Archives for category: Ideological currents

From the beginning of the pandemic, I heard one simple idea every now and then, and it seems to express the assumption upon which a lot of policies came to be demanded:

I have a right not to be infected.

That is of course a falsity. There is not and can be no such right, as such. You have a right, at most, to negotiate the terms of your avoidance of infection.

The phrase: “I have a right not to be infected” shows an expectation of a miraculous nature imputed to rights as such, or to government in general.

How rights work in the real world are not so magical. A right is a specific kind of human instrument that only works when specifically limited to performable operations.

After all, every right articulates an obligation. In law, the obligations (and therefore rights) we worry about are those that may be compelled by law, or by those operating under its umbrella. We cannot compel people not to infect each other. We cannot effectuate such an outcome. Viruses are slippery critters. We can only compel people to do this and that. And most of those thises and thats must be negotiated for, traded for, accommodated by manners or by convenience. The error here — this assumption of having a right that is beyond our means to perform — has been made all across the political spectrum. I’ve heard it, or words to that effect, from progressives, conservatives, libertarians. All are wrong. Very wrong.

I suppose at some point I’ll have to write about why this is so. It seems obvious to me, but what’s obvious to me isn’t widely observed. Think of it like a similar notion, which I often hear amongst my compeers: “no one has a right to pollute.” Well, estoppel principles apply, and finders-keepers/first-poopers rights apply, too.

One should not try to make ”rights” do too much work. That is the way to break the tool itself — and rights are a very useful tool. It would be a pity were it broken because its users abused it.


According to current lore, there are “right-wing facts” and “left-wing facts.” Common sense would immediately tell you that there are “right-wing fantasies” and “left-wing fantasies” and also the same binary split on lies, evasions, suspicions, errors, misinformation, disinformation, bigotry, and all the rest.

Left-wingers often mention that great formulation, “alternative facts.” The usual harrumph and chortle is that “there are no ’alternative facts,’” just lies and error, etc. But in the current context, “alternative fact” is spot on: an alternative fact is a fact that fits the “other side’s” ideology, not yours.

It is not as if facts only line up on one side.

That being said, much of what we are all really arguing about is myth, theory, and values. We do have different values. And with those values come different visions of a better world. At first blush, right-wingers hate basic left-wing values, and vice versa, but many others just think that the values and visions of their opponents yield consequences — because of the nature of reality — at variance with the ideologues’ expectations.

The biggest values/visions differences regard sex and the family. Yesterday’s sexual conservatism mirrors — reflects in reverse — on the values level, with today’s “genderism” (for want of a better word). But despite one’s initial or acculturated preferences and tolerances, one can still take a step back and say that one sort of domestic institution is generally superior to another in terms of, say, producing happy children who go on to be independent, sociable beings and a general boon to society (noting that criminals are a huge drain, and that criminality is a good thing to suppress). But a knee-jerk sexual conservative is no more interested in seeing the social benefits of un-persecuted homosexuals than a knee-jerk sexual “gender progressive” is of heteronormativity.

Thankfully, most of us need not fall into the knee-jerk values/visions camps. We should be able to argue.

But right now our culture incapacitates us for this. And we are left with people arguing over “alternative facts.”

For my part, I’ve used the word “anomalous” more often, and try to find data that might change minds. All it takes is one datum to disprove a theory. Well, if it is a significant enough datum.

And I note that almost no one uses that word today, datum.

This actually seems significant. People cannot conceive of a datum that would change their minds.

In my general defense, in the last five years I’ve found single bits of information here and there that very much have changed my mind. But I have also incorporated much, much data that has solidified other beliefs.


…a note from Facebook….

There is an element of fairness embedded in the idea of justice. The vice of the left is to think that fairness can be imposed upon society by correcting for nature and chance, which operate heedless of human preferences. This is such an awesome task — impossible, really — that the motto of the left could be “everything is political.”

The left’s characteristic form of righteous indignation is envy. And there is no intellectual humility in sight.

There is an element of vengeance to the idea of justice. The vice of the right is to think that this is the whole matter, and that extremity of retaliation for a wrong is usually better than moderation. The motto of the right could be “there is no kill like overkill.”

The right’s form of righteous indignation is wrath.

And intellectual rigor is rarely welcome.

Of course, the terms left and right, relating to politics, are also outmoded and flimsy, and your mileage may differ, simply because of the inherent relativity of “left and right.” It all depends upon which direction you are looking.

But it is astounding how unidirectional most folk are, hence the ability to plot politics, if clumsily, in bi-directional terms. And name the vices.

twv, November 24, 2015

Andrew Sullivan tweets:

2016 election. Rittenhouse. Covington. Russian collusion. Vaccines. Bounties on US soldiers. Lab-leak theory. Jussie Smollett. The Pulse shooting. The Atlanta shootings. Hunter Biden laptop. Inflation. Steele Dossier.
The MSM got every single one wrong.

The major (Mockingbird) media didn’t merely get these stories wrong, they told untruths: they lied and spun and propagandized for the maximum state, for their beloved Woke Leviathan.

I confess to having thought that we had reached Peak Progressivism with the mass excoriation of the Covington kids, but O, how much lower journos could go!

In Sullivan’s think piece he links to, he writes that

when the sources of news keep getting things wrong, and all the errors lie in the exact same direction, and they are reluctant to acknowledge error, we have a problem. If you look back at the last few years, the record of errors, small and large, about major stories, is hard to deny. It’s as if the more Donald Trump accused the MSM of being “fake news” the more assiduously they tried to prove him right.

Regarding the Rittenhouse case, Mr. Sullivan tries to sound level-headed: “Almost immediately, the complicated facts became unimportant. The far right viewed Rittenhouse as a hero — which he surely wasn’t. He had no business being there with an AR-15.” This is very similar to Paul Jacob’s opinion, actually, who makes similar points in his most recent podcast:

But as I mentioned to Paul in this episode (I interview him for this project of his, every weekend), my position is far less centrist.

Now, when the Kenosha, Wisconsin, riots and Rittenhouse shootings occurred, I decided to wait until more information came in. I did not make a big deal of his innocence or guilt. I was willing — nay, eager — to let a jury decide. In that I was being as normal and centrist-civilized as one could hope for. But as evidence mounted, young Mr. Rittenhouse’s innocence looked quite likely. Then, after the prosecution has made its opening “case,” an acquittal seemed to me as obviously the only just result.

All those media mavens, Democrats and beltway libertarians who jumped on the bandwagon against Rittenhouse have lots of egg on face.

Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. The men he shot were trying to kill him. They were criminals and were very much acting in the wrong. Paul Jacob, being a nice person, states that it no one wants to see them killed, but — after the fact — I see no reason to shed the tiniest tear for these miscreants.

And while I am unclear as to the legality of Rittenhouse’s open carry, I admit: I do not much care. He was just to carry his weapons, and the rioters were in the wrong, generally, and politicians and cops who let it all happen were cowards at best.

Another major defeat for “woke,” riot-loving leftists. Good. They deserve nothing better than our spittle.

And as for Rittenhouse being imprudent for carrying an AR-15 — really? He had “no business” carrying it into a riot zone?

Everybody has by now seen the judge’s remonstrance of the prosecutor for a line of interrogation that is germane to the issue. The prosecutor was trying to show that Rittenhouse came to the event wanting to kill. The prosecutor was aiming to take a weeks’-old statement by KR about wishing he’d had his rifle with him to shoot some looters as evidence. The judge had declared that line of inquiry off limits earlier on, and, after removing the jury from the room, “yelled at” the prosecutor.

The principle the prosecutor relied upon (and got Rittenhouse to admit on stand) was that we do not have a right to defend property with deadly force. Democrats hold this as a bedrock principle. Perhaps that is why they let rioters riot. After all, a mob won’t stop mayhem upon mere instruction. Deadly force is required. So Democrats have convinced me that the use of deadly force to protect property must be at least sometimes OK.

Thanks, Democrats. You’ve changed my mind.

So I disagree with both Paul Jacob and Andrew Sullivan: when cops and politicians don’t do their jobs, it is up to citizens to take up arms and defend life and property. It is obvious that, contrary to the prosecutors, Rittenhouse did not go out hoping to shoot anyone. But taking a weapon did lead the crazies to attack him. And since Rittenhouse had been doing nothing wrong, their attacking him was a gross violation of his rights. His shooting of them was just. But I also go further: his arming himself in the melee was just, and more citizens should have done it.

Sure, it seems wrong for a 17-year-old to do this job. But that is not his fault. The adult officials who shirked their duty are to blame. And so are the fully adult citizens who should have taken up arms. And, if necessary, did what the prosecutor wanted to convince the jury that Rittenhouse himself itched to do: shoot at rioters.

Mobs are evil. That is, rioting mobs are evil.

At some point, they must be opposed just like we oppose marauding bands.

But Democrats are incapable of admitting that this is what a civilization must do. Democrats are so into “inclusion” that they look at all outsiders as “oppressed” and not, as rioters and illegal immigrant invaders are, themselves the actual oppressors.

Because Democrats no longer believe that the State is justified by the civilizational need to destroy those who would destroy us — hordes and mobs and criminals and even armies — they corrupt the institutions of police and courts and border guards and military so to disenable them from protecting us. I simply submit that when governments give up their prime task, citizens must take the necessary work.

Don’t want to see “vigilantism”? Then make sure the state does its Job One. When the State won’t do this job, it not only de-legitimizes itself, it legitimizes vigilantism.

Don’t want vigilantes? Then make sure the State (including local governments) does Its Job (their jobs) — or else consider institutional alternatives to the State. There are such alternatives, and maybe now is the time to talk about them.

Until then, young Mr. Rittenhouse may not be the hero we wanted, but he appears to have been the only hero on the streets in Kenosha that fateful day.

We just cannot expect the major media to even understand this. They have been trained to serve as (and are paid to be) the lickspittle of the Leviathan State.


The recent ITV reënactment (adaptation) of William Makepeace Thackeray’s Vanity Fair looks really good, but it seems unfortunate that the character Sambo — described as badly legged and black on the first page of the novel — is here a well-shaped, stately black African (played by a British actor), not an Indian, and is called “Sam.”

Racial, racism, stereotypes, blah blah blah. What would Thackeray make of P.C.?

The show is on Amazon Prime, but the book is everywhere. I have in my hand a very nice Könemann two-volume, boxed edition.


The Sambo I knew as a kid.

Is it possible to get more pathetic than this?

The “Racism is small-dick energy” sign is hilariously racist. I mean, it’s funny. Especially in a crowd dominated by white-chick/pink-clit progressives.

Trying to understand the moralistic cultism of the left is an ongoing project, but until this sign I had not thought of applying an old-fashioned Freudianism to the endeavor. But what if leftist mob behavior were driven by “penis envy”?

Or maybe this is simply white women lusting after black dick.

Maybe these woke white women of the west really do think “white men” (the worst people in the world!) are envious of bigger black cocks, and that is why white men keep the bigger men down!

At this point, I wouldn’t discount any of these theories.

In any case, a bunch of white women in masks kneeling (not standing) in solidarity with a Marxist-led anti-white racist group like Black Lives Matter is so silly that maybe we should just chuckle.

But if you are looking for a theory behind the put-down, “racism is small dick energy,” you might have to supply it yourself. What I’ve read is small-brained.


Hey, you can buy this goofy slogan on Amazon!

Is libertarianism an outdated ideology?

…as answered on Quora….

Funny you should ask.

For the first time I heard the word “libertarian” I was informed in no uncertain terms that it was hopelessly old-fashioned, backward, and inapplicable to modern society.

The sages who told me this were the news anchors of KOIN Channel 6 in Portland, Oregon. The occasion was the night of the 1976 Democratic National Convention. After the festivities ended, the Libertarian Party candidate for the presidency, Roger MacBride, ran a television spot making his pitch for “A New Dawn for America” (his horrible slogan and the title of his campaign book) with liberty as the centerpiece. I was a teenager, and was intrigued by MacBride’s presentation. After it ended, the CBS affiliate’s local news show came on, and they immediately commented on the Libertarian candidate’s ad. It has been over four decades since then, so my memory’s a bit fuzzy, but the gist was simple: “Those kinds of ideas may have worked in the 19th century, but not today, in our complex society.”

Now, that was an interesting contention, but they gave no evidence for it. As I thought about it for the next year, I put it in the iffy category of ideological statements.

What was clear was that, after freeing the slaves, Americans swiftly became more nationalistic, imperialistic, interventionist, and government-happy. So, with each ratcheting up of the new Leviathan State, libertarian ideas had become further alienated from the general tenor of American political thought. I had read some Jefferson at that age, and dipped into Locke; I knew Thoreau and the abolitionists; I had an inkling of the kinds arguments used to fend off — unsuccessfully — the growth of government in the late 19th and 20th centuries. It was obvious to me that libertarian ideas were linked to the Declaration of Independence and the fight against slavery. I thought it weird that a people that prided itself on ending slavery, in spite of or because of all the bloodshed it cost, would now be so blasé about scoffing at universal freedom, the libertarian idea. The idea decreasingly struck me as time-bound. Universal freedom and individual responsibility were, if anything, a future ideal set, not a past one, for it was obvious that Americans had been tempted by power from the outset, and gave in to the temptation at the cost of liberty. Repeatedly.

A year or so after hearing that political advertisement I read Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia. The radicalism of the idea was pretty clear. But it was not an alien radicalism, like socialism struck me. This was familiar. Homely. And decent.

But accepting it as an ideal principle of political life required settling some factual and philosophical problems. I slowly worked those over.

Our culture did not follow my path. The enticements of power always tempt us in modern, partisan politics — including especially that mad drive to live at the grudging expense of others — and Americans seem hell-bent on succumbing.

Every year a little more.

Our culture has settled into its rut of statism, and it would be hard to jump out of the groove and take a new tack or track. We are “path dependent,” as social scientists like to say. There are costs associated with changing course.

But the course is not set to a lodestar, or to a clock. A moral ideal and a matter of general advantage does not change no matter how many wrong turns you take.

“No matter how far you have gone on the wrong road, turn back.”

—Turkish proverb

…a year ago on Facebook….

Much of today’s political tribal warfare strikes me as superficial and stupid, and my friends here on Fb and elsewhere no doubt often note that I sport no great respect for most participants, especially the movers at the top, but also anyone who is relentlessly partisan.

One reason is that I do not think very many people reason their way into their ideologies. Reason appears later in the filiation of ideas, as rationalization. And of course it does to some extent with me, too. But I read Jefferson, Locke, Nozick, Plato, Nietzsche, Peirce and a lot of political philosophy and economics and even sociology and anthropology in my teens before I adopted my current perspective. So my occasional gloating is rationalized on the excuse of past reason. (And in my defense I never have really stopped reading or reasoning.)

So what is really behind political ideological “identification”? It is “tribal,” yes, but more important is that it is sexual.

Usually I bring up the religious nature of political ideology, but a few of my friends may note that I not irregularly bring up sex.


Well — It is almost all about sex.

And honor.

Sexual honor is a main standard of hierarchy legitimation.

Which is why people take it all so personally. Why is Trump so awful? He is sexually icky! Why is he so great? He is just so tough and impressive! Sure, ideological discord sure looks like it should be seen as a technical policy matter — at least from a superificially reasonable perspective. But it is not. Because fundamentally it is really about sex, family, work, and honor, and the idealized styles of same.

It always has been, and probably always will be, about Our Sex versus Theirs. “We do sex right” while “They do sex wrong.”

And this is why leftism, hollowed out by the failure of so many socialist and technocratic programs, now is reduced to a husk of thought, obsessed with gender and trans activism and things like that. Because all the left really has left is the defense of non-heterosexual sexual activity and its lurking-in-the-background anti-natalism. Meanwhile, the right is on the verge of reviving a defense of full-blown heteronormativity. Wait for it, wait for it….

I find this rather funny. A comedy of ideas reduced to sex farce.

Time to read Tom Sharpe again.

N.B. A few weeks ago I read Sharpe’s latest
Wilt sequel. It was not very relevant to this subject, alas.
Perhaps The Gropes’ll be more relevant.

“Overuse of vaccines will drive the development of viruses that are able to evade vaccination.”

“The people that will suffer from this naïve, inappropriate policy of global universal forced vaccination when the potent virus escaped mutants develop will be those people at high risk, the people who most need the vaccine.”

Malone appearing on Jimmy Dore’s show.

Dr. Robert Malone, initial developer of the mRNA vaccine technology, basically (but not explicitly) backing up Geert Vanden Bossche’s fear of massive immune escape driven by universal vaccination with a limited-utility vaccine.

He goes on to say that he believes this technology can be good, but only if targeted at specific populations. Previously, he had noted that forced universal vaccination goes against everything he was taught about bioethics and proper, moral medical practice, which entirely rests upon informed consent. Everyone, he says, has the right to reject medical treatment.

I am only 17 minutes in, and cannot watch the whole thing right now. But Dr. Malone — whom if you have been following the subject* is almost certainly known to you — provides an important perspective on the current contagion and immediate over-reaction by governments and the karen class.

As all my friends know, I hazard that the current pandemic response is revolutionary: a psy-op, as well as an act of war by China and the elites against the American and world population. I also believe that . . . oh, well, you know what I suspect . . . that the new fascism has arrived, that Democrats are establishing it with lip-smacking glee at their new-found grip on power, and that all you who parrot the psy-op slogans (the CDC’s clever-but-evil assurance that the jabs are “Safe, effective, and free!”) are behaving like (and are the moral equivalent of) those Weimar Germans who saw hope in the chancellorship of You-Know-Who.

I hope I don’t understate things. I believe it is evil to promote universal vaccination with experimental technology whose utility is diminishing right before our eyes during the rollout.

If you spread the idea of universal vaccination, you are not merely wrong, you are morally wrong, and should stop. You don’t need to reject all vaccines or the idea of widespread use of some vaccines. You just need to look at the risks and look at standard Hippocratic practice to know that you are morally wrong to demand others “get the jab.”

Yesterday I shared on social media Richard Dolan’s excellent discussion of the current situation:

My only disagreement with Dolan is his underplaying of China’s role.

But be that as it may, we are now seeing the Therapeutic State, which Thomas Szasz warned about for decades — he saw its emergence in institutional psychiatry — come into its own as a totalitarian global order. The New World Order as prescribed by billionaires and Deep State operatives like George Herbert Walker Bush and “crazed futurists” is being established right now.

Dolan thinks there is hope, that we have time to stop it. I won’t be the one to dash that hope. For now.


Government has always been eager to save you from the problems it has caused.

Now, with gain-of-function research proved under NIH’s aegis, we know this is quite literally true regarding the pandemic.

The only way to break free of statism’s ratcheting circular non-argument is to openly disbelieve and to mock government officials and disobey their orders.

“The state is the coldest of all cold monsters, everything it possesses it has stolen and every word out of its mouth is a lie.”

Nietzsche’s great observation, from memory.

Supporting state coercion because you are afraid of a disease the government gave you is to be a pathetic weasel, unfit for civilized discourse: you should be shunned, not praised.

Don’t be a weasel. Don’t be a slave. Break free of the slaver’s mill, which goes round and round and round and breaks you.

A Facebook friend gave me push-back for this:
Stirring up fears is certainly a recurring pattern in electoral politics, and democratic practices are, to varying degrees, everywhere flawed, but why, several generations on from representative government being seriously attempted, is it still part of entirely normal discourse to regard “the State” (hence any state) as wholly other?

My response:
It is a system with its known properties, and I don’t regard it as wholly other. It is in some sense a representation of a certain type of human soul, one we all sometimes also represent: the repackaging of vice as virtue. I do not regard it as wholly other from humanity. Though I do regard it as something wholly other from me. I am not the State. I mostly criticize the states that say I am theirs. I try to get those who are in my same pickle to stop thinking of the State as their Savior, and see it for its actual qualities, and consider, where we can find them, alternatives.

Facebook, Timo Virkkala’s personal page, September 12, 2021 — whence hails all the squibs in today’s blogpost.

Why would you believe anything from people who suppress debate? Why would you trust the expertise of those who will not honestly respond to criticism?

None of the information we are told is reliable, much of what has been said as official truth has been proven to be lies, and the people who push all this ”information” couple it with draconian policy that just so happens to advance their their careers and their class at the expense of the non-professional majority. The whole pandemic has been managed as if to show the extremity of Franz Oppenheimer‘s theory of The State as an exploitation system, coupled with Molinari’s Terrorism theory of the State, and explanations of special interest politics by Pareto, Mises, Buchanan and others. Going in, I was deeply suspicious because I was more than aware of the possibilities for abuse by “experts.” I was not suspicious enough.

And now comes forced vaccination of a vaccine that cannot possibly induce herd immunity, and may very well induce immune escape.

But it is a good way to end the republic. So there is that.

We are told to believe things all the time that stink of a lie from the beginning, but which people just blithely accept.

One such story? That Seal Team Six killed Osama bin Laden and threw his body into the ocean so that it wouldn’t cause problems.

Yeah, right. That makes sense.

A more likely scenario? One of Osama’s lookalike doubles was discovered, and the Barack Obama administration decided to tie up a “loose end” in the war on terror. So they sent in soldiers not to arrest the man — that would have left things quite untied — but to shoot him, and then they got rid of the DNA evidence so to not show what happened.

Maybe this was the moment that I stopped believing any official story. Because I bought the 9/11 explanations as they came at us fast and furious, and for a long time. But the Osama bin Laden assassination was a dumb story. If true, that makes Obama look like a cretin. He was many things, and many things bad, but he was not a cretin.

Then again, people bought the story, so. . . . Reality looks more and more like a very bad paranoid movie, one where even your greengrocer is a conspirator.

The President declared that the unvaxxed in workplaces put the vaxxed at risk.

This either shows you how bad the vaxxes are, or that the president just wants an excuse for tyranny.

I shared a thought from last year today.

Credulity. “Being a mark.” The study of how cons are pulled off should then be applied to policy discussion in modern times.

The current con job that has been rolled out worldwide is to force vaccination onto people, even when it is obvious it would not help them, even when it would hurt them. You know, “to save other people.” You know you are talking to a con artist when he narrows the spread of options, focusing tightly onto an issue and never bringing in obvious and quite salient factors.

Re: vaccination? When they don’t talk about natural immunity and when they push vaccination on the immunodeficient. These vaxxers, then, are either con artists or the deluded-by-same, and spreading their idea pathogens “rationally.” What I remember most about 2020 is how governments ginned up fear but never once advised people to eat healthy, get plenty of sunshine, take the apt vitamin and mineral supplements, and exercise. This really is the marker. If there’s a contagion spread by breath, and they tell you to stay indoors, they are probably evil.

Other clues: they suppress debate and information-sharing and curb the search for treatments. When they scorn a treatment as, say, “horse de-wormer” or just unapproved, and then demand everyone accept jabs of experimental, under-studied drugs made in tandem with gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, then the level of psy-op has gone beyond the madness of crowds level. We are dealing with more than just the gullible.

What would we call it?

Please excuse me if I speculate about civilizational death wish.

A friend commented on the above:
In addition to all their civilization ending death wishes, the normies have absolutely no understanding of immune function and its importance to dealing with v viruse. There are numerous immune related topics to which they respond as if I were explaining the same subjects to my cat. They do not understand that the deadly ARDS stage of lung clogging is the result of an impaired immune systems’ over-reaction to the virus. Therefore, they did not understand the importance of immune boosting to preclude that phenomenon. They don’t understand that immune boosting occurs with high doses of vitamin D3, vitamin C and zinc along with HCQ and/or quercetin. They don’t understand that ivermectin is safe and has antiviral properties. Therefore, they do not understand the importance and efficacy of early treatments. They don’t understand that the vaccine is not an antibiotic that simply kills the virus. I could go on and on because they understand nothing about the medical science aspects of the virus and the illness that it causes. Whenever any of these points are made even with a peer reviewed medical study, their response 98% of the time is a laughing emoji.

Bob Roddis, Facebook, September 13, 2021.

I’ve known this all my life. Its play in in-group hierarchies and out-group marginalization is what led me to consider political philosophy.

I never bought into the idea that government is primarily established and maintained to provide unequivocal public goods, benefitting all. I have always known that human being are far more warped than that, and that government provides a perfect machinery for advantaging a few at the expense of the many, and then churning the issue and doing it for a different set of exploiter/exploited. This was obvious to me at age 14. Why it is not obvious to everyone puzzles me.

Maybe it was my sensitivity to small betrayals by friends in school that led me to a realistic view of human nature.

The demented president of the federal union of states, humiliated by his own false assurances and lies about the Afghanistan pull-out, is trying to fix his plummeting approval ratings by sparking the ultimate Us vs. Them panic. His expressions of disgust for those who refuse to vax up, in the context of a witlessly mad and madly spooked population, may prove the uncorking of the shaken bottle of our civil war. “Our patience is wearing thin.”

This could be the modern equivalent of Goebbel’s Beer Hall Putsch speech of November 9, 1938.

Goebbels spoke in [Hitler’s] place and announced to those assembled the news of the diplomat’s death. Then he reported on the antiJewish manifestations that had erupted in Kurhesse and Magdeburg-Anhalt, adding that Hitler, after hearing his ideas, had decided that the party should do nothing either to help prepare or organize such demonstrations. However, he added, should such outbursts take place spontaneously, no attempt ought to be made stop them.

Stefan Kley, “Hitler and the Pogrom of November 9/10, 1938,” Yad Vashem: The World Holocaust Remembrance Center.