Search
1000 results for “untrue”
-
What's the source of Einstein's "citizen of the world" quip?
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/03/whats-the-source-of-einsteins-citizen-of-the-world-quip/I like digging through old archives and tracing my way through quotes. Here's a particularly good one from Albert Einstein which is often peppered around the Internet without any sources.
If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew.
Let's see if we can find it!
1929-12-04
The earliest I can find is in the archives of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency who published this snippet:
Is this likely to be true? What other evidence is there that Einstein was there and made those remarks?
1929-11-12
Flicking back a few weeks in the JTA archives is this evidence - "Sorbonne bestows degree on Einstein."
1929-11-09
There are also contemporary photos of the ceremony which are included in various press clippings.
Is there anything previous to 1929?
1922??
Alice Calaprice's Quotable Einstein has the quote but attributes it differently:
From an address to the French Philosophical Society at the Sorbonne, April 6, 1922. See also French press clipping, April 7, 1922, Einstein Archive 36-378; and Berliner Tageblatt, April 8, 1922, Einstein Archive 79-535
I wasn't able to find the French press clipping - but the German paper is available.
My German is rusty and that font is hard but I don't think it says anything similar to the above quote. I think the 1922 date is merely the confusion between two different visits to the Sorbonne - which is the same conclusion as Wikiquote editors came to
Contemporary reports
OK, so what other sources are there for the quote? The JTA says:
The local papers feature a summary of the brief address made by Prof. Albert Einstein […]
So I suppose they were just re-reporting what others had said. Let's take a look in some of those newspapers via Bibliothèque nationale de France who have an excellent archive of newspapers.
There's a rather detailed report from L'Œuvre - but that makes no mention of the anecdote.
Similarly, there are other interviews and contemporary commentary - but this remark goes unnoticed by all of them.
I read through several dozen French papers from November 1929 until early December. I couldn't find anything resembling the remark in any of them.
OK, what about the German press?
Again it is possible to search German newspapers for those specific dates - and there are plenty of contemporary reports.
Nothing about him being a Weltbürger that I could see.
Similarly, British newspapers don't make reference to the joke despite their endless coverage of him.
Google's shitty AI hallucinates the quote as appearing in The Saturday Evening Post.
While that issue does have an extensive interview with Einstein, there's nothing even vaguely similar to the sentiment about being a citizen of the world. Never trust an AI!
Is it likely?
Einstein is endlessly quotable - and had a good ear for a pithy turn of phrase. However, he was accompanied on this trip by the German Ambassador. Would it have been prudent for him to make such a politically charged joke in front of that audience?
Minced Oaths
Perhaps this is a mangled quotation? Einstein said something similar several years before the purported 1929 quote.
In Herman Bernstein's 1924 book "Celebrities of Our Time Interviews", there's the following quote:
That's much less pithy, but carries largely the same sentiment.
The original can be seen in the British Newspaper Archive of 1919
Dr. Einstein's Theory.
We publish to-day a translation of an article written for our readers by ALBERT EINSTEIN
[…] He adds that the different descriptions of him in England and Germany form an amusing example of relativity to the sentiments of the two countries. He is famous just now, and was described in our columns as a Swiss Jew, whereas in Germany he is called a German man of science. He suggests that were he suddenly to become a bête noire, the descriptions would be reversed, and he would be stigmatized here as a German man of science and in Germany as a Swiss Jew. We concede him his little jest.
However, do note that this is described as a translation. In his letter to Paul Ehrenfest on the 4th of December 1919, he says:
By the way, I myself participated in the cackling by writing a short article in the Times, in which I thanked our English colleagues, said a few things to characterize the theory, and at the end produced the following witticism: A simple application of the theory of relativity: today German newspapers are calling me a German man of science, the English, a Swiss Jew. If I come to be represented as a bete noire to the readerships, I should be a Swiss Jew for German newspapers and a German man of science for the English.'
See The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9 The Berlin Years. I cannot find the original letter, but I assume Princeton's transcribers and translators are accurate.
Either way, that's two reputable sources which have Einstein expressing something similar. Perhaps the joke was repeated and refined by him as the years wore on? Perhaps an eager journalist took a half-remembered quote and gave it new life? Perhaps.
Where next?
Well, dear reader, that's where you come in! I've exhausted all my research prowess. If you can find a transcript of his remarks, or a report older than the JTA's of the 4th of December 1929 where Einstein talks about being a "citizen of the world", please drop a comment in the box!
#politics #quote #yakShaving -
What's the source of Einstein's "citizen of the world" quip?
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/03/whats-the-source-of-einsteins-citizen-of-the-world-quip/I like digging through old archives and tracing my way through quotes. Here's a particularly good one from Albert Einstein which is often peppered around the Internet without any sources.
If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew.
Let's see if we can find it!
1929-12-04
The earliest I can find is in the archives of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency who published this snippet:
Is this likely to be true? What other evidence is there that Einstein was there and made those remarks?
1929-11-12
Flicking back a few weeks in the JTA archives is this evidence - "Sorbonne bestows degree on Einstein."
1929-11-09
There are also contemporary photos of the ceremony which are included in various press clippings.
Is there anything previous to 1929?
1922??
Alice Calaprice's Quotable Einstein has the quote but attributes it differently:
From an address to the French Philosophical Society at the Sorbonne, April 6, 1922. See also French press clipping, April 7, 1922, Einstein Archive 36-378; and Berliner Tageblatt, April 8, 1922, Einstein Archive 79-535
I wasn't able to find the French press clipping - but the German paper is available.
My German is rusty and that font is hard but I don't think it says anything similar to the above quote. I think the 1922 date is merely the confusion between two different visits to the Sorbonne - which is the same conclusion as Wikiquote editors came to
Contemporary reports
OK, so what other sources are there for the quote? The JTA says:
The local papers feature a summary of the brief address made by Prof. Albert Einstein […]
So I suppose they were just re-reporting what others had said. Let's take a look in some of those newspapers via Bibliothèque nationale de France who have an excellent archive of newspapers.
There's a rather detailed report from L'Œuvre - but that makes no mention of the anecdote.
Similarly, there are other interviews and contemporary commentary - but this remark goes unnoticed by all of them.
I read through several dozen French papers from November 1929 until early December. I couldn't find anything resembling the remark in any of them.
OK, what about the German press?
Again it is possible to search German newspapers for those specific dates - and there are plenty of contemporary reports.
Nothing about him being a Weltbürger that I could see.
Similarly, British newspapers don't make reference to the joke despite their endless coverage of him.
Google's shitty AI hallucinates the quote as appearing in The Saturday Evening Post.
While that issue does have an extensive interview with Einstein, there's nothing even vaguely similar to the sentiment about being a citizen of the world. Never trust an AI!
Is it likely?
Einstein is endlessly quotable - and had a good ear for a pithy turn of phrase. However, he was accompanied on this trip by the German Ambassador. Would it have been prudent for him to make such a politically charged joke in front of that audience?
Minced Oaths
Perhaps this is a mangled quotation? Einstein said something similar several years before the purported 1929 quote.
In Herman Bernstein's 1924 book "Celebrities of Our Time Interviews", there's the following quote:
That's much less pithy, but carries largely the same sentiment.
The original can be seen in the British Newspaper Archive of 1919
Dr. Einstein's Theory.
We publish to-day a translation of an article written for our readers by ALBERT EINSTEIN
[…] He adds that the different descriptions of him in England and Germany form an amusing example of relativity to the sentiments of the two countries. He is famous just now, and was described in our columns as a Swiss Jew, whereas in Germany he is called a German man of science. He suggests that were he suddenly to become a bête noire, the descriptions would be reversed, and he would be stigmatized here as a German man of science and in Germany as a Swiss Jew. We concede him his little jest.
However, do note that this is described as a translation. In his letter to Paul Ehrenfest on the 4th of December 1919, he says:
By the way, I myself participated in the cackling by writing a short article in the Times, in which I thanked our English colleagues, said a few things to characterize the theory, and at the end produced the following witticism: A simple application of the theory of relativity: today German newspapers are calling me a German man of science, the English, a Swiss Jew. If I come to be represented as a bete noire to the readerships, I should be a Swiss Jew for German newspapers and a German man of science for the English.'
See The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9 The Berlin Years. I cannot find the original letter, but I assume Princeton's transcribers and translators are accurate.
Either way, that's two reputable sources which have Einstein expressing something similar. Perhaps the joke was repeated and refined by him as the years wore on? Perhaps an eager journalist took a half-remembered quote and gave it new life? Perhaps.
Where next?
Well, dear reader, that's where you come in! I've exhausted all my research prowess. If you can find a transcript of his remarks, or a report older than the JTA's of the 4th of December 1929 where Einstein talks about being a "citizen of the world", please drop a comment in the box!
#politics #quote #yakShaving -
@unusnemo #factoid
Some my believe that your genetics comes from members of nomadic shepherd tribes, feeding mostly on their herds (meat & blood & milk) having plants only if they found them (partly digested) in herbiovres' stomachs.
Makes certain (common) sense to me, which usually means it's untrue. -
@unusnemo #factoid
Some my believe that your genetics comes from members of nomadic shepherd tribes, feeding mostly on their herds (meat & blood & milk) having plants only if they found them (partly digested) in herbiovres' stomachs.
Makes certain (common) sense to me, which usually means it's untrue. -
CW: This is, regrettably, an honest portrayal of me as a mother. Viewer discretion advised.
INSULT SKILL UPGRADED
“You probably drive a Skoda,” he said. His voice brimming with the kind of bottomless contempt only a preteen can deliver (with alarming precision).
What led up to this, in itself, horrific statement can best be described as a sort of petty, medieval inquisition. Questions raining down in an utterly relentless tone. My defence had already been dismissed before the trial had even begun. 😅
And it soon became clear that I – objectively speaking – possess absolutely no reasonable grounds for refusing to buy him a Moncler jacket.
“What kind of loving parent even does that?” Especially when, according to him, I “can afford it”.
(Not entirely untrue, granted. But that is partly because I do not make a habit of buying jackets in that price range. I have, however, now been informed that this does NOT qualify as a valid argument.)
So, in his defence, it’s perhaps not surprising that he felt provoked. 🫣
Particularly as he is now – by his own account – condemned to freeze all winter. Wandering around Ekerö like a Victorian street urchin, selling matches. Possibly also sitting outside ICA begging. Reports vary.
It is, of course, a dreadful and deeply unjust situation. His distress is entirely understandable.
And yet.
To claim that I drive a Skoda… that does feel as though he crossed a line. We do, after all, live in a civilised (well, more or less) society. One cannot simply say anything one likes.
So… AITA? 😅
#parenting #teenagers #firstworldproblems #dramaticChildren #sendhelp #aita
-
Peter Oborne, _Complicit: Britain's Role in the Destruction of Gaza_ (OR Books, 2025)
https://orbooks.com/catalog/complicit/
• 360 pages
• Paperback ISBN 9781682194263
• E-book ISBN 9781682194522>> In a gripping narrative informed by original reporting, Peter Oborne tells how Britain’s Conservative and Labour parties converged to back Israel’s criminal assault—in the process occupying disturbing common ground with the far right.
>> Rather than challenge this political cartel, British media colluded in its misrepresentations… as British authorities helped Israel set #Gaza as well as international law aflame, almost everything the public was told about this momentous conflagration was untrue…
#PeterOborne #UKPol #ComplicityInGenocide
@bookstodon @palestine -
Peter Oborne, _Complicit: Britain's Role in the Destruction of Gaza_ (OR Books, 2025)
https://orbooks.com/catalog/complicit/
• 360 pages
• Paperback ISBN 9781682194263
• E-book ISBN 9781682194522>> In a gripping narrative informed by original reporting, Peter Oborne tells how Britain’s Conservative and Labour parties converged to back Israel’s criminal assault—in the process occupying disturbing common ground with the far right.
>> Rather than challenge this political cartel, British media colluded in its misrepresentations… as British authorities helped Israel set #Gaza as well as international law aflame, almost everything the public was told about this momentous conflagration was untrue…
#PeterOborne #UKPol #ComplicityInGenocide
@bookstodon @palestine -
Peter Oborne, _Complicit: Britain's Role in the Destruction of Gaza_ (OR Books, 2025)
https://orbooks.com/catalog/complicit/
• 360 pages
• Paperback ISBN 9781682194263
• E-book ISBN 9781682194522>> In a gripping narrative informed by original reporting, Peter Oborne tells how Britain’s Conservative and Labour parties converged to back Israel’s criminal assault—in the process occupying disturbing common ground with the far right.
>> Rather than challenge this political cartel, British media colluded in its misrepresentations… as British authorities helped Israel set #Gaza as well as international law aflame, almost everything the public was told about this momentous conflagration was untrue…
#PeterOborne #UKPol #ComplicityInGenocide
@bookstodon @palestine -
Peter Oborne, _Complicit: Britain's Role in the Destruction of Gaza_ (OR Books, 2025)
https://orbooks.com/catalog/complicit/
• 360 pages
• Paperback ISBN 9781682194263
• E-book ISBN 9781682194522>> In a gripping narrative informed by original reporting, Peter Oborne tells how Britain’s Conservative and Labour parties converged to back Israel’s criminal assault—in the process occupying disturbing common ground with the far right.
>> Rather than challenge this political cartel, British media colluded in its misrepresentations… as British authorities helped Israel set #Gaza as well as international law aflame, almost everything the public was told about this momentous conflagration was untrue…
#PeterOborne #UKPol #ComplicityInGenocide
@bookstodon @palestine -
Peter Oborne, _Complicit: Britain's Role in the Destruction of Gaza_ (OR Books, 2025)
https://orbooks.com/catalog/complicit/
• 360 pages
• Paperback ISBN 9781682194263
• E-book ISBN 9781682194522>> In a gripping narrative informed by original reporting, Peter Oborne tells how Britain’s Conservative and Labour parties converged to back Israel’s criminal assault—in the process occupying disturbing common ground with the far right.
>> Rather than challenge this political cartel, British media colluded in its misrepresentations… as British authorities helped Israel set #Gaza as well as international law aflame, almost everything the public was told about this momentous conflagration was untrue…
#PeterOborne #UKPol #ComplicityInGenocide
@bookstodon @palestine -
What is a ‘true self’ and what is a ‘false self’?
I’ve always been instinctively suspicious of Winnicott’s notion of the ‘true self‘. Not because I doubt that it’s a frequent experience to find oneself relating in a manner which is in some fundamental way fake, somehow untrue to who we are. To the extent this is a routine feature of human experience it implies as a corollary forms of relating which are in some fundamental sense true to who we are. Likewise it is a common experience that these forms of relating feel good in some diffuse yet profound way. In essence I understand Winnicott to have been saying that relating from the true self keeps us in touch with our fundamental creativity, enabling us to act spontaneously in terms of who we are rather than acting defensively in order to comply with the (imagined) expectations of those around us. In essence the false self acts as a defensive carapace which forms to protect ourselves developmentally when we encounter situations in which we cannot be ourselves in this more spontaneous way. It’s what Gabor Mate describes with admirable clarity as the tension between attachment and authenticity:
The seed of woe does not lie in our having these two needs, but in the fact that life too often orchestrates a face-off between them. The dilemma is this: What happens if our needs for attachment are imperiled by our authenticity, our connection to what we truly feel? What happens, in other words, when one nonnegotiable need is pitted by circumstance against the other? These circumstances might include parental addiction, mental illness, family violence and poverty, overt conflict, or profound unhappiness—the stresses imposed by society, on children as well as adults. Even without these, the tragic tension between attachment and authenticity can arise. Not being seen and accepted for who we are is sufficient.
Myth of Normal, pg 147
As Mate later observes, “That some attachments may not survive the choice for authenticity is one of the most agonizing realizations one can come to” (pg 476). In this sense we could think of Winnicott’s concept as a way of describing how this tension plays itself out (or fails to) i.e. the manner in which we learn to pretend to be something other than what we are in pursuit of a sense of safety in our relations with others. In its more extreme forms this issues in a complete compliance with our environment and the demands we encounter within it, even preemptively so such that we are contorting ourselves to demands which no one is actually making of us. This is part of all childhood experience, as I understand Winnicott, with the difference being the degree to which the false self crowds out the true self and how deeply embedded the legacy of this becomes in adult life and with what consequences.
The problem I see is the tacitly essentialist register of ‘true self’ and ‘false self’. Not only does it lend itself so readily to simplification, such that we might simply seek to replace the (bad) ‘false self’ with the (good) ‘true self’, it fails to register the dynamic character of the process which is being captured. As I understand it these are more like psychic sources which become more or less integrated into the structure of our quotidian engagement with the world around us: the source of spontaneous and creative action which keeps us rooted in the present and the anticipatory and fearful action which is orientated to the future. It’s untenable to live entirely in the first mode as an adult so it’s more a question of how readily accessible that source is and how much it infuses our interaction with others and the world around us. Likewise the second mode provides a necessary feature for survival in an unpredictable world but it can squeeze out the possibility for authentic relating such that it makes any relating in the first mode untenable. Everything becomes about projection, performance and preparation rather than simply being and doing. The tension isn’t a one-time trade off, particularly outside of clinical settings, but rather a life long struggle between two modes that are essential to being human and thriving in a complex and open world. This is why I like so much Christopher Bollas who talks about this as an idiom:
Winnicott’s important statement that the true self is the inherited ‘personality potential’. From my point of view, this is exactly what it is: a complex inherited core of personality present at birth, an idiom of being and relating that will evolve and become activated according to the infant’s experience of the mother.
Essential Aloneness, loc 395
The other main quality of the true self is ‘spontaneity’: the gesture made real. We see somebody we would like to talk to, and we approach them and introduce ourselves. This is the gesture made real. If we merely think about doing this but we don’t actually move towards the person, the gesture is accomplished only as an inner mental representation. So one of the ways to evaluate the evolution of an individual’s true self is to note the extent to which their gestures have been made real.
Essential Aloneness, loc 407
It’s this movement from internal towards external gesture which is mediated by caregivers who meet the infant’s developing idiom and support its elaboration. For Bollas our personal idiom is defined through such elaboration as we relate to objects, including crucially cultural objects, in a manner which unfolds a particular sense in which I’m this person relating to these objects in this specific way. I develop my own specific idiom through the objects I select, how I engage with them and the way I’m changed in the process. There are objects which, as he puts it in Being a Character, act as ‘keys’ which unlock elements of our idiom:
Certain objects, like psychic “keys,” open doors to unconsciously intense—and rich—experience in which we articulate the self that we are through the elaborating character of our response. This selection constitutes the jouissance of the true self, a bliss released through the finding of specific objects that free idiom to its articulation.
Loc 208
The people we feel an affinity with. The places we find we belong. The music which moves us. The books which leave us changed after reading. As he puts it in Hysteria loc 100:
So each self will find particular individuals more attractive than others, will find certain actual objects — works of fiction, pieces of music, hobbies, recreational interests — of more interest than others, and in the course of living a life will have constructed a world which, although holding objects in common with other selves, will have shaped them into a form as unique as their fingerprint.
To be a ‘true self’ involves living in a way that is consistent with our idiom. This also means living in a way that calls for the continual elaboration of our idiom because to live with it consistently involves a continual encounter with objects that provoke this potential through their relations. The objects call forth experiences in us, activate potential that were previously latent, leaving us changed in all manner of ways. This I think is what is at work when cultural bingeing is edifying rather than deadening, a sense of being immersed in something that moves you rather than being caught in the circuits of drive to avoid something else. Indeed I’m currently bingeing on Bollas because I’m finding things here which express my idiom, particularly in the intellectual register of the sociological account of psychodynamics I’ve inarticulately groped towards over a long period of time. There is something about how I see the world, as well as how I want to account for what I see, which is being elaborated through reading his work. In doing so I’m changed in a manner which is deeply satisfying.
It suggests to me that cultural engagement can be a crucial source of connection to spontaneity. To write because you have the ‘feel of an idea’ (in my favourite phrase of C Wright Mills) rather than because you want to elicit a response in your readers. To read something because it’s gripping you rather than because you want to be someone seen to read things like that or to be someone who has read it. To listen to what moves you and leaves you feeling alive in the immersion. In the jouissance associated with these experiences we connect to something fundamental in ourselves: our personal idiom or ‘true self’. That enjoyment can be rich and generative because it touches something fundamental about who we are. Why am I the person so moved by this music? Why am I the person so fascinated by this author? It follows from Bollas that I think we ought to sit with these experiences, to linger in them so that we can sensitise ourselves to what is at work in them without allowing analysis to substitute for immersion. It’s how to really enjoy cultural engagement but it also has a broader psychic significance as a manner in which we connect with ourselves and what matters to us.
It’s less clear to me though what this means interpersonally. There’s a greater complexity to our object relating with people because they are, well… people. They too have their own idiom. The ruthlessness in object relating which Winnicott argued was essential to our psychic development becomes potential sources of harm in our relating with others. But conversely the fear of hurting others can be a stifling constraint on the possibility of authentic relating. The term which comes to mind here is atmosphere: the space that exists interpersonally and what it means for the possible expressions of idiom in the reciprocal relating that takes place. It’s also the question of what’s energising and what isn’t. How does it feel to be-with a particular person? Do you come across feeling energised or depleted? Do you feel elaborated or diminished? Do you feel sharper edged or somehow blurry? The complexity arises because relating in terms of our personal idiom can be genuinely harmful for the other. Indeed as Mate observes attachment and authenticity often cannot be reconciled. But there’s something here I think about finding who your people are as a matter of converging idioms and the atmosphere which prevails as a consequence of this convergence.
#christopherBollas #falseSelf #gaborMate #objectRelations #relating #trueSelf #Winnicott
-
What is a ‘true self’ and what is a ‘false self’?
I’ve always been instinctively suspicious of Winnicott’s notion of the ‘true self‘. Not because I doubt that it’s a frequent experience to find oneself relating in a manner which is in some fundamental way fake, somehow untrue to who we are. To the extent this is a routine feature of human experience it implies as a corollary forms of relating which are in some fundamental sense true to who we are. Likewise it is a common experience that these forms of relating feel good in some diffuse yet profound way. In essence I understand Winnicott to have been saying that relating from the true self keeps us in touch with our fundamental creativity, enabling us to act spontaneously in terms of who we are rather than acting defensively in order to comply with the (imagined) expectations of those around us. In essence the false self acts as a defensive carapace which forms to protect ourselves developmentally when we encounter situations in which we cannot be ourselves in this more spontaneous way. It’s what Gabor Mate describes with admirable clarity as the tension between attachment and authenticity:
The seed of woe does not lie in our having these two needs, but in the fact that life too often orchestrates a face-off between them. The dilemma is this: What happens if our needs for attachment are imperiled by our authenticity, our connection to what we truly feel? What happens, in other words, when one nonnegotiable need is pitted by circumstance against the other? These circumstances might include parental addiction, mental illness, family violence and poverty, overt conflict, or profound unhappiness—the stresses imposed by society, on children as well as adults. Even without these, the tragic tension between attachment and authenticity can arise. Not being seen and accepted for who we are is sufficient.
Myth of Normal, pg 147
As Mate later observes, “That some attachments may not survive the choice for authenticity is one of the most agonizing realizations one can come to” (pg 476). In this sense we could think of Winnicott’s concept as a way of describing how this tension plays itself out (or fails to) i.e. the manner in which we learn to pretend to be something other than what we are in pursuit of a sense of safety in our relations with others. In its more extreme forms this issues in a complete compliance with our environment and the demands we encounter within it, even preemptively so such that we are contorting ourselves to demands which no one is actually making of us. This is part of all childhood experience, as I understand Winnicott, with the difference being the degree to which the false self crowds out the true self and how deeply embedded the legacy of this becomes in adult life and with what consequences.
The problem I see is the tacitly essentialist register of ‘true self’ and ‘false self’. Not only does it lend itself so readily to simplification, such that we might simply seek to replace the (bad) ‘false self’ with the (good) ‘true self’, it fails to register the dynamic character of the process which is being captured. As I understand it these are more like psychic sources which become more or less integrated into the structure of our quotidian engagement with the world around us: the source of spontaneous and creative action which keeps us rooted in the present and the anticipatory and fearful action which is orientated to the future. It’s untenable to live entirely in the first mode as an adult so it’s more a question of how readily accessible that source is and how much it infuses our interaction with others and the world around us. Likewise the second mode provides a necessary feature for survival in an unpredictable world but it can squeeze out the possibility for authentic relating such that it makes any relating in the first mode untenable. Everything becomes about projection, performance and preparation rather than simply being and doing. The tension isn’t a one-time trade off, particularly outside of clinical settings, but rather a life long struggle between two modes that are essential to being human and thriving in a complex and open world. This is why I like so much Christopher Bollas who talks about this as an idiom:
Winnicott’s important statement that the true self is the inherited ‘personality potential’. From my point of view, this is exactly what it is: a complex inherited core of personality present at birth, an idiom of being and relating that will evolve and become activated according to the infant’s experience of the mother.
Essential Aloneness, loc 395
The other main quality of the true self is ‘spontaneity’: the gesture made real. We see somebody we would like to talk to, and we approach them and introduce ourselves. This is the gesture made real. If we merely think about doing this but we don’t actually move towards the person, the gesture is accomplished only as an inner mental representation. So one of the ways to evaluate the evolution of an individual’s true self is to note the extent to which their gestures have been made real.
Essential Aloneness, loc 407
It’s this movement from internal towards external gesture which is mediated by caregivers who meet the infant’s developing idiom and support its elaboration. For Bollas our personal idiom is defined through such elaboration as we relate to objects, including crucially cultural objects, in a manner which unfolds a particular sense in which I’m this person relating to these objects in this specific way. I develop my own specific idiom through the objects I select, how I engage with them and the way I’m changed in the process. There are objects which, as he puts it in Being a Character, act as ‘keys’ which unlock elements of our idiom:
Certain objects, like psychic “keys,” open doors to unconsciously intense—and rich—experience in which we articulate the self that we are through the elaborating character of our response. This selection constitutes the jouissance of the true self, a bliss released through the finding of specific objects that free idiom to its articulation.
Loc 208
The people we feel an affinity with. The places we find we belong. The music which moves us. The books which leave us changed after reading. As he puts it in Hysteria loc 100:
So each self will find particular individuals more attractive than others, will find certain actual objects — works of fiction, pieces of music, hobbies, recreational interests — of more interest than others, and in the course of living a life will have constructed a world which, although holding objects in common with other selves, will have shaped them into a form as unique as their fingerprint.
To be a ‘true self’ involves living in a way that is consistent with our idiom. This also means living in a way that calls for the continual elaboration of our idiom because to live with it consistently involves a continual encounter with objects that provoke this potential through their relations. The objects call forth experiences in us, activate potential that were previously latent, leaving us changed in all manner of ways. This I think is what is at work when cultural bingeing is edifying rather than deadening, a sense of being immersed in something that moves you rather than being caught in the circuits of drive to avoid something else. Indeed I’m currently bingeing on Bollas because I’m finding things here which express my idiom, particularly in the intellectual register of the sociological account of psychodynamics I’ve inarticulately groped towards over a long period of time. There is something about how I see the world, as well as how I want to account for what I see, which is being elaborated through reading his work. In doing so I’m changed in a manner which is deeply satisfying.
It suggests to me that cultural engagement can be a crucial source of connection to spontaneity. To write because you have the ‘feel of an idea’ (in my favourite phrase of C Wright Mills) rather than because you want to elicit a response in your readers. To read something because it’s gripping you rather than because you want to be someone seen to read things like that or to be someone who has read it. To listen to what moves you and leaves you feeling alive in the immersion. In the jouissance associated with these experiences we connect to something fundamental in ourselves: our personal idiom or ‘true self’. That enjoyment can be rich and generative because it touches something fundamental about who we are. Why am I the person so moved by this music? Why am I the person so fascinated by this author? It follows from Bollas that I think we ought to sit with these experiences, to linger in them so that we can sensitise ourselves to what is at work in them without allowing analysis to substitute for immersion. It’s how to really enjoy cultural engagement but it also has a broader psychic significance as a manner in which we connect with ourselves and what matters to us.
It’s less clear to me though what this means interpersonally. There’s a greater complexity to our object relating with people because they are, well… people. They too have their own idiom. The ruthlessness in object relating which Winnicott argued was essential to our psychic development becomes potential sources of harm in our relating with others. But conversely the fear of hurting others can be a stifling constraint on the possibility of authentic relating. The term which comes to mind here is atmosphere: the space that exists interpersonally and what it means for the possible expressions of idiom in the reciprocal relating that takes place. It’s also the question of what’s energising and what isn’t. How does it feel to be-with a particular person? Do you come across feeling energised or depleted? Do you feel elaborated or diminished? Do you feel sharper edged or somehow blurry? The complexity arises because relating in terms of our personal idiom can be genuinely harmful for the other. Indeed as Mate observes attachment and authenticity often cannot be reconciled. But there’s something here I think about finding who your people are as a matter of converging idioms and the atmosphere which prevails as a consequence of this convergence.
#christopherBollas #falseSelf #gaborMate #objectRelations #relating #trueSelf #Winnicott
-
What is a ‘true self’ and what is a ‘false self’?
I’ve always been instinctively suspicious of Winnicott’s notion of the ‘true self‘. Not because I doubt that it’s a frequent experience to find oneself relating in a manner which is in some fundamental way fake, somehow untrue to who we are. To the extent this is a routine feature of human experience it implies as a corollary forms of relating which are in some fundamental sense true to who we are. Likewise it is a common experience that these forms of relating feel good in some diffuse yet profound way. In essence I understand Winnicott to have been saying that relating from the true self keeps us in touch with our fundamental creativity, enabling us to act spontaneously in terms of who we are rather than acting defensively in order to comply with the (imagined) expectations of those around us. In essence the false self acts as a defensive carapace which forms to protect ourselves developmentally when we encounter situations in which we cannot be ourselves in this more spontaneous way. It’s what Gabor Mate describes with admirable clarity as the tension between attachment and authenticity:
The seed of woe does not lie in our having these two needs, but in the fact that life too often orchestrates a face-off between them. The dilemma is this: What happens if our needs for attachment are imperiled by our authenticity, our connection to what we truly feel? What happens, in other words, when one nonnegotiable need is pitted by circumstance against the other? These circumstances might include parental addiction, mental illness, family violence and poverty, overt conflict, or profound unhappiness—the stresses imposed by society, on children as well as adults. Even without these, the tragic tension between attachment and authenticity can arise. Not being seen and accepted for who we are is sufficient.
Myth of Normal, pg 147
As Mate later observes, “That some attachments may not survive the choice for authenticity is one of the most agonizing realizations one can come to” (pg 476). In this sense we could think of Winnicott’s concept as a way of describing how this tension plays itself out (or fails to) i.e. the manner in which we learn to pretend to be something other than what we are in pursuit of a sense of safety in our relations with others. In its more extreme forms this issues in a complete compliance with our environment and the demands we encounter within it, even preemptively so such that we are contorting ourselves to demands which no one is actually making of us. This is part of all childhood experience, as I understand Winnicott, with the difference being the degree to which the false self crowds out the true self and how deeply embedded the legacy of this becomes in adult life and with what consequences.
The problem I see is the tacitly essentialist register of ‘true self’ and ‘false self’. Not only does it lend itself so readily to simplification, such that we might simply seek to replace the (bad) ‘false self’ with the (good) ‘true self’, it fails to register the dynamic character of the process which is being captured. As I understand it these are more like psychic sources which become more or less integrated into the structure of our quotidian engagement with the world around us: the source of spontaneous and creative action which keeps us rooted in the present and the anticipatory and fearful action which is orientated to the future. It’s untenable to live entirely in the first mode as an adult so it’s more a question of how readily accessible that source is and how much it infuses our interaction with others and the world around us. Likewise the second mode provides a necessary feature for survival in an unpredictable world but it can squeeze out the possibility for authentic relating such that it makes any relating in the first mode untenable. Everything becomes about projection, performance and preparation rather than simply being and doing. The tension isn’t a one-time trade off, particularly outside of clinical settings, but rather a life long struggle between two modes that are essential to being human and thriving in a complex and open world. This is why I like so much Christopher Bollas who talks about this as an idiom:
Winnicott’s important statement that the true self is the inherited ‘personality potential’. From my point of view, this is exactly what it is: a complex inherited core of personality present at birth, an idiom of being and relating that will evolve and become activated according to the infant’s experience of the mother.
Essential Aloneness, loc 395
The other main quality of the true self is ‘spontaneity’: the gesture made real. We see somebody we would like to talk to, and we approach them and introduce ourselves. This is the gesture made real. If we merely think about doing this but we don’t actually move towards the person, the gesture is accomplished only as an inner mental representation. So one of the ways to evaluate the evolution of an individual’s true self is to note the extent to which their gestures have been made real.
Essential Aloneness, loc 407
It’s this movement from internal towards external gesture which is mediated by caregivers who meet the infant’s developing idiom and support its elaboration. For Bollas our personal idiom is defined through such elaboration as we relate to objects, including crucially cultural objects, in a manner which unfolds a particular sense in which I’m this person relating to these objects in this specific way. I develop my own specific idiom through the objects I select, how I engage with them and the way I’m changed in the process. There are objects which, as he puts it in Being a Character, act as ‘keys’ which unlock elements of our idiom:
Certain objects, like psychic “keys,” open doors to unconsciously intense—and rich—experience in which we articulate the self that we are through the elaborating character of our response. This selection constitutes the jouissance of the true self, a bliss released through the finding of specific objects that free idiom to its articulation.
Loc 208
The people we feel an affinity with. The places we find we belong. The music which moves us. The books which leave us changed after reading. As he puts it in Hysteria loc 100:
So each self will find particular individuals more attractive than others, will find certain actual objects — works of fiction, pieces of music, hobbies, recreational interests — of more interest than others, and in the course of living a life will have constructed a world which, although holding objects in common with other selves, will have shaped them into a form as unique as their fingerprint.
To be a ‘true self’ involves living in a way that is consistent with our idiom. This also means living in a way that calls for the continual elaboration of our idiom because to live with it consistently involves a continual encounter with objects that provoke this potential through their relations. The objects call forth experiences in us, activate potential that were previously latent, leaving us changed in all manner of ways. This I think is what is at work when cultural bingeing is edifying rather than deadening, a sense of being immersed in something that moves you rather than being caught in the circuits of drive to avoid something else. Indeed I’m currently bingeing on Bollas because I’m finding things here which express my idiom, particularly in the intellectual register of the sociological account of psychodynamics I’ve inarticulately groped towards over a long period of time. There is something about how I see the world, as well as how I want to account for what I see, which is being elaborated through reading his work. In doing so I’m changed in a manner which is deeply satisfying.
It suggests to me that cultural engagement can be a crucial source of connection to spontaneity. To write because you have the ‘feel of an idea’ (in my favourite phrase of C Wright Mills) rather than because you want to elicit a response in your readers. To read something because it’s gripping you rather than because you want to be someone seen to read things like that or to be someone who has read it. To listen to what moves you and leaves you feeling alive in the immersion. In the jouissance associated with these experiences we connect to something fundamental in ourselves: our personal idiom or ‘true self’. That enjoyment can be rich and generative because it touches something fundamental about who we are. Why am I the person so moved by this music? Why am I the person so fascinated by this author? It follows from Bollas that I think we ought to sit with these experiences, to linger in them so that we can sensitise ourselves to what is at work in them without allowing analysis to substitute for immersion. It’s how to really enjoy cultural engagement but it also has a broader psychic significance as a manner in which we connect with ourselves and what matters to us.
It’s less clear to me though what this means interpersonally. There’s a greater complexity to our object relating with people because they are, well… people. They too have their own idiom. The ruthlessness in object relating which Winnicott argued was essential to our psychic development becomes potential sources of harm in our relating with others. But conversely the fear of hurting others can be a stifling constraint on the possibility of authentic relating. The term which comes to mind here is atmosphere: the space that exists interpersonally and what it means for the possible expressions of idiom in the reciprocal relating that takes place. It’s also the question of what’s energising and what isn’t. How does it feel to be-with a particular person? Do you come across feeling energised or depleted? Do you feel elaborated or diminished? Do you feel sharper edged or somehow blurry? The complexity arises because relating in terms of our personal idiom can be genuinely harmful for the other. Indeed as Mate observes attachment and authenticity often cannot be reconciled. But there’s something here I think about finding who your people are as a matter of converging idioms and the atmosphere which prevails as a consequence of this convergence.
#christopherBollas #falseSelf #gaborMate #objectRelations #relating #trueSelf #Winnicott
-
What is a ‘true self’ and what is a ‘false self’?
I’ve always been instinctively suspicious of Winnicott’s notion of the ‘true self‘. Not because I doubt that it’s a frequent experience to find oneself relating in a manner which is in some fundamental way fake, somehow untrue to who we are. To the extent this is a routine feature of human experience it implies as a corollary forms of relating which are in some fundamental sense true to who we are. Likewise it is a common experience that these forms of relating feel good in some diffuse yet profound way. In essence I understand Winnicott to have been saying that relating from the true self keeps us in touch with our fundamental creativity, enabling us to act spontaneously in terms of who we are rather than acting defensively in order to comply with the (imagined) expectations of those around us. In essence the false self acts as a defensive carapace which forms to protect ourselves developmentally when we encounter situations in which we cannot be ourselves in this more spontaneous way. It’s what Gabor Mate describes with admirable clarity as the tension between attachment and authenticity:
The seed of woe does not lie in our having these two needs, but in the fact that life too often orchestrates a face-off between them. The dilemma is this: What happens if our needs for attachment are imperiled by our authenticity, our connection to what we truly feel? What happens, in other words, when one nonnegotiable need is pitted by circumstance against the other? These circumstances might include parental addiction, mental illness, family violence and poverty, overt conflict, or profound unhappiness—the stresses imposed by society, on children as well as adults. Even without these, the tragic tension between attachment and authenticity can arise. Not being seen and accepted for who we are is sufficient.
Myth of Normal, pg 147
As Mate later observes, “That some attachments may not survive the choice for authenticity is one of the most agonizing realizations one can come to” (pg 476). In this sense we could think of Winnicott’s concept as a way of describing how this tension plays itself out (or fails to) i.e. the manner in which we learn to pretend to be something other than what we are in pursuit of a sense of safety in our relations with others. In its more extreme forms this issues in a complete compliance with our environment and the demands we encounter within it, even preemptively so such that we are contorting ourselves to demands which no one is actually making of us. This is part of all childhood experience, as I understand Winnicott, with the difference being the degree to which the false self crowds out the true self and how deeply embedded the legacy of this becomes in adult life and with what consequences.
The problem I see is the tacitly essentialist register of ‘true self’ and ‘false self’. Not only does it lend itself so readily to simplification, such that we might simply seek to replace the (bad) ‘false self’ with the (good) ‘true self’, it fails to register the dynamic character of the process which is being captured. As I understand it these are more like psychic sources which become more or less integrated into the structure of our quotidian engagement with the world around us: the source of spontaneous and creative action which keeps us rooted in the present and the anticipatory and fearful action which is orientated to the future. It’s untenable to live entirely in the first mode as an adult so it’s more a question of how readily accessible that source is and how much it infuses our interaction with others and the world around us. Likewise the second mode provides a necessary feature for survival in an unpredictable world but it can squeeze out the possibility for authentic relating such that it makes any relating in the first mode untenable. Everything becomes about projection, performance and preparation rather than simply being and doing. The tension isn’t a one-time trade off, particularly outside of clinical settings, but rather a life long struggle between two modes that are essential to being human and thriving in a complex and open world. This is why I like so much Christopher Bollas who talks about this as an idiom:
Winnicott’s important statement that the true self is the inherited ‘personality potential’. From my point of view, this is exactly what it is: a complex inherited core of personality present at birth, an idiom of being and relating that will evolve and become activated according to the infant’s experience of the mother.
Essential Aloneness, loc 395
The other main quality of the true self is ‘spontaneity’: the gesture made real. We see somebody we would like to talk to, and we approach them and introduce ourselves. This is the gesture made real. If we merely think about doing this but we don’t actually move towards the person, the gesture is accomplished only as an inner mental representation. So one of the ways to evaluate the evolution of an individual’s true self is to note the extent to which their gestures have been made real.
Essential Aloneness, loc 407
It’s this movement from internal towards external gesture which is mediated by caregivers who meet the infant’s developing idiom and support its elaboration. For Bollas our personal idiom is defined through such elaboration as we relate to objects, including crucially cultural objects, in a manner which unfolds a particular sense in which I’m this person relating to these objects in this specific way. I develop my own specific idiom through the objects I select, how I engage with them and the way I’m changed in the process. There are objects which, as he puts it in Being a Character, act as ‘keys’ which unlock elements of our idiom:
Certain objects, like psychic “keys,” open doors to unconsciously intense—and rich—experience in which we articulate the self that we are through the elaborating character of our response. This selection constitutes the jouissance of the true self, a bliss released through the finding of specific objects that free idiom to its articulation.
Loc 208
The people we feel an affinity with. The places we find we belong. The music which moves us. The books which leave us changed after reading. As he puts it in Hysteria loc 100:
So each self will find particular individuals more attractive than others, will find certain actual objects — works of fiction, pieces of music, hobbies, recreational interests — of more interest than others, and in the course of living a life will have constructed a world which, although holding objects in common with other selves, will have shaped them into a form as unique as their fingerprint.
To be a ‘true self’ involves living in a way that is consistent with our idiom. This also means living in a way that calls for the continual elaboration of our idiom because to live with it consistently involves a continual encounter with objects that provoke this potential through their relations. The objects call forth experiences in us, activate potential that were previously latent, leaving us changed in all manner of ways. This I think is what is at work when cultural bingeing is edifying rather than deadening, a sense of being immersed in something that moves you rather than being caught in the circuits of drive to avoid something else. Indeed I’m currently bingeing on Bollas because I’m finding things here which express my idiom, particularly in the intellectual register of the sociological account of psychodynamics I’ve inarticulately groped towards over a long period of time. There is something about how I see the world, as well as how I want to account for what I see, which is being elaborated through reading his work. In doing so I’m changed in a manner which is deeply satisfying.
It suggests to me that cultural engagement can be a crucial source of connection to spontaneity. To write because you have the ‘feel of an idea’ (in my favourite phrase of C Wright Mills) rather than because you want to elicit a response in your readers. To read something because it’s gripping you rather than because you want to be someone seen to read things like that or to be someone who has read it. To listen to what moves you and leaves you feeling alive in the immersion. In the jouissance associated with these experiences we connect to something fundamental in ourselves: our personal idiom or ‘true self’. That enjoyment can be rich and generative because it touches something fundamental about who we are. Why am I the person so moved by this music? Why am I the person so fascinated by this author? It follows from Bollas that I think we ought to sit with these experiences, to linger in them so that we can sensitise ourselves to what is at work in them without allowing analysis to substitute for immersion. It’s how to really enjoy cultural engagement but it also has a broader psychic significance as a manner in which we connect with ourselves and what matters to us.
It’s less clear to me though what this means interpersonally. There’s a greater complexity to our object relating with people because they are, well… people. They too have their own idiom. The ruthlessness in object relating which Winnicott argued was essential to our psychic development becomes potential sources of harm in our relating with others. But conversely the fear of hurting others can be a stifling constraint on the possibility of authentic relating. The term which comes to mind here is atmosphere: the space that exists interpersonally and what it means for the possible expressions of idiom in the reciprocal relating that takes place. It’s also the question of what’s energising and what isn’t. How does it feel to be-with a particular person? Do you come across feeling energised or depleted? Do you feel elaborated or diminished? Do you feel sharper edged or somehow blurry? The complexity arises because relating in terms of our personal idiom can be genuinely harmful for the other. Indeed as Mate observes attachment and authenticity often cannot be reconciled. But there’s something here I think about finding who your people are as a matter of converging idioms and the atmosphere which prevails as a consequence of this convergence.
#christopherBollas #falseSelf #gaborMate #objectRelations #relating #trueSelf #Winnicott
-
Saying a lie a 1000 times does not make it true.
Just as 1000 people saying the lie also does not make it true.
And then there's this ...
Liar Paradox
"The first sentence in this essay is a lie.
There is something odd about saying so, as has been known since ancient times. To see why, remember that all lies are untrue. Is the first sentence true? If it is, then it is a lie, and so it is not true. Conversely, suppose that it is not true.
..."An interesting read, from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liar-paradox/
-
Saying a lie a 1000 times does not make it true.
Just as 1000 people saying the lie also does not make it true.
And then there's this ...
Liar Paradox
"The first sentence in this essay is a lie.
There is something odd about saying so, as has been known since ancient times. To see why, remember that all lies are untrue. Is the first sentence true? If it is, then it is a lie, and so it is not true. Conversely, suppose that it is not true.
..."An interesting read, from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liar-paradox/
-
@jannem @rayckeith … worse yet is the FOMO (from professional coaches!): "You have to use AI or get left behind!" 🤦♀️
Our profession is deeply human: intuitive, empathetic, sensing between the words, things the speaker cannot see themself.
That's what my clients value in our work. Oh and also, the courage to challenge them, to call clients on the out-of-date or untrue stories they tell themselves. No "agreeable" chatbot gives them that.
-
#RFK Jr. blames pills—not guns—for #schoolshootings
#Kennedy is now using his post as the highest-ranking #US health official to spread the claim that #psychiatric drugs are a key cause of mass shootings at the nation’s schools and beyond. The idea, essentially, is that #antidepressants and other meds may inadvertently turn people into killers. There is no scientific evidence to support that theory—and extensive research indicates it is untrue.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/12/rfk-jr-mass-shootings-ssri-antidepressants/ -
By #UnitedAmericanIndiansOfNewEngland (#UAINE) Updated November 22, 2025 - #Resist!
"Since 1970, Indigenous people & their allies have gathered at noon on Cole’s Hill in Plymouth to commemorate a National Day of Mourning on the US Thanksgiving holiday. Many Native people do not celebrate the arrival of the Pilgrims & other European settlers. Thanksgiving Day is a reminder of the genocide of millions of Native people, the theft of Native lands and the erasure of Native cultures. Participants in National Day of Mourning honor Indigenous ancestors and Native resilience. It is a day of remembrance and spiritual connection, as well as a protest against the racism and oppression that Indigenous people continue to experience worldwide.
National Day of Mourning
Thursday, November 27, 2025
12:00 Noon
Cole’s Hill (above #PlymouthRock), #PlymouthMAJoin us as we continue to create a true awareness of Native peoples and history. Help shatter the untrue image of the Pilgrims, and the unjust system based on #WhiteSupremacy, #SettlerColonialism, #sexism, #homophobia and the profit-driven destruction of the Earth that they and other European settlers introduced to these shores.
#Solidarity with #IndigenousStruggles throughout the world!
From #TurtleIsland to #Palestine, #Colonialism is a Crime!
While many supporters will attend in person, we will also Livestream the event from Plymouth.
United American Indians of New England (decolonizing since 1970)
[email protected] * #UAINENo sit-down social, but box lunches will be available.
Masks required.What is National Day of Mourning?
An annual tradition since 1970, National Day of Mourning is a solemn, spiritual and highly political day. Many of us fast from sundown the day before through the afternoon of that day (and have a social after #NDOM so that participants in NDOM can break their fasts). We are mourning our ancestors and the #genocide of our peoples and the theft of our lands. NDOM is a day when we mourn, but we also feel our strength in action and solidarity.
When and where is Day of Mourning?
Thursday, November 27, 2025 (U.S. “thanksgiving” day) at Cole’s Hill, Plymouth, Massachusetts, 12 noon SHARP. Cole’s Hill is the hill above Plymouth Rock in the Plymouth historic waterfront area. The rallies and marches will last until approximately 3 pm.
Will there be a march?
Yes, there will be a march through the historic district of Plymouth. Plymouth agreed, as part of the settlement of 10/19/98, that UAINE may march on National Day of Mourning without the need for a permit as long as we give the town advance notice.
Program
Although we very much welcome our non-Native supporters to join us, it is a day when only Indigenous people speak about our history and the struggles that are taking place throughout the Americas. Speakers are by invitation only. This year’s NDOM will be livestreamed from Plymouth.
Note that NDOM is not a powwow or commercial event, so we ask that people do not sell merchandise or distribute leaflets at the outdoor program. We will have UAINE t-shirts available for sale following the march.
We also ask that you do not eat (unless you must do so for medical reasons) at the outdoor speak-out and march out of respect for the participants who are fasting.
Dress for the weather!Social
There will be box lunches available for distribution after the march (turkey and vegan), but we will not have a full sit-down social.
Livestream
If you cannot get to Plymouth, you can watch ourlivestream!"
FMI - https://popularresistance.org/national-day-of-mourning-2/
Link to livestream:
https://www.youtube.com/live/6u-jF6pHDBg#NativeAmericanActivism #DayOfMourning #Solidarity #WeWillContinue #PlymouthRock
#Wampanoag #FrankJames #FrankWamsuttaJames
#SettlerColonialism #IndigenousHistory
#AmericanHistory #Mayflower
#ThanksgivingMyth #InTheSpiritOfMetacom #LGBTQ #TwoSpirits #MMIWG #LandBack #Resistance #ProtectMotherEarth #FreePalestine #CorporateColonialism #Capitalism #NoMiningWithoutConsent #WaterIsLife #LandIsLife #LeaveItInTheGround #ColonialismIsACrime #IndigenousResistance #DefendTheSacred #ManifestDestiny -
By #UnitedAmericanIndiansOfNewEngland (#UAINE) Updated November 22, 2025 - #Resist!
"Since 1970, Indigenous people & their allies have gathered at noon on Cole’s Hill in Plymouth to commemorate a National Day of Mourning on the US Thanksgiving holiday. Many Native people do not celebrate the arrival of the Pilgrims & other European settlers. Thanksgiving Day is a reminder of the genocide of millions of Native people, the theft of Native lands and the erasure of Native cultures. Participants in National Day of Mourning honor Indigenous ancestors and Native resilience. It is a day of remembrance and spiritual connection, as well as a protest against the racism and oppression that Indigenous people continue to experience worldwide.
National Day of Mourning
Thursday, November 27, 2025
12:00 Noon
Cole’s Hill (above #PlymouthRock), #PlymouthMAJoin us as we continue to create a true awareness of Native peoples and history. Help shatter the untrue image of the Pilgrims, and the unjust system based on #WhiteSupremacy, #SettlerColonialism, #sexism, #homophobia and the profit-driven destruction of the Earth that they and other European settlers introduced to these shores.
#Solidarity with #IndigenousStruggles throughout the world!
From #TurtleIsland to #Palestine, #Colonialism is a Crime!
While many supporters will attend in person, we will also Livestream the event from Plymouth.
United American Indians of New England (decolonizing since 1970)
[email protected] * #UAINENo sit-down social, but box lunches will be available.
Masks required.What is National Day of Mourning?
An annual tradition since 1970, National Day of Mourning is a solemn, spiritual and highly political day. Many of us fast from sundown the day before through the afternoon of that day (and have a social after #NDOM so that participants in NDOM can break their fasts). We are mourning our ancestors and the #genocide of our peoples and the theft of our lands. NDOM is a day when we mourn, but we also feel our strength in action and solidarity.
When and where is Day of Mourning?
Thursday, November 27, 2025 (U.S. “thanksgiving” day) at Cole’s Hill, Plymouth, Massachusetts, 12 noon SHARP. Cole’s Hill is the hill above Plymouth Rock in the Plymouth historic waterfront area. The rallies and marches will last until approximately 3 pm.
Will there be a march?
Yes, there will be a march through the historic district of Plymouth. Plymouth agreed, as part of the settlement of 10/19/98, that UAINE may march on National Day of Mourning without the need for a permit as long as we give the town advance notice.
Program
Although we very much welcome our non-Native supporters to join us, it is a day when only Indigenous people speak about our history and the struggles that are taking place throughout the Americas. Speakers are by invitation only. This year’s NDOM will be livestreamed from Plymouth.
Note that NDOM is not a powwow or commercial event, so we ask that people do not sell merchandise or distribute leaflets at the outdoor program. We will have UAINE t-shirts available for sale following the march.
We also ask that you do not eat (unless you must do so for medical reasons) at the outdoor speak-out and march out of respect for the participants who are fasting.
Dress for the weather!Social
There will be box lunches available for distribution after the march (turkey and vegan), but we will not have a full sit-down social.
Livestream
If you cannot get to Plymouth, you can watch ourlivestream!"
FMI - https://popularresistance.org/national-day-of-mourning-2/
Link to livestream:
https://www.youtube.com/live/6u-jF6pHDBg#NativeAmericanActivism #DayOfMourning #Solidarity #WeWillContinue #PlymouthRock
#Wampanoag #FrankJames #FrankWamsuttaJames
#SettlerColonialism #IndigenousHistory
#AmericanHistory #Mayflower
#ThanksgivingMyth #InTheSpiritOfMetacom #LGBTQ #TwoSpirits #MMIWG #LandBack #Resistance #ProtectMotherEarth #FreePalestine #CorporateColonialism #Capitalism #NoMiningWithoutConsent #WaterIsLife #LandIsLife #LeaveItInTheGround #ColonialismIsACrime #IndigenousResistance #DefendTheSacred #ManifestDestiny -
By #UnitedAmericanIndiansOfNewEngland (#UAINE) Updated November 22, 2025 - #Resist!
"Since 1970, Indigenous people & their allies have gathered at noon on Cole’s Hill in Plymouth to commemorate a National Day of Mourning on the US Thanksgiving holiday. Many Native people do not celebrate the arrival of the Pilgrims & other European settlers. Thanksgiving Day is a reminder of the genocide of millions of Native people, the theft of Native lands and the erasure of Native cultures. Participants in National Day of Mourning honor Indigenous ancestors and Native resilience. It is a day of remembrance and spiritual connection, as well as a protest against the racism and oppression that Indigenous people continue to experience worldwide.
National Day of Mourning
Thursday, November 27, 2025
12:00 Noon
Cole’s Hill (above #PlymouthRock), #PlymouthMAJoin us as we continue to create a true awareness of Native peoples and history. Help shatter the untrue image of the Pilgrims, and the unjust system based on #WhiteSupremacy, #SettlerColonialism, #sexism, #homophobia and the profit-driven destruction of the Earth that they and other European settlers introduced to these shores.
#Solidarity with #IndigenousStruggles throughout the world!
From #TurtleIsland to #Palestine, #Colonialism is a Crime!
While many supporters will attend in person, we will also Livestream the event from Plymouth.
United American Indians of New England (decolonizing since 1970)
[email protected] * #UAINENo sit-down social, but box lunches will be available.
Masks required.What is National Day of Mourning?
An annual tradition since 1970, National Day of Mourning is a solemn, spiritual and highly political day. Many of us fast from sundown the day before through the afternoon of that day (and have a social after #NDOM so that participants in NDOM can break their fasts). We are mourning our ancestors and the #genocide of our peoples and the theft of our lands. NDOM is a day when we mourn, but we also feel our strength in action and solidarity.
When and where is Day of Mourning?
Thursday, November 27, 2025 (U.S. “thanksgiving” day) at Cole’s Hill, Plymouth, Massachusetts, 12 noon SHARP. Cole’s Hill is the hill above Plymouth Rock in the Plymouth historic waterfront area. The rallies and marches will last until approximately 3 pm.
Will there be a march?
Yes, there will be a march through the historic district of Plymouth. Plymouth agreed, as part of the settlement of 10/19/98, that UAINE may march on National Day of Mourning without the need for a permit as long as we give the town advance notice.
Program
Although we very much welcome our non-Native supporters to join us, it is a day when only Indigenous people speak about our history and the struggles that are taking place throughout the Americas. Speakers are by invitation only. This year’s NDOM will be livestreamed from Plymouth.
Note that NDOM is not a powwow or commercial event, so we ask that people do not sell merchandise or distribute leaflets at the outdoor program. We will have UAINE t-shirts available for sale following the march.
We also ask that you do not eat (unless you must do so for medical reasons) at the outdoor speak-out and march out of respect for the participants who are fasting.
Dress for the weather!Social
There will be box lunches available for distribution after the march (turkey and vegan), but we will not have a full sit-down social.
Livestream
If you cannot get to Plymouth, you can watch ourlivestream!"
FMI - https://popularresistance.org/national-day-of-mourning-2/
Link to livestream:
https://www.youtube.com/live/6u-jF6pHDBg#NativeAmericanActivism #DayOfMourning #Solidarity #WeWillContinue #PlymouthRock
#Wampanoag #FrankJames #FrankWamsuttaJames
#SettlerColonialism #IndigenousHistory
#AmericanHistory #Mayflower
#ThanksgivingMyth #InTheSpiritOfMetacom #LGBTQ #TwoSpirits #MMIWG #LandBack #Resistance #ProtectMotherEarth #FreePalestine #CorporateColonialism #Capitalism #NoMiningWithoutConsent #WaterIsLife #LandIsLife #LeaveItInTheGround #ColonialismIsACrime #IndigenousResistance #DefendTheSacred #ManifestDestiny -
By #UnitedAmericanIndiansOfNewEngland (#UAINE) Updated November 22, 2025 - #Resist!
"Since 1970, Indigenous people & their allies have gathered at noon on Cole’s Hill in Plymouth to commemorate a National Day of Mourning on the US Thanksgiving holiday. Many Native people do not celebrate the arrival of the Pilgrims & other European settlers. Thanksgiving Day is a reminder of the genocide of millions of Native people, the theft of Native lands and the erasure of Native cultures. Participants in National Day of Mourning honor Indigenous ancestors and Native resilience. It is a day of remembrance and spiritual connection, as well as a protest against the racism and oppression that Indigenous people continue to experience worldwide.
National Day of Mourning
Thursday, November 27, 2025
12:00 Noon
Cole’s Hill (above #PlymouthRock), #PlymouthMAJoin us as we continue to create a true awareness of Native peoples and history. Help shatter the untrue image of the Pilgrims, and the unjust system based on #WhiteSupremacy, #SettlerColonialism, #sexism, #homophobia and the profit-driven destruction of the Earth that they and other European settlers introduced to these shores.
#Solidarity with #IndigenousStruggles throughout the world!
From #TurtleIsland to #Palestine, #Colonialism is a Crime!
While many supporters will attend in person, we will also Livestream the event from Plymouth.
United American Indians of New England (decolonizing since 1970)
[email protected] * #UAINENo sit-down social, but box lunches will be available.
Masks required.What is National Day of Mourning?
An annual tradition since 1970, National Day of Mourning is a solemn, spiritual and highly political day. Many of us fast from sundown the day before through the afternoon of that day (and have a social after #NDOM so that participants in NDOM can break their fasts). We are mourning our ancestors and the #genocide of our peoples and the theft of our lands. NDOM is a day when we mourn, but we also feel our strength in action and solidarity.
When and where is Day of Mourning?
Thursday, November 27, 2025 (U.S. “thanksgiving” day) at Cole’s Hill, Plymouth, Massachusetts, 12 noon SHARP. Cole’s Hill is the hill above Plymouth Rock in the Plymouth historic waterfront area. The rallies and marches will last until approximately 3 pm.
Will there be a march?
Yes, there will be a march through the historic district of Plymouth. Plymouth agreed, as part of the settlement of 10/19/98, that UAINE may march on National Day of Mourning without the need for a permit as long as we give the town advance notice.
Program
Although we very much welcome our non-Native supporters to join us, it is a day when only Indigenous people speak about our history and the struggles that are taking place throughout the Americas. Speakers are by invitation only. This year’s NDOM will be livestreamed from Plymouth.
Note that NDOM is not a powwow or commercial event, so we ask that people do not sell merchandise or distribute leaflets at the outdoor program. We will have UAINE t-shirts available for sale following the march.
We also ask that you do not eat (unless you must do so for medical reasons) at the outdoor speak-out and march out of respect for the participants who are fasting.
Dress for the weather!Social
There will be box lunches available for distribution after the march (turkey and vegan), but we will not have a full sit-down social.
Livestream
If you cannot get to Plymouth, you can watch ourlivestream!"
FMI - https://popularresistance.org/national-day-of-mourning-2/
Link to livestream:
https://www.youtube.com/live/6u-jF6pHDBg#NativeAmericanActivism #DayOfMourning #Solidarity #WeWillContinue #PlymouthRock
#Wampanoag #FrankJames #FrankWamsuttaJames
#SettlerColonialism #IndigenousHistory
#AmericanHistory #Mayflower
#ThanksgivingMyth #InTheSpiritOfMetacom #LGBTQ #TwoSpirits #MMIWG #LandBack #Resistance #ProtectMotherEarth #FreePalestine #CorporateColonialism #Capitalism #NoMiningWithoutConsent #WaterIsLife #LandIsLife #LeaveItInTheGround #ColonialismIsACrime #IndigenousResistance #DefendTheSacred #ManifestDestiny -
By #UnitedAmericanIndiansOfNewEngland (#UAINE) Updated November 22, 2025 - #Resist!
"Since 1970, Indigenous people & their allies have gathered at noon on Cole’s Hill in Plymouth to commemorate a National Day of Mourning on the US Thanksgiving holiday. Many Native people do not celebrate the arrival of the Pilgrims & other European settlers. Thanksgiving Day is a reminder of the genocide of millions of Native people, the theft of Native lands and the erasure of Native cultures. Participants in National Day of Mourning honor Indigenous ancestors and Native resilience. It is a day of remembrance and spiritual connection, as well as a protest against the racism and oppression that Indigenous people continue to experience worldwide.
National Day of Mourning
Thursday, November 27, 2025
12:00 Noon
Cole’s Hill (above #PlymouthRock), #PlymouthMAJoin us as we continue to create a true awareness of Native peoples and history. Help shatter the untrue image of the Pilgrims, and the unjust system based on #WhiteSupremacy, #SettlerColonialism, #sexism, #homophobia and the profit-driven destruction of the Earth that they and other European settlers introduced to these shores.
#Solidarity with #IndigenousStruggles throughout the world!
From #TurtleIsland to #Palestine, #Colonialism is a Crime!
While many supporters will attend in person, we will also Livestream the event from Plymouth.
United American Indians of New England (decolonizing since 1970)
[email protected] * #UAINENo sit-down social, but box lunches will be available.
Masks required.What is National Day of Mourning?
An annual tradition since 1970, National Day of Mourning is a solemn, spiritual and highly political day. Many of us fast from sundown the day before through the afternoon of that day (and have a social after #NDOM so that participants in NDOM can break their fasts). We are mourning our ancestors and the #genocide of our peoples and the theft of our lands. NDOM is a day when we mourn, but we also feel our strength in action and solidarity.
When and where is Day of Mourning?
Thursday, November 27, 2025 (U.S. “thanksgiving” day) at Cole’s Hill, Plymouth, Massachusetts, 12 noon SHARP. Cole’s Hill is the hill above Plymouth Rock in the Plymouth historic waterfront area. The rallies and marches will last until approximately 3 pm.
Will there be a march?
Yes, there will be a march through the historic district of Plymouth. Plymouth agreed, as part of the settlement of 10/19/98, that UAINE may march on National Day of Mourning without the need for a permit as long as we give the town advance notice.
Program
Although we very much welcome our non-Native supporters to join us, it is a day when only Indigenous people speak about our history and the struggles that are taking place throughout the Americas. Speakers are by invitation only. This year’s NDOM will be livestreamed from Plymouth.
Note that NDOM is not a powwow or commercial event, so we ask that people do not sell merchandise or distribute leaflets at the outdoor program. We will have UAINE t-shirts available for sale following the march.
We also ask that you do not eat (unless you must do so for medical reasons) at the outdoor speak-out and march out of respect for the participants who are fasting.
Dress for the weather!Social
There will be box lunches available for distribution after the march (turkey and vegan), but we will not have a full sit-down social.
Livestream
If you cannot get to Plymouth, you can watch ourlivestream!"
FMI - https://popularresistance.org/national-day-of-mourning-2/
Link to livestream:
https://www.youtube.com/live/6u-jF6pHDBg#NativeAmericanActivism #DayOfMourning #Solidarity #WeWillContinue #PlymouthRock
#Wampanoag #FrankJames #FrankWamsuttaJames
#SettlerColonialism #IndigenousHistory
#AmericanHistory #Mayflower
#ThanksgivingMyth #InTheSpiritOfMetacom #LGBTQ #TwoSpirits #MMIWG #LandBack #Resistance #ProtectMotherEarth #FreePalestine #CorporateColonialism #Capitalism #NoMiningWithoutConsent #WaterIsLife #LandIsLife #LeaveItInTheGround #ColonialismIsACrime #IndigenousResistance #DefendTheSacred #ManifestDestiny -
If you're annoyed at the demands for content warnings, tone policing and general HOA culture here on fedi, then you understand the problem people have with wokeism and cancel culture. Same with demanding that servers or bridges letting people access bad people or ideas be cut off.
How did we share the web this long without attacking the untrue and offensive content there that we might stumble upon? Somehow we all decided it was ok and ventured beyond AOL...
-
Finally Friday Reads: No Kings
“I’m for No Kings.” John Buss, @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
Tomorrow, we will likely see the biggest nationwide protest in our country’s history. This will be the second “No Kings” peaceful assembly this summer. We will undoubtedly view huge protests in America’s cities as well as smaller ones in towns and rural areas. Already, Despot Donnie’s Deplorable collaborators are trying to frame the movement in the most unflattering and untrue manner possible. I’m looking forward to joining my patriotic friends here in New Orleans from the Lafitte Greenway. We are one of 10 anchor cities. Let’s hope the media is up to its role in preserving democracy. I understand that the Portland Frogs, Unicorns, et al will be represented.
This is from Garrett M. Graff writing at his column at Doomsday Scenario. “Three Reasons I Still Have Hope for America. This weekend’s “No Kings” rallies stand as an important corrective amid a dark moment.”
Saturday’s national “No Kings” protests seem likely to be huge, and the Trump administration appears especially concerned and worried about the public backlash it’s facing this weekend. House Speaker Mike Johnson is railing against as them as a “hate America rally,” while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent bloviated this week, “No kings equals no paychecks,” a message so dumb, out-of-touch, and wrong that it almost sounds like a tweet from Chuck Schumer’s social media team. Even Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy got into the complaining-in-advance act, which for me only underscored that the inner circle of would-be King Donald’s administration is legitimately concerned about a real on-the-ground resistance movement. “The GOP’s desperation meter is at DEFCON 1,” Jill Lawrence wrote.
To me — as someone who cares deeply about the future of American democracy — the rallies stand as an important expression of love for the United States and the idea and dream that the US has represented for 250 years.
I’ve written over the last three months about how the United States has tipped into authoritarianism — we’ve crossed an invisible line never crossed before in our history — but that slide is not necessarily permanent nor irreversible, and I hope that this weekend’s “No Kings” protests will someday be looked back upon as a turning point when the public anger’s and resistance to fascism began to boil.
Graff’s column continues by listing and elucidating three points.
1. People — There are more of us than there are of them.
2. History — America’s progress has always been imperfect.
3. Actuarial — Trump won’t last forever, which means “Trumpism” will fall.
You may read the logic behind his arguments at the link. Meanwhile, Andrew Egger–writing for The Bulwark–describes the desperation inherent in the MAGA response to the protests. “A Noun, A Verb, and Antifa.”
“Those who love Trump are the devout, virtuous patriots that must be protected no matter what; those who hate him are the vile demons who must be destroyed by any weapon to hand.”
It’s been plain for a while that this axiom is the central guiding tenet of MAGA philosophy. But this week, we really got to see just how all-encompassing that rule is.
Last Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson kicked off a small scandal by describing the “No Kings” protests that will take place across the country tomorrow as a “hate America rally” run by “the pro-Hamas wing and Antifa people.” This week, those claims became the centerpiece of GOP messaging about the protests. Yesterday, multiple Republicans senators—John Barrasso on the Senate floor and Steve Daines on Fox News—denounced the protests as a “hate America rally.” On Wednesday, Sen. Ted Cruz said he had introduced legislation to allow the Justice Department to target the funders of “these rallies, which may well turn into riots” for racketeering charges. Attorney General Pam Bondi continues to make the case that protesters carrying matching, professionally printed signs is proof they’re secretly Antifa. And Karoline Leavitt said yesterday, while speaking about the New York City mayoral race, that “the Democrat Party’s main constituency are made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.”
As we keep saying: The “No Kings” protests that took place in June were nothing like what these Republicans are describing. They were peaceful, patriotic, and overwhelmingly normie-coded: a bunch of regular people taking to the streets to exercise their right to object to the ongoing depredations of an authoritarian administration. Organizers held deescalation trainings—as they have done again this week—and instructed protesters to distance themselves from anyone who seemed like they were there to cause trouble. As a result, the mammoth protests went off pretty much without a hitch.
This Saturday’s “No Kings” protests are likely to again be the beau idéal of what peaceful protests should be. But they’ll also be anti-Trump, so Republicans are compelled to denounce attendees as anti-American troublemakers who are probably also paid actors and Antifa terrorists.
I guess both Soros and Antifa are supposed to be writing checks to the millions of us marching. I’d like to meet a rube that actually believes that. Jill Lawrence has this critique at MSNBC’s website’s Op-Eds. “The fear driving Trump and the GOP’s attacks on the ‘No Kings’ rallies. Republicans’ fictional portrait is part of a strategy to stop the resistance before it flexes its growing power.”
You might find this hard to believe, but Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans are making stuff up. This is a go-to move when they fear their power and corrupt authoritarian plans are at risk, and that’s happening a lot lately. Now, with millions of people signed up to attend thousands of “No Kings” demonstrations Saturday across America, the GOP’s desperation meter is at DEFCON 1.
The alarm is clear from the overwrought Republican leaders spouting hallucinatory talking points in which “No Kings” protests become “‘Hate America’ rallies.” They are weaving a tale of extremists, terrorists, Marxists, agitators, “the pro-Hamas crowd” (House Speaker Mike Johnson’s phrase), and professional protesters supposedly paid by billionaire George Soros. It’s straight-up fearmongering.
In truth, anti-Trump protests, like the first “No Kings” demonstrations earlier this year, have drawn people of all backgrounds, united not by payment but by their deep concern — even despair — about what’s happening to their country. Some may show up this weekend wearing inflatable costumes as frogs, chickens, bears, dinosaurs or unicorns, as they have in Portland, Oregon, and outside Chicago. In D.C., we might once again see and hear a trombonist with the stage name Michael McTrouserpants.
Whoever attends, there will undoubtedly be countless signs and flags. Some of them admittedly, will bear impolite messages, but none of this protest is in any way evil or illegal or, as Johnson argues, “an outrageous gathering for outrageous purposes.” Peaceful protest is a constitutional right enshrined in the First Amendment — and peaceful protest is almost entirely what we’ve seen. Harvard’s Crowd Counting Consortium project reported that less than 0.5% of the first No Kings demonstrations on June 14 — one of the largest single-day protests in U.S. history — had injuries or property damage.
While the president and his allies have been known to revel in violence against Trump’s political opponents, the No Kings website features links to primers on safety, de-escalation, and “sacred” religious protest traditions, and this stern warning: “A core principle behind all No Kings events is a commitment to nonviolent action. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events. Weapons of any kind, including those legally permitted, should not be brought to events.”
The New Yorker‘s Susan B. Glasser argues that the press are complicit. “Donald Trump’s Dream Palace of Puffery. The Pentagon’s ban on real journalism looks to be a preview of where the White House is headed.” They’re enabling the liar-in-chief to ensure access.
But tough questions for Trump are now few and fewer, even as he spends more and more time in front of the cameras in what has become America’s first live-streamed Presidency. Consider what happened on Tuesday, when a reporter from ABC News tried to ask Trump a question. Before the journalist could get her query out, the President cut her off. “You’re ABC fake news,” he said. “I don’t want.” He did not bother to disguise the reason, either: simple retaliation. “I don’t take questions from ABC fake news after what you did with Stephanopoulos to the Vice-President of the United States,” he said, referring to a contentious interview last Sunday between ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Vice-President J. D. Vance.
Instead, Trump called on Brian Glenn, the chief White House correspondent of an all-Trump, all-the-time news outlet called Real America’s Voice. Glenn is rarely listed on the official White House press-pool roster, yet he manages to make it into restricted events with the President nearly every day. This spring, he bragged to the Times of London, “My job as a conservative journalist is to ask questions that highlight the good things that he’s doing for this country—that a lot of the media outlets in there simply won’t ask.” On Tuesday, he eagerly stepped in when Trump rejected the ABC reporter. But, rather than ask a question, he started with a compliment. “First of all, congratulations on achieving peace,” he told Trump. “You are indeed the peacemaker.”
The President then interrupted him. “Did you ever think I was going to be called the peacemaker?”
Glenn replied, “Actually, I did.”
His question, when he got around to it, was about Alyssa Farah, a former aide in Trump’s first-term White House who is now a co-host of the popular ABC daytime talk show “The View” and a vocal critic of Trump’s. According to Glenn, Farah had promised to wear a Make America Great Again hat on TV if he actually managed to secure the release of Israeli hostages being held in Gaza, but she had not yet done so. After explaining all this to the President, his query to Trump was just two words: “Your response?”
A day later, Glenn was back in front of Trump, at a press conference featuring the President and the director of the F.B.I., Kash Patel. The event’s news, among other things, was Trump complaining that law-enforcement agencies should investigate and prosecute more of his political enemies and confirming that he had secretly ordered the C.I.A. to carry out operations inside Venezuela. Glenn, however, wanted to make a point about one of Trump’s longtime preoccupations—what the President calls the “rigged election” of 2020. “By the way, you won Georgia three times,” Glenn shouted over other reporters trying to ask questions. Ed O’Keefe, of CBS News, standing in front of Glenn, could be seen shaking his head with what appeared to be exasperation. It was the last part of the exchange that really stood out, though. In response to Glenn, Trump said, “Yeah, I agree. Do you agree with me?” After Glenn replied, “I do,” the President quickly jumped back in: “And he’s the media! He’s the media!”
Excuse me while I vomit. Don Holmeyer writing at LiberalCurrents introduces the nail to the hammer. “The Pro-Massacre, Pro-Segregation, Pro-Eugenics Administration. The Trump administration is seeking to rewind the clock on an entire century of legal—and moral—progress.”
Take civil rights, particularly the decades-long, organized push to end Jim Crow discrimination in voting, housing, schooling and other legal arenas half a century ago. Trump et al. are dismantling its legacy piece by piece:
- In his first week back in office, Trump froze the Department of Justice’s pursuit of civil rights cases, including police reform agreements that followed officers’ killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.
- Also in the first week, Trump rescinded a 60-year-old executive order that banned racial and other discrimination in federal employment—one that was published by Lyndon B. Johnson just weeks after he signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
- In February, Trump fired the Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whom Hegseth pretends was hired only because of his race. Hegseth also proclaimed that “the single dumbest phrase in military history is ‘our diversity is our strength.’” It fits a broad pattern of removing Black leaders throughout the government and replacing them with white ones.
- In July, Attorney General Pam Bondi advised schools that essentially any deliberate effort to diversify their student bodies—not just considering race but also any factor, like income, that might correlate to race—would be considered illegal.
- In August, Trump declared the Smithsonian and other museums focused too much on “how bad Slavery was.”
- And in September, The New York Times reported that fair housing protections, which say you can’t block people from your apartments and houses because they’re a certain color (as Trump knows from personal experience), are being rolled back and ignored.
These are not the actions of a government that believes the right side triumphed in the Civil Rights Movement, that people of all skin colors belong in all spheres of public life, or that race doesn’t define one’s ability or worth. As Adam Serwer observed in February, we are in the midst of a “Great Resegregation.”
Our societal regression extends to public health as well. As the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest entered popular culture a century ago, they sprouted the eugenics movement. Eugenics was the high-society term for the idea that we should breed better humans and that worse humans—which usually meant poor, ill or darker-skinned—shouldn’t breed at all.
We may have our first insight into those s0-called drug ships that Trump’s ordered the Navy to sink. This is from Reuters’ Phil Stewart. “Exclusive: In a first, US strike in Caribbean leaves survivors, US official says.”
The U.S. military carried out a new strike on Thursday against a suspected drug vessel in the Caribbean, and in what is believed to be the first such case, there were survivors among the crew, a U.S. official told Reuters.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, did not offer additional details about the incident, which has not been previously reported, except to say that it was not clear that the strike had been designed to leave survivors.
The development raises new questions, including whether the U.S. military rendered aid to the survivors and whether they are now in U.S. military custody, possibly as prisoners of war.
The Pentagon, which has labeled those it has targeted in the strikes as narcoterrorists, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Prior to Thursday’s operation, U.S. military strikes against suspected drug boats off Venezuela killed at least 27 people, raising alarms among some legal experts and Democratic lawmakers, who question whether they adhere to the laws of war.
Videos presented by the Trump administration of previous attacks showed vessels being completely destroyed, and there have been no prior accounts of survivors afterwards.
So, Congress has declared no war but yet, we have prisoners of war now? War talk is a good time to bring up the Bolton indictment. This is from CNN’s Aaron Blake. “Why the Bolton indictment is different from the Comey and James cases.”
In Bolton’s case, there is less of a throughline between Trump’s conduct and the charges.
Yes, Bolton is also someone Trump spotlighted for prosecution, like Comey and James. As far back as 2020, Trump accused Bolton of breaking the law and warned there would be “a really big price to pay.”
“Now he will have bombs dropped on him!” Trump said.
But Trump doesn’t appear to have played a similar role in orchestrating the charges against Bolton, at least from what we know. He didn’t publicly push for the charges as much in recent weeks. And he certainly didn’t force out a prosecutor who resisted the charges before installing a loyalist who brought them, like he did in the Eastern District of Virginia (the site of the Comey and James cases).
The Bolton charges also were ultimately brought by experienced prosecutors, including US Attorney Kelly O. Hayes, who has served in the District of Maryland since 2013, and nonpartisan career prosecutor Tom Sullivan.
In Comey’s and James’s cases, Trump’s handpicked US Attorney Lindsey Halligan was essentially forced to bring the charges herself, after other prosecutors balked or were removed.
That Bolton is facing charges isn’t nearly as surprising. In fact, a federal judge back in 2020 basically warned of exactly that.
US District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled in Bolton’s favor in a civil case stemming from a dispute with the Trump administration over the publication of Bolton’s book. But Lamberth otherwise excoriated Bolton for his handling of classified information.
Lamberth said in his ruling that Bolton “likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations.”
That’s about all I can take today. Have a good weekend and just sit back and watch the protests and join on in wherever you are!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
RIP Ace Frehley
#JohnbussBskySocialJohnBuss #JohnBoltonIndictment #NoKingsDayProtests #WeakAssPress
-
Finally Friday Reads: No Kings
“I’m for No Kings.” John Buss, @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
Tomorrow, we will likely see the biggest nationwide protest in our country’s history. This will be the second “No Kings” peaceful assembly this summer. We will undoubtedly view huge protests in America’s cities as well as smaller ones in towns and rural areas. Already, Despot Donnie’s Deplorable collaborators are trying to frame the movement in the most unflattering and untrue manner possible. I’m looking forward to joining my patriotic friends here in New Orleans from the Lafitte Greenway. We are one of 10 anchor cities. Let’s hope the media is up to its role in preserving democracy. I understand that the Portland Frogs, Unicorns, et al will be represented.
This is from Garrett M. Graff writing at his column at Doomsday Scenario. “Three Reasons I Still Have Hope for America. This weekend’s “No Kings” rallies stand as an important corrective amid a dark moment.”
Saturday’s national “No Kings” protests seem likely to be huge, and the Trump administration appears especially concerned and worried about the public backlash it’s facing this weekend. House Speaker Mike Johnson is railing against as them as a “hate America rally,” while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent bloviated this week, “No kings equals no paychecks,” a message so dumb, out-of-touch, and wrong that it almost sounds like a tweet from Chuck Schumer’s social media team. Even Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy got into the complaining-in-advance act, which for me only underscored that the inner circle of would-be King Donald’s administration is legitimately concerned about a real on-the-ground resistance movement. “The GOP’s desperation meter is at DEFCON 1,” Jill Lawrence wrote.
To me — as someone who cares deeply about the future of American democracy — the rallies stand as an important expression of love for the United States and the idea and dream that the US has represented for 250 years.
I’ve written over the last three months about how the United States has tipped into authoritarianism — we’ve crossed an invisible line never crossed before in our history — but that slide is not necessarily permanent nor irreversible, and I hope that this weekend’s “No Kings” protests will someday be looked back upon as a turning point when the public anger’s and resistance to fascism began to boil.
Graff’s column continues by listing and elucidating three points.
1. People — There are more of us than there are of them.
2. History — America’s progress has always been imperfect.
3. Actuarial — Trump won’t last forever, which means “Trumpism” will fall.
You may read the logic behind his arguments at the link. Meanwhile, Andrew Egger–writing for The Bulwark–describes the desperation inherent in the MAGA response to the protests. “A Noun, A Verb, and Antifa.”
“Those who love Trump are the devout, virtuous patriots that must be protected no matter what; those who hate him are the vile demons who must be destroyed by any weapon to hand.”
It’s been plain for a while that this axiom is the central guiding tenet of MAGA philosophy. But this week, we really got to see just how all-encompassing that rule is.
Last Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson kicked off a small scandal by describing the “No Kings” protests that will take place across the country tomorrow as a “hate America rally” run by “the pro-Hamas wing and Antifa people.” This week, those claims became the centerpiece of GOP messaging about the protests. Yesterday, multiple Republicans senators—John Barrasso on the Senate floor and Steve Daines on Fox News—denounced the protests as a “hate America rally.” On Wednesday, Sen. Ted Cruz said he had introduced legislation to allow the Justice Department to target the funders of “these rallies, which may well turn into riots” for racketeering charges. Attorney General Pam Bondi continues to make the case that protesters carrying matching, professionally printed signs is proof they’re secretly Antifa. And Karoline Leavitt said yesterday, while speaking about the New York City mayoral race, that “the Democrat Party’s main constituency are made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.”
As we keep saying: The “No Kings” protests that took place in June were nothing like what these Republicans are describing. They were peaceful, patriotic, and overwhelmingly normie-coded: a bunch of regular people taking to the streets to exercise their right to object to the ongoing depredations of an authoritarian administration. Organizers held deescalation trainings—as they have done again this week—and instructed protesters to distance themselves from anyone who seemed like they were there to cause trouble. As a result, the mammoth protests went off pretty much without a hitch.
This Saturday’s “No Kings” protests are likely to again be the beau idéal of what peaceful protests should be. But they’ll also be anti-Trump, so Republicans are compelled to denounce attendees as anti-American troublemakers who are probably also paid actors and Antifa terrorists.
I guess both Soros and Antifa are supposed to be writing checks to the millions of us marching. I’d like to meet a rube that actually believes that. Jill Lawrence has this critique at MSNBC’s website’s Op-Eds. “The fear driving Trump and the GOP’s attacks on the ‘No Kings’ rallies. Republicans’ fictional portrait is part of a strategy to stop the resistance before it flexes its growing power.”
You might find this hard to believe, but Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans are making stuff up. This is a go-to move when they fear their power and corrupt authoritarian plans are at risk, and that’s happening a lot lately. Now, with millions of people signed up to attend thousands of “No Kings” demonstrations Saturday across America, the GOP’s desperation meter is at DEFCON 1.
The alarm is clear from the overwrought Republican leaders spouting hallucinatory talking points in which “No Kings” protests become “‘Hate America’ rallies.” They are weaving a tale of extremists, terrorists, Marxists, agitators, “the pro-Hamas crowd” (House Speaker Mike Johnson’s phrase), and professional protesters supposedly paid by billionaire George Soros. It’s straight-up fearmongering.
In truth, anti-Trump protests, like the first “No Kings” demonstrations earlier this year, have drawn people of all backgrounds, united not by payment but by their deep concern — even despair — about what’s happening to their country. Some may show up this weekend wearing inflatable costumes as frogs, chickens, bears, dinosaurs or unicorns, as they have in Portland, Oregon, and outside Chicago. In D.C., we might once again see and hear a trombonist with the stage name Michael McTrouserpants.
Whoever attends, there will undoubtedly be countless signs and flags. Some of them admittedly, will bear impolite messages, but none of this protest is in any way evil or illegal or, as Johnson argues, “an outrageous gathering for outrageous purposes.” Peaceful protest is a constitutional right enshrined in the First Amendment — and peaceful protest is almost entirely what we’ve seen. Harvard’s Crowd Counting Consortium project reported that less than 0.5% of the first No Kings demonstrations on June 14 — one of the largest single-day protests in U.S. history — had injuries or property damage.
While the president and his allies have been known to revel in violence against Trump’s political opponents, the No Kings website features links to primers on safety, de-escalation, and “sacred” religious protest traditions, and this stern warning: “A core principle behind all No Kings events is a commitment to nonviolent action. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events. Weapons of any kind, including those legally permitted, should not be brought to events.”
The New Yorker‘s Susan B. Glasser argues that the press are complicit. “Donald Trump’s Dream Palace of Puffery. The Pentagon’s ban on real journalism looks to be a preview of where the White House is headed.” They’re enabling the liar-in-chief to ensure access.
But tough questions for Trump are now few and fewer, even as he spends more and more time in front of the cameras in what has become America’s first live-streamed Presidency. Consider what happened on Tuesday, when a reporter from ABC News tried to ask Trump a question. Before the journalist could get her query out, the President cut her off. “You’re ABC fake news,” he said. “I don’t want.” He did not bother to disguise the reason, either: simple retaliation. “I don’t take questions from ABC fake news after what you did with Stephanopoulos to the Vice-President of the United States,” he said, referring to a contentious interview last Sunday between ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Vice-President J. D. Vance.
Instead, Trump called on Brian Glenn, the chief White House correspondent of an all-Trump, all-the-time news outlet called Real America’s Voice. Glenn is rarely listed on the official White House press-pool roster, yet he manages to make it into restricted events with the President nearly every day. This spring, he bragged to the Times of London, “My job as a conservative journalist is to ask questions that highlight the good things that he’s doing for this country—that a lot of the media outlets in there simply won’t ask.” On Tuesday, he eagerly stepped in when Trump rejected the ABC reporter. But, rather than ask a question, he started with a compliment. “First of all, congratulations on achieving peace,” he told Trump. “You are indeed the peacemaker.”
The President then interrupted him. “Did you ever think I was going to be called the peacemaker?”
Glenn replied, “Actually, I did.”
His question, when he got around to it, was about Alyssa Farah, a former aide in Trump’s first-term White House who is now a co-host of the popular ABC daytime talk show “The View” and a vocal critic of Trump’s. According to Glenn, Farah had promised to wear a Make America Great Again hat on TV if he actually managed to secure the release of Israeli hostages being held in Gaza, but she had not yet done so. After explaining all this to the President, his query to Trump was just two words: “Your response?”
A day later, Glenn was back in front of Trump, at a press conference featuring the President and the director of the F.B.I., Kash Patel. The event’s news, among other things, was Trump complaining that law-enforcement agencies should investigate and prosecute more of his political enemies and confirming that he had secretly ordered the C.I.A. to carry out operations inside Venezuela. Glenn, however, wanted to make a point about one of Trump’s longtime preoccupations—what the President calls the “rigged election” of 2020. “By the way, you won Georgia three times,” Glenn shouted over other reporters trying to ask questions. Ed O’Keefe, of CBS News, standing in front of Glenn, could be seen shaking his head with what appeared to be exasperation. It was the last part of the exchange that really stood out, though. In response to Glenn, Trump said, “Yeah, I agree. Do you agree with me?” After Glenn replied, “I do,” the President quickly jumped back in: “And he’s the media! He’s the media!”
Excuse me while I vomit. Don Holmeyer writing at LiberalCurrents introduces the nail to the hammer. “The Pro-Massacre, Pro-Segregation, Pro-Eugenics Administration. The Trump administration is seeking to rewind the clock on an entire century of legal—and moral—progress.”
Take civil rights, particularly the decades-long, organized push to end Jim Crow discrimination in voting, housing, schooling and other legal arenas half a century ago. Trump et al. are dismantling its legacy piece by piece:
- In his first week back in office, Trump froze the Department of Justice’s pursuit of civil rights cases, including police reform agreements that followed officers’ killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.
- Also in the first week, Trump rescinded a 60-year-old executive order that banned racial and other discrimination in federal employment—one that was published by Lyndon B. Johnson just weeks after he signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
- In February, Trump fired the Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whom Hegseth pretends was hired only because of his race. Hegseth also proclaimed that “the single dumbest phrase in military history is ‘our diversity is our strength.’” It fits a broad pattern of removing Black leaders throughout the government and replacing them with white ones.
- In July, Attorney General Pam Bondi advised schools that essentially any deliberate effort to diversify their student bodies—not just considering race but also any factor, like income, that might correlate to race—would be considered illegal.
- In August, Trump declared the Smithsonian and other museums focused too much on “how bad Slavery was.”
- And in September, The New York Times reported that fair housing protections, which say you can’t block people from your apartments and houses because they’re a certain color (as Trump knows from personal experience), are being rolled back and ignored.
These are not the actions of a government that believes the right side triumphed in the Civil Rights Movement, that people of all skin colors belong in all spheres of public life, or that race doesn’t define one’s ability or worth. As Adam Serwer observed in February, we are in the midst of a “Great Resegregation.”
Our societal regression extends to public health as well. As the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest entered popular culture a century ago, they sprouted the eugenics movement. Eugenics was the high-society term for the idea that we should breed better humans and that worse humans—which usually meant poor, ill or darker-skinned—shouldn’t breed at all.
We may have our first insight into those s0-called drug ships that Trump’s ordered the Navy to sink. This is from Reuters’ Phil Stewart. “Exclusive: In a first, US strike in Caribbean leaves survivors, US official says.”
The U.S. military carried out a new strike on Thursday against a suspected drug vessel in the Caribbean, and in what is believed to be the first such case, there were survivors among the crew, a U.S. official told Reuters.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, did not offer additional details about the incident, which has not been previously reported, except to say that it was not clear that the strike had been designed to leave survivors.
The development raises new questions, including whether the U.S. military rendered aid to the survivors and whether they are now in U.S. military custody, possibly as prisoners of war.
The Pentagon, which has labeled those it has targeted in the strikes as narcoterrorists, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Prior to Thursday’s operation, U.S. military strikes against suspected drug boats off Venezuela killed at least 27 people, raising alarms among some legal experts and Democratic lawmakers, who question whether they adhere to the laws of war.
Videos presented by the Trump administration of previous attacks showed vessels being completely destroyed, and there have been no prior accounts of survivors afterwards.
So, Congress has declared no war but yet, we have prisoners of war now? War talk is a good time to bring up the Bolton indictment. This is from CNN’s Aaron Blake. “Why the Bolton indictment is different from the Comey and James cases.”
In Bolton’s case, there is less of a throughline between Trump’s conduct and the charges.
Yes, Bolton is also someone Trump spotlighted for prosecution, like Comey and James. As far back as 2020, Trump accused Bolton of breaking the law and warned there would be “a really big price to pay.”
“Now he will have bombs dropped on him!” Trump said.
But Trump doesn’t appear to have played a similar role in orchestrating the charges against Bolton, at least from what we know. He didn’t publicly push for the charges as much in recent weeks. And he certainly didn’t force out a prosecutor who resisted the charges before installing a loyalist who brought them, like he did in the Eastern District of Virginia (the site of the Comey and James cases).
The Bolton charges also were ultimately brought by experienced prosecutors, including US Attorney Kelly O. Hayes, who has served in the District of Maryland since 2013, and nonpartisan career prosecutor Tom Sullivan.
In Comey’s and James’s cases, Trump’s handpicked US Attorney Lindsey Halligan was essentially forced to bring the charges herself, after other prosecutors balked or were removed.
That Bolton is facing charges isn’t nearly as surprising. In fact, a federal judge back in 2020 basically warned of exactly that.
US District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled in Bolton’s favor in a civil case stemming from a dispute with the Trump administration over the publication of Bolton’s book. But Lamberth otherwise excoriated Bolton for his handling of classified information.
Lamberth said in his ruling that Bolton “likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations.”
That’s about all I can take today. Have a good weekend and just sit back and watch the protests and join on in wherever you are!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
RIP Ace Frehley
#JohnbussBskySocialJohnBuss #JohnBoltonIndictment #NoKingsDayProtests #WeakAssPress
-
Trump admin lies about #ICE being attacked, so they can be the victim.
The Technique is called DARVO
(Deny Attack Reverse Victim & Offender)But when people see that the "attackers" are people in frog costumes, it visually destroys the lie.
This means us sharing our silly protests on social media is REALLY important.
This @TomSullivan post explains
https://digbysblog.net/2025/10/11/liars-decry-untrue-smears/Cry havoc and let slip the frogs of war.
-Nora Reed -
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/oct/08/young-lives-cut-short-on-an-unimaginable-scale-the-18457-children-on-gazas-list-of-war-dead. 18,457 #Palestinian #children dead - murdered by #Israel in #Gaza. Keir #Starmer says that to #protest about this is "un-British". Those of us who are protesting about #Israeli #genocide are NOT advocating attacking #synagogues in the #UK, or the murder of #Jews here, & if that is what Starmer is implying, it is a grotesque slur, & totally untrue. He should apologise unreservedly.
-
Bluesky users discover that even “federated” & “distributed” platforms exhibit “lock-in” due to “network effects”; and “cognitive dissonance” ensues…
I’ve been saying for years that the argument — popular if oversimplified* in digital activism — that “network effects of mass adoption of popular platforms cause a form of lock-in monopoly” is bogus, not because it’s untrue but because it’s mundane and reflects some fundamental aspects of human communication.
And here come Bluesky users with supporting evidence:
If the arguments (“tyranny of the default”) are invariant with respect to the architecture, maybe the issue is independent not the architecture? Perhaps popularity is just an emergent phenomenon, and people are not so much “locked-in” as using “whatever works for the moment?”
It’s not like there’s a privately owned piece of wire running into their house and preventing them from using any alternative, people are free to use whatever they agree amongst themselves for communications purposes.
u/FrankoIsFreedom: If you don’t like the moderation… take your followers with you … THATS THE ENTIRE POINT OF BLUESKY […]
u/SundaeTrue1832: My brother in Christ the majority are not tech savvy and just want alternative Twitter without the bigots and nazi
u/yuusharo: That’s great, except that the default moderation that applies to the vast majority of users who are never going to know what a PDS is or why it’s important could prevent your followers from seeing your posts or even discover your account. Changing who hosts your PDS doesn’t impact the so called tyranny of the default. This is why it is important for Bluesky to work with the community when shaping their rules and address their concerns rather than wave them off dismissingly.
Source post for this discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueskySocial/comments/1now263/if_you_dont_like_the_moderation_take_your/
[*] example oversimplification quote from 2019; yes “skeptical” but also my emphasis of the unrealistic “either/or” position:
0:29:49 CD: I don’t use any Facebook products, you know? I think that Facebook does have this incredible advantage that is separate from its monopoly advantage, which is the network effect. I am skeptical of network effects as the kind of central explanation for how we ended up with these monopolies, but the network effect of like everyone on your kids’ little league team is using Facebook to organize games means that you either take your kid out of little league or you get a Facebook account. That clearly works to Facebook’s favor.
#atProtocol #bluesky #contentModeration #distribution #DSA #federation #moderation #monopoly #networkEffect
-
Shadow World - the People vs MacDonalds
In 1986, members of environmental group, London Greenpeace, published a leaflet called 'What's Wrong with McDonald's?' It claimed McDonald's was exploiting workers, destroying rainforests, torturing animals, and promoting food that could make people sick, even cause cancer...
McDonald's said the claims in the leaflet were untrue, harmed its reputation and demanded an apology.
Helen Steel, a gardener, and a former postman named Dave Morris, refused.Mark Steel takes us into the murky world of McDonald's Corporation vs Steel & Morris - aka 'McLibel' - the longest-running trial in English history which turned the spotlight on the way big business operates. The case would help bring issues like rainforest destruction and advertising to children into the mainstream. It would also - spoiler alert - be the moment our current Prime Minister first comes to prominence. And if that isn't enough, this story would ultimately have connections with a dark and shameful secret at the heart of the British state - something which Mark discovers he himself had been a victim of.
Presenter: Mark Steel
Producer: Conor Garrett
Executive Producer: Georgia Catt
Commissioning Editor: Dan Clarke
Archive Research: Emma Betteridge
Production Co-ordinator: Dan Marchini
Music Score: Phil KieranArchive excerpts from director Franny Armstrong's 'McLibel,' reproduced with the kind permission of Spanner Films
Shadow World: Gripping stories from the Shadows - BBC investigations from across the UK. BBC Studios for BBC Radio 4
#BBCRadio4 #BBCShadowWorld
#MarkSteel #McLibel #LondonGreenpeaceepisodes are downloadable via podcast tab