Search

Donald Trump does not have the conventional politician’s instinct to bob and weave when in tricky political territory. He tends to speak his mind based on instinct rather than analysis. While this is an unprecedented development, I don’t think it represents a threat to the GFA, #Trump #Politics #GFA #US

Donald Trump is guided by instinct rather than analysis. That’s what got him elected. That’s why his fans like him. He doesn’t have the normal politician’s instinct to fudge. He says what’s in his mind. That explains yesterday’s comments imo. #Trump #Politics #Instinct #Therearenospecificcountriesmentionedinthetweet.

Can You Resist Tyranny? The average person today is incapable of governing themselves, which is why so many yearn for a new “system.” They desire an external imposition of control to order their lives in a way they feel incapable of doing for themselves. Riddled with fear, they trade liberty for protection. Ideology recasts their resentment as righteousness. Loneliness drives them to find a herd to become one with. Internal chaos creates a demand for imposed order. When you tell people that the answer to collective madness is not collective action in the opposite direction, they often mistake this for rolling over and accepting defeat. But chaos does not defeat chaos. As Friedrich Nietzsche pointed out, “Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.” Think about every hero story you’ve ever admired. The hero doesn’t take to the streets and try to convince everyone of his cause. Rather, he confronts evil head-on and puts himself in the line of fire. A well-ordered individual is not harmless or ineffectual. A single competent, strong, and courageous person can carry more weight and value than a mob of NPCs. As Carl Jung said, “a million zeros do not add up to one.” Nor does being well ordered mean being harmless or indiscriminately nice. Such a person must possess strength, aggression, ambition, judgement, competitive instinct, the capacity for force, and the desire for achievement. The question is what these qualities serve. Money, power, and lust, or love, family, and God? If no strong internal ordering principle exists, a movement, leader, ideology, or State will fill the vacuum externally. No one looking for a solution to increasing social insanity can afford to overlook it. All others are contingent on it. The answer is not to dissociate from the world and simply pull yourself together. It is that a disordered individual cannot possibly bring order to his environment. By becoming a man of virtue, he can then carry that order into the roles individuals occupy: father, teacher, pastor, judge, journalist, leader, neighbour, police officer, and citizen.

The Individual as an Antidote to Tyranny The average person today is incapable of governing himself, which is why so many yearn for a new system. They desire external control to order their lives in ways they feel unable to manage themselves. Riddled with fear, they trade liberty for protection. Ideology recasts resentment as righteousness, while loneliness drives them to join a herd. The answer to collective madness is not collective action in the opposite direction. Chaos does not defeat chaos. As Friedrich Nietzsche observed, “Madness is something rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.” Think of every hero story you admire. The hero does not retreat from danger or surrender to evil. He confronts it directly and places himself in the line of fire. A well-ordered individual is not harmless or ineffectual. One competent, strong, and courageous person can carry more weight and provide more value than a mob. As Carl Jung said, “A million zeros do not add up to one.” Being well-ordered does not mean being harmless or indiscriminately nice. It means possessing judgment, competitive instinct, the capacity for force, and a desire for achievement. The question is what those qualities serve: money, power, and lust—or love, family, and God? This kind of person is an antidote to tyranny. If no strong internal ordering principle exists, a movement, leader, ideology, or state will fill the vacuum from the outside. The well-ordered individual is not incapable of rage, vanity, resentment, cowardice, or cruelty. Awareness of these shadow aspects helps prevent ideological capture and frees him from the seductive belief that “they are evil and we are good.” Anyone seeking a solution to increasing social insanity must recognize that a disordered individual cannot bring order to his environment. By becoming a person of virtue, he can carry that order into every role he occupies—as a parent, teacher, pastor, judge, journalist, leader, neighbor, police officer, or citizen.

The Daycare Governance Model Something sinister is lurking behind the curtain of compassion. We have told ourselves that caring for others is the highest good, but there is a pathological side to it that we refuse to acknowledge. There is a phenomenon known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy. It is a form of child abuse in which a caregiver—typically the mother—fabricates or induces illness in someone under her care in order to gain attention or sympathy. The mother is not indifferent to the child’s well-being, and that is the most disturbing part. She is devoted to the child. Around the clock, she visibly tends to the infant’s needs. This is depicted in *The Sixth Sense*. A young boy who can see and speak to the dead is brought to the wake of a girl named Kyra. She leads him to a box containing a videotape. The tape shows Kyra’s mother quietly lacing her daughter’s food with poison, only to play the role of a saint at her bedside for the gathered relatives—absorbing their pity and praise for how selflessly she cared for her dying daughter. The town saw a devoted mother, but the reality was manufactured sickness. We have scaled this pathology up to the level of civilization. The will to care is one of the most powerful drives in women. Properly channeled, it is deeply necessary and virtuous. But as social institutions—therapy, academia, law, NGOs, and bureaucracies—are increasingly comprised of women, this instinct is redirected from individual children, where it can be extremely beneficial, toward society at large, where it becomes disastrous. I call this the daycare governance model. It has only three roles: infants to be protected, or the oppressed; caregivers to administer care, or the dissenters. The caretaking class, or its allies, gains power and influence by managing human suffering. They are rewarded with prestige, funding, and greater authority—all of which increase in proportion to the number of victims under their care. Those incentives resemble the logic of Munchausen syndrome by proxy: increasing the number of sick people under their supervision will, in the end, produce more sick people.

🇫🇷 5 septembre 1914, il y a 112 ans, mort de Charles Péguy, tombé au champ d'honneur, à Villeroy. « J'ai vu mourir mon lieutenant Charles Péguy. » : un de ses hommes lui rend un émouvant hommage. Le Général de Gaulle disait qu'aucun écrivain ne l'avait autant marqué que Péguy : « Dans les années qui ont précédé la guerre, je lisais tout ce qu'il écrivait, pendant mon adolescence et quand j'étais à Saint-Cyr, puis jeune officier. Je me sentais très proche de lui. Ce qui m'intéressait surtout chez lui, c'était son instinct. [...] Il sentait les choses exactement comme je les sentais, et j'avais l'impression, la conviction, qu'il ne se trompait pas, alors que beaucoup autour de nous se trompaient. » #CharlesPéguy #Histoire #Littérature

🇦🇹🇬🇧 WINSTON CHURCHILL’S LOST AUSTRIAN SON Not by blood. By political instinct. Winston Churchill understood something Europe keeps forgetting: peace is not protected by wishful thinking. Freedom survives when democratic nations are willing to defend it. That is the political https://t.co/jXbrmClw90 #WinstonChurchill #PoliticalInstinct #DefendFreedom #AT #GB

Les néo-convertis insolents Le converti politique est plus bruyant que le fidèle de toujours. Certainement il a une dette à payer, un passé à faire oublier ou encore une loyauté à démontrer au risque de voir d’autres le dépasser . À coup de posts sur les réseaux ou de diatribes sur les plateaux, ils sont les seuls à attaquer violemment avec une insolence naissante. Rassurez-vous que eux même se découvrent insolents du jour au lendemain, parce que c’est plus l’instinct de survie qui parle au détriment de la raison. Vous et moi savons que vous n’êtes pas partis du camp des PATRIOTES pour une divergence de ligne comme vous le prétendez, mais partis parce que le PARTI ne garantissait plus l’accès aux postes et privilèges après des années de combat et deux ans dans l’exécutif. Encore que, celui que vous prétendez défendre aujourd’hui, vous ne l’aimez pas, vous ne le respectez pas ( avec tout ce que vous disiez sur lui dans un passé très récent ) et vous n’allez pas non plus mourrir pour lui. Ce qui est drôle est que , lui même le sait. Par ailleurs, il faut regarder notre société de face et déceler un fait : pour toute une catégorie très importante , la politique n’a jamais été un engagement mais un ascenseur social. On y monte là où la porte s’ouvre, et la porte s’ouvre là où est le pouvoir. Et une fois dedans, tous les moyens sont bons pour y rester, car hors de question d’abandonner le nouveau train de vie débloqué. Oui c’est vrai qu’il est vraiment doux de passer de la classe prolétaire à la classe dirigeante, sans effort. Faites bien preuve de retenue, Messieurs Dames. J’y reviendrai … D’ici là, Regardez-vous dans la glace et soyez sage. #politique #societe #ascenseurSocial

The Left Didn’t Replace Religion… It Became One Many leaders in the West may reject God, but they often believe with near-religious fervor in something else. The progressive worldview mirrors religion: people still crave meaning, so it gets redirected. Science is treated like scripture interpreted by an expert priesthood; capitalism becomes the fallen world; revolution is purification; climate change is apocalypse with repentance; gender identity is the soul, the “true self” trapped in a betraying body. Without metaphysics, evil must be placed in the material world. For many on the left, Hitler functions as a secular Satan, so anything tied to him can be treated as morally contaminated—nationalism, borders, ethnic identity, masculinity, Europeans, industry, and Western traditions. Jung’s “shadow” is projected onto an enemy, letting adherents feel morally pure while avoiding the harder work of facing their own capacity for evil. Where Christianity locates sin inside every heart (“original sin”), the secular version relocates the flaw into the world—into whiteness, the West, nationalism, borders, or any chosen symbol. This framework makes moral judgment easy and singular: if Hitler is evil, then opponents become “fascists,” “Nazis,” or “Hitler.” Disagreement turns from political to moral and existential. This isn’t a claim that progressives can’t see evil elsewhere—it’s that this framework has become an instinctive moral compass. The ruling class isn’t truly secular: it has its own faith, and increasingly expects you to live by it.

Why Therapy Culture Is Making Us Weak Why, despite unprecedented mental-health awareness and therapy language, does mental health seem to worsen? If both “the cure” and “the disease” expand together, we should ask what culture produces them. Modern therapy culture often teaches us to prioritize feelings, explain flaws through trauma, and treat negative emotions as reactions to others. Carl Jung proposed a different order: consciousness—judgment, values, and will—should govern the unconscious, including instincts and emotions. Health means understanding these forces without letting them rule. Today that hierarchy is frequently reversed: emotion outranks reason, and “lived experience” can outrank evidence. Jung warned this resembles “psychological Bolshevism,” where lower impulses overthrow higher faculties in the name of freedom. Nietzsche cautioned that “for every drive wants to be master.” The key question isn’t only where feelings come from, but whether we govern them. Therapy culture can also weaken self-criticism, treating conscience, guilt, and shame as oppressive rather than corrective. With “concept creep” (trauma/harm expanding to cover normal discomfort), personal agency can shrink: if everything is done to us, responsibility becomes harder to exercise. This can spread socially: victim identities bond through grievance, replacing judgment with collective resentment. History shows where that leads. The defense is older than therapy: govern yourself before demanding the world be changed.

Ese instinto femenino de sonreír cuando nos está llevando la vrga YANET NO MERECÍAS PRECIOSA😭 #LaCasaDeLosFamososMx https://t.co/4WhtnvgVBp #LaCasaDeLosFamosos #famosos #instinctoFemenino

Coucou @rglucks1 Moi, instinctivement, si je voulais que la France reste libre, je la confierais pas à un mec dont des rumeurs disent qu'il est TRES proche de "services secrets étrangers". Et ta vidéo "jeune cadre dynamique et volontaire", c'est pourri. Vire ton chargé de comm. #France #Liberté #Politique

Kijk de kansen van Leonardo eens rustig terug. Ongelofelijk hoeveel mensen een commentator napraten en maar roeptoeteren dat hij kans op kans mist. Jongen is totaal nog niet fit maar je ziet aan zijn instinctieve loopacties dat het wel goed komt. #Ajax #Leonardo #Voetbal #Ajax

Metaphysics of the Solitary Absolute: Philosophical and Legal Analysis of the Thesis of Solitary Amorality ​The Thesis of Solitary Amorality, formulated by Tom Nesky under the banner of the Axiom of Relationality of Law and Being, constitutes a radical challenge to classical and contemporary normative theories. Its central premise—stating that law, morality, and the category of crime are not inherent properties of reality, but artificial products of social relations—requires a rigorous deconstruction at the intersection of legal positivism, phenomenological existentialism, ontological anarchism, and monistic metaphysics. This paper attempts a systematic analysis of the intellectual pillars of this thesis, examining its internal coherence, genealogical roots, and consequences for the understanding of freedom and human subjectivity. ​The Systemic Construction of Crime vs. Pure Theory of Law ​The first pillar of the Thesis of Solitary Amorality, designated as Nullum Crimen Sine Systema, posits that law does not discover pre-legal categories of evil, but brings them into existence through the very act of establishing a boundary of permissibility. This assertion exhibits a profound convergence with 20th-century legal positivism, particularly with Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law (Reine Rechtslehre). Kelsen advocated for a methodological purification of legal science from ethical, sociological, and political elements, defining law as a normative system founded upon a hypothetical basic norm (Grundnorm). ​In the Kelsenian view, the legal system functions as a coercive apparatus devoid of inherent moral value. A crucial point of intersection with Nesky's thesis is the elimination of the traditional dualism between acts that are inherently evil (mala in se) and acts prohibited merely by law (mala prohibita). Kelsen argued that an act becomes unlawful solely when a legal norm attaches state-enforced coercion to it. Unlawfulness is not an ontological property of the act, but the result of a relationship of normative imputation. This implies that the law does not penalize an act because it is intrinsically evil; rather, an act is considered evil solely because it has been subjected to systemic penalization. ​This clash became prominent during the debates surrounding the Nuremberg trials, where positions based on natural law and legal positivism collided. While prosecutors such as Robert Jackson invoked universal moral norms (mala in se) as the basis for punishing criminals despite the previously binding positive law of the Third Reich, Kelsen pointed out the theoretical inconsistency of such an approach. He argued that judging on the basis of retroactive law (ex post facto) constitutes a breach in the systemic coherence of positivism, even if it might be justified by political and historical necessity. ​Nesky's project imparts an existential dimension of oppression to this structure, bringing it close to the critique of the state formulated by Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche famously described the state as "the coldest of all cold monsters," which devours the individual's singularity and imposes herd morality upon them. The gaze of the state, mediated through the Other, paralyzes the sovereignty of the individual and forces them to navigate within arbitrarily designated normative boundaries. Every stroke drawn across the chaos of reality establishes a boundary, and every boundary instantly creates the concept of its transgression. ​The Paradox of the Systemic Cage and the Limits of Ontological Anarchism ​The second pillar of the thesis—The Paradox of the Systemic Cage—points to the impossibility of escaping the system through rules alone. Every attempt to negate the existing order, from establishing anarchist structures to escaping into geographical isolation, immediately transforms into a new system whose primary imperative becomes the defense and maintenance of that very absence of rules. This process of structural looping finds its reflection in the current of ontological anarchism formulated by Hakim Bey (pseudonym of Peter Lamborn Wilson). ​Bey, drawing on a synthesis of Nietzscheanism, Situationist theory of the spectacle, and chaos esotericism, recognized that classical revolutions striving to overthrow the state inevitably reproduce structures of domination, becoming new forms of confinement. As an alternative, he proposed the concept of the Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ). TAZ is a tactic for creating temporary, non-hierarchical spaces that deliberately evade formal structures of state control. The key element of TAZ is its ephemerality: before the system can map, define, and absorb the autonomous zone, it must dissolve itself and relocate to another point in space-time. ​Attempts to transform TAZ into Permanent Autonomous Zones (PAZ) immediately encounter the paradox noted by Nesky. The need to defend and codify freedom within a lasting community gives rise to internal rules, mechanisms of exclusion, and hierarchy. For this reason, Murray Bookchin criticized ontological anarchism (calling it "lifestyle anarchism" or "bourgeois anarchism") for its lack of political realism and its flight from systemic struggle against capital and state in favor of aesthetic rebellion. The convergence of these perspectives demonstrates that freedom defined as reactive resistance to a system remains structurally determined by it. ​The Dissolution of the Relational Mirror: The Existential Gaze and the Collapse of Morality ​The third pillar of the thesis, designated as The Dissolution of the Mirror (L'Autre), posits that good and evil require the presence of an external witness and judge. This assertion represents a direct application of Jean-Paul Sartre's existential phenomenology, particularly his analysis of the Gaze (le look / le regard) and the relation to the Other (l'Autre) presented in Being and Nothingness. ​Sartre illustrates the constitutive role of the Other through an analysis of the voyeur's situation. At the moment of complete absorption in the act of peeping through a keyhole, the subject's consciousness is pre-reflective—the voyeur does not reflect on himself; his consciousness completely merges with the act being performed. Only the sudden sound of footsteps in the hallway shatters this unity. The voyeur realizes that he himself is seen, and is instantly paralyzed by shame. ​For Sartre, shame is not a purely internal emotion; it is shame of oneself before the Other. The Gaze of the Other objectifies the free subject (being-for-itself—pour-soi), freezing them into a specific role and moral evaluation (being-for-others—pour-autrui). As Ellie Anderson points out, Descartes' formula "I think, therefore I am" is replaced in Sartre by "I feel shame, therefore Others exist." The Gaze of the Other marks the birth of social morality, wherein the individual learns to view themselves from a third-person perspective. ​This existential dynamic corresponds to the Nietzschean genealogy of "bad conscience." Nietzsche demonstrates that morality and guilt are products of the forced internalization of human instincts that could no longer be discharged outwardly due to social barriers. Forced into the constraints of society, man turns against himself, creating an internal judge (conscience) modeled on the external tyrant. ​This vision also resonates with the classical theory of Thomas Hobbes. In Leviathan, Hobbes explicitly declares that in the state of nature, where there is no common power, there is no law, and where there is no law, no notion of injustice exists. Concepts of good, evil, justice, and property are attributes of man living in society, not in solitude. Removing the social fabric reverts the individual to a state in which theft and injury lose their raison d'être due to the absence of relational reference to the Other. #philosophy # metaphysics # thesis # morality

A Generation That Forgot the Shape of the Square On memory left to die alone By Adham Hasanin Egyptian journalist and political writer, based in the Netherlands In a house near mine, there is a boy of thirteen. Born in 2013 just a few months younger than the July coup itself, younger than the new republic under whose shadow we now live. I asked him once, with no preamble, no test, out of nothing more than passing curiosity: do you know what January was? He answered simply, without hesitation, without any sense that he was missing something: "An old revolution, against Mubarak, right?" Not entirely wrong. But it is everything he knows. The name Tahrir Square means nothing specific to him. The sound of the crowd chanting has no echo in his mind. He does not know that his own family whom he sees every day saying "thank God for stability," who warn him against "chaos" whenever a political headline crosses the screen once, at a moment two years before he was born, went down into the street, betting their entire lives on the possibility that something might change. This article is not about politics. It is about memory, and about who decides what gets told and what is left to die in silence. I. Who Erases the Picture? The first question that comes to mind is the easiest and most deceptive one: who erases this memory? And where do we begin holding them accountable? But the truth is too complex to reduce to a single actor. No one actually erases memory, in the literal sense of the act. There is no ministry called the "Ministry of Forgetting," no presidential decree ordering January struck from the collective consciousness. What happens is simpler than that, and more dangerous at once: the subject is simply never told. School says nothing. The textbook leaps from one period to another without pausing on January for more than two faded lines, composed with deliberate neutrality, devoid of any detail that might make the event feel alive to its young reader. Television no longer has any reason to return to it; the programmes that once hosted witnesses and activists stopped years ago, replaced by an official discourse that mentions January only in passing, as an unfortunate prelude to the "stability" that supposedly followed. And the home the most dangerous link of all has become afraid of the subject. Speech now carries a price, and many families, whether consciously or by sheer survival instinct, have decided that silence is safer than the story. The father who marched fears passing on to his son a curiosity that might one day lead him into trouble the family cannot afford. The mother who lost a friend in the events prefers not to reopen the wound before a child who does not yet grasp the weight of loss. And so, generation after generation, the circle of those who know shrinks, and the circle of those who do not even ask because they do not know there is anything worth asking widens. No one decided to erase the memory through an explicit decision. The memory was simply left to die alone, with no one tending it. And it is precisely this decentralised absence of responsibility that makes this kind of erasure more dangerous than any direct official ban: there is no single decision to challenge, no single body to hold accountable. Responsibility is distributed across thousands of small decisions made by thousands of individuals, each within their own context, each seeming reasonable when viewed in isolation. II. Why This Is More Dangerous Than Direct Repression An objection might be raised: is direct repression arrest, imprisonment, publishing bans not far more lethal than mere gradual forgetting? The answer is complex, and deserves calm unpacking. Direct repression can be seen. It can be documented, and the victim can know they are a victim, can tell their story, and their pain can become a testimony added to the collective memory, even if it never reaches justice. The political prisoner knows he is a political prisoner. The journalist banned from writing knows he is banned, and can tell the world he is banned. Direct repression, for all its cruelty, leaves a trace that can be followed. But a generation that has forgotten something happened at all does not even have a starting point from which to ask. This thirteen-year-old boy will never ask "why were we repressed?" because he does not know there is anything deserving that question in the first place. He feels no absence, because he does not know there is anything absent. He simply lives in a version of reality stripped of an entire chapter of his country’s history, and never for a moment suspects that this void is a void at all. Here lies the essence of the danger: direct repression creates victims who know they are victims. Erasure of memory, when it succeeds, creates a generation that does not even know it has been deprived of anything. And deprivation that is not felt cannot be resisted, because resistance always begins with an awareness of loss. The regime that came after 2013 does not need to convince the new generation that January was a mistake. That would be an arduous, costly task, requiring sustained propaganda and continuous effort to persuade each individual one by one. It is far easier, and strategically far more efficient, simply to ensure they never know it was anything at all. The void requires no defence; it requires only silence, and silence is free and always available. III. The Four Mechanisms of Erasure Four complementary mechanisms can be identified working together to produce this collective void not as an organised conspiracy, but as a system of incentives that pushes each party, consciously or not, to contribute to the same process. The first mechanism: formal education. The curriculum, as currently designed, treats January as a passing footnote rather than a founding event deserving detail and analysis. The student memorises two dates the start of the revolution and its presumed end without understanding why people took to the streets, what they were demanding, or how they felt in that pivotal moment. The second mechanism: broadcast media. The channels that once hosted live discussions on January, featuring varied perspectives, have gradually disappeared, or transformed their discourse entirely. Today’s televised image either ignores the anniversary altogether, or invokes it only to frame it as a prelude to chaos that must be avoided. The third mechanism: the silence of homes. This is the most dangerous of all, precisely because it is the most human and understandable. Parents who lived through the experience protect it with silence, not out of aversion to the story, but out of fear of its price. This silence, however legitimate its motives, achieves exactly the same effect as official censorship: it blocks the transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next. The fourth mechanism: the absence of alternative spaces. Even those among the new generation who wish to know cannot easily find places to look. Archives are scattered, trustworthy websites are blocked or require effort to reach, and personal testimonies are dispersed across corners of the internet that an ordinary student at an ordinary school will never stumble upon. These four mechanisms require no central coordination to work together. Each naturally serves the others, and all converge on a single result: a growing void in the consciousness of every new generation. IV. Memory as an Act of Resistance If erasure operates without a centre, then resisting it must also be decentralised. No one waits for a government decision to restore January to the curriculum, nor for a television programme to revive the testimonies. Resistance here is necessarily individual, happening in small details, in passing conversations, in the simple decision to tell rather than to stay silent. This is exactly what I try to do, without any claim to heroism, without any grand mission. I try, whenever I can, to tell the thirteen-year-old boy and others like him details that are never written in official reports or in schoolbooks: what the voices in the square sounded like, how someone felt the first time they realised change was possible, what that moment of hope was like before everything changed. The goal is not to bring back the past; the past cannot be brought back. The goal is that this boy, when he grows older and asks again and he will ask, because the questions always return at some point finds someone to tell him the full story, not two faded lines in a schoolbook. That he knows the stability he is told is the fruit of "wisdom" has a prior history, that this history carried other possibilities, and that real people bet their lives on those possibilities. V. Why This Matters Now Talking about the memory of a generation not yet aware might seem an intellectual luxury next to more urgent matters: arrests, a collapsing economy, regional wars. But the truth is that this issue is the foundation on which every other issue is built. A people who do not know they once rose up will not understand why they should ever think of rising again. A generation raised to believe "stability" is the only natural state possible will never ask itself what drove its own parents, shortly before it was born, to risk everything for an alternative that was never guaranteed. Memory is not a luxury; it is the reference point by which every generation measures its present, and through which it determines what is possible and what is not. And whoever understands this understands why erasing memory, not direct repression alone, is among the most important tools of any regime seeking to guarantee its permanence: because a people who have forgotten they were once free will not even know they are missing freedom. Memory, like the word, needs someone to tell it in order to survive. And when the tellers stop, memory does not die suddenly; it withers slowly, generation after generation, until the day comes when a boy asks an innocent question, and finds no one to answer him but two faded lines in a schoolbook.