Majorityrights News > Category: Social Constructionism

If I understand correctly, Pete Townshend is rendering a similar account through his Rock Opera “Tommy”... the story of a traumatized boy, Tommy, who reacts with selective mutism (also deafness and blindness in “Tommy’s” case).

Anyway, “Tommy” came right to mind when listening to Rose Kitten’s true story of childhood trauma and the resulting selective mutism that she overcame.

The Who - Tommy, Can You Hear Me?

CaesarSextus@CaesarSextus

“Germans” - notice the Poles rightly don’t use the blame-shifting “Nazis”.

BasedPoland@BasedPoland

Today is the 76 anniversary of the outbreak of the #WarsawUprising

The Germans murdered 200,000+ Poles during the 63-day-long uprising. Many of them children

Just in my district (Wola),they executed 50,000 civilians in 4 days

Our football fans have excellent historical memory!

I must disagree with the sentiment here. It’s far better to take the weight off of the Germans per se, especially subsequent generations, and place the burden on the Nazi regime and those who went along with it (who were thus, Nazis).

Tarring all Germans and leaving them no route of distinction from the Nazi regime is no way to move forward and foster good neighborly relations among nations.

The Poles would not appreciate it, and quite rightly not, if the entire nation of their people were blamed for the misdeeds of some rogue regime of theirs from history.

.....

This is why I maintain the term “Nazi.” In order to distinguish a rogue regime from German people per se - those who never really thought it was the right course of action and those who went along with it but might not have with the guidance of a better regime; recognizing their human agency as it might pursue neighborly coordination as opposed to the natural fallacy of deterministic conflict and war that was epistemic of Nazi ideology.

Further, “Nazi” is used so as to avoid the ennobling, misrepresenting and misleading title, “National Socialist.” Hitler’s regime was imperialist, not nationalist, supremacist not socialist - not “social” in most of the positive connotations of “social” - particularly, not in the non-economic, social sense of humaneness and social accountability; not only to qualitative niches of its own, but also in recognition and respect for the niche qualities of other groups; and in the need to get along with these human ecologies - as the world view of praxis, with its apprehension of reflexive effects, would do.

I’m going to keep hammering-home the importance of centralizing our world view through praxis - that is to say our people groups, their biological nature (requiring optimal, not maximal need satisfaction), mammalian nature (caring for relationships) and their distinctly human capacities - for example to learn to get along, to coordinate interests, by means of social accountability to correct runaway trajectories of natural fallacy and ideals beyond human nature; which otherwise rupture human and pervasive ecological systems.

If humans are to evolve, devolve as it were, in a dehumanizing eusocial manner, it is far more likely to occur through the kind of natural fallacy that the Nazis operated on.

Whereas the Post Modern project - properly understood, which I call the White Post modern project in order to distinguish it - by taking the post modern turn to centralize our world view through praxis, provides for the coherence, social accountability, correctivity and agency to stave-off such pernicious devolution.

....

* “White Post Modern Project” - as distinguished from the da da, ironic, hyper relative, hyper critical deconstructionist misrepresentations of the post modern project.

Warning: Third Positionism and its vulnerability with a backdoor for entryism and manipulation for its no-account foolishness.

Interventions: GOP, The Enemy of the People

DanielS:

Thamster engaged in terrible strawman misrepresentations of what is being done with pragmatism, describing it as “mere” pragmatism, and the “post modern” mere choice of identity: viz the original practicality of moral concerns is not mutually exclusive to depth of concerns nor even their idealization, sacralization and inspiration, inbornness and non-negotiableness. ....while Christianity has had great practical utility from its onset: for our enemies as a red caping of our moral order.

Thamster WitNat
Highlighted reply
Thamster WitNat

44 minutes ago (edited)
lol strawman, hardly. You are the one misrepresenting here.

I was referring to a tendency for many in the “dissident right” (if we want to go with that as a broad term) to engage in the question of religion by stating we need to either find one or create one more conducive to our politics. Packaged with that is the idea that religion serves as a survival mechanism where you pick and choose aspects of them suited to that end. The reason for this view of religion? A pragmatic concern with constructing one more in line with our politics. In other words, reducing religious truth to our own political interests. That is hardly a genuine answer to the problem but its a common one I see in these circles. Pragmatic because the question of truth is decided on by its practical implications over its absolute commitments. I am not talking about PRAGMATISM as a philosphy, I am talking about the pragmatic aim of this view in a general sense. Obviously stating that religion can have practical concerns as well as sacralization and ideaization that is non-negotiable is completely beside the point.

I also never said the postmodern “mere” choice of identity” I said this view of religion plays (broadly) within the framework of postmodernism that fascists are seemingly opposed to. Of course, for that to make sense, you would have to agree with me that the bulk of postmodernism is a continuation of modernism even if it began as a critique of it. I have expounded this view elsewhere.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
Daniel Sienkiewicz
14 minutes ago (edited)

​@Thamster WitNat

“lol strawman, hardly. You are the one misrepresenting here.

I was referring to a tendency for many in the “dissident right” (if we want to go with that as a broad term) to engage in the question of religion by stating we need to either find one or create one more conducive to our politics.”

While those on the dissident right may have a superficial idea as to the process of religion, I’m gathering that I did not misrepresent your argument, as I am satisfied that a religion, as any moral ordering, has practical matters negotiated between people at its origin.

The difference between an authentic religiosity as opposed to an affectation adopted or imposed (as in the case of Christianity) is that it emerges out of the concern to connect and hold to account a group’s systemic relations (you know the etymology re-ligia). Whereas Christianity tethers us to Noahide law, an affectation of kosher imposition, jurisdiction and expropriation.

“Packaged with that is the idea that religion serves as a survival mechanism where you pick and choose aspects of them suited to that end.”

You don’t pick and choose what has survival value to your people, but you do sacralize what is crucial and make taboo what is harmful.

“The reason for this view of religion? A pragmatic concern with constructing one more in line with our politics. In other words, reducing religious truth to our own political interests.”

In this argument you are relying too much on the word “mere”, which is the strawman element….“mere” pragmatism, “mere” politics, “mere” construction.

“That is hardly a genuine answer to the problem but its a common one I see in these circles.”

Obviously I am not going to defend people in the “dissident right” and your point is well taken regarding the adoption of Orthodox Christianity and probably in regard to some of their larpish attempts to represent pagan religions.

But the recognition of the need for a religion, to facilitate our group pattern on a semi transcendent level, beyond the unworthiness of some of our people and the imperfection of the rest of us, is necessary for many reasons, not least of which is to carry us beyond cynicism for the fact of our imperfection (to say the least).

“Pragmatic because the question of truth is decided on by its practical implications over its absolute commitments. I am not talking about PRAGMATISM as a philosphy, I am talking about the pragmatic aim of this view in a general sense.”

Let me call attention to Kant’s use of the word “practical” when discussing the topic of morality.

I’ll cop to a bit of No-true-Scotsmanning here when I suggest that it is furthermore practical to have ideals and aesthetic inspiration.

The purpose of this exercise is to relocate our agency in the service of our interests; that we can have hope to re-establish a moral order which centers the biological interest of our species. ...not so much to defend pragmatic philosophy, commendable though it is: Hilary Putnam, “the great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible.”

“Obviously stating that religion can have practical concerns as well as sacralization and ideaization that is non-negotiable is completely beside the point.”

...well, if your point is to say that people on the dissident right are prone to retain the liberal idea of shopping around, picking and choosing, yes, good point, among the several reasons that you are interesting to listen to…..

But if your point is to criticize post modern philosophy and pragmatism as they should be understood in underpinning White interests, then not besides the point.

“I also never said the postmodern “mere” choice of identity” I said this view of religion plays (broadly) within the framework of postmodernism that fascists are seemingly opposed to.”

Ok, fair enough point - If - if their understanding of postmodernity is the hyper-relative, dada deconstructionist, ironically adopted situational nonsense that its been red caped for Whites as being what “post modernity” truly is. Then agreed.

“Of course, for that to make sense, you would have to agree with me that the bulk of postmodernism is a continuation of modernism even if it began as a critique of it. I have expounded this view elsewhere.”

Not exactly. Post modern philosophy as it is misrepresented is really a continuation of modernity, its late stage fallout - misrepresented as “post modernity” since the antagonists to our interests do not want us to understand the accurate purpose of post modern performance requirements as it would facilitate our systemic survival as opposed to the ravages of modernity, its arbitrary experimentalism in promise that change necessarily leads to progress, and as opposed to maintaining traditions, where they are anachronistic and no longer serviceable..

And conversely, to be able to invoke the best of modern advance and tradition without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of lacking modern sophistication, but mostly, to be able to protect our inherited forms,  the maintained organization of which requires that post modernity be properly understood: hence why it is that our adversaries have perpetuated the hyper relative misrepresentation: they want to keep us disorganized.

The Great Awokening and the Second American Revolution.

by Eric Kauffmann for Quillette.com 22 June 2020:
       

Statues toppled, buildings renamed, curricula “decolonized,” staff fired. The protests following George Floyd’s killing have emboldened cultural revolutionaries in America and Europe. The iconoclasts are changing minds, and could be in a position to enact a root-and-branch reconstruction of America into something completely unrecognizable to its present-day inhabitants. Imagine a country whose collective memory has been upended, with a new constitution, anthem, and flag, its name changed from the sinful “America” to something less tainted. Far-fetched? Not according to data I have collected on what liberal white Americans actually believe. Only a renewed American cultural nationalism can resist it.

According to multiple surveys, the effect of the riots which occurred at around the same time as the BLM protests is quite different from what occurred with previous waves of rioting. First, many of the participants in the major riots were white. Second, there has been no clear call for Nixonian law and order following the riots, but rather greater public acceptance of the BLM movement’s unsupported claims that contemporary structural racism explains why police shoot unarmed black men or violent crime plagues inner-city neighbourhoods. While 57 percent of Americans disagree with the protestors’ radical slogan, “defund the police,” an astounding 29 percent support it. This is so despite the deaths of a number of black people during the riots and the fact the riots have coincided with a steep rise in the number of black homicide deaths in inner-city neighbourhoods due to a “Ferguson Effect” of police reducing their presence in these areas.

Meanwhile Trump is polling well down after the riots, having dropped 2.5 points to Biden since Floyd’s death on May 25th. Trump’s repeated mistruths, unstatesmanlike behaviour and nepotistic employment of family members may have eroded the truth-based environment to such an extent that evidence-free shifts in issue position become increasingly easy. His sinking popularity tarnishes issue positions associated with his presidency, even when they are backed by the weight of evidence—as with the idea that indiscriminate police brutality rather than racism accounts for violence against unarmed blacks. The power of corporate and celebrity endorsement, magnified by “trendy” social media herding, has resulted in unusually high approval among whites for the activities of the rioters. This is an important departure from what occurred during, for example, the late 60s race riots, 1992 Rodney King riots, or even the 2014 Ferguson riots.

Statues, memory, and the social construction of harm

Progressive scholars are fond of emphasizing the socially-constructed nature of perceived reality. This is overstated, of course. Human minds are not blank slates. Gender can’t be readily reconstructed to make males dominate the caring professions and females the majority of ditch-diggers. Similarly, Americans can’t easily be convinced they are actually Russians.

But you don’t need to follow social construction to its postmodernist extreme to acknowledge that social construction does play a role in how we perceive the world. To a partial extent, there really is a “social construction of reality,” as Berger and Luckmann put it. Psychological research, for example, shows that flagging certain issues repeatedly, or framing them in particular ways, affects attitudes and feelings.

Let me interject here to make a correction in Kaufmann’s assessment of the abuse of social constructionism. The agentive aspect of social constructionism can be overstated [and I am sure that “progressive scholars” like to do that], but this would be an abuse of social constructionism indeed. As I like to emphasize, there are three important aspects to proper deployment of social constructionism: 1) The more literal, for example, as in people constructing a building together. 2) The metaphoric, for example, “a couple and a village socially constructing a child together”...or the social (re)construction of the narrative of a people’s history and 3) Post Hoc attribution as to how more brute facts come to count - e.g., fact, ‘my cousin was hit by lightning and killed’ but now there is a negotiation (social construction) as to whether the lightning strike was an act of god or triggered by events of physics; whether he has gone to heaven or is now just worm food, up for beatification or a good riddance, etc. ...is there something to be done to prevent lightning strikes or not?

...and poignantly, the fact of immigration, to be treated like a force of nature, a flow (as our enemies might like us to passively accept it), something that just happens? or rather an egregious social policy instantiated by hostile and irresponsible elites?

For Kaufmann to say that “social constructionism is overstated” is not accurate then. He might say with accuracy, that the agentive aspect of social constructionism can be overstated where it might attempt to say that it can make just whatever it likes of brute facts. But then that is neither particularly social nor anti-Cartesian indeed, but rather solipsistic, violating the corrective raison d’être of social constructionism and its means to harness social accountability.

Besides a red caping for the sake of Jewish interests, to dissuade Whites from this vital instrument (viz. for Whites to organize as a group), I believe much of the abuse of social constructionism has to do with the university being in the big business of selling talk and undergraduates being the paying customers that can be lured into liberal tenured professors’ language games by appealing to them with an “empowering” sense of overstated agency and liberal activism.

That correction at hand, back to Kauffmann

What society chooses to focus on and care about, the emotions it feels, the objects it sacralizes, the boundaries between groups, vary a lot across time and place. For instance, choosing not to shake someone’s hand is offensive in Western culture, but not in Japan, where a bow is the common greeting. Leaving food on one’s plate is treated as an insult in Japan, but not in the West. Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning show that in Western elite culture in 1800, as in violent inner-city neighborhoods today, insults were treated as violence, which can only be avenged by physical violence. But for most of us, who haven’t been inculcated into a touchy honor culture, verbal slights don’t carry the same emotional punch. We either ignore them or respond with a counter-insult. As the sociology of emotions tells us, the way societies and individuals emotionally respond to words is, to an important degree, socially constructed.

The same sensitizing dynamic works for history, literature, film, statues, and even words. Like Red Guards with a hair-trigger sensitivity for sniffing out the bourgeois, today’s [*internationalist left ergo liberal-modernist] offense archaeologists outdo each other in trying to reframe the world as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and so on. Turning the principle of charity on its head, they insist on the most suspicious interpretation of a person’s motives when the subject matter is associated with their canonical totems of race, gender, sexuality. A Hispanic man flicking his fingers outside his truck window gets fired because this was photographed, tweeted, and spun as the “OK” white power sign. The result is an atmosphere where inter-personal trust is as low as humanly possible while discursive power flows to the accuser. The new cultural revolutionaries have constructed our emotional and conceptual reality.

Once “harm”, “racism” and other concepts become unmoored from reality, more of the world is remade. Statues which were long ignored become offensive. Complex historical figures like Jefferson or Churchill, who embodied the prejudices of their time, or elites like Columbus or Ulysses Grant, whose achievements had both positive and negative effects, are viewed through a totalizing Maoist lens which collapses shades of grey into black and white. If a historic personage transgressed [liberal internationalist] left-modernist sacred values, their positives instantly evaporate and activists myopically focus on their transgressions.

Suddenly, an entire Orwellian world opens up: place names, history books, statues, buildings. When you’re equipped with the anti-racist hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. In this brave new world, it doesn’t matter whether a symbol like the Rhodes Scholarship has acquired a completely different meaning, or whether a statue has become a symbol of something completely different. All must be levelled to bring forth utopia.

What has occurred across the West, especially in the English-speaking world, is a steady [liberal internationalist] left-modernist march through the institutions. Beginning in the 1960s, former radicals entered universities and the media, capturing the meaning-producing machines of society. Once boomers became the establishment in the 1990s, the ethos of institutions started to shift. For good and ill, equality and diversity rose up the priority list. As these ideas filtered through Schools of Education and into the K-12 curriculum, older ideas of patriotism faded and the new critical theory perspective began to replace it. Sixty three percent of millennials (aged 22–37) now agree that “America is a racist country,” nearly half say it is “more racist than other countries” and 60 percent that it is a sexist country. Older generations are less radical, but 40–50 percent of boomers and Gen Xers agree with these statements, reflecting the long march of the [Internationalist Marxist] Left through American culture.

The deculturation of America

In order to find out how willing liberal Americans are to jettison the country’s cultural identity, I decided, on May 7th, to ask what I thought were outlandish questions—almost to the point of inflicting a Sokal Squared-style hoax on survey respondents. The answers I received amazed me. I then repeated the exercise on June 15th, after the George Floyd killing and subsequent protests to see whether things had gotten even crazier. It turns out they have.

After the preface, “To what extent do you think that the following should be done to address structural barriers to race and gender equality in America,” I presented 16 statements that an amalgamated sample of 870 American respondents could agree or disagree with. The sample is not representative of the American population—I used the Amazon Mechanical Turk and Prolific Academic survey platforms that thousands of academics use. Respondents on these platforms lean young, liberal, and white. But as this is precisely the group I wished to study, this is not a major limitation. Indeed, I have removed conservatives and centrists to focus only on liberals. Liberals are defined as those who rate themselves as a one “very liberal” or two “liberal” on a five-point scale from “very liberal” to “very conservative.” The liberal sample, consisting of 414 people, was 86 percent white and 53 percent male. Forty percent of liberals identified as “very liberal” and the other 60 percent as just “liberal.”

Responses ranged on a seven-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” I’ve simplified the seven categories into a binary agree-versus-disagree score. Those who scored a four—“neither agree nor disagree”—were dropped from the analysis, permitting me to gauge where the balance of committed opinion lies.

Here is what I asked people to agree or disagree with:

1. Rebalance the history taught in schools until its voices and subjects reflect the demographics of the population and heritage of Native people and citizens of color.

2. Move, after public consultation, to a new American anthem that better reflects our diversity as a people

3. Rename our cities and towns until they match the demographics of the population

4. Rebalance the art shown in museums across the country until an analysis of content shows that it reflects the demography of the population and perspective of Native people and citizens of color

5. Move, after an open public process, to a new name for our country that better reflects the contributions of Native Americans and our diversity as a people

6. Rename our states until they better reflect the heritage of Native people and citizens of color

7. Gradually replace many older public buildings with new structures that don’t perpetuate a Eurocentric order, until a more representative public space is achieved

8. Respectfully remove the monument to four white male presidents at Mount Rushmore, as they presided over the conquest of Native people and repression of women and minorities

9. Allow our public parks to return to their natural state, before a European sense of order was imposed upon them

10. Move, after public consultation, to a new American flag that better reflects our diversity as a people

11. Consider adopting a new national language, that will be forged from the immigrant and Native linguistic diversity of this country’s past

12. Remove existing statues of white men from public spaces until the stock of statues matches the demographics of the population

13. Gently remodel the statue of liberty to make it better reflect the diversity of America

14. Rename our streets and neighbourhoods until they match the demographics of the population

15. Move, after public consultation, to a new American constitution that better reflects our diversity as a people

16. Begin changing the layout of our cities, towns, and highways, moving away from the grid system to follow the more natural trails originally used by Native people

Observing that Marxism’s internationalist trajectory aims ultimately at the withering-away of the state, Majorityrights has put forth an ethnonationalist platform pro-actively, one which I call White Left Ethnonationalist in order to distinguish it from Jewish power and influence, from Abrahamism of any denomination, from Nazism, from scientism and nutty conspiracy theories. The concept White Left Ethnonationalism places only a bit more emphasis on social accountability in order to give the fact of our social indebtedness a modicum more attention, compensatory of what we are used to and what we have been allowed as a people in order to facilitate borders for our people (once bordered, our emergent qualities will take care of most problems); and this platform also corresponds to anti-supremacism and anti-imperialism. As such, it is consonant with international nationalism - nationalism for all peoples. It can also be consonant with Dangerfield’s newly coined term and concept, “Cultural Nationalism.”

Because it is defined by ourselves, it is drastically different from economic Marxism; we can have private property, free enterprise, outcomes according to merit; and naturally it is the opposite of Cultural Marxism; on the contrary, it is pro-White for both our genus and species of ethnonationalism; facilitating the interest of our people and our natural predilections, individual liberty, science and tech, etc.

Again, for all those who have unwittingly gone along with the Jewish program to rail against “the left” and “lefties” your efforts are not in vain as it is easily understood that you speak of the internationalist/anti-nationalist, anti-White left.

And we reclaim our terminology of the left for our definition as nationalists, to wrest its correspondence with social capital and unionization thereof, thus providing a structure of accountability, social correctivity and thereby group maintenance along with other positive and necessary social features that have been obstructed for our people; while averting the Jewish trap of reaction - and their “solutions” into sundry, destabilizing right wing perfidy, back doors from accountability and means for their infiltration, coercion and direction, whether identifying as right or turd positiononism.

I hate to present a note of sarcasm, but the stultification of our people’s understanding as a result of red caping of important philosophical concepts for social organization has been unbelievably thorough.

Social Construction of the DNA Nations: A major problem, obstruction really, that I have had in getting better ideas understood and underway has been the misrepresentation of these better ideas for social organization of European peoples; so much so have ideas of social organization been misrepresented that European peoples have been repulsed by the very ideas that they need most to facilitate their social organization and homeostasis.

Social Constructionism is prominent among the misrepresented ideas made didactically repulsive. Social Constructionism properly understood doesn’t maintain that you can merely make whatever you like of your existence – you can try, but if your ideas are absurd they are going to be thwarted in one way or another (in a word, how is being solipsistic – deciding that you can be whatever you like completely irrespective of what other people think, let alone the laws of biology and physics - how is that “social”? - it isn’t. It’s Cartesian).

Social Constructionism is a correction to Cartesian estrangement, in either of its two extreme directions, either beyond nature or within nature, but on either side, veering toward no account, “that’s just the-way-it-isness”, which is susceptible to leave our people unprotected for the lack of accountability to their relative group systemic interests.

The group system, which Aristotle called praxis, is the middle range between the Cartesian extremes, the social world, provided structure by the concept of unionization – as opposed to Cartesian runway beyond nature or on course of brute nature, unionization structures human, social systemic accountability, thereby correctivity, which corresponds to group homeostasis, which is what we want, our autonomy, our sovereignty, our agency. Our social group, praxis, which should be the default calibration, while truth quests the feedback. Through accountability as such, we may establish coherence, the first task of any individual or specific group in the world, and with accountability as such, we may establish agency and warranted assertability:

The idea of social constructionism rather is to sensitize and centralize our people as the most relevant perspective – viz., our relations and their necessity; and with that accountability and coherence we can call attention to the agency that we have in the construction of our world; always a fact in one of three ways:

More literally, as in the construction of a building.

More metaphorically, as in the “construction” of a child.

Post hoc in relation to brute facts, as in we retain that capacity to negotiate to some extent how those facts come to count.

Why am I bringing this up now?

Social constructionism properly understood is an innocuous idea at worst and at its best, it is honest in the way the world and knowledge construction actually works; facilitating the ongoing social construction and correction of knowledge – knowledge imperative to our survival as a people.

Because our people react to misrepresentations of the idea, they are not taking advantage of this idea which the internet facilitates so well.

The Internet is here! We can interact in the construction of the DNA Nations concept! And yet for these past ten years, people have been acting like they are still sitting in front of the television, movie screen or radio, or going to the media of yesteryear as Bowery notes, of the bible, and that I am in front of the congregation: I have been treated as if I am either Moses on Mount Sinai, who is supposed to deliver the commandments by magic transmission to their brains, or, as they seem to prefer, that I am an impostor that they must debunk, with vicious ad hominum for their gods, be they Moses indeed, Jesus or Hitler or some other icon.

They’ll do anything, it seems, but join me in interaction, the way that social construcionism is supposed to work, in ongoing development and correction of ideas.

You think you are so smart? Fine, lets see how you can help refine and advance these ideas. Think I am mistaken about something? Let me know where I can make a correction..etc.

I have been maintaining all along that I know that I have set out solid, important specificatory structures, now lets shape and craft them in our interests!

So the task now is to wait for/and or find those people who will help me to build the DNA Nations concept - they might care to help develop other ideas that I’ve advanced as well, but - the DNA Nations concept is most important to develop at this point – for obvious reasons now, it is urgent that we get this underway.

Watch live coverage as Elon Musk’s SpaceX works with NASA to launch the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule with two U.S. astronauts, the first mission of its kind to the International Space Station in nearly a decade.

Contrasts at present are in high relief:

Between the culture that would launch space colonization in response to natural challenges to one which would open our borders and interpersonal bounds to human and pervasive ecological destruction; lock us down and ruin our agentive capacity for independence in defense of our national and interpersonal bounds; coupled by taking another liberal step back from those who would riot, infringing our private boundaries further in violence and destruction; putting the kabash on economic independence as much as possible; while generally making life on earth miserable; obstructing earthly management, hastening the need to colonize outer-space indeed.

30 April 2020:

The unedited version of the presentation I wanted to turn in. Let me know what you think fam. The parts not highlighted I read to my class.