Camestros Felapton

FELAPTONL

Looks like I’ll be busy in January

There are more details about the non-fiction book being written by right-wing fantasy author Larry Correia.

“Coming January 24, 2023 from Regnery.

…
Things like my Opinion On Gun Control were the basis for this project. In that vein it is intended to give ammo to people who are already on my side of the debate, and also to sway the undecided. This is the book to pass on to the fence sitters, where I try to make the case that the 2nd Amendment is for all of us, and absolutely vital.”

https://monsterhunternation.com/2022/08/03/in-defense-of-the-second-amendment/

Regnery Publishing is a conservative publishing imprint owned by Salem Media Group — a conservative/christian media company with a focus on radio stations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_Media_Group ). I kid you not, but when I visited the publisher’s web page this is what greeted me:

Advert for “In Defense of German Colonialism” https://www.regnery.com/

I can’t say I’ve read that book but for once I’ll jump to a hasty conclusion and say, no, German colonialism wasn’t a force for good. (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide ) However, let us not judge Larry’s book by the books on the shelves next to it.

Amazon has a pre-order page for Larry’s gun tome:

“In his essential new book, In Defense of the Second Amendment, Correia reveals: 

• Why “gun-free” zones are more dangerous for law-abiding citizens

• How the Second Amendment does indeed include your right to own an AR-15—and why that’s not an “outdated” concept

 • Why “red flag” laws don’t work, can be easily abused, and ignore a much more commonsensical approach to keeping guns out of the wrong hands 

• The insanity of “criminal justice reform” that frees dangerous criminals and “gun reform” that penalizes your right to self-defense

• How we can return to a society that has a safe and healthy relationship with guns—as we had for most of our history

• Correia’s promise: “Believe me, I’ve heard every argument relating to gun control possible. I can show you how to defend your rights.””

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Second-Amendment-Larry-Correia-ebook/dp/B0B69H65SC/ref=sr_1_15?crid=1L99Y0LVDJL6O&keywords=larry+correia&qid=1659552024&sprefix=Larry+Corre%2Caps%2C278&sr=8-15

Anyway, I haven’t read a terrible non-fiction book in a long time, so this should be interesting and I suspect it will contain marginally less ethically & scholarly challenged arguments than “Why German Colonialism Was Good Actually”.

camestrosfelapton

97 responses to “Looks like I’ll be busy in January”

  1. I am morbidly fascinated by that “German colonialism was a force for good” book. Cause not even the brownest AfD politician would go so far as to argue that.

    Okay, German colonialism did leave Qingdao in China with a still active brewery (there’s a reason the beer is called Tsingtao, cause that is the old German transliteration of the name), but that’s about the only non-negative thing about it.

    Liked by 4 people

    • That’s what makes it so weird: who on earth is Gilley arguing against? Who exactly is emphatic enough about fin de siècle German colonial policy to inspire a book-length response? Here in my educated liberal American bubble, there’s a lot of talk about colonialism, but German colonialism isn’t even a footnote.

      (Also, it turns out that Gilley is a local. According to the author bio, he teaches at Portland State University, wherein I have taken a few classes.)

      Liked by 2 people

    • I once had a translation job where I was rendering some diaries from German traders in the Cameroon into English for an academic working on a history of the period. It seemed to me that the only good thing that could be said about German colonial activities in the Cameroon was that they didn’t last very long.

      Like

    • To be fair, his book is a polemic on a live USA-specific political controversy, written with the stated intent of influencing USA domestic policy. Correia seems like a very silly person but I can’t really fault him for not writing about what he never claimed to be writing about.

      Like

      • That is not to be fair and it isn’t true. This is not USA-specific in any way. Many countries have have regulated their firearms laws after shootings and seek arms related violence go down.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t have high expectations, but still, I’ll be disappointed if he hasn’t managed to cherrypick at least some examples that he can use to show that gun control doesn’t truly work in other countries, or that it’s one step away from dictatorship and would be totally unamerican.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Um, wow. Jeffro, really?

        “Everyone knew that fantasy was invented in England by Tolkien and Lewis. Everyone knew that science fiction only became important during its Golden Age, when guys like Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke were established. Everything that came before those guys had to be cheap, poorly written, uninspired, and dumb. Nobody even had to argue that this was so. It wasn’t even an article of faith. It was an assumption that was somehow baked into anything and everything that anyone said or thought on the subject. And nobody had ever said anything different.
        Except me.”

        The swollen-headed conceit would be almost endearing if it were merely ignorance, but he DOES know better than that. I’ve seen him quote Le Guin’s approving comments on Dunsany and Eddison (authors he swears above NO ONE was talking about) as an authority to win an argument about their superiority – NOT, of course, the same argument where he posited Le Guin was a worthless writer because looking at her picture made his peepee sad. His arrant chutzpah sours the fun a bit.

        It’s still kind of hilarious, though.

        Liked by 6 people

        • I beg Jeffy’s pardon. I went back to the Twitter post where he cited Le Guin as an authority, and found that it was actually Tolkien he was arguing about, saying that Tolkien was far from alone among worthy fantasists in pre-1950’s fantasy. He directed his interlocuter specifically to “(s)ee Le Guin’s 1973 Elfland to Poughkeepsie as an example of how things were.”

          Le Guin’s essay From Elfland to Poughkeepsie is a fine analysis in praise of the fantasy prose of Eddison, Dunsany, Tolkien, and Kenneth Morris, among others. So, specifics aside, my point stands – he’s full of it when he writes this drivel, and he knows it.

          Liked by 2 people

          • That essay came out in the 1970s so I suppose it fits into his argument that the PC police erased genre history starting in the 1980s.
            It’s still a bullshit argument. It’s not like people stopped reprinting pulps and other older stuff in the 1980s.
            And having read Lundwall’s tedious book on SF, citing him as the definitive historian strikes me as special pleading. It was a cranky book by someone who hates fantasy, and not just older fantasy, so it doesn’t speak for anyone who likes that stuff, such as myself.

            Liked by 5 people

        • Others have covered the fantasy side, so I’ll just point out that H G Wells demolishes the SF part of the claim on his own.

          Liked by 5 people

        • Is “Jeffro” the name on his birth certificate? Written down by someone who couldn’t spell the perfectly good Biblical name “Jethro”? It makes him sound either illiterate, or with the pronunciation ability of a 2 year old.

          (make up your own joke here)

          Like

        • The key to understanding Jeffro (and really, pretty much any other Sad/Rabid Puppy or Sad/Rabid Puppy -aligned individual) here is to realize that he is both very stupid and very poorly educated on the subjects he is opinion upon.

          When Jeffro, like many on his end of the political spectrum (including a certain former President), says “nobody knew this” or “nobody did this before” or “nobody ever said anything different”, he really means “I didn’t know this” or “I never did this” or “I never said anything different” and he assumed that because he didn’t, then nobody did.

          The thing about Jeffro, though, is that he is so very very uneducated on the subject of science fiction and fantasy genre history that he doesn’t even realize how clownishly bufoonish his statements are. For example, one might point out in counterpoint to his claims about people deriding fantasy before Tolkien that both Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft wrote their entire body of work (and died) before the Hobbit was published.

          Now, people’s opinions of Howard and Lovecraft vary, but one thing that one cannot deny is that they both have ardent fans to this day, and that they are both hugely influential on genre fiction. The fact that Jeffro apparently knows nothing about either of these two figures in genre history (or didn’t know enough to understand their place in the historical timeline) is an indication of just how ignorant he is.

          In addition to the various authors already mentioned (Dunsany, Eddison, Wells, Verne, and so on), one could also point to Edgar Rice Burroughs (A Princess of Mars was published in 1912) or E.E. “Doc” Smith (The Skylark and Lensman books mostly predate the rise of Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein). Not to mention other works like Wizard of Oz (which, I will point out, Heinlein makes numerous references to in his work), Gulliver’s Travels, and Alice in Wonderland, which are all fantasy fiction no matter how you define the genre.

          Basically, Jeffro is a clueless clown who only gets any press because he’s willing to parrot right-wing blather. His knowledge base is so clearly limited that almost everything he says is something that should cause him tremendous embarrassment, but he doesn’t even know enough to know that.

          Liked by 2 people

  6. I admit to a certain curiousity over whether the main thesis is that colonialism in general was a force for good, with examples from German colonies, or that German colonialism was a positive force in ways that British, French etc colonialism were not.

    But when I went to the website I instead ran across a book on the Civil War titled “It wasn’t about slavery” and I just couldn’t browse any further.

    (I think I’ve seen an argument that German colonialism in Africa was generally slightly less ethically challenged then British colonialism in Africa – primarily based on the Germans at least not importing Indian and Chinese indentured labourers to build their railroads. But while it’s possibly an interesting thing to note, with the British Empire still being relatively lauded while the German history of racism is, obviously, not so lauded, it’s better framed as “British colonialism was shit” than as “German colonialism was good”.)

    Liked by 2 people

    • Well, the Germans did not have indentured workers from India and China to import due to lack of colonies there (except Qingdao). They were pretty damn awful, though apparently in Namibia (which got the brunt of German colonialism with the Herero and Nama genocide), some folks still say that whoever came after was even worse.

      Liked by 2 people

    • From the author bio:

      ‘His 2017 article “The Case for Colonialism” drew international attention after he received death threats in response.’

      So that answers one of your questions…

      Liked by 1 person

  8. I suspect it will contain marginally less ethically & scholarly challenged arguments than “Why German Colonialism Was Good Actually”.

    Someone is an optimist.

    Liked by 7 people

  9. Wonder if Correia will steal the argument of the appalling Alex Jones that school shootings (with small children literally shot to pieces) are the “necessary collateral damage to preserve our freedom”. Faugh.

    Liked by 3 people

        • I am loving it. You’d think with all the cash he has, he could have hired better lawyers. That don’t have typos on their website and don’t send the emails and texts to the other side.

          Said data was, of course, subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 committee instantly.

          The families’ lawyer must have loved his Perry Mason moment — that almost never happens IRL. *dramatic music sting* Somewhere, Raymond Burr is nodding in approval.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Assuming the issue was incompetence and someone at the firm didn’t decide to screw him over. In the words of “The Most Hated Man on the Internet” documentary, I wouldn’t approve of that but I’d sure enjoy it.

            Liked by 2 people

            • As I’ve seen elsewhere, that’s not entirely surprising. Any competent lawyer would advise that the best response he has would be to settle, in a ‘how much to make this go away’ sense. But that’s not an option for Jones; besides the fact that he already lost and this is just setting the terms for the default judgment rendered against him because he refused to show up, his own ego wouldn’t allow him to admit that he’s wrong without finding some way to spin it as somebody else’s fault obviously.

              So he’s been getting legal advice from the same sort of hacks that were insisting that they had really watertight cases proving that the election had been stolen from Trump, people who got their legal degrees from right-wing colleges that are more focused on how to write weasel-worded laws to undermine freedom for everybody not them, rather than on how to work within the court system that exists.

              At least one of the lines I heard him trying to use involved insisting that he had actually known Sandy Hook wasn’t a hoax for years but the mainstream media found it too useful to discredit him by continuing to say he thought it was a hoax. Which… yeah, doesn’t mesh with anything else he has been saying.

              But it’s been long known that the sort of conspiracy theory mindset pushed by Jones and others is far more about disbelief in the ‘official line’ than in belief of any internally consistent alternative. Believing in two mutually exclusive conspiracies isn’t a problem as long as they both say the establishment is wrong.

              Liked by 2 people

              • The excellent book “Sandy Hook” shows how much of the conspiracy mongering is built around details that supposedly don’t fit (why was there a porta-potty on school property?) or the inarguable It Just Feels Off. As you say, not presenting an alternative, just rejecting the reality.

                Like

                • Speaking as someone who attended an elementary school where the entire fifth grade class was held in a trailer that had been trucked onto the site because the rest of the school was too small… anybody who has to ask why a porta-potty was at a school has obviously never dealt with the reality of what happens as the number of people attending a school changes over the years while the size of the building doesn’t.

                  (Or, for that matter, the middle school I went to where the second athletics field was a short hike away on the other side of a gravel pit, and getting back to the school to use one of the bathrooms in the building would taken a few minutes. The school was at the edge of an industrial park.)

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • A lot of the schools I’ve been to/around have had “temporary” facilities. My high school, in a fairly high SES area, already had a trailer out back for one of the smaller departments when it was only 4 years old. I kinda liked that, school discipline was not at all enforced. The radio was on all class (alternating between the hard rock of half the class and the country of the other half), you could wander around and chat, use swearwords, mouth off to the teacher, etc. And there was a porta-potty nearby, because walking back into the school building and back would have taken up a lot of time.

                    There’s been “temporary” trailers at my nearest high school for decades, and they’ve just this year finally gotten the funds for a real building. The community college had a “temp” building (not a trailer) that ended up being used for decades too.

                    But rich people don’t know these things, because private schools always have enough money to build real buildings, or else limit enrollment.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • Heck; most of the University of Victoria (Victoria, British Columbia, Canada) was run out of Quonset huts for years because the University was built on the grounds of what had been an army base up until the 1950s. My mother used to talk about taking classes in one of those huts. A few of the original base buildings are still used for lab space to this day.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • I did the math: the “temp” building at the local high school was put up shortly after I moved here in 1993. Not replaced till 2022. In a place where the average home price is north of a million right now.

                      Like

  11. So none of you plan on reading Larry’s book and trying to fisk it for inaccuracies? Yeah, thought so. All you can do is compain about ONE book put out by Regnecy Press and try using that as an example of how bad Larry’s book is going to be. Usual flaming liberal response.

    Like

    • Judging from the description, Correia is trotting some very very well-worn paths here. Why bother to attack arguments that have already been disproved time and time again? Honestly, Correia is not smart enough to contribute anything significant to the discussion. Just the same old same old.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I don’t plan to read Larrys book, like every other Larry book.
      It is a choice, what to read. No writer is entiteld to people picking his book up.
      I am German, so not exactly Larrys coregroup. (And liberal is not what I would call myself, btw)
      Beside the publisher, which is totally fair to critisize, there is topic and writer mentioned in Cams articel, plus the Amazon discription. I belive that is all the information that exists at the moment for Larrys book.
      Btw fisking is not the only way to engage with a text.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. Wow, Regnery still exists? I thought they phased it out a long time ago. Anyway, how many times do you think the “well-regulated militia” phrase of the 2nd Amendment will actually show up in LC’s book? Should there be a betting pool down the road?

    As for “genre wars,” the nostalgia bigots always ignore the early women and other marginalized authors who worked in the era that they like and which the people they claim killed the wonder of the past actually highlight, study and anthologize for modern audiences. along with the old white guys. That, and the more specific obsession with SF fans and to a lesser extent fantasy fans with the idea that the genres or sub-genres are always dying off from neglect or from a different type of SFF story that is currently popular.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I think this is a common tendency in histories of genre. I’ve read several film reference books over the years that proclaim Genre X has (as a friend puts it) Gone To Dust — for whatever reason we’ll never see another swashbuckler/western/romance film (currently I see the same predictions about superhero films). They’re invariably wrong. The “PC is killing my favorites!” stuff just cranks it up a notch and finds someone to blame.

      Liked by 4 people

      • My favorite is the “the new Star Trek shows have made Star Trek political!” ones. I remember particularly the Puppies arguing with David Gerrold that he was wrong about his and Rodenberry’s work on the original show. That was wild.

        Liked by 5 people

      • ISTR there was a cowboy movie last year that did well at the Oscars, but of course there was gayness talked about, so it doesn’t count. And starred B. Cummerbund.

        And then this year, Sandra Bullock and one of those beefcake himbos did a “Romancing the Stone” kinda thing, but I think there was a Black woman in it too.

        Liked by 2 people

          • And why should they?

            Aside from the fact that there are always going to be people interested in ‘comfort reads’ like the stuff they followed while they were growing up, even under the ‘all culture is conversation’ definition there is always space for somebody taking an old story idea and giving it a new twist.

            Liked by 2 people

    • Regnery has a strange business model where the Republican National Committee or some other right-wing group buys the entire print run of a book and then turns around and gives them out as party favors. The book sells out its printing and jumps to the top of the bestseller list, and everyone else scratches their head and thinks, I didn’t know the far right was that big on reading. I doubt they will perform this service for Larry, though.

      Liked by 4 people

  14. • Why “red flag” laws don’t work, can be easily abused, and ignore a much more commonsensical approach to keeping guns out of the wrong hands
    […]
    • How we can return to a society that has a safe and healthy relationship with guns—as we had for most of our history

    I reread this and … is it just me, or does this sound like Larry is going to argue in favour of more – and more efficent – regulations to gun ownership than USA has today? And criticize his ammosexual fans?

    Liked by 2 people

    • What is his (and his audience’s) idea of the wrong hands?
      What is his (and his audience’s) idea of a safe and healthy relationship?

      Like

    • I suspect not directly but I can’t currently predict what he is going to suggest. Maybe only churches should be allowed to sell guns? I should adopt a fake persona and starting arguing for that in gun spaces.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Your tyops will have you fit right in, as long as you set your spell check to US English.
        (Browsers do not have a redneck “English” setting)

        Like

    • I once had a fairly polite argument with some American pro-gun types where they kept arguing that all my British requirements for gun safety were already covered in the USA. However, the slippery issue was one of “individual responsibility.” Responsible Gun Owners get proper training. Responsible Gun Shop Owners do background checks. Responsible Gun Owners keep their guns in a safe and store ammunition separately. And I have a feeling there may be a version of this in Correia’s book… but that likewise it won’t address the fact that a lot of people aren’t Responsible, and that it doesn’t take much for someone to turn from Responsible to Irresponsible, so putting it all on the individual is a problem.

      Liked by 3 people

      • And while they talk a lot about the importance of being responsible and properly trained, they adamantly refuse to make that a requirement. Much like the WV state rep who said that while Of Course he supports fathers paying child support, forcing them to pay would be bad (they might pressure the woman to get an abortion!).

        Liked by 1 person

      • They always say the mass shooters are mentally ill, but vote against improving mental health resources.

        As “The Church Lady” used to say, “isn’t that conveeeennnient.”

        Liked by 2 people

        • They also had an argument along the lines that since you couldn’t tell who might become mentally ill, there was no point in making a mental health test a requirement.

          Like

          • Never mind that the states probably have records of who’s been committed to a mental health facility. That would be a good list to start from.

            Like

            • Lots of police departments already ignore when people can legally have their guns taken (mental health, stalking an ex, etc.). So giving them the authority may not solve much.

              Like

      • Nearly every gun used in a mass shooting in the U.S. is legally obtained. Which is then their argument for why everyone (who is white) needs to go around armed and pretending they’re in a Hollywood old western movie. They do not care what bystanders get killed. That’s a feature, not a bug, and useful for intimidating voters and pols.

        The main reason that the U.S. refuses to do gun control laws, though — besides the politician buying of the gun industry itself — is that the U.S. has a massive, billion dollar industry in gun sales by people who use individual hobby seller to individual buyer loopholes to essentially be arms dealers. You can legally sell off some of “your” guns to anyone, no background checks, no waiting periods, just whoever offers you cash, from the back trunk of your car. Half the sales at gun shows are in the parking lot. And we have very well off arms dealers online who are supposedly just selling off some of their own “hobby” guns — every week, year after year, hundreds and hundreds of them. And they sell a lot of them out of the country as well — for cash and not necessarily declared for taxes. They even make their own ammo and sell it as hobby businesses.

        The guns that show up in Chicago often, for instance, a favorite city conservatives like to declare a war zone even though it’s far down the list of violent cities behind red state cities, are usually being brought in from rural redder Illinois and from St. Louis, most of it legal sales. Often it’s done in conjunction not only with the gun manufacturers’ new offerings but the government. In the 1980’s, the government announced that it would sell M-1 assault weapons to individual citizens, but you had to actually apply for it, pass some tests and get finger printed and you were only allowed to buy one. From the government. But then you could sell them to others. You could get all your adult family members to apply and get an M-1 from the government and then sell them off to some strangers for a lot more than you paid the government for it.

        So when the assault weapon ban happened in the 1990’s and ran for ten years, that shut down a huge chunk of the profitable “hobby” gun sale market. Mass shootings and violent crime went down dramatically. So they got rid of it as soon as they could in 2004 under W. Bush. They refuse gun control laws and regulations tooth and nail because it would shut down the billion dollar “hobby” gun sale arms and ammo trading industry. Some states have closed some of these loopholes and they hate it and work around it.

        And now the gun manufacturers have a new, lighter, even faster assault weapon that shoots through body armor the best ever. It costs thousands and thousands to buy one of the civilian models — they’ve sold tens of thousands of them. And those guns are mainly getting resold to other people — no checks, no restrictions. I’m sure the U.S. cops will be even more eager to stop school shootings when those get through circulating.

        So if you’re wondering why so many white Republicans keep voting for these repressive autocrats, even when it would seem to not be in their best interests, it’s not because the NRA is powerful. It’s because those white Republicans are running all sorts of legal or quasi-legal mafia operations locally and regionally — “hobby” gun sales, prescription drugs including opiates, supplements and snake oil holistic cures, child labor sweatshops and private prison labor sweatshops, churches running multi-million child adoption operations for “donations,” legal real estate and development dodges that are destroying the housing market, pop-up stores, MLM schemes, car repossession that then launders auto parts for resale, (and now crpyto!) etc. It’s a lot of money with a lot of key folks with their fingers in local pies. And Republican pols promise to protect and facilitate it all with loopholes, deregulation and redlining, impoverishing and jailing POC. They’ve been promised that the economy, a vice crime economy, will remain in effect and theirs to rule and they definitely want to keep it going.

        The U.S. remains the land of violent, racist hucksters.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I think a good start to gun control would be not selling to SWM or anyone who lives with a SWM for a while. They seem to be the ones doing the school shootings and random public mass shootings. Ergo, they must be mentally ill, right?

          They can continue to buy giant trucks to pretend their penises are bigger.

          Liked by 1 person

        • The reason is much simpler than that. White males want guns for the coming civil war. (Reagan enacted some gun control when he was governor of California because he became alarmed at the number of groups like the Black Panthers who were starting to buy guns.)

          Liked by 1 person

          • Yes, racism is a big part of it, as it is a white industry. All their schemes are mostly white people involved. And the threat of POC is the main marketing campaign to the customers of the hobby gun sales and gun industry sales (who indeed also vote for Republican pols) as well as the supplements, etc., but it’s not the main driver of the anti-gun control factions, especially the ones who fund stuff. They market the back door gun sales as, you need to belong to our army of patriots and the Dems will place black people above you and take your guns, but that’s just the PR to justify why they are demanding no gun control, even as mass shootings increase with more fatalities, etc., and it grows more and more illogical. The main thing is, they make a lot of money among themselves as long as there isn’t a lot of gun regulation. At CPAC, for instance, they had bedazzled pistol shaped purses. That’s not preparing for a race war. It’s an identity marker not only of white supremacy, but that they are open for business and the government can’t stop them.

            Gun ownership has declined steeply over the last decades in the U.S. The people who still own guns collect lots of guns, not to prepare for civil war (that’s just a subset) but as a status symbol among their own, like designer handbags — which makes for profitable business for both the regulated gun sellers and the largely unregulated “hobby” sellers. The gun industry provides civilian versions of their improved and deadlier military weapons. The unofficial dealers buy them up and then turn around and sell them for an even higher markup to others who want them to show that they have them.

            With the gun control regulations of the 1990’s, such as the assault weapon ban, gun ownership declined further, violent gun crime declined, etc. That greatly affected their business and changed their marketing tactic from black drug gangs are going to kill you to Mexicans coming across the border will kill you. When they got W. Bush back in power, dumping all gun control regs became priority number one (and the Republican push to bring in more Latinos to the party was blocked by the gun sale PR, but they had the Muslims will invade and kill you line too.) And it certainly got easier to market the guns when we elected the first black president, more so when the Supreme Court ruled that local and state governments were limited in regulating guns also in 2010. They also started selling a lot more of them to people in other countries, which usually isn’t that legal, but nobody much is watching the “hobby” sellers as long as they stymie as many gun regulations as they can in the U.S. And then when the BLM movement was doing protests, well, they could increase the black people will kill you rhetoric again.

            White right wingers in the U.S. unquestionably are dedicated to white supremacy. But they also use white supremacy for profit or at least to have the status symbols of profitability. Wealth is virtue in the U.S. (if you’re white.) The “coming race war” is again a massive profitable industry for millions of white folk in their local communities. Gun and ammo selling, wellness cures, church adoption, prepper supplies, auto parts, status symbol trucks, boats and ATVs resells, MLM products, farm supplies, political id clothing, all the legal real estate scams you’ve been hearing about. There are entire towns in the U.S. that make their money through having a private prison with slave labor that is overcharging the government and understaffed.

            Those 1970’s, 1980’s movies you might have seen set in the U.S. where there’s a corrupt white sheriff, mayor and local rich businessmen running everything in a town? Boss Hogg in the Dukes of Hazard? That was totally realistic. They were like that back then, large parts of the U.S. are still like that now and they do not want to change. And that means keeping the government from changing regulations, especially on gun sales. But the guns are deadlier, the body count from the mass shootings are higher and the often young white guys who do the shootings are getting itchy for the race war they keep being promised. And the 1/6 insurrection made everything more extreme. So we’re kind of waiting to see how many middle of the road white people love white supremacy enough to live in a white supremacy gang war zone, I guess.

            But if you really wanted to set them on their ear, then shutting off the right of people in the U.S. to resell their guns to anyone but licensed gun dealers who were tightly regulated would certainly help.

            Liked by 1 person

  15. Well, you have to understand what “colonialism is good” means in this context. Did Germany force non-Christians to become Christians or else?

    Well there you go then.

    Liked by 2 people

Blog at WordPress.com.