursued a disguised female dog once! (I didn’t remember his first film, where it was a male cat in disguise!) There were many things in the early years that were so different from the popular later stuff. I remember Bugs and Yosemite drawing higher numbered “shooters” on each other, until Bug pelts him in the nose with a “pea shooter”. They also had some post-48’s mixed in, such as the obvious title idea “Hare Brush”, the one where Elmer is in a psych ward pretending to be a rabbit and switches places with Bugs to avoid going to Alcatraz for tax evasion, and the one with Baby Faced Finster (Baby Buggy Bunny), and several with Bugs and Daffy competing on TV shows. (Their “Tea for Two” tapdance from “Show Biz Bugs” was cleverly used as the opening sequence. Sort of paralleled the network “This is It” opening).

But a certain batch of post-48’s were always kept on the CBS or ABC Saturday morning shows, and these included the big Oscar winners, such as Sylvester and Tweety, and the later Bugs vs Yosemite Sam series. (Director Friz Freleng grew tired of Elmer, and wanted a stronger character to go against Bugs, so Elmer eventually fell by the wayside). It was these that I took notice of in the late 70’s (when it was the huge 90 minute “Bugs Bunny Roadrunner Show” on CBS).

Very dialogue-oriented compared to the Tom & Jerry’s I had become a huge fan of, there was a lot of verbal ingenuity, and I was fascinated by the Rabbit Fire trilogy (where Bugs and Daffy try to use verbal or visual schemes to get Elmer to shoot each other), or Foghorn trying to talk his way out of being eaten by the chickenhawk or weasel and send them after the dog instead, or struggle to understand the brainy little chick who writes out the math formula for every impossible thing he does. (I remember him once explaining to the weasel. “I could have told you, to get at those chickens, you have to get rid of that dog”. I wished there had been someone to explain that to Tom sometimes, when Jerry would be using Spike as refuge!)

“Windblown Hare” cleverly fuses the story of “The Three Little Pigs” with “Little Red Riding Hood” and the wolf, common to both stories (and rather Sylvester–like, in this one), has to read the books to know how to play out his roles, as Bugs Bunny gets caught up in one story and changes it to the other.
The Oscar-winning “Birds Anonymous” (where Sylvester goes on a 12 step program to avoid eating Tweety), and the similar “Last Hungry Cat” (where he thinks he’s eaten him, and is plagued by his conscience, stoked by the Hitchcock-esque narrator) were truly ingenious! (In this last one, he passionately pleads “Other cats have eaten birds; why pick on me? Why, Why?!”) In another film, yet another “Lennie” (Of Mice and Men) caricature explains his inaccurate addressing: “But I can’t say ‘Sylvester’, George!” And when his son accuses him of being “inhuman” for devising a plot to catch a bird; “Of course I’m not human! I’m a cat! And cats catch birds!” (Not to mention all the times he’s said “I’m a cat— I think. Meow! Yep, I’m a cat”!)

But as I discuss here: the series overall, aside from these moments of brilliancy had fallen into a bit of a rut, as nearly everything had become patterned after the Sylvester and Tweety or Coyote and Roadrunner chase. The former winning the studio its very first Oscar, that became the winning formula. WB cartoons were then dominated by specific repetative premise series (like Hippety Hopper being mistaken for a mouse, Pepe LePew thinking a cat is a skunk, etc.) most of which followed these formulas (and increasingly with hard “win/lose” endings, rather than more funny neutral punchlines like earlier on), to the point that even Daffy ultimately became a Sylvester or Coyote-like stooge to Bugs!

So (the point I’m getting to), it was interesting to see that Tweety had a life before Sylvester (once they were paired, Sylvester was determined to be the only other character Tweety could work with for some reason —even though he didn’t talk in the first cartoon, and could have been played by any cat).

The different animation units and the origin of the duo

Each director tended to have their own characters, except for the biggest, oldest stars: Bugs, Elmer, Daffy and Porky, who were used routinely by all of them. So Sylvester was by Friz Freleng, and Tweety was by Bob Clampett. The styles of these directors were very different. The early 40’s were Clampett’s heyday (and Tex Avery, when he was there, earlier on), and both had very “wacky” stories and animation, while Freleng’s older stuff tended to be more dry and lame (his high point back then was “Red Riding Rabbit” and “Rhapsody in Rivets”, but most of the rest of it is forgettable).

In the middle of the decade, Clampett suddenly left the studio, along with Avery’s eventual replacement, Frank Tashlin, and at the same time, both Freleng and the similar Chuck Jones and new upstart Bob McKimson began cranking out a new generation of characters who would become mainstays to the present: Pepe, Sylvester, Yosemite, Foghorn, and eventually Marvin Martian and the Roadrunner; some of which were being noticed by the Academy, including Sylvester, whose debut, “Life With Feathers” was nominated. (A fourth director, Art Davis, took over Clampett’s Goofy Gophers debut film. Freleng and Jones also began improving their story ideas, such as “Baseball Bugs”, etc.).

Sylvester obviously had a very distinct character; sort of a feline Daffy, the voice and lisp being the same, but not sped up. Daffy himself then even quickly adopted the new character’s very first line: “Sufferin’ succotash!”
The other directors quickly became interested in him as well, starting with Clampett himself, who at the end of his run at the studio, decided to use him (still unnamed all this time) against Porky, instead of Tweety, who was in between films at the time. (He did make a very brief cameo appearance on the baby assemblyline of “Baby Bottleneck”, which was Clampett’s last animated use of him. Also, directors had to get permission to use another director’s creation who wasn’t already big enough like the aforementioned top four).

Tweety had begun against a feline version of “Babbit and Catstello” (I didn’t remember this version of them; I only remembered the two later films where they had become mice!) Next was just a single black cat, similar to Sylvester, but more dopey. And finally, the same cat, redrawn yellow, and with this wacky looking red cat added, who’s patterned after Jimmy Durante. Originally drawn on model sheets more simple, by the time the film was animated, they gave him this crazy eggplant-like “Humpty nose” (think “Humpty Dance”, which was big around the time I got this book), and a weird looking mouth and teeth. (I kept thinking “You look like Screwy Squirrel on crack, Humpty!“)
Seeing that Durante cat is part of what begged the question of what Clampett would come up with ‘next’ after that!

Umbriago! What would Clampett come up with next?

So Clampett must have liked Freleng’s cat so much, he then decided to quickly use him again, as Tweety’s next opponent.
You could even see where Clampett had already modified his cat design around him! Right after the Porky film, “Kitty Kornered”, came the Daffy solo classic “The Great Piggy Bank Robbery”, where one of the “Duck Twacy” villains is “Pussycat Puss”, who looks like a yellow Sylvester, even taking on the [Freleng-esque] characteristic side scruffs and the bigger snout and nose! Previously, Clampett’s cat characters had shorter snouts and pretty much round bulbous heads with jowls (instead of scruffs), like the rest of his characters; all of which seemed to be framed on that baby picture of himself (See I Tawt I Taw a Putty Tat p.40) that Tweety was patterned after. (They all basically had this “Tweety” look. The main exception being the Durante cat [aka “Colonel”], because of the redrawn nose taking prominence. I may have vaguely remembered one of those last two films, as they use the same piece of animation, when the other cat [“Snooks”] first eyes Tweety sleeping in the nest, with the huge head and eyes that bulge out at him. It looked very familiar).

But then as Clampett started work on this project, that was when he left the studio (due to some sort of conflict with the difficult to work with producer, Eddie Selzer, who had taken over after Leon Schlesinger left).
So Freleng decided to pick up the project, but instead of completing the story that had been drawn, he simply took the rights to Tweety (which now became exclusively his), and used him to replace another character in a project he was already working on.

Clampett’s new cat character design

Sylvester’s first film was about a lovebird who wants to die because of his nasty wife. So reverse of the future cat and bird chase premise, it was about him wanting Sylvester to eat him, but Sylvester being suspicious (“There’s something phony about you! Ya didn’t even try to escape from me! Ya just stood there! You’re probably poisoned! Yeah! You only want me to eat you, so I’ll die! Well I’m not falling for it!”).
He within a year did a second film “Peck Up Your Troubles”, that was truer to the later form, where Sylvester chases a bird, this time a woodpecker, and keeps annoying a bulldog that gets in his way, sometimes protecting the bird.

It was this film he was doing a “followup” to, and then decided to replace the woodpecker with Tweety. Right before Freleng died, I was still working the courts, and one day after work, had wandered over to Chatham Square for some reason, and the former (1870’s) New Bowery Hotel tenement had a small magazine store on St. James Pl. and I was probably looking for a snack or something, and went in and saw an animation magazine where Freleng was being interviewed, and this being around ’95, this whole mystique of “Clampett’s next Tweety film” still fresh in my mind, read it to see what further light it would shed.
That’s where I read that when he took over the project and merged it with his own, he told either his unit or Selzer that they “might as well stick Tweety in there”, but Selzer kept opposing it, wanting him to use the woodpecker. (He probably really did not like Clampett, and wanted to see anything associated with him retired and forgotten!) It mentioned the incident of Freleng slamming the pencil down on his desk and saying “well finish it yourself!”; Selzer gave in, and yet then was all too glad to receive the Oscar for the finished product, “Tweetie Pie” when it won!

The first Oscar, displayed on “Blue Ribbon” title that replaced the original

I wish I could find that magazine, to provide the source, to be added on sites like Wikipedia and elsewhere. Many people aren’t aware of this woodpecker project, and that Tweetie Pie was based on it, and not on Clampett’s story.

It seems all Freleng used from the Clampett project was apparently the layout, and now with the long lost original credits to the “Blue-Ribboned” Tweetie Pie also recently surfacing, the layout credit still goes to the Freleng unit’s Hawley Pratt. He probably took it, to get the basic idea, and just redrew it in his own unit’s style. (Tweety’s Freleng design is notably “sweeter” looking and even a bit more feminine presenting, especially the smile, which apparently had led to questions about his gender at times. His “Tiny Toons” younger counterpart, “Sweetie Bird” was made a female!)

You can easily visualize the woodpecker in Tweety’s place, like in the opening, outside next to the cigar, and then the lady of the house takes him in, and it would make sense that when Sylvester piled up the wooden furniture to reach him, the woodpecker would peck it, instead of Tweety having to saw it. Since in the first woodpecker cartoon, neither character spoke (Sylvester uses signs, like the Coyote would do later!), this explains why Sylvester doesn’t speak, but they had to make Tweety speak, to stay in character, but the lines are not really integral to the story.
(He was in this film oddly named “Thomas”! What were they thinking? Were they pretending MGM didn’t exist, like at the very same time having Bugs Bunny go against a mouse in a “Hungarian Rhspsody #2” performance?! He was first addressed as “Sylvester” by Porky a year later in “Scaredy Cat” which was Jones’ first use of him).

Imagining what this story would have been like

Clampett’s Sylvester, from Kitty Kornered, seemed like a smart leader. I had always vaguely remembered one where he stood up and gave a speech to other cats, on how to deal with the threat at hand. (The frame of this shown in the book always reminded me of that famous picture of Malcolm X giving the speech, with his pointing hand similarly raised). When the youngest kitten twice says something stupid, he backslaps him (“Sssmack!“) What a far cry from the later Tweety-pursuer who would helplessly allow dogs and other characters to slap or punch him around, if not worse! (Sylvester’s mix of toughness and weakness is likely what made me identify with him, and thus why I’m so into this).

So I always wondered how this would translate to the Tweety chase, since all of his earlier pursuers were either dumb, or a smart leader with a dumb sidekick who screws things up, and of course once Sylvester was paired with Tweety under Freleng, he became largely a hapless passive/aggressive losing wimp also. This still could have happened now (just like he had a strong personality in his debut, but instantly took on the wimpy role in the second film), but since Clampett had only one use of him at the time, you don’t really get a sense of the full range of roles he would have done with him. (He does parallel Colonel, even down to the “And furthermore…!” I also imagine he wouldn’t have been allowed to “kill off” Freleng’s new character, as had basically been done with the cats in the last two films, and so you expect it to have a different kind of ending! Everything about this is so intriguing!)

Kitty Kornered was an extremely rare role for Sylvester, as the pursuee rather than pursuer, and thus as the winner, as the pursuees often are in these cartoons. He technically had a similar role in Life With Feathers, though it played upon him being the natural predator, and concluded with him resuming that role. Otherwise, both Freleng and McKimson kept him largely as an antagonist, or in other ways, a helpless loser (only Jones had completely different kinds of roles for him, mostly as timid companion to Porky, but had only used him in about four films).
He appears as heckling pursuee again in Freleng’s “Back Alley Uproar”, against Elmer (so unusual seeing him coming with his hunter’s rifle against Sylvester!) but this was actually a remake of an earlier black&white Looney Tune feauring a generic cat against Porky. (Even though he ends up losing all of his nine lives, he still has the final hurrah, as one of the lives swipes Elmer’s halo, since he had died also, and is yet still plagued by the cat’s singing!) There’s also Davis’ “Doggone Cats” and McKimson’s “Crowing Pains” (though he’s a dumb sidekick in the former, and still loses in the latter).

This is an illustration of what I pointed out above, that earlier stories had more of a variety of plots and roles, but fell into more formulaic patterns later on. Sylvester was technically pursuee in some later Freleng films, such as the two with Chester and Spike/Alfie, the little girl who prefigures Elmyra (“A Kiddie’s Kitty”), and “Pappy’s Puppy” (essentially Sylvester’s entry in Freleng’s “Wentworth” premise, except that he was not marrying into the role of mother’s babysitter for money; it was the father who just came after him for that purpose), but he’s clearly not on top of things in these.

So again, it’s hard to tell where exactly Clampett would have gone with Sylvester. But for now, it’s hard to tell if he’s dumb or not in this one. He asks the snoring Tweety, in the cage “Are you sleeping?”, and then Tweety responds “Shhh!” So possibly. (Though he still doesn’t otherwise look particularly stupid there. But we see he does talk in this one. It seems he was putting on some kind of “act” in the story, that he hoped would impress Tweety somehow, but apparently only puts him to sleep).

Preaching Revolution to the oppressed masses!

But then the next question is, if he’s the “stupid cat”, then who’s the “fat rat”? Even though the six panels so far only show Sylvester and Tweety, I’m thinking there must be another character in the story, who could be a literal rat, but could also be any kind of character, like perhaps even another bird, who betrays Tweety in the chase. So the title seems to be portraying Tweety (the star of the Clampett series) against both foes, which would match the three films before that: “Tale of Two Kitties”, “Birdy and the Beast”, “Gruesome Twosome” . (I had always wondered what the next title after this would be!)

And that title would have perfectly fit the premise of Davis’ contemporary film “Catch as Cats Can” (which I had long eyed as possibly where the Clampett story might have went to), featuring an altered personality Sylvester with a pair of birds patterned after Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby (with Crosby as the underdog against the more suave Sinatra). So the jealous Crosby parrot would be the “fat rat” sending the “stupid cat” (Sylvester, as he was made in this story) after fellow pet bird, the Sinatra canary.
Davis had come out of the Tashlin unit and taken over the Clampett unit, and finished some of his other projects. He apparently liked the whole “Sinatra vs Crosby” premise, as he (under his former unit) had animated “Swooner Crooner”, where the singers are portrayed as roosters who compete to make Porky’s farm hens lay the most eggs, purely by their “crooning”.

So the canary’s violent self-defenses always reminded me of Clampett’s Tweety, and looked to me like what “the next Tweety film” could have been like. So in the Tweety story, it could even be a parrot who’s not Crosby, but keeps giving Tweety away, by saying “he’s in there, he’s in there”, or something. (Like on “Buccaneer Bunny”, which Boomerang has been playing a lot). Davis would have then taken the parrot and canary premise, and framed them as Crosby vs Sinatra. Perhaps it was this other character telling Sylvester to get close to Tweety by trying to impress him.

From the six panels shown so far, there’s no conclusive evidence of any of this. Only the title points to more in the story that might point that way. (I also have to consider the remote possibilty that the “fat rat” could be Tweety himself; perhaps ratting on Sylvester trying to catch him, as he would do in Tweetie Pie and most stories after!) Hopefully, the rest of the story will become visible at some time, and we’ll see!

Sylvester displays big Clampettesque “Kool-Aid smile”

Clampett completing this would have changed history. For one, this film likely wouldn’t have won the Oscar. (None of Clampett’s stuff was ever even nominated. Looks like the Academy didn’t like him either, but did like Freleng a lot. Most of the nominees and other winners were by Freleng! Clampett would ironically do a film where Bugs crashes the Oscar ceremony, demanding the award!)
Since they liked “Tweetie Pie” so much, then I could see “Woodie Pie” [jk]* still winning, assuming it was exactly the same, minus the bird’s speaking lines. Not sure if that would have made the difference, though. *(I believe it would have probably ended up titled “A Peck Of Trouble”, which was a few years later taken by McKimson, when he paired the same woodpecker with his own cat).

If it had won, then Sylvester’s permanent partner would have possibly been this woodpecker. Not sure where Clampett would have gone with Tweety after that, or of course, he could have still left, and then’s the question whether Tweety would have just fallen by the wayside, or could have still been picked up by Freleng, but I wonder if without the initial Oscar, the series would have had the same momentum (they didn’t win another one until much later).
One of the first things that always comes up in my thinking of counterfactual timelines, is what would have happened if Clampett had stayed! (He would continue to be to WB, what Avery by then was to MGM; the genius animator who kept the other directors on their toes! The other big curiosity similar to this, is if Stevie Wonder had stayed with engineers Margouleff and Cecil, and produced a followup to Fulfillingness First Finale, instead of Songs in the Key to Life. John Swenson’s biography mentions that “what exactly would follow FFF” was a “burning question” to the music industry! Several songs or clips from that project have been leaking out online for several years).

And what would the animation look like?

The final question is what would the final animated sequences have been like? Obviously, nothing like “Tweetie Pie”. Tweetie Pie is similar in flow to it’s predecessor Peck Up Your Trouble, which is nothing like the last Clampett Sylvester or Tweety films. That final year, Clampett had stepped up the wackiness, adding exaggerated angular perspective (obvious in Baby Bottleneck, Kitty Kornered and Great Piggy Bank Robbery), characters turning liquid to get out of tight spots, etc. Like Avery, he had very wild “double-takes”, with the huge eyes popping out, etc. In Baby Bottleneck, Daffy is running on a conveyor belt, and one of his legs had been stretched out, and he still runs with it (on the floor) and the normal sized one (on the belt) at the same time. He pulls the leg back to normal size with one of the feathers on the top of his head.
The final film, “The Big Snooze” has Bugs heckle Elmer through a surreal dream world. The highlight of Kitty Kornered is the alien costumes the cats wear, to scare off Porky. Then, a Teddy Roosevelt charge up the stairs! Before that was the sequence of Porky scaring the cats (with those wild double take reactions) and chasing Sylvester through the house, pulling him and a whole family of mice out of their hole, and then pulling him off a moose head, with the whole live moose then breaking out and galloping away. Before he entered the mouse hole, he started running up the wall above it, does a sharp take, and then does this 360° loop curl into the hole. (It’s fascinating to stop the video and see individual frames!) When giving the speech, he’s slobbering all over one of the others, who then has to duck (pull his head into his body) when Sylvester belts out the word “boot”. Freleng’s work, was in contrast, again, very straight laced.

Sylvester (left) and other cats in Clampett’s wacky animation

It seems Clampett’s bird chase stories were a bit less like his other stuff than these stories, but still had their moments of wackiness. Birdy and the Beast has the cat stop his wild feline stalk for a moment to humanly tiptoe, showing a goofy face. Then, he’s climbing the tree, whose trunk curves away for a bit, but he continues climbing straight. Then you have the flying with his arms gag, and him only realizing he can’t fly when Tweety points it out to him. Then, displaying the eggs in his mouth like teeth until Tweety smashes them. And Tweety shouting “BOOM!” at the top of his lungs when recounting how the cat cashed to the ground. These aren’t too difficult to imagine for any character or director. But Gruesome Twosome gets a little wackier, with the “Colonel” design. It starts out like it wasn’t a Tweety story at all, but about the cats, competing for a girl, with Tweety simply added in as the bird they have to catch to win her affections. The theme of this one is the violence, with Snooks repeatedly clobbering Colonel, who then repeatedly pumps him full of bullets. You then see the liquid effect when Colonel tricks him into crashing into a washtub. (Also repeated is Tweety’s loud “BOOM”) The final gag is them trying to sneak up on him in this crude floppy horse costume.

We don’t see anything in this storyboard that compares to this. It looks like it would be not too different from Freleng’s stories. But then a storyboard doesn’t have all of these details, which are probably added in the actual translation to animation. (The book shows part of a storyboard for Birdy and the Beast, and you don’t see all the gag details).
So it’s really hard to know what this would have looked like, being a late Clampett product that would follow characteristically totally wacky films like The Big Snooze and Great Piggy Bank Robbery.

Clampett’s wild frame animation. Notice the angular drawings of walls, which was common in this last year of his

What we see in the current portion

It shows Sylvester with the same basic design as in Kitty Kornered. (The first panel shown is totally weird looking though! Like a cross between him and “Birdy and the Beast” in the beginning, where Snooks momentarily tiptoes with this goofy look on his face; but this one looks goofy and devious at the same time). Included is the frame of [the for the first time, caged] Tweety’s “I thot I saw [sic] a putty tat!”, referring to Sylvester for the very first time! There’s also a scene of an encounter on the floor, away from the cage, and Tweety (flying in from somewhere else and landing before Sylvester, who looks ready to pounce) says “So, here I am, Mithter Putty Tat”, and Sylvester responds “Yesss, yess, so I s-s-see, so I s-s–see…”. Again, hard to make out where exactly this is going, or what the whole context even is. This looks very different from the previous three Tweety films, which were simple cat chases bird plots. (It’s reminding me of “Snow Business”, where they’ve actually been getting along as pets, but are snowed in with no cat food, so Tweety never even catches on that the “games” Sylvester is playing with him, are to try to eat him! Funny, as that one also has a mouse, who’s so hungry, he’s actually trying to eat Sylvester! Wonder if there may be any connection of this to this story!)

Kitty Kornered was notable for changing his red nose to black, and giving him yellow eyes. (Like Tom. That was the only time he ever appeared like this. All the other directors kept the original coloring). Another cat, who looks like a “deflated” version of the one from Birdy and the Beast (he even escapes by flowing down the drain as a liquid), now has the red nose. The other two are colored like Sylvester, and are very short, and having different shaped heads, though not too different from Sylvester.
So on this storyboard, since it’s in black & white pencil, it’s hard to tell what the coloring would be, but it seems to still be a completely dark nose. (Something red would usually translate to a lighter gray). The distinguishing feature of the Clampett interpretation of the character is the long, exaggeratedly dumbbell shaped snout, with the big round nose sticking straight up. Freleng’s design was more compact than that.

Bob McKimson was the next director to borrow Sylvester, against his new Foghorn character (and with Henery and the dog), oddly enough, (and very quickly afterward, starting his own Sylvester series, with Hippity Hopper), and his early Sylvester generally had the stronger character as well. McKimson had been the Clampett unit’s main animator in the days of the Tweety films, but then was promoted to take over Tashlin’s unit. So in some respects his stuff bears some resemblance to Clampett at times (as does Davis; and then some other early stuff of theirs resembles Tashlin as well). McKimson also added some wacky animation at times, like Sylvester’s dramatic reaction to the egg Henery was hiding in, and then going crazy and pulling his head in and out of his body using his tail.

But while the Sylvester of “Crowing Pains” (and the early Hippety Hopper films; like the sketch of him from “Hop, Look and Listen” that appears in Putty Tat p.95) does have a similar scruffy snout design as Clampett, and mouth animation is very similar (and the ridiculous slobbering), the main visual difference between the two directors was the upper head. Where Clampett’s big heads would have big eyes, with big pupils (that “baby look” again), McKimson’s heads (above the mouth/nose/jaw line) and thus the eyes, were very notably small (and often, with very heavy eyebrows). In fact, that became his characteristic look for talking characters. You would see a big mouth, with all the teeth shown prominently, but the head and eyes above it would be tiny. (I think of “Hare We Go”, where Christopher Columbus says he prefers “WHITE!” meat, or Elmer, in “Easter Yeggs” saying “I’ll catch that Easter Bunny if it’s the WAST thing I do!”, or his very first directed film, “Daffy Doodles”, where Porky says “I HATE that d-d-duck!”)

So no go, in looking at early McKimson products to get a sense of what this would have been like!

Successors to Clampett? Art Davis and Bob McKimson offer similar styles (Catch as Cats Can, and Crowing Pains)

Should also mention that Tweety looks different than the earlier storyboards; like more compact, and as the video points out, it seems he’s now become a feathered canary. Though Beck’s book says “Gruesome Twosome” is where he became a “yellow feathered canary”, and the frames shown in the book look like it, but watching the actual film, he still looked more flesh-colored like before. (I remember I couldn’t wait to catch the films on TV, and so rented the old Turner [pre-48] Sylvester & Tweety VHS, only to have my new bride flip, “A pink Tweety?”) So Freleng’s design is usually credited for that.
He’s also clearly become domestic (as he did for the first time in “Tweetie Pie”, though he started out wild in that one), and the video mentions Clampett being accused of “falsely” taking credit for things like this.

I asked Dave where he got it from, and he linked me to this auction site. “110” in parentheses appears to be the number of pages or plates! It started at $6000-8000! Don’t know who bought it, but I hope it’s a library or museum that makes good use of it! Wonder if with this new retro-themed Looney Tunes production going on and set to debut soon, if it would be possible to hand it over to them and let them finally animate it, after these 74 years!

This looks very interesting, and is a significant find!

Another excellent Progressive writer: Medium’s Umair Haque

Haque, a Medium writer is a another powerful writer on a level with Tim Wise, especially, and Robert Reich, on economics and race. He really shows the detrimental effects of “pure” capitalism, and also discusses “Anglo” civilization. (and the two are indelibly intertwined, as “capitalism” is the primary means the Anglos try to dominant the world through, with colonialism and slavery as simply an earlier means of accomplishing that, and now, conquest dome directly through economics, and thus made to look like the subjects are really “free”.

I had been tacking his articles to other threads (mostly the Reich review), but knew all along, he deserves his own thread. So here is what’s being untacked from Reich (and there are still other comments in other pertinent threads, such as “the Political Spectrum is really 3D” and “Iceman Inheritance”).

How Capitalism Convinced Americans the Only Things That Matters is Capitalism
Why Americans Put the Success of Capitalism Above Their Own Lives Falling Apart

And yet the average American was not just left uneducated about this — he was conditioned against it. He was only told one economic principle, over and over again — the very one he is still told today: his living standards are not the economy, only capitalists increasing their capital is the economy, and therefore, as long as capitalism is succeeding, the economy is roaring, and everything is fine. But note the implication of this logic. If what it takes for “the economy”, which is really capitalism, to go on increasing its capital, is to chew through his life — his savings, his income, his home, his retirement, his opportunity, town, city, community, future — then that is perfectly justified, right, and acceptable. He should celebrate it — because the economy is booming!! That boom will one day shower him with fortune, too.

Do you see the weird, backwards, illogic? It’s something like a bribe. Capitalism promises the proles the glittering rewards that capitalists win — but it has no intention of ever giving it to him. It makes that promise by dazzling him with the idea that the economy is just capitalism — not his daily bread, and that if he needs to give up his daily bread to capitalism, today then he should do it, and that is a small price to pay, because one day, capitalism will make a baron and tycoon of him — it will make a king of everyone, after all.

Should point out the blame of liberal social policies for the proles’ hardships. I.e. that it would be working as designed, if only the liberals weren’t giving all the money to undeserving minorities and others.

How Capitalism Cost Americans Their Dignity
Why Dignity is the Highest Kind of Freedom

Why the World is Giving Up on Freedom
Or, Why Neoliberalism is Ending in Authoritarianism Rising Around the Globe Again

But it’s one thing for everyone’s incomes to flatline — and quite another for the rich to grow super-rich, while the average stagnates. The second great cost of neoliberalism was inequality. It wasn’t just that incomes got stuck — it was that rich grew fantastically, absurdly, grotesquely richer. That meant that a predatory economy had emerged. Growth was being siphoned off by the rich from the average — unless you believe that teacher, engineer, or doctor contributes nothing to a society’s prosperity. The rich were getting richer by doing things which made the average person poorer, not richer, too — things like financial engineering, stock market bubbles, property investment, all glorified ponzi schemes, which create less than no real lasting well being or value for anyone at all.

The Price of American Greatness
Does a Nation Need to be Great to be Worthy?

Great is a word that has many meanings, but they can be divided into two halves. Greatness as magnanimity, as overcoming, as a kind of giving — as standing beside. Or greatness as superiority, as outdoing, as a need for admiration — as standing above. Whether or not you think that America somehow made a transition from the first to the second, it should easy to observe that the second kind of greatness is what America has aspired to in recent decades. Call it the degeneration of greatness, if you like.

What happens a society is built upon that second kind of greatness, greatness as superiority? When that is the fundamental norm, value, code, which governs it? Well, if that nation must be the best, then the people in it must be the best, too. But that means they themselves have created a kind of paradox. They cannot all be the best. Some will just be average, ordinary people. Some will struggle and languish. But what will a society devoted to greatness think of them?

It will scorn, despise, and loathe them, won’t it? They will be punished. They will be seen as liabilities and burdens. Soon enough, a kind of ethical and moral perversion will happen. Because only the best are good enough, the ordinary are bad. And what is perfectly right and just is to punish and neglect and admonish them. So the meaning of the “best” when greatness is superiority is itself the ability to trample others, and be the last one left standing. The “best” ends up meaning ruthlessness, cunning, self-preservation, and egotism.

Isn’t that exactly where America has found itself? The average person doesn’t deserve the following things, we’re told: healthcare, education, finance, a retirement. A life of dignity and respect. Instead, what is morally just is for a person who is merely average to live a life of unrelenting fear, anxiety, and despair, to be crushed every day by the dread of paying one’s bills and providing for one’s kids. Ordinary is not good enough — it’s only deserving of punishment.

Only if one is mega rich does one deserve anything like psychological peace, safety, happiness — not to mention dignity, respect, and belonging.

Capitalism is Why Americans are Subsidizing the World’s Richest Man (LOL)
Why American Ideas of the Way Societies Grow Wealthy and Prosper are Obsolete

Let’s start at zero: capitalism isn’t the platonic ideal of self-correcting competition— that’s a fantasy, a fairy tale. This is the self-evident reality of capitalism— monopolies extracting wealth. How much? Well, first, no amount of wealth will ever be enough— not even the most wealth in human history is. There is no boundary condition, no point of satiation, which means there is also no line of conscience or morality. So, second, capitalism will never do the “right thing” — aka in this case, help a broken society build the systems it desperately needs— out of the kindness of its heart, because it doesn’t have one. Third, capitalism’s central principle is to exploit— which means that I take as much as I possibly can get away with, from you.

Societies have turning points on the way to maturity, and one of the most crucial for a modern one is to grapple with the difficult truth that capitalism at the mega scale is a harmful, abusive system, whose greed is boundless, literally never-ending— instead of pretending, as immature societies often do, that capitalism is some kind of noble and virtuous contest.

Now, note the assumption here: the only way a society grows is through capitalism, and that means that capitalists, too, have the power to withhold prosperity from a society — and that way, to hold it ransom. What if they decide to do that?

The Greatest Lesson From History You Probably Never Learned
The Lesson the 20th Century is Trying to Teach the 21st

What’s unique about America? It’s that it got the social contract of modernity — people provide each other the necessities, and capitalism provides the luxuries — absolutely backwards. America, unique amongst rich nations — all nations, in fact, tried a social contract where capitalism provides people the necessities, and the luxuries, things like yachts and mansions and so forth, are often had by way of a kind of weird, inverse socialism — cronyism, how close you are to powerful politicians and capitalists and so on, how many subsidies you can grab, how much you take from others.

In other words, America has always been testing the hypothesis that more exploitation leads to more prosperity. First, it did it through slavery, and then through segregation, and now, through capitalism. Milder forms, maybe — yet the principle remains the same.

Six Myths About Capitalism Everyone Should Know

Why Most People Who Believe They’re Capitalists Are the Opposite of Capitalists
Why Americans Have a Textbook Case of False Consciousness

In other words, my friend [who imagines that as CEO, he’d make sure that he maximized fairness, decency, equity, a square deal, goodness, truth, justice.] imagines that the problem is not the system — it is the people. If only the people were different — maybe people like him (or maybe not, and maybe I am being unfair) — if only there were virtuous and noble people at the heads of all these institutions, then overnight, a magical wonderland of capitalist utopia, a place of self-regulating markets, happy people, and better lives, would dawn. The problem is that none of that is true. The problem isn’t the people, really — it’s the system. You can be the noblest and kindest and nicest person in the universe. But if I made you a CEO in American capitalism — you would have to do terrible, strange, and backwards things. Things that you probably didn’t want to do. But you would have no choice in any way whatsoever.

This is basically the conservative “the problem with capitalism is capitalists” sentiment (where the “problem with communism is communism“; i.e. the system is inherently bad, while these imperfect, flawed capitalists have managed to create this perfect system, but they’re only human, so ‘boys will be boys’, and so that’s why this system is so rough for many. Oh, and also, those meddling closet communists with their taxes and regulations, are making it fail!

America’s Choice is Collapse or Social Democracy (And So is the World’s)
Why the Future Won’t be Made by Liberalism versus Conservatism

America’s politics, uniquely, remained stuck, split, in a weird, binary way, between “liberals” and “conservatives” — mostly because America was clinging on to old notions of supremacy, still institutionalized in segregation, which ruled out any kind of social democracy absolutely.

So what did decades of binary liberalism versus conservatism accomplish for America? Did the dialectic lead to progress? Not at all. It led to stagnation. The answer to what did liberalism and conservatism achieve for America is: precisely nothing. Less than nothing, in fact, one could argue.

The average American’s life isn’t more prosperous today than yesterday — it’s less so. Life expectancy is falling. His income is less than his grandfather’s. He’s broke, though he works longer hours, at a less stable job. Suicides are soaring — and maybe he himself is giving up on life. Who could blame him? He faces bizarre, weird, and gruesome problems, like his kids being shot at school, and having to beg strangers for money for healthcare online. He spends sleepless night wondering he ended up impoverished, despite playing by the rules — maybe not quite understanding that the rules were designed to exploit him.

Decades of liberalism versus conservatism didn’t lead America forward — they turned it into a surreal, bizarre dystopia.

Why didn’t liberalism and conservatism lead to progress? Well, because in America, they converged to two flavours of largely the same thing — “neoliberalism” and “neoconservatism.” Neoconservatism was a little more trigger happy, always ready to start a war, and neoliberalism was a little more utopian, but their foundational precepts didn’t end up being very different. Wealth would trickle down. Trade should be free, but movement shouldn’t. A person’s worth was how much money they made. And, most crucially of all, given these first three — society must never, ever invest in itself.

Hence, this fatal convergence of “neos”, of liberalism and conservatism to the same lowest-common-denominator, produced modern American dystopia: a rich society of impoverished people, a powerful one of powerless people, a generally decent one somehow ruled by bigots, fools, and ignoramuses. It’s a place in which people are quite literally left to fend for themselves, as best they can, with zero support, investment, care, or consideration.

American pundits and intellectuals act like it’s still 1962, and act as if social democracy never happened, still pitting “socialism” against “capitalism” in a Cold War that no one really won — unless the wrecked state of America today means “winning” to you.

Why America is the World’s First Poor Rich Country
Or, How American Collapse is Made of a New Kind of Poverty

Why the American Dream Collapsed
We’re Forgetting America’s Greatest Idea. It’s Time to Start Remembering It.

The Age of Primal Rage
How Implosive Capitalism and Technology are Causing a Spreading Global Epidemic of Violence, Hate, and Fear

Several great articles on “Anglo” civilization!, see:

Great article on Fascism, see:

Why the Predatory Theory of Human Nature is False (And Foolish)
Or, Why People Aren’t Just the Sum of Their Appetites

There’s a strange and ignorant theory going around, in these troubled times. A theory of human nature. Which is leading young men astray, making fools of old men, and beginning to lead whole societies into the darkness.
Let me call it the Jordan Peterson theory of human nature. It goes something like this:

— Nature is red in tooth and claw. Creatures in the natural world are only born to compete — so that they consume and prey on each other.

— Human beings are just such creatures.

— It is thus natural — right, just, noble — for human beings to express their most vicious competitive tendencies. Anything less is contemptuous and weak.

— Therefore, might is right, greed is good, power is predation, and the strong should justly trample the weak.

(Why) Americans Don’t Understand What Capitalism Really Is
Or, How The Opposite of Capitalism Isn’t Socialism — It’s My Local Record Store

Americans have the same relationship to capitalism as the Soviets did to socialism — since it’s the only idea allowed in society, nobody really understands or thinks about it well at all. One consequence of growing up in a Soviet society — in this case capitalism, not communism — is that people grow miseducated about that very system. It becomes all things, everything, and in the end, nothing.

Hence, today Americans conflate capitalism with all the following — all business, enterprise, entrepreneurship, endeavour, industry, trade. But capitalism isn’t all those things — and by failing to understand that, Americans remain stuck because they can’t unpick the basic nuances and distinctions of how to build a better society and political economy.

Capitalism is a very specific thing. It has a few critical elements. Maximizing profits — a legal obligation to. Returning those profits to shareholders, people who “own” a legally contracted “share” of them — which they can “trade.” Those “shareholders” are the ones who decide how to govern the organization, and sit on its board. Those are the basic ingredients of capitalism.

Business, trade, commerce, industry — these things long, long, predate capitalism. And yet we, especially Americans, imagine that “capitalism” means anyone who was ever in business, or ever traded anything, from the beginning of time — yet when you think about it for even a moment, nothing could be further from the truth.)

What does that tell us? It tells us that capitalism is a kind of tiny subset of business, entrepreneurship, trade, commerce. It is just one way to organize these things — far from the only one. It is the one we use now — and we can and should question whether it’s doing us any good anymore.

Just as the Soviets thought “socialism” meant you could never open up a dry-cleaning shop, today Americans think questioning “capitalism” must mean you want to shut down all the dry-cleaning shops. But it doesn’t. Questioning capitalism just means the following things (as a brief, incomplete summary) — which are common sense.

That we disagree with the idea that there should be a legal obligation to maximize profits, above all else. That we don’t believe that an organization should be “owned” by “shareholders”, versus say employees, cities, towns, managers, or anyone else, partially or wholly. That we disagree with the idea that “shareholders” should be the only ones to manage an organization.

I’ve put that all very technically, so let me make it a little clearer. That every business, enterprise, project, endeavour, should be legally obligated to be as greedy and selfish and predatory as possible, because the only goal we should ever want is to “grow” into a giant, soul-crushing monopoly of profit — which also means they have to narrow-minded, short-sighted, and end up abusive and harmful to everything from the planet to democracy. That being exploitative and predatory is OK, desirable, good — not corrosive to democracy and survival and prosperity. We’re saying there should be more business, enterprises, endeavors that don’t have to or want to or need to become Goldman Sachs or Big Pharma or Facebook or the lobbying industry.

The Heroes and Villains of American Collapse
Have We Become Readers of the Comic Book of Our Own Decline?

In a Capitalist Society, Everything’s For Sale
How Capitalism Brainwashed Americans Into Being Perpetually Surprised by its Ugly Truths

Why are Americans so powerless? Because they have to do what capitalists say. It’s true that they have “choices” — but those choices are between kind of option: doing what this megacapitalist wants, or that one. If you want to do something a megacapitalist doesn’t want in the first place…well, my friend, good luck. A life of poverty, hardship, and invisibility await (though if you do toe the line, all you get is precarity and hardship, too.) Americans are powerless because they literally have to obey the whims of capitalists, in every arena of life. And yet there they are, surprised that in their society, everything is for sale.

(Canada and Europe…have many forces softening capitalism, fencing it in, whether families or social bonds or communities or socialism or all of those. That is why they are kinder, gentler places, too.)

What Happens When People Find Out Capitalism Was a Lie?
Or, the Age of Disintegration

If the Economy’s “Strong” — Why Are 40% of Americans Struggling to Afford Food?
Why Economic Indicators Don’t Tell the Sad and Shocking Story of America’s Descent into Mass Poverty, Hunger, Misery, and Despair

Have you ever wondered? Why public discourse doesn’t reflect your reality?

I often say that Americans are the weird, terrible paradox of being the world’s first poor rich people.

So why this constant myth that the economy is “strong”? Well, the first thing to understand is that it is a myth.

When suicide is skyrocketing, when people can’t afford to feed their families, when half a society says they can’t find a decent job…the economy isn’t doing well. But as long as you believe it is…then it’s your fault if you’re struggling. It’s not your fault. It can’t be your fault if you’re struggling when close to half a society is having trouble eating. That’s a social problem. It points to a terrible, epic, systemic failure, in the absence of a giant famine.

Let me make that even clearer. Hunger, poverty, misery, and inopportunity are not a strong economy. They are a weak one. In fact, they represent a collapsing one, if they are new things, like they are in America. If hunger, poverty, misery and inopportunity are a “strong economy”…what on earth could be a weak one? Aliens enslaving everyone?

So where does this bizarre, astonishing, spectacular fantasy come from? What does it tell us?

It comes from the fact that Americans economic statistics don’t represent the economy anymore. By “the economy” we should mean “people’s welfare”, how well their lives are actually faring. But since American economists and thinkers are ideologically blind, because they only study one system, and they assume from the get-go that that system is the answer to every one of society’s problems, quite naturally, they developed a set of indicators that look at the health of…that system. Not people’s lives. But those are two different things. A system is never anybody’s life.

That system, of course, is capitalism. Now, I use “capitalism” in the European sense. That’s Wall St, Bezos, the Waltons, Silicon Valley, etc. In the American sense, you might call it “corporatism”, if you like.

America’s thinking classes don’t know how to think about the economy anymore — economists, journalists, pundits, and so forth — because they imagine that as long as the indicators that exist are ticking up, then everything must be fine. In other words, they imagine that all the real problems have been solved — and all there is to do is apply the solution, which is always more capitalism, as in markets for healthcare, less public schools, smaller government, and so forth.

The indicators that American thinking relies on — the stock market, GDP, the unemployment rate — only really tell us about the health of capitalism. (or corporatism, if you like.) They don’t tell us anything whatsoever about how well people are doing. It’s perfectly feasible for GDP, which is the sum of profits — and the stock market, which is just tomorrow’s profits, counted today — to grow by…stealing your life savings. That’s exactly what is happening.

As a result, you get this incredibly bizarre, weird, and grotesque picture. The stock market’s booming! GDP’s growing! But 40% of Americans can’t afford to…eat. What the? Do you see shades of Versailles in that? Shades of Soviet collapse? You should. It’s predatory growth — American are growing hungry, poor, and ill precisely because their ultra rich are preying on them, or maybe deluding them into preying on each other, dangling little rewards before them, just like so many time before in history.

The Soviets, too, had a set of indicators that their elites and leaders used to assess the health of the economy. And as long as those were OK — everything was fine. Did we make enough tractors? Did we employ enough people at that factory in Gdansk? Everything’s fine! But everything wasn’t fine. People were growing hungry. Afraid. Angry. Bang! Collapse. When a society can’t feed its people…it’s on the way to collapsing, my friends. There is no surer sign.

But America…just like the Soviet Union, it’s thinkers and leaders can’t see even that. They can’t see that hunger, poverty, powerlessness, misery, and illness are now endemic, chronic, systemic — things that exist at a mass level, on a social scale. That’s because they’re trapped in the fairy tales of ideology, which in this case is capitalism’s final triumph over the world. They can’t see how badly reality has diverged from the fantasy, the fairy tale.

The Soviets believed that communism was the answer to everything, that if there was a problem with it, it wasn’t “true communism” yet, that every issue in society was to be solved with more communism, life was always better than everywhere else, and no questioning or dissent of any of the above was to be allowed in the public sphere. Hence, you couldn’t open up a little dry cleaning shop until 1989.

But that’s America in 2019, too. Capitalism is the answer to everything. If there’s a problem, it’s because it’s not “true capitalism” — since every issue in society is be solved by capitalism to begin with. Life is always better than everywhere else. And no questioning or dissent from this ideology is to be allowed.

Can you think of any other rich country in the world where nearly half of the people in it struggle to feed their kids? I can’t. Do you know how many people eat one meal a day in Venezuela? 30%. That’s not a direct comparison — it’s just to give you a sense of how dire American collapse really is.

America’s leaders and elites are so badly blinded by an absolutist ideology that they can’t even see it when their society has ended up starving, broke, poor, miserable, sick, and hopeless — en masse. Instead, looking at a set of indicators that have absolutely no connection to reality anymore, they simply keep on declaring that things are “great” or “strong.” They’ve never been better! The main job now, it seems, of America’s elites, is to defend, and reproduce, that ideology — to keep it powerful, ascendant, for it to monopolize discourse and truth. The only real difference is that in this case the ideology in question is totalist capitalism — capitalism as the answer to everything, the only set of indicators that matters — instead of totalist communism.

(Why) The Future is a Choice Between Two Socialisms

Why Capitalism’s Collapse Feels Weirdly a Lot Like Communism’s


The Majority of Americans Die in Debt. What The?
How America Became the World’s First Poor Rich Country

A coffin made of unpayable debt, that the average American’s now laid to rest in. In plain English: they never make enough to break even their whole lives long. He or she finishes up a pauper. Not just worth zero — but with a negative net worth. That means that over a lifetime, the average American will effectively save nothing, own nothing, and earn nothing. Stop and reread that. America’s supposed to be the richest country in the world. Again: what the?

Let’s think about what that really means. It’s not as if the average American ends up impoverished because he or she doesn’t work. Americans work harder than anyone else in the rich world, in fact. They work so hard that multiple jobs are an everyday reality. They don’t take vacations, they don’t get leisure time — whereas Europeans and Canadians, by American standards, live lives of idle pleasure.

So the reason that Americans are dying paupers — not just broke, but less than broke — isn’t that they’re lazy. It’s not about them at all, in fact. It can’t be. If an entire nation is dying in poverty — it can hardly be the people’s fault. It must be the system’s. Despite lifetimes of grueling work — Americans are left with less than nothing. What kind of a life is that?

This…tells us in stark, explosive terms that if you play by the rules, if you do your job, if you’re a good and decent person — what’s your reward? It’s less than nothing. (Sure, you might “buy” a home and fill it with possessions — but if you’re dying in tens of thousands of dollars in debt, you didn’t own any of it, you just rented it.)
The American Dream? The dream is a distant, painful memory of better times.

It’s not just that Americans are indebted. There’s a subtler point here. It’s that Americans now have unpayable debts — debts which simply can’t be repaid, even with a lifetime of hard work. That is what the average person dying in debt means — American debt is literally now unpayable. So go ahead and breathe easy, it’s not just you, it’s everyone. That’s how the system’s designed, in fact. How so?

(If the average person’s dying in debt to the tune of more than the average income — then short of winning the lottery, the “debt” you incur simply for existing and living is unpayable. What do we call people with unpayable debts? Bankrupt.)

Well, whom are Americans indebted with unpayable debts to? To their super rich and ultra rich. Americans effectively owe unpayable debts to a class of oligarchs and tycoons — a tiny number of people, hedge fund managers and CEOs and so forth, most of whom have gotten filthy rich for doing, quite frankly, nothing much of any real worth or value. Yet these debts are now so large, so massive, that the average American now simply dies without ever being able to pay them.

Can we call people who live and die in debt that they will never repay — which they can’t repay — genuinely free? Or are they the modern equivalent of peasants and serfs and untouchables? If you have a debt you can never repay, you’ll have to spend your life toiling away at whatever work you can find — no matter how grim or dismal or pointless. Hence, something very much like a caste society is emerging in America: those crushed by debts they’ll never be able to repay, versus ultra rich. Those in the lower castes are born in debt, and will die in debt, no matter how hard they work, or what they do — they owe a portion of the harvest, just like a medieval peasant. But why? For what?

The next thing this statistic tells us is that America has pioneered something new and bizarre: more and more toxic kinds of debt. The 80s saw the rise of credit card debt. The 90s, student debt. The 00s, medical debt. And now? Lunch debt. Debt has proliferated not just in quantity — but in kind. Americans are so poor that they’ve had to mortgage everything — right down to school lunches. But what kind of a society won’t feed its schoolchildren?

Who pioneered this bizarre reality — a nation of people who trapped all their lives long by unpayable debt they struggle, in vain, to pay off? The combination of Wall St and Washington, DC did. DC’s neoliberals put forth the crackpot economic theory that society should never invest in people — that mega corporations maximizing profit were the answer to everything, from healthcare to retirement. Wall St loved this idea, needless to say, and showered money on said mega corporations. As Americans grew poorer, because the only idea at work here was that markets solve everything, the only answer was to sell them loans, on markets, in the form of all the kinds of debt above. Bang! A kind of debt explosion unseen since the second world war.

The only difference [between Germany 1929 and America 2019], really, is that Germans owed unpayable debts to France and Britain, but Americans owe unpayable debts to their own class of ultra rich.

Umair now goes Jungian on us and tackles the issue of the “shadow” in politics:

(How to Do) the Hard Work of Growing as People and Societies
Why the Work We’re Doing Today is Shadow Work

Umair addresses the point of “scarcity” amidst “abundance”:

Why the Paradox of Scarcity Amidst Abundance is Driving the World Insane

BDMNQR2: 20 Years Online!


20th Anniversary!

Today, it’s been 20 years I’ve officially been online!

I actually had my first AOL screen name in 1997, when my wife and I shared a computer with our close friend, who held both the computer and the main account.
Leading up to this, after the much heralded release of Windows 95, many more regular people began getting their first computers. So in 1996, we began looking to getting one of our own. I remember being intrigued by TV ads for early services like “Prodigy”. It sounded so interesting, having all the world at your fingertips, right from your own home. No longer having to hike to distant libraries, who still may not have what you’re looking for.

Anticipating this, I even jumped in a job-sponsored after work class on computers (and I used to hate any kind of classes! Now I know, with introverted Thinking; I need to learn at my own pace, and filter what I think is most relevant and not have information crammed down my throat) Using Computers A Gateway to Information (Shelly, Cashman, Waggoner, 1995) was the textbook (still have it!), but for some reason, the class just stopped after just a few sessions.
This was also the exciting time of the announcement of rewritable CD, and the soon released new medium DVD (see, which would figure heavily for computers, since they were the first and main venue the new drives would be used on.

Finances pushed the computer back a year, but finally, it came. Everyone remembers the sound of the dialup tones, and waiting to get connected (loved seeing that “people” logo AOL used when it finally got connected), getting knocked off, annoyed at how many others must have been on at the same time, and then conflicting with someone in the house needing to use the phone (and incoming calls would knock you off too).
But in addition to all of this was having only limited time to be in the other person’s house to use it! Don’t know how I ever survived!

Knowing nothing about the brand new medium of the Internet or “World Wide Web” I didn’t know if it was wise to use my real name (as our friend and others I saw, all used aliases); so I chose a cryptic-looking array of letters, based on my main interest, the subways. (And wasn’t even working there yet. Still braving the “Five Points” Collect Pond air of the County Clerks’s office).

Even though I had recently married into the distant Ridgewood/Bushwick area, my mind was still on the other side of Brooklyn I grew up in. Back in those days, that part of the subway was stuck seemingly forever in the “Manhattan Bridge North Side Open” pattern, where the “south” side, leading to the Broadway line, was closed, the N line banished to the longer tunnel route, and the Q moved to 6th Avenue. It was taking forever to finish the work on that side, to then move to the next phase, swapping sides (another four years away at that point, and it had already been like this for a whopping eight years already), and then finally, the work complete, which would be seven years later.

So I was always thinking about those lines over there, and what would happen when the bridge work advanced; drawing up suggestions and sending them in, etc. My last time at WTC was this same year, when the MTA had an “East River Crossings” presentation, with volumes of material on the different “alternatives”. Including a lot of wild ideas, they nor we would never imagine the final plan, where the B and D were swapped from where they ran continuously in one form or another, for 34 years!

So I chose a sequence of route letters. Since 34th Street (Herald Square) was like the “center” of the affected part of the system; a huge hub where the 6th Avenue and Broadway lines cross, and the truncated 6th Avenue lines would terminate when that side of the bridge was closed; plus one of my favorite areas from being the center of NYC Christmas, with Macy’s and all; I wanted to use the lines that crossed there: BDFNQR.

However, I didn’t live on any of those lines anymore. I lived on the M, which at the time didn’t even go to midtown, but rather looped from one side of Brooklyn to the other, through the short, downtown Manhattan Nassau St. line. So I instead chose the next best thing; the downtown Brooklyn hub where the M did cross with most of those other lines (and then some): the Atlantic terminal-Pacific St. complex (now known as “Barclay’s Center” from the arena more recently built there), and thus BDMNQR.

This is what my original screen name and e-mail address was, and what I would post under on early AOL interest boards and the old USENET. Main boards were transit, cartoons, and music (Stevie; EWF. On the latter, I was surprised that another member recognized what my screen name was).

Since the friend had long dropped AOL, upon calling them to find out when my accounts started, they did not have on record her old account. Not sure how long we shared. Didn’t seem that long. It may have been since December (1997), and the original plan was to do this article that month sometime, being the absolute 20th anniversary of my internet life completely; but working on other projects, I let it slip, figuring I wasn’t sure anyway. However, I was able to get the date of when I finally got my own AOL!
June 1st, 1998!

Our friend got a new computer, and gave us the old one, a 1.7 GB Packard Bell.
However, since I had the screen name under the old account, I couldn’t simply make that a new main account, so I had to create a whole new e-mail. I chose to add “2”, which served both as indicating it’s the second one, but then also was another line that ran through the same hub (along with the 3, 4, and 5). Thus, “BDMNQR2” was finally born!

So that was the main account I used to the present!
(The irony would come in 2010, with another, [even more] “unthinkable” service change, of actually rerouting the M up 6th Avenue, to Forest Hills. So now it actually goes through 34th St! I could have chosen the Herald Sq. lines including the M, if I created the screen name today: “BDFMNQR” or now, “BDFMNQRW”, with the W eliminated with the service changes that merged the M and V, recently brought back! I actually thought of changing it, but having the name so long and especially with the 20th looming, I decided to keep this one!)

In 2000, after getting nowhere having my two main religious and one political writing published (Trinity, CCM Controversy, Right Wing politics), adding another one on fundamentalism and psychology (this and the CCM one after having attended IFB classes on both issues), and wanting to post my own narrative of the rapidly re-burgeoning Scooby Doo cartoon (after finding this new internet medium filled with hatred toward the Scrappy Doo character, and the whole decade of the show when he was present); I then learned I could host my writings on AOL.
(It had gotten so bad, that someone had taken the “breast cancer death awareness” ribbon and emblazoned it with pictures of Scrappy, for all the haters to display on their pages. There usually would be no other reference to him —they pretended he didn’t exist; and then that ribbon, often at the bottom would let you know they were deliberately ignoring him. On Usenet, and sites like “” [later integrated into] people then spewed out all of the hatred, of what they wished they could do to him, and how he ruined their childhood. One cartoon fan had crafted this whole history where Scrappy’s arrival singlehandedly ruined the whole show, and this became the inspiration for me to write my own history of Scooby free of such bias toward one temporary character.
This thinking, believed to be from a small but loud minority [as the character’s developer Mark Evanier mentioned on his blog after discussing original voice actor Lennie Weinrib’s total befuddlement at all the hatred he found on the internet], then spread like wildfire into the production studio, where he was still basically barred from any positive uses in new stories, but nevertheless thrown in as a cameo to take cheap shots at him; the worst being the live action Scooby Doo Movie, where he was in a last moment afterthought made the villain.

The entire TV animation studio Filmation [second only to Hanna Barbera in the 70’s] also received constant criticism in these early days of the internet, due to its “limited animation”. Thankfully, as more cartoon fans spoke up, the atmosphere became more balanced for both of these entities.

I had already learned a bit of HTML from using one transit forum whose posting feature used the code, and then arming myself with HTML For Dummies and Sam’s Teach Yourself To Create Web Pages, then learned how to create them from scratch. (Hence, them being so simply text formatted, which one visitor described awhile ago as “like a simple early page from years ago”).
The address format was simply “[screen name]”.

Since I was writing against cranky old fundamentalists, I felt the need to separate the less serious Scooby project, and so created a second screen name, etb700 (as in “700 Club”, which I never followed, but couldn’t think of anything else religious, and by that time realizing it was safe to use my initials) to host my Christian writings, and correspond with ministries I wrote to.

On a side note, the most shocking and ominous occurrence these past 20 years was on Sept. 10th 2001; fresh out of “school car” for transit, and having worked the F, with the view of the skyline on the highest point of the system, the “Culver Viaduct” over the Gowanus, and not knowing that would be the last time I would ever see the skyline in that form.
At almost 9PM that evening, on the aforementioned transit board, someone starts a thread called “100 Years From Now”

One hundred years from now, assuming that an H-bomb or an earthquake (it is possible you know) doesn’t wipe the place out I wonder what the transit system in New York will look like. I doubt not that the underground portion of the subway system will be intact. Most of the Els, but possibly not all of them, will be gone as well as some of the East River bridges. I’m pretty sure that the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings as well as the World Trade Center will still be around though I suspect that the rest of the skyline will be up for grabs. There will still be a Pennsylvania and Grand Central Station with the LIRR going to the latter. None of us will be around to see it but I doubt not that it will be interesting.

Thought nothing of it; just a routine post on what we think will happen in the future. Well, noon, next day (I was off), I’m then responding to this post, adding to it’s title “NO, NOT EVEN ONE DAY!!”

“How eerie…who would think that 12 hours after this original post it wouldn’t be around!”

This, of course, after hours of watching this unbelievable event unfold. It was the biggest shock any of us had lived through!

In about 2003, I joined Yahoo which used a “listserve” format, for a coworker-oriented group, and then joined a few others, and re-used the original BDMNQR. After learning about type a few years later, I quickly joined one on temperament (Keirsey), but learned it was populated by mostly Feeling types who thought I was being rather “impersonal”, not just for all my logical theorizing, but also my unusual cryptic “handle”, and didn’t even know my real name. At the time, when you posted on Yahoo, it just defaulted to using your e-mail, and I didn’t know how to change it to show a different screen name (like you can do now). But that eventually cleared up, and I’m still there.

This is how it was, until 2008, around the tenth anniversary of the AOL account, and halfway to the present, that AOL suddenly announced it was shutting down all of its members space. (But the e-mail box would of course remain). So I then bought my own domain name, and moved everything over to there. (By this time, having added dozens of interest, religious and political pages. Didn’t bother keeping the less serious interests separate. This blog came about three years later, for smaller articles and current events).

So then, here we are today!

I had remained mostly on boards until the up coming new venues called “social media”, namely Facebook, which I imagine was initially supposed to be a mostly photo sharing site (like Instagram is now), but then became an all around “news” and socialization site; and it was so amazing being able to connect with a range of people I’ve known, spanning my whole life; many of whom (including some distant relatives) I used to hardly ever contact otherwise; and then making new friends!

I’m thinking this whole dynamic actually does funny things with the introvert/extravert scale. I’m Supine, which is very reserved as a technical introvert, yet “wants” like an extrovert. So the internet is the perfect medium to interact, without the difficulties of face-to-face interaction. I can also think out what I want to say, being a much better writer than speaker. So on one hand, it seems like an introvert’s paradise, but many other introverts, such as Melancholy types I know of, are just as avoidant of the medium, and there are many extraverts (such as Sanguine types, like ESFP’s) who also love the interaction and attention. My wife, however (ESFJ), is not big on the internet, saying her Sanguine needs depend more on face to face interaction. You would think the pure Sanguine would be like that, and perhaps some are, but the difference might be that their “Feeling” attitude is actually introverted (this is the auxiliary function, and they’re extraverts because of the dominant extraverted Sensing), and the ESFJ’s dominant extraverted Feeling might be more likely to want an actual tangible environment of people. (extraverted Sensing would want that as well, but if they can’t get it, then I guess a screen will do).

So me, having “so much to say” in the world, the internet is one of the greatest things to have been invented!

The Much Neglected Simple Teaching of Jesus

The most neglected statement of Jesus is that Hillel’s “Golden Rule” is what “SUMS UP” the entire Law. His detractors were of course focusing directly on the Law, even atomizing it into more and more “principles”. Christianity followed suit, only dropping the more “Jewish”-associated laws, and eventually placing a great emphasis on sexual-related principles. Islam, drawing on both religions followed suit, exchanging some Hebrew laws for more Arabic-flavored ones.

All have at times aimed to keep their respective “cultures”, (if not seeking to expand them to the world), “pure”.
This will always involve believing oneself has met the “standards” of the Law, and is thus now “called” to enforce them on others, in the name of “preserving morality” if nothing else.

So, recently taking a job “Security Awareness” class, and hearing about the latest threats from ISIS, to create easy to build rail devices to derail trains, and various ways to attack Times Square, I kept thinking, “Who appointed these people the judges and executioners of the ‘infidels’?” The same thing with many conservative Christians; and though it may seem unfair to compare them, the MINDSET, and its underlying presumptions (“righteousness” of the Law, and the need to spread “God’s truth”), are the same. What’s different is the power held.

Judaism once held formidable power over its people in Bible times (even enough to influence the mighty Romans over them, to a certain extent). What we saw in the New Testament was the final death throes of its power, as it was rapidly going down, and would end as a power structure only a few decades later.
The church arose from this, but quickly followed suit, gaining tremendous world power, even over the big bad Romans, and the Western civilizations that sprang from it. But with this power comes great compromise of Biblical principle, and great corruption, as a lot of stuff has to be justified, which in turn is often attempted to be compensated by overemphasizing certain other points of “morality”, in order to maintain the “righteous” appearance.
So it too reached a peak, and it was technology (starting with the printing press) that caused it to crack and start to come down. Hence, all the complaints of loss of power, beginning with the Enlightenment, and continuing through the last century of sociopolitical developments.

Islam, being the youngest of the three religions, is simply not as far down that pattern, but still vying for power. Christians have naturally turned up the heat on them as a “false religion”, and also political enemy, but both seem to be in agreement that America is sinful and needs to be punished. When natural disasters hit here, and conservative Christians pronounce them as “curses”, you would think they should be on the same side as the Islamists who simply seek to punish us directly, themselves, as “God’s agents” (which Christians also used to do, when they had more power, and some more radical groups wish they could still do today).

But the Christians are the ones who upheld the Gospel teaching that no men are “good”, for “all have sinned”. Many had loudly leveled this at the modern “world” and liberal segments of the Church, which had begun arguing for the “goodness“ of man, especially in the face of the teaching of Hell.

But the problem was, when it came to applying that to themselves (and those under their sphere of control, which included the whole “nation” or “culture” of past times), they essentially overrode it with concepts like “regeneration”, “providence” and “exceptionality”. They now could act like every other greedy or warring group of people while in the very breath of condemning them for it, because it’s “different” when they do it. They were the “called”, and “chosen”, and “sanctified”. But then that’s what the religions before them said.

The difference they claim is that they follow Jesus, the Savior. But He taught that the Law was fulfilled by “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you”. By going back to the points of the Law, they could actually engineer it so that killing, stealing, and even raping, could sometimes be justified, even while “normally” condemned in the Commandments, as they preached them to others.
Going along with this, Christians were also instructed “If it be possible, as much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18. When it comes to this chapter, many focus more on the first two verses, and then believe living peaceably is not possible as they see “the world” encroaching on them. But they don’t see the many ways they actually provoke the world, including under the premise of trying to control it).

They’ve gone from excoriating modern liberal culture for turning from the overly sensitive propriety of the past (where even the word “pregnant” was too ‘dirty’ for TV), to now trying to be John Wayne and mocking them as “snowflakes” and “whiners” who need to “grow a pair” instead of running to their “safe spaces”. They themselves largely follow this current president, who embodies everything they used to scold society for, from vulgarity to infidelity. Is being “tough and insensitive” ungodly, or is it now the new “godly”? Make up your minds!
The standard always changes, when focusing on point-by-point morality. (Which is basically opposite of what Christians have always said; that turning away from black and white rules “relativizes” morality! They’ve long preached against the “relativism” or “situational ethics” of people saying “what we’re doing is OK as long as we’re not hurting anyone else”, but this is actually closer to the intent of the Golden Rule).

To show how this happens, if you go strictly by the letter, of “thou shalt not steal”, then you can engage in (or at least condone) various devious financial practices, yet maintain it was all technically lawful (such as “predatory lending”, or the reasoning that “prices and wages are what you agreed upon, and if you don’t like it, go elsewhere”) and be able to truly reason that you (or the system you’re defending) have not violated the commandment. You can even go as far as to appeal to “conscience”, and “the conviction of the Spirit” (which many will say is what supersedes “the letter” of the Law, and is supposed to be all the “more binding”, and “proof” of salvation), and just the technical legality of it can still justify just about any measure taken.
Even the so-called “spirit of the Law” from the Sermon on the Mount you can excuse yourself from. You can condemn others for “bitterness” and “envy” (“spiritual ‘murder'”) towards those who have the upper hand, while displaying a lot of hostility towards those you think you have “just cause” to be angry about, especially by declaring them “anti-God”, or any other entity you identify with, such as “the nation”. We end up with only certain people ever having the right to voice displeasure at anything, while the standard (we preach to and judge others by but aren’t following ourselves) is that man is supposed to only be “thankful”.

But if you go by “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; that would instantly sweep away all of these sorts of rationalizations. So it’s actually much easier (for the “flesh”, believe it or not) to stick to a discrete “commandment”! You look “lawful” and “obedient”, and get to compare and preach to the “lawless”, on top of it!

Meanwhile, what they continue to step up their energies against is leftism, gays, in addition to Islam, of course. The Gospel that starts with the sinfulness of all men (and therefore no room for them to “cast the speck out of someone else’s eye”) is left out, as it’s presumed that some have “repented” into a virtual goodness, and so it’s them against all the bad, [unrepentant] “sinners”.

One common statement I’ve seen is “The Christian view of our moral condition is that, apart from Christ, ‘no one does good, not even one’ (Rom. 3:12).”
This makes it sound like once you “receive” Christ, then you CAN do good, in the sense Paul is denying here (instead of that ‘goodness’ being imputed from Christ). This leads both to presuppositionalism (my interpretations, anger at others behaviors, etc. must be right, because I’ve been ‘regenerated’ and the other side’s position can be dismissed because they aren’t), but also judgmentalism toward those not seen as doing good enough.
On top of this is “God gave His law (filled with commands and comfort) so that we’d know how to live as His image bearers in a broken world.” Both of these statements from CRI articles (one of the centers of mainstream evangelical doctrine); it clearly indicates a notion of the Law being given to maintain order, to help fix the world, as well as benefit the individual. So, putting it together, with Christ, we are more able to do the “good” of keeping the Law, and thus be both more “moral”, and more emotionally healthier. They will all admit that we’re “not perfect” at it, but in practice, it becomes at least we are better than the unbeliever, the doubter, the “backslider”, etc.

In actuality, this position is already moderated down from earlier teaching, whose modern adherents will often criticize the “new evangelicals” for “making God’s Law all about us”. While they have a point there (which I often cite in regards to the popular “Christian victory” teaching), still this often stems from a view where God’s Law and order is a totally disconnected thing that just happens to benefit man sometimes (such as the niceness society would have without killing, stealing, etc.), but it’s really about “His own pleasure/Glory/holiness” etc.
So we had better order our lives by the moral Law, just to make Him happy, but it really in the end doesn’t matter how we treat our fellow man; that’s just a fringe benefit, if other people are deserving of it; but most really aren’t, since man defaults to being a sinner. This is another way we can justify a lot of unkindness toward men (appealing to instances such as the Canaanites, or just God’s “hatred” and judgment of sin in general).

Jesus had showed people what that Law really required, making it obvious it was really futile to seek justification through it; and leaving people to walk away thwarted, but likely to pretend it never happened, and just go back to where they were and keep plugging on as much as they could (and then pointing at others). The people had taken the “letter” and focused on certain aspects of it, even adding to them, to make sure the basic commandment wasn’t violated; while omitting “the weightier matters”.
I keep thinking how the Islamists need to hear the Gospel message which begins with the fact that “none are good”, but they’ve already heard overall Christian messages, and never got from them this sense. Instead, what they heard was basic agreement on moralism, but the difference was which religion, and associated culture was to bear the rule in enforcing it. So the Islamists maintain that it’s theirs, and the Christians insist it is theirs. They talk right past each other, and then the only thing left to do is to fight.

Both groups seem to believe that “sinners” have forfeited their right to live freely (if, at all). But to live is our natural instinct, and so people have the right to at least resist being under the control of those who show themselves to be a threat to living. They don’t get the whole “chosen ruler” concept, and see no difference between all the different people and groups claiming it. Anyone and everyone can and is saying that. They can’t all be true. God or conscience can’t have “showed” anyone that all of them are right. But they can all possibly be wrong, though!

(PS, in the class, someone asked why the Las Vegas shooter wasn’t considered a “terrorist” like the Islamists, which is a big point liberals are making to show the categories are racist, and we were told “terrorism” is defined as having a religious or political motivation, while they still don’t know what exactly the Vegas shooter’s purpose was. That’s why people like him get assumed to be simply “mentally ill”. If they find that the shooter was some Christian or other conservative trying to punish “Sin City”, would they then upgrade him to “terrorist” status? Possibly, as Timothy McVeigh was considered a terrorist).

Racial Tension Boiling Over: Charlottesville

There had already been a demonstration by White Nationalists in May, which was eerily comparable to Klan rallies of old, complete with flaming tiki torches, designed to evoke fear. This when plans were announced to remove Confederate statues. So forward three months later, when they’re removing them, new demonstrations occur, which erupt into a full blown unrest, with one driver charging into a crowd and killing one person, injuring many others!
The reacting left is being dubbed the “antifa” (antifascists), with Trump adding the term “alt-left” and casting them as violent.
Is this the start of a new Civil War, as some have feared?

White Supremacists Show Up To A City That Didn’t Want Them, Chant ‘Blood And Soil’
A state of emergency has been declared after violent clashes in Charlottesville.

Ex-KKK Leader David Duke Says White Supremacists Will ‘Fulfill’ Trump’s Promises
“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said.

Driver in custody after car rams into crowd following Virginia white nationalist rally

This Is What ‘Oppressed’ White Men Look Like

How To Tell If You Go To A White Supremacist Church
How To Tell If You Go To A White Supremacist Church

(And all of this as the other major story is the way Trump’s words with N Korea escalates:
Why Black America Isn’t Worried About the Upcoming Nuclear Holocaust

Elle Dowd (FB)

These Neo Nazis, Confederates, and Klansmen have jobs. Inside institutions.

They don’t just protest one day and then put their prejudices on the shelf when they go to work.

They are bankers who deny loans.

They are teachers who file kids of color through the school to prison pipeline.

They are police officers. Did you see all the Blue Lives Matter flags on the livestream, next to Nazi symbols and Confederate flags?

They vote. They sit on juries. They run for office.

AND. They coach little league and watch Netflix on the couch with their wives and seem like “good guys.”

They have families and friends who have been too nervous or too polite to confront them.

Neo-nazis and white supremacists are celebrating Trump’s remarks about the Charlottesville riots

His “many sides” is obviously designed to be ambiguous and easy to fill in by the Right, to whom these “sides” are all subsets of the “other” side from them: the blacks themselves, BLM, the liberals, the Democratic Party, etc. or “the real haters: the SJW/Marxists who’ve attacked our guys”, said one commenter on the far-right, pro-Trump subreddit r/The_Donald, or the “Antifa”, which is short for antifascist organizations. —Anyone but the Right and the confederate sympathizers themselves.

When Does a Fringe Movement Stop Being Fringe? (Is Charlottesville a turning point?)
Even the most feared white supremacists in the lore of Jim Crow were just regular white men.

I’ve also seen two people now point out that instead of racism “dying out”, most of the people in these protests are in their 20’s.

I think a large part of the problem was liberals not taking the Right seriously through all those decades of “dog whistling” (the coded racial language made to look “colorblind”), where they ignored it and simply pushed agendas (probably figuring “well, they’re gonna die off soon anyway”), while the conservatives built arguments, that went largely unanswered and thus took root as an entrenched narrative of blame.
This is what could sway a whole new generation, when it really should have been dying out by now. So now, many look up, with Trump in the White House, Hillary who seemed certain, lost, and all of these alt-right people coming out in full force, and it’s like “what happened”?

Of course, with all of this comes a new wave of whitewashing Lee, claiming he was actually against slavery:

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee
The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

Here is part of a quote from him:

The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

On the alt-right site, they’re even trying to disown the driver, claiming there’s a difference between the alt-right and white supremacists, even, he’s a Jew, etc. and right after insinuating he was only reacting to car “being attacked on all sides by a roving mob of Antifa when he slammed the gas pedal and accelerated”. (So which is it? Is he one of you and justified, or not justified, and not one of you?)

So they are the ones “cucking” now! (there’s also a dispute among them as to whether Trump was cucking in his statement).

Finally, a much needed call for the Church to take a clear stand:

White Christian conservatives should oppose protests by white supremacists

you should really dig into black African slave trade and the black slavers that allowed it to happen.

So, by your rationale, ALL aspects of white Europeanism, automatically transfer to American decendants? We’re all Nazis, all rapists, and all racists and slavers at heart because white europeans did? That’s the same rationale that actual racists use to say all blacks are criminals and hoods.

We are a fallen people, utterly imperfect, so, yes, white europeans CAN claim to be the founders of the most moral value system, framed into a governement, that the world has ever known, WHILE being decendants of, related to, or from the same place as, people who committed those terrible atrocities.

The thing is, when you appeal to the Fall, (e.g. “we are all fallen people”, etc.) you don’t get to use that to excuse one group’s participation in the evils of fallen humanity, but then turn around and get to claim for that group the most virtue in human history. You mention the Fall, you’re appealing to the Biblical Gospel, and in that Gospel, it doesn’t work like that. That’s basically “our good outweighs our bad”, and any conservative Gospel tract will tell you no one will be justified by such reasoning. We all have good, from bearing the image of God, but because man did fall, then ALL nations are “concluded under sin”, and all of our righteousness is “filthy rags” (Romans 3).
So it doesn’t matter who did more good. (the point there is, that Western civilization may have done the most good, but ALSO did the most evil, so it basically balances out. And before God, the bad wipes out the good, not the other way around!)
And this is talking about individuals. How do we even figure a “nation” or “culture” we are apart of will carry some merit for us? This is exactly the way the corrupt countrymen that rejected Jesus thought; that because they were apart of the “chosen nation”, they would be “saved” through becoming the rightful rulers of the world through their inheritance and lawkeeping. But in reality, they were as lawless as anyone else, and it came out, and escalated, in the immediate time after Christ (just like things are escalating now, as one group thinks they’re being eradicated), and they too declared in slightly different words that their nation would “rise again”. America or other “Western” nations aren’t even the Biblical children of the Promise; they just assumed they replaced ancient Israel because of their Christianity, but then they’re making all the same mistakes, but should have known better.

This is where conservatives went wrong, and unfortunately, liberals usually didn’t challenge it on a soteriological level (like this post is doing now), but only on a “social justice” level. (Which is why conservatives now think social justice causes are unbiblical).

When Does a Fringe Movement Stop Being Fringe?
Even the most feared white supremacists in the lore of Jim Crow were just regular white men.

(another small post: “if DonaldTrump had seen Amistad he’d have been like: well, yeah the slavers were violent but I mean c’mon, both sides…”)

If it’s a civil war, pick a side: Donald Trump, white nationalism and the future of America
Tim Wise

But statuary to confederates are not intended as history texts, and those who erected them — mostly in the early 1900s, long after the war, and during a time when lynching and the re-assertion of white supremacy in the South was at its zenith — never intended them to be so. These are altars of worship, where the faithful come to drink of the blood and taste of the flesh of their Great-Great-Grandpappy Beauregard, whose perfidy and characterological rot they still refuse to face. To defend these statues on the grounds of historical memory is perverse, for they misremember that history entirely and the cause for which Lee and others were fighting.

Yes, Jefferson was a slave owner, and this fact should be understood and not sanitized or considered a mere time-bound failing on his part (as it often is at the University of Virginia, for instance). But still, there is a difference between someone who said “all men are created equal” even if his actions suggested he didn’t mean it, and those who said (as did Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens) that white supremacy was the “cornerstone” of their new government. One provided us with a flawed yet visible exit from the national nightmare in which he himself was implicated. The others — including leaders in the states who issued declarations of causes for their secession, and in each case named the maintenance of slavery as their purpose — would have extended that nightmare in perpetuity, and without hesitation. Whether Jefferson intended it or not, he gave us a blueprint, however blood-spattered, for building a functioning democracy. Lee and his cohorts had no interest in such things, nor the vision to even imagine them. And that matters.

The Real Story Behind All Those Confederate Statues

“Most of these monuments were not erected right after the Civil War. In fact, all the way to 1890 there were very few statues or monuments dedicated to Confederate leaders. Most of them were built much later…during times when Southern whites were engaged in vicious campaigns of subjugation against blacks…to accompany organized and violent efforts to subdue blacks and maintain white supremacy in the South.” [Particularly 1895-1915 with Jim Crow, and 1955-1970, the Civil Rights era. The statue in Charlottesville, IIRC was inbetween that, in the 20’s, when “Jim Crow reigns safely throughout the South”. This is “something that even a lot of liberals don’t always get”].

See also:

Tools of Displacement: How Charlottesville, Virginia’s Confederate statues helped decimate the city’s historically successful black communities.

Race, the Gospel, and the Moment

Franklin Graham: Blame White Terrorism On Those Who Voted To Remove The Racist Monument

Also addressed now (as I’ve mentioned before) is why the Jews are being included in the hatred:

Why the Charlottesville Marchers Were Obsessed With Jews
Anti-Semitic logic fueled the violence over the weekend, no matter what the president says.

‘Jews will not replace us’: Why white supremacists go after Jews

“The successes of the civil rights movement created a terrible problem for white supremacist ideology. White supremacism — inscribed de jure by the Jim Crow regime and upheld de facto outside the South — had been the law of the land, and a black-led social movement had toppled the political regime that supported it. How could a race of inferiors have unseated this power structure through organizing alone? … Some secret cabal, some mythological power, must be manipulating the social order behind the scenes. This diabolical evil must control television, banking, entertainment, education and even Washington D.C. It must be brainwashing white people, rendering them racially unconscious.
What is this arch-nemesis of the white race, whose machinations have prevented the natural and inevitable imposition of white supremacy? It is, of course, the Jews. Jews function for today’s white nationalists as they often have for anti-Semites through the centuries: as the demons stirring an otherwise changing and heterogeneous pot of lesser evils.”

I had focused on Jews being blamed simply because blacks did not have enough power to be blamed for everything, such as world economics, so they had to shift to another group, which happened to be the Jews, who had already originally been blacklisted by corrupt Christian views as the “murderers of Christ” and then blamed for the problems of Germany. But this shows they are also specifically being resented for supposedly promoting this other race of “inferiors”. The Nationalist site Firstfreedom mentions “the ultimate goal of the One World Order – to brown AmeriKa and annihilate our Anglo-Celtic-European culture!”

When you look at the insistence of how the white race is the greatest and has created everything good in civilization, yet their domination is nevertheless on the wane, and their prided civilization is going down (you can even see this discussed in the Stormfront forum discussion “Are We Really White Supremacists?”), it’s like “that wasn’t supposed to happen!” Everyone knows all about the patterns of other great historical empires: Rome, The Muslim empire, Egypt, Babylon, etc. and the lesson of no matter how powerful they are, they still get too big for their own or anyone’s good (and often become decadent as well), and then burst. But no; not us!
There is just no thought (even among those on this board who disclaim “supremacy” in favor of mere “separation”, but still as “more intelligent”, etc.) that you are still just a mortal man, and everything mortal man does is stained with corruptibility and will fail). So someone else has to be blamed for this, and attributed this power that is [for the moment] greater, but nevertheless evil, with the promise that the good power will eventually prevail.
This has clearly become a religion, and as it emanated from a “Christian worldview”, you wonder what happened to the conservative teaching on the sinfulness of all men (which they loudly and incessantly berated liberals and other religions or irreligion for rejecting)? That no man or nation can point to their technological advancement as having any merit before God.

For one of the other familiar sellouts:

He just needs to be sent back into the past and see how good this political philosophy he defends would have treated him. (Or if they got their way and took the nation back, where he would be. And this isn’t even the mainstream Right we’re dealing with anymore; this is the alt-right, and you ain’t even a “good one”, no matter how much you champion their beliefs; there are no “good ones”; you got the brown skin, you got the genes; you’re still just an “n_____”!).

This one does make a point I’ve noted on “privilege theory”, which may be true in one sense, but it’s a matter of tact, in constantly shaming all whites for it:

Maine Gov. Paul LePage Says Taking Down Confederate Statues Is Like Removing 9/11 Memorial

FB discussion:

Christian Pyle “Would only be true if the 9/11 monument was to the terrorists.”

Mel Stewart “Here’s an idea. We erect a monument to Bin Laden at ground zero so we never forget. Sound good?”
Sharon Thomeczek Brohammer “You make too much sense for this group!😉”

Stephen Tonnies “…taking down the statues doesn’t change history. These statues are nothing to do with history. They just glorify men who were on the wrong side of history. These men were traitors to the legitimate government of the United States. They seceded from the USA to form their own country. Why do we revere them? You won’t find many statues of Washington and Jefferson in Great Britain. Washington and Jefferson were at least fighting against a Distant government that was screwing the colonies over with no representation. Very very different to the reasons for the Civil War.”

Connie Jaquess “9-11 memorials are for the victims. Confederate monuments are honoring Confederate War heroes. Big difference.”

One big story all day is that even:
Stonewall Jackson’s Great-Great-Grandsons Call for Removal of Confederate Monuments

S/N as Space/Time awareness

Decided that the best way to frame the perception perspectives is simply


Where S was said by Jung to “register reality as real” or cover “what is”, N was connected to time; “where it’s heading”. This does not explicitly mention space for S, but when you think of it, all sensory perception is spatial. We see or hear waves that come to us through space, smell particles that float to us through space, and touch and taste things we reach out for through space. This occurs in time as well, but all the perceived objects are experienced through space. Time is where occurs the “idea” of them and the “possibilities” of where they can go. I got into this a bit here:
Like you can have a tangible unit like a building or even our bodies, but if every part (or our cells) are replaced one by one, then is it still the same material? What passes down through time is really an “idea” that the tangible “here and now” parts simply make up instant by instant. Matter itself may actually be waveforms that transfer from one string to another as the forces of acceleration or inertia “push” all the energy of the string from one location to the next, relative to other objects. The best way to think of this is a moving image on a screen of pixels. Nothing’s actually “moving” except an “image”, conveying, essentially, an “idea” programmed into the electronic circuits. Again, functions are by nature “mixed together” or “undifferentiated in reality, and only separated out by our consciousness.
Hence, both S and N are involved in these examples. But to divide them, S is the spatial (random access) aspect, while N is the sequential (causative) aspect.

So, “What is” refers to what is sitting there in space, while what “could be” implies a time element; what could take on a tangible shape in the future, or even what could have been, in the past.

So now, to factor in the attitudes, extraversion deals in the “environment“, while introversion is about the individual. Both space and time consist of linear “dimensions”, of biploar “directions”, by which every conscious entity immersed in it divides reality. (And I’ve been expressing the functions and attitudes themselves as divisions of reality). Space has three (randomly accessible, again), and time has one, which is one way.

So Se is basically what you experience in the immediate environment, as you look out into any of the three dimensions of space. Again, the visual and audial waves, olfactory particles, and gustatory and tactile contact.

Si is the same spatial data, but stored individually in memory.

So Ne then involves what you experience when following the chain of occurrences when looking through the dimension of time. Its inferences occur along this time line (its “environment”). Hence, what “could” happen. Also, following past patterns, and continuing their trajectories to get a sense of what will happen. (Of course, things can change, and so Ne remains “open”).

So then Ni (what I devised all of this to continue to try to get a better understanding of and way of expressing) also looks at the dimension of time, but its inferences do not come from the timeline, but rather from the individual, which is the unconscious. This is the domain of the “archetypal” (images that are collective, and not tied directly to our external experience), and what do we often describe archetypal images as? “Timeless“! (meaning pervasive through time; not on our individual timeline of experience).

So, for the perception attitudes, space and time are the corresponding “environments” that define the extraverted perspective. Introversion, (just like the stereotypical picture of an “introvert”) withdraws from this, to the individual perspective, to conjure up images either of spatial reality, or temporal patterns.

The way this was once described to me, was that N overall dealt with patterns or the salient points of a pattern that can be abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another, transferring the acquired patterns to new contexts, largely unconsciously, in order to get the gist of a subject; and operating by inferring from a few elements some larger arrangement in which they’re characteristically included. Ne attempts to understand a situation (or otherwise disparate external elements) in terms of a pattern (the larger arrangement that give them meaning; and also “stored in memory”), while Ni begins with and looks outside of the pattern (the existing arrangement of elements) and infers what’s being left out; what it doesn’t take into account.

This was helping me get a better understanding of the difference, but for some reason wasn’t totally clicking. Me, in my Ti fashion, needed a better system of parallel, like S, T and F all handle the same things (tangible, mechanical and anthropic or “soul”-related), but the “e” attitude determines what “is”, is “true” or is “good” from the environment, while the “i” attitudes determines them from within the individual.

The obvious word I took notice of for N was “pattern”, and it was tempting to simply define “N=patterns“. But I held off from that, because for one thing, “patterns” could be sensory as well, such as a “pattern” on a fabric, or music. (Actually, these, especially the latter, are timelike as well as spatial/tangible, and with visual patterns, you can think of them as timelike, in it requires time to compare one part to another and see the markings look the same).
Also, because I thought the general N description, and Ne sounded similar: involving comparing or transferring one thing to another and the “larger arrangement that gives them meaning”. (But of course Ni deals in this latter part; the so-called “big picture” too. And I had to think whether the “pattern” referred to the “larger arrangement” for one or both attitudes, or if the “larger arrangement” was what’s outside the pattern, or if both the initial thing and what it was being compared to were both “patterns” and “larger arrangements” in this particular description, etc.).
And Ne dealt directly with the external pattern, making me think then that Ni was inferring from a “subjective pattern” (such as the “templates” I mentioned in my earlier descriptions of Ni). But instead, it looks “outside” a pattern.

So what really was the common “element” or “product” that tied together both attitudes of iNtuition? It’s clearly not the “pattern” itself. If anything, it made Ne sound internal (“patterns stored in memory“, which also makes one think of Si) and Ni sound external (“outside the pattern”).
Really, the problem in distinguishing Ne vs Ni was the need to determine what exactly the “environment” of iNuition was to begin with! (It was obvious for S, T and F, and so what happened was that we assume the same “environment”, often called “the outer world” held true for N. But what really did that mean; especially since iNtuition is all technically “internal”, and imagines possibilities for things on the external world?)

So upon reading Beebe’s book, where he pointed out Jung associated N specifically with time, that got me thinking more about it. (Also, even more recently, in reviewing The Iceman Inheritance, where time was mentioned as the awareness that came with our sapience as developed hominids).
In my view, space and time together make up sort of a partial “trinity” reflection, with space comparable to the “Son” who appeared physically in space, and time, with the invisible “Spirit” who afterward came over the time since, to indwell man. I for some reason had not directly associated S with “space”, because I realized time was involved as well. But just in the past few days, “trying on the idea”, it really fits!

Ne’s patterns “stored in memory” by which it actually does its looking down through the dimension of time is precisely what makes it work with its opposite tandem mate, Si. Hence, both are associated in the new “Intentional Styles” model, with “Inquiring”; which is basically going mentally through (e) time (N) to access previous (i) spatial experience (S).
So Si technically also has a time element, as stored memory is from the past. But the difference is that N is about objects or models that play out in time, while Si is about models of objects in space remembered through time (and also current internal senses).

Se’s immediate (e) space (S) orientation then works with Ni’s immediate “outside (i) the [timelike(N)] pattern” awareness, and hence are called “Realizing”.

Lenore had defined Ni in the book (p223) as “liberate our sense impressions from their larger context, thereby creating more options for perception itself“, which might be hard for non-Ni types to really grasp. The timeline idea explains it. The “larger context” is what occurs in the time dimension, but the “unconscious impressions” are from outside of the time dimension, and so you can get more kinds of interpretations than what were available in the temporal environment.
The example given is raising the question in one’s mind of the possible reasons a suntan is valued by people today, when the original circumstances that gave it its meaning have changed. Again, we see the time element of this, and the pondering steps outside of this timeline to raise the question of why it’s still considered attractive.
(Likewise, “perspectives” is the single word nickname Personality Hacker gives to Ni, and they describe it as “not married to its own perspective”, and “watching your mind form patterns”, and eventually, over time, you’re going to get the ‘pattern of the pattern'” [hence, “meta-awareness”], and so when listening to another person they can shift out of their own perspective and into the other person’s perspective and get a sense of what’s going on with them, and be able to guess “I bet this is the pattern created in the other person’s mind”, so it looks like reading their mind. These would be the “internal connections” corresponding to Ne’s “external connections” They also describe Ne as asking “what if” and Ni as asking “why”?).

So Ni is like Fi in thinking “if that were me, I would…”; Fi says “feel this way”, and Ni says “perceive it this way”. This affinity is why both are so “deep” and the hardest to understand or explain. Both N and F are the most complex as their products only have meaning to sapient beings, where S and T is “what is”, whether anyone is there to perceive or assess it or not.
I would also say if you consciously compare patterns, that’s Ne, while a feeling more like a premonition of what something means, or what will happen is Ni.
(For me, when the premonition is good, I don’t trust it; when it’s bad; I try to resist and fight against the outcome playing out in life,or I just grudgingly go with it and become totally down and pessimistic).

Looking at the temporal patterns limits us to what we can see from them, where we can’t see the future, and so the possibilities in the environment remain “open”. A lot of different things “could” happen. Looking outside the pattern is “open” in an internal sense, as you don’t have to rely on patterns of experience. However, it ends up creating less “open” environmental possibilities, and also working with extraverted judgment, which makes the observations and solutions more “closed”.

As Ni looks “outside the pattern” to access the unconscious, Si could likewise be seen as looking “outside the immediate [material] environment” to access the stored images of experienced tangible reality.
Beebe quotes from Joseph Henderson (San Francisco psychiatrist regarded as the pre-eminent American Jungian analyst, d.2007) on the difference between the two functions: “Introverted intuition perceives the variety and the possibility for development of the inner images, whereas introverted sensing perceives the specific image which defines the psychic activity that needs immediate attention”.

So it’s like the “model” of space and time, respectively, with the “image” itself being the spacelike static “item” in this imaginary space, and “where it can head” as the time dimension in the inner world. (Where Ne is described as spotting “the still unrealized possibilities in things”; and thus referencing “the real world”; i.e. actual “things”, which may be technically “images”, but if we make time itself the “environment” of N, then as stated before, both attitudes of N deal with images that have never matched the [spatial] environment (where with S, they either do currently match the environment [e], or once did match it [i]), but Ne’s images are based more on real world objects or sequences (that can be shown to others, even if by implication), where Ni is like the “image of the image” (and hence, the “meta” form again).

So if we make the S/N environment “space/time”, then by extension, T/F could be something like things vs people (i.e.“social”). (And we are also still “things”, hence we can be looked at through a T lens).

space—time—things—people = the environment of reality
tangible—potential—mechanical—anthropic = our immersion in reality

More examples of N=time:

Typology; patterns of behavior observed through time.

Numbers: represent hypothetical sensate objects in space (like if we see three groups of three items, and we know the total is really nine objects sitting in space), but when we begin representing them with numerals and operator symbols, we have turned them into ideas that only work through time.

“Discover vs uncover” [Ne vs Ni, discussed here] further betrays the timelike nature of N.
Things like higher dimensions are hypothetical ideas of things we can’t see, but would be waiting [i.e through time] to be “discovered” or “uncovered”.

Bruzon (“Fundamental Nature of MBTI”) description of N as the “motion” component (represented as a whole grid) while S was the “static” objects on the grid.
“Motion” of course is only possible in time.

I once read about tests that had been done in type classes, of showing an image of a triangle with horizontal bands. With a surprising amount of consistency, the Sensates describe it just like this, or as a three-sided plane with parallel bands. The Intuitives say they see a railroad track or a striped dunce cap. Each side can see why the other described it the way they did, but the S’s heard: “What are the properties of this image?” and N’s heard “What does this image mean to you?”; that is, what pattern is it like in your tacit memory?
This is timelike in that these “patterns”, again, are constructs formed over time, where the S’s simply described exactly what they saw immediately in space.

I had begun using the term “implications”/”inferences”, in addition to “conceptual”, “ideational”, “mental constructs”, “filling in”, “intangible” etc.; and implications and inferences point through time (which is intangible in the moment) via the mental ideation and constructing and filling in processes used to become aware of them.

“The big picture” also, is in practice timelike, as it’s something that “comes together” or basically revealed in time. Ni deals with an existing “big picture” by “filling it in from the images of the unconscious. Ne forms its sense of the “big picture” by putting together the “objective” patterns, stored in memory, filling in the patterns with fitting elements of each other. Both the “putting together” and “memory” are technically “internal”, to the “subject”, which is what made this confusing; but it is in the dimension of time, not space, that they are external objects!
So about Ne sounding like N in general; N can be described as grasping a pattern that two otherwise disparate situations have in common, and gambles that the new situation is going to operate in the same general way as the one already known. First, here we see the clear time element; the predictive sense; based on “patterns” that themselves deal in some kind of “motion” (change) that is not necessarily spatial. Both Ne and Ni do this, but Ne simply looks along time at the motion component (whether temporal, spatial, or just mental) of the pattern to make the “guess”, while Ni references the archetypal images to gain something more like a “hunch”.

So to do the completed function attitudes:

Se awareness of objects in space is stimulated by the environment (as it emerges in the external world)
Si awareness of objects in space is stimulated by individual reference (filtered through internal recollection)
Ne awareness of patterns through time is stimulated by the environment (one pattern implies another “externally”)
Ni awareness of patterns through time is stimulated by individual reference (looks outside the pattern to the internal subconscious)

Since all of science (including psychology) realizes naturally that we deal in space and time (in addition to impersonal mechanics, and personal affect), putting the functions in these terms (again, one or the other preferred by our divisions of reality) would have a better chance of proving the theory is not some ridiculous idea like astrology.

(I also thought, if S as space corresponds to the Son and N as time corresponds to the Spirit, then what corresponds to the Father? It would be the “transcendent function” of course, which would correspond to what I’ve considered the Father-like continuum, or “Patrix”, the “chance” medium. But that’s on the axis of S and N. What about T/F, which is the other axis the transcendent function lies between? I would think T would be more material, like the Son, and F, dealing with “the heart” as like the Spirit. I had considered T=”matter” and F=”soul”, but I used “material” for S; and again, this shows that both S and T deal in “what it is” in their own ways; and “soul” could include animals, but they don’t have a Feeling “function”; it’s all instinct for them, and though I use “soul-affect” for F, this does extend to animals, inasmuch as we relate to them and their emotions. But without our sapience, F would have no meaning).

I’ve also been informed that Socionics considers S as space and N as time (and T as “objects” and F as “energy”)

An example of Ne’s time orientation:

Like I liked to look at possible subway service patterns, and was particularly interested years ago, when the Manhattan Bridge was stuck, seemingly forever, in the “north side tracks open only” configuration, allowing the 6th Avenue traffic to run over the bridge, but not Broadway. So the Broadway “Q” was moved to 6th Avenue, while the express “N” was moved to the Montague tunnel, where it could access the Broadway line, but as a local and via a much longer path. The next phase of the work was to close the north side, and reopen the south side, allowing the Broadway expresses to cross, but not the 6th Avenue service. It had switched from this pattern several years before, but since this was initially planned to be temporary, they created a makeshift arrangement where the 6th Ave. B and D service ran in two sections; one rerouted to Broadway, and terminating at one of its terminals in Manhattan or Queens, and the uptown halves already on 6th, from uptown, terminating at 34th St. The two halves actually overlapped between 34th and 57th, so that you had two separate routes with the same letter, and different route colors running through midtown Manhattan. I thought this was an incredibly sloppy arrangement.
But then when I found out that there was a time when 6th Avenue didn’t connect to the bridge at all (the north side used to connect to Broadway, and the south side, to the now severed Nassau St. loop, which had very little service as it was), and that the old service pattern included a “T” train that was replaced by the “B” I was familiar with, and a “family” of “Q”‘s replaced by the D, and the primary Nassau service was on the West End, much the way the M had been moved from the Brighton to the West End, so that was similar also. So I got the idea for the next time to just restore that old pattern and the letter “T” instead of a second “B”, and since the Q locals used double letters, which were no longer used, then the new Brighton local would be “U”, because it sounds like “Q”, is used with “q” in written language, and the lines were really just an express and local version of the same line, not going anywhere different, like when a 6th Avenue and Broadway line run there.

I took the pattern from one situation, and moved it to a similar situation according to the infrastructure, and then forecasted what “could” be done. This also involved judgment, in determining from an internal framework what would be “correct” (different lines should each have their own letter, and letters should be allocated to the same line, even if unused for a long time).
But in organizational decisions, the judgment that wins out is usually Te, based on environmental criteria including “efficiency” and rider demand; often decided by running the data through computer analysis. Like in Buses, they’ll slap any route number on a new route, like the B47 I grew up with becoming the B43 when it was merged with another route, and then B47 came to be used for the B78 when it was merged with another route. B47 is still burned in my mind as the “Tompkins Ave. bus” I used to take to my grandmother’s.
So apparently, the Brighton had much more demand, so both of its services had to continue to use the bridge (unlike the original BMT pattern, where it had one bridge and one tunnel route on weekdays), and it needed no tunnel service anymore, and so it had the priority over the N, which remained relegated to the “rathole” as one irate Sea Beach transit fan always called the tunnel.

Thankfully, however, the same “environmental” criteria; this time, rider confusion, led them to eliminate the “split” B and D, which had already had provisions on the new signs, with both orange and yellow sets of both routes. Instead, they used an existing “W” (which was allocated on the signs for the Whitehall St. short line service it appears as today) for the West End (it had become my second choice in suggestions, for the Brighton local when I found out about the letter being on signs), and came up with a “diamond Q” sign for the Brighton express (with the circle as the local, since they had decided diamonds would now only be used for express versions of local lines that run at the same time; the only other examples now being on the 6 and 7. While I had also had ideas for a dreaded “bridge fully closed” scenario ⦅that looked like a real possibility throughout the whole time⦆, and we imagined what the final “bridge fully open” scenario” could be like, as it turned out, the B and D would not even return to their old lines when the work was finished, but actually switch places).

I’m not sure how Ni would handle this. From what I heard, it would gather a final conclusion, and “work its way backward” to find holes in the pattern and see which way the data “wants” to go, which I imagine would then be assessed for the correct course of action with Te. The decisions of Transit are basically Te+S (with computers doing the “timelike forecasting” work, and decisions based off of the “tangible” spatially perceived data produced).

So we see how it’s all timelike, in comparing the patterns over time, and what could be done in time. Those “patterns” in this case also involve the routing of trains, moving from one place to another.

Farewell to my Childhood’s Resident Celebrity

R.I.P. legendary Persuasions’ singer Jimmy Hayes

They were a somewhat known a-capella group, and while perhaps not well known in younger pop circles, were at least big enough to guest-star for the backgrounds for Stevie Wonder’s “Please Don’t Go”, the closing track of Fulfillingness First Finale.
A couple years after that; I would say at least by ’76 or ’77, he and a few others from the group moved to the block I grew up on (and I believed that was where he still was; for the rest of his life; I would sometimes ask when visiting, and last time, a few years ago, was told he was still there), so they were like the resident celebrities.
We knew each other pretty well, and he would often be around, like when everyone was outside, and the adults would sit on the sidelines, or be in the superintendent’s shop or someone’s house, either hanging out, or playing cards. They even had my father and I and a few others go to the Electric Lady c.1978, to watch them rehearse. (My only time in the studio! It was also one of Stevie’s “homes” back in the Contract 2 era that ended with FFF. Marveled at the odd looking façade shape. Jimmy actually teased me there that night by announcing on the mic he was going to give me some T-shirt with an unhappy frog saying “I’m so happy, I could s___”; IIRC may well have looked like a forerunner to today’s “Pepe”; I was embarrassed because I had been conditioned to shun curse words!)

He was originally from Hopewell, Virginia, and my interest in the state had already been raised by my two summers at my aunt in Cumberland, and passing through or spending a day in nearby Richmond while there, and then seeing Norfolk and the rest of the huge looking urban areas on the map, and wondering what they was like. (And then, a “Norfolk by the Sea” brochure coming in the paper a year or two after my last trip there).
Even though Hopewell was closer to Richmond, he still knew about Norfolk, and so I got all my info from him, like the rough area being the Church St. corridor (Huntersville, so I already knew that when I arrived down there in college a couple of years later and had to pass through the nearby area to get downtown; they then began clearing it, and eventually building the current suburban-like neighborhood), and about the segregation on the beaches (likely Ocean View) in prior decades.

Since he worked with Stevie once; I thought it so interesting that I was only “two degrees of separation” from him! (Around the same time, the block and the neighboring lot on Flatbush where some stores burned down years before —and we used to play stickball; used to be visited by some older guy who was supposedly the father of “Thelma” on Good Times! Made me excited that I was only three degrees away from Janet Jackson, who played on the show and had become my dream girl when she greatly “blossomed” on the following show, Diff’rent Strokes).

From Evangelical Protestant “orthodoxy” to Eastern (Greek) “Orthodoxy”: Leading Apologist Converts to the original “Historic Church”

I’m over a month late on this, and the big clue was the CRI e-mail about the question of whether president Hank Hanegraaf “left the faith” I get these in a side-email that I only read on the phone, usually on breaks at work. For some reason, I brushed it off, thinking maybe it was some late April Fool’s joke, or perhaps some radical movement saying he’s gotten too soft on some point of doctrine or morality or something (like IFB’s have long said CRI was too soft on Catholics and “separation”; the “psychoheresy” critics say he has “compromised” in the issue of “counseling”; the KJVO’s of course will think he errs on translations, etc). I was still getting CRI/Equip e-mails from him, so he wasn’t ousted from that organization. I think I did actually glance at that article, and all it was, was him reaffirming the universal doctrines of the “historic Church” that he always championed: The deity of Christ, original sin, the Church and the scriptures, the Trinity, Jesus as incarnate savior, salvation by “grace through faith”, making one a “new creation”, and the resurrection of the dead and the life to come.

So on that same side e-mail, today, where I also get notifications from the old Baptistboard about ongoing threads, I see a new one saying directly, “Hank Hanegraaff Converts to Greek Orthodox”. In it, someone points out the topic was already covered, in a month old thread matching his own blog article, “Has Hank Hanagraaf left the faith?”. (Both of these were in “Baptist only” sections which always seem to have the most interesting topics, but non-Baptists are not allowed to post there). Now, I find on CRI his direct Q&A about Orthodoxy: There was a link to this on the other page, but I thought “Ask Hank: Questions and Answers About Orthodoxy” meant what he formerly considered “orthodoxy”: evangelical Protestant “orthodoxy”!

It was right there on the BB, over a decade ago, where I had heavily debated several Eastern Orthodox believers, and some Catholics. (One EOC “catechumen” was for some reason rejected from admission, and ended up Anglican instead. There was another Anglican as well, and they argued on the side of “catholicism” on most of the points, especially Eucharist and “tradition”). For a time, they had swarmed the board, and gotten pretty aggressive, until the admins began cracking down on it. This is what led me to put up a page answering “Catholic” arguments, and consisting in part (the second half) of the key points copied from those very debates:

To reprint the opening text:
I myself always looked with interest at the Eastern Orthoodox Church, since becoming acquainted with the claims of an “original true Church” through the literature of the Church of Christ years ago, and then finding similar claims by the Worldwide Church of God (Armstrongism), Jehovah’s Witnesses, and even some Baptists use it. I always found the claims of those groups being preserved through such small sects as the Waldensians, Catharii, and Anabaptists to be farfetched, as those groups were vastly different from these modern groups. I quickly realized that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches had more of a stake to that claim, since they were the historical “Church” stemming from the original Churches planted by the Apostles. And I further figured out that the EOC has an even greater claim than the RCC, because the latter was actually one single patriarchate of the original five of the Church, which broke off because it was continuing to add new doctrines the other four patriarchates did not accept.

Still, I do not believe that the EOC of the 11th century and after was the same as the first century Church either, as is assumed by EOC advocates. However, some have now begun to become aggressive in claiming to be the true Church, and condemning Protestantism and “sola Scriptura”, “with its thousands of splinter groups”, instead of “just following the [oral, apostolic] traditions of the Church”. Many of those groups that claim to be the original Church had a point in pointing out that the Church rapidly began changing after the death of the apostles. You can even see the warnings of apostasy in the writings of the apostles themselves.

This reflects a time just before I started moving toward the Fulfilled View, and so still believing the “end” was future, and that the “falling away” was something starting in the first century, and continuing down through all of Church history, to our time and beyond. It was these debates, including the point that was mentioned, of all the “thousands of splinter groups”, that made me finally grow weary of futurism. Yes, that fit into the so-called “falling away” it was plugged into, but it fell so far away that nobody can really agree on much of anything regarding what the truth of scripture is; everyone just claims to be scriptural and reads their doctrines into scripture, and it seemed anyone could make scripture say anything they wanted. There’s no longer any central [spiritual] body representing the original truth like there was under the apostles, though some organizations are claiming to be that body; again, reading their doctrines and institutional structures into scripture.
So it seemed like that “body” was never designed to go on through centuries of changing leadership and political influence, and without the supernaturally guided original apostles. It was only designed to last a “short time”, —which is precisely what we see promised by Jesus Himself and the apostles!
So when the preterists next began to turn the volume up on their doctrine on the board, I likewise fought hard against that, but later found the “pantelist” variation or “Fulfilled view”, and it all finally clicked. It’s the only thing that explains why God would allow “His Church” to spiral out of control like this, as the watching world takes it as the ultimate evidence that the whole religion is just a human fabrication.

I still thought about the EOC in the back of my mind, passing the St. Demetrios Cathedral in Astoria every day right next to the elevated N and W trains I worked back then, and feeling the pull of and “ancientness” of a cathedral that leads many others to “catholic” churches, I then decided to scout out the EOC’s counterpart to the RCC’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral (the head of the denomination for the NYC area), and find it’s the Holy Trinity Cathedral, which is a rather small, modest basilica wedged sideways in the middle of the block on E 74th St. between a row of old Civil War era tenements and a newer highrise and with a Presbyterian Church on the other side of that. I swing by at the end of a service, to get a sense of what it’s like (would be much easier to get to now, being near the brand new Second Avenue line), but the people seemed rather distant and just into their own little cliques.

Anyways, Hanegraaf’s move would mean he no longer believes in at least two of the “core essentials” he once defended, of Grace alone through faith alone, and “sola scriptura”. (Even though he did claim to still believe in the former). The “Catholic/Orthodox” position on the role of “works” in “faith” is similar to that of several of the “cults”, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, radical sabbatarians such as Armstrongism, and the Church of Christ.

As he was the de-facto number one “apologist” for the general body of evangelical “orthodoxy” (as understood in the “Protestant” form), this is very surprising. So the perhaps next leading evangelical apologist, James White of Alpha & Omega ministries, quickly began commenting on it. (this video even shows the tweet of Hanegraaf being received into the Church via chrismation!)
You would think the two ministries would be pretty much in lockstep agreement on most doctrines; since they uphold the “basics” of evangelical doctrine, but apparently, there was a bit of a light “falling out” between the two fourteen years ago, when White realized it would be his last invitation to the Bible Answer Man, as he described what he calls a pre-planned “ambush” to promote “synergism” (which is basically the technical term for “free-will” cooperation in salvation), which he says “backfired” on the hosts. White is of course, solidly Calvinist (monergistic), where Hanegraaf always seemed to be more neutral on that dispute. (I can remember him describing a “racist” attack, when some hyper-charismatic “revival” leader whom he had denounced fired back something about him being an “intellectual Calvinist” or something like that, which was assumed simply from him having a Dutch background).

White addresses the issue of the “catholic” definition of “faith” in this second video on the subject: He points out how the single word “alone”, as in “grace/faith alone” makes a big difference. Removing it and substituting something like “faith working through love” (taking from Paul in Galatians, but using it differently from what he originally meant), as a Catholic he cites does, “opens the door” to the entire sacrificial system of Rome, and all the doctrines that go with that (baptismal regeneration, different kinds of sin, etc. Already, Hanegraaf can be heard in a clip talking about how [canonized] saints pray for us, though he says we can’t pray to them. White shows how the still professed “sola scriptura” is actually redefined, and around 20 minutes in excellently points out how the EOC “traditions” were “frozen” or “fossilized” in the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries [and not the 1st, 2nd or 3rd], by the threat of the rise and rule of Islam, which forced them to maintain “this is what we believe and we must defend it”; where the Western Church had the freedom and increased power to continue developing its doctrine).

I’m actually not as totally surprised as you think I would be. He is so into the “historic” aspect of the “faith”; “historicity” seemed to always be the ultimate arbiter of doctrinal matters, including how to interpret scripture, which is of course the official final authority, but as we see all too often, does get interpreted differently by nearly everyone. I always pictured him having a soft spot for some form of “catholicity” (which again, he was always criticized for not being hard enough on. He does have articles on “Catholicism”, but these seem to be more focused on the specific Roman branch of catholicism. Again, the EOC doesn’t have quite the same stigma as the RCC; as it didn’t add some of the really bad doctrines like purgatory, indulgences, etc. Also, it not being as familiar here in the West. It was the RCC that Protestantism broke away from).

This is truly a major shift in evangelicalism!

Review: Bradley “The Iceman Inheritance”

The Iceman Inheritance Micael Bradley
©1978 Michael Bradley; originally published by Dorset Publishing, Inc.; reading 1991 Kayode Publications (New York) 1st printing

Figured I should finally read this and review it, since I have thought of and mentioned its premise a lot over the years. I first saw this IIRC in the 90’s. My family had it, and my father was talking about it, IIRC. It was a printing I can’t find now, where the cover showed an actual man made of ice, displaying a very aggressive looking expression.

The premise was that the rough environment of Ice Age Europe is what led “Western” civilizations to be overall “aggressive”, leading to their conquest of much of the world. The very first words; the “contention” (also the title of Part One), “This book is racist!” The irony being that the race being critiqued (“I will attempt to show that racism is a predisposition of but once race of Mankind…”) is the white race, and and by a white Canadian author!
Already hearing so much of what’s now called “dog whistling” rhetoric for over a decade back then, which extolled the virtues of the White Western Christian civilization, contrasted with the “laziness” of the black race (now encoded as “Western/American exceptionalism”), and developing a presentation of the Gospel as teaching all men are equal (made in God’s image), but “fallen” into being “sinful” (though in different manifestations often), it made sense as an a great proof of the Bible teaching.

But when I glanced at it, I found it full of discussion of prehistory and particularly evolutionary theory, such as frequent mention of the “Neanderthals”. While I was never a solid [young earth] “Creationist”, I at that point did not know what to make of either theory, and while opposing the conspiratorial rhetoric and rigid literalism of the more fundamentalistic creationists; I still was not ready to really deal with taking the problem as far back as neanderthals (pre-homosapiens or “mankind” proper; think: “cavemen” who are seemingly half-ape). I wanted something that placed man’s problems with “the Fall” into sin, that occurred in our current homo-sapiens state.
So I basically put it aside, and eventually gave the book away.

My mother later is given another one; the copy I have now, with the standard cover showing a hand smashing something with a rock. (This could also be found on Afrocentric book tables on the street). One time, later, when she was giving away books, including this one, I this time decided to keep it. So it sat on my shelf for years.

Forward to today’s political climate, where the more radical racists are coming out into the open, dubbed the “alt-right” (even to the point of denouncing the old dog-whistlers for their indirect language, which they call “cuckery”), and boldly pitching white supremacy in contrast to black “pathology”. They dress down all of our “problems”, and put together patterns of bad character, as I have cited in Makers-Takers and think nothing of how they could happen to end up in the “good” group. It’s just “fact” and “truth”, supported by statistics. As far back as the old writings on the Right Wing, I had cited the premise of the book, and pointed out that what is being pointed at in the black community is basically the same effect on a smaller scale. The rough environments we’ve been placed in have made us more aggressive; hence all the much touted “crime” in the cities. So we’re proven to be essentially all the same, just like the Gospel teaches!

This is basically the liberal response to everything, from crime, to even the genetic “bell curve” hypothesis, which had actually reared its head again in that mid 90’s period. But the alt-right just dismisses this, and focuses on what’s seen now, in the statistics, deeming the blacks “insoluble”, and going as far as to criticize the nation and its founders for bringing us here in the first place, and even dismissing the Constitution. (So the other conservatives who uphold those things are seen as betraying the race in favor of country, hence the likening it to “cuckolding”!)

Meanwhile, life seems to be getting rougher and rougher (for the average person), both economically, and organizationally (like how litigiousness causes agencies like mine to pile more and more rules and harsher penalties for breaking them), with those on the top (in power) gaining more and more, exponentially!
And all of this is justified with the rhetoric of “rugged individualism”, where this is just the way “nature” is; basically Darwinism’s “natural selection” being true socio-economically, (even to the staunch Creationists who blamed “Darwinism” for the fall of the nation!) and the poor and weak are always to blame for not “pulling their bootstraps”. Those who make it to the top are uncritically assumed to have an almost blameless character (and thus, the only ones who have “earned” their “freedom”, and thus should have almost no regulation in how they rule over others).

I kept finding myself more and more saying how they are creating a practical “Ice Age”, where it’s “dog eat dog” and survival of the fittest. This came to mind especially when watching Zeitgeist, with its discussion of the illusion of “scarcity” presented while there’s really an “abundance” being hoarded away. This is basically the survival instinct of an environment like a frozen wilderness, where you have to keep taking, storing, taking, storing… etc.; not because you necessarily really need all of it right now, but just in case you run out and can’t get any more. That is how the corporate world is geared, and passing it down to everyone else. And the aggression used to acquire stuff, and the “rugged individualism” used to justify it all, are just apart of the mindset.

All of this, in total irony given the right’s claim of how “exceptional” this society is. (Or, when they acknowledge what they think is wrong with it, it’s always other groups’ fault; whether the blacks, the Jews, or just the compromising “cucks” of either left or right. This, in the same breath of accusing blacks of “never accepting responsibility for anything”).

So this had me thinking more and more about this premise, and I figured I should finally sit down and read it, to see what it really says. Whether evolutionary or not, there must be something to it.

The 1990 foreword mentions an unpublished manuscript by Sigmund Freud (published as “A Phylogenetic Fantasy”) that suggested that Western man’s psychosexual aggressions were produced by glacial evolution during the last European Ice Age, as Bradley had first argued seven years earlier.
The introduction, by John Henrik Clarke of Hunter College summarizes the history of race. “There was no Europe in ancient times. The geographical area that would later be called Europe was not a functioning entity in world affairs when early civilizations were being developed in the Nile Valley and other river valleys in Africa and later in Western Asia (now mistakenly called the Middle East) and in mainland Asia in countries like India, China and later, Japan”. The first real show of European literacy began around 1250BC, with Homer’s Odyssey and the Iliad. They then “soon made a glaring discovery – Europe could not furnish them with enough food to properly feed them or enough material to properly clothe them. They began to look with covetous eyes at the more developed parts of the world”. What followed were the invasions of parts of Africa and Asia by the Greeks, Assyrians and Iranians (Persians).

The racism that plagues us today would have its origins in the 15th and 16th centuries, when Europe was stricken by poverty and established the slave trade to begin its economic recovery. The “official rationale of the Atlantic slave trade” started with a papal-sanctioned authorization of Spain and Portugal to reduce to servitude “infidels”, who had held Europe at bay since the age of the Crusades. While Europeans did enslave other Europeans for a much longer time than they enslaved Africans, this did not give birth to racism, but did lay the basis for feudalism.
They also at the time began colonization of the world, and what they call “colonization” of the Bible and the image of God. This created a contradiction, where they portrayed God as loving mankind and “no respecter” of men, but also who favored them over other people. Meanwhile, “The Europeans who were successful in Europe generally stayed in Europe”, so the New World became established by “a large number of people who were failures at home”. So, “Many of these Europeans felt called upon to make non-Europeans feel inferior so they they could convince themselves that they were a superior people”.
In the 20th century, with the rise of the “Yellow Peril” of Japan, this was when pseudoscientific racism began, and the propagation of the Teutonic origin theory.

Chapter 1 is on the “Greek gift” of Western technology and discusses medicine, nuclear war and the affect on the climate (greenhouse gas, etc), done in the name of “progress”, the “grain of truth” which “we” brought to “them“.
Chapter 2 is the “Greek gifts” of Western psychology and philosophy.
“Paradoxes” become “conflicts” (struggle between the spiritual and material, “free world” vs communism etc). “This weakness is alienation“, either from one truth of the paradox, or the other. We have to separate things.”
(Within Western religion, “paradox” is only used as a last resort to cover up incoherencies in doctrine, to silence questions when they have no further explanations. Examples are many arguments for the Trinity, God’s “love” versus “hatred”, free will vs election, and salvation or “sanctification” by “grace” (and imparted “power”) versus our own efforts. So in practice, they have become “conflicts” that have done what else, but cause “alienation” and division in the Church, into hundreds of denominations, many loudly denouncing others for “rejecting truth”, that to them is embodied in these “paradoxes” that they see as only becoming “conflicts” because of their opponents’ obstinance).

He then introduces the concept of “The Cronos Complex“; the title of his earlier book. That is that we differ from other species by our conception of time as a “territory”. Animals of course have “territories” that are spatial. I define space as a set of coordinates that are randomly accessible. You can go back and forth from one point to another. Time is sequential; about causation, and where we can’t go back to already passed points. This, animals can’t comprehend. So if you think of it, they really do not think in terms of time. They, with their “instincts” are totally in the “here and now”. Something happens, and they instinctively react. They do have memory, including things learned through stimulus-response. But they do not have the ability to preserve the past or plan for the future. Man has institutions like burial and religion, which is “past-present communication”, where writing is a “present-future communication”.
So just like with spatial territory, “we brought with us into the new dimension means of asserting and defending our territory” (p.16). This right away reminds me of conservative Christians’ polemics on the downfall of America, or even the West or white race in general. Clearly, they are defending “territory” (from the past) they see as being taken from them (in the present and future). So this territorialism actually ends up holding back further “progress”, where we feel threatened by the future. (p17f). So, “Man is a biological creature attempting to inhabit an environment that is non-biological. This is the paradox of human existence.” (p.18-9).

But he still got the sense that the Cronos complex didn’t tell the whole story; there was a second level of understanding, which was racial. This leads to chapter 3, “Child of Fire and Ice”. He starts off going into different mythologies, such as the Nazis’ “fourth cycle” the legend of Niord, the first hunter, who defeated the Worm Oroubourous by the use of fire, and deep in the earth, he became encased in ice, and Neitzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, about the Persian prophet trying to keep the Iranian religion pure in the Caucasus and other middle eastern mountains. So most European peoples preserved some memory of coming from the east and originating in the Caucasus-Pamir chain of mountains.

Basically, it was during the “ice age”, called Würm I, where we had the cave fires amidst all the ice. Hence, “fire and ice”.
So (p.26), it is right away pointed out that out of this geological backdrop, “Not intelligence, nor morality, not ‘spirit’, but aggression, is responsible for the white man’s superiority. Aggression is responsible for the expansion of Caucasoids, both geographically and culturally, at the expense of other races.” As far as psychosexual matters, “We have a low frustration level because glacial adaptation robbed us of sufficiently effective sexual displacement activities. Our philosophical and religious conflicts are the result of a glacial distortion of primate behavior-patterns”.
This would explain the sexual repression in historic Christianity, where sexual mores were so meticulous and obsessively focused on and the “morality” of nations, and “holiness” of individuals were primarily judged based on, while other evils were OK if not championed. The one the most notable to me, being racism.

He then points out there is nothing innate or external about “superiority”, for in an earlier epoch, the ape-tending pongids were “superior” to hominids in adapting to the forests covering much of the earth. But it was the change of the earth’s climate, from Miocene to Pliocene, where the earth entered a drought millions of years long, “hominid liabilities in the Miocene became assets during the Pliocene”. The failure to adapt to the forests left adaptational options open for the new environmental conditions. Neither the pongids nor the hominids had the least responsibility for this. It was basically “fate”, or the matter of timing, even over talent and temperament. This is something today’s “rugged individualists” refuse to comprehend.

Not intelligence, morality, nor ‘spirit’, but aggression, is responsible for the white man’s “superiority”, meaning their expansion at the expense of other races. There is nothing innate or external about this

Part Two is where we get into the Neanderthal-Caucasoids.
Chapter 4 “The Concept of Race” starts off discussing the viewpoints of two writers, Lother Tirala, a Nazi proponent of “Race”, and Ashley Montagu, an liberal proponent of “non-race”. Linnaeus (1785) was an early includer of man in the animal world, recognizing only one species, divided along the continental masses, into “europaeus”, “asiaticus”, “americanus” and “afer”. Buffon (1749) introduced the term “race” to mean “variety”.
Montagu had shown that modern racism stems from two separate fonts: a justification of slave economics, and inherent ans erroneous assumptions in systems of classification in evolutionary constructs. So, “It is ironic that both religion and Darwinism were used to justify racism, since each system vehemently opposed the other” (p.34). Both have used it against each other, down to the present. (I remember being so irritated to see racism mentioned in creationist Henry Morris’ Revelation Record; the first time I had ever seen it addressed in a fundamentalist apologetic work; but only to be blamed on evolution —along with every other evil in the world! What about all the Genesis-believing Christians who [erroneously] said that God cursed “Ham”, the supposed father of the black race?)

At this point is introduced another name used frequently, C.S. Coon, who divided the blacks between the “Congoids” or contemporary black “negroes”, and the “Capoids”, who were the Bushmen and Hottentots, who differed from the [Congoid] Bantu they were enslaved by. This became one instance of race-based slavery the medieval world would know about. So, “what the blacks imposed on the Capoids was soon to be imposed upon the blacks by white Europeans”. (Coon’s full racial classification consists of “Caucasoid”, “Mongoloid”, “Australoid”, “Congoid” and “Capoid”. I believe the official system now narrows it down to Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid).

Yet, the natives of Africa and the Americas would actually be described by explorers (such as Vasco da Gama and Columbus) as superior in some ways (especially morally) to Europe’s peasants! Yet only a century later was when they would suddenly be characterized as “filthy, lazy pagans, of bestial morals, no better than dogs, and only fit for slavery” (which is what we are more familiar with in our history today). This was because medieval Europe considered slavery a circumstance rather than a mark of moral inferiority, and so, enslavement would be justified purely by the technological ability to do so. But it was the Church that aimed to provide a rationale for the circumstances, which was, regardless of how moral and intelligent they were, they were not yet Christians, and so slavery offered an opportunity for their conversion and the saving of their souls! (We see here how the Gospel was changed into purely a political tool, and no longer had anything to do with scripture. And the Christian world would later wonder why so many people reject it as “irrelevant”. What’s not covered, and you don’t really hear about anymore, is the earlier period of slavery, where they tried to forbid the converting of slaves. This probably connected with them not being seen as human. Eventually, of course, conversion became a handy tool to dominate over them).
So we see the origins of the debate that rages on today, as to whether the poor (and the minority “community” in general) are suffering from a series of bad circumstances, or their own moral inferiority.

There was also a division in both Europe and America, between North and South, where in both cases, the North was the first to oppose slavery. The north, because of the climate, became more industrial (through steam power), where the south remained more agricultural, and the large numbers of Africans and Amerinds were easy to exploit (p.37).
Where “Generations of slavery and lack of social and educational opportunities for black and Amerind fulfillment had inevitably resulted in poor development of these people and their offspring in comparison with the whites”, nature began to be appealed to as creating this inferiority, and by extension, “the order that God established”, and on the other front, notions of “less evolved” races, perhaps held by Darwin. He surmises the “sobering thought” that if Origin of Species had been published a decade earlier, the US might still be afflicted by slavery today! (p.40).

Basically, from here, much of the book gets into the origins of all men, rather than just the Caucasoids, especially when comparing Coon’s and the other anthropologists’ theories. He says he agrees with Coon’s theories of the races having different pre-human (Homo-erectus) ancestors, the Australoid-Pithecanthropus and Mongoloid-Sinoanthropus lines who crossed the ‘sapiens threshold’ separately (p47ff); but questions his objectivity in certain areas of the origins of races, where they lend to racist doctrines; like the Caucasoid and Mongoloid passing the sapiens threshold the earliest and thus being the most highly evolved, some Australoids straddling the threshold, and the Congoids being the newest and “mysterious”. Africa was the cradle of civilization, but only in the sense of being a “kindergarten”; “Europe and Asia were our principal schools”.
So ironically, I’ve seen where the alt-right, also accepting Neanderthal origins, uses it as more evidence of their supremacy, rather than any maladaptation. This would probably represent the strain of Coon’s theory.

P52-3 is a discussion and illustration of how all the major continents are cone shaped, narrowing toward the south, and so southern groups of people, such as the Bushmen (Capoids) and Australoids, were trapped, and easily conquered, or having to flee the continent (as in the case of the Australoids).

Chapter 5 is now on the Neanderthal-Caucasoids, which starts off on the “Heidelberg jaw” and other fossils. Coon tries to argue for a 300,000 or 400,000 year antiquity of sapience in Europe, against the disagreement of other experts.

The “Neanderthals” were named after Joachim Neander, originally “Neumann”; both meaning “new man”, which then was used by Dr. H. Schaaffhausen for a skull found in Neander’s Valley two centuries later.
The last glacial period; Würm, began 100,000 years ago, deepened into intense cold which then moderated 40,000 years ago in what’s called the Göttweig Interstadial, and then became savagely cold again until 8-10,000 BC with the last retreat of the glaciers. The Neanderthals died out with the warmer weather of the Göttweig Interstadial, when more modern men migrated to Europe. So the last Würmian cold snap was endured by modern men who were the ancestors of modern Europeans today.
I would have thought these peoples’ maladaptation to that climate would be the premise, but it seems this book focuses more on the Neanderthals. Mentioned (p.70) is that some scientists are divided in their opinion of the Neanderthals, and that they may have moved to Eurasia from elsewhere as the advancing Würmian glaciers drove more modern men out (so they were from the European-Caucasoid stock mixing with the Sinanthropus-Mongoloid), but there is some evidence some Neanderthal traits developed in Europe itself.
We next get into descriptions of the Neanderthals, beginning from the skull of LaChapelle aux Saints. They had the low broad skulls, with foreheads sloping back from large brow ridges and the prognathous jaw. You know, the typical “caveman” image. Eventually, Cro-Magnon was discovered and upheld, while Neanderthal came to be despised. Neanderthal did have some culture (awareness of the “past-present-future” continuum) though, with evidences of burial and religious sophistication.

Chapter 6 returns to the theme of “Fire and Ice: Psychobiology”, which basically continues the previous chapter with physical and cultural descriptions (Neanderthal faces were twice the size of modern ones and their heads an inch bigger in every direction but up, and also their short, stocky bodies likely “absurdly” round). Here, he discusses the Venus figurines and makes the odd suggestion of their wide hips or “hippiness” (larger than the norm for other races), being “typical” of European women (p.93, 107), and thus a holdover from the Neanderthals. That would make sense for them, but among today’s people, the Caucasians are usually slimmer, and blacks and other warm-climate women have the stereotypical “child-bearing hips”. So I’m not sure what this claim is about.
We also get a drawing of their huge feet and the insinuation that surviving remnants may have been the “abominable snowmen” of central Asia north of the Caucasus chain! (p.96, But for some reason, not the “Yeti” of the Himalayas).

In quotes from Montagu and Ivan T. Sanderson (respectively, below), debunked is the myth that Caucasoids are the most refined race, and Negroids are the most primitive; but rather closer to the opposite: “If racists would take the trouble to visit their local zoo and for a moment drop their air of superiority and take a dispassionate look at one of the apes, they would find the hair of these creatures lank, and that their lips are thin, and that their bodies are profusely covered with hair. In these characters the white man stands nearer the apes…”. I remember the Ansaars; the one time Brooklyn-based pseudo-Islamic sect that used to sell all the oils in the subway, had in one of their books a crude illustration making this point. People apparently associate Africans with apes because of the brown color, but for African people it’s their actual skin color. For apes, the color is mostly the fur, and under the fur, as the Ansaar booklet pointed out, is pinkish skin!
“The Negro so-called ‘race’ is apparently the newest and is the least pongid-like of all” (Ironically, Coon had tried to use the Negroes being newer as proof they were more primitive!) Sanderson then points to the same points regarding the lips and hair, as Montagu, and adds that the Mongoloids are very different from both. These primitive characteristics are inherited from the Neanderthal.
Next, he goes back into the cronos complex and territorialism, including through religion, and comparisons of the Congoid and Capoid and sexual dimorphism.

Part Three takes simply the title of the book. We think, finally, he’s going to get more to the central point. Chapter 7 is on “Love and Expression”. “Love is the middle ground between aggression and the ability to reproduce. A pair-bond, ‘love’, is displaced aggression. It is aggression ‘shoved aside’, literally, so that the partners can reproduce without threat.” (p130) “Lovers’ quarrels” and “playful fighting” are examples of this displaced aggression. While all peoples have similar courtship antics, only the West is said here to have a fully developed concept of “love”, as seen in the church-approved ‘courtly love’. A distinction is made between “eros” and “agape” (representing all other forms of love. It ignores the further distinctions, as found in scripture, of “philos“; and also “storge“, which is familial). “Just as the ‘love’ we call eros allows us to reproduce in the face of threat and aggression, so the ‘love’ we call agape allows us to live in the material world while yearning for the relationships awaiting us in eternity. Agape is that place where the needs of material survival are met while the realization of a past-present-future continuity is preserved.” He eventually gets into subjects such as female orgasm in western society and religious groups such as the Catharism/Albigensianism that produced the Troubadours of Provençal (langue-d’oc) fame and were destroyed by the prevailing Catholicism.
(Ironically, the Cathars/Albigenses are appealed to by some Baptists and various sects, in what’s called the “Trail of Blood” theory, where they try to trace their denominational lineage back to the original apostolic church via this persecuted group and others, seen as representing “the true Church through the ages”, in contrast to the powerful Catholics. Most of these modern sects have a heavy pietistic strain, and would probably reject the “romanticism” of the Troubadours as “sensual”, so they really do not know what they are talking about in identifying with this associated religious group, but then some try to say our knowledge of all of them is distorted by the persecutors.)

He along the way points out that the ancient Egyptian civilization was not a Western, Caucasoid achievement, but rather a multi-racial achievement. By 1500BC,
they began to record the invasions of the “sea peoples”. (p141) Rather than them swamping the Egyptian cultural influence (their numbers weren’t yet sufficient enough), they themselves were “Egyptianized”. (Mentioned is George Gurdjieff, a mystic who also created the “Enneagram of personality” concept discussed increasingly it seems, in typology circles. He was influenced by central Asian literacy and regarded Western fiction as “irrelevant”). Our “novels” focus on themes such as “love conquers all”, “love lost”, “love searched for”, or conflicts between eros and agape.

Chapter 8 is “Psychobiology in History and Society”. This discusses man’s control over nature, and defining “progress” in terms of increasing materialism. It then quickly goes back into the history of the different groups, and holds up ancient Egypt and China before the coming of maritime Europeans. Both incorporated progress, but neither were threatened by it, and should be emulated by Caucasoid civilization. Also is a discussion on how these civilizations differed in war. Being a soldier was not something romanticized as a glorious occupation in Egypt or China, and ships were designed differently, with Europeans having multiple levels in order to have more manpower, while Chinese and Egyptians simply made the one deck longer if needed, until materials limitations halted the size. This gets into the Western “frustration with nature”, leading to the urge to control it, through the desire to increase power and output.
Spending so much time on ship design, “we will not have to spend so much time on other progressive achievements which have more relevance to our crises”, so briefly mentioned are affects on health such as acupuncture, color and music (which Gurdjieff claimed the Egyptians used to stimulate plant growth). The orientation of pyramids affected the decomposition of organic substances! Where Westerners turned away from the “excess of sensation of technology and materialism”, then the cure must be the “asceticism” of some eastern philosophies. But the civilizations of China, Egypt and pre-Caucasoid India were not stable (and perhaps more fulfilling) because of asceticism, they were balanced, being highly erotic as well. (All three societies being “obsessed with fashion and cosmetics and jewelry), and had erotic art, yet both men and women were sex objects, rather than just women). So this then goes into western sexual maladaptation (and its resultant aggression) compared to those societies. So “our sexual-sensual behavior is not typical of civilized society but more resembles the sexual-sensual behavior of ‘primitive’ cultures retarded by adverse environmental conditions” (p184). This then uses as examples the dresses that overemphasize (distort) the hips or buttocks in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the demand for differentiation in sex, like parents’ complaints not long before the book, of boys wearing long hair.

Chapter 9 is “Ouroubouros Unfettered”

This mainly discusses the possible future outcomes of “the Iceman inheritance” on the world:

1) Western man will destroy all of visible life off of the planet

2) Western man will destroy its own culture and industrialism and the rest of mankind will establish something similar to the ancient Egyptians and Chinese, with perhaps some vestiges of Western technology

3) Extra-terrestial intervention which might impose some new pattern upon us

4) Western Man, through self-examination, can overcome his problem and modify his behavior

5) Western man and the rest of the world can continue to “progress” along the lines already established by contemporary culture and technology

The first and last are right away eliminated as “vanities of power”, as human life is too resilient and adaptable to be destroyed by Western folly, but yet, the environment is too limited and delicate for things to go on as they are. (I’m surprised he didn’t mention the danger of us destroying all human life and possibly all life together, with our nuclear technology).

That leaves the other three. The one he believes is most likely, based on the pattern of history, is Western Civilization collapse on itself. (Looks that way to me as well).
He still then addresses the other two scenarios. So then we get several pages on the possibility of extra-terrestrial life (including UFO sightings, scientific evidence, with Carl Sagan and others mentioned). I myself too have wished, or thought this might be our only hope. Technically, God would fall into this category, hence my believing in a “Second Coming” of Christ when I saw that this was the key message of the Bible. However, since it seems that was something already fulfilled by the events shortly after the scripture canon was closed, it’s back to square one on that front. So likewise, even after all of this, intervention still appears unlikely and that “we will be left alone to solve our own problems”.

So he ends on the final possibility, of consciously changing our behavior. Hope-offering examples are provided of Neanderthal-Caucasians being able to live in relatively gentle and non-expansive communities (with the Celtic-Cathars/Albigenses as the main one), in addition to the other cultures. Drawing upon Cyrano de Bergerac, our main adversary is our vanity. “Instead of denying the existence of biological determinates in our behavior, we must somehow find the courage to look them straight in the mirror. If we can only find the courage that Cyrano lacked, we may yet live. And if we do not find love, we may at least discover compassion for ourselves ad others”.

It is the (often unnecessary) aggression based upon the notion of cultural-religious-moral racial rightness that makes Western behavior unique, over the “comparative aggression” of others. No other people has shared this justification for aggression and expansion

The appendix is “Objections, Counter-arguments and Retorts”. The main one being the complaint we’ve heard a lot in today’s racially charged rhetorical environment, of non-White societies being made into paradise, when they were really full of “Comparative aggression”. When writing Makers-Takers, I ran across a South African White Nationalist site where in the same breath as blacks being portrayed as subhuman monsters, but rebuffing criticism of the white race and western civilization, a commenter asks, incredulously, that according to the “liberals”, “How could one civilization [i.e. whites] be so bad?” (Shouldn’t the question be, how could they think blacks could be so bad, or whites could be so good? If it’s possible for one group to be so bad, then it’s possible for the other one as well).
Now, while just finishing this, someone posts some new video of some cowboy looking person challenging an Indian telling him to get off his land with the “fact” that that Indian’s tribe had moved in and killed off a previous tribe. The point, if it was OK when you did it, then it’s OK for us to do the same to your land. Commenters give their usual tripe about “the losers whining after centuries” and “that’s life, get over it”. Of course, this ignores that those same people, the descendants of the conquerors, are now whining, or no, screaming more than anyone else, that they are being “conquered”, or even destroyed (by the very people they are giving all of this tough talk to; whether the minorities, illegal immigrants, the godless liberals giving everything away to them, etc.) Why is that any different?

Recently, calling this out on a similar FB post, I’m given the whole rationale. Life doesn’t give past losers the right to complain, but it does give people currently under “attack” the right to “defend themselves”. So this means, they can tell others to “stop whining” and to be “thankful” for all the goodness of this society, but they can whine about being destroyed (when others simply oppose them for their aggression), or this nation “no longer” being “great, and thus themselves not be thankful for anything. In other words, they have “rights” to demand better things in life, but not others. It basically corresponds to this division they’ve made between “rights” and “entitlements”, with those criticizing others for “entitlements” being the ones who truly have the “rights”, —based simply on who’s in power now. It’s “Might makes right”, pure and simple. (Some of them, perhaps in the back of their mind realize that the same “nature” or God that allowed them to rise to power can one day allow someone to usurp it from them, but part of their “self-defense” is the blaming of what they fear will happen in the future on those seen as making them weak and giving the birthright away to others; so they can hypothetically lose some day, but it will be the fault of “the forces of evil”, like liberals and moderates, and so they can do all they can to try to prevent this now by vigorously fighting these enemy “others”).

That’s what explains this huge attribution shift; why both can do the same things (Romans 2), but only one is right. Who determined this (i.e. who has the “right” to complain, or what is a “right” or an “entitlement”), we don’t know. (But since there are so many Christians in this movement, then the idea that “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away” still condemns their attitude, since it means they might be fighting God’s will. Also, from this, and even a nontheistic perspective; the neurotic focus on survival of the “race” or “culture”, especially as many of these people, Christian or not, claim to be “post-racial”). It’s “extended ego”, not any concern for the laws of either God or nature, and so the whole premise is mired in pure deceit.

So Bradley denies, saying that examples of non-Western aggression had been offered. “I have not intended to suggest that Neanderthal-Caucasoids have always proved more aggressive than anyone else… but merely that this major group of Mankind has a tendency toward higher aggression and that this has, in the aggregate, affected the pattern of history in obvious ways.
On the other hand, some examples given for exceptional non-Caucasoid aggression do seem to evaporate under closer scrutiny, especially with the quality of the aggression manifested.”

For the Mexican-Indians, he connects their aggression, especially connected to their religion, to Old World ideas and behavior, and hence, “yet another iceman inheritance imposed upon non-Western peoples”. (The Spaniards, for instance, found many religious parallels between Europe and Mexico. The suggestion, apparently, is that some of this had been brought over the Bering Strait by their ancestors). Until more data is analyzed, “the religious wars of Middle America’s populations cannot be used as an argument against this thesis.”
For the Mongol expansions, it’s about the quality of the aggression, meaning it was “normal” aggression, motivated by overpopulation (environmental necessity) rather than psychological motivation. The West has expanded even when unnecessary…in order to impose Western culture and religion on others. Or from the motivation of sheer greed, or from all these motivations combined in a mutually supportive justification structure. It is this expansion and aggression based upon the notion of cultural-religious-moral racial rightness and intolerance that makes Western behavior unique. I submit that no other people has shared this justification for aggression and expansion…certainly not the Mongols.”
He also presents argument regarding Japan, the Eskimos, and the Capoid and Australoid extinction at the hand of non-Caucasoid people.

This of course ties into the whole “Scriptural” component of the justification. Scripture really condemns the means of “expansion” and also condemns self-justification; we are supposed to admit our own sin and then show the same mercy we believe we have received, toward others. But scripture instead was taken out of context, where conquests or judgments seen in the Old Testament were taken as commands for “Christian” nations thousands of years later who did not receive the actual commands recorded there.
This is part of what Western “Christian” civilization has been held up to, and their validity dismissed for (Romans 2:24). But all conservative defenders can do is point to others; “what about them“? (Even though they know this would never fly, before God; but they are so sure they are right with God, and again, they criticize others as “never accepting responsibility”!) But those “others” are the ones you consider to be “godless heathens”, and yourselves the faithful Christians. You’re supposed to set the example of godliness, as the “light to the nations”, not appeal to them as justification of your own ungodliness in the same breath as condemning their ungodliness! This is why it seems popular culture is so against traditional Western and Christian “values”. (See also, Eph.4:27, John 9:41, Luke 12:48).

So the book does make and support its point, but it goes off into so much other details, it seems more like a general study of anthropology. So it doesn’t seem really hard-hitting enough. (I of course am looking for something that will be a good counter to both mainstream Right “dog whistling”, and alt-Right “supremacy”). It’s too easy to get lost in all the details about human evolution in general. What I had hoped to see was more specific connections with modern behavior and beliefs.

What I find as a cause for concern is the direction the author has seemed to go in the nearly 40 years since publishing the book, and as I saw in researching him for this project, it is possibly anti-semitism. Jews were barely mentioned in the old printing, but this newer publication promotional: is subtitled “A frightening publication history of Jewish media suppression”. It’s compared to the Nation of Islam’s The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews.
So on the page, he covers his history promoting the original publication.

Then, in early 1981, someone figured out the implications for Jews in the book’s presentation of evidence…

I had never considered this myself because it had been a long time since I had taken my own Jewish origins into any account. I had never even thought about any “Jewish implications” of the book. Neither did the Jewish publisher of the original Canadian edition, Larry Goldstein. And, obviously, Dr. Judith Posner had not thought about any “Jewish implications” either when she wrote an Introduction for The Iceman Inheritance – unless, of course, courageous Judy Posner simply had more affinity with all of humanity than with her own ethnic group. Jews were blandly mentioned on half a page in the 226-page book.

After 1981, some bookstores that had formerly carried the book were threatened with boycott and fire-bombing by Jewish pressure groups.

This eventually leads into something called the Khazar theory. I had recently been hearing this, probably from some FB “friends” with some radical “libertarian” or paleo-con leanings (who post things that may ultimately tie into the alt-right). It basically says the common “white” Jews (particularly the Ashkenazis) were actually descended from a Caucasian tribe from the Russian steppe. They “converted en-masse to Judaism about AD 740 in order to avoid religious, cultural and political control by either Moslems in Persia or by Christians in Byzantium. These ‘Jewish’ Khazars, along with Alans, Bulgars, Magyars and other minor steppe tribes, were subsequently dispersed all over Central and Eastern Europe about 500 years later by the Mongol invasion of AD 1218.”
He even points to the common physical traits, such as the faces of people like Barbara Streisand and Julia Roberts. (BTW, Donald Fagen would be a textbook example of that as well).

On one hand, this view was enticing, because I’ve always held the position that the original Israelites of the Bible were people of color, like the modern Palestinians and others, and even some current day Israelis. But it seems when you look at most people called “Jews” today, they are pure “white”, many even with blonde hair and blue eyes. Even though “white supremacists” reject them as part of their race, when growing up, they were always called “white” and identified themselves as such. The Census even considers them “Caucasian”.
So it is so easy to assume, as apparently the entire Church did, that these were what the people of the Bible looked like. Sure enough, nearly every Sunday-school and Bible illustration of Moses, Joseph, Judah, David, all the prophets, and Jesus and the apostles, are all white. It’s then further assumed the Israelites were the original racial stock, so the whiteness is then further projected back to Abraham, Shem (even though most will acknowledge the true Caucasian race as stemming from Japheth along with the Mongoloids), Noah, and the first humans, Adam and Eve.

This went right along with the racism of the Western Church. Whites, whether Israelite or not, were the “chosen” race. Blacks were “cursed” Ham.
(Hislop’s Two Babylons clearly identified Nimrod as “black”. Herbert Armstrong, who I entered the faith through, drawing upon Hislop in Mystery of the Ages, then proclaims all the “chosen” figures, from Adam to Noah and his sons, to “God’s chosen nation Israel”, to Jesus, as “white”, of course taking care to add “not that the white race is in any way superior” ⦅these people, including today’s “dog whistlers”, refuse to understand how innuendo works⦆, and admitting “God does not reveal in the Bible the precise origin of the different races”, but with what Wikipedia would call “weasel words”: “it is evident”, “happened to be”, prefaced with “undoubtedly”, with no evidence!
The point, the main sin in the pre-flood era and the Tower of Babel afterward was intermixing of races, which God had “separated”; and a desire “still inherent in human nature today”, with talk of the “unblemished, perfect lineage”, and an analogy to animal “thoroughbred or pedigreed stock”! (p148. The eternal “Wonderful World of Tommorrow” he concludes the book on, will continue these “boundaries” God has set!)

Also, some white supremacists held black skin as the “Mark of Cain”. Though all of Cain’s descendants were supposed to have perished in the Flood. They’ll probably say Ham’s wife had the genes; just as Armstrong says Eve had the “yellow” and “black” genes, passed through Noah’s son’s wives, though without ever connecting this to Cain.
Armstrong also held to “Anglo-Israelism”, which says that the US and Britain are two of the lost ten tribes of Israel, with other northern European nations being the other tribes. One of the conclusions from this is that all of the conquest and slavery that benefited these nations were fulfillment of the “promise” made to Abraham! He also took the prophecy of Amos 9:9, about the exiled nation “For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth” as proving the race is totally “pure”. They never mixed with any other group; not one single person apparently, so all the “Israelites” you see today: Jews, Anglos, Nordics, etc., are the same exact pure “race” we read about in the Bible!

Anglo-Israelism is one of the main “heresies” evangelical apologetics condemns Armstrongism for, but you really wonder why they would even bother on that point, when it is compatible with, and in actuality, the logical extension of, much of traditional American evangelical preaching on politics and morality! Think, “God is taking away his blessings on our nation and cursing us because of all the sin today!”, as if we are breaking a specific national-divine covenant like the one made with Biblical Israel. Only Armstrongism is fully consistent in that.
Of course, to white supremacists, “Judah” rejected her Messiah, so then it’s their racial “cousins”, the other “chosen” people, the white “Christian” nations, whether linked lineally to Israel or not, who now inherit the “birthright” as the new “chosen” nations!)

So this “Khazar” theory would totally debunk that whole premise, and explain why Jews appear to be Caucasian (aside from trying to argue that it’s purely from mixing). So Bradley is tying it in with his Neanderthal “Iceman” premise, and now claiming they are trying to suppress the theory because of it. You can see more of this here.
So looking up the Khazar theory, I see it is lumped in with “antisemitism”, and also (as it would figure) held by alt-right groups. It’s claimed to have been refuted, as no real genetic evidence connects Jews to this eastern group. So I’m not messing with that theory. (At least not until there is some more solid verification of it, and agreement that it is not simply antisemitic propaganda). There may have been some mixing with that group, but I just don’t trust anything alt-righters say. (Of course, they claim everyone is suppressing their “truths”, and it ultimately becomes more pre-supposed, biased conjecture than anything else).

Interestingly enough, those other “Russian steppe” groups mentioned above are the ones associated with the “Gypsies”, who were already, historically despised by Westerns. So it figures antisemites would benefit by tagging the Jews in with those peoples.
However, the initial basis of antisemitism, that they were the “murderers of Christ”, would then fall flat, as the gentile Khazars, being hundreds of miles away, had nothing to do with the Crucifixion. The modern advocates of this theory don’t seem to be thinking of that.

Of course, alt-righters are also against blacks, while this guy’s original premise seemed to be to admit the error of racism, explaining it anthropologically. So I’m really not sure where he’s coming from. (Him being part Jewish doesn’t necessarily help. Hitler himself apparently was as well. There are self-hating Jews, just as there are self-hating blacks). As mentioned before, some alt-righters even hold the Neanderthal origin theory as proving superiority.

Still, I think there is something to the basic premise, regarding “aggression” (whether it goes all the way back to Neanderthals, or the “modern people” who suffered similar conditions later). This is essentially what’s being held up in the Right as the very “character” others, especially the blacks, lack, and particularly in the whole “rugged individualism” premise of modern politics and economics (drawing upon their heavily romanticized “American frontier” roots).
Again, it feels like this society is becoming a virtual Ice Age, not literally, but politically and economically. They insist it is “exceptional”, but then they appeal to raw “nature” (including, again, the Christians; who largely voted for the unscrupulous Trump), and everything is being run like a frozen cave in the middle of Würm. Everyone just covers themselves and passes the buck to the less powerful, and no one cares. Again, dog-eat-dog; survival of the fittest, in the name of the “market” as justification for unbridled “nature”. Yet, we’re so much above the animals, and other people!

So with the alt-right on the warpath today, with the utter gall to be boldly wielding their views as infallible “truth” as if God shouted it down from Heaven, and never thinking in the least, that it might be “too good to be true” that they are so superior, or having no sense of any negative side to their achievements, this is something they should be checked with, especially since they hold to a central part of the premise, regarding the Neanderthals. Aggression is not really “superiority”. Perhaps in a survivalistic sense, but definitely not in a moral sense! For every “good”, there is a shadow of “bad”, so what is “exceptional” with technology and even religion has also been exceptionally “bad”, in some of what has been done with it. So this is something they should constantly be made aware of. And it’s certainly better than other theories, such as the ones of black “Muslim” and “Hebrew” groups that explain these things by “demonizing” the race, quite literally!

Keirsey’s last two books: Brains and Careers and Personology. Review of his final type model

Here I put together a review of both of these final books from David Keirsey. He had obviously decided to completely revamp his theory, and in the process, move further away from mainstream MBTI-based typology concepts.

Brains and Careers was released in 2008, and on the website, it was mentioned that there were now four “roles of interaction”: “Initiator”, “Contender” “Coworker”, “Responder”, which made some of us excited, as these corresponded to Berens’ Interaction styles (she herself seemed interested when I first reported this on a Keirsey temperament list). It was about $20 (and eventually went up to $30), and with money problems, seemed too much to try to buy then.
Nobody else we knew seemed to have gotten it.

Two years later (2010), he released another book called Personology. The term was actually coined in the first book, as a section on “the Nine Personologists” (Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Paraclesus, Adickes, Spränger, Kretschmer, Fromm and Myers) and so now became the title of the followup book.
I got this one right away (and it was cheaper), and seeing how different the concepts were (even some of the new concepts, like two of the roles of interaction, were already changed), had to wonder how different it was from B&C. We began hearing it was just a “rewrite”, which I now see is somewhat true.

I was slow in buying books, and probably not too long before B&C came out had just gotten Berens’ books and wouldn’t get his older books until around this time, two years later. It was actually this new book that raised my interest in Portraits of Temperament, to see if he had actually introduced the interaction roles there, but that book is only where he introduced the factor that would divide the temperaments into eight groups, and then be picked up by Berens first, to create the four new groups, and now in these two books finally picked up by Keirsey, but with a bit of a twist, as we shall explore.

So the basic concepts were set in place in the first book, but now just modified a bit. Still, having not seen the book, and thinking he changed too much in this one, this raised interest in the previous book. I didn’t want to spend so much on it, and it took a while before I could catch one under $10 on Amazon (and even then, on the first several tries, something would always go wrong with the order or shipment and it would be cancelled, or I get the wrong book)

These would be his final books, as three years later (July 30, 2013) he passed away.

The radical changes from before

It seems he has completely dropped all type codes now. He briefly mentions the letters/functions in his description of Myers’ theory as part of the “history of temperament” in the appendix of the first book and the opening chapter of the second. But for the rest of the books, he goes purely by names. And at that, many of them have changed since previous books!

There is a heavy focus on what were known as “skills sets” (Diplomatic, Logistical, Strategic, Tactical), used more than the official temperament names.
Also, an alternative set of descriptive names used with these: Enablers, Safekeepers, Builders, Manipulators.

Keirsey also uses the four card suits to represent the temperaments:
♦ diamonds: Artisans
♥ hearts: Idealists
♠ spades: Guardians
♣ clubs: Rationals

There’s also a temperament/role matrix for each type, with the roles as the horizontal rows and the temperaments as the vertical columns. The type being profiled is in upper left position and is more likely to play the role of the type in the row or column in descending order. INTP “Accomodating Strategist” [again, names are used, not the type code] will more easily play the role of fellow Rational ENTP than the lower down Rationals the NTJ’s. It will be the same for fellow “Accomodators” ISFP, followed by INFP and ISFJ. The type in the far lower right corner will be the ESTJ, the Initiating Logistician.

He also renames several of the key factors.
Cooperative becomes “Compliant” and Pragmatic becomes “Adaptive“. (These are the “keys“)
The handy “role-informative/role-directive” factor introduced in Portraits of Temperament(and formed the basis of Berens’ Interaction Styles, which were the most helpful in my correlation of type with classic temperament) are now renamed “Enterprising” and “Inquiry” (“Role playing”), and again in the second book, “Reactive” and “Proactive“.

This results in four “Frames“, which are 2×2 matrices of:
Methods” Compliant/Adaptive + Immediate/Remote, yielding the four “Character” skills sets names
“Roles” Enterprise/Inquiry + Interlink/Intersect, yielding the four interaction roles
“Word Use”: Definitive/Normative, + the old “Concrete/Abstract” forming “Pictorial, Factorial, Orthodox and Metaphoric”
“Tool Use” Facility/Mechanism + Simple/Complex; yielding “Storing, Steering, Nurturing and Levering”.
(These last two sets are also alternate terms for the temperament groups; Guardian=”Orthodox” and “Storing”; Rational=”Factorial” and “Levering”, Artisan=”Pictorial” and “Steering”, and Idealist=”Metaphoric” and “Nurturing”).

He even crosses Proactive/Reactive, with Compliant/Adaptive (that is, an “interaction” factor with a temperament factor!) creating four groups comprising of (not using the letters, of course) STJ/NFJ, NTJ/STP, NFP/SFJ, and NTP/SFP.

With all these new names and combinations all over the place, it takes time to remember what’s what.

He for all purposes has completely dropped the four dichotomies of the type code (expressive/reserved; concrete/abstract, toughminded/friendly, and scheduling/probing).. “Concrete/Astract” seem to be mentioned only as part of the alternate “Word Use” frame. E/I is referred to once in each book (p.357 and 321, respectively), as “expressive” vs “attentive”, as part of the “Word usage synonyms of three dimensions of human interaction”.
Replacing it in the interaction role matrix is what corresponds to the “Process/Outcome” cross-factor Berens had introduced for the Interaction Styles, called “Interlinking vs Intersecting“, which ties together I/E—D/Inf “opposites”.

Interlinking: the role of one person is related to the role of another such as to be linked or fit together. Such as when one person directs, and the other does as directed.

Intersecting: When we line up opposite of opponents, and besides proponents, the roles intersect; each person intent upon their own agenda. Such as in any competition where we side with our team mates, and oppose the opposite team.

I find these to be accurate. The first would represent the way the Choleric (expressive/directive; “Initiator”) likes to lead, and the Supine (reserved/informative; “Responder” or “Accomodator”) likes to follow. (In APS, it’s further revealed that the negative side of this is that the Choleric comes to despise those he leads, while the Supine feels unacknowledged and used).

With the second, both sides are doing the same thing (as opposed to one leading and the other following) yet having different (opposing) agendas.
The expressive and responsive (“Coworker” or “Collaborator”) Sanguine will be very social, while the reserved and resistant Melancholy (“Contender”) will tend to want to be left alone. Both are basically “doing their own thing”, rather than following or leading.
They may clash, if the expressive (Sanguine) approaches the reserved (Melancholy), and the latter resists.

(So the three dimensions appear together in this one table of lists, but the rest of the time, only Interlinking/Intersecting and Enterprise/Inquire or Proactive/Reactive are used.
Also, while these are being used for the “affective” groups or “Inclusion area” only; I believe the dynamics also work for the conative temperaments or “Control area” so that the SP and SJ will “intersect” and the NT and NF will “interlink”. Strategy and Diplomacy will interlink as the strategist takes the lead in action, and the Diplomat likes to move others to action, and likewise Tactics and Logistics will intersect. These would simply map onto S-intersect/N-interlink. In Schutz’s original FIRO-B theory, this “interlinking” dynamic is called “Reciprocal compatibility”).

Here I compare the names of type factors and groups that have changed from before, and between the two books.

“Roles of Interaction” and factors:

Previous Brains and Careers Personology
N/A (EST/ENJ) Initiator
N/A (IST/INJ) Contender
N/A (ESF/ENP) Coworker Collaborator*
N/A (ISF/INP) Responder Accomodator*
Cooperative Compliant (with norms)
Pragmatic Adaptive (to Circumstances)
Role Directive Enterpriser (Assert) Proactive (Tell)
Role Informative Inquire(r) Reactive (Ask)
N/A (Berens “Outcome) Interlinking
N/A (Berens “Process” Intersecting
N/A (Berens “Structure”) “annoying”
NA (Berens “Motive”) “contagious”
Expressive/reserved (E/I) Expressive/attentive (deprecated)

*(These now match the corresponding Thomas-Kilmann [TKI] Conflict Modes)

“Intelligence Variants” (now called “Careers“)

Previous Brains and Careers Personology
Conservator (SFJ) Provider
Administrator (STJ) Monitor
Entertainer (SFP) Improvisor
Operator (STP) Expeditor
Advocate (NFP) Interceder Mediator
Mentor (NFJ)
Engineer (NTP) Structurer Constructor
Coordinator (NTJ) Stratifier Coordinator

Types (“career niches“):

Previous Brains and Careers Personology
Provider (ESFJ) Supplier
Protector (ISFJ)
Supervisor (ESTJ)
Inspector (ISTJ)
Performer (ESFP)
Composer (ISFP)
Promoter (ESTP)
Crafter (ISTP)
Champion (ENFP) Advocator Advocate*
Healer (INFP) Conciliator Reconciler
Teacher (ENFJ) Educator
Counselor (INFJ)
Inventor (ENTP) Engineer Modeler
Architect (INTP) Designer*
Fieldmarshal (ENTJ) Mobilizer*
Mastermind (INTJ) Planner Arranger

*(Similar to Berens)

Further comparison of two books:

The books are outlined a bit differently, with the first one having standard chapters on the basic concepts covering the first 90 pages
Then, “Temperament Revisited”, chronicling his earlier three books on the subject, and the evolution of the temperament names. Following this, are the four “books”, containing the lengthy profiles of each of the the temperaments. Then, the Appendix, containing the end note, bibliography, etc. The second book is still similar, but drops the “books” format, but nevertheless begins on “Personology” (the theorists through history, then goes into sections breaking down type into “complying”, “adapting”, “proactive” and “inquiry”.

Tables I see in the first book that were not in the second are “Framing and Keying” (“Overview”, p.10-14), framed around “Compliance” and “adaptation” division of the temperaments (the Plato-based old names are actually “Characters”, drawing from Kretschmer, while “Temperament” in the second row is represented by the descriptions “Enthusiastic, Serious, Tranquil and Excited”), and “Roles—Methods—Careers—Niches” on p.26, which consist of four tetramerous circles; “roles” are the four “interaction” groups; “Methods” are the four “skills sets” representing the temperaments; “Careers” is “Builders, “Enablers” “Savers” and “Handlers”, and “Niches” is “Laboratory”, “Institution”, “storehouse” and “Court”.
Tables and graphs similar in both books show which temperaments, roles, the eight “brain types” are suited to careers or niches.

The colorful “Playing Roles” table on p60 of the first book, showing the eight groups introduced in Portraits of Temperament as “Intelligence Variants” (Now known as the “careers”; corresponding to the last three letters of type), divided into the two types making up each, and divided by lines representing “Compliant/adaptive” and “enterprise/inquiry”. This leads into the profiles of each type based on a “tree” of “Role Playing” that breaks down into “Enterprise” vs “Inquiry”, which themselves break down into the four roles: “Preemptive” (Initiator), “Competitive” (Contender), “Cooperative” (Coworker) and “Accomodative” (Responder), which then divide between “Compliant” and “Adaptive”, which the divide into the 16 types.
In Personology, the tree is “Role Enactment”, which breaks down into Compliant and adaptive first, then the four temperament skills sets, then the eight “Variants” or “Careers”, and then the 16 types. (This reminds me of the “rings” his son had produced on one of the online sites and was picked up by Wikipedia).


As others have also felt, it seems to me like he is just rehashing the theories. (and then trying to further refine them, which is introverted Thinking —though he doesn’t believe in functions; and yet, as I myself have seen, can be carried too far and lose readers). Again, all the new names did make it a bit confusing, because I had to remember what type they are referring to (especially since he doesn’t use the code anymore).
His theory would have hit its peak (in my view) if he had just adopted the Interaction Style groups (“roles of interaction”), and including the new Interlinking/Intersecting. That was the improvement over the PUM’s, and the completion of the ideas he introduced in Portraits of Temperament (which is where he introduced the 8 intelligence variants, based on directive/informative). Instead, he seems to have pushed things too far with all the renaming and reconfiguring.

Someone wondered what will come of these last works; like if this will be forgotten, and it seems like it already has, as it was not even known about by most people to begin with. His basic four temperaments are pretty much established in online type discussions (Even though he rejected the functions, and on the other side, MBTI class jokingly warned us not to talk about temperaments, which are not accepted in official MBTI usage). So even though I had created the review threads on a few boards (that ultimately became this post), there still wasn’t a lot of interest from the getgo, and so the type community has already moved on like it never existed, and holding to the old concepts only.

What I have always said, is that since he really wanted his theory to be separate from MBTI (I originally thought it was all the same thing, since they used the same type codes), then perhaps this is what he should have come up with originally, from his first Please Understand Me book. (And then it would be a matter of us drawing the correlations to MBTI type). He has truly moved further away from the popular typology.

(Originally posted as two separate comments here where I had gotten Personology when it came out, but not the earlier Brains and Careers until just recently, and so compared them).