#Source: e-ripley | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dracomort · 1 year ago

Note

You are so right Tom Ripley is what you would get if you put Draco Malfoy and Tom Riddle in a blender lmao a well seasoned taco if you will 🌮

Sorry to bring the 1999 film to you awareness…I’ve almost finished the series and am debating checking out the film but the vibes seem a little off. Is it at all worth watching? It seems weirdly sappy and generally off brand for the source material

Tl;dr a bad adaptation but a... good film? According to people that aren't massive haters (ie. NOT me).

TALENTED MR RIPLEY SPOILERS FORTHCOMING

It's... the kind of film that is good if you're watching it without having read (and liked) the source material. Sort of like Kubric's The Shining. A lot of people enjoyed it, including people who have read the book, so bear that in mind. I tend to have extremely strong opinions on most things so you may still enjoy it but I loathed it lol. Brevity is not my strength so this is going to be long, sry.

You can read the following quote from the director and see if you want to see an adaptation of Ripley by someone with this opinion:

A legitimate gripe that fans of the novel might voice is that I entirely missed the point of the book, because the book celebrates an amoral central character who gets away with murder and doesn't seem to suffer for it. And part of the fun of the novel is that he doesn't seem to care. [...] You know that he'll have no remorse about killing other people to get what he wants. And there's a kind of glee in seeing him do it. But it's not a glee that I wanted to transform into the film, partly because of the nature of the way you experience film. But, if that's my technical position, it's also my moral position. I don't want to tell a story about a man who gets away with murder and doesn't care. It doesn't interest me.

Minghella

Sorry, but WHY did you adapt RIPLEY if that was how you felt about the source material. Tom is a deeply sensitive, emotional person, but also a stone-cold psychopath who not only doesn't feel remorse—bar brief moments of clarity—but also believes he's entirely morally justified in his crimes.

Minghella's adaptation manages to be both less progressive and less nuanced than the 1955 book, despite being made almost half a century later. It is also less true to the essence of the book than the French 1960 adaptation, Plein Soleil, despite that film being beholden to the standards and censorship of the mid-20th century. Minghella's film is, I think, a great demonstration of why the American audience on the whole never 'got' Highsmith. She was always far more popular in Europe and I do believe that is because your standard American audience couldn't handle the moral ambiguity of her books.

There's a lot you can read into with TTMR but, to me, the book has always primarily been about class, not sexuality. It has more in common with a film like Parasite than Brokeback Mountain or Maurice. Tom is the American Dream taken to its perverse extreme—a ruthless, ambitious, dishonest character who will do anything to get ahead in a world stacked against him. The class element is near completely erased from the Minghella film, with the focus instead on Dickie as some sort of manic pixie dream girl who Tom stumbles into the thrall of and becomes infatuated and obsessed with to the point of snapping and killing him when he rejects Tom's feelings. Yes, Minghella managed to play into every homophobic stereotype out there by depicting Tom as an explicitly homosexual character and... a violent incel who can't take a hint.

In contrast, book Dickie is stunningly mediocre to the point of being an embarrassment to Tom, far from Jude Law's character. If anything, Tom is the one who brings excitement into Dickie's life . Minghella's Ripley is a shy, ungainly nerd; Highsmith's Ripley has his clumsy moments—certainly never managed to win Marge over lol—but is a capable, charismatic and driven person in his own right.

E Shannon's paper 'Where was the sex?' does a better job of discussing the altered interpretation of Ripley than I can. I've linked SciHub as it's locked behind institution login on JSTOR.

Highsmith certainly explores sexuality with great sophistication, but ultimately sexuality remains subtext in the novel, while it dominates the film. To pursue its concerns, Minghella's film revises the novel's characters and invents others, all with the aim of redefining Tom Ripley for a Hollywood audience. Minghella's Tom is first and foremost a gay man besieged by a hostile, straight world and only secondarily an American social climber on the hunt in Europe. Ironically, Minghella's focus on Tom's "taboo" homosexuality leads to a story that is less-not more-subversive than Highsmith's, whose critique of American ideas of class is lost to the film's paradoxically conventional sexual conflicts. In fact, in one sense, the film altogether inverts the sexual context of the novel. Where the novel uses Tom's sexuality to critique contemporary ideas of class, the film uses Tom's class to critique contemporary ideas of sexuality. Highsmith's Tom Ripley is a diabolical "culmination of the American success ethic" (Cochran 162), while Minghella's Tom Ripley is a misunderstood casualty of sexual bigotry and provincialism and a victim of his own frustrated sexual desire.

And also:

Minghella's audience is encouraged to criticize the monolithic presence of the "straight culture" and sympathize with Tom's dilemma, while Highsmith's readers are asked to consider aspects of culture beyond gay or straight sexual identity. For Minghella, Tom is either gay or straight. Either Dickie loves Tom or he loves Marge. The complex, sometimes asexual relationships of the 1950s novel are replaced with the simpler, blunter sexual truths of 1990s Hollywood, where "homosexual" is becoming almost as normalized as "heterosexual."

They also make a good point about Dickie being arguably closer implied to being a closeted gay man than Tom, which is actually quite a depressing thought. You can understand why he chooses estrangement from his family with that interpretation. Also, his assertion that Tom is in love with Dickie's material possessions, rather than him as a person is something I agree with. Tom doesn't miss Dickie after he dies, because he views Dickie as the sum of his parts—those being his signet ring, his fancy watches, his shiny cufflinks and his nice shoes. Again, deranged <3

Ultimately, I don't believe that even the shadow of a character like Ripley can be adapted to the screen. Dostoevsky being a major influence of Highsmith's is no surprise. Tom reads a lot like one of his rambling, neurotic characters, his inner dialogue being his most critical, defining feature, and not one that can be brought to the screen. Still, Minghella doesn't even try lol. I hate it.

#minghella - ie. 1999's puriteen #“how can i make a film about a guy who doesn't feel bad abt committing murder?? :(((”#- man who signed on to make film about a guy who doesn't feel bad abt committing murder #asks #anon #the talented mr ripley #long post #sorry but if we're talking sexuality... tom ripley is asexual #i could elaborate on that but feel like im getting off-topic lol

5 notes · View notes

userarmand · 1 year ago

Note

Hi! Noticed you entertain requests…if it's not too much to ask, could I request a GIF set of the last bit of Episode 8 of Ripley when Inspector Ravini had his OMG moment? (⁠人⁠ ⁠•͈⁠ᴗ⁠•͈⁠).

That moment with the voiceover with, Tom? Who's Tom? Tom Ripley. Spell it: Roma, Imola, Palermo, Livorno, Empoli, Ypsilon and then you have Ripley from his posing for a portrait moment for Dickie as the R I P L E Y is spelt out on screen?

I thought that that ending with the soaring BGM was just about the best ending to a Ripley adaptation to date and I absolutely loved it but no one seems to doing GIFs of that yet!

I'd do it myself but I don't have the tools to make GIFs currently nor a source for Ripley files.

If it's too much trouble just ignore this Ask. Thank you for your time! (⁠≧⁠▽⁠≦⁠)

posted ~~

1 note · View note

denimbex1986 · 1 year ago

Text

'Ripley premieres on Netflix April 4. The limited series is based on the “Tom Ripley” novels by Patricia Highsmith. Tom Ripley, a grifter scraping by in early 1960s New York, is hired by a wealthy man to travel to Italy to try to convince his vagabond son to return home. Tom’s acceptance of the job is the first step into a complex life of deceit, fraud and murder...'

#Ripley #Patricia Highsmith #Netflix

0 notes

crackademics · 5 years ago

Text

dark academia movies + books:

this post is from my personal tbr and to watch lists so i haven’t seen and read everything on this list but most are talked about in the dark academia community, it’ll help you understand the aesthetic better/immerse yourself in it. also some of the movies are absolute rubbish but they’re nice to laugh at so :) enjoy

movies:

loving vincent (2017)

only lovers left alive (2013)

the dreamers (2003)

mary shelley (2017)

wilde (1997)

wuthering heights (1992)

the beguiled (2017)

picnic at hanging rock (1975)

another country (1984)

the riot club (2014)

the oxford murders (2008)

kill your darlings (2013)

dead poets society (1989)

stoker (2013)

the talented mr. ripley (1999)

little women (2019)

portrait of a lady on fire (2019)

the goldfinch (2019)

maurice (1987)

the picture of dorian gray (do Not watch the 2009 one, it is very cursed)

books:

paradise lost by john milton

if we were villains by m. l. rio

the secret history by donna tartt

the goldfinch by donna tartt

the little friend by donna tartt

the picture of dorian gray by oscar wilde

the strange case of dr jekyll and mr hyde by robert louis stevenson

killing commendatore by haruki murakami

the bell jar by sylvia plath

ariel by sylvia plath

the book of disquiet by fernando pessoa

inferno by dante

who killed mr. chippendale by mel glenn

and then there were none by agatha christie

the winter of our discontent by john steinback

the lake of dead languages by carol goodman

wuthering heights by emily brontë

the master and margarita by mikhail bulgakov

brideshead revisited by evelyn waugh

the song of achilles by madeline miller

circe by madeline miller

a separate peace by john knowles

the well of loneliness by radclyffe hall

maurice by e. m. forster

among the bohemians by virginia nicholson

jonathan strange and mr norrell by susanna clarke

the greek myths by robert graves*

the twelve olympians by charles seltman*

mythos by stephen fry*

heroes by stephen fry*

the count of monte cristo by alexandre dumas

the magicians trilogy by lev grossman

ninth house by leigh bardugo

interview with the vampire by anne rice

the talented mr. ripley by partricia highsmith

lords and ladies by sir terry pratchett

memoirs of hadrian by marguerite yourcenar

spqr: a history of ancient rome by mary beard*

homosexuality and civilisation by louis crompton*

house of leaves by mark z. danielewski

the iliad by homer

odyssey by homer

metamorphoses by ovid

the oresteia by aeschylus

*these books are more like research sources

if you want more specific lists like gothic books, mystery books, magic/fantasy related, etc. let me know!

#dark academica #dark academia aesthetic #light academia #light academia aesthetic #books #movies #classics #classic literature #literature #academia aesthetic

276 notes · View notes

a-dinosaur-a-day · 5 years ago

Text

Melanorosaurus readi

By Tas Dixon

Etymology: Black Mountain Reptile

First Described By: Haughton, 1924

Classification: Dinosauromorpha, Dinosauriformes, Dracohors, Dinosauria, Saurischia, Eusaurischia, Sauropodomorpha, Bagualosauria, Plateosauria, Massopoda, Sauropodiformes, Anchisauria, Melanorosauridae

Time and Place: From 210 until 201 million years ago, possibly into the Jurassic, from the Norian through the Rhaetian (and possibly into the Hettangian) of the Late Triassic

Melanorosaurus is known from the Lower Elliot (and, maybe, the Upper Elliot) Formation of South Africa

Physical Description: Melanorosaurus was a later Sauropodomorph, the group of dinosaurs that includes Sauropods and their close relatives (aka, “Prosauropods”). Melanorosaurus was technically not a Sauropod, but it does highlight how these quadrupedal behemoths evolved from basic dinosaur precursors. It was quadrupedal, but with awkward front feet still retaining hand-like qualities of its forefathers. The hindlimbs were more sturdy, and in general the pillar-like proportions of the limbs helped to hold up its great weight. It was probably up to 8 meters long and 2 meters tall, making it one of the heaviest animals in its environment - weighing about 1.3 tons. It had a pointed, triangular snout, and teeth like earlier Prosauropods rather than proper Sauropods. It had a short neck and long tail, with a very thick trunk. As for external appearance, there is a question - it was small enough, just, to still have fluff, but it also was big enough to have lost it in the interest of keeping cool. Given it lived in a particularly hot climate, it makes sense that some - if not all - of the warm fluff of its ancestors may have been shed off. That said, it also lived southward - so it’s possible that the Elliot had a cooler environment than other places of the Late Triassic. All in all, the fluff status of Melanorosaurus is a question, so here we present it fluffy to some extent, since most interpretations of it are scaly.

Diet: Melanorosaurus would have been an herbivore, but it may have fed occasionally on small animals to supplement its diet, especially since Melanorosaurus had the teeth of its omnivorous precursors.

By Ripley Cook

Behavior: Melanorosaurus was a smaller Sauropodomorph, so it probably would have taken care of its young (like its close relative Massospondylus) in nests and potential family structures. These nests are hypothetical, however, so we can’t say what sort of lifestyle Melanorosaurus would have lead in this regard. It probably would have stuck together in herds for safety from large contemporaneous predators, and moved together across the dry landscape of their environment looking for new sources of food. Given they managed to survive the end-Triassic extinction (probably), this was clearly a successful strategy to some extent. Their short necks means that they probably would have had to feed mainly on low-lying vegetation, though it is entirely likely that they could have reared on their hind limbs in order to reach higher sources of food. Since they still had some traits of bipedality (likely vestigial), this seems more likely than not.

Ecosystem: The Elliot Formation was a highly arid sub-tropical desert, filled with hearty conifers (which did a lot of the desert-plant jobs before cacti evolved) lining seasonal rivers that would dry up come the long harsh season. It was cooler than other places in the Triassic, but still quite hot and harsh, making it a baking environment for the creatures that lived there. The exact composition of each environment - the Lower Triassic part of the environment and the Upper Jurassic part - is difficult to determine, because the levels tend to be hard to define, but some work has been done on this in recent years. Other Sauropodomorphs included Plateosauravus, Eucnemesaurus, and Bikanasaurus - so, some not very well preserved species, making Melanorosaurus an exception in this region. There was also the Mammaliaform Elliotherium and the Dicynodont Pentasaurus. However, literally every other example of creature seems to be from the Upper Elliot, so it is uncertain what the predators of Melanorosaurus would have been.

By José Carlos Cortés

Other: Melanorosaurus is such an almost-Sauropod that its description and study often threatens to redefine exactly what it means to be a Sauropod or… not. As such, Melanorosaurus is literally defined out of Sauropoda, with Sauropods defined as those members of the sauropod-y group more closely related to Saltasaurus than to Melanorosaurus. That said, Melanorosaurus has a significant amount of similarities to later Sauropods, one of the weirder and more magnificent experiments of Triassic dinosaurs - and a sign of the scale of dinosaurs to come after this period of experimentation ends.

~ By Meig Dickson

Sources Under the Cut

Fabrègues, P. C. d., R. Allain. 2016. New material and revision of Melanorosaurus thabanensis, a basal sauropodomorph from the Upper Triassic of Lesotho. PeerJ 4: e1639.

Galton, P. M., P. Upchurch. “Prosauropoda”. In D. B. Weishampel, P. Dodson, & H. Osmólska (eds.). 2004. The Dinosauria (second edition). University of California Press, Berkeley 232 - 258.

Galton, P. M., J. Van Heerden, A. M. Yates. 2005. Postcranial Anatomy of Referred Specimens of the Sauropodomorph Dinosaur Melanorosaurus from the Upper Triassic of South Africa. Tidwell, V. & K. Carpenter (eds.)Thunder-Lizards: The Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press.

Gauffre, F. X. 1993. The most recent Melanorosauridae (Saurischia, Prosauropoda), Lower Jurassic of Lesotho, with remarks on the prosauropod phylogeny. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Monatshefte. 1993 (11): 648 - 654.

Haughton, S. H. 1924. The fauna and stratigraphy of the Stormberg Series. Annals of the South African Museum 12: 323 - 497.

McPhee, B. W., J. N. Choiniere, A. M. Yates and P. A. Viglietti. 2015. A second species of Eucnemesaurus Van Hoepen, 1920 (Dinosauria, Sauropodomorpha): new information on the diversity and evolution of the sauropodomorph fauna of South Africa's lower Elliot Formation (latest Triassic). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 35(5):e980504:1-24.

McPhee, B. W., E. M. Bordy, L. Sciscio, J. N. Choiniere. 2017. The sauropodomorph biostratigraphy of the Elliot Formation of southern Africa: Tracking the evolution of Sauropodomorpha across the Triassic–Jurassic boundary. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 62 (3): 441 - 465.

Paul, G. S. 2010. The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs. Princeton University Press: 170.

Yates, A. M. 2007. The first complete skull of the Triassic dinosaur Melanorosaurus Haughton (Sauropodmorpha: Anchisauria), in Barrett, P. M. & D. J. Batten. Special Papers in Paleontology 77: 9 - 55.

Yates, A. M. 2010. A revision of the problematic sauropodomorph dinosaurs from Manchester, Connecticut and the status of Anchisaurus Marsh. Palaeontology 53 (4): 739 - 752.

#melanorosaurus #melanorosaurus readi #palaeoblr #triassic #dinosaur #prosauropod #sauropodomorph #reptile #prehistoric life #paleontology #triassic madness #triassic march madness

337 notes · View notes

wtf-triassic · 5 years ago

Text

Megachirella

By Ripley Cook

Etymology: Small thing with big hands

First Described By: Renesto and Posenato, 2003

Classification: Biota, Archaea, Proteoarchaeota, Asgardarchaeota, Eukaryota, Neokaryota, Scotokaryota, Opimoda, Podiata, Amorphea, Obazoa, Opisthokonta, Holozoa, Filozoa, Choanozoa, Animalia, Eumetazoa, Parahoxozoa, Bilateria, Nephrozoa, Deuterostomia, Chordata, Olfactores, Vertebrata, Craniata, Gnathostomata, Eugnathostomata, Osteichthyes, Sarcopterygii, Rhipidistia, Tetrapodomorpha, Eotetrapodiformes, Elpistostegalia, Stegocephalia, Tetrapoda, Reptiliomorpha, Amniota, Sauropsida, Eureptilia, Romeriida, Disapsida, Neodiapsida, Sauria, Lepidosauromorpha, Lepidosauriformes, Lepidosauria, Squamata

Status: Extinct

Time and Place: 242 million years ago, in the Anisian of the Middle Triassic.

Megachirella is known from the Italian Alps.

Physical Description: Megachirella would have looked very… lizardy. Which makes sense, seeing as it is the earliest known lizard. It had a relatively large skull with large eyes and tiny pointy teeth (which would have been barely noticeable, like the teeth of geckos). Its body was long and had short, sprawling limbs. The front limbs had large hands (which give it its name). Each finger was short and bore decently-sized claws. It probably also had a long tail, but we don’t know for sure because only the front half of the holotype specimen was recovered. It’s estimated at being no greater than 20 cm long.

Diet: Megachirella was probably insectivorous, going off of its small, numerous teeth.

Behavior: Megachirella may have spent some of its time in trees, based on the large hands and stout fingers that would have given it a powerful grip. However it doesn’t show the mass of adaptations for living in trees that some lizards like chameleons do; in this regard, it was probably more comparable to anolid lizards.

Ecosystem: Megachirella was found in a unit of rock in the Dolomites in Italy. This deposit has yielded 17 kinds of fossil plants, as well as more sparse remains of bivalves, gastropods, ammonites, and fish, Based on this, and the fact that the rock formation has alternating units of terrestrial and marine fauna, Megachirella seems to have lived along a well-forested coastline. This area was likely hit regularly by storms that would have caused rapid burial.

Other: Megachirella has been surprisingly well-studied. The fossil is only about half of the animal, but the fossil block has been described three times, one of which involved micro-CT scanning. It was originally described as being outside the tuatara-squamate clade, but the micro-CT scanning revealed many anatomical details that it has in common with squamates. Thus, it’s the oldest known lizard!

~ By Henry Thomas

Sources under the cut

Renesto, S., Bernardi, M. 2013. Redescription and phylogenetic relationships of Megachirella wachtleri Renesto et Posenato, 2003 (Reptilia, Diapsdia). Palaontologische Zeitschrit 88(2): 197-210.

Renesto, S., Posenato. R. 2003. A new lepidosauromorph reptile from the Middle Triassic of the Dolomites (Northern Italy). Rivista Italiana di aPaeontologia e Stratigrafia 109(3): 463-474.

Simoes, T.R., Caldwell, M.W., Talanda, M., Bernardi, M., Palci, A., Vernygora, O., Bernardini, F., Mancini, L., Nydam, R.L. 2018. The origin of squamates revealed by a Middle Triassic lizard from the Italian Alps. Nature 557: 706-709.

Wachtler, M. 2018. Megachirella wachtleri - The history of discovery. In: Archosauria from the Dolomites, pp. 41-46.

#megachirella #squamate #lizard #triassic #triassic madness #triassic march madness #prehistoric life #paleontology

159 notes · View notes

asfaltics · 4 years ago

Text

subfluences, of

ploughs expansive sheets of flame, subfluence of the beaming sconce! — limely waving 1 useful for reference, subfluence of whom the exquisite portrait, join the following list 2 subfluence of loss 3 long under the in when mixture containing organic subfluence of 4 I’d like to know the subfluence of the fairies differences of opinion about in employment of the word 5 enterprise, and subfluence of 6 conversation to another subfluence of 7 distance as to be entirely out of the ínspire of the long wire this arrangement is subfluence of 8 subfluence of chlorómethy ! and 9 if not subfluence of slavery 10 Pages could be written upon the subfluence of water, its importance waters 11 subfluence of a large proportion of the lands 12 Therapeutical subfluence of 13 temptation to be subfluence of 14 an answer. The cause was subfluence of 15 sum and subfluence and suggestion of 16 What processes here occur, accompanying reactions take place and the and which take place especially under the in-intensity of attraction which these other subfluence of light 17 the in of books on the ever-expanding subfluence of the far 18 subfluence of a periscope 19 subfluence of style was distinctly jagged pseudo-geometrical slack 20 the azoted subfluence of 21 subfluence of “Some English and Old French forms a volume of Phrases” 22 subfluence of those decisions 23 subfluence of rays 24

sources (all OCR cross-column misreads/confusions)

1 ex The Universal Magazine v.14 (1754) : 6 preview snippet, evidently from “A descant upon creation” by James Hervey (1714-58 *), found at his Meditations and Contemplations. In Two Volumes... (London, 1796) : 151 2 ex “Biographical Particulars of Celebrated Persons Lately Deceased,” here involving The Rev. Mark Noble and John Fleming, late Lord de Tabley, in The New Monthly 21 (August 1, 1827) : 350 3 ex E. Bellchambers, A General Biographical Dictionary : Containing Lives of the most emininent persons of all ages and nations. Vol. 4 (of 4; London, 1835) : 252 involving entries for Conrad Vorstius (“an eminent divine”; 1569-1622) and Gerard John Vossius (poet, philologist, professor of rhetoric and chronology; 1577-1649) 4 entry for “toxicology” by James Apjohn (1796-1886 *), in The Cyclopaedia of Practical Medicine Vol. 4 (SOF — YAW) Supplement (London, 1835) : 189-243 (214) 5 ex T. F., “Familiar Epistles from Ireland, Letter the Fourth, from Terence Flynn, Esq. to Dennis Moriarty, Student-at-Law, London.” in Fraser’s Magazine 42 (September 1850) : 319-328 (327) 6 ex Archibald Alison, History of Europe from the Commencement of the French Revolution in 1789 to the Restoration of the Bourbons in 1815. Ninth edition, vol. 12 (Edinburgh and London, 1855) : 50 7 ex John Flesher, ed., Arvine’s Cyclopaedia of Moral and Religious Anecdotes : A collection of nearly three thousand facts, incidents, narratives, examples, and testimonies... the whole arranged and classified on a new plan, with copious topical and scriptural indexes. (London, 1859) : 23 a later edition and who was Arvine? *Kazlitt Arvine, name originally Silas Wheelock Palmer, changed by Mass. leg. while at Newton, b. Centerville, N.Y., Dec. 18, 1819. Wes. U. 1841; N.T.I. 1842-45; ord. Nov. 6, 1845; p. Woonsocket, R.I., 1845-47; Providence ch., New York, N.Y., 1847-49; West Boylston, Mass., 1849-51; author, Cyclopedia of Moral and Religious Anecdote, 1848; a volume of poems; sermons; d. Worcester, July 15, 1851. ex The Newton Theological Institution, General Catalogue, Eleventh Edition (Newton Centre Massachusetts, April 1912) : 56 8 ex entry (by Joseph Henry, of the Smithsonian Institution) for “Magneto-Electricity” in George Ripley and Charles A. Dana, eds., The New American Cyclopaedia : A popular dictionary of general knowledge, Vol. 11 (MacGillvray-Moxa). (New York, 1861) : 67-72 (69) 9 ex letter to the editor on the topic of Bichloride of Methylene (from A. Russell Strachan), in The Medical record : a semi-monthly journal of medicine and surgery (March 2, 1868) : 22 on mixture of alcohol, chloroform and ether, see wikipedia 10 ex “Slavery,” in The Complete Works of W(illiam). E(llery). Channing: With an Introduction (London, 1870?) : 570-615 (591) on Channing (1780-1842), consult wikipedia 11 ex Charles McIntire, Jr., “Science in Common Things,” in Our Home: A Monthly Magazine (Devoted to Local and General Literature) 1:6 (Somerville, N.J.; June 1873) : 247-250 12 ex History of Summit County : With an Outline Sketch of Ohio. Edited by William Henry Perrin. Illustrated. (Chicago, 1881) : 280 13 ex Edwin J. Houston. A Dictionary of Electrical Words, Terms and Phrases, second edition, rewritten and greatly enlarged. (New York, 1892) : 200 14 ex John Brooks Leavitt. “On the Administration of Justice,” in The Counsellor : The New York Law School Law Journal 2:4 (January 1893) : 101-108 15 ex Birmingham Mineral R. Co. v. City of Bessemer (Supreme Court of Alabama. July 27, 1893), in The Southern Reporter 13 (June 14 – December 20, 1893) : 487-489 16 ex Josephine Lazarus, “Jewish Thought in Modern English Poetry : Robert Browning” in The Menorah (“official organ of the Jewish Chautauqua”) 38:1 (January 1905) : 42-53 (44) 17 snippet view only, ex Society of Dyers and Colourists, Bradford, Eng. (Yorkshire), The Journal 25 (1909) : 12 18 ex review of Joseph H. Longford, The Story of Old Japan, in The Oriental Review 1:11 (New York; April 10, 1911) : 212-213 19 ex “The Story of the Week” (involving Canadian War Graft, and The “Sussex” Question), The Independent vol 86 (April 17, 1916) : 96-99 20 ex The American Magazine of Art 8:3 (January 1917) : 118 involving “A fiction among futurists” and an obituary for Henry W. Ranger (landscape painter) 21 ex Andre Dubosc, “Application of Catalysis to Vulcanization,” in The Rubber Age 3:2 (April 25, 1918) : 78-79 22 ex XXIX. Literature and Language / Romance Languages and Literature, by George L. Hamilton, in The American Year Book : A Record of Events and Progress, 1918. Edited by Francis G. Wickware... with coöperation of a supervisory board representing national learned societies (New York, 1919) : 778 23 ex Thomas v. Little et al. (June 7, 1923) in Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Alabama Vol. 209 (1923) : 590-592 24 snippet view, ex International Labour Office, Occupation and Health: Encyclopedia of Hygiene, Pathology, and Social Welfare 2 (1934) : 417

—

2 of n

#quatrains #subfluence #Kazlitt Arvine

5 notes · View notes

misslisterkeepsajournal · 5 years ago

Text

1831 Friday 14 October

7 20/.. 2

Great deal of rain in the night - Fahrenheit 66°. at 8 20/.. and damp small rainy disagreeable morning - breakfast at 8 40/.. - Off from Arundel (Norfolk arms) at 9 1/2 not near so good an hotel as at Chichester, much more Inn like - noisy last night and I had chosen a poky little bedroom au 1er. [premier] instead of a good one higher up - drove for 1/2 hour thro' the duke's (norfolk) woods chiefly beech and oak, and young plantations of beech with fir and larch to draw them up -

At the bottom of Bury hill (4 miles from Arundel) turned left along a narrow lane to Bignor - drove up a field to the Roman villa - found the gate locked - waited 5 or 6 mins. [minutes] till sent for girl who came from the village - 57 mins. [minutes] at at these singularly interesting remains - discovered in July 1811 - supposed to be of the time of Titus 4 straw thatched sheds over fine remains of tessellated pavement and an uncovered remain of a bath - worth going any distance to see -

The Medusa Mosaic at the Bignor Roman Villa [Image Source]

Changed horses at Petworth and Godalming (pronounced godle gōddlemen) and passed thro' Guildford, Changed at Ripley, and passed thro Kingston at 6 5/.. and alighted at Lady Stuart's Richmond Park at 6 1/2 - Guildford deserved a stay of an hour or 2 at least to see the fine old castle and the town - beautiful country all about it - indeed beautiful drive all today -

Found Miss H- [Hobart] alone - Lady gone to London on business and did not return till 7 1/4 - V [Vere] glad at heart to see me it seems if I had much seconded Lady S de R [Stuart de Rothesay] or even now tried for Italy it might be managed? V [Vere] thought Lady S de R [Stuart de Rothesay] had done it all for my sake I think I convinced her she was the only one considered

Lady S [Stuart] glad to see me but said she was tired and certainly vough [sic]very kind did not make so much fuss about me and on coming to bed tho I turned for a minute or two into her room we did not shake hands to be sure I made no sign of it and the thing reminded me a little of Highcliff I see it is not high bred to be too shake hands and unceremonious at eleven asked V [Vere] to play she said it was late but played above half hour and then sent Lady S [Stuart] and me off before her without a good night at all I sat by her at the instrument she said I was very funny not thinking of the music but yet seemed as if not disliking me or my attention a little word or two now and then betrays the probability of her caring for me I really begin to admire her and feel a little for her she is nice looking and very ladylike I wonder what will be the result of our winter at Hastings -

Came up to dress at 7 1/4 - dinner at 7 40/.. - afterwards read aloud the Herald - times given up - too bad, and violent against the peers for throwing out the bill - coffee - near 3/4 hour's music - all came upstairs at 12 - no stranger now only a little white wine at the bottle of the decanter and Vere asking what I would take I said oh none thank you I have not taken wine lately nothing more was said and I had none - damp small rainy morning till about 9 - afterwards very dark and rain threatening - heavy shower for a few mins. [minutes] at 1 25/.. - afterwards a few drops - cleared up a little between 2 and 3 and tolerably fine afternoon and evening - raining fast now at 1 20/.. tonight at which hour Fahrenheit 64°. -

Found here Letter of 7th. instant and 8th. ditto 3 pp. [pages] and about one end from my aunt - she has had Dr. Kenny - the damp weather disagrees with her very much - but Dr. K-'s [Kenny's] medicine has done her much good § - and kind letter 3 pp. [pages] or there abouts from Mrs. Norcliffe to ask my interest with Lady Stuart de R- [Rothesay] and Lady Hardwicke, for their votes, as subscribers to the national benevolent Institution, to get John Wilson, ætatis 75, elected to receive the benefits of the charity - singular enough Lady Stuart had this evening shewn me a card of the Institution from Lady Bute who would be glad of my vote if I had one - read my letter from Mrs. N- [Norcliffe] on coming up to my room - had read my aunt's before dinner - Mrs. N- [Norcliffe] says not a word of Scott's taking John's son - Mrs. N-'s [Norcliffe's] letter no date - but postmark, Malton, and London mark of 7 October -

[Margin] § my aunt anxious to hear I had got the ring (for Miss H- [Hobart] vide line 3 from the bottom of page 230, and 21 September) which she sent off to Hawkins's immediately on the receipt of my letter of 21 September - Mrs. Walker (the widow of Crownest) has taken my pew opposite to the pulpit of the old church -

[Margin notes] L L

Reference: SH:7/ML/E/14/0136

#anne lister #anne lister code breaker #gentleman jack #1831 #southern england tour #bignor roman villa #richmond park #vere hobart

3 notes · View notes

vgprintads · 5 years ago

Photo

‘Alien vs. Predator’ + ‘Alien vs Predator: The Last of His Clan‘

[GB / SNES] [USA] [MAGAZINE] [1993]

“The first Alien vs. Predator story was published by Dark Horse Comics in Dark Horse Presents #34–36 (November 1989 – February 1990). In November 1990, Predator 2 was released in theaters and included a scene depicting an Alien (Xenomorph) skull as one of the Predator's trophies. Over the coming years, Fox had been pursuing a cinematic adaptation of the concept to advance the Alien and Predator franchises further, and Peter Briggs was tasked with the job to write an early script for the project and eventually pitched an idea titled The Hunt: Alien vs. Predator in 1994, but the pitch was rejected and development of the film remained stuck in development hell for almost a decade before the first feature film was finally released in 2004 under the helm of Paul W. S. Anderson, titled Alien vs. Predator, with a sequel by the Brothers Strause, titled Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, eventually released in 2007. Ellen Ripley does not appear in this franchise, as it takes place more than a century prior to the events of the Alien series.” ~Wikipedia

Source: Game Players, December 1993 (#54) || RetroMags; scanned by E-Day

#gaming #advertising #alien vs predator #avp #snes #the last of his clan #game boy #brawlers #sci-fi #crossover #licensed #video games #jourdan co #activision #united states #1993 #handheld

24 notes · View notes

cbtumbus-blog · 5 years ago

Text

TikTok Deal To Sell U.S. Business Could Be Announced As Soon As Tuesday

TikTok has chosen a bidder for its U.S., New Zealand and Australian businesses, and it could announce the deal as soon as Tuesday, according to people familiar with the situation.

Microsoft, in partnership with Walmart, and Oracle are the two top contenders. The sale price is expected to be in the range of $20 billion to $30 billion, CNBC reported last week.

However, even though TikTok has selected a bidder, the deal could be slowed or derailed by the Chinese government, which updated its technology export list on Friday to include artificial intelligence technology used by TikTok. TikTok's Chinese parent company, Bytedance, said over the weekend that it would need a license from the Chinese government before it can sell to a U.S. Company.

Walmart emerged as a surprise contender last week, saying the social media app would augment its e-commerce efforts.

Walmart originally sought to be the majority owner in the deal in a consortium including Alphabet and SoftBank. But the U.S. Government, which said it will ban TikTok in the U.S. If it doesn't sell to a U.S. Company by Sept. 20, wanted a tech company to lead the deal, according to sources familiar with the matter. Alphabet and SoftBank then dropped out, and Walmart partnered with Microsoft on the bid. In that scenario, Walmart would be a minority owner of TikTok.

TikTok's CEO Kevin Mayer resigned last week as the deal neared its close, after just a few months on the job. TikTok executive Vanessa Pappas was named interim boss. Pappas told CNBC in an interview on Friday that she saw synergies with Walmart thanks to new e-commerce tools inside the TikTok app.

Representatives for Microsoft, Walmart and TikTok declined to comment.

--CNBC's Melissa Repko contributed to this report.

Married Father Now Paralyzed After A Business Trip To Memphis

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (WMC) - A scrap metal dealer came to Memphis to buy car parts from a regular customer. It was while he waited on the customer that his life changed forever.

Tommy White, a 38-year-old married father of four and Ripley, Tenn. Resident, is now paralyzed from the chest down after being shot during a robbery in Memphis at the end of June.

“It’s not fair. It’s not fair for him. It’s not fair to any of us,” Rebecca, White’s wife, said.

Rebecca White says it’s not fair that her husband is paralyzed and now sits in a hospital bed in his living room.

Tommy White was parked at Lamar and Bellevue around 3 p.M. Near the Checkers waiting for a customer who had car parts to sell him. Then two men with the AK-47s approached his vehicle and threatened him. White says he gunned his truck, and that’s when the men shot him. He ended up crashing into the sign at the Lamplighter Inn sign across the street.

“Two guys came up to both sides of the truck with AK-47s and pointed the gun at me and told me to give them the money or they’re going to kill me,” he said.

White says he doesn’t know where the men came from.

“I can’t work. I can’t get out and do the things I want to do. I always wanted to do spend time with my kids outside,” White said.

He and his wife’s children range from seven to 16 years old. They have been helping out since the life-changing incident.

“They should be out here playing ball and they can’t do that. Dad needs help getting dressed. Dad needs help brushing his teeth. Dad can’t get up and cook his own meal anymore,” White said.

White says he was aware that Memphis can be dangerous and that he was careful. He even had a t-shirt saying ’I survived Memphis.’

Even though tragedy struck the Whites, the couple is very generous in their feelings about the suspects.

“I want justice, but I also want them to change their lives,” he said.

White doesn’t have much of a description of the suspects - just two guys in their early 20s, one with long dreads and the other with short hair.

Click here to find a GoFundMe account set up.

Gogo Selling Part Of Its Business For $400 Million

Gogo is selling its business of providing in-flight internet access and entertainment to commercial airlines to satellite communications provider Intelsat for $400 million in cash.

Chicago-based Gogo, which went public in 2013, has struggled to earn enough money from airlines and travelers to cover the immense cost of delivering service to airplanes. But it has been particularly hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has crushed commercial air travel. Gogo furloughed 600 workers in April and said July 30 it would permanently cut 143 jobs.

Gogo reported Aug. 10 that its second-quarter sales fell 55 percent. “It certainly was an extraordinary quarter, but for all the wrong reasons. I think I can sum it up by saying that if you sell internet on airplanes and no one's on the plane, it's tough,” CEO Oakleigh Thorne said before announcing Gogo had been shopping the business.

Intelsat, a satellite provider based in Luxembourg that filed for bankruptcy protection in May, received approval Monday to buy the commercial airline business from Gogo. Intelsat has a $1 billion debtor-in-possession credit facility.

Gogo says it will remain a public company. It plans to use some of the cash to pay down the company’s $1.1 billion in debt.

“This transaction creates a stronger and more focused Gogo, with the singular strategic imperative of serving the business aviation market with the best inflight connectivity and entertainment products in the world,” Thorne said in a statement.

The companies said Intelsat will operate the commercial aviation business as an independent business based in Chicago.

The deal takes Gogo back to its roots, when it was founded in 1991 as Air Cell, a provider of wireless service to business aircraft. Unlike commercial aviation, which is down about 80 percent, Gogo said its business aviation traffic is the reverse.

The business aviation unit has 30 percent higher revenue than commercial aviation. A year ago, commercial aviation was twice as large. More importantly, business aviation is profitable. Commercial aviation is losing money.

1 note · View note

sympathyforthecannibal · 6 years ago

Note

for some reason I can't like or reblog anything from e-ripley via you, it's a shame because the gifs are amazing, have you ever had problems reblogging from them? I'm confused if I have been blocked from reblogs because I never speak to anybody on here...

hi there. I’m sorry. I don’t know why you can’t reblog through me. I haven’t blocked that many people. can you reblog from the source of the gifs? not being able to reblog must be frustrating. here’s a hug from mads :)

#Anonymous

6 notes · View notes

oathkeepersfanzine · 6 years ago

Text

Submission Guidelines

I’ve had some people say that they can’t access the Google Docs outlining the guidelines, so I’ll make them into blog posts as well!

-------------------------------

Oathkeepers: A Jaime and Brienne Fanzine Submission Guidelines

Edited 6/18/2019

Compiled by editor Ripley Moyers / Mothdogs

General Rules

All works must be original, not published before (not posted on AO3, Tumblr, Twitter, etc.) If you want to take an original piece and change it or add on to it (e.g. taking a drabble and expounding on the story or re-drawing a previous sketch) that’s fine, but the end result being published should be new and specifically created for the zine.

All works should be a celebration of Jaime and Brienne. I’m not going to say that you can’t include show canon (e.g. re-writing the scene where Jaime leaves Brienne from Brienne’s point of view), but there should be no celebration of or focus on Jaime/Cersei (or any other romantic ship.) Of course stories and art can include other characters, but overall, the focus should be on J/B. That’s what we’re all here for after all ;^)

This zine celebrates J/B in all forms. Show canon, book canon, and AUs are welcome. That means art can depict Jaime and Brienne as Nikolaj and Gwen portray them, or it can depict them in the artist’s own style or vision.

Fiction

Minimum of 500 words, maximum of 2,000 words.

Pieces should be submitted either in an e-mailed MS Word document or a document link on Google Drive.

Although it’s not required, it’s strongly recommended that your final submission be beta-read / proofread by another person. If you need assistance finding a beta-reader or have layout questions, message me.

Proposal must include: One- or two-sentence summary. Even if you don’t know exactly how your piece will turn out, the more info you can give (is it an AU? What type rating are you shooting for?) the better.

Finished piece must include: Title, Author’s name (whatever you want to be called by--real name, pseudonym, AO3 username, tumblr URL, etc.), one- or two-sentence summary, content rating (G for general, T for teen, E for explicit/mature), and any relevant trigger warnings.

Meta / Textual Analysis

Follows roughly the same rules as fanfiction. Minimum 500 words, maximum 2,000 words, proofread if possible, MS Word or Google Drive submission.

Proposal must include: One- or two-sentence summary. Please include the source of the analysis (e.g. which books or show episodes you’ll be focusing on.) If your piece is an analysis of the symbolism in Jaime’s weirwood dream, for example, your proposal should note that you’re referencing A Storm of Swords. Direct quotes should be followed by in-text citation of the character’s chapter number and book, e.g. (Jaime III, ASOS) or (Brienne IV, AFFC).

Finished piece must include: Title, Author’s name (whatever you want to be called by--real name, pseudonym, AO3 username, tumblr URL, etc.), one- or two-sentence summary, and any relevant trigger warnings.

Art

Art should be either digital or scanned. This means no phone photographs of your drawings. (The exception to this is if you’re submitting a picture of a physical oil/watercolor/acrylic/etc painting, in which case we can work out photograph parameters for you.) If you don’t have access to a scanner, message me and we’ll try to work something out.

Digital art should be submitted in either flattened .PSD (Photoshop document) or .PNG file format. Scanned art should be submitted in .PDF, .PNG or .JPG file format.

Art can be either full-color or black-and-white.

Art should be 300 DPI/PPI (this stands for dots/pixels per inch, which is a measure of how much detail ends up on the page when printing. Blurb requires 300 DPI to ensure fidelity in printing.)

Digital art should be drawn on a large canvas. The zine size will be a vertical 8”x10”. 2400x3000 pixels at 300 DPI is the suggested canvas dimension. 1000x1250 pixels at 300 DPI is the minimum canvas dimension. Your art may be cropped or slightly resized during the layout process (although we’ll try our best to avoid this), therefore the bigger the canvas, the better.

Keep in mind that the printing process darkens your art--the art you see on your screen will be darker when it’s printed on the page. Any areas of dark, saturated color (purple, brown, blue, etc) will probably come out closer to black after printing. This can be corrected after the proof is printed, if need be.

Backgrounds are encouraged, but not required.

Comic panels must be able to fit onto an 8”x10” rectangular page. For example, a 4-panel comic should be submitted in 2 x 2 panels, not 4 panels across.

Proposal must include: A description of the artwork. Will it be digital or traditional? If it’s digital, which program(s) will you use to create it? What will the focus be (e.g. if it’s Brienne and Jaime hanging out in an AU setting, what will they be doing? Etc.) It’s okay if you don’t know exactly how the piece will turn out, but the more detail and concept you have of it, the better. Sketches (even if it’s just a thumbnail) are highly encouraged.

Finished piece must include: Artwork in accepted format, title, artist’s name (whatever you want to be called by--real name, pseudonym, AO3 username, tumblr URL, etc.).

Cover

I will be collaborating with Alan (@apardonablemonomania on Tumblr) to create an original piece using his fantastic calligraphy for the cover.

17 notes · View notes

helenaklein · 6 years ago

Note

ok i'm going to address all your points now. A) Already stated previously that Vinca could get a route, since only her Sin would be left. B) good point I didn't know that about Tyrian since I haven't bothered to read the male routes from SP. C) proof that 8 were hinted. D) She she could be incorporated more but I don't think she is as significant as the other Sins since the writers couldn't be bothered to make her part of the main group while Riley technically is part of it.

E) Well Nahara isn't in Esperanza route as of now so she is also either in Darius or Malakai's route. You said that she is more well know that Yvette, but Nahara route is a female route, I doubt that a Darius reader that only reads male routes cares about a Nahara Route. If that person also reads female routes there is a 90%+ chance that they have also read Esperanza, where Yvette is so prominent that half of the reviews are asking for her route.

1) yeah we could theoretically be given a vinca route, but given your logic that short appearances in a limited number of routes disqualifies the potential, the point is mute isn't it

2) wow it's almost like your speaking without complete knowledge about the patterns and precendents of the company 🤔🤔🤔

3) during swm's marketing they introduced esperanza and darius together, onyx and malakai together, and then posted a picture of cal, ripley, yvette, and nero with a caption asking fans about which additional love interests they'd be interested in. go ahead and check my math but im pretty sure that makes 8.

4) are you trying to argue that a human woman who delivered pertinent plot information in two different routes and has a unique place in universe is less significant on the cast than a bear who's had exactly zero lines because she's. a fucking bear.

5) a) nahara isn't in esperanza's route yet but, and strap in bc this might blow your mind, there's a very good chance she'll be introduced in season 2 of both darius and esperanza. they've made it a point to bring her into onyx and malakai's stories, whereas all of the antagonists have been deliberately isolated to single route appearances.

b) that's a whole lot of reliance on speculation of the mindsets of other readers and a statistic that has no basis in real calculation. do a real survey and cite your sources, and perhaps I'll concede that point.

#lvstrck

6 notes · View notes

blackfreethinkers · 6 years ago

Link

Robert bowers wanted everyone to know why he did it.

“I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered,” he posted on the social-media network Gab shortly before allegedly entering the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh on October 27 and gunning down 11 worshippers. He “wanted all Jews to die,” he declared while he was being treated for his wounds. Invoking the specter of white Americans facing “genocide,” he singled out HIAS, a Jewish American refugee-support group, and accused it of bringing “invaders in that kill our people.” Then–Attorney General Jeff Sessions, announcing that Bowers would face federal charges, was unequivocal in his condemnation: “These alleged crimes are incomprehensibly evil and utterly repugnant to the values of this nation.”

The pogrom in Pittsburgh, occurring just days before the 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht, seemed fundamentally un-American to many. Sessions’s denunciation spoke to the reality that most Jews have found a welcome home in the United States. His message also echoed what has become an insistent refrain in the Donald Trump era. Americans want to believe that the surge in white-supremacist violence and recruitment—the march in Charlottesville, Virginia, where neo-Nazis chanted “Jews will not replace us”; the hate crimes whose perpetrators invoke the president’s name as a battle cry—has no roots in U.S. soil, that it is racist zealotry with a foreign pedigree and marginal allure.

The president’s rhetoric about “shithole countries” invites dismissal as crude talk, but behind it lie ideas whose power should not be underestimated. Warnings from conservative pundits on Fox News about the existential threat facing a country overrun by immigrants meet with a similar response. “Massive demographic changes,” Laura Ingraham has proclaimed, mean that “the America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore” in much of the country: Surely this kind of rhetoric reflects mere ignorance. Or it’s just a symptom of partisan anxiety about what those changes may portend for Republicans’ electoral prospects. As for the views and utterances of someone like Congressman Steve King (“We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies”), such sentiments are treated as outlandish extremism, best ignored as much as possible.

The concept of “white genocide”—extinction under an onslaught of genetically or culturally inferior nonwhite interlopers—may indeed seem like a fringe conspiracy theory with an alien lineage, the province of neo-Nazis and their fellow travelers. In popular memory, it’s a vestige of a racist ideology that the Greatest Generation did its best to scour from the Earth. History, though, tells a different story. King’s recent question, posed in a New York Times interview, may be appalling: “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization—how did that language become offensive?” But it is apt. “That language” has an American past in need of excavation. Without such an effort, we may fail to appreciate the tenacity of the dogma it expresses, and the difficulty of eradicating it. The president’s rhetoric about “shithole countries” and “invasion” by immigrants invites dismissal as crude talk, but behind it lie ideas whose power should not be underestimated.

The seed of Nazism’s ultimate objective—the preservation of a pure white race, uncontaminated by foreign blood—was in fact sown with striking success in the United States. What is judged extremist today was once the consensus of a powerful cadre of the American elite, well-connected men who eagerly seized on a false doctrine of “race suicide” during the immigration scare of the early 20th century. They included wealthy patricians, intellectuals, lawmakers, even several presidents. Perhaps the most important among them was a blue blood with a very impressive mustache, Madison Grant. He was the author of a 1916 book called The Passing of the Great Race, which spread the doctrine of race purity all over the globe.

Grant’s purportedly scientific argument that the exalted “Nordic” race that had founded America was in peril, and all of modern society’s accomplishments along with it, helped catalyze nativist legislators in Congress to pass comprehensive restrictionist immigration policies in the early 1920s. His book went on to become Adolf Hitler’s “bible,” as the führer wrote to tell him. Grant’s doctrine has since been rejuvenated and rebranded by his ideological descendants as “white genocide” (the term genocide hadn’t yet been coined in Grant’s day). In an introduction to the 2013 edition of another of Grant’s works, the white nationalist Richard Spencer warns that “one possible outcome of the ongoing demographic transformation is a thoroughly miscegenated, and thus homogeneous and ‘assimilated,’ nation, which would have little resemblance to the White America that came before it.” This language is vintage Grant.

Most Americans, however, quickly forgot who Grant was—but not because the country had grappled with his vision’s dangerous appeal and implications. Reflexive recoil was more like it: When Nazism reflected back that vision in grotesque form, wartime denial set in. Jonathan Peter Spiro, a historian and the author of Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant (2009), described the backlash to me this way: “Even though the Germans had been directly influenced by Madison Grant and the American eugenics movement, when we fought Germany, because Germany was racist, racism became unacceptable in America. Our enemy was racist; therefore we adopted antiracism as our creed.” Ever since, a strange kind of historical amnesia has obscured the American lineage of this white-nationalist ideology.

Madison grant came from old money. Born in Manhattan seven months after Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, he attended Yale and then Columbia Law School. He was an outdoorsman and a conservationist, knowledgeable about wildlife and interested in the dangers of extinction, expertise that he soon became intent on applying to humanity. When he opened a law practice on Wall Street in the early 1890s, the wave of immigration from southern and eastern Europe was nearing its height. “As he was jostled by Greek ragpickers, Armenian bootblacks, and Jewish carp vendors, it was distressingly obvious to him that the new arrivals did not know this nation’s history or understand its republican form of government,” Spiro writes in his biography.

Jews troubled Grant the most. “The man of the old stock,” he later wrote in The Passing of the Great Race, is being “driven off the streets of New York City by the swarms of Polish Jews.” But as the title of his 1916 work indicated, Grant’s fear of dispossession ran wide and deep:

These immigrants adopt the language of the native American, they wear his clothes, they steal his name, and they are beginning to take his women, but they seldom adopt his religion or understand his ideals and while he is being elbowed out of his own home the American looks calmly abroad and urges on others the suicidal ethics which are exterminating his own race. Grant was not the first proponent of “race science.” In 1853, across the Atlantic, Joseph Arthur de Gobineau, a French count, first identified the “Aryan” race as “great, noble, and fruitful in the works of man on this earth.” Half a century later, as the eugenics movement gathered force in the U.S., “experts” began dividing white people into distinct races. In 1899, William Z. Ripley, an economist, concluded that Europeans consisted of “three races”: the brave, beautiful, blond “Teutons”; the stocky “Alpines”; and the swarthy “Mediterraneans.” Another leading academic contributor to race science in turn-of-the-century America was a statistician named Francis Walker, who argued in The Atlantic that the new immigrants lacked the pioneer spirit of their predecessors; they were made up of “beaten men from beaten races,” whose offspring were crowding out the fine “native” stock of white people. In 1901 the sociologist Edward A. Ross, who similarly described the new immigrants as “masses of fecund but beaten humanity from the hovels of far Lombardy and Galicia,” coined the term race suicide.

Grant blended Nordic boosterism with fearmongering, and supplied a scholarly veneer for notions many white citizens already wanted to believe. But it was Grant who synthesized these separate strands of thought into one pseudo-scholarly work that changed the course of the nation’s history. In a nod to wartime politics, he referred to Ripley’s “Teutons” as “Nordics,” thereby denying America’s hated World War I rivals exclusive claim to descent from the world’s master race. He singled out Jews as a source of anxiety disproportionate to their numbers, subscribing to a belief that has proved durable. The historian Nell Irvin Painter sums up the race chauvinists’ view in The History of White People (2010): “Jews manipulate the ignorant working masses—whether Alpine, Under-Man, or colored.” In The Passing of the Great Race, the eugenic focus on winnowing out unfit individuals made way for a more sweeping crusade to defend against contagion by inferior races. By Grant’s logic, infection meant obliteration:

The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew. What Grant’s work lacked in scientific rigor, it made up for in canny packaging. He blended Nordic boosterism with fearmongering, and supplied a scholarly veneer for notions many white citizens already wanted to believe. Americans’ gauzy idealism blinded them, he argued, to the reality that newcomers from the Mediterranean and eastern Europe—to say nothing of anyone from Asia or Africa—could never hope to possess the genetic potential innate in the nation’s original Nordic inhabitants, which was the source of the nation’s greatness. Grant gleefully challenged foundational ideas:

We Americans must realize that the altruistic ideals which have controlled our social development during the past century and the maudlin sentimentalism that has made America “an asylum for the oppressed,” are sweeping the nation toward a racial abyss. If the Melting Pot is allowed to boil without control and we continue to follow our national motto and deliberately blind ourselves to all “distinctions of race, creed or color,” the type of native American of Colonial descent will become as extinct as the Athenian of the age of Pericles, and the Viking of the days of Rollo. His thesis found eager converts among the American elite, thanks in no small part to his extensive social connections. The New York Times and The Nation were among the many media outlets that echoed Grant’s reasoning. Teddy Roosevelt, by then out of office, told Grant in 1916 that his book showed “fine fearlessness in assailing the popular and mischievous sentimentalities and attractive and corroding falsehoods which few men dare assail.” In a major speech in Alabama in 1921, President Warren Harding publicly praised one of Grant’s disciples, Lothrop Stoddard, whose book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy offered similar warnings about the destruction of white society by invading dusky hordes. There is “a fundamental, eternal, inescapable difference” between the races, Harding told his audience. “Racial amalgamation there cannot be.”

Harding’s vice president and successor, Calvin Coolidge, found Grant’s thesis equally compelling. “There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend,” Coolidge wrote in a 1921 article in Good Housekeeping.

The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.

Endorsing Grant’s idea that true Americans are of Nordic stock, Coolidge also took up his idea that intermarriage between whites of different “races,” not just between whites and nonwhites, degrades that stock.

Perhaps the most important of Grant’s elite admirers were to be found among members of Congress. Reconstruction struggles; U.S. expansion in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii; high levels of immigration—each had raised the specter of white people losing political power and influence to nonwhite people, or to the wrong kind of white people. On Capitol Hill debate raged, yet Republicans and Democrats were converging on the idea that America was a white man’s country, and must stay that way. The influx of foreigners diluted the nation with inferiors unfit for self-government, many politicians in both parties energetically concurred. The Supreme Court chimed in with decisions in a series of cases, beginning in 1901, that assigned the status of “nationals” rather than “citizens” to colonial newcomers.

A popular myth of American history is that racism is the exclusive province of the South. The truth is that much of the nativist energy in the U.S. came from old-money elites in the Northeast, and was also fueled by labor struggles in the Pacific Northwest, which had stirred a wave of bigotry that led to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Grant found a congressional ally and champion in Albert Johnson, a Republican representative from Washington. A nativist and union buster, he contacted Grant after reading The Passing of the Great Race. The duo embarked on an ambitious restrictionist agenda.

As the eugenics movement gathered force in the U.S., “experts” began dividing white people into distinct races. In 1917, overriding President Woodrow Wilson’s veto, Congress passed a law that banned immigration not just from Asian but also from Middle Eastern countries and imposed a literacy test on new immigrants. When the Republicans took control of the House in 1919, Johnson became chair of the committee on immigration, “thanks to some shrewd lobbying by the Immigration Restriction League,” Spiro writes. Grant introduced him to a preeminent eugenicist named Harry Laughlin, whom Johnson named the committee’s “expert eugenics agent.” His appointment helped ensure that Grantian concerns about “race suicide” would be a driving force in a quest that culminated, half a decade later, in the Immigration Act of 1924.

Johnson found a patrician ally in Senator David Reed of Pennsylvania, who sponsored the 1924 bill in the Senate. A Princeton-educated lawyer, he feared that America was going the way of Rome, where the “inpouring of captives and alien slaves” had caused the empire to sink “into an impotency which made her the prey of every barbarian invader.” This was almost verbatim Grant, whose portrait of Rome’s fall culminated in the lowly immigrants “gradually occupying the country and literally breeding out their former masters.” (His plotline helped him preserve the notion that fair-haired and -skinned people are responsible for all the world’s great achievements: Rome’s original inhabitants were Nordic, but contemporary Italians were descendants of Roman slave races and therefore inferior.)

Grant’s slippery pseudoscience also met with significant resistance. The anthropologist Franz Boas, himself of German Jewish descent, led the way in poking holes in Grantian notions of Nordic superiority, writing in The New Republic in 1917 that “the supposed scientific data on which the author’s conclusions are based are dogmatic assumptions which cannot endure criticism.” Meanwhile, the Supreme Court was struggling mightily to define whiteness in a consistent fashion, an endeavor complicated by the empirical flimsiness of race science. In one case after another, the high court faced the task of essentially tailoring its definition to exclude those whom white elites considered unworthy of full citizenship.

In 1923, when an Indian veteran named Bhagat Singh Thind—who had fought for the U.S. in World War I—came before the justices with the claim of being Caucasian in the scientific sense of the term, and therefore entitled to the privileges of whiteness, they threw up their hands. In a unanimous ruling against Thind (who was ultimately made a citizen in 1936), Justice George Sutherland wrote:

What we now hold is that the words “free white persons” are words of common speech to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man, synonymous with the word “Caucasian” only as that word is popularly understood.

The justices had unwittingly acknowledged a consistent truth about racism, which is that race is whatever those in power say it is.

As the Immigration Act of 1924 neared passage, some in the restrictionist camp played up Grant’s signature Nordic theme more stridently than others. Addison Smith, a Republican congressman from Idaho, proudly invoked the Scandinavian, English, Irish, and other northern-European immigrants of his district, highlighting that among them were no “ ‘slackers’ of the type to be found in the cities of the East. We have ample room, but no space for such parasites.” Johnson was prepared to be coy in the face of opposition from other legislators—mostly those from districts with large numbers of non-northern European immigrants—who railed against the Nordic-race doctrine. “The fact that it is camouflaged in a maze of statistics,” protested Representative Meyer Jacobstein, a Democrat from New York, “will not protect this Nation from the evil consequences of such an unscientific, un-American, and wicked philosophy.”

“A fundamental, eternal, inescapable difference” exists between the races, President Harding publicly declared. “Racial amalgamation there cannot be.” On the House floor in April 1924, Johnson cagily—but only temporarily—distanced himself from Grant. “As regards the charge … that this committee has started out deliberately to establish a blond race … let me say that such a charge is all in your eye. Your committee is not the author of any of these books on the so-called Nordic race,” he declared. “I insist, my friends, there is neither malice nor hatred in this bill.”

Once passage of the act was assured, however, motives no longer needed disguising. Grant felt his life’s work had come to fruition and, according to Spiro, he concluded, “We have closed the doors just in time to prevent our Nordic population being overrun by the lower races.” Senator Reed announced in a New York Times op-ed, “The racial composition of America at the present time thus is made permanent.” Three years later, in 1927, Johnson held forth in dire but confident tones in a foreword to a book about immigration restriction. “Our capacity to maintain our cherished institutions stands diluted by a stream of alien blood, with all its inherited misconceptions respecting the relationships of the governing power to the governed,” he warned. “The United States is our land … We intend to maintain it so. The day of unalloyed welcome to all peoples, the day of indiscriminate acceptance of all races, has definitely ended.”

“It was america that taught us a nation should not open its doors equally to all nations,” Adolf Hitler told The New York Times half a decade later, just one year before his elevation to chancellor in January 1933. Elsewhere he admiringly noted that the U.S. “simply excludes the immigration of certain races. In these respects America already pays obeisance, at least in tentative first steps, to the characteristic völkisch conception of the state.” Hitler and his followers were eager to claim a foreign—American—lineage for the Nazi mission.

In part, this was spin, an attempt to legitimize fascism. But Grant and his fellow pioneers in racist pseudoscience did help the Nazis justify to their own populations, and to other countries’ governments, the mission they were on—as one of Grant’s key accomplices was proud to acknowledge. According to Spiro, Harry Laughlin, the scientific expert on Representative Johnson’s committee, told Grant that the Nazis’ rhetoric sounds “exactly as though spoken by a perfectly good American eugenist,” and wrote that “Hitler should be made honorary member of the Eugenics Research Association.”

He wasn’t, but some of the American eugenicists whose work helped pave the way for the racist immigration laws of the 1920s received recognition in Germany. The Nazis gave Laughlin an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936. Henry Fairfield Osborn, who had written the introduction to The Passing of the Great Race, received one from Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in 1934. Leon Whitney, another of Grant’s fellow travelers, evidently received a personal thank-you letter from Hitler after sending the führer a copy of his 1934 book, The Case for Sterilization. In 1939, even after World War II began, Spiro writes, Lothrop Stoddard, whom President Harding had praised in his 1921 diatribe against race-mixing, visited Nazi Germany and later wrote that the Third Reich was “weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way.”

What the Nazis “found exciting about the American model didn’t involve just eugenics,” observes James Q. Whitman, a professor at Yale Law School and the author of Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (2017). “It also involved the systematic degradation of Jim Crow, of American deprivation of basic rights of citizenship like voting.” Nazi lawyers carefully studied how the United States, despite its pretense of equal citizenship, had effectively denied that status to those who were not white. They looked at Supreme Court decisions that withheld full citizenship rights from nonwhite subjects in U.S. colonial territories. They examined cases that drew, as Thind’s had, arbitrary but hard lines around who could be considered “white.”

The Nazis reviewed the infamous “one-drop rule,” which defined anyone with any trace of African blood as black, and “found American law on mongrelization too harsh to be embraced by the Third Reich.” At the same time, Heinrich Krieger, whom Whitman describes as “the single most important figure in the Nazi assimilation of American race law,” considered the Fourteenth Amendment a problem: In his view, it codified an abstract ideal of equality at odds with human experience, and with the type of country most Americans wanted to live in.

Grant, emphasizing the American experience in particular, agreed. In The Passing of the Great Race, he had argued that

the view that the Negro slave was an unfortunate cousin of the white man, deeply tanned by the tropic sun and denied the blessings of Christianity and civilization, played no small part with the sentimentalists of the Civil War period, and it has taken us fifty years to learn that speaking English, wearing good clothes and going to school and to church do not transform a Negro into a white man. The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, he believed, had failed to see a greater truth as they made good on the promise of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal: The white man is more equal than the others.

Grant’s final project, Spiro writes, was an effort to organize a hunting expedition with Hermann Goering, the commander in chief of the Nazi air force who went on to become Hitler’s chosen successor. Grant died in May 1937, before the outing was to take place. A year and a half later, Kristallnacht signaled the official beginning of the Holocaust.

America has always grappled with, in the words of the immigration historian John Higham, two “rival principles of national unity.” According to one, the U.S. is the champion of the poor and the dispossessed, a nation that draws its strength from its pluralism. According to the other, America’s greatness is the result of its white and Christian origins, the erosion of which spells doom for the national experiment.

People of both political persuasions like to tell a too-simple story about the course of this battle: World War II showed Americans the evil of racism, which was vanquished in the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act brought nonwhites into the American polity for good. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 forever banished the racial definition of American identity embodied in the 1924 immigration bill, forged by Johnson and Reed in their crusade to save Nordic Americans from “race suicide.”

The truth is that the rivalry never ended, and Grantism, despite its swift wartime eclipse, did not become extinct. The Nazis, initially puzzled by U.S. hostility, underestimated the American commitment to democracy. As the Columbia historian Ira Katznelson writes in Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time (2013), the South remained hawkish toward Nazi Germany because white supremacists in the U.S. didn’t want to live under a fascist government. What they wanted was a herrenvolk democracy, in which white people were free and full citizens but nonwhites were not.

“It was America that taught us that a nation should not open its doors equally to all nations,” Hitler told The New York Times. The Nazis failed to appreciate the significance of that ideological tension. They saw allegiance to the American creed as a weakness. But U.S. soldiers of all backgrounds and faiths fought to defend it, and demanded that their country live up to it. Their valor helped defeat first the Nazis, and then the American laws that the Nazis had so admired. What the Nazis saw as a weakness turned out to be a strength, and it destroyed them.

Yet historical amnesia, the excision of the memory of how the seed of racism in America blossomed into the Third Reich in Europe, has allowed Grantism to be resurrected with a new name. In the conflict between the Trump administration and its opponents, those rival American principles of exclusion and pluralism confront each other more starkly than they have since Grant’s own time. And the ideology that has gained ground under Trump may well not disappear when Trump does. Grant’s philosophical framework has found new life among extremists at home and abroad, and echoes of his rhetoric can be heard from the Republican base and the conservative media figures the base trusts, as well as—once again—in the highest reaches of government.

The resurrection of race suicide as white genocide can be traced to the white supremacist David Lane, who claimed that “the term ‘racial integration’ is only a euphemism for genocide,” and whose infamous “fourteen words” manifesto, published in the 1990s, distills his credo: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Far-right intellectuals in Europe speak of “the great replacement” of Europeans by nonwhite immigrants and refugees.

In the corridors of American power, Grant’s legacy is evident. Jeff Sessions heartily praised the 1924 immigration law during an interview with Steve Bannon, Trump’s former campaign chief. Bannon regularly invokes what has become a cult text among white nationalists, the 1973 dystopian French novel The Camp of the Saints, in which the “white world” is annihilated by mass immigration. Stephen Miller, a former Senate aide to Sessions and now among the president’s top policy advisers, spent years warning from his perch in Sessions’s office that immigration from Muslim countries was a greater threat than immigration from European countries. The president’s stated preference for Scandinavian immigrants over those from Latin America or Africa, and his expressed disdain for the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, are Grantism paraphrased.

That nations make decisions about appropriate levels of immigration is not inherently evil or fascist. Nor does the return of Grantian ideas to mainstream political discourse signal an inevitable march to Holocaust-level crimes against humanity. But to recognize the homegrown historical antecedents of today’s rhetoric is to call attention to certain disturbing assumptions that have come to define the current immigration debate in America—in particular, that intrinsic human worth is rooted in national origin, and that a certain ethnic group has a legitimate claim to permanent political hegemony in the United States. The most benignly intentioned mainstream-media coverage of demographic change in the U.S. has a tendency to portray as justified the fear and anger of white Americans who believe their political power is threatened by immigration—as though the political views of today’s newcomers were determined by genetic inheritance rather than persuasion.

The danger of Grantism, and its implications for both America and the world, is very real. External forces have rarely been the gravest threat to the social order and political foundations of the United States. Rather, the source of greatest danger has been those who would choose white purity over a diverse democracy. When Americans abandon their commitment to pluralism, the world notices, and catastrophe follows.

4 notes · View notes