Every person on the left believes they just survived the parallel to the rise of Nazism in Germany and they defeated it.

They stopped it.

They believe all Republicans are 1950's white racists.

They feel empowered to live out their Civil Rights warrior fantasies.

White supremacist thinking became nearly extinct as society moved beyond the idea of race and encouraged race neutrality.

The reality is white racism, which was a specific and cultural mindset, inspired a reactionary black identity movement in the 60's and 70's.

Liberty and Freedom:

You want the freedom to be racist.
You want the liberty to terrorize POC and LGBT.
You want the freedom to discriminate and hate.

The nuance of this issue is that while the left positions all of this as an organized, massive movement of white supremacists in the traditional way of understanding them, their attempt at 'multiracial whiteness' demonstrates how they are struggling to manage the complexity.

The issue conservatives have is not what the left is doing to themselves, but what they're imposing onto us.

Progressive policies force compliance, they don't unite or persuade or offer.

They use the full force of government to make you do what they believe is best.

I remember the Pulse terrorist attack vividly.
I remember walking into work and seeing the quiet, concerned look on my coworker's faces unsure of what to say or do.
I remember my friends calling me to ask if I was ok and suddenly feeling like the LGBT community was one.

(An extract from Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, Soldiering with Dignity)

The man eventually destined to be free India's first Field Marshal was born on 3rd April 1914 at Amritsar. How did a Parsi couple settle for the holy city of the Sikhs? I once asked him and was told that in+

1899, his father recently qualified as a doctor and just married, could make no professional headway in Bombay, and was advised to try his luck at Lahore in the Punjab. With his young wife, he set off by train for Lahore. The long dusty and hot journey took five days and by the+

end of it, his young wife, who had never left the comforts and civilization of Bombay, was in hysterics and cried to go back. Poor Dr Manekshaw did all he could to comfort her, but as the train steamed into Amritsar, with her first sight of the Sikhs the young bride screamed her+

lungs out and refused to go any further. So they left the train at Amritsar, and there they stayed for forty-five years.

The Manekshaws had six children, four boys and two girls, and Sam was the fifth child. Sam had his schooling at Nainital's Sherwood College.+

After completing his schooling, he should have gone to England to pursue higher studies; this was the promise made to him by his father but, fortunately for the Indian Army, Dr Manekshaw felt that this particular son was far too young to be on his own in a foreign country, even+

THREAD: Meditations on marriage metaphors in Ruth

The book of Ruth is, of course, a story about a beautiful marriage. But even before the courtship and the wedding and the important genealogy at the end, we find interesting language that is strikingly reminiscent of Genesis 2:24

That important verse reads:

'Therefore a man shall leave [יַֽעֲזָב] his father and his mother and hold fast [וְדָבַ֣ק] to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.'

The verb עזב can be quite strong in force. For example, Joseph leaves behind [וַיַּעֲזֹ֤ב] his garment as he flees from Pharaoh's wife's sexual advances. Countless times, Israel is depicted abandoning the LORD, for example in Judg 2:12 [וַיַּעַזְב֞וּ], and going after other gods.

Likewise, the verb דבק is rather striking. Lot is mortified of disaster overtaking him [תִּדְבָּקַ֥נִי] as he flees from Sodom. Israel is commanded in Deut 10:20 to cling fast [תִדְבָּ֔ק] to the LORD and serve him and swear by his name.

Together they illustrate how radical God designed marriage to be. Marriage is a real severing of family relations in order to form a new, permanent bond with another human being.

Something very similar to this takes places in Ruth's life.

A thread on Wallelign Mekonnen’s 1969 essay “On the Question of Nationalities in Ethiopia” - which catalyzed the student movement that overthrew Ethiopia’s Solomonic dynasty in 1974 (Wallelign was killed in 1972 while hijacking an Ethiopian airlines plane) https://t.co/Ol0ElagLJq

Wallelign wrote that, while some call the question of nationalities "tribalism" - it is in fact "nationalism." Ethiopia is not one nation, he wrote, “it is made up of a dozen nationalities with their own languages, ways of dressing, social organization and territorial entity.”

Culture is nothing more than the superstructure of an economic basis that presupposes subjugation of the peasantry and proletariat. To be a “genuine Ethiopian” one has to speak Amharic and adhere to their culture. One must “wear an Amhara mask”- to use Frantz Fanon's terminology.

A common refute to the Neftegna system, whereby Abyssinian elites took lands from southern peoples, was that there are Amhara and Tigray masses in poverty. Another centred on representational politics. In reality, the feudal system oppressed all, but some groups more than others.

While Abyssinians are not dominant because of inherent imperialist tendencies, this is no excuse to perpetuate this situation. The only way forward is a state where every nationality is given equal opportunity to preserve and develop its language, culture and self-administration.

Some thoughts on @UKLabour... Many consider Sir Winston Churchill as Britain's greatest PM, yet he succumbed to a huge election defeat in 1945, right after spearheading Britain and its allies to victory in WWII. But how and why did this come about? 1/9

Some say that Churchill was the perfect leader for the job at hand – winning a war. Once war was over having completed a seemingly impossible mission; he had little direction, he was redundant, and society sought new leadership for a new era. 2/9

Some say that Churchill’s unwillingness to adapt caused his defeat. The movement for social reform grew throughout the war and reached a climax with the publication of the Beveridge Report. Churchill missed an opportunity to take on those reforms, and another 5 yrs as PM 3/9

Instead of backing them, he attempted to scare people away from the reforms and socialism as a positive force for good. The party centred the election around Churchill the ‘war lord’. Whilst Labour and Atlee brought the reforms to the centre of their campaign. 4 /9

Following the end of the war, the national conversation centred around issues of housing, health, and employment. Atlee and the Labour Party tuned in and devised a comprehensive manifesto for social change and justice. 5/9

I am for Afrakan-centered unity, not "Black" unity. People often assume that they are the same thing.

Black unity is the concept that people unify with anybody who has Black skin; as a result, they often find themselves uniting with people who are Eurasian Supremacists (since 95% of Black people are devout Eurasian supremacists) and if you unify with them they will only lead…

…you to their Eurasian master. Most activist in the Black population only preach Black unity, which is why we are not able to develop anything.

This was the same problem with Nkrumah's Pan-African unity.

It resulted in exploitation of the concept by Arabs, Asiatic "Berbers," Chinese and Indians, and even Europoids.

Afrakan-centered unity is distinct from Black unity because it requires the Black person to be Afrakan-centered.

This safeguards the unity because they don't just have skin in common, but common understanding. This is essential because in order to build something we have to have a common understanding of what we are building, why, and for whom.