Majorityrights Central > Category: Law

Greg Johnson is Wrong - in an important way.

Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 06 August 2016 09:33.

    Fail: on this one, your erudition yields an F-

In minute 2:18 - 2:21:18 of a discussion with TRS, Greg Johnson proposes to do away with the idea that John Locke’s notion of civil individual rights is a key fundament of U.S. politics and suggests that it is only portrayed as such by Jewish interests.

First and foremost, Greg is ignoring the fact that it is in the group interests of Whites to criticize this notion for basically the same reasons that Jews have - especially for its bias against their capacity for group discrimination.

Johnson argues that Calvinism and Republicanism, in the latter case in particular, by way of reading Montesquieu, were exponentially more important to the founders. Maybe they were, but that doesn’t translate to what became important in the life of ordinary everyday Americans for over 100 years.

Are people concerned with The Republic? Well, of course not very much in any practical sense. You can set aside the bit about Montesquieu being more influential by a factor of a hundred. This is a case of an erudite man pulling rank to the detriment not only of the truth, but of important utility.

The second matter is of Calvinism and its inherent means to exclude Jews. The separation of Church and State is integral to The U.S. Constitution, so any such notion of this being more relevant than Lockeatine rights in the every day lives of Americans - or even for those who set the agendas - is way off the mark. Again, it displays a wish for some of that unused erudition to come in handy in a place where it does not really help.

To look at Locke’s notion of individual rights as set against and problematizing group organization is the best way to critique the foundations of America in terms of what has left racial defense susceptible. This is what makes racial defense extremely difficult, because it de-legitimizes group organization.

Given individual rights as the characteristic and definitive law of the land, when people raise concerns about how borders and boundaries are to be maintained, i.e., when people do try to tarry with these strictures, at best they tend to render crazy propositions (disingenuous or naive) that not only will the markets take care of themselves by the magic hand, but boundaries and borders around groups will be taken care of by the magic hand as well. In a word, Locke’s empirical objectivism is a force of liberalism that is available for easy exploitation - by Jewish interests, liberals and other later day objectivists, be they Austrian School or other form of objectivist.

Nobody around here is saying that Jewish interests would not have taken advantage of The Constitution’s empirical basis. Nobody should be naive enough, however, to believe that just because Jews reject it for its troubling of group organization and discrimination, that we should not problematize it on that basis as well, in order to discriminate on behalf of ourselves.

Greg is being that naive and asking us to be that naive when he tries to pull rank and suggest that Montesquieu is more influential by a factor of a hundred. Well, maybe he was to the founders. But ask Americans, including politicians, what matters to them when push comes to shove - for the past hundred years or so, what matters to them? Montesquieu, Calvin or their Lockeatine rights?

Donald Trump announces that it is the present year.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thursday, 21 July 2016 20:15.

I’ll cut up an article here:

MSN / New York Times, ‘Donald Trump Plays Down Role of U.S. in Global Crises’, 21 Jul 2016:

CLEVELAND — Donald J. Trump, on the eve of accepting the Republican nomination for president, said Wednesday that if he were elected, he would not pressure Turkey or other authoritarian allies about conducting purges of their political adversaries or cracking down on civil liberties. The United States, he said, has to “fix our own mess” before trying to alter the behavior of other nations.


[...] “This is not 40 years ago,” Mr. Trump said, rejecting comparisons of his approaches to law-and-order issues and global affairs to Richard Nixon’s. Reiterating his threat to pull back United States troops deployed around the world, he said, “We are spending a fortune on military in order to lose $800 billion,” citing what he called America’s trade losses. “That doesn’t sound very smart to me.”

Mr. Trump repeatedly defined American global interests almost purely in economic terms. Its roles as a peacekeeper, as a provider of a nuclear deterrent against adversaries like North Korea, as an advocate of human rights and as a guarantor of allies’ borders were each quickly reduced to questions of economic benefit to the United States.

This is really one of the most remarkable things about Trump. The most remarkable thing about him is that he says directly what other American leaders have cunningly masked all along. In that sense, Trump is not a fundamental change in America’s behaviour, he is more like America without the mask on, and with a different set of priorities.

Whereas previously, America was interested in encircling and enclosing Russia to prevent its expansion in the post-Soviet space, the elements of America that are now more interested in enclosing China are making Trump into their vehicle.

[...] Mr. Trump’s discussion of the crisis in Turkey was telling, because it unfolded at a moment in which he could plainly imagine himself in the White House, handling an uprising that could threaten a crucial ally in the Middle East. The United States has a major air base at Incirlik in Turkey, where it carries out attacks on the Islamic State and keeps a force of drones and about 50 nuclear weapons.

Mr. Trump had nothing but praise for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the country’s increasingly authoritarian but democratically elected leader. “I give great credit to him for being able to turn that around,” Mr. Trump said of the coup attempt on Friday night. “Some people say that it was staged, you know that,” he said. “I don’t think so.”

Trump is now Turkey. Erdogan is now America.

[...] Asked if Mr. Erdogan was exploiting the coup attempt to purge his political enemies, Mr. Trump did not call for the Turkish leader to observe the rule of law, or Western standards of justice. “When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don’t think we are a very good messenger,” he said.

The Obama administration has refrained from any concrete measures to pressure Turkey, fearing for the stability of a crucial ally in a volatile region. But Secretary of State John F. Kerry has issued several statements urging Mr. Erdogan to follow the rule of law.

Donald Trump is in complete agreement with the Obama Administration on this issue. The only difference is a minor difference in rhetoric.

[...] Mr. Trump said he was convinced that he could persuade Mr. Erdogan to put more effort into fighting the Islamic State. But the Obama administration has run up, daily, against the reality that the Kurds — among the most effective forces the United States is supporting against the Islamic State — are being attacked by Turkey, which fears they will create a breakaway nation.

Asked how he would solve that problem, Mr. Trump paused, then said: “Meetings.”

Translation: He will do nothing.

[...] Ousting President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, he said, was a far lower priority than fighting the Islamic State — a conclusion the White House has also reached, but has not voiced publicly.

“Assad is a bad man,” Mr. Trump said. “He has done horrible things.” But the Islamic State, he said, poses a far greater threat to the United States.

Trump is actually lying here. Trump has previously said that he would deliberately allow ISIL to do maximum damage to the Syrian government, because that is in the American national interest, which he considers to be more important than coordinating with global stakeholders.

[...] He said he had consulted two former Republican secretaries of state, James A. Baker III and Henry Kissinger, saying he had gained “a lot of knowledge,” but did not describe any new ideas about national security that they had encouraged him to explore.

Donald Trump is reverse-Nixon, that’s all you need to know.


“To me, ‘America First’ is a brand-new, modern term,” he said. “I never related it to the past.”

He paused a moment when asked what it meant to him.

“We are going to take care of this country first,” he said, “before we worry about everyone else in the world.”

Well, there it is.

Police Shooting of a Black in Minnesota Will Instigate Necessary Separatism

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 07 July 2016 17:53.

A policeman shot and killed a black motorist that he pulled-over in the Minneapolis area of Minnesota. First accounts have it that the girlfriend and child of Philando Castile sat helpless but compliantly-by as Castile also attempted to comply with the officer’s orders but was shot to death. There is video which might corroborate Castile’s efforts to cooperate despite the fact that he was carrying a fire-arm when the police officer pulled him over.

It is tragic that a benign black lost his life and that the police officer’s life will be ruined by this event. We can anticipate violent and destructive actions coming from blacks and White victims by way of response this summer.

But from a racialist standpoint, i.e., from the standpoint of people who recognize that Whites need to live separately from blacks, this is for the ultimate good. The more innocent the black victim was, the better an indication it is that Whites cannot live with blacks and need to live separately from them. Ill advised though the police officer’s shooting may have been, he was probably displaying psychological deterioration - burn-out from having to deal with black behavioral patterns and other imposed political correctness in the day-to-day. The more violent and destructive that blacks become as a result, the more Whites will be forced to realize that they have no good choice but to live separately from blacks.

Daily News, “Minnesota man Philando Castile shot and killed by cops during traffic stop; girlfriend pleads for help on Facebook livestream (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)”

Woman livestreamed heartbreaking moments after her boyfriend was shot and killed by a cop in Minnesota late Wednesday.

In a Facebook video, Lavish Reynolds claims that the couple was pulled over in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area for a busted taillight and that her boyfriend, identified by WCCO as Philando Castile, was shot four or five times.

Philando Castile, 32, was shot and killed by police during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights, a suburb of St. Paul, Minn., Wednesday evening.  (Facebook)

She said that Castile told the officer he was carrying a permitted firearm and had been reaching for his wallet before the officer opened fire

Press image for video

Ibid. “Please no, don’t let him be gone. Why?!” Reynolds yells on her video as Castile, 32, slumps back in the driver’s seat of his car, blood running across his shirt.

A St. Anthony police officer can be seen outside the car, his gun drawn on Castile. Reynolds, who like Castile is black, describes him as Asian.

“I told him not to reach for it,” cop says as he continues to point his weapon into vehicle. “I told him to get his hand off it.”

Near the end of clip, Reynolds starts to scream as she sits handcuffed in back of a police cruiser with young daughter.

“It’s OK, mama,” the little girl says as her mother pleads for help from Facebook viewers. “It’s OK, I’m right here with you.”

St. Anthony’s confirmed the shooting took place in Falcon Hgts, a St. Paul suburb that hosts the state fair, around 9 p.m.

Castile, a cafeteria supervisor at a local Montessori school, later died at Hennepin County Medical Center.

The Daily News adds a link and article remarking that along with Castile’s death, the similar event of “Alton Sterling’s death (the day before) calls for justice against rotten cops.”

EU Ship & Compartments Metaphor Good, Law Change Necessary, Nationalist Deportationists Imperative

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 06 July 2016 07:13.

        Rather, change its course and throw them overboard.

This article at The Right Stuff uses a metaphor that I have always liked, of Europe and its states as analogous to a ship and its compartments:

TRS, “For Europeans to Live, the EU Must Perish,” 5 July 2016:

      - Tom Paine

Think of the EU as a ship, its 28 member countries as compartments below the waterline, Europeans as passengers, Mohammedans and Africans as the sea around them. When the ship’s hull is breached, its rules (EU Freedom of Movement) require all hatches between compartments to remain open. (It is impossible to exclude anyone with EU papers from moving to another EU member except in extreme cases). Crazy but true.

While the ship’s crew could in theory protect passengers by closing hatches to contain flooding to one compartment, in practice the crew devotes its efforts to silencing the passengers’ “hydrophobia” as the sea pours in…

The article focuses too much on law change, however. That is an arduous and vastly insufficient answer to what we need: which is a compelling argument for mass deportation, a call emphatically understood, undertaken with the action of a flood of combined nationalist effort that would simply drag laws and bureaucracies along or bury them underfoot if they will not willingly comply to our will.


I.e., rather than abandoning ship we ought change its course and throw them overboard.

Austria presidential poll result overturned.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 01 July 2016 21:04.

Here’s an interesting development:

BBC News, ‘Austria presidential poll result overturned’, 01 Jul 2016 (emphasis added):

Austria’s highest court has annulled the result of the presidential election narrowly lost by the candidate of the far-right Freedom Party.

The party had challenged the result, saying that postal votes had been illegally and improperly handled.

The Freedom Party candidate, Norbert Hofer, lost the election to the former leader of the Greens, Alexander Van der Bellen, by just 30,863 votes or less than one percentage point.

The election will now be re-run.

Announcing the decision, Gerhard Holzinger, head of the Constitutional Court, said: “The challenge brought by Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache against the 22 May election… has been upheld.”

He added: “The decision I am announcing today has no winner and no loser, it has only one aim: to strengthen trust in the rule of law and democracy.”

Austria’s politics have been thrown into confusion. One of the most controversial and polarising presidential elections in recent history will have to be re-run.

This is a moral victory for the far-right, anti-immigrant and Eurosceptic Freedom Party, which launched the legal challenge last month after alleging “terrifying” irregularities.

The Freedom Party is hoping that the decision by the court will help its candidate Norbert Hofer win in the new election this autumn.

Hanging over the vote is the shadow of “Brexit” - the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

Will Mr Hofer choose to make Austria’s future membership of the EU a campaign issue?

Some Austrians think the vote by the United Kingdom to leave the EU could boost populist and nationalist sentiment in Austria. Others believe the political turbulence in Britain may make people more cautious about Eurosceptic parties.

Mr Hofer said on Friday he was pleased that the court had taken “a difficult decision”, adding: “I have great trust in the rule of law.”

Mr Van der Bellen said he was “very confident” he would emerge the winner.

“Austria needs to be well represented in Europe and the world. If we can do it once, we can do it again,” he told reporters.

Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern said the court ruling showed that the country’s democracy was strong and he called for “a short campaign, a campaign without emotions”.

‘Rules broken’

In two weeks of hearings, lawyers for the Freedom Party argued that postal ballots were illegally handled in 94 out of 117 districts.

It alleged that thousands of votes were opened earlier than permitted under election rules and some were counted by people unauthorised to do so.

The party also claimed to have evidence that some under-16s and foreigners had been allowed to vote.

In its ruling, the court said election rules had been broken in a way that could have influenced the result.

But it said there was no proof the count had been manipulated.

If elected, Mr Hofer would become the first far-right head of state of an EU country.

His party has based its election campaigns around concern over immigration and falling living standards for the less well-off.

After Britain voted to leave the EU, Mr Hofer said he favoured holding a similar referendum in Austria if the bloc failed to stop centralisation and carry out reforms “within a year”.

Last Sunday, he told the Oesterreich newspaper (in German): “If [the EU] evolves in the wrong direction, then in my opinion the time has come to ask the Austrians if they still want to be part of it.”

His opponent, Mr Van der Bellen, is strongly pro-EU and has spoken of his dream for a border-free “United States of Europe”.

The two men went forward to a run-off when, for the first time since World War Two, both the main centrist parties were knocked out in the first round of voting.

Following the court’s order to re-run the vote, President Heinz Fischer will be replaced on a temporary basis by three parliamentary officials, including Mr Hofer.

The new election is expected to be held in September or October.

What powers does the Austrian president have?

It is a mostly ceremonial post. But the president does have the power to dissolve the National Council - the more powerful lower house of parliament. That triggers a general election.

The president can only do that once for a particular reason - he cannot use the same grounds to dissolve it again.

It is the chancellor’s job to appoint government ministers. And the chancellor has the power to dismiss the government. But ministers have to be formally sworn in by the president.

Imperative to replace Golden Rule of Altruism w Silver Rule of Reciprocity for European Moral Order

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 22 May 2016 16:10.

          The Sermon on The Mount Ensconces The Golden Rule of Altruism

Majorityrights prefers to deal with verifiable reality as opposed to speculative theory and faith based systems of rules as we look after the interests of our people. We are looking after genetic groupings and genetic interests as key criteria, even if these are not the only important verifiable criteria to keep track of our peoplehood and that of others. Rationale and rule structures are another criteria for that purpose.

While existence is of course equiprimordial to genetic interests, to secure it for any span and legacy requires rationale and varying degrees of sophistication to negotiate complex rule structures of interaction. “Rules” (1) are the term of common currency that we will use for the logics of meaning and action that people use to negotiate interaction and these complex, protracted exchanges beyond episode, close personal relationships in yield to maturity of their full social system; and its relation to other social systems.

For those of us who are coming from this kind of perspective, where we perceive ourselves as rationally and empirically grounded, it is difficult to understand someone like pastor David Blackburn, his love of Jesus that would have him not only forgive, but want to share his love of Jesus with the men who raped and murdered his wife and unborn child; but to my knowledge, he is at least not hoping to get them released from prison.

It is even more difficult to understand European peoples allowing, even welcoming foreign incursions into The U.K., Sweden, France and Germany - it is difficult to fathom the mindset of a Merkel, who would destroy our European peoples in service to non-Europeans. But there is one rule, convoluted rule, that they have in common and makes their position intelligible to us despite their apparent irrationality.

The Golden Rule is a part of the Sermon on the Mount, which is a central text in the Christian faith. It states: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. There are similar instructions in many other cultures.

Despite receiving high respect and wide popularity, the rule raises critical questions. What is the recommendation more exactly, and is it good advice?

This post will prepare a discussion of the work of Jan Tullberg - viz., the difference between the golden rule of benevolence as opposed to the silver rule of reciprocity - as it applies to assist in the reconstruction of a necessary consensus of moral rules among European peoples and for coordinating our relations to others.

There is a consensus among advocates of European peoples that in essence we seek to secure the existence of our people. There is much dispute over how that is to be done…


Can Cosa Nostra Re-Organize on its Racial Roots in True Honor to Defend Italy and Europe?

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 24 April 2016 10:11.

There is an absurd and detrimental habit of thought among WN who would draw the line of race too narrowly, snobbishly, and among those who would find weakening our defense convenient, that Sicilians are not White or are heavily mixed with blacks

I have long advised against romanticized images of the Italian Mafia as portrayed in the legacy media. These are not organizations based on honor and family, as that media depicts, but rather criminal organizations based on money facilitated through treachery - these have not been organizations for our racial defense as we White Nationalists might hope.

In an irony, however, now that the immigration invasion has brought with it waves of African organized crime as well, suddenly the Cosa Nostra is forced to act in defense of its turf in racial terms - and just as suddenly, the legacy media condemns it, the Italian Mafia, as the problem in that interface - not the immigration invasion, not the organized crime that it brings. Needless to say, the legacy media does not express hope that Mafia will be of some good to the defense of our blood and soil.

In truth, Italian Mafia hasn’t been especially good to Italian and European blood and soil. We can hope that the immigration invasion will force them to change that but to date there has been little to show in the way of honor from Italian Mafia: The Mafia of Campania, known as the Camorra, is hardly an organization which has prioritized Italian let alone other European blood and soil. They have been cooperating with Nigerian organized crime to spread Nigerian prostitutes all over Italy - an ugly blight that can be seen on the side of Italy’s highways. They have gone against tradition, trafficking in heroine and other narcotics. They have taken hostage of Italian businesses to wreak havoc with the economy and possibilities of free enterprise. In one hideous example, having taken over the waste disposal business, they’ve merely dumped toxic waste on the Italian habitat - once productive local farms have been destroyed; a fact that can be proved by science; but these wastelands are readily perceived by the senses, the sight and smell of vast areas strewn with and beset with mounds of unnatural garbage and stench.

An unnatural stench emanates in Sicily as well, one of sulfur, around the garbage strewn and oil refinery lined parameters of Archimedes ancient home of Siracusa - where the Cosa Nostra has control in the oil refining industry.

However, with the aura of Mafia, inter-Italian rivalry, murder and background terror, there has been an apparent consolation - perhaps with the help of that background of corruption and terror, foreign incursions were held somewhat at bay - there is only so much use that foreigners can be put to and only so many of them that are needed to do it. After a certain amount they become a threat to anybody, including Sicilian mafia interests. That limiting condition would act to protect the genotype of Sicilians from overwhelming infiltration. In the foreground of terror, despite all urban legends of Sicilians being “part black”, with inborn, ineducable aggression, they are vindicated of these ignorant attributions by anybody who takes time to observe them - a knowledgeable, considerate, European, White people.

Sicily, like the rest of Southern Italy, has that reputation of background terror which serves to instill a sense that you should be on best behavior with regard to traditions, the local people and potential transgression. In the year total that I spent in Italy and Sicily between 1996 and 1998, I observed in Italians a model European treatment of the Africans who were there. Africans were not walking around in three piece suits with attache cases as you’d see in Paris. Rather, they were allowed to vend an approved array of trinkets and accessories on the streets, with no sign that they could be mistaken for people integrated with Italians - the idea of mistaking them with Sicilians is laughable. If they remained on the street after 10:00p.m. they would be rounded up by baton wielding police, put into paddy wagons and taken away. If Europeans had to host Africans whatsoever, Italians provided a model of how it might be done to keep them in their place.

That protected the EGI from interracial imposition to a large extent. That protection was buttressed also by the reality of a deserved reputation that Italian men have of being very jealous of their women.

Nevertheless, so long as blacks are in your country at all they are a threat; with the aid and force of PC being what it is, they will make their way through cracks in a racial defense system. While Italian mafia and other men were perhaps busy fighting each other or trying to make money, I would always see two or three interracial couples (pretty Italian woman, Negro male) in just about all sizeable cities that I made my way through in Sicily and Campania - even some not so sizeable ones: a few came into my father’s family village during a feast.

Most disturbing to me was the fact that despite the Italian reputation, with few exceptions, I was the only one doing the Italian thing of expressing my indignation and trying to say or do anything about these pairings - and I was the only one who was likely to have any trouble for it. Thus, to get away from the provocation and agitation - with it the rage of mine difficult to control on the front line of racial defense - was a large reason why I opted to live in Poland instead, comfortably ensconced as White and removed from looming threat.

However, I did not leave Sicily before speaking to Cosa Nostra. I told them, urgently, in trance, to stop fighting, destroying and killing each other Italians. I pleaded with them to defend themselves as Italians and Europe; I tugged at the rib of the Godmother; I believe that she heard il Padrino speak through me. Let us hope so, if not pray for that.

The roots of the word and in fact the original purpose of Mafia was in “a wall” to surround and protect the Italian family - at the onset of its organization the threat was from Spanish invasions. However, Sicilians have a deep history of defending against all manner of invasion - including of course from Islam. While the pervasive sounds of church bells rang through the noontime air of Agrigento in a way that might have intimidated Islam at one time, the locals there were the ones who told me that the most critical facilitator in the immigration problem (yes, it was already bad enough in 1998) now is this religion itself - Christianity.

I found that the Sicilians are deep - much deeper than Christianity.

By contrast to the wishes of legacy media, the DM, the cuck mayor of Palermo that the DM presents as an exemplary anti-racist White man, let us hope indeed that they heard il Padrino; that the Mafia will be of some good, and express its true honor, to be that wall, and to help protect the EGI of Italy and the rest of Europe - by means of terror if need be.


“Driving While Black” & failure of objectivist rebut: analysis of YKW discourse

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 20 April 2016 20:12.

Bloomfield Ave. at Sunoco, focal point of a Seton Hall LS study showing it to be where most tickets are issued in a de facto border patrol between the races (it is also four blocks from where I was born).

It is my responsibility to undertake a critical discourse analysis of a Seton Hall Law School study depicted by “Vice News” - as it purports to represent, but rather misrepresents to the world, the reality of an area that I know, having been born and raised there. I will examine this discourse as set out in the Vice News video called, “Driving While Black in New Jersey.” This might prevent (((misrepresentation))) ergo misapprehension by people from other areas and nations as to the reality of black, “latino” and White interests as manifest in this area.

Having experienced differences between demographics and towns in this area, having driven up and down Bloomfield Ave. countless times, I have some insight, as it is not only the hub of this Seton Hall Law study in traffic policing policy, it was an unavoidable artery constituting..

..a connection to the place of my birth, my father’s birth and my grandmother’s house in an Italian enclave in the North Ward of Newark; it also a connection to other Whites, as I’d pass through always White Bloomfield via Bloomfield Ave. on my way to and from the house where I grew up - in predominantly White Montclair, just over the line of Glen Ridge, a few blocks from the Western border of Bloomfield.


De facto border White/Black. Montclair is left of Glen Ridge

But Bloomfield Ave. also constituted a dividing line from surrounding black Newark and East Orange - a nightmare that pushed up against the White Bloomfield and North Ward of Newark, which was pushed up against the Bloomfield town-line along Bloomfield Ave.

Though always having mixed racial and economic demographics, ranging from poor, to the middle classes and the fabulously wealthy, Montclair remains mostly White particularly because of its middle and upper class properties. Bloomfield, on the other hand, though all White, had always been more uniformly lower middle class. Therefore, to remain the White town that it has been would be more tricky; but somehow, despite black East Orange looming ominously just to its south, it always did stay all White, until recently.

It was tricky for the Italian enclaves of Newark to stay White as well - traditionally they relied on a much less tolerant communal temperament that could extend to a somewhat exaggerated vigilantism and ethnocentrism; and thriving communities focused around a catholic church; but now only that vestigial Italian North Ward “community” remains.

This all occurs in Essex County, New Jersey, which is a part of what is called “the megopolis” - a heavily populated extension of greater New York City. Along with its mixed demographics it is also mixed with splendid suburban opulence, post industrial and urban blight. Newark is the largest city in Essex County and in New Jersey. It is mostly black as a result of the kind of “urban renewal projects” that E. Michael Jones describes in “The Death of The Cities”, viz., clandestine projects to break-up ethnic Catholic communities. From this failed liberal social project to integrate blacks, the city went on to suffer riots from the blacks in 1967 and it never recovered.

However, again, that vestigial Italian enclave, “The North Ward”, did survive, kind-of - there I was born, there we visited grandma’s on Sundays, there I returned to live twice, in 1988 and 1996 - just one block from Bloomfield Ave and the border of Bloomfield, New Jersey - always a lower middle class town and always all White, until fairly recently, when I began to see backs moving in. Then it became a cautionary tale that I would relate to people about the science fiction nightmare that can happen - what I’ve seen happen as blacks begin to move into a formerly all White town - and as such, what must not be let to happen: easier said than done with our YKW adversaries.


DISCOURSE ANALYSIS of Vice News’ “Driving While Black in New Jersey.” How Jewish coalition building of minority advocacy disingenuously frames necessary White vigilance on de facto borders against latinos and blacks - whose behavioral patterns are, in fact, detrimental to Whites; while exploiting White will to innocence in objectivism’s rational blindness as it colludes against White interests.

Bloomfield Ave., Bloomfield, New Jersey

Why objectivist criteria will not suffice to create a border between nations and race.

The film makers set the discourse frame through an academic declaration by Seton Hall Law Professor, Mark Denbeaux, who claims on the basis of a study of traffic ticketing by race, that it is an overwhelmingly objective fact that the Bloomfield, New Jersey police are persecuting blacks and latinos with traffic violations; and in effect making them pay disproportionately for Bloomfield’s municipal budget. His students go on to make additional objective claims on the basis of the study that this is a form of racial discrimination along a de facto border and discouragement of minorities from becoming ensconced in White Bloomfield by means of a de facto “taxation.”

On a higher analytical frame, Seton Hall LS is building a case, accusing The Bloomfield P.D. of violating The U.S. Constitutional rule of non-discriminating objectivity, alleging that they are imposing a relativistic penalty for non-White transgression into Bloomfield.

[Fast paced but hushed music sets the tone to be on clandestine alert among darting police cars and bustling courtrooms]

Voice: Mark Denbeaux, Professor, of Law at Seton Hall Law School - “Our data as to Bloomfield is overwhelming. The Police are sweeping people in there based on race; and they’re making people pay enormous sums of their municipal budget.”

Hurt feelings while awaiting imposition of a fine

The film makers continue to exploit objectivist criteria in the next sequence, as they focus on “the feelings” of blacks. “Feelings” are, after all, sensory “facts”, nothing socially constructed or any of that nonsense - a Lockeatine empirical basis has been enshrined as means for the pursuit of happiness and liberty; to live by one’s own senses is definitive of what it means to live in accordance with the U.S. Constitution: hence, these feelings must be important objective grounds, and are to be respected as a sensory means which people have to overcome the discriminatory fictions of racial classification. The film will invoke compensatory sympathy for how a black man must feel, their special feelings, as their rights are violated when they get pulled over by police - Whites might also feel uneasy when pulled-over by the police, but never mind.


Marquis Whitney (black student at Seton Hall Law School): “As a black man, you have that initial reaction that something could happen to me right now; it’s an uneasy feeling, every single time”

At this point, the film-makers cut to Bloomfield’s White Police Director, Samuel Demaio, making an objectivist assertion of the rational blindness (color blindness, in this case) of the Bloomfield P.D., viz., that it does not racially profile: and with that he attempts to defend against Professor Denbeaux’s study -

Police Director, Samuel Demaio: “We really do not see any of our police officers racially profiling anyone in this township. If we did, we would be way out in front of it.”

Then to a Bloomfield Municipal Court Judge who asserts the objectivist penalties which the study maintains are crookedly imposed:

[The fast paced music continues to assert the contextual tone of turgid and impersonal public bustle]


Bloomfield Municipal Court Judge (White): “We take checks, cash or credit cards, if you cannot work out a payment plan”..


At this point he is talked-over by the next commentator [Rich Rivera], but before moving to that, I need to discuss the point of the talk-over as that is critical of itself, as it frames the judge and the system as merely imposing non-negotiable authority, as if there is little in the way of recourse for those he addresses in the courtroom.

The White authority, the Municipal Court Judge, is imposing the alleged prejudicial enforcement of these fines. While the film makers do go on to mention [viz., Ostrovsky mentions] that these are not generally large sums, and may not seem like a lot to us, what they do not tell you, and keep out of the frame, is critical - when blacks and latinos are paying, the money from which they pay will often, if not most often, already have been given to them through some form of governmental assistance to begin with; and if a fine is a true hardship, there are a myriad of government programs to help them - especially because they are non-White. While there are no programs to help people because they are White.

The film makers cut-off the judge’s statement as he begins to invoke options available to those subject to fines, which begins with his assertion that he will take under consideration individual cases and their ability to pay; considerations which would then move to the many social services at the disposal of non-Whites to help them financially and otherwise (if defendants are not already on the various governmental assistance available to them, again, which they usually are).   

The judge’s statement to the effect that a black or latino person might have to pay an $80 some odd fee from money that was given to them from the public to begin with or that they would be met with public assistance if they truly could not, is talked over at this point.


Suddenly black and latino interests are blended back as one and the same with the rest of “the public” in an objectivist ideal of transparency in the next statement:

Rich Rivera (latino Seton Hall LS student and former policeman acting in the study): “When the public is perceived as the cash-cow for a municipality, that’s an adverse relationship and nothing good can come of it.”

Ok, protecting innocent people by innocuous vigilance against those people who show a pattern of crime will have to wait.

[fast music stopped; slow, sad and sympathetic harp music starts to play instead now]

While the sympathetic music plays, we’re shown a sad looking black male sitting in a car with some middle aged White male cuck. These are the only characters focused on whose identity is not given. We can surmise that he’s some sort of legal counsel to the kid whose got legal expenses and matters that are over his head. The White guy’s probably coming from the services available to blacks with problems, but the film makers don’t tell you that. Instead, the poor black youth is shown being given counsel by the White cuck demonstrating how Whites should be, confessing to the objective reality of the oppression and bad choices faced by the black kid in the rigged system.

He is doing “objectivism nice”, nice cuck, telling the black that his choices are bad - he can cop a plea, though the White cuck believes the black is innocent and that would only make “the police happy”, or he could take his case to a higher court, but in pure advice, he would not advise putting any faith in the system - the inference being that it is so corrupt by racial relativism as to be determinedly anti-black:

White cuck: “So, we got a couple of choices facing you. The first is to work-out and negotiate a plea, which is agreeing to something that isn’t true and you got to pay court costs” [obviously staged conversation for this film (the sad music continues, as do the sad expressions of the black, showing his feelings)]; “it’s a practical solution that works, but doesn’t make anybody happy, except maybe the police department. Second is, no plea, set me down for a trial later; but the cops have charged you with something that you say didn’t happen [din-do], and I completely believe you [lol], but it’s the state court system - don’t put too much faith in it.”

[Driving while cuck]

They might have advised the black kid to look still more sympathetic by removing his bling earrings before appearing before the judge, but society doesn’t understand the black man anyway.

So, they have set out a narrative of general White systemic oppression while they begin to focus on personal sympathy for non-Whites and the bad choices that they are up against from authoritative imposition. The myriad of recourse available to blacks let alone any suggestion of their imposition on Whites, has not been mentioned.

With that setting the background, the film-maker takes the stage. A Russian Jew, with duel U.S./Israeli citizenship, Simon Osrovsky, is being facilitated in making a name for himself in the anti-White media on a world stage. He has already done a Jewish number on Japan and Ukraine/Russia, doing his best to pry-open or divide ethnocentric strongholds. Now he takes aim at the line that Whites in New Jersey take against some of the most harrowing places that you can come across - the living science fiction nightmares of East Orange, Newark, Irvington and the other New Jersey towns that blacks have taken over. Ostrovsky takes for granted that when this film is placed on the world stage that it will invoke sympathy for the blacks it depicts and anger against Whites by those who don’t know the reality of these areas and the reality of just who the American system helps, discriminates against and how, as I have begun to set-out.

But I do know, because I was born there in that Italian enclave in Newark’s North Ward, a block away from the border of Bloomfield, right near Boomfield Ave., where U.S. Army tanks had to travel to get the 1967 black riots under control. Where my grandmother’s house was and route to my father’s employment at Budweiser, Newark; my family traveled Bloomfield Ave. countless times after we moved to Montclair, just barely on the other side of the Bloomfield town-line. I know this area, these towns, sections, the demographic history and behavior. Before commenting further, let’s return to the film narrative.

Simon Ostrovsky: “This is Bloomfield municipal court in Bloomfield, N.J., and a group of students from Seton Hall law school have selected it as the focus of a study about how the police collect fines; but crucially, who do they collect the fines from.”

We are taken into the court as the students and Professor file-in. The Judge addresses the room.

Muni Judge: “All rise. Good morning, please be seated. You are here today because you have already received a motor vehicle complaint, a criminal complaint or notice to appear.”

Ostrovsky: “This is Professor Denbeaux and some of the students conducting the study.”

          [note, White does exist]

Ostrovsky: “They are among the few White people in the room. In the four weeks that they have been taking notes on the people appearing in traffic court, they’ve noticed that most are black or latino. But Bloomfield is a majority White township, so why the discrepancy?”

Muni Judge: “All fines and penalties are due today. You leave the courtroom the same way you enter the courtroom; along the wall to my right there’s a hallway; and there’s a payment window at the end of the hallway. We take checks, cash or credit cards” [credit cards are the truly egregious aspect]; “if you cannot work out a payment plan you must get back in the courtroom. I’ll make a determination as to whether or not you meet the standard for time payments.”

Here is where social services begin to kick-in, if they have not already - a fact which editing leaves-out to facilitate mis-perception among foreigners; but lets focus on how petty crime prevention which functions as a de facto border patrol and control technique against more serious crime and social catastrophe is taken issue-with in order to side track the issue of what the White people are up against: blacks commit more violent crime - a fact not reported-on in the Jewish media, Vice News or otherwise. They also have more sex partners (including what might have been your wife), younger, enormous rates of single parenthood, poverty and any other other malady that they might inflict upon other peoples, but you won’t hear that in the said media either.

Simon Osrovsky: “Ever since Ferguson, police practices have been in the spotlight. But it’s not just about the killing of unarmed black men.”

See Ferguson officer Wilson interview; and discussion of how Soros’ et al. funded and contrived “Black Lives Matter.”

Ostrovsky: “That’s a huge problem, but much larger in scale are the thousands of day to day police interactions that often end in fines and set the tone of the department’s relationship with the community.”

That’s a huge problem” is a fallacious claim, discussed by former policeman, James Lancia

Driving while Twitch Monster. This first one sort of looks like the twitch monster, but we’ll focus on the nimble meek one.

Judge: “You understand that by pleading guilty, you are waving your right to an attorney, you’re waving you’re right to a trial, the only thing left for me to do is impose sentence, do you understand that?”


Ostrovsky: “Take for example the case of Bryan Nina, a Bloomfield resident” [and why should he be taken for granted as such, given that 20 years ago Bloomfield was all White; Watsessing Park in Bloomfield, the North Ward of Newark (Italian) and Glen Ridge were buffers against the adjacent black towns] “who police stopped, even though he hadn’t committed a moving violation. They told him it was because a woman had complained that he was harassing her [any merit to that complaint? It seems the Shell station attendant who made the complaint could have been pursued for an interview]. But he ended up with an $87 fine for having tints on his windows. He was also ticketed for three other violations that were eventually dropped; none of which had anything to do with the alleged reason for the stop.”

The film-makers found Bryan Nina, who is able to sufficiently act the Oreo part. He goes to show that the Oreos and Uncle Toms (or those acting the part) can be most dangerous as they function as a Trojan horse, opening the gates for the destructive pattern inevitably to come from blacks. Nina acquits himself sympathetically, despite tinted windows and a woman having called the police to complain about him harassing her - calling the police out of the blue that he was harassing her?...hmm. Never mind. Blacks don’t harass people and women always call the police to complain about harassment out of the blue. To Kill a Mockingbird, Paris Trout, A Time to Kill - these films tell foreign audiences the truth and all they need to know about blacks, Whites and discrimination - how ignorant that Whites are.

Bryan Nina: “I came out of Sunoco, I had made it to my house before he was able to pull me over. I parked and he had came up behind me and turned on his lights. I was about to get out of my vehicle, he told me to stay in my vehicle. He then came up to my window and aksed (sic) me if I had harassed a lady in Sunoco. I responded to him no,  he then aksed me for my license and went back to his car to check if I had any warrants or anything like that. He brought my license back knowing that I didn’t have any warrants and then told me to step out of the vehicle; he then aksed me if I had marijuana in my vehicle.  I had told him no, that I don’t smoke marijuana; he then told me that he was going to search my vehicle; he searched my whole vehicle, didn’t find anything. He went back to his car and he wrote me up about five summonses for my car.  I reported it to internal affairs. I tried to go the right way about it, but no one really heard my case out so I just” ...


Ostrovsky: “wow, so you reported this to internal affairs. Why did you feel that you had a case against the police?

Nina: “Because I felt like they pulled me over for one reason, to just give me five tickets, out of the blue. So I felt like it was a thing about my race or I don’t know if I was being picked at. I don’t know what it was about but, they pulled me over and they were just trying to pick at things; just to get me for something.”

Ostrovsky: “Just to harass you or to make money or something like that.”

Nina: “Yeah.”

Ostrovsky: “It sounds like you feel [Locke] you weren’t at fault and they didn’t have a right to pull you over.”

Nina: “Yeah, Yeah.”

Ostrovsky: “Why are you paying your fine today and why are you pleading guilty?”

Nina: “I didn’t have like sufficient funds to actually acquire a lawyer or proceed in that sense so I thought that I would just get it overwith.”

Maybe Nina isn’t so bad, maybe he is, but Jewish interests have a nefarious practice of advocating exceptions to the rule and thereby exposing the Majorityrights of Whites to the destructive pattern. He comes along with the destructive pattern no matter what. If he is a good one, let him ameliorate his own people. The only pattern that Ostrovsky observes is perhaps a desperate attempt by Whites to protect themselves and their habitats:

Ostrovsky: “$87 may seem like small potatoes on its own, but the Seton Hall Study established that 78% of the stops made are of minorities, in a town where only 40% of the population are non-White.” [twenty years ago it was all White and for good reason] “Many of those stops end in fines unrelated to the given reason for the stop. Which makes the black and latino communities feel like they are being unfairly targeted or even taxed.”


The assertion that the Bloomfield police are guilty of targeting groups: profiling, discriminating based on race.

And well they should be for the imposition their pattern imposes upon fine, White cites, such as Newark was (but was no longer after blacks moved-in with their hyper-assertive destruction - for example in the 1967 Newark riots.

Ostrovsky: “So what is driving while black like in Bloomfield? Two ex police officers [Jones and Rivera] turned civil rights activists [hyperbolas Lockatinism], who worked on the Seton Law School study, told us they could help us find out, in a driving experiment.

We met up to inspect the test car. I chose a suitably beat up vehicle, because they say, the profile of ticketed vehicles seems to skew toward the lower income bracket.”

Terrance Jones: “You may not believe it, but its actually a rental. You can rent a car in this condition in America.”

Rich Rivera: “So lets make sure everything works.”

Terrence Jones: “Ah, the lights look good, you have a tag, a New Jersey tag that’s displayed properly. Left turn signal’s working perfect, right turn signal is working perfect.”

Rich Rivera: “If I was police, I wouldn’t even want to go through this car.”

Terrence Jones: (laughs) “No crack cocaine, alright let’s check-out the rear.”

Rich Rivera (finding cultural affinity with the prior renter): “There’s a Mick CD in here, oh my god! There is an actual switchblade in here!”

Terrence Jones: “Oh my god, let me take it out, let’s pull it out, let’s take a look at it. It has a thumb-latch too. Oh, this is a good one. So, good thing we looked huh?”

Riviera: “Yeah”

[all legal and technical aspects of the car check out OK (though they did find a switch blade left by a prior renter)].

Terrence Jones: “Everything looks good. I mean, it’s a piece of junk but everything looks good.”

Riviera: “Its an ugly-assed car, but hey.”

[it is sufficient bate for police]

[they start playing the sympathetic atmosphere music again, no rap or anything like that]

Ostrovsky: “The idea was simple, to drive around Bloomfield in a vehicle full of black men to see if it attracted the attention of police. In the driver’s seat was former Philadelphia police officer Terrance Jones; with Seton Hall law student, Marquis Whitney in the front passenger seat.”

Terrence Jones and Marquis Whitney

[camera indicates that this experiment was conducted January 21, 2016 at 9:29 P.M.]

Ostrovsky: “We decked the test car out with cameras; and followed in a separate car, with a camera of our own. It was driven by former New Jersey police officer Rich Rivera.”

Riviera and Ostrovsky

Ostrovsky: “We’re just about to cross the city line into Bloomfield. And the time is now, just about 9:30 P.M.”

3rd Street is actually still well within in Newark, near where The First Ward used to be, an Italian version of one of E. Michael Jones’ forsaken communities.

Riviera: “So now you’re in Bloomfield”...

Osrovsky: “It didn’t take long to see that the police were out in force stopping cars.

Eventually, the police start biting.”

So, they are baiting, fishing for a bad police reaction; this is not a neutral, “objective” experiment.

Ostrovsky: “They followed the test car for several blocks. ...even as it made turns. Then, in spite of his plans to drive by the book, Terrance accidentally made an illegal left, giving the police a reason to stop them. Sure enough, he was immediately pulled-over and ticketed.”

Bloomfield police officer: “Alright, the reason for the stop, you made that left turn, you can’t make dat turn over dere.”

This is not a White way of speaking: “dat dere,” but it’s hard to tell if the officer is White because there is a convention among police to speak in a colloquial manner in order to make people feel comfortable: e.g., “how yuz doin’?”, that sort of thing.

Ostrovsky: “The police had clearly followed the car without any apparent reason. ..but in the end, there was a legitimate reason for the stop, so we continued the experiment.”

Marquis:  “the real question is, why did he start following us from the get-go, onto side streets, not even main roads?”

Maybe because you were driving around wearing hoodies? and trying to bait the police into stopping you in an area that you know that they patrol for its higher crime rates?

Driving While Hoodied

Terrance: “He followed us for about a minute and a half.”

Marquis: “onto side streets, not even main roads.”

Ostrovsky: “Then, on Bloomfield Ave right next to the Sunoco gas station, where the Seton Hall study showed that the Bloomfield PD made the highest number of traffic stops, the test car was pulled over again.  But this time, it was difficult to know why.”

Maybe because the driver was wearing a hoodie, concealing his face?

The hoodie was nice, but why not just wave a gun out of the window?

Ostrovsky: “They checked the paper-work and when they found that it was in order, they let the test car go.”

If I were a police officer, and I suspected a study, I would think they were testing my competence to stop obvious criminal types. I.e., you would almost HAVE to stop people wearing hoodies.

But we are supposed to empathize with Marquis Whitney’s declared feelings, and with him as black man in particular.

Marquis: “It’s just you know, real nerve wracking. You got cops on both sides, flashlights in your face, as a black man you have that initial reaction like something really could happen to me right now. It’s that uneasy feeling, every single time.”

Ostrovsky: “Our experiment was obviously mostly anecdotal, with mixed results, but the Seton Hall report showed that during the four weeks their study focused on, the most tickets were issued to non-residents, people passing through town in the southern, black part of Bloomfield. That abuts black areas in East Orange and Newark.”

First of all, Bloomfield does not abut a black area of Newark. The particular part of Newark that borders on Bloomfield has been an Italian section, thus, far more in need of protection than prone to foster criminality. But the film makers would not tell you that. Nevertheless, it is not but a few blocks from parts of Newark that are the same black hell as East Orange, Irvington, etc.


Note that if they are ticketing non-residents, that shows supplementary ticketing against Whites passing through. The figures bear it out.

But, Ostrovsky goes on, mixing where and where from at the convenience of his narrative:

Ostrovsky: “The least number of tickets were given in the Whiter, northern end of town. The report says, this policing pattern suggests a de facto border patrol.”

Gee, I wonder why they’d patrol at the border of Newark and East Orange; and try to prevent migration over the town line from East Orange - hell on earth, planet of the apes, science fiction nightmare come true - choose one, all accurate metaphors.

Ostrovsky: “Back at Seton Hall the students meet with Professor Denbeaux to discuss their more scientific findings; discovered over the course of their study.”

“Objective facts” are discovered selflessly, by model White Professor and students.

Mark Denbeaux: “Our data as to Bloomield is overwhelming. The Police are sweeping people in there based on race; and they’re making people pay enormous sums of their municipal budget off of the ticketing practices that were taking place.”

The crucial matter here is how Jewish interests and rhetoric - unabashedly relativistic in its bias for Jewish interests among themselves - will exploit objectivism and White objectivism - particularly as it manifests through the earnest, intoxicating and messianic academic quest for objective integrity in pure truth, innocent and unbiased by lowly interests of that which might not be best or not universally true.

Ostrovsky: “and what do you do when you go into the court?”

Latisha Finkelstein: “We go in and we just observe the courtroom. We take down the data - names, ages, townships, what they’re being charged for; whether there are multiple charges, whether they’re being assessed court costs; race.”

Latisha Finkelstein is an interesting name. The question is whether she has Jewish parentage or is married to a Jewish man. At any rate, here she talks as if she has no such interests, but to be merely concerned for objective facts. White advocates are increasingly aware the race exists when it is being used conceptually against Whites.

However, our criticism of this discourse should not go to a refinement of the objectivist criteria - where and how court fees are applied based on the innocence or income level of the defendant or to continue to deny racial prejudice, which is really necessary, discriminatory social classification of people for the sake of accountability, coherence, agency, warrant and human ecology. Rather, we should deal with the fact that a kind of relative discrimination is going on, based on the AREA, the people and their pattern of criminality and destruction to White patterns - specifying the reason for the bordering vigilance, warranting and cultivating rhetoric to properly frame the validity of that increased bordering and vigilance; as it discourages that demographic’s incursion. The aim should be on a relativistic meta level, that this discriminatory policing, boundary creation and vigilance is eminently valid based on the relative pattern of blacks in East Orange, Newark and their increased presence in Bloomfield along with its predictable corollary to crime - far worse injustices than the “de facto taxation”, which they more than deserve; that we are fully warranted to observe this pattern and not base our patterns on their exceptions - who tend to open the gates and bring along the destructive pattern.

We need to counter the Jewish rhetoric of representing minority rights, by defending our majority rights against their majority pattern. Because Jewish interests, of course, will focus on violations of blacks to no end, highlighting their more benign exceptions - which there are, as surely as their pattern is a nightmare. Black patterns are a complicated matter, that has its nice ones, its strong, its compelling ones, its giftedly agile, its audaciously assertive - in a word, many who will prevail over Whites on the episodic basis of judgment that tends to be the fall-out of modernity; while Whites would more often prevail if broader patterns were recognized. It is not necessarily so easy to defend against their pattern, but especially when we are not allowed to speak about it, clearly destructive to Whites though it is. Jews know that too, and they also know that with our own unabashed assertion that we classify social groups and discriminate accordingly, that we are “racists”, that invocation of relativist criteria would allow Whites to defend themselves on the basis of patterns; while a sheer objectivist criteria leaves Whites defenseless in the long run (especially because the Jews are not going by that criteria).

The prejudice against prejudice as expressed in the Enlightenment’s quest for objectivity, including notably, through Locke, as his notion of anti-social classificatory individual rights were written into the U.S. Constitution, is far from innocent. “Racism” is the social classfication of peoples for the purpose of making discriminatory judgements based on their patterns. This is necessary. Anti-racism is prejudice. It is not innocent. It is hurting and it is killing people.

Another Seton Hall Law student adds to the anti-racist, anti-discrimination, objectivist narrative promoted by Vice News.

Fajida Tassy: “For us, one of the most obvious signs that this is occurring is that people were being pulled-over and given tickets for things like failure to provide their license or their registration without any reason for the stop.”

That is, no acknowledgement of a relatively positioned and accountable hermeneutic here. The frame is presumed: “Objective.”

They have a compliant White law student to go along with this.

Kelley Kearns: “We did notice that with some tickets, you have to come to court, so even if its a bogus violation you still have to pay a court fee…so, no matter what..sometimes we found that the fees were more than the actual violation.”

Are Whites not subject to court fees as well? The data has shown that most people pulled-over and given citations are not from the area, and thus would be disproportionately White, considering the area patrolled. Moreover, if the blacks in the area are more given to crime, should the social/legal system not want to have a look at them and evaluate them on a pre-emptive basis through a handling of minor infractions, perhaps as means to stave-off more serious crime?

Next the film makers cut to the sympathetic latino, former New Jersey policeman and present Seton Hall Law student, Rich Rivera, who is participating in the Seton Hall Study and Vice News cop baiting experiment:

Rich Rivera (former police officer who was in follow-up car with Ostrovsky): “and all the people who line up and say, ‘you know what, I know I’m not guilty, I didn’t do that, but it’s a lot easier for me to pay this and not have to miss work’’s a tax, it’s definitely another tax that’s been levied upon them.”

As Kumiko observes, yes, it’s a tax for their increased liability to the White town they are making incursions upon.

In addition to unabashedly acknowledging that it is a kind of tax, or increased insurance premium for their greater liability to the town, I would suggest adding a pro-White/defense of Whites rhetoric for x, y and z reasons as to why that tax or increased premium should be imposed. And again, note the many social programs and funds that blacks and latino’s have at their disposal - because they are black or latino - to pay for these minor penalties; programs and funds that Whites do not have at their disposal because they are White.

Ostrovsky: “The report concludes that race based ticketing is happening in Bloomfield, but another way to interpret the data is that police are focusing their work on the areas where blacks and latinos make up the majority of drivers; which in itself could be seen as discriminatory enforcement of traffic laws.”

“The report concludes” - it has reached THE objective truth. The Bloomfield police are targeting blacks and latinos for fines. Vice News provides a “meta-interpretation” that the Bloomfield police are guilty of prejudice and discrimination by focusing on an area that is predominantly black and latino.

Ostrovsky: “We took these findings to the director of police in Bloomfield.”

This is a good example of where objectivism does not suffice, and will tend to work counter-to patterned White interests.

Ostrovsky: “What they found in their study is that the population of Bloomfield is 60% White, but 80% percent of the traffic violations are given out to black and latino drivers. They want to know where does that discrepancy come from? Is that racial profiling in Bloomfield?”

Ostrovsky and Vice News proceed to try to hoist the Bloomfield Police Director by the petard of the rational blindness and objectivism by which he would attempt to acquit himself:

Samuel Damaio, Police Director, Bloomfield New Jersey: “There is no racial profiling in Bloomfield, New Jersey at all. And I think that if you take a look at the areas that the activities takes place are the areas of our township where our criminal activity is taking place. And the area of the township that is predominantly White, there’s very little crime; maybe 10% of the entire crime in the town takes place in that area. But where our south end of the township, which borders Belleville, East Orange and Newark, is where 75 to 80% of the crime takes place. So, in deploying our resources and where our officers are going to conduct their patrols, they’re going to conduct their patrols where the crime is taking place. While there’s going to be much less patrol in the areas where there is no activity.”

Hermeneutics accounting for history, perspective and narrative comprehension is crucial to prevent abuse of the capacity to exploit objectivism’s sometimes thin view of facts and circumstances, its empirical myopia of the moment. It can, for example, discuss the broader truths that these areas, Bloomfield, parts of Newark, etc, were until recently White, low in crime and nice places for Whites to live; and that the blacks in East Orange and Newark have a history of violence and destruction The latinos have a history of crime, structural denigration and decrease in property value.

Because it is non-Catesian, hermeneutics is also mandated to return to accountability of sheerer facts, where it should and must.

Bowery makes the empirical case of voting with your feet - and it’s a good one, but not fool proof, because it lacks recognition of the heremeneutic rigor. He cited the example of “the Polish corridor conflict”, saying that would have been resolved justly and promptly by a referendum of what the people in those areas might have wanted, given the opportunity to vote with their feet. But it really would not have been fair, as it would not take into account the history, including fairly recent violent history, in which these populations had displaced those who they’d be voting against; whereas the Versailles committee could, by hermeneutic means, take these historical matters, as well as logistical and other considerations properly into accout: The necessity of hermeneutics is discussed here.

Anti-racism, together with the prejudice against prejudice is Catesian, whether on the empirical end, through the Locketine civil, propositional rights of individuals against discriminatory group classifications or in pursuit of pure, abstract truths beyond nature - it is not innocent, it is prejudiced, it is hurting and it is killing people. Jews know this, defend their social groups against it, advocate other groups as anti-White unions (Marxism/Cultural Marxsm) when in their interest to do so - which is apparently always as a pattern, until Whites are effectively destroyed in their capacity to resist Jewish power and influence over Whites and their habitats.

Ostrovsky: “I think to some extent we’re talking apples and oranges here. Because you’re giving me the statistics for crime, so the racial breakdown of who’s committing crime and where, we’re talking about traffic stops, we’re talking about, you know, violations for not using you’re turn signal, for having a headlight out, for not having your drivers license on you.. so, I mean, I think it’s a stretch to call these things crime.”

These violations are all well known to be illegal. Moreover, driving is not treated as a “right” in America, but rather a privilege. The police can stop people to check for license, registration, intoxicated driving, car function, etc.

Ostrovsky: “Which is why I’m asking, when so many minority people are getting tickets here. Is it a case of them being worse drivers?”

Demaio: “No, I don’t believe so. I mean, I pulled our motor vehicle stop data, by race, this morning, before we did the interview to get it in real time; and we’re at 1,814 vehicle stops for the year so far and 576 are hispanic, 573 White and 574 African American. So, it is pretty even across the board and if it ever spikes then we’ll investigate why.”

These are very contrived figures which indicate a quota oriented AGAINST WHITES in order to balance off the number of black driven vehicles they see as necessary to stop in order to facilitate crime prevention.

In other words, Whites will be pulled-over and fined just to show a pretense of “fairness and objectivity,” though Whites do not have racially discriminatory programs and funding directed their way, as Whites, while as blacks and latinos do get government funding because they are black and latino and can thus pay the fines from the goverment’s prejudicial assistance that they are given.

Ostrovsky: “Yeah, but what you told me is really stark, because 60% of the population of Bloomfield is White and only about 20% of the population is black. You just told me that the traffic stops are roughly equal between the White and the black community. So, how do you account for that?”

30 years ago Bloomfield was very close to 100% White and did not have much crime. The adjacent town of East Orange was then, as it is now, predominantly black and rife with crime. The black population of The U.S. is about 14% and it is enormously disproportionate in the percentage of violent crime in America. Some figures estimate that if you could remove blacks, that the violent crime in America would be at a similar level to Switzerland (very low).

Demaio answers basically the same question again:

Demaio: “Like I said before, it’s basically where our police officers are deployed. There’s a higher concentration of police officers in areas of the township where our crimes are taking place; and a much less concentration of police officers being deployed in areas where there is little or no crime.”

Ostrovsky: “You don’t accept the findings of the study, which is that the minorities are being disproportionately targeted in traffic stops in Bloomfield?”

Demaio continues the language game of rational blindness:

Damaio: “Our officers from what we see and based on complaints and how we train them, we really do not see our police officers racially profiling anyone in this township. If we did, we would be way out in front of it.”


He maintains rational blindness but if the department can be accused of prejudice, such as racial profiling, he will go way out in front in a Cartesian quest ad infinitum to invoke objective purity and innocence.

Ostrovsky goes for what he believes is the clincher with the petard of the objectivism that “driving while black in New Jersey” is subject to unfair discrimination and penalty:

Ostrovsky: “It turns out that for the first year, Bloomfield has for the first time, instituted a computer system that tracks race in police work; and this new data seems to corroborate the results of the Seton Hall study.

The police are saying this is a result of them being deployed to areas where there is more crime; which happens to be where blacks and latinos make up the majority of drivers; but the consequence of this policy is that blacks and latinos are disproportionately ticketed and fined, just for living-in or passing-through areas of police enforcement.

Maybe the answer here is for police to focus more on the crime and less on the traffic violations, which are proving to be an unfair economic burden on a part of the community that can least afford it.”

The irony is, that if the police were to focus only on crime that blacks would be a much larger percentage of those appearing in court and being penalized.

Whites would be penalized less.

However, a means by which the police could invoke and patrol a de facacto border to protect Whites from crime and violence prone blacks and latinos would be hampered to the detriment of all.

It’s called crime prevention and it is a legitimate form of community pattern tax; which, in truth, is only a provisional border solution until such time as real borders between peoples as nations can be established because mere segregation under the same government does not suffice - particularly not inasmuch as Jews are involved -


This has all been something of detour - on Bloomfield Ave. - from my thesis: why won’t “objectivism” suffice against Jewish tropes, such as “Driving White Black in New Jersey” or “Black Lives Matter”? Because they understand and misrepresent racial advocacy as praxis - which we need to recognize but fail to recognize for their misrepresentation and distortion of its premises; and they rely upon us to go on with our western tradition of pursuing objectivity - pure quest, “the prejudice against prejudice” - while they know that racial defense cannot be based on facts alone, and they hoist us by this petard as much as they can (a la Alinsky); they will just find another rhetorical angle where one fails to impugn our objectivity, and we are at a massive disadvantage (save perhaps for science) so long as we keep trying to play the objectivist game. Racial defense requires rhetorical advocacy and a recognition, contrary to the academic and media brainwashing that comes from Jews, that taking our own side is at least a tad speculative but essential for our coherence, accountability, agency, warrant and our human ecology.


Simon Ostrovsky
Claire Ward
David Givins
Phoebe Barghouty
Jeremy Rocklin
Brittany Ross
Michael Kalendarian
Veronique Huyghebaert
Tyler Hastings

Simon Ostrovsky: (Russian: Симон Островский; born February 2, 1981) is a Soviet-born American documentary filmmaker and journalist best known for his coverage of the 2014 crisis in Ukraine for VICE News and Selfie Soldiers, a 2015 documentary in which he re-enacted a Russian soldier’s social media posts to track him to Ukraine. He was briefly held hostage by pro-Russia militants there in April 2014. Ostrovsky won an Emmy Award in 2013 for his work with VICE.

Times of Israel, “Detained Jewish journalist released in Ukraine”, 24 April 2014:

Simon Ostrovsky, held by pro-Russian separatists for two days, is in good health.

American Jewish journalist Simon Ostrovsky has been released by his captives, according to a statement from his employer,

Ostrovsky, who also has Israeli citizenship, was held by pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine since Tuesday.

Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, the separatist head of the eastern Ukrainian town of Sloviansk, told reporters Wednesday evening that Ostrovsky had been detained for reporting false information, Reuters reported.

“VICE News is is delighted to confirm that our colleague and friend Simon Ostrovsky has been safely released and is in good health. We would like to thank everyone for their support during this difficult time. Out of respect for Simon and his family’s privacy, we have no further statement at this time,” the website said in a statement.

Phoebe Barghouty: is apparently an Arab Muslim woman.

Brittany Ross is likely to be Jewish.

Will check on the others later, if necessary, but Ostrovsky and the Vice News’ gang’s hyperbolic liberal agenda in this and other “investigations” of theirs is more than indictment enough for now.



So what are the Bloomfield police trying to protect and what are the people they are protecting afraid of?

Well, first, in regard to what the kind of thing that they are trying to protect. Here is Newark in 1926.

Vice News’ “Driving While Black in New Jersey” is inaccurate in its claim that Bloomfield abuts a black area of Newark. It actually borders what is still a mild, small Italian enclave of Newark, where I was born, called the North Ward - it straddles Bloomfield Ave and the border of Bloomfield, at 13th Street, extending down to 6th Ave. However, a few blocks down to the very bottom of Bloomfield Ave, around 1rst Ave, was Newark’s First Ward.

Here was the onset of what happened, the affliction of Newark and what they are trying to prevent from happening to Bloomfield.

The First Ward was apparently a very interesting Italian enclave which was demolished in order to make way for black housing projects. This was a complete disaster not only for the Italian enclave, but for Newark. To these projects blacks were invited from the south and they became incubators for the riots birthed in 1967. Newark never recovered.

Newark riots, 1967

Newark riots ‘67, clip 2

E. Michael Jones’, “Slaughter of cities urban renewal and ethnic cleansing”, doesn’t talk about Newark’s First Ward, but the exact same thing happened to that Italian catholic community as happened to other catholic city enclaves that he spoke about as having been deliberately broken up.

The story of the destruction of this, the ethnic catholic enclave of Newark, is chronicled in “Michael Immerso’s, “Newark’s Little Italy: The Vanished First Ward.”

Driving while black?

How about walking while White?

Different host countries,
same hyper-assertiveness,
violence and sexual aggressiveness,
lack of impulse control,
social irresponsibility to females, especially non-black.
long term disastrous social consequences.

Learn the nature of the beast’s pattern.

Exceptions are not the rule.


Do not re-direct good resources after bad. Trillions of dollars and lives have already been wasted in the foolish effort to help blacks.

Driving while black?

Wearing clothes while White

How about riding the bus while White, in your own country, Sweden, when one of these American blacks is let to go there?

Not Forgotten.



Page 1 of 7 |  [ 1 ]   [ 2 ]   [ 3 ]  | Next Page | Last Page


Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem



Endorsement not implied.


Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks






Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties


Europeans in Africa

Of Note


pokemongohackonline commented in entry 'Go East – Part 2' on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:34. (View)

Lies by omission commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:17. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:14. (View)

Sue Newton commented in entry 'Now Britain has a Polish Problem' on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 01:16. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 23:58. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 19:31. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 19:03. (View)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:37. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:28. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:56. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:30. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:09. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:18. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:10. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 07:23. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 07:04. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:04. (View)

Alex Candle commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 05:21. (View)

Oy commented in entry '"A new template against anti-Semitism"' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 01:50. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:53. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Thu, 20 Oct 2016 23:43. (View)

Terms I TFG & forgot to include commented in entry 'The Terms As DanielS Deploys Them' on Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:59. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:25. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:52. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:35. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:28. (View)

getos commented in entry 'From Nature' birthright to twenty-nine human rights' on Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:54. (View)

Bad news for Hillary commented in entry 'Farrakhan and "Black Lives" difference calls into question disruption of Trump backers' on Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:48. (View)

Vincent the Guido commented in entry 'Orbán plans to double the Hungarian army and rise patriotism among children' on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 23:22. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:00. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:05. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)' on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:09. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'The Terms As DanielS Deploys Them' on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:13. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'The Terms As DanielS Deploys Them' on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:29. (View)

Majorityrights shield

Sovereignty badge