Category Archives: History

The Herschel Walker Senate Campaign Swastika

I’ve written about swastika imagery so many times before, it’s worth mentioning a few details about the Herschel Walker variety used in his Senate campaign. Here it is:

Source: Twitter

This is without question meant to look like a Nazi swastika, and it came from a Twitter profile calling itself resistance to “Hollywood” (e.g. Nazis really hated Hollywood).

A bayonet shoves Hitler’s book in front of a prisoner and says “Here, improve your mind!”. Source: “Donald in Nutziland”, Disney 1943.

Historian protip: if someone asks why you use a swastika in your public campaign invoking Nazism and hatred for “Hollywood”… then there’s a really high probability you are in fact using a swastika.

The subtext obviously is that if someone puts up a swastika in America for a political campaign, they in fact expect to get money donated as a result.

Walker, perhaps as expected, tried to cover this fact with a laughably dumb official explanation that attempted to deny it being a swastika:

A spokesperson for the campaign said the image was not a swastika… Walker, who is being backed by former President Donald Trump, has not commented on whether or not he has been vaccinated against COVID-19.

At least they didn’t follow up their “not a swastika” comment by saying “everyone calm down, we’re obviously just using an anti-Jewish graphic”.

I wonder if next they will be telling us the former White House occupant should not be called a Nazi because he prefers being called big conflict loser?

…being on the losing end… is something Herschel knows a little bit about…

Maybe the more insightful version of that, taken from his actual life story, is this part:

So I take a bullet, put it in the cylinder, spin it and tell you to pull it. People would say “Herschel, you’re nuts.” I would take that gun, put it to my head, and snap it. That is what it was. I was so fired up that I could overcome anything.

When you think about it, refusing to get vaccinated is intentionally lowering your chances of survival. Weirdly consistent to both refuse vaccination and to put a gun to your own head; unnecessarily taking dumb risks that can easily kill you…

And that is a real quote from Herschel’s view of the world. Perhaps I should point out here that Hitler was similarly fired up, put a gun to his own head, yet didn’t overcome?

So who looks forward to the next Meet the Press with Chuck Todd, holding a panel on swastikas that tries to argue they’re just a harmless old religious symbol?

Even worse, the reason for using swastikas goes beyond just being an easy way to raise money on American campaigns for public office.

A false claim the swastika represents only being “anti-vaccination” is an encoded reference to fascism tactics: stoke rage, inflame tensions using incendiary imagery (as reported in Italy, which knows a thing or two about fascism).

The protesters smashed union computers, ripped out phone lines and trashed offices after first trying to use metal bars to batter their way in through CGIL’s front door, then breaking in through a window.

In other words, the Walker senate campaign used a swastika both to raise money as well as fan hatred to perpetrate mob violence against the government, while feebly trying to deny a swastika is a swastika.

Related:

Immigrant Gets Misdemeanor for Participating in US Coup

Fascinating development. Attacking the U.S. federal government to overthrow it… does not prevent citizenship path for immigrant.

Eliel Rosa, 53, avoided a felony, which would have threatened future citizenship by pleading to a misdemeanor.

According to court documents, Rosa and his wife fled political persecution in Brazil and arrived in the US in 2016. The couple was granted asylum in 2018 and they are currently pursuing US citizenship.

Rosa claimed to be a teacher of civics, while participating in a rejection of civics.

Rosa claimed to be seeking government aid, while participating in a rejection of government.

Sharp contrast for a Texas man who seems to be flaunting truth and morality, let alone the law, versus others unable to get entry into Texas.

Judge McFadden, who has refused to punish this criminal immigrant, is an appointee of the coup leader.

Rosa also claims his family was persecuted for being evangelical Christian politicians… so affinity with coup leadership isn’t any mystery.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” Rosa quoted Madison.

“I am definitely not an angel,” the defendant admitted.

He then said he was pleased he had the “ability to repent” for his wrongdoing pursuant to the Christian faith.

Note his pleasure directed towards an evangelical calling instead of rights and laws enshrined under the Constitution.

Indeed, Madison was wrong, begging what kind of civics this immigrant is teaching in Texas.

Just because you could get away with breaking the law doesn’t mean you’re entitled to morally.

Obviously Rosa should be expelled immediately, especially in context of how anti-immigrant the coup leaders claim they are.

Even his asylum claims sound bogus.

After the Civil War anti-American insurrectionists were officially invited by Brazil to immigrate where they could continue to expand slavery.

Source: The Guardian

Is it thus any surprise such descendants of insurrection would return to attempt again the overthrow of the U.S. government? What really compelled him to leave Brazil?

New Yorker Cartoon Idea: Bank Robber Futurist

Every so often I have an image of a New Yorker cartoon pop into my mind. If I had the time to draw, this is one I would have sketched after breakfast today:

A robber leaving the vault with pockets stuffed with cash says on the way out, past police pointing guns at him, “This is the future, I’m reinventing banking”.

This cartoon in fact has many applications, not just fraudulent futurism.

Far too many times I’ve had people try to tell me that relativism makes it impossible to criticize crimes in the past.

Washington intentionally violated laws of his day that abolished slavery, other men in that day set all their slaves free, and slaves in America already for over a hundred years prior had proven abolition sensible… yet far too many Americans ignore all these simple facts while peddling how Washington’s own views of his crimes are all that should matter then or now.

New Book: Driverless cars are a “hellscape”

An absolutely beautiful new work of writing states much of what I’ve been saying in my presentations since at least 2016: driverless cars are being designed to promote a “hellscape” that nobody should want.

With autonomous vehicles it’s both: It can’t work, but the companies will create problems because they’ll pursue it anyway. If a surgeon does invasive surgery and it doesn’t work, he’s going to do a lot of harm to your body without curing you. The destruction of pre-automobile cities like St. Louis or Cincinnati to create space for cars didn’t mean that car dependency ever met its promises — but it did mean that the belief that it could was profoundly destructive.

Waymo likes to claim that autonomous vehicles are working right now. The reason it works is that there is a hellscape that these things have to go through, called Chandler, Arizona. Density is too low for anything other than driving to work well, every residential street is too wide, the non-residential roads are all multilane arterials with turning lanes, and every destination is surrounded by a vast parking lot. If that’s what you have to create for autonomous vehicles to work, it’s a Pyrrhic victory. It’s not worth it.

It works because there is a hellscape. Couldn’t have said it any better.

In other words, if someone builds technology that can only be successful on the moon, don’t be surprised when they try to trick you into leaving your colorful alive world and going to a gray lifeless surface of the moon… so they can remain profitable regardless of your loss.

Jaywalking is a racist fantasy crime that was fabricated by car companies, for another angle on this same problem.

The new book is called “Autonorama: The Illusory Promise of High-Tech Driving” and it’s obvious it was written by a historian.

Cigarettes provide a historical lesson. When the Surgeon General’s report came out in 1964, the discussion the tobacco companies wanted to have was, “How do we make cigarettes safe?” That was getting the problem wrong. The real problem was, “How we can free ourselves from cigarettes?” […] It’s freeing ourselves from a world where if you don’t have a car you’re doomed, because you can’t get to work. The accommodation of car dependency is the perpetuation of car dependency.

Boom.

As I’ve been saying through every channel I can, history tells us that driverless cars will kill more people not less. They will cause more fatalities and do far more harms, not less. This is a function of centrally-planned and controlled decisions about human-life that values it less and less (e.g. jaywalking history) while fraudulently claiming to care more than anything before.

And so far my early predictions from five years ago have been sadly accurate.

Where does this go? Driverless will bring a “hellscape” where “…motordom has successfully prevented Americans from [freedom of choice]…”.

“In a democracy debate is the breath of life”

Giles Raymond DeMourot reminded me recently of when Robert Biggs (a terminally ill World War II veteran) sent President Eisenhower a letter complaining recent speeches had conveyed a feeling of “hedging and a little uncertainty”.

February 10th, 1959 the U.S. President a letter to Biggs with a very philosophical response:

I doubt that citizens like yourself could ever, under our democratic system, be provided with the universal degree of certainty, the confidence in their understanding of our problems, and the clear guidance from higher authority that you believe needed. Such unity is not only logical but indeed indispensable in a successful military organization, but in a democracy debate is the breath of life.

The mental stress and burden which this form of government imposes has been particularly well recognized in a little book about which I have spoken on several occasions. It is “The True Believer,” by Eric Hoffer; you might find it of interest. In it he points out that dictatorial systems make one contribution to their people which leads them to tend to support such systems — freedom from the necessity of informing themselves and making up their own minds concerning these tremendous complex and difficult questions.

It is difficult indeed to maintain a reasoned and accurately informed understanding of our defense situation on the part of our citizenry when many prominent officials, possessing no standing or expertness except as they themselves claim it, attempt to further their own ideas or interests by resorting to statements more distinguished by stridency than accuracy.

This “breath of life” framing about debate and democracy wasn’t new for Eisenhower.

September 27, 1948 he gave an anti-fascism talk to the Jewish Theological Seminary:

I can see no reason why we ourselves, if we believe – as the dictators would have us – that men are merely animals, should defend equal rights for each other before the law. But we believe that because men have each been born with a soul they have inalienable rights and none can take them away. These rights can never be destroyed. That belief came from the ancient Jewish leaders. They taught and gave their lives in this belief. They taught us that although man is made of the dust of the earth, having had the breath of life breathed into him, he is a living soul. On this belief is based the doctrines that the American Army fought to defend.

The subtext here is that debate is a breath of life insomuch as it’s non-toxic.

Both of Eisenhower’s explanations say he believed there must be ample room for disquiet, while acknowledging he just led armies to destroy threats to peace — a seeming contradiction.

Really he was expressing tolerance with a limit, or a science of extremism, which has some way of indicating when things have gone too far. Eisenhower later evolved his philosophical beliefs along the lines of blocking extremism, expressing a need for measuring respect and trust.

Were his thoughts too late to stop the devolution of the GOP into a party of hate? Eisenhower seemed to be on the right path to protecting Americans against discrimination, albeit slowly and from within circles overtly committed to discrimination. By the time Ronald Reagan was seated as President, intolerance and racism (tyranny encoded as a “shining city”) became front and center to the GOP platform.

Looking back today I suspect Eisenhower probably would admit he should have blocked Nixon being nominated to be his VP candidate (he asked for alternatives but none were given). Waffling along and ignoring such a risk to the GOP and America was a mistake.

Today he might even admit Truman’s scathing warning was right in 1952 when he didn’t mince words about Eisenhower failing to stop the coming dangers to democracy:

The Republican candidate [Eisenhower] for the Presidency cannot escape responsibility for his endorsements. He has had an attack of moral blindness, for today, he is willing to accept the very practices that identified the so-called ‘master-race’ although he took a leading part in liberating Europe from their domination. I do not withdraw a word of that statement. […] …Senator Nixon [candidate for Vice President] and most Republicans, voted to override any veto of the McCarran bill, which is recognized everywhere as discriminatory.

Here’s some final food for thought.

Basically Eisenhower was a big believer in science, even writing letters about a thermometer being essential to grilling a steak.

Yet when it came to ideas for debate he might have lacked the necessary tools (no gauge on extremism when the McCarran bill was vetoed) and thus opened up America to an over-cooked extremist right-wing future.