A Thought Experiment in Tyranny


Here’s another political thought experiment:

Suppose that you faced a forced choice between two forms of tyranny, and that you had to choose at least one (and at most one) form of tyrannical government from the two alternatives: 1) a tyrannical government derived from local peoples and local institutions, or what we may call a local tyranny, or 2) a tyrannical government not derived from local peoples or local institutions, or a foreign tyranny. Which would you prefer? Why?

An example of a local tyranny would be the Thirty Tyrants who ruled Athens after Athens lost the Peloponnesian War to Sparta. The Thirty Tyrants were, I believe, drawn from the Athenian citizenry, but were widely regarded as traitors for their role in ruling Athens in the wake of their defeat by Sparta. Today we could call them collaborators. A famous twentieth century example would be Vidkun Quisling, who presided over Nazi-occupied Norway. 

An example of a foreign tyranny would be Roman rule over its conquered provinces. Although Rome assumed this role very reluctantly, and preferred the constituent states of its empire to rule themselves as far as possible, it was frequently forced into exercising directly political control over conquered territories. The most famous example would probably be Pontius Pilate, who was Prefect (or governor) of the Roman Province of Judea, and who offended local sensibilities on many occasions due to his lack of knowledge of local religious customs. Nineteenth and Twentieth century European colonial regimes in Africa and Asia would be more contemporary examples of foreign tyranny. 


Implicit within this thought experiment are some surprisingly interesting and subtle philosophical questions. What or who exactly could be considered “local”? Does a native-born class of creole Spanish aristocrats ruling over a mostly indigenous population in Andean South America constitute local rule or foreign rule? If a foreign power is pulling the strings of a local puppet regime, is this local rule or foreign rule? Even today, in the twenty-first century, there is still a considerable sting in being called a “puppet.”

If the president of a given nation-state belongs to a class of wealthy, world-traveling, foreign language-speaking elites with more in common with other elites than with the people of the nation-state in question, is this local rule or foreign rule? A hundred years ago, this latter question might have been formulated in terms of royal families who rule over kingdoms ethnically and culturally distinct from the particular background of the royal family. The essential principle here remains invariant across political regimes, whether royal or democratic or otherwise. 

One way to put the question that might have a more immediate intuitive appeal would be to ask: would you rather be ruled by Herod the Great or Pontius Pilate? Both were tyrants; both were thoroughly unpleasant characters; but if you had to choose, which would you take?

Would you prefer, as the lesser of two evils, a local tyranny or a foreign tyranny?

Watch on elhechizado.tumblr.com

I read some (non-youtbe) remarks about the above video defending the cops in order to justify re-posting this fun little poem I made. Obviously, you can tell it’s a play on another poem, but I was able to finally give it a good title. So, I present to you once again- and to the men and women in America who would as that I “put myself in their [ the police] shoes”:

The Quisling

First they came for the communists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I hated the communists
    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I hated the trade unionist too.
    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak out because I also hated the Jews.
    Then they came for me
    and I was like, hey, I thought we were cool.

-Carlos Segundo


hello dere

we (pidie, quisling and feverwom) are offering a collaborative commission slot to help pay for our minecraft server.

the price is 50 dollars, and we will collaborate on up to three characters of your choice! (the more choices you give us, the better) it will most likely be an fb painting or a waist couple/group, that is up to us.

no fanart requests please.

send one of us a message with links to your character references if you’re interested!

i was not forced to type this message and have not copypasted muffin’s post n_n

edit: the slot has been filled! thank you guys for your interest and signal boosts <3

Don’t get me wrong, I loved World War Z, but if they had done the History Channel-style miniseries nobody will shut up about wishing they did instead, the one concept I’d want them to make sure made it into the adaptation is Quislings. 

In the book, a Quisling is an uninfected person who suffers from a version of Stockholm Syndrome in which they’re so terrified of zombies that they try to avoid infection by mirroring the behavior of zombies, eventually having a complete nervous break wherein they believe they actually are a zombie.

Without a medical examination, you can tell them from actual zombies because their eyes react to bright lights, they smell worse because they still sweat and produce waste, they’re usually a lot shaggier because (unlike real zombies) their hair keeps growing even though they aren’t shaving anymore, they still bleed red when injured, and actual zombies will attack them because they aren’t fooled

Antisemitism is obviously a subject that needs serious study, but it seems unlikely that it will get it in the near future. The trouble is that so long as antisemitism is regarded simply as a disgraceful aberration, almost a crime, anyone literate enough to have heard the word will naturally claim to be immune from it; with the result that books on antisemitism tend to be mere exercises in casting motes out of other people’s eyes. M. Sartre’s book is no exception, and it is probably no better for having been written in 1944, in the uneasy, self-justifying, quisling-hunting period that followed on the Liberation.

Some Facts about Varg Vikernes & his Case

These facts about Vikernes and his case are published here to counter the lies of the many media institutions.

-Born in Bergen 1973 as Kristian Vikernes. Is not baptized.

-Changed name officially to Varg Vikernes in March 1993.

-Has never had either of the middle names Larsson, Larssøn, Kvisling or Quisling as claimed by many media institutions.

-Is not a “self-declared Neo-Nazi” as claimed by many media institutions. Vikernes is an Óðalist

-Stopped playing so-called ‘black metal’ in early 1993. Has recorded three bardic metal albums since then, but is no longer even a metal musician. Vikernes plays electronic music

-Convicted in 1994 for first degree murder, but claims himself that he killed in self defence (in August 1993), and explained himself in complete accordance with all technical evidence. Aarseth was killed because he panicked and attacked Vikernes when Vikernes approached him to tell him to stay away from him. According to many witnesses, Øystein Aarseth had plans to knock out Varg Vikernes with a stun gun, tie him up, put him in the trunk of a car, drive him into the forest, tie him to a tree and torture him to death, whilst filming it. Vikernes knew about these plans as Aarseth told about them on the phone to a friend of his, who let Vikernes listen to it all. The ‘Norwegian’ court (and the media…) still claimed that “Varg Vikernes had no clear or understandable motive for killing Øystein Aarseth”. All of Aarseth’s friends of course knew better, as proven by this letter (from Anders Odden). 

-Øystein Aarseth was not a “band collegue” of Vikernes, but an acquaintance and a business associate: Aarseth owned the label that released the first album of Vikernes’ band, Burzum. The relation Vikernes had with Aarseth’s band, Mayhem, was that he helped as a studio musician in 1992 by recording the bass track on one of their albums – and this happened about 1 year before Aarseth was killed. Vikernes was not a member of that band.

-Convicted in 1994 for having set fire to 4 churches, solely because one single witness for each case (and 2 in one of the cases) gave false testimony against him in court. The witnesses were ‘big surprise’ all friends of Øystein Aarseth, some of them outspoken enemies of Vikernes, and they were also the ones who actually set fire to these churches (they too were convicted for this, but were given more leninent treatment because of their false testimonies against Vikernes). One of these witnesses (Bård G. Eithun) admitted in 1998, under oath in a court of law, that he had given false testimony against Varg Vikernes, and that he had done so because the Norwegian police had asked him to do so (“to get back at Vikernes for killing Aarseth” and to get a more lenient treatment himself, when going to court for his own crimes).

-Varg Vikernes was also found not guilty of having set fire to Fantoft stave church. I stress this, because there seems to be a general understanding that Vikernes set fire to the Fantoft stave church.

-Was in 1994 defended by a lawyer who according to medical examinations was 100% unfit for work during the whole process. Vikernes was given no opportunity to test his guilt again, in a court of law. He was not allowed to appeal to a higher court, save in relation to the length of the sentence.

-Vikernes stated clearly in all contexts where he was allowed to express himself that he was a nationalist and an Odinist (his preferred term for Pagan at the time), but was consequently presented as a “devil worshiper” or a “satanist” by the media. Not one single media institution in Norway diverged from this practice until 1995, when Dagbladet finally admitted that Vikernes was not a Satanist.

-Went through meticulous psychiatric examinations in 2002, concluding that Vikernes is not a psychopath and has no indications of psychopathy (“personality disorders”) or any other mental illnesses or deficiencies either.

-Was in 2003 convicted to 14 months in prison, after having not returned from a leave, for having hi-jacked a car during an escape from armed men in the Norwegian mountains. The Norwegian police claimed never to have been there, and the judge wrote in the verdict that Vikernes had encountered hunters with ski-masks, automatic rifles and German shepherd dogs, who blocked the only escape route Vikernes had from his cabin by parking a huge SUV sideways in the middle of the road. The SUV was by chance (according to Norwegian former FSK soldiers Vikernes has spoken to) identical to the one(s) used by FSK, the Norwegian Special Forces, a military unit with police authority (…). Vikernes drove his hijacked car to Oslo, in order to give himself up to the police in a place where there would be many witnesses (…). Vikernes claims to have escaped in the mountains only because he by chance spotted the armed men before they spotted him. Vikernes was himself unarmed. Odd Einar Dørum was minister of justice in Norway at the time (please Google translate the Norwegian entry: the English entry is very deficient).

-In 2002 the Norwegian government changed the law stating that prisoners with a 21 year sentence should serve only 12 years in prison to a law that stated that prisoners with a 21 year sentence should instead serve 14 years (2/3 of the full sentence). This law was in relation to Vikernes (but not in relation to several other prisoners…) made retroactive, in violation of both the Norwegian constitution and international law. When Vikernes had served 14 years the department of justice turned down his applications for a release on parole on grounds that Vikernes now had served for so long that he needed to be ‘better prepared for a life in freedom’, and that they had not been given the time to do so yet (…). So Vikernes had to serve another 2 years before he was finally released after just under 16 years in prison.

-The wardens in all the prisons Vikernes served in (when this question was discussed) and even the Norwegian secret police wanted Vikernes to be released after 12 years in prison, butpoliticians in Oslo still turned all his applications for a release on parole down, until the media (VG and Dagbladet) put so much pressure on them that they finally released him. According to the lawyer John Christian Elden, Vikernes was released after heated debate in Oslo, and with only one single vote tipping the scale in his favour.

-In 2008 Vikernes officially changed his name to Louis Cachet: Louis after a great uncle and Cachet being the surname of his wife. He did with help of the Norwegian secret police, who advised him to do so, and also because the name “Varg Vikernes” was very impractical in Norway at the time. Vikernes experienced that solely because of the name “Varg Vikernes” he was e. g. not allowed to order plane tickets, rent cars, order train tickets, rent a room in a hotel, open up a bank account, etc., either because the person taking to him though he was joking or more often because ‘good citizens’ didn’t want life to be easy for a person falsely declared by the media to be a “self-declared Neo-Nazi”. Vikernes still uses the name Varg Vikernes in everyday life, and only uses the name Louis Cachet when he has to (i. e. for signing things, legal documents etc.).

-Had in 2010 according to the Norwegian secret police more than 350 impersonators, pretending to be Vikernes, on Facebook alone.

-Moved in 2010 to Bretagne, later the same year to Auvergne and in 2012 to Corrèze – all in France.

-Arrested in 2013 by DCRI accused of “terrorism or conspiring to commit acts of terrorism”. False evidence was produced and presented to a judge to make him sign papers giving DCRI the right to arrest Vikernes and his wife in the most gentle way possible. No information about any children in the house was given to the judge. Nor was any information given to the judge about the fact thatVikernes’ wife was pregnant at the time. DCRI shot their front door open and smashed the window and did not even identify themselves as policemen until after they had entered our home. The evidence used as an excuse to arrest Vikernes and his wife was an e-mail address claimed by an anonymous source to be Vikernes’. Apparently a copy of Mr. Breivik’s manifest had been sent to this address (as if that would be a good reason to arrest even the rightful owner of the e-mail address).

-DCRI already knew that the e-mail address used as an excuse to arrest Vikernes and his wife was not his (they have means to find such things out, fast and easily), so they were satisfied with an investigation into the matter consisting of a single question to Vikernes/his wife: “Is this your/Vikernes’ e-mail address”. Vikernes and his wife replied: “No”, and that was it (…).

-All charges for terrorism were dropped, and Vikernes and his wife were released from custody after two and three days respectively. The names of Vikernes and his wife were cleared by the police (but certainly not by the media). The police found that Vikernes and his wife had done nothing illegal whatsoever.

-Vikernes’ wife had purchased and owned 4 hunting weapons (a .22 LR bolt-action rifle, a .22 LR lever-action rifle, one 12 Gauge side-by-side shotgun and a .223 Remington bolt-action rifle). These weapons were bought legally over a time period of several months, and not all at once or in a very short time, as claimed by most media institutions. The firearms were purchased by Vikernes’ wife, because she was in a rifle club and wanted a hunting licence to be able to hunt medium and small game later on, something she believed was important in relation to survivalism.

-Mr. Manuel Valls was at the time the head of the department responsible for the arrest.

-In 2013 politicians (and not at all the [secret] police…) tried to have Vikernes expelled from France, on grounds that he was a risk to national security. Three different judges in Brive declared that there was no reason whatsoever to expel Vikernes.

-Vikernes and his wife work in France, and pays taxes normally like others working and living in France do.

-In 2013 Vikernes had to go to court in Paris accused of “racism, Antisemitism and apology of war crimes and crimes against humanity”, but his defense lawyer was not allowed to see the ‘evidence’, made up of 900 pages of mainly print-screens, until a few days before the trial, so it was postponed until the 3rd of June 2014….

Taken from the Thulean Perspective blog. 

OBAMA COVERAGE: White House U.S. is not at war with the Islamic State

OBAMA COVERAGE: White House U.S. is not at war with the Islamic State

But they are at war with us, you traitorous quisling.

The “JVer” speaketh.

Despite the mass slaughter in the cause of Allah, despite the fall of countries, and whole swaths of continents, for that matter, to jihadists, despite the warnings that they are coming for us, Obama insists that “man-made disasters” and “workplace violence” are nothing to concern our empty little heads with. READ MORE!!!

View On WordPress

OBAMA COVERAGE: White House U.S. is not at war with the Islamic State

OBAMA COVERAGE: White House U.S. is not at war with the Islamic State

But they are at war with us, you traitorous quisling.

The “JVer” speaketh.

Despite the mass slaughter in the cause of Allah, despite the fall of countries, and whole swaths of continents, for that matter, to jihadists, despite the warnings that they are coming for us, Obama insists that “man-made disasters” and “workplace violence” are nothing to concern our empty little heads with. READ MORE!!!

View On WordPress

P – Q

Paean, paeon, peon, pee on

Pail vs. pale

Palate, palette, pallet

Paramount vs. tantamount

Passed vs. past

Peaceable vs. peaceful

Peak, peek, pique, Piqué

Peal vs. peel

Pedagogue vs. demagogue

Pedal, peddle, pedo, petal

People, peoples, persons

Per se

Percent vs. percentage


Perquisite vs. prerequisite

Perspective vs. prospective

Persuasive essays


Pet vs. petted

Phenomena, phenomenal, phenomenon

Pleaded vs. pled

Plough vs. plow

Populace vs. populous

Poor, pore, pour

Practice vs. practise

Pray vs. prey

Precede vs. proceed

Premier vs. premiere

Prepositions (ending sentences with)

Prescribe vs. proscribe

Principal vs. principle

Pronounciation vs. pronunciation


Prophecy vs. prophesy

Purposefully vs. purposely

Quid pro quo


Dinsdag 9 augustus 1994

In Oslo

Er viel geen bom. Hoewel er in augustus meestal spannende dingen gebeuren. Denk aan de inval van Saddam Hoessein in Koeweit, of de val van Gorbatsjov. In een krantenstalletje ligt een Volkskrant met een aangenaam verhaaltje op de voorpagina over Bolk + Wiegel + Paars. Ik besluit ‘m aan te schaffen hetgeen nog meer leesplezier oplevert. Op de brievenpagina heeft een mevrouw een relaas dat zij in de trein niet gediend is van medepassagiers en met name de mannelijke helft van de bevolking niet. Ha, ha nog steeds mesjogeraars in Nederland.
Vandaag bezoek ik het Noors verzetmuseum. Op 9 april 1940 werd Noorwegen plotseling bezet door de Nazi’s. De kong en de kroonprins regeerden vanuit Schotland en de Noorse Nazi heette Quisling.
De toenmalige kong (Haakon VII) en kroonprins (Olav V) liggen thans begraven in het mausoleum van het Akerhusslot.


Je kunt er voor je ansichtkaarten speciale stempels krijgen en daarom besluit ik om ze allemaal vanaf hier te verzenden.
-s Avonds ben ik in het Vigelandpark, genoemd naar de beeldhouwer, die allerlei menselijke emoties heeft trachten uit te beelden. En ik kan er niets aan doen maar een huilend kind vind ik nogal wat weg hebben van Manneke Pis.



In het centrum tegenover het slottet bel ik mijn moeder. “Man he” zegt ze “ben je nu weer in Oslo?” Verrassend is het zeker, een week geleden wist ik dat zelf niet eens.


selfie hoewel dat in 94 helemaal niet zo heette, van de spiegel in de hotelkamer.