1,691 words
German translation here
Quentin Tarantino’s last movie, Inglourious Basterds (2007), tells the story of a group of American Jews who team up with a non-white (an Amerindian-white mix from Tennessee with an Italian name, like Tarantino himself), to torture, mutilate, and slaughter evil white men and women (Germans, Nazis) during World War II. ‘Terds, in short, is nothing but an elaborate fantasy of Jewish sadism and revenge. Tarantino’s producer, Lawrence Bender, told him, “As your producing partner, I thank you, and as a member of the Jewish tribe, I thank you, motherfucker, because this movie is a fucking Jewish wet dream.” Lovely people.
Tarantino’s latest movie, Django Unchained (2012) tells the story of a black former slave, Django (Jamie Foxx), who is trained as a bounty hunter by an itinerant German dentist, Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz). Django and Schultz then try to locate and buy Django’s wife Broomhilda (sic). Once Broomhilda is discovered, Django goes on to slaughter countless evil whites: slave owners, their sisters, toothless inbred redneck morons, slave traders, and the horses they rode in on — apparently with exploding bullets, given the geysers of blood, severed limbs, and flying entrails that, aside from inducing nausea and nervous laughter, give the film a tiresome, farcical feel.
Chattel slavery was an evil institution inflicted upon black slaves and free whites alike by America’s small, sociopathic capitalist class, which included such revered “Founding Fathers” as Presidents Washington and Jefferson, who, to advance the economic interests of their class, used a lot of high-flown twaddle about rights, freedom, and equality to get the rabble to fight and die in a war of secession from England.
When America was founded, it was an overwhelmingly racially and culturally homogeneous country, but it was never really an organic community in which social inequalities had to justify themselves by serving the common good. Instead, it was a liberal society in which individuals, who possess “rights” that trump considerations of the common good, sought to enrich themselves by means that a decent society would not have permitted, including slavery.
Ideally, America would have been a classical republican society with a broad middle class of self-employed farmers, tradesmen, craftsmen, and merchants. To prevent the loss of freedom that comes when a few wealthy men end up employing masses of poor men, enterprising individuals would have been kept in check, so that there would be few employers and few employees. Capitalism and inequality would, in short, have been subordinated to the common good.
The second best option would have been the regulation of capitalism by a strong political alliance of independent smallholders and organized labor, with the aim of creating a genuinely organic republic. (The labor movement, in my opinion, is the one truly heroic chapter in American history.) Under such a system, slavery would have been abolished peacefully and bloodlessly, with compensation, as it was virtually everywhere else, and all blacks would have been repatriated to Africa to enhance the racial and cultural homogeneity that are the greatest blessings and strengths of any society. Large plantations would have been split up into small, independent farms. The people from the big houses would have learned to pick their own damn cotton.
It would be wonderful to have a movie that dramatizes the true evils of slavery, and of capitalism more broadly, from a pro-worker, pro-smallholder point of view. But Django Unchained is not that movie. The truth about slavery was evil enough. One does not need to exaggerate or tell lies about it. But this movie is filled with ludicrous lies and just plain indifference to the truth.
A title card informs us that the movie is set in 1858, “two years before the Civil War.” The Civil War, of course, began in 1861.
In one scene, we see masked vigilantes on horseback, presumably the Ku Klux Klan, which was not founded until 1865.
When Dr. Schultz learns that Django’s wife is named Broomhilda, he tells the story of Siegfried and Brünnhilde, incorporating elements of Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen, the libretto of which had been written in 1852 but circulated only among Wagner’s friends. The two operas from which Dr. Schultz was borrowing, Die Walküre and Siegfried, premiered in 1870 in 1876 respectively.
At one point, we are ushered into the Cleopatra Club, a lavish brothel full of black whores. (It seems odd that white men would prefer black whores when white whores were plentiful.) The historical Cleopatra, the seventh of her name, may have been a bit of a whore, but she was a Macedonian Greek, not a black.
The Cleopatra Club is decorated with busts of Queen Nefertiti, who lived 1,300 years before Cleopatra, and who was not black either. The particular bust that is reproduced, which is in the Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin, was unearthed in Tel-el-Amarna in 1912.
But why be pedantic, given that this movie is created by a consummate cynic for an audience of morons?
In one of the salons of the Cleopatra Club, its owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) is overseeing a “Mandingo fight” between two strong blacks. The fight does not take place in a ring, but just at one end of a room, surrounded by the chairs of spectators — an absurd, impractical, and unsafe arrangement, given that these men are fighting to the death. (There is no evidence that slave owners ever had such gladiatorial contests, by the way.)
After a lot of grunting and some eye-gouging, Candie orders the victorious slave to dispatch his opponent with a claw hammer. Later Candie orders a runaway slave torn to pieces by dogs. Yes, this is a disgustingly sadistic movie: the Marquis de Sade meets Uncle Tom’s Cabin (a characterization I was saving for Mandingo [1975], which now seems like a Jane Austen adaptation by comparison).
The message of this movie to blacks is that white people are loathsome sadists and morons who should be killed with utmost brutality and dispatch. Louis Farrakhan described the movie as “preparation for race war.” White people have died because of this movie, just as white people have died because of the lies Anderson Cooper and other people in the media told about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Thus we should count ourselves fortunate that Django Unchained is so long and boring (at 2 hours and 45 minutes) that it puts insuperable demands on the average black attention span. (At least we’ll know for sure next summer, if babies start turning up with names like Broomhilde and Phrenology.)
If Tarantino had merely wanted to whip up blacks into a murderous rage against whites, he would have made a very different movie. But Tarantino had quite another audience in mind. Tarantino wants an Oscar. He wants it bad. Thus Django Unchained is another Jewish wet dream. This is a movie calculated to appeal to Jewish hatred of white Americans. Specifically, Django Unchained is about the Jewish strategy of using blacks as biological weapons of mass destruction against whites. (Released on Christmas Day, so Jews could see it either before or after dinner at a Chinese restaurant.)
The key to the filmmaker’s intent is that Christoph Waltz plays the character of Django’s partner, Dr. Schultz, as Jewish.
When Dr. Schultz first appears, he is driving a little peddler’s wagon with a large, spring-mounted model of a tooth bobbing drolly on top. He is an itinerant dentist with a foreign accent. He is physically small and nonthreatening, with a shambling gait, and his arms and hands held close to his body. He is a real talker though, with a smooth patter and large vocabulary that the stupid, taciturn goyim find off-putting. But appearances are deceptive, because Dr. Schultz is actually a cold, calculating killer who employs complex subterfuges and a gun up his sleeve to get his way. He is a bounty-hunter, who prefers to bring them in dead. He likens his work to the slave trade: human flesh for cold, hard cash. But his wares can’t run away.
Hateful fantasies about teaming up with blacks to harm whites are staples of the Jewish imagination. During the 2008 US presidential campaign, Sandra Bernhard warned Sarah Palin to stay away from the Jewish stronghold of New York City lest she be “gang-raped by my big black brothers”:
During the 2012 US presidential campaign, Bill Maher warned whites not to vote for Mitt Romney because “Black people know who you are, and they will come after you”:
But the black-Jewish alliance against whites goes far beyond the fantasies of psychopaths with media megaphones. It is an integral part of the Jewish community’s strategy for advancing its collective interests in America.
As our own Andrew Hamilton ably sums up, before the Civil War, Jews were overrepresented among the people who created and benefited from Negro slavery. Furthermore, they played almost no role in abolishing it. However, as Kevin MacDonald exhaustively documents, after the immigration of millions of East European Jews at the end of the 19th century, Jews began to regard black civil rights as a way that they could increase their own communal power by eroding the power of the white majority. Thus Jews have taken the lead in promoting black political emancipation, social mobility, and cultural visibility — all at the expense of the white majority.
It is, of course, impossible for the director of Pulp Fiction to create 2 hours and 45 minutes of film that are completely devoid of charm, although Django Unchained is Tarantino’s worst effort. My favorite parts are Fritz the horse, the Spaghetti Western music, and Samuel L. Jackson’s performance of Calvin Candie’s loathsome and obsequious head house nigger Stephen.
Stephen enjoys great familiarity with and influence over Massa Candie. In front of others, he is the Massa’s faithful echo: “Yassa, dass right.” But in private he pours himself the Massa’s cognac and tells him what’s what. Yet he is so jealous of his status as head nigger that he never considers doing anything for the good of his people. Indeed, he is more zealous about degrading his fellow blacks than Candie himself, who is a proven sadist.
Jackson is a brilliant actor. All he needed to bring this role alive was five minutes watching Tarantino interacting with Harvey Weinstein.
23 Comments
Most Hollyweird movies are ‘jewish wet dreams’. But there is exceptions:
http://www.natvan.com/PeopleIKnow.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_(2011_film)
Nicolas Winding Refn is our generation’s greatest auteur. I await the day when CC reviews his films.
I wonder if the Broomhilda plot is a sort of racial reversal of “The Searchers”, where the Comanche chief keeps the kidnapped White girl as a mistress/wife.
While he was certainly schmoozing it up for the Oscar, I cannot imagine that Tarantino, being his autistic cinemaniac self, would consciously want to do a film to stir up Blacks. I guess that is a side effect he wasn’t aware could happen, and that blindness fits his type. Despite his flirtation with his alledged “Indian heritage” (a SWPL thing), he is essentially a good White liberal who thinks he is doing something good and just for the blacks. Maybe he even identifies with the Christoph Waltz character. It might be “passover syndrome”, as that type of liberal is incapable to actually imagine how Black eyes will view this and feel about it. Also, he loves to show violence for violence’s sake. He probably had old exploitation flicks in mind such the notorious “Addio Uncle Tom”, which targeted basically White audiences for shock value entertainment, hiding behind moral pretensions. In any case, it was irresponsible to do that film, as it adds certainly fuel to the postracial Obamerica, and it will make the divisions even more visible. Jamie Foxx cheering how great it was to “shoot white people” won’t pass unnoticed. I wonder how it will make Whites feel, who watch this in theatres with a majority black audience… any self-respecting White should boycott this film. If anything, this is a test, how low their sense of self-respect and self-consciousness has sunk.
Finally, a great and truthfull review of a Hollywood movie. It WON’T get points with either former record store employee turned genius Hollywood “director”, nor his boss.
Prior to the abolishing slavery the negro was housed,fed, clothed, looked after medically and worked. After slavery ended the negro was housed,clothed,fed, looked after medically and does not work, oh and gets paid on top of all that.
With the industrial revolution starting soon after the war the negro was soon to be obsolete anyway. With the European man’s iventiveness the negro and his labor were no longer needed and his usefulness and contributions were all but a memory and now as in 1865 he is nothing but a burden for he fits in nowhere that is civilized.
I almost feel sorry for Christoph Waltz. I think the man had the potential to be a great but instead choose to be the German/White version of Stepin Fetchit.
Truly sickening is the fact that not only were slave masters in the South not making their slaves (which had cost more then the average man made back then) fight to the death, but that according to John Sack in An Eye For An Eye, genocidal Jews and Poles made German civilians do so at bayonet point. Perhaps this would only make Tarintino and Waltz laugh if they knew about it.
“When America was founded, it was an overwhelmingly racially and culturally homogeneous country, but it was never really an organic community in which social inequalities had to justify themselves by serving the common good. Instead, it was a liberal society in which individuals, who possess “rights” that trump considerations of the common good, sought to enrich themselves by means that a decent society would not have permitted, including slavery.”
Wow. Nicely put. Great article.
Tarantino is an obvious sellout, pathetic and grovelling. Doubtful it will get him anything else than more of a platform to brainwash the masses.
Reminds me of a line from the new BSG where the skinjob tells the human that sold our her race: “Do you think that just because you are more enlightened then the rest of your kind that we hate you any less?”
I don’t agree on the interpretation of dr Schultz. He is obviously not supposed to be Jewish, but is portrayed clearly as a proud, albeit liberal, German nationalist. In fact, it would not be a large stretch of imagination to assume that he was one of the many liberal nationalists driven into American exile by the failed national revolution of 1849. This would explain his Wagner aficionados as well, since Wagner had been a fellow fighter in that struggle.
It easy to forget that romantic German nationalism wasn’t always the enemy of liberal modernity, but rather, at its beginning, its main champion. Such a liberal nationalist would reasonably be an abolitionist of the worst kind as well.
All is not Jewish that glimmers.
Hollywood deals in stereotypes, not nuanced realities. This movie certainly deals in grotesque stereotypes. So although Germans like Dr. Schultz may have existed in the real world, that does not change the fact that the character is not played as a stereotypical German but as a stereotypical Jew.
Dr. Johnson,
You know I generally hold your work in high esteem, but I really have to question your cynical characterization of the American founders. Do you really think that Washington and Jefferson were mere “sociopathic capitalists” who cynically appealed to liberal principles to trick their fellow colonists into killing and dying in a war of secession to advance nothign more than oligarchical class interests? This sounds like a purely Marxist reading of the American Founding to me.
I’m not dogmatically committed to that position, but I do think it is worth making an experiment of deconstructing American capitalism all the way back to the Founders.
1. I think that slavery is a rather transparently evil institution that requires a certain amount of sociopathy or at least moral callousness and hypocrisy to create and sustain it. All a slave trader or slave owner would have to do is ask himself: Would he like to be a slave? All he would have to do is enter imaginateively into the life of a slave and ask himself if this is the sort of life he would like to live. And if not, then why is he inflicting it upon another human being?
2. Jefferson and Washington were highly intelligent men. They were capable of appreciating the suffering of the enslaved. They knew they would not wish to live such a life. And they knew that they were not immune to dramatic reversals of fortune. If the war had been lost, they would have likely hanged. They also knew of the incompatibility of Negroes and whites, the inability for them to live in the same society in conditions of freedom and equality. They knew the damage to free whites done by a slave economy. They knew the dangers to society presented by free blacks. But they didn’t care enough to fix these problems. They didn’t care enough about the common good.
3. Jefferson certainly did not believe that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He owned slaves, after all. He knew that Negroes, free or slave, were bad for white society as a whole. But he did not care about the life, liberty, and happiness of little white folk. What he did care about, however, was getting the little people on board to kill and die in a war of secession that would advance the economic interests of himself and many of the other signatories of the Declaration.
4. At the time of the founding, America was an overwhelmingly homogeneous society. Some of the Founders recognized this as a blessing. But it was not so important even to them to make the preservation of a common race, religion, and culture an explicit provision of the constitution. What was more important to them was the assertion of individual rights against the common good. Thus they created a society in which the pursuit of individual economic interests trumped the common good of the race in matters of immigration. Capitalists gained an advantage over free white laborers by importing black slaves and Asian coolies and by encouraging the immigration of ever more heterogeneous white stocks. And that is exactly what they did.
5. What was really important to America’s founders and rulers? Liberal principles and natural rights? Or wealth? Clearly the latter. Sure, they were all for rights when it suited them. But when such notions got in their way, they were quickly dropped. Hence when the Indians or the Mexicans or the Labor movement got in the way of making money, America’s oligarchs did not bow to the rights of others but resorted to the utmost brutality to maintain and enhance their position.
6. The American Constitution draws upon the best of the Western tradition of political philosophy. But it is essentially a liberal document, meaning that private interests trump the common good, meaning that the document makes no SERIOUS provisions for the perpetuation of the society it supposedly founds. The real foundation of American society — the common race, history, religion, and culture of the people — were simply treated as given, like the land and the buffalo, to be appropriated, consumed, and destroyed by private interests.
7. I believe that liberal individualism, by positing individual rights that trump the common good, i.e., by allowing individuals to enrich themselves at the expense of the common good, is immoral as such. You will not find a single Founder or leading figure in American political and economic history that is not tainted by this moral blight. America was doomed from the founding to become a raceless, rootless, oligarchical machine at war with the organic community that founded it.
Well thought our reply. Thanks for this great review. I won’t be seeing the movie.
Isn’t their “twaddle” about rights one reason CC is allowed to operate as opposed to being shut down for hate speech? Your doors aren’t getting kicked in, at least for the moment, because of the 1st and 4th amendments. To this day, civil libertarians frame their arguments against invasive legislation like the Patriot Act and NDAA using language straight from the 18th century 4th amendment. We get fair trials from the fifth. Gun rights from the second.
These aren’t exactly minor points.
The anti-federalists were responsible for those critical additions to the Constitution, but, broadly, they shared the same worldview as Washington and Jefferson. Of course Jefferson didn’t believe all men are equal, but does that necessarily make his make his soaring rhetoric twaddle for crass material interests?
I know you have a far deeper understanding of the issues than I do and respect that. My understanding has always been, however, based on the texts from the era and putting aside all the modern garbage about the era, Jefferson meant equal in a very, very narrow sense. They were proposing equality as a matter of political/legal right not literal equality. A concrete example of this, in my understating, would be the rabble getting the same free speech protections as the wealthiest merchants. They were proposing are new understanding of “equal” in terms of legal protections, not ability, status, etc.
All leaders use propaganda for their agenda to rally the masses. Hitler did too, and I think he really loved the Germans. But he had to shade the truth in public now and then.
Jefferson did too; his rhetoric might stand alone in English. I don’t care how hokey and goofy people here consider it, his line about humbly pledging our “lives, fortunes and sacred honor” sends a shiver down my spine.
More importantly, note the phrasing: we pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Fortunes. They knew they would lose their immense wealth if they lost, and, as you point out, hang by the neck until dead. You seem to be saying they risked all their wealth (and lives) to protect a portion of their wealth from taxes, motivated solely by the most crass and petty material concerns, not wanting to pay taxes.
I’m sure they were in part motivated by material concerns. As opposed to who? The British or French aristocracy, or the Vatican?
Which leaders are not motivated at some level by material concern? That’s politics, geo-politics, reality. You can’t get anything done with wealth, including pursuing high culture.
Hitler, again, the prototype for the leader who sacrificed all for his people, formulated a master plan that called for stealing land from Slavs for the material benefit of Germans. The material benefits of the secession from Britian did in fact filter down to the common man or rabble, just as the Slavic expansion would have presumably benefited Germans.
Then there is the complete absence of textual support (that I know of) for this reading of the founders’ motives. There is nothing in the public documents, or in their the private letters and diaries, the gist of which is “let’s manipulate these rabble to protect our wealth.” I don’t recall any writings, speeches or documents by the factions loyal to Britain making this argument either. No one (again that I know of) tried to dissuade people from dying for Washington and Jefferson to protect the rich man’s wealth.
If part of your rationale for this reading is that there was a hidden, occult dimension to their motives that they kept out of public view, this gets into a general problem with occult interpretations. If it’s hidden, no clear evidence, how can you know if a person was motivated by something?
Bottom line: I think the preponderance of the evidence is they were trying to act in the common good as they understood it. The better explanation for the deemphasis of organic unity is not indifference but that they just didn’t realize the consequences this deemphasis would have long-term.
I think it’s important not to fall into hagiography about the founding era. Conservatives tend to do this. Just as modern egalitarians see the founders as the worst racist demons, the conservatives see them as almost divine. Still, I don’t think the evidence is very strong it was all a mask to justify capitalist accumulation. White Nationalists (not you) often distort the era as much as any cultural Marxist.
I don’t think that rights exist by nature. But they do exist by convention. And yes, they are embodied in our legal code. So to the extent that most people believe in freedom of speech and the law protects us, these rights protect us. But when our rules think it is in their interests, they regularly ride roughshod over rights. But they do have to factor in public opinion to some extent. But the fact that we benefit from the existing legal system is no reason to think that we can’t improve upon it.
As for the interpretation of the Founders’ movtives, that is an issue I want to continue for another time.
Maybe the two great ones just had a serious blind spot by today’s standards. Having both come from comfortable, educated backgrounds, they likely viewed themselves as big daddies who “knew” what was best in the long run. Pure paternalism, not a scheming, manipulating mentality. Wish I could say the same about today’s “leaders”.
I like your response, Lew.
On number 7: that is the situation of man under modern capitalism. And as Americans, we are the offspring of Mercantile Britain – the leading nation of the time if not the founder of modern Capitalism. Thus as strange as a mixing Howard Zinn and White Nationalism seems, I think there is something needed here. But it must remain an existential criticism not a personal one against the founders or a racial one against Whites. Needless to say, it always has been used this way in the past. Thus, this is very much an “in house” issue, but an important one. We need to do better in the future for sure.
On slavery: some of the signers knew that Black Slavery was a terrible way to start off the new republic. John Adams and his wife wrote to each other about it. But the Northerners who felt this way could not afford to alienate powerful Virginia and the Carolinas. There would have been no revolution or new nation if they had.
Well said, Mr. Johnson!
“America was doomed from the founding to become a rootless, race less, oligarchical machine at war with the organic community that founded it.”
I say this from the perspective of one that has family in this country since the Civil War, that stupid brother war, that took my gr.grandfathers brother, as he, literally, “stepped” off the boat. The farm of my gr. grandfather was hewed out of a hard place and was a success for his family until the “American Clearances”, of the 1980s when a large majority of the family farms were “transferred” to the corporate sector, er, oligarchs. In the long run, this is not about my family but the common good of all of the families that carved out a life for their children from a very hostile place in the beginning only to be appropriated through fraud and deception and transferred to the “Man”.
What a scream! I also thought Jackson’s head house nigger role to be a biograph of Tarantino’s head house nigger role to Weinstein. Samuel L’s performance was the only entertaining thing about this long-winded bore.
Tarantino will always be haunted by the (now seemingly accidental) success of Pulp Fiction. It was a wonderfully entertaining flick, but now he obviously doesn’t possess the power to make even an ‘okay’ B-movie anymore. ‘Terds and Django were obvious attempts for Tarantino to find his way back into the hearts of American hipsters. He speaks of these two movies as if they are serious attempts to make a comeback. Unfortunately Tarantino’s audience has gone from cinephiles to Cartoon Network’s “adult” audience.
Greg, your seven points are brilliant, on elaborating what the founding fathers actually were like. Yes, leftists use many of these points to browbeat the average white person with, but that’s only because of their hatred for the average white person,whom they viciously equate as having those same worst traits that the founding fathers did.
Lew wrote:
“You seem to be saying they risked all their wealth (and lives) to protect a portion of their wealth from taxes, motivated solely by the most crass and petty material concerns, not wanting to pay taxes.”
I wish to remind you that the real reason our founding fathers fought against the mother country of Great Britain was they wished to wrest free from the Bank of England’s control of money. It wasn’t because of taxes. They preferred that the colonies issue it’s own debt-free/interest-free currency, rather than use Bank of England’s debt-based currency, which is very much like the Fed Reserve notes we use today.
It is explained more here: http://www.monetary.org/an-abbreviated-monetary-history-of-the-us-part-1/2010/11
Thanks for this information. That is a long article with a lot to chew on; I’ll have to take a closer look later. Money and banking issues are an interesting vantage point from which to consider their motives and rationales.
Greg J wrote:
1. I think that slavery is a rather transparently evil institution that requires a certain amount of sociopathy or at least moral callousness and hypocrisy to create and sustain it. All a slave trader or slave owner would have to do is ask himself: Would he like to be a slave? All he would have to do is enter imaginatively into the life of a slave and ask himself if this is the sort of life he would like to live. And if not, then why is he inflicting it upon another human being?
Didn’t our founding fathers consider their slaves to be less than a human being? After all, they wrote in the constitution that negroes were 3/5 of a human being. They did consider them in less capacity of whites.
Btw, slave system started with the indentured servants, and then a free black started American slave system as we know it by being the first American to own a slave.
Some one did respond to Dr. Greg Johnson’s item #2 above about Jefferson/Washington :
I agree that the Founding Fathers had their shortcomings and that it is obvious today that the Constitution has some serious oversights and flaws. However, unlike Washington, Jefferson was not that wealthy. In fact, after he died, his estate was heavily in debt. Furthermore, Jefferson was an outspoken critic of slavery and worked his whole life to end it.
So, why did Jefferson own slaves?
People today are a bit spoiled and they tend to forget what it was like 200 years ago. Remember, that was a time before the industrial revolution. If Jefferson had not of owned slaves, his farm would not have been viable at all. Simple as that. And this was true of almost every Southern farm back then. The point is that: (1) Whites could not tolerate the heat of the South in the summer like Africans could; and (2) once one farmer started using slaves, all of them had to or else they will be undercut on price, and thus destroyed, in the marketplace. A similar situation exists today with outsourcing. Under such conditions, it is not so much a question of morality as survival. And the moral solution to the problem requires collective/governmental action, without which it won’t ever be implemented.
The blame lies more with the system of government the Founding Fathers developed, and the constraints imposed on it by limited technology of the time, than any flaws of their characters. They generally wanted to do the right thing, they just didn’t know how to bring it about.