New York Times: The Best Defense Against Another Jan. 6

Oh look.

Karen is back.

She has an important new article up about “domestic extremism” in the New York Times and was on MSNBC this afternoon with Chuck Todd to talk about it.

Do you know who is the best qualified person to stop the rise of “domestic extremism” in the United States? I’m going with a White woman with a PhD in sociology who is a professor in Washington, DC who thinks a “public health approach” will be sufficient to tackle the problem!

New York Times:

“Because extremist ideas are no longer limited to an isolated, lone-wolf fringe, the United States should focus less on isolating and containing a few bad cells and more on reducing the fertile ground in which anti-democratic and violent extremist ideologies thrive. It needs a public health approach to preventing violent extremism.

This means that federal, state and local governments should invest in and promote digital and media literacy programs, civic education and other efforts to strengthen democratic norms and values. American leaders should lead by example in rejecting disinformation, propaganda, online manipulation and conspiracy theories. It’s not an easy fix, and this shift in mind-set will not happen overnight, but inclusive, equitable democracies make it harder for extremist ideas to take root and spread.

No one wants the federal government to police people’s beliefs. But the U.S. government’s focus on using conventional counterterrorism tools fails to account for the generally unchecked spread of disinformation and conspiracy theories, propaganda targeting racial and religious minorities and the increasing dehumanization of those with whom one disagrees. These are important precursors to violence.

A public health approach to preventing violent extremism would shift prevention work away from security and intelligence experts — away from wiretaps and cultivated informants — and toward social workers, school counselors and teachers, mental health experts and religious leaders to focus on social support and democratic resilience. …

This model would be similar to the post-World War II German approach known as “defensive democracy,” premised on the idea that the best way to reduce insider extremist threats is to strengthen mainstream society against them. In 2020 — amid rising global and domestic extremist threats and repeated scandals revealing far-right infiltration within intelligence and security services — Germany announced a three-year initiative to combat extremism, dedicating more than 1 billion euros to treat it not just as a security threat but also as a societal problem. …”

Aside from Kathleen Belew, I don’t think I have come across anyone who so fully embodies the stereotype of our opposition that I have worked so hard to cultivate on this website over the past year. Not even Brian Stelter who is the butt of so many jokes is this fine of a museum quality specimen.

Cynthia Miller-Idriss complains about memes, but oh boy … she is one!

PMC.

BoBo.

Karen.

Yankee.

Technocrat.

Coastal shitlib.

Woke progressive.

Google, what is the Brahmin Left?

I’d like to speak with your manager, please!

She overlaps with these categories in every possible way.

Over the past year, we have sharply pivoted away from some of the usual groups we complain about to focus on this class of people who are at the helm of the Democratic Party. If you are wondering who unironically watches CNN and MSNBC or listens to NPR or who was moved to tears when Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election and blamed it on Russian propaganda, it is people like this.

Notice the absolute total incomprehension of this woman and her inability to grasp that other people exist outside of her cloistered swath of the population and that those people are American citizens and adults and have constitutional rights and might be fully capable of making their own decisions.

Karen is incapable of leaving them alone. She doesn’t respect them or treat them as her equals. She has to spy on them and micromanage them. She has to scold them and tell them what do. She has to speak to some authority figure like the manager. Perhaps a social worker can be sent to intervene and do something in their youth before the “misinformation” on the internet gets to them and they develop different values. Will someone please contact the thought police and do something?

As Southerners, we have always known that people like Cynthia Miller-Idriss live back East in places like Chevy Chase, MD. We have never wanted to be governed by them in all of American history either. They need to be contained on the coasts where they can hen peck their effeminate husbands to death.

The French saw this coming.

Over a century ago, this type of American woman was already a meme.

“The fact was that in less than a generation, the American woman, still discreet in the works of writers like Gaillardet and absent from those of Mandat-Grancey, had taken center stage in French descriptions and analyses. The feminist movement and “suffragism” certainly had a hand in this, at least indirectly. It is hard to confirm, other than militant literature, most French texts written before 1914 do not mention the topic. Le Correspondant, generally attentive to all things American, flippantly evoked “the gynocratic movement,” confirming that in America it had “its most important base of operations. That is where its general staff holds its deliberations and where its assault columns against male tyranny receive their orders.” But on the whole, the French press did not bring up the topic, not even ironically. Most books about America gave it no space at all. Male chroniclers’ probable lack of interest or enthusiasm was coupled with the unshakable conviction that woman was the “real sovereign of the great Republic,” as Urbain Gohier would repeat ten years after Crosnier de Varigny.

North America was a gynocracy. This affirmation was dogmatic or at least axiomatic in France as of the 1890s. The American woman’s supremacy was thus twofold. The superiority of her “type” also corresponded to the empire she had taken over the opposite sex. The same cliche was tirelessly repeated, somewhere between fascination, fear, and reproach: the American woman ruled over the country just as she governed her home. The American man was her servant, or even her slave. The Yankee husband was not master of the house. He was lucky if he was not treated too badly! What Frédéric Gaillardet had once called the “republican duchess” had moved up from the footstool to the throne. And she occupied it as a despot rather than a sovereign.

The omnipotence the French saw American women wielding did not make them laugh, even at the husbands’ expense. This was not time for sly witticisms or colorful pleasantries; this upside-down world did not enchant its explorers. … But it was clear that their heart was not in it – that they feared the American woman was setting a bad example, and a contagious one. …

The author of La Femme aux Etats-Unis firmly believed that “the ‘dame,’ not satisfied with having also conquered the New World, is well on the way to Americanizing the old one. ” One more push and that born dominatrix would substitute the right to flirt for the rights of man and the citizen, because “the freedom to flirt is as sacred and inalienable in the United States as are the immortal principles of 1789 are in our country. …

“Mrs. Flora Thompson wants to colonize France – and probably Europe, too. Here, she is imprudently betraying the secret wishes of the most notorious of her imperialist compatriots, who not only dream of making the Old World the outlet for their industrial overproduction, but also a vacation spot! The question is whether Europe will comply.

On this point, the French clearly failed to get the joke. That Le Figaro‘s correspondent could transform a New York socialite into a Valkyrie of yankeesme speaks volumes about the place American women held in belle epoque France’s imagination. . .

A type within a type, the East Coast American woman, the supreme stage of Yankee femininity, was an icy sphinx: “There is a type of East Coast American woman, neither young nor old, with golden spectacles, I will particularly remember, as I met several examples. She has thin lips, any icy gaze, an impassive face. We can easily see in this New England gorgon the Frenchman’s classic nightmare: an unpleasant cross between the Americano-Puritan and the prudish Englishwoman “with thin lips.” The anti-Miss Betsy …

Ten years later, the 1920s would bring along the Fitzgerald era, of emancipated flappers, short hair, and crazy ideas – a little too crazy for the French. The American girl’s excessively liberated attitude rekindled blame and censure: she still embodied the “type’s perfection,” but now she was tyrannical, egotistical, arrogant, and all the more pernicious because she was desirable and cynically deployed her flagrant sexual freedom. …

A run-of-the-mill scene of carousing – the Americans do not know how to throw a party, so they get drunk – is suddenly broken by an obscene and strident streak: “Miss Diana gets up; she lifts her short skirt up to her face. She dances the most Negro steps, in white underpants. The underpants twist and gape. I see tufts, her shady crotch, her genitals. I get a joyless eyeful.” This is a strange dive into American femininity’s heart of darkness – there is even the indispensable racist touch of “Negro steps” animating the white Diana’s pallid body. …

So the American man was not having much fun. That was a known fact in France in the late nineteenth century. His home was a contentious place where he suffered his daily martyrdom of resignation. Fortunately, he was not really wanted there, and his occupations, which kept him working long hours at the office, reduced his sufferings. But was he completely innocent? At the end of the nineteenth century, more than one French traveler suggested that the American man deserved his misfortune, or that at least, because of various shortcomings, he had his part in conserving the status quo that set the wife up as domestic tyrant. Some went so far to question his desire for women. To the question, “Is the American a good husband”? Jules Haret responded with this tactful parable: “A man says: I love to read and he reads two or three books a year. Do we really think he loves it? No. However, he believes it, and he is sincere.”

For the Frenchman describing it, the American man’s situation did not arouse any notable commiseration or sympathy. Perhaps because the same man – a docile and self-effacing husband, a domestic serf deprived in his own home of all the sexual and/or gastronomic satisfactions that could justify marriage – turned back into a menacing predator once he left the house: vir americanus horribilis. Never trust a man would around his wife’s finger. When he unleashed on the outside world the energy he did not use in his private life, the maritally subjugated Yankee became a fearsome overlord. Though self-effacing and shy, unrecognizable in his domestic setting, as soon as he was outside he turned into a wild beast, recognizable at a glance.” …”

About Hunter Wallace 12367 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

21 Comments

  1. “public health approach to preventing violent extremism”

    Crypto speak, we need a massive propaganda and brainwashing campaign to control the public and should classify all dissenters as mentally ill and ‘hospitalize’ the worst of them.

    So very Soviet of them.

    • Different than Soviet. They outright say it in the article “DEFENSIVE DEMOCRACY” which is what the occupying force of the US Soviets and the rest of the West instituted on the Germans after the war.
      Speak negatively of Jewish people. Defend the National Socialists or Hitler. Criticize the war or question the Holocaust.

      Any one of those and alot more gets you sent to jail. Kids rat on the parents if they hear dinner table talk. Scary and evil policy

      • @KT I would cut my pinkie off for East Germany. Not dealing with the unwashed masses and criminals around me would be a treat

  2. The swej have so corrupted our words that it is nearly impossible to form rational ideas.

    Calling our constitutional republic, a ‘democracy’.
    Calling queers, ‘gay’.
    Calling forced race mixing, ‘integration’.
    Calling black crimes, ‘gun violence’.
    Calling neighborhood destruction, ‘fair housing ‘.
    Etc.

    Words are the tools for building concepts, corrupted words will only produce corrupted concepts.

    • ” The swej have so corrupted our words that it is nearly impossible to form rational ideas.”

      Dr. Farrell, in his “God, History, and Dialectic” lays the blame for this at the Gnostics’ feet.
      They learned long ago, that changing terms, and then infusing them with THEIR ‘new’ meanings, was the quickest way to de-legitimize the fledgling Christian religion. Thank God there were MEN back then, who were willing to die for the Truth. The Patristic Fathers kept this sort of pagan crap out of Europe, for a 1000 years.

  3. “October 27, 2002 – Cynthia Lynn Miller and Shamil Mustapha Idriss were married yesterday at Woodend, the headquarters of the Audubon Naturalist Society in Chevy Chase, Md. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf performed the Islamic ceremony.”

      • Imagine waking up in the morning after drinking too much and seeing that looking back at you? Yikes!

        “Honey, I’m, going out for a quart of milk, don’t wait up for me”, as he gets in the car with just the clothes on his back and the money in his wallet and drives 1,000 miles away before stopping for a rest. Better to start over with nothing but infinitely wiser than be stuck with that untamed shrew.

    • @KT I noticed that as well as “Her husband; Shamil is best recognized for working as the chief operating officer of Search of the Common Ground, a nonprofit conflict-resolution company which is located in Washington and Brussels.”
      Typical. Her and her mystery meat Muslim husband spend all their time pushing anti white NGOs all over the World then return home to live in the multi million dollar DC mansion and Martha’s Vineyard summer home.

      • How smart can she be, she married a wog and in a wog ceremony too. I understand why he married her, to stay in the country legally and get a high paying, do-nothing job. I guess she had to take what she could get.

  4. Why doesn’t the jew sociology bitch want to drill down to the “root causes” of white grievance? Because that would involve Jews taking a good hard look at themselves and this Jew filth can not bear to see what looks back at them in the mirror. Hatred of the innocent is reflecting at you in the mirror Miller-Idriss, open your eyes and look at yourself. If you can stand the sight of such revolting filth.

  5. I once read that thin dry lips is a sign of someone who is perpetually dissatisfied. The chin on that woman makes her look like a transexual. I would not want to kiss her.

    As a foriegner, I used to think the same about conservative Christian American men. That they were far too polite in general, and came across as human doormats. This was before I was aware of the cultural differences like Yankees and Southerners. I also went to school with a Mormon male who had the same doormat personality, which I found annoying. So the French noticed the same 100 years ago? Amazing.

  6. >At least seven people died.

    They insist on telling this lie over and over again — and they never address how an unarmed ‘insurrection’ was going to succeed when the Capitol police alone have over 1500 armed officers.

    Dr. Cynthia Miller-Idriss — peruse her timeline on Twitter; it’s really something — she’s married to this guy.

    >The French saw this coming.

    Thanks for this historical tidbit.

    Everything you say here is relevant — still, and while there is something distinctly artificial and coordinated about this sudden, widespread emphasis on ‘threats to democracy’, her views are mainstream in the sense they are now more or less the default among political and media elites, and would also find some support among establishment Republicans.

    Recall the clip of Biden saying ‘white supremacist terrorism’ is now the greatest threat to the nation — while I’ve only heard audio of it, after he says that, people begin to clap; just a few at first (they were probably initially taken aback), but then more join in — I’ve always wondered: who were those people? — and why were they clapping? — no doubt white people were clapping.

  7. Regarding “the Gynocracy,” some excerpts from Leo Tolstoy’s essay “To Women,” and I recommend the last section if you won’t read it all, because it is precisely my thought – that the real problem is alienation of human nature caused by the system of usury and exploitation – and he also gives the solution, which is: HARD WORK.

    “As stated in the Bible, a law was given to the man and the woman – to the man, the law of labor; to the woman, the law of bearing children. Although we, with our science, would change this, the law for the man, as for woman, remains as unalterable as the liver in its place, and departure from it is equally punished with inevitable death (…) and the departure from it of all women annihilates the succeeding generation (…) But evasion by some men and some women does not exterminate the human race. It only deprives those who evade it of the rational nature of man. The departure of men from this law began long ago among the class who were in a position to subject others, and constantly spreading, it has continued down (…)

    In the past “there was hardly any departure from the law on the part of women, it was expressed only in prostitution, and in the refusal to bear children – in private cases. Even the women belonging to the wealthy classes fulfilled their law, while wealthy men did not comply with theirs; and therefore the women became stronger, and continued to rule, and must rule, over men who have evaded the law, and who have therefore, lost their senses. It is generally stated that woman (the woman of Paris in particular is childless) has become so bewitching, through making use of all the means of civilization, that she has gained the upper hand over man by this fascination of hers. This is not only unjust, but precisely the reverse of the truth. It is not the childless woman who has conquered man, but the mother, the woman who has fulfilled her law, when the man has not fulfilled his. That woman who deliberately remains childless, and who entrances man with her shoulders and her locks, is not the woman who rules over men, but the one who has been corrupted by man, who has descended to his level,- to the level of the vicious man – who has evaded the law equally with himself, and who has lost, in company with him, every rational idea of life (…)

    From this error springs that remarkable piece of stupidity which is called ‘the rights of women.’ The formula of these rights of women is as follows: ‘Here! you man,’ says the woman, ‘you have departed from your law of real labor, and you want us to bear the burden of our real labor. No, if this is to be so, we understand, as well as you do, how to perform those semblances of labor which you exercise in banks, ministries, universities, and academies; we desire, like yourselves, under the pretext of the division of labor, to make use of the labor of others, and to live for the gratification of our caprices alone.’ They say this, and prove by their action that they understand no worse, if not better, than men, how to exercise this semblance of labor. This so-called woman question has come up, and could only come up, among men who have departed from the law of actual labor. All that is required is, to return to that, and this question cannot exist. Woman, having her own inevitable task, will never demand the right to share the toil of men in the mines and in the fields. She could only demand to share in the fictitious labors of the men of the wealthy classes”: http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/2740/

    • @anonymous – Quite interesting. The last two quoted lines of your post are the ‘money shot’ — absolutely priceless.

  8. Notice the absolute total incomprehension of this woman and her inability to grasp that other people exist outside of her cloistered swath of the population and that those people are American citizens and adults and have constitutional rights and might be fully capable of making their own decisions.

    Karen is incapable of leaving them alone. She doesn’t respect them or treat them as her equals.

    The Yankees to a T.

  9. That arms-crossed, hatchet-faced, man-jawed sow is a modern-day Susan B. Anthony. A (((Yankee))) hag who of course does not question for even a moment her right to rule the uncolleged Flyova White trash – and above all the doubly loathed Southern racist/anti-semitic scum – with an iron stiletto heel. Hence her open plan to impose on us the total tyranny of thought & action inflicted by her kind on the defeated Germans.

    Ultimately there can only be one solution to her kind, to shut them up for keeps.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Brian Stelter: These Students Are Learning How To Spot Misinformation – Occidental Dissent

Comments are closed.