The 1 1 th Week: ‘Protect the students’: Hong Kong teachers join protests

‘Protect the students’: Hong Kong teachers join protests

Ahead of a new school year, teachers raise concerns about their students’ safety amid ongoing mass protests.

by Casey Quackenbush

Hong Kong – Thousands of teachers braved hot, stormy weather on Saturday to march through downtown Hong Kong to denounce perceived government inaction and alleged police brutality against students protesting against the city’s extradition bill crisis, now pushing into its eleventh week.

Carrying umbrellas to battle vacillating heat and rain, teachers streamed up a main highway and snaked through a park chanting “protect the next generation of students!”

The protest began at a park called Chater Garden in downtown Hong Kong and was planned to end at the home of the city’s embattled leader Carrie Lam, but was redirected by police.

“As a teacher, we have to show our support to them,” said Carina Ma, a secondary school English teacher in her forties, who was marching on Saturday.

“If the teachers are not the role models to stand against the brutality and violence, we cannot teach our students well. So we must come out and stand up for them.”

The mood was both determined and angry, with some marchers waving their signs in front of police and chanting “Free Hong Kong!”

Teachers are the latest sector of society to join widespread demonstrations that have rocked the Chinese territory since early June.

What began as a protest against a now-shelved extradition bill that would allow suspects to be sent to mainland China has swelled into wider fury over Chinese interference into the affairs of the semi-autonomous territory.

While protesters have been demonstrating for nearly three months, the Beijing-backed government has refused to concede on any of the protesters’ five main demands, which include universal suffrage, full retraction of the bill, and amnesty for all arrested protesters.

Most demonstrations have been peaceful, but come nightfall fringe groups have often been seen clashing with police, triggering tear gas-filled chaos in the streets.

In the Mong Kok district on Saturday night, a second protest devolved, with black-clad protesters surrounding the police station, flashing laser pointers and throwing eggs at police.

Police fired a single rubber bullet after a protester threw a garbage bin onto a police van from a footbridge as the crowd dispersed.

Hong Kong police said on Thursday they had arrested at least 748 people since the protests began.

‘They feel really hopeless’

English teacher Ma said she was concerned for the safety of her students as well as their wellbeing, especially with the new school year approaching.

“I think most of them cannot focus in the lessons. They are so confused and angry and emotional,” she said, noting that many are dealing with political disagreement within their families. “At school, if we can’t make them feel supported and [listened to], they really feel hopeless”.

Ming Lam, 34, a clinical instructor, echoed the concerns.

“Definitely I worry about their studies because they spend much time fighting for Hong Kong freedom and democracy,” said Lam, fanning a baby strapped to her chest.

She said she also worried about her students being able to safely get to classes in different hospitals on weekends amid tear gas and roadblocks.

Academic Kristof Van den Troost said he feared what the “government is doing to Hong Kong” amid the ongoing protests.

“[We] keep going on even though the pressure is very high to stop and give up, because everything feels so hopeless,” said the 37-year-old Belgian native, who has lived in Hong Kong for 14 years.

“Things are quite nervous at the moment. We expect that there will be tensions on campus soon because the school year is going to start. Things are going to be very turbulent.”

Pro-government rally

Meanwhile, across the harbour on Hong Kong Island, a pro-police demonstration unfolded early on Saturday night in the waterfront park outside the legislative council building.

Thousands of government supporters streamed into the park, brandishing Chinese flags, giving thumbs-up to policemen, and taking pictures with the officers. Some wore light blue “I love HK police” t-shirts.

“[Hong Kong] is a mess. The rioters have gone beyond the line already,” said CS Ho, a 67-year-old lawyer and engineer.

“No matter how much we disagree with the government … [saying] ‘I disagree, I can do whatever I like.’ This is not rule of law.”

Ding Ding, a 50-year-old manager in commerce, said the people “need to protect Hong Kong”.

“We object to any violence. We are very angry. I’m one of the silent majority. We don’t want to come out and join any protests. We don’t like the protests going on. We want to keep Hong Kong peaceful,” said Ding.

Ding Ding called the recent airport protest where two mainland Chinese men were allegedly tied up and beaten by demonstrators “disgusting”. “This is not Hong Kong. They are not representing us.”

Police said about 100,000 people attended the pro-government rally.

‘Threats’ from Beijing

Beijing has also ramped up its rhetoric, saying the protests were showing signs of “terrorism” and releasing images of troop build-ups across the border in Shenzhen.

But some Hong Kongers remained unperturbed. “I don’t believe the Chinese government will do anything,” Lam said. “I think it’s only a threat”.

Van den Troost agreed that Chinese military intervention seemed unlikely. “It would be bad for China itself,” he said. “The main thing for Hong Kong is to stick to non-violent protests because we don’t want to give the mainland government an excuse to come here.”

“It’s always a possibility. During June 4, 1989, people didn’t expect that the army would crack down and they did, so you never know,” he said, referring to the iconic Tiananmen Square incident in Beijing.




“Fascism rides in from the left, not the right.” 

“History repeats itself. History is re levant.”

“Get ’em outta here!”


The Dazis of The Deep State Exposed. Already in America and Coming to a Town near You.


“The Hunt” is on for those that believe and support The Constitution, freedom, and liberty and reject fascism. They have already begun to hunt virtually. Goebbels and Eichmann would be so proud.

“Those who resist will perish”

The puppets of the DNC walked right into it again. With special thanks to the people of Hong Kong who know that their freedom will be over soon if they do not fight for it. Taiwan will be next.

What does DNC stand for? There are the standard abortive definitions, but probably the most re levant is DAZI: Democratic American Socialists. And we all know that fascism rides in from the left. And now we also know what the “Universal” part is.

NBC’s Universal Pictures plans to release “The Hunt” despite backlash.

By: Brian Flood, Fox News

NBC Universal still plans to release the controversial movie “The Hunt” as scheduled on September 27 despite significant backlash over the film that depicts privileged vacationers hunting “deplorables” for sport.

“There are no plans to not release the movie. No plans to move the release,” a studio source told Fox News.

NBC Universal executives are aware of the widespread objections to the movie’s plot but have decided not to take significant action at this time.

“The Hunt” is billed as a satirical take on wealthy thrill-seekers taking a private jet to a five-star resort where they embark on a “deeply rewarding” expedition that involves hunting down and killing designated humans.

NBC’s Universal Pictures, which shares parent company Comcast with NBC News and MSNBC, told Fox News on Wednesday that the movie’s marketing campaign would be “temporarily paused” on the heels tragic mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.

Universal Pictures declined further comment on Thursday.

The Hollywood Reporter reported on Tuesday that the “violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum’s Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals.”

According to the Hollywood trade publication, characters in the film refer to the victims as “deplorables,” which is what Hillary Clinton infamously dubbed Trump supporters during the 2016 election.

The report also noted that a character asks, “Did anyone see what our ratf–ker-in-chief just did?”

Multiple NBC Universal executives, including CEO Brian Roberts, did not immediately respond when asked for comment by Fox News.

The movie has caused outrage, with conservatives calling it everything from “political violence” to “sick murder fantasies about right-wingers.”


To be released on 9/27 right after 911 which they all conveniently forgot.

NBC Universal has decided to pull “The Hunt”. Is America and its citizens safe? What are the Dazis up to now?




China’s Military: U.S. Must Get With the Times, ‘Those Who Resist Will Perish’


GO RED China! GO RED China! GO Dazis! GO Dazis!


The Dazi Party. Here in America right now. Go ahead be the jackass.

Bernie Sanders, Hillary; Socialism,"It doesn't work"!

Editor’s note –  Fact check – Bernie Sander’s, currently 2nd place. He’s been a Senator for 16 years, representing Vermont.  A Socialist. Age 74.

Does Bernie Sanders know what it means to be a Socialist? Both Karl Marx (Marxism) and Adolf Hilter (Nazism) considered themselves Socialists, and Communism is similar.

Bernie Sanders’s Denmark Comments Show He Doesn’t Even Understand His Own ‘Socialism’

By Kevin D. Williamson – National Review

It had to be Denmark, didn’t it? If you are the sort of person who has better things to do — which is to say, a fully functioning adult who is not professionally obliged to follow these things — then you probably missed the exchange between Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders at last night’s debate, when she lectured him that the United States isn’t Denmark and he responded with a rousing defense of the Danish model.

Never mind, for the moment, that neither of these batty old geezers has the foggiest idea of what’s going on in Denmark, or in the other Nordic countries. Denmark, like Sweden before it, has been engaged in a long campaign of reforming its famously generous welfare state.

The country’s current prime minister is the leader of a center-right party, which, strangely enough, goes by the name “Left,” Venstre. (You might even call it libertarian; its former longtime leader wrote a book bearing the positively Nozickian title “From Social State to Minimal State.” ) Denmark has been marching in the direction exactly opposite socialism for some time.

Our friends at the Heritage Foundation rank its economy the eleventh most free in the world, one place ahead of the United States, reflecting Denmark’s strong property rights, relative freedom from corruption, low public debt, freedom of trade and investment, etc. Don’t tell Senator Sanders, but Denmark’s corporate tax rate is a heck of a lot lower than our own.

Senator Sanders is not very serious about imitating Denmark. Denmark has a large and expensive welfare state, which Senator Sanders envies.

He doesn’t envy the other part of that handshake: Denmark pays for that large and expensive welfare state the only way that you can: with relatively high taxes on the middle class, whose members pay both high income taxes and a value-added tax.

If Senator Sanders were an intellectually honest man, he’d acknowledge forthrightly that the only way to pay for generous benefits for the middle class is to tax the middle class, where most of the income earners are.

Instead, he talks about taxing a handful of billionaires to pay for practically everything. Rhetorically, he’s already spent the entire holdings of the billionaire class many times over. Sanders’s line of thinking seems to go: ‘Bankers, money, evil, greedy, Make Them Pay!’

But Senator Sanders does not seem as if he thinks a great deal about these things. He worries about the size of the holdings of our largest banks (I’d bet a dollar that he could not explain the difference between an investment bank and a commercial bank) and frets that six big banks have assets equal to 65 percent of U.S. GDP.

<> on July 24, 2014 in Washington, DC.
<> on July 24, 2014 in Washington, DC.

He does not consider that in Switzerland there are two banks whose combined assets are well more than twice Switzerland’s GDP, a reflection of the fact that the moneyed people and institutions of the world have a great deal of confidence in Swiss financial institutions, or that similar parties invest with American institutions for similar reasons.

And never mind that Denmark’s largest bank has assets totaling 1.6 times Denmark’s GDP — a lot more than the 65 percent split among six banks in the United States that so troubles Sanders.

Democrats are positively delusional about this stuff, talking about Glass-Steagall as though not repealing it would have changed one thing about the way business was done at a pure-play investment bank such as Lehman Bros. or Bear Stearns.

The policy is entirely unrelated to the problem, but neither the Democratic presidential candidates nor their voters understand the problem or the policy.

They know only that Copenhagen is lovely, and people like Senator Sanders enjoy citing its “example” while shouting such nonsensical sentences as “Free health care is a right!”

Denmark is on the mind of Francis Fukuyama, whose Political Order and Political Decay has now been issued in paperback, to the delight of cheapskate readers everywhere.

Fukuyama, borrowing from a group of developmental economists, introduces his readers to the phrase “isomorphic mimicry,” by which he means the error that poor and developing countries make when they adopt the formal institutions of the developed world in the absence of the underlying values, habits, and culture that make those institutions effective.

This is part of the problem he calls — surprise — “getting to Denmark.” Fukuyama: The problem is that Denmark did not get to be Denmark in a matter of months or years. Contemporary Denmark — and all other developed countries — gradually evolved modern institutions over the course of centuries.

If outside powers try to impose their own models of good institutions on a country, they are likely to produce what Lant Pritchett, Michael Woolcock, and Matt Andrews call “isomorphic mimicry”: a copying of the outward forms of Western institutions but without their substance.

(Here is the Pritchett-Woolcock-Andrews paper, which is well worth your time.)  

That isomorphic mimicry is a great stumbling block. We’re right now in the end stages of failing, spectacularly, in a project to impose liberal democratic institutions on a Muslim world that isn’t much interested in them, but some of our more energetic conservative interventionists still seem to believe that one day an Arab or a Chinese is going to happen across a copy of the U.S. Constitution and build a Connecticut in the Orient.

Cult is the first word in culture, which bears some consideration: The American revolutionaries emerged from a Puritan-Quaker culture shaped by the hardships of colonial life with the savage frontier in front of them and the Atlantic Ocean at their backs; the French revolutionaries emerged from a decadent Catholic culture shaped by court life and European rivalries.

Both parties cried “Liberty!” but one produced the Bill of Rights and the other produced the Terror. The cultural distance between 21st-century Anglo-American liberals and tribal jihadis in the Hindu Kush is rather greater than was the distance between Thomas Jefferson and the Abbé Sieyès.

Aping the superficial attractive forms of alien polities is not an error limited to the poor and the backward. Our progressive friends argued that Obamacare is just like the Swiss health-care system, which is generally quite highly regarded, and it is, with one important difference: Switzerland is full of Swiss people and the United States is not.

The Swiss health-care system turns out to be poorly suited for a country that isn’t Swiss. Any bets on how well the Danish welfare state is going to play in Mississippi and New Jersey? Progressives who imagine that Americans are one election away from getting to Denmark do not understand Denmark, or America, or much of anything.

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent at National Review.

'Forward or Foreword' – The slogan is here, read it as you see it.

By Scott W. Winchell – Editor-in-Chief, SUA

Here we are, slogan in hand, yes they chose another one. Many have come, most failed like lead-balloons, but here is the one they are apparently going to stick with – “FORWARD”. Maybe it should read: “FOREWORD” – as in here is what America will look like if you give him four more years.

The foreword is: here it comes, with the flexibility I need, now you are going to see CHANGE!

The White House had been cycling through catchphrases since announcing his reelection bid a year ago: Winning the Future, We Can’t Wait, An America Built to Last, An Economy Built to Last, A Fair Shot. John Hawkins starts us out with a bit of history:

In 2008, Barack Obama was a human Hallmark card. He ran the most vapid, meaningless campaign in living memory. He ran on “Hope, “Change,” and “Unity,” and being the first black President, none of which hint at his agenda or why he’d be a good President. It was a campaign designed to appeal to imbeciles and 19 times out of 20, it probably would have failed. Fortunately for Obama, the outgoing Republican President had an approval rating of 25% and John McCain was about as inspirational as a soccer game played in a pool.

The horrible performance of the GOP desperately made people want an alernative and paradoxically, Obama’s vacuousness and his lack of qualifications for the job allowed people to project whatever traits they wanted to see on Obama. Liberals correctly saw a socialist, but moderates saw another moderate, and even a few conservatives thought he might not be so bad. This actually had more to do with the sheer awfulness of the GOP than Obama, but it still allowed him to get elected.

Well now, Obama has an exciting new slogan that was once used by the Hitler Youth: Forward. (Read the rest here. Right Wing News)

Like his 2008 slogans, this one also has no meaning – you can read whatever you want into it. The trouble is, not only can Obama’s supporters and followers learn to love it, its also a field day for his opponents. It will be used against him, and rightly so, because it is also a communist/Nazi/socialist slogan, oft used in the past. It, like all his other slogans, is rife with socialist overtones like ‘social justice’, and the liberal use of the word ‘fair’.

That thought aside, the term is also vacuous, like the term progressive. Even lemmings are moving “forward”, “progressing” as they jump off the cliff, because they are facing forward as they move. This slogan is at the same time powerful. It is a phrase you will here at high volumes, in repetitive shouts.

We can hear it now, in classic Obama style, crowds of worshipers screaming it back:

  • “Forward – away from the failed policies of the past, America’s future is forward!”
  • “Forward – into a society where we all have a ‘fair shot’ and everyone pays their ‘fair share’.”
  • “Forward – we cannot wait, we have to win the future!”
  • “Forward – replacing our dependence on oil with ‘green’ energy, sustainable and renewable energy!”
  • “Forward – fighting the ‘war on women’, the ‘war on students’, the ‘war on war’, the ‘war on….”
  • “Forward – to an economy built to last…” etc., etc., etc.

All catchy, all employing and tying in current rhetoric, all meant to make the believers swoon, but none with any substance or proven success. Like in 2008, this is an open-ended ploy, to sound grand, to resurrect that feeling of purpose; who could not love that? Well, as we have witnessed, grand rhetoric, lofty phrases, flowery speeches got us what – failed policies of the now.

When you pull all theses thoughts together, isn’t it just another round of “Hope and Change”? How is that old “hopey, changey” thing working for you now? “Yes we can” became “yes we were canned!” ‘Forward’ or ‘foreword’, both are just as likely to be a disastrous continuation of the breakneck speed at which America is torn asunder and replaced with a socialist utopia.

Here’s the new campaign video, it’s still about the past isn’t it?

Please read the following takes on this new slogan, once again, you be the judge, try not to laugh to hard:


Forward, eh, Obama campaign?

By  – Washington Post

The Obama campaign has its new slogan. And that slogan is: “Forward.”

What happened?

Was “Reply-All” taken?

Maybe “Forward” makes sense, given that the theme of the reelection effort has been Vaguely Creepy E-mails You Don’t Want. (“David — Every night in the White House, I see Barack up late poring over briefings, reading your letters, and writing notes to people he’s met. He’s doing that for you — working hard every day to make sure we can finish what we all started together. This week, I need you to have his back.”)

Forward is also Berlusconi’s party, for whatever that’s worth (it sounds better in Italian, like most things.) It’s a basketball position Obama played briefly.

Forward, eh?

If your slogan is frequently prefaced by the phrase, “I hope I’m not being too . . .,” it might not be a great slogan.

If your slogan is just one or two notches above BCC, it might not be a great slogan.

I suppose most other directional terms are off the table. “Onward? Upward?” Too Christian Soldier. “Backward” is right out. “Rightward?” Seems unlikely. “Leftward?” What, and play into the Romney campaign’s projections? “Toward The Center” doesn’t even make sense in context.

On average, President Obama’s slogans are pretty good. This is to say that his last slogan was extraordinary and this one is abjectly terrible.

But American politics is littered, as Andrew Kaczynski points out, with the refuse of bad slogans. As long as we’ve had slogans, they’ve been bad. “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too”? No wonder William Henry Harrison died a few weeks into office. It wasn’t pneumonia. It was embarrassment.

“We Polked You In ‘44, We Shall Pierce You In ‘52.” I wish I were making this up, but it’s still mildly better than “Forward.”

Let Well Enough Alone,” McKinley’s second-term slogan, was a bit brusque and to the point, but it’s still about as good as “Forward.”

“I Still Like Ike” acknowledged the second-term problem and still managed to be endearing.

What’s in a slogan? A campaign by any other name would smell as much like skunk cabbage.

“Hope” was inspiring. “Yes We Can” at least wasn’t an order. “Change we can believe in” was vague, but it got the job done.

“Forward” is the store-brand version of the political slogan. At best, it’s a slightly politer “Let Well Enough Alone.” At worst, it’s simply generic. You find it in the platitudes aisle in vague red-white-and-blue packaging, next to “In Your Heart, You Know He’s Right.” Forward says, “Hey, you know what, I’d like to be president again! Let’s find a generic word that means that.”

Romney’s version of the time-honored genre isn’t much better: “Believe in America?”

The worst slogans are not bad slogans like “Who But Hoover” and “Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa?” or even “Restoring America’s Honor.” They’re the ones so retreaded as to be functionally interchangeable. You can’t tell which campaign they belong to. They consist of overworked cliches staggering up the sheer faces of rugged platitudes as eagles fly overhead chanting patriotic slogans. You cannot tell whose they are for the life of you. They are, as a consequence, totally unmemorable, almost a self-parody.

As the Simpsons put it, “We must go forward, not backward; upward, not forward, and always twirlingtwirlingtwirling toward freedom!”

Forward, eh?


What Barack Obama’s ‘Forward’ Slogan Really Means

By Scott Galupo – US News

My friend and former colleague Victor Morton of the Washington Times has a provocative take on the Obama campaign’s use of the slogan “Forward.” Unfortunately for Obama, Victor writes that the term brings with it a lot of leftist baggage:

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism. …

There have been at least two radical-left publications named “Vorwaerts” (the German word for “Forward”). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany’s SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.

Over at National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg responds that Victor “misses the more basic point.”

Which is this:

“Forward” is simply a synopsis of the progressive understanding of the State. The State has always been seen by the left as the engine of history. When Obama says he’s about going Forward, he’s also saying that he thinks the government is the thing that moves us all forward, that the State is the source of Progress. I have no doubt he believes this. And obviously the government is a major driver of change—however change is a very different thing than progress. Sometimes government driven change is good, sometimes not. The more important point, however, is that government is only one of many sources of change. Technology is at least as important. The car was certainly had a far more profound impact on society than, say, Warren Harding. The birth control pill, antibiotics, the telephone, frozen pizza, etc: These all are far more significant than 99% of what passes for politics. Culture, religion and demography are also often far more important and relevant than the State. The problem is that progressives tend to see all of these things as products of the State in some way. If we are to go forward it must in the saddle of the State.

Again, I hate to sound like I’m throwing in with capital-P Progressives, but I actually think Jonah is pushing at an open door here. Progressives, at least as I understand them, would not disagree one whit with the idea that technology, demography, and other forces are the primary drivers of widespread changes to the way society functions. Indeed, they would concede to this obvious fact as the basis for progressive reactions to such changes: The world has changedgovernment needs to change with it.

Read the rest here. – US News


Environmentalist/Socialist Nazi Roots

Editor’s Note – Like many things brought before us today, they are recycled ideas that failed miserably each and every time they were presented. The name Nazi, comes from the German party name; National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and part of their rise to power stemmed from several things we see foisted upon us today.

Obama Care is a major item from the National Socialist Medicine idea employed in Germany between 1918 and 1945. Additionally, the environmentalist movements are discussed below where the roots stem from the evils of controlling the masses. Almost a new form of eugenics, the idea of creating the super race that began in America before Hitler took over..

Green is the New Brown

By Timothy Birdnow

American Thinker

Opponents of the radical environmentalist movement and it’s steadfast promotion of the fundamental restructuring of human civilization have long argued that the reek of National Socialism clings to the modern Green movement. Mark Musser made that very case here at American Thinker.

As Mark points out;

“From his memoirs, Albert Speer recalled that many of his German compatriots sought what he described “a close contact with nature.” He went on to say that their love affair with the great outdoors “was not merely a romantic protest against the narrowness of middle-class life. We were also escaping from the demands of a world growing increasingly complicated.” It was in fact a world which they largely disdained, full of varied responsibilities and demands of them which they would rather not do. In their mind, such an ‘artificial’ world could be overcome through mountain climbing, “often, from the mountain tops, we looked down upon a gray layer of cloud over the distant plain. Down there lived what to our minds were wretched people; we thought we stood high above them in every sense.”

(See Musser’s book Nazi Oaks for an in-depth study of Nazi environmentalism.)

Ideas do not go away, they are either fully discredited over time or undergo a metamorphosis’. In the case of Fascist/Nazi thinking the case can be made that it – along with it’s poison-kissing cousin Marxism – has gone into the Green movement. The Marxists used to say “first Brown then Red”, well now it’s “first Green then Brown then Red”. Certainly the goal of the Gang Green is to redistribute wealth, to establish crony capitalism (the economics of Fascism) and empower world government. While Fascism did not go in for Internationalism, it was quite gung-ho on crony capitalism, regulation, and redistribution of wealth.

Perhaps the most evil idea to take root under National Socialism was the concept of “Blood and Soil”, an idea stemming from Darwinian Natural Selection. “Blood and Soil” was the romantic notion that a People were evolved by the climate, landscape, and general environment to be what they are, and in the case of Germany many believed the deep, dark forests, the oaks and pines, the mountains and streams, had shaped the German People in character and indeed even in racial aspects. Blood and Soil meant that the People and the land were one. Part of the hatred of the Jews (and Gypsies, and other “outsiders”) was that they were invasive species, rather like Kudzu or Zebra Mussels, imported from abroad. The Jews were seen as not just invasive rivals but particularly artificial, having inhabited close-knit communities usually in cities in Europe. The Nazis saw them as having been molded and shaped by a pathological and artificial environment, and believed they were soiling the pure Germanic blood.

In Missouri the Department of Conservation encourages fishermen to catch as many Kentucky Bass as possible, and if they aren’t going to keep them to toss them on the banks; they are an aggressive feeding species that crowds out the Large and Small Mouthed cousins. “Blood and Soil” sought to do likewise, exterminating the human “weeds”.


“Blood and Soil” is making it’s grand return! It’s called Climate Reductionism. and it is nothing but a new spin on an old, terrible idea.

In a research paper by Mike Hulme, courtesy of Judith Curry:

“This paper traces how climate has moved from playing a deterministic to a reductionist role in discourses about environment, society and the future. Climate determinism previously offered an explanation, and hence a justification, for the superiority of certain imperial races and cultures. The argument put forward here is that the new climate reductionism is driven by the hegemony exercised by the predictive natural sciences over contingent, imaginative and humanistic accounts of social life and visions of the future. It is a hegemony which lends disproportionate power in political and social discourse to model-based descriptions of putative future climates. Some possible reasons for this climate reductionism, as well as some of the limitations and dangers of this position for human relationships with the future, are suggested.”

So “Blood and Soil” are making a comeback! It would seem Green is the new Brown!

Timothy Birdnow is a St. Louis based writer. His website is