Majorityrights Central > Category: The American right

       
Whites have paid trillions for her children and must continue to pay and pay and pay for this people that they want nothing to do with, suffer from, die from, and had nothing to do with enslaving.

In fact, Whites are not free to reject voluntary contact with them, but are forced into involuntary contract with them, having payment for blacks imposed; nor are they free to decline to live, work and educate with blacks but have blacks imposed upon their living space; they must co-habitate, hire, buy and sell to blacks, educate blacks and in all other ways serve blacks; they cannot reject intermarriage and its offspring - the relationship of slavery has been effectively reversed - it is Whites who have been enslaved to black Ethnic Genetic Interests.

It is twisted “irony” by which the Jewish controlled Federal Reserve Back would make Andrew Jackson - nemesis of the concept of a Federal Reserve - the first casualty in the erasure of White currency. Perhaps the (((Banking Mile of London))) has an interest in this as well, nemesis of the Crown and all that Jackson was (Revolution and War of 1812: Battle of New Orleans, in particular). The Cherokee won’t miss him either and an image of their guilt trip may have been an even more appropriate symbol to erase Jackson’s ill will. But such is Jewish and Jewish inspired revisionism - the objective sought is always that which might be most devastating in effect to Whites.

Nothing is so effective in that regard as the terror of blacks and the thought of the replacement of our co-evolutionary women with them - they have been brought to bear to a complete reversal of taboos, to where it is now one of the greatest taboos to object that black males are inappropriate partners for White girls/women - and no symbol of unfair trade to White men is more graphic than a black woman proper - none more conducive to guilt trips at the disposal of those who have nothing positive to offer in exchange than a black woman who was a slave but smuggled herself and other blacks into free White communities:

Harriet Tubman is the perfect symbol of the endless guilt trip that Whites are supposed to feel, without hope of fair compensation - for even those few, long ago and almost always completely unrelated White right wingers, ridiculous enough to participate in slavery. Black slavery did absolutely no good to the vast percentage of normal, working class White men - not then and not ever. In fact, it led to the destruction of America by bringing blacks there, providing a presence of ongoing anti-White terror and destruction - against normal Whites and their habitats - while there was absolutely no good in this relation for Whites. Jewish interests, with the help of Christian fanatics, imposed blacks - making Whites ostensibly live by “White rules” in “civil rights” - really a Jewish perversion of freedom of association, rather involuntary association and imposed contractual servitude to blacks. But the YKW went further, to hold a blackout on black crime and accurate portrayal of black nature in their controlled media - on the contrary, with it they agitated blacks and guilt tripped Whites generations later with a disingenuous narrative; of White privilege and oppression; guilt trips about slavery and black poverty by which they have been able to bring Whites down, in fact able to reverse servitude for generations and convince the world that Whites deserve this - collective punishment as Whites, for being White.

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; 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.

                           

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.

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.”

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’...it’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 -

Conclusion:

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.

Addendum:

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, Vice.com.

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,
presumptuousness,
at-home-ness,
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.

 

READ MORE...

Weev has been a figure associated with WN for several years now and at MR since at least 2010.

I had given him something of the benefit of the doubt as being on our side, since he was on friendly terms with MR prior to my coming here. Weev was well liked by Søren Renner, who, among other gestures of affinity, posted this sad video at Majorityrights, showing Weev explaining his side of the story around the time of his prosecution, just before going to jail for the ATT hack.

Only a few remarks about Weev stand out from what Søren told me, otherwise I had only a general feel of Weev’s place with regard to WN, based on the impromptu “briefing” that Søren gave me about him and then from what limited attention I paid to Weev after Søren departed MR.

Weev emerged from jail and posted photos of himself proudly showing-off his swastika emblazoned chest. I was disgusted with him for that and for his cooperation with The Daily Stormer. I was also disgusted with Søren for his appreciation of Angln’s approach at The Daily Stormer and I wanted to flush out what mutual position the three might occupy. I posted this picture here at MR, Weev with giant swastika tattoo on chest - - it did serve to get Søren to respond: Søren struck me as both hypersensitive in his response on the one hand and impervious on the other, given the fact that I was not exactly exposing anything heretofore a secret. If they think that this is such a sound approach then it seems to me that it could be easily defended by such I.Q. powerhouses. In fact, Søren departed MR and ended contact with me, suggesting that I was taking it too seriously (while maybe he was the one who was being too sensitive).

But anyway, coming back to the few remarks that Søren had made about Weev. Søren said that “Weev is a Jew’ but he’s OK.”

I didn’t carry much weight at MR at that time and didn’t feel it my prerogative to throw any around. I’d say that I went into a sort of denial about it, but really, with Weev in particular going to jail, he wasn’t going to be much harm to us no matter what or how he was.

I liked Søren, quirky, cartoon character sort of guy that he is, and excuses for this remark were swimming only semi-consciously in the back of my head. Maybe he didn’t mean to say that Weev is a literal Jew, but this was Søren’s way of saying that Weev s “a bit of an a-hole, but OK” - an a-hole who is on our side, if not our a-hole.

Or maybe Weev is only a little bit Jewish of his genetic background, but is really on our side. Even at the time I tended to be very skeptical that people who were any part Jewish could be on our side; but again, he was going to jail and therefore of no immanent threat.

Maybe he isn’t Jewish at all and Søren is just showing off his I.Q. snobbery; or that he will make an exception for a Jew if he is a Wittgenstein or a Weev inasmuch as their “genius” is useful for our side. I don’t think these types of Jews will act reliably in our interest, but in this situation, Søren’s predilection seemed good natured, funny and fairly harmless. Even though Søren could have some susceptibility to favor I.Q. over racial distinction, the importance of the distinction from Jews was fairly well buffered - it wasn’t going to easily float past me, anyway. GW thought Weev is a Jew, though I’m not sure how he came to that opinion.

At any rate, Søren’s participation at Majorityrights decreased during the time of Weev’s incarceration. I was a bit sour on him for his appreciation of The Daily Stormer angle but he was more than welcome by me to post and otherwise participate. I had been and have been busily trying to build up an alternative platform from the standard right-wing, “Hitler and Jesus are us, Jews are White like us too, and should be included if they want.”  I am serious about this platform not taking on that nonsense. So, when Søren suddenly reappeared with a few gratuitously disagreeable remarks and this silly post, I decided to make a post calling to account those popular WN figures - Duke, Anglin and Weev apparently looking to redeem Hitler.

As he hadn’t in years, Søren came on to Skype to chat with me, saying that I was too backward looking, that I was taking it too seriously and that I shouldn’t have brought Weev into it; then he removed me from his Skype contacts and that was the last I heard from him.

OK, before too long Weev re-emerges in the right-wing after coming out of jail, now with a Swastika on his chest and as a big hero of the The Daily Stormer et al., presumably. I didn’t pay much attention to him at The Daily Stormer since that tent of the alternative right-wing tentosphere is fairly circumscribed, buffered buffoonery. However, I started to catch wind of Weev making the rounds of the tentosphere.

With Weev at a safe distance now and making rounds on common subject matter, it was worth a listen to some of what he might have to say at this point. Since he is from Arkansas and has experienced blacks, it is quite reasonable to believe, in accordance with all indications, that Weev is sincere in his dislike of them - he has some sincere common interest with WN. Hell, if he is acting, he does a good job of it and of articulating grievances with Jews too.

But any man who causes the name of a website called “Gay Ni****s of America” to appear on the front page of the website of US presidential candidate (and US president to be) Barack Obama, cannot be all bad. lolllzzzzllllolllzzzzzz indeed.

  On February 11, 2007, an attack was launched on the website of US presidential candidate (and future US president) Barack Obama, where the group’s name was caused to appear on the website’s front page.

As another one coming to Dana Anthiochus’ leaky border between White and non-White interests, Weev came to talk with Dana on 25 September 2015 about computer technology, his concerned advice on race and state-of-the-art warfare.

I insisted that Kumiko have a listen with me, and render a critique, as these concerns bear upon her expertise. We developed an outline which I will post below. A Weev article has been long on the back-burner, but has become relevant now with Dennis Fetcho’s experience and criticism, if not exposure of Weev.

Though a right-winger himself, Dennis Fetcho has some interesting things to say.

He did a podcast of his own and one with Nick Spero recently to discuss Weev. Fetcho finds Weev’s covering stories risible - Weev being a Christian identitarian concerned with White interests and so on. “Christian Identiy?’, Fetcho says, “before he was a Mormon, he doesn’t know what he is.” But of the fact that that Weev is Jewish and that he was always on “the enemy side” Fetcho is confident. Weev apparently made Fetcho’s life hell, attacking and damaging his websites as he apparently would do any site that was “anti-Semitic.”

Fetcho maintains further, that Weev was not prosecuted by the U.S. Government singularly for hacking A.T.T. as he maintains, but because he was a nuisance who had done the same thing to many people, hacking and trolling them relentlessly as a part of a team that caused many innocent people significant problems.

Now we have Weev’s triumphant return to White Nationalism, with him presenting himself as a cult hero if not integral to their right-wing sites and aspirations. He is treated like a “hero” at The Daily Stormer and other alternative right sites for his recent print station hacking stunt - at least he claims it as his handiwork; Fetcho doesn’t believe that he acted alone to cause the printers at some American universities and some in China to print-out a poster with an anti-Jewish statement, and declaring world wide “White supremacism” with two large swastikas on each side of the text. Fetcho makes the point that this is barely newsworthy. I concur and did not run the story at MR and would not have if not for the implications of Weev’s detrimental involvement with WN.

           
    Weev, “I chose the swastika image because it is a symbol universally recognizable to all printers.”

What good does it do to create a “problem” of printing out anti-Semitic posters with Swastikas, proclaiming global White supremacism into print stations at the heavily Jewish American universities and in China?

It is perfect public relations - for the ADL.

Universities are not known for their skin head types, nor are book worms likely to be roused to enact global Nazism. The universities are replete rather with empowered Jewish folks, who can proclaim that they have a growing problem with anti-Semitism, need to clamp-down and need more assistance from the State.

This kind of vainglory printing-out in China works against projects like MR’s, to build regional alliance between Asia and Europe.

My reaction from the onset would suffice without any elaborate conspiracy. Our eminently noble cause of White sovereignty is only harmed by association with Nazism and “supremacism.” It will only harm Whites, set us against each other and turn-off normal Whites, needless to say how non-Whites would react.

No White advocates were talking in terms of “White supremacism” until Weev brought it back in his talk with Dana Antiochus.

No concerned White advocates subscribe to White supremacism because it is at odds with the separatism to which we aspire - attempting to dominate others is at odds with separatism. In trying to resurrect this concept of “White supremacism” Weev is attempting to brand us with a term as surely as he has branded himself with a corny tattoo as if to brand and represent us with it. He would libel us by associating our cause with the term that Jewish groups have been trying to smear White advocates with for decades - despite the fact that nobody, except for Weev now, promotes the term.

It does no good to Whites, but it does however, serve the interests of the ADL. It divides Whites, turns off normal Whites to our cause, creates the notion that Jews need more state protection on their side, etc.

Coming back to Dana Antiochus’ 25 Sep 2015 talk: Weev pushed the envelope of violence, declared world wide “White supremacism” the way forward and the intimidating idea that drone warfare would make the normal means of fighting for your people obsolete.

My initial impression that this was just a right-winger giving the right-wingers at Renegade what they want - a new Swastika tattoo, some Jew, Jew, Jew, unanimity with Uncle Adolf and you’re good to go.

With Fetcho’s intervention, however, Auernheimer looks more like a provocateur than the friendly rogue, Weev.

Andrew Auernheimer, a.k.a., “Weev”, the suspicious friend of The Daily Stormer and TRS, just so happens to be their Johnny on the spot when their sites have problems.

Fetcho claims that Weev does have some Jewish background, which we (GW and I, DanielS) have reason to suspect as well.

Fetcho maintains that the US government didn’t go after Weev for the singular hacking of ATT accounts incident as he claimed, but rather because he was hacking and harassing innocent people all over the place, including Fetcho relentlessly.

Fetcho renders plausible arguments against Weev’s “great hack” of the printer stations at several universities, and apparently in China as well. He asks first, whether he really did this this by himself? Then takes the premise to what follows by saying that this is not a newsworthy story on its face value (I agree, and had not run it at MR). It accomplishes little of positive value, but does create a “problem” for the Jewish laden universities that requires them to provide a “solution” of clamping down on hate speech. This is an attendant benefit to our enemies by associating WN with Nazism and “supremacism.”

And that is the large point that I believe Fetcho has got very right - there is a close approximation of Zero White advocates who have been claiming “White supremacism” and yet what Auernheimer has been doing re-vitalizes the Jewish smear line of “White supremacism” along with the Nazi association in order to discredit WN and turn people off.

Moreover, what sincere White Nationalist would hack Chinese printers to announce “global White supremacism” ? Most probably none.

But a Jewish sponsored troll, trying to prevent Chinese and White cooperation just might.

Who is served by associating “White Nationalism” with The Daily Stormer, Nazism and “Supremacism” ?  Jewish groups are served.

Here is the Nick Spero “Circus Maximus” show in which Weev is discussed in the third hour: The first two hours are Lee Rogers, the third hour Dennis Fetcho. Lee Rogers is your standard anti-Jewish right-winger, not much new but no harm if you can ignore his “holohoax” line and his falling on the AH side of the false either/or; moving to hour three, Dennis Fetcho has interesting things to say about Weev.

Again, Fetcho is a right-winger, with those foibles, including the pro-reich, “it was all a holohoax”, 9-11 and all that usual boring right-wing stuff, but the things he is saying about Weev gather sense.

He talks about Weev on his own show as well:

Apr. 2, 2016

  Hour 1
  Garbage World of Hackers

  Hour 2
  Weev and ADL Crafted Messages

Beware of the right-wing: they are full of fools and foolers.

On black hat hacking at red ice.

Weev on identifying companies with unknown liabilities

Weev tells his side of the story to RT

Weev on why he trolls

Weev on the difference between trolling and hacking

Here is an outline of Kumiko’s initial take on Weev’s discussion - with Antiochus, 25 September 2015 - on computer tech, race and state-of-the-art warfare. Since these topics square with her expertise on all counts and with our concerns on all counts, her opinion is quite relevant. This is just an outlne that I took down as dictation from what we gathered at the time (last September).

Weev on the players and the technological transformation of war: “it will be massively a-symmetric and robotic.”

1. Showing ATT its vulnerabilities was a good turn; but revealing the data to (((Gawker))) was tactless.

2 Don’t talk to the police! Weev should not have talked to the police.

3. “Black hat” is the wrong term to self ascribe, it underscores an unduly negative angle that adversaries would attribute to Weev - he should not cop to that, but rather identify as a “Gray hat.”

4. Should not say German patriots are setting fire to refugee camps or that he wants to kill blacks just because they are black.

5. His idea of robotic and drone war is problematic - it does Not render traditional forces obsolete. In certain circumstances you want troops in there in certain circumstances you don’t.

For another significant point of criticism, there are more ways to counter robot and drone technology than Weev is taking into account.

Kumiko has other assessments and critiques of his politics and computer abilities: where he is mistaken, where he could do better.

6. Very important: you still need popular sentiment on your side. It is not enough, especially not nowadays, to think in terms of warfare being so asymmetrical that just one percent or a small percent can fight and win.

7. His view on Christianity, newly reconsidered as it may be, could be reasonable enough: reminiscent of Bohrmann.

8. He is correct that it should not be a false either/or between universalistic Christianity, Jews and Islam. They are all beyond the pale.

9. His association with Anglin and other right wingers is dubious. NS Germany was leftist at its inspiration, onset and groundswell.

10. Assad never offered nor had any intention of stepping down. Russia made a duplicitous offer to take Assad down in exchange for keeping its port but The US decided to try to take him down themselves. The results were still bad but the motives were different than Weev made it out to be.

Regarding Auernheimer’s assessment of the inexorable link between Isis, Israel, The US - the deal with Iran indicates that business interests and geopolitics can override Israeli interests

11. He overstates the exclusivity of White accomplishment in computer technology.

12. His troll of Obama’s website with “Gay n*****s of America” was very funny.

...or Schulzed..

Nigel Farage looks on as European Commission’s President Jean-Claude Juncker (L)
kisses the forehead of President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz Photo: AFP

Telegraph, “Juncker calls for ‘compulsory’ redistribution of 160,000 migrants”, 9 Sep 2015.

Breitbart, BREXIT BENCH TEST: Dutch Voters Set To Oppose EU Expansion In Referendum THIS WEEK, 3 April 2016:

Dutch voters will decide on Wednesday whether to support a European treaty deepening ties with Ukraine in a referendum that will test sentiment towards Brussels ahead of Britain’s June Brexit vote and could also bring a boost for Russia.

[...]

Any rejection by Dutch voters or by the government would give Russian President Vladimir Putin, who opposes deeper EU-Ukraine ties and who many Dutch blame for the downing by pro-Russian rebels of a plane travelling from Amsterdam, a victory in his war of words with the West.

[...]

“PUTIN’S SHADOW”

The government itself shied away from framing the vote in a Russian context but shifted tactic as the referendum approaches.

[...]

“Vladimir Putin’s shadow is lurking fairly significantly over this treaty,” said “yes” campaigner Joshua Livestro, arguing that a “no” vote will play into Putin’s hands.

“Are we now going to give Putin what he wants after all?” he said.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s cabinet initially stressed the treaty’s economic benefits, but has since focused on its importance for Ukrainian reform in the areas of corruption, human rights and democracy.

“Everyone who wants progress in Ukraine is asking us to vote ‘yes,’ along with 27 other countries. That’s what the referendum is about and nothing else,” Deputy Prime Minister Lodewijk Asscher said on Friday.

“No” campaigners say the treaty is a first step toward full EU membership. “Legal scholars call it quasi membership,” said Baudet.

Many Ukrainian politicians feel their country deserves the treaty and are keen to show they have made progress in aligning their country with EU standards since the 2014 uprising that toppled pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovich.

In a Dutch television interview on Sunday, Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin emphasized progress in areas such as gay and transgender rights where the Dutch have always viewed themselves as progressive leaders.

“In the past 24 months since Maidan we’ve done more reforms than in the last 24 years,” he said.

Considering “Putin’s shadow” seemed as if it might be the issue up to this point.

But if the West is going to help Ukraine, it would do well to get a grip of its own reins.

Part of why gays are not typically worth making a litmus test and taking issue with in a negative sense is because they are not a big deal to normal people - they’re a small percentage of the population, a biological fact of given populations and most people aren’t interested in persecuting them or going to their bars. So why take the matter to PC hyperbole and bring it up as a salient issue, with even tranny tolerance a litmus test to consideration for European cooperation? PC is the last thing that Ukraine needs if our purpose is to secure its EGI along with that of other ethnostates.

Apparently the PTB (Powers That Be) understand that most people will not care but some will over-react to that PC angle, at a volume that might be appropriate if, instead, the PTB had explicitly stated that their displaying good-will to “diversity” and “multiculturalism” was the litmus test for their acceptability to the European Union. Thus would-be ethno-nationalists will divert their energy to that trivia (trannies, etc) and tar and obfuscate opposition to issue that is really important - so called “diversity” which is, in fact imposition of foreign populations - by associating such opposition with those who are hysterical and lacking the judgement of important priority.

Ah yes, when people balk, the PTB can back-off of pushing the “transgender” and gay issue out of respect for Judeo-Christian values; and perhaps most important of all, out of respect for Islam; then we can all agree that Ukraine needs to be tolerant of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” - unlike those hysterical, illiberal, non-Westernized, intolerant people who do not like transgenders - and then it will be ready to be Merkeled with the rest of Europe.

(Photo: Joshua Roberts—Reuters)

With his address to AIPAC, Trump lost the characteristic equivocalness in his manner of speaking: he brought-out his trump card - unequivocal pandering to Israel ..as we knew he would.

From his talks to “the international press” regarding Jewish concerns prior to his speech and through his speech, he was unequivocal.

1) He was unequivocal in his denunciation of “racism and anti-Semitism.”

2) He was unequivocal in his prioritization for Israel’s security; their borders and identity as a Jewish state for Jewish people.

3) He was unequivocal not only in his denunciation of the Iran deal, but in saying that it must be reversed; and, in asserting that Iran’s nuclear weapon’s program must be stopped, he intimated that he is not averse to Israel’s coveted hawkish solution to dealings with Iran.

4) His unequivocal closer - for those familiar with salesmanship, the closing line of a pitch must “close” (confirm) the deal: Trump proudly asserted that he was “about to become a grandfather of a Jewish child.” Asserting his blood-ties in commitment to Jewish interests.

White Nationalists may be correct that he is the best option in buying them some time. At least he makes noises as if he is going to do something about closing U.S. borders and that he would sympathize with closing the borders of Europe as well.

But toward that end, we are having to take the word of a man who brags about his negotiating skills following these avowals to Israel and Jewish interests.

AIPAC might cooperate to some extent with our domestic issues, including our security, OUR WHITE BORDERS FOR OUR WHITE PEOPLES - U.S., Europe and elsewhere - but only to the extent that coincides with Israeli and Jewish interests more broadly; and to the extent that Trump’s and other regimes would (very incorrectly) treat Jews as if they are White; a specially protected White minority among our lands.

That is a highly suspect deal.

And in exchange for that deal come an array of foreign policies - our side, opponent side distinctions - even more suspect.

About the only consolation to be offered to those who favor Trump in the interest of European peoples is that at least in what she speaks and intends, viz. in her antagonism of Whites, Hillary is even worse. Her rhetoric is even more out of the liberal, P.C., anti-White mold: her disregard for White boundaries more brazen, her commitment to Israel as “rock solid, unwavering, enduring and forever” as ever (as emphatic, in fact), and her war-hawkishness even more flagrant. Every bit as much as Trump shored-up his pro-Israel, pro-Jewish-line..

   
Hillary shored-up her Neo-Con Credentials.

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

There is a significant problem in the theory of White/European advocacy.

Those who gravitate to White advocacy will, in veritable first order of necessity under the circumstances, seek to anchor their defense as right wingers; viz., upon objective grounds beyond relative socio-historical perspective and in unassailable universal warrant - the apparent necessity for that first step being that antagonism generally unbeknownst, namely of the Jews, has obfuscated other options.

A race is a social grouping and a discriminatory basis thereupon. Discriminatory social classifications are necessary for human ecology, coherence and accountability - and race would be one important discriminatory classification for humans.

However, the Jews came up with the concept of anti-racism, which is the effort to prohibit social classification of race and discrimination on its basis; and have applied the concept of prohibiting discrimination on the basis of other social classifications in relative social group interest as well - all weaponized for Jewish interests and primarily against White heterosexual males.

Implicit beneath everyday language, the term “the left” applies in a very distinct pattern to organizational efforts of full social unification and concern for a particular social group - union membership modeling what “the left” does. It is a model that can apply to any scale and purpose of group, including nation and race. Essentially then, “the left”, itself, would be called “racist” for classifying on the basis of race or would be called some other discriminatory “ist”, by Jews, depending upon what social group is organized, if they were not in power beyond criticism, looking after their interests and against White interests. In theoretical consistency, only “right-wingers” are antagonistic to these social classifications on principle. White unionization would be the normal defense for Whites, and it would be “leftist” in terms of ordinary usage. However, through academic, media, economic, religious, business, legal and political take-over, the Jews have been able to have Marxism, Cultural Marxism, its objectives to take-down White power and the ostensibly hallowed humanitarian social concern of their so-called social justice advocacy groups arrayed against it designated as “the left”; while White advocacy designated “the right.”

From whence Jewish advocacy has maintained that steady stream of infuriatingly convoluted language games, starting with provocation of absurdly self destructive language games that they set forth with Christianity, to Critical Theory’s incessant rhetorical abuse of White men, the exploitative and lethal implications to White men have been actively unleashed in fact, as sundry anti-White unions - “social justice warriors” who have been set against Whites, ultimately, despite their unwanted imposition, the necessity to force their social integration and to force Whites to share their most precious resources and vital resources with groups having vastly different Ethnic Genetic Interests - to the final incapacitation and elimination of White men going under the banner of “the left” and its objectives.

Not only has being told constantly and pervasively that which tortures you as a White man is “the left” repulsed White men to the ordinary term, but also to the concept of social unionization, full group inclusion and advocacy which lies beneath it. But the normal White response, of objectivity, has been eagle clawed by Jews as well. A system of universal and civil rights and “objective merit” - which started as a White thing, by Locke, to advance objective individual merit over elite class discrimination - was taken by Jews to weaponize Whites own rules against them - so that discrimination on behalf of their classification was held to be illegitimate as well, while this universalizing of rights over classification provided an exception - a special proviso for White men: Because they have enjoyed “historical privilege” as a result of the fruits of discrimination and exploitation, it would be “disingenuous” for White men to say that the same rights and means of judgment upon individual merit should apply to everyone. Hence, people in these minorities need group classification for the purpose of advocacy and advancement in compensation for having been historically discriminated against by White men; whereas White men need no such group advocacy.

Jews have been able to designate these “victim” advocacy groups and their anti-White causes as “The Left”, what it means to be civilly responsible,“socially conscientious” and they have been able to designate and maneuver Whites who object and resist in social defense of their own people as “The right”, and more usually, “The far right” with all of its socially irresponsible and recklessly dangerous implications.

Given the fact that White men, including ones who do not hate themselves, have found themselves in a situation where all kinds of unwanted social groupings have been forced upon them and that social imposition along with all social concern and sharing in resources has been called “the left”, of course their initial response is going to be revulsion to the term and what it designates, through and through - the second “through” is the key, i.e., not only through the groups the Jews designate as valid to advocate, but through the very idea of group advocacy as it has been made didactic by those heretofore successfully using its means.

With the “left” being a matter of social concerns, what sane White man, after all, wants to participate in that socialization? On the contrary, he would quite naturally and more desperately than ever seek objective and pure warrant to defend himself above the conniving rhetoric and impositions of Jews, other non-Whites and insane liberals in the topsy turvey social milieu pan-mixer.

“Group advocacy is not the way of true and real White men; and by golly, I am going to make it my life’s cause to find that pure way.”

While it is the Jews who proposed calling this quest “far right”, at least it is something that you can identify with along with those of kindred reaction. So long as you don’t mind being associated with people that the Jews want you to be associated with, because of the ineptitude, counter-productivity, deserved social stigma and divisiveness to White social organization in their particular reactive quests for purity, you can have a market to try to bring people around to your particular right-wing, supra-social but what amounts to anti-White-social anchoring point - a point above or below the social group that is White/European, but not in White/human social register: that is the organic ground upon which the right, itself, parasitically feeds.

As the Jews have, through the so-called “left” (correctly referred to as “the red left”) levied unbearable impositions and deliberate confusion on any means of maintaining White identity and defense, and because they have eagle clawed the sine qua non of White purity - objectivity, merit and rights - weaponizing it against Whites, Whites who care to defend themselves feel they must try to be more right-wing, pure and extreme than ever - and sometimes feel that they may as well “join the club” at that: after all, “they are going to call you these things”, e.g., “an extreme right-winger anyway,” right? So, you may as well choose one or more of these anti-White social things and get along with the rest: Right-wing elitist, Nazi, imperialist, chauvinist for one nation, Jesus freak, new age pagan kook, conspiracy theorist kook, anarchist, liberal who believes that real men are not bothered by miscegenation nor preoccupied with racial matters and so are going to calm us down from “reacting too much” against PC, masculinist heterosexual who ranks effeminacy and homosexuality the problem, right up there with White genocide, homesexual masculinist, who is going to teach White men what it means to be man, scientitistic Darwinist, polygamist, Arab who teaches PUA methods to go through as many White women as possible and ultimately impose R selective patriarchy upon them, objectivist who believes people should be judged on merit born of a pure vacuum, libertarian free enterpriser, mulatto with pretty French wife who ingratiates himself to Nazis by intimating a stiff arm salute and befriending sociopathic holocaust deniers, or even conservatively or liberally principled, anti-“left” or anti-Zionist Jew. I may have missed an anti-White social category or two, but you may as well identify as one of these, so they say: Take your pick. There may be squabbling as to which are included but that’s accepted as inherent in their paradoxic rule structure -

And there is the significant problem in the theory of White advocacy.

Because the Right is comprised of people who are holding white knuckle and can’t let go of the pursuit of pure objective warrant, Cartesianism beyond social accountability, whether in science, religion or theory - sub or above human social philosophy - it remains anti-social-reactionary, unstable, divisive and bereft of the socialial normative. To compensate somehow, perhaps through Regnery, a theory of theories has been derived which seeks to compensate for their anti-social alienation with a prosthesis of “the big tent.” This was the VoR model, it was/is the Alternative Right model and it is becoming more the Renegade model.

On the other hand, those whose concern is genuinely for the entire White/European social group from the start and from ground-up, who consider all White/Europeans as innocent until proven guilty (until proven disloyal and divisive) are treated as “trouble makers” and to be ostracized insofar as they do come to see the facile, opportunistic, tangential and obstructive positions coming from those given a pass under the big tent for what they are - as coming from and guilty of defending causes that are irrelevant and divisive of genuine White/European advocacy, ethnonationalism, coherence and coordination thereof.

The people identifying as alternative right and typically those hovering in and around the racial market, have thus a common problem of trying to maintain their anti-White/European social and socially divisive of Whites positions; and to compensate for the maintenance of their initial right-wing, anti-social positions, they have tried to establish a gentleman’s agreement - a big tent under which they might bring to bear their tangential and (actually) obstructive positions to the market of White/European advocacy and ethnonationalism - by (ironically) trying to prohibit as “anti-social” (“non-team players”, etc) those who reject their anti-White/European-social positions. In a word, they want to paradoxically define “socialized White/European” with a rule that would prohibit and ostracize those who would quite reasonably prohibit those who are anti-anti-White/European-social.

To repeat in somewhat simpler form:

All of the people identifying as alternative right, and Renegade (Tanstaafl* goes there agreeing with them that “Hitler was right”....right about what?) as well, have a common problem of trying to compensate for their initial right wing, anti-social positions - compensating for the marginality and obstruction of their positions to White/European advocacy and ethnonationalism - by (ironically) trying to prohibit as “anti-social” (“non-team players”, etc) those who reject their anti-White/European-social positions. In a word, they want to paradoxically define socialization of White/European-social advocacy with a rule that would prohibit and ostracize those who would prohibit those who are anti-anti-White/European-social.

“The alternative left” is a part of the alt right big tent. It is their attempt to provide a false opposition foil and a platform for their more liberal misfits who want to bring their own right wing unaccountable positions to bear on the ethno-nationalist market; while they obfuscate this true White Left platform as it operates in the interests of the White class and does not accept their anti-White positions.

* Finally, “neither right nor left” is another claim that right wingers will make in a last ditch effort to avoid social accountability to Whites in order to maintain their right wing aspect.

I thought the most interesting comment in and around Greg Johnson’s article, Roosh Really is a Rape Advocate (& a Rapist, if He’s Telling the Truth), was Greg’s own, in regard to the woman in Iceland who Roosh claimed to have sex with despite the fact that she was so drunk as to be incapacitated from consenting or not. Greg said that if she agreed to have sex with him the next morning that not only did that not mean she had not been raped the night before, but that consent afterward made it only worse for the fact that it could promote the idea that such behavior would have happy endings (with enough repetitions, it would not have happy endings).

I would like to add that I can well imagine that in a circumstance like that, a woman can agree to have sex with him the next morning and again in an attempt to reinterpret the relationship and her own agentive part in her mind, because it would be too painful to believe that she was violated in a profound way and had no agency. Thus, she might try to go with the idea of superimposing a relational level and her agency retroactively to reframe what was an instance of non-consent if not rape in that episode - re-framed under “a dating relationship with a ‘bad boy’ whose wild side I should be able to handle, being an independent woman and all.”

Long story short: she could have been raped even though she consented afterward - and a woman might act that way because she is insufficiently conscious of her interests and/or perhaps cannot handle the idea of the best and most important gift that she had to offer having been taken by the person treating her the worst - a con-man rapist who cared nothing for her as a person or on a relational level.

Speaking of which, that is what makes Roosh so disgusting. This sand ****** said it was his objective and continues to be his objective to have sex with as many beautiful woman as possible - and that he has been teaching men to do that as well. His response to antagonists in the media is that he will accumulate as many more women as he can.

I’m going to harness all this coverage that you are giving me and convert it to money and women

This was my first occasion to hear and see Roosh V. speak. I must say that I am negatively impressed - his attitude, his mannerisms, his way of speaking - bopping, swaying and grooving - his motives and his way of arguing are either entire affectations of black people or his middle eastern background is more n****rish than I had realized.

One thing is certain, he does not think and act like a European man and nobody should respect him as a model as such. He is a sand-wigger. It is no wonder that he is trying to teach White men how to act like n****rs and Muslims - and to have as much respect for White women as a n****r or Muslim would. Nor is it a wonder that he would now try to take cover under a position of Abrahamic religion - that he is promoting a traditional Muslim model of gender arrangements for all.

Neither he, nor the males he teaches, are cultivating a way to pursue relationships with women that they care about, confirming and reconstructing views and European ways that are important, in fact vital to them. No, just the technique to pander to the universally lowest common denominator of their basest instincts and reconstructing that, while going through their cautionary barriers, including White national barriers, and discarding them.

Who does he think he is to target White women - in as many numbers as possible - with his Negroid/Muslim mentality? And who got the idea that it was Ok for him to target White women and others and pursue alpha n****r behavior? Would this sand ****** talk and have people act this way to his sister, Iranian and Armenian women?

She typed in, “How many girls have you been with in Poland?”

“10,000.”

“No, really.”

“A couple.”

“Do you always bring home girls like this?”

“Never on Tuesdays. ”

“Do you want to see me again?”

“Of course. You’re pretty, you’re sexy, you’re fun. I see no reason why I wouldn’t want to see you again.” I kissed her.

Her tiny size really hit me when she took off her heels. I asked her how much she weighed. Thirty-five kilograms (77 pounds). Besides her surprisingly round ass, she had the body of a gymnast who hadn’t quite made it past puberty.

We moved to my bed. I got her down to her bra and panties, but she kept saying, “No, no.” I was so turned on by her beauty and petite figure that I told myself she’s not walking out my door without getting fucked. At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.

She tried to go down on me but her mouth was too small.

Then I grabbed her and made her sit directly on my face. I ate her pussy, the first time I had done so in a couple of years. I enjoyed it.

I put on a condom, lubed up, and finally got her consent to put it in. The best way to visualize our lovemaking is an elephant mounting a kitten. My dick was half the thickness of her neck. I put her on her stomach and went deep, pounding her pussy like a pedophile.

“At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.”

It would be nice if that happened - I could picture Roosh being held down and fucked by a few giant Polish queers in jail:

“It took four hours and at least thirty attempts to push into his ass:  ‘no, Roosh cried, no!’ until the large, very large penis was finally allowed to enter and stretch Roosh’s asshole to his great pain. Ooh the giant faggot sighed upon the most satisfying ejaculation into Roosh’s asshole, you are the finest little bitch! I just know you’ll come back to give me some skull in the morning -

    - I think your mouth IS big enough!”

Better still, stay the fuck out of Poland and all of Europe, sand-******.

Only a wigger could admire this guy and find him appealing. He has no place anywhere near WN. Quite the opposite.

Roosh is teaching and promoting R selection strategies among Europeans who are evolved for K selection strategies.

Alex Linder interviewed (try not to let the Australian accent of his interviewer bother you).

There is or can be a misunderstanding.

- that I simply want to refrain from going ahead and killing Jews et al. on principle, naivete or for petty moral reasons.

- that I and we could not be content nor ever recognize that we’d be better off if they were gone.

But that is not the case.

It is the case rather that it is generally not a good idea to announce that you want to get them all whether you think it is necessary or not.

It would be hard to implement and worse, might work to our detriment if not conceived and promoted properly.

It is not only a strategic matter but a theoretical matter: for what we want ultimately is separatism (killing is a species thereof).

Separatism can be argued not only by broader and more practical metrics, but if it is achieved, it is more feasible for the purpose of killing - as opposed to taking the stance that even while they remain tangled up in our hair, we might succeed in the complex affair of teaching people to know, psychologically, what to do because Alex says so (bold and intelligent though most of his arguments are)...

As opposed to Alex saying so, if they are to be killed it would be for the broadly intelligible, broadly acceptable (therefore possible to facilitate) and operationally verifiable reason that they will not leave us alone when given the option, but insist on their imposition to our exploitation and long term extinction - a verifiable consequence and reason for their imposition - to eliminate us as a people, therefore a highly assertable warrant to preempt it.

This could be demonstrable even in their refusal to allow our benign and fair act of separating and expelling them from our people.

Given these considerations hence, my motto: separatism is the first step, separatism is the ultimate aim, separatism is always possible.