Majorityrights Central > Category: Global Elitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

Although we might wonder, even if we were able to do away with Abrahamic religions, would this not attenuate the signal of the sheeple destined for a mystery meet future? I.e., would we lose a clear signal of those we want to separate from? Perhaps that is not our greatest concern as the genes and our agency speak loudly.

Some images speak loudly too - just impossible to resist.

We are vigilant of the misguidance of Christianity and other right wing rule structures. It is a good time to circle the hermeneutic to Islam for a moment. Particularly when witnessing how the BBC seeks to institutionalize and normalize the idea that Islam has had a long cultural, intellectual and demographic place along The Silk Road and into Europe, it is time for a de-institutionalization and de-normalization of this particular son of Abraham and its coercion.

           

We are vigilant of the J.Q., its patterns and its occupation of seven major choke points - including the choke point of religion which birthed Islam. Lets take a look at the notion that Islam is not coercive of itself.

Thanks to TT Metzger for forwarding this story. He adds: WE ARE BORN FREE, BUT ENSLAVED BY RELIGION!

Renowned scholar IQ al Rassooli is Liberty GB’s expert advisor on Islam. He is an Iraqi-born native Arabic-speaker who has dedicated much of his life to the study and critical analysis of Muhammad, the Qur’an, Hadiths, Shariah, Arabic and Islamic history -

“There is No Compulsion in Islam”

The phrase, “There is No compulsion in Islam” has been handed out by Muslims to non-Muslims that I find it best to compile some facts about this misconception by both non-Muslims and Muslims, to clear up this misinformation. Whether the phrase soothes the conscience of Muslims or they feel that this justifies Islam as a religion of Peace like Christianity, or that they truly believe that it is so, it is totally untrue. It also stumps non-Muslims into silence because of the lack of knowledge of the Quran. So it is essential that somewhere this phrase is properly analysed. The phrase is part of the verses of a couplet which must be read together to make any sense. But there are also other interpretations/abrogations that I will explain later.

[Quran, Sura 2.256]

“There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing”.

[Quran, Sura, 2.257]

“Allah is the guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the light; and (as to) those who disbelieve, their guardians are Shaitans who take them out of the light into the darkness; they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide”.

Both verses together certainly convey a different message than the typical apologist snippet from Sura 2:256. The pair of complete verses show the Quran’s respective policies for Muslims (believers) and non-Muslims (disbelievers). Believers are warned not to slip into disbelief, and disbelievers are warned to become believers — or else.

In other words, according to this passage, THERE IS COMPULSION IN ISLAM, despite the initial “no compulsion” statement. Sura 18:29, itself, bears some similarities to the Sura 2:256-257 pair:

Quran, Sura 18:29:

“Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!”

The policy in the Quran does not appear to be “Believe it or not,” but instead is “Believe it or else!”

The damnation of disbelievers in Sura 2:257 and Sura 18:29 is consistent with Allah’s policy throughout the Quran. There are over 250 separate damnations of disbelievers in the Quran. True believing Muslims, on the other hand, are promised with the reward of Paradise in the Hereafter. Despite its 250+ separate condemnations of disbelievers to hell-fire for the crime of disbelief, the Quran says many times that Allah is “Forgiving” and “Merciful.”

The Quran says that disbelievers who do good works do so in vain, because they are going to hell anyway (Suras 5:5, 18:104-106, also 18:30, 33:19, 47:1, 47:32).

This contradicts the claim that Allah is forgiving and merciful. (Indeed, it refutes the claims that he is at all wise and just). Were these statements all made by the same author?! Given the contradictions among the statements in the Quran, what are we to make of it when we read, “There is No Compulsion in Islam”?

One way of looking at Sura 2:256-2:25 is as just another contradictory pair of propositions in the Quran. Nevertheless, it is important to consider how the verse has traditionally been understood by respected commentators. Ibn Kathir’s tafsir (commentary) on verse (ayah) 2:256 explains:

“(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, ‘Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.’ It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning.”

In other words, the truth of Islam is so obvious and clear that only a fool, an evil fool worthy of eternal damnation (Sura 2:257), would fail to accept its validity. This clarifies the probable intended meaning of the verse somewhat, but the contradictory concepts remain:

It is wrong to force anyone to become a Muslim (and other tafsirs agree on this point), but if they don’t become a Muslim, Allah will burn them in hell. But more than that, as will be shown later in this article, the Quran says that disbelievers will be punished in this world by Allah and by Muslims who are acting according to Allah’s policies (i.e., the Quran and Mohammad’s example). The only way that the disbelievers can escape these punishments in the world and in the hereafter is to convert to Islam.

As we will see, according to the Quran, there is plenty of compulsion in religion…

READ MORE...

Look in the mirror, White man, and understand that this is all your individual fault. You need to lift some weights, man up - don’t be critical of societal power and influence, assimilate black alpha male behavior, learn PUA and adjust to the R selection strategies to which these girls have become enculturated. Better yet, engage in boundless self flagellation and servitude to Mulatto supremacism. But this most of all son - blame yourself!

Ninety Two Percent

Tiffany N. Calloway, Independent, June 2, 2015

It is prognosticated that by 2050 the majority of the American populace will be biracial.

While this demographic shift in America is great for diversity and the future of racial equality we must also take into account that with the emergent trend of diversity and multiculturalism comes the delicate colloquy about the shift in cultural norms. It is well known that in the African American community fatherlessness is a major problem, 70 % of black children are born out of wedlock in the African American community.

The tendencies for fathers to be absent from their children’s lives has grown into what one can definitely call an African American cultural norm.

Due to the access to stats released by the census among many other sources, there has begun a dialogue about the growth of this paternal absence epidemic in the African American community. But the full extent of this epidemic can be lost on the public due to absence of statistics on involvement of black fathers in the lives of their biracial children as well, and the effects that can have on the biracial children in question. This study takes a more a inclusive look into birth trends, family structure, economic standing, emotional health, and paternal relationships of biracial children with African American fathers

Goals of the Current Research

1. Amassing data on the birth trends, family structure, economic standing,and paternal relationships of biracial children with African American fathers.

a. Currently there is no definitive research that ventures into this topic and for many has left them blind to the stats on this seemingly overlooked but vastly growing demographic within the United States.

2. What effects the family structure, economic standing, and paternal relationships of biracial children with African American fathers have on the children’s
emotional state.

a. Does the absence of the father have any bearing on the behavior of the child?

More specifically does the child exhibiting major behavioral problems like aggressive behavior, angry outbursts, excessive tantrums, run-ins with the law, drug use, alcohol use, excessive fighting, trouble in school, etc.when the father is absent.

Research Methods

The type of research that was used in this study is quantitative research.Quantitative research explains phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analyzed using mathematically based methods. The data was studied through observations in numerical representations and through statistical analysis. Along with questionnaires that were given out to respondents for the statistical representation of the findings in the study, interviews with the respondents were also conducted. The respondents in this study were females spanning the United States, and 3 diverse racial backgrounds that all have children between the ages of 1 - 17 whose paternal parent is African American. Participants were approached through media outlets such as newspapers, internet, and radio, most of the respondents were recruited through internet advertisements.  Participants that answered to the advertisement were asked to produce documentation that was utilized to collect and verify basic screening information regarding each participant’s race thus proving they are in fact Caucasian, Asian, or non-black Hispanic, as well as verifying the paternal parent of their child/children is in fact African American. Participants meeting the eligibility benchmarks were required to provide pertinent locators and tracing info such as cell phone numbers and contact information in order to finalize their enrollment procedures for the study. Accordingly, those who passed the requirements and were proven eligible were administered the survey. The data amassed was broken down into percentages, and the individual percentages were averaged.

Findings

Marital status at time of birth

Table 1. At the time of your child’s birth were you and the father married?

Caucasian 97% NO / 3% YES

Asian 85% NO / 15% YES

Hispanic 95% NO / 5% YES

Table 2. Did you and the father of your child ever eventually marry?

Caucasian 80% NO / 20% YES

Asian 92% NO / 8% YES

Hispanic 99% NO / YES 1%

Testing from the 92% Out of Wedlock population.

So much for statistics that show that black/White interracial marriage is exaggerated. They don’t bother getting married.

                   
              The worship of the Silk Mother is about 4,000 years old and still continues…

READ MORE...

Universities are big business. They are in the big business of selling talk. But sometimes facts are facts and there is not a lot say about them. That raises a problem for the big business. After all, there isn’t much to say about mere facts obvious to everyone. However, if the university can distance students from a prima facie response to facts, they can increase the commodity of talk, its trade and the people capable of trading in it. Furthermore, it might help students to develop critical intellectual reinterpretations which might do them and the world some good through a broader social negotiation of how facts may count - that’s the ostensible idea, anyway, by being given this stuff to say. They sell it to undergraduates who pay in order to develop things to say through a critical view of society and their place within it. Whereas if something just is or just is not, that’s the end of argument, not much you can do about it nor about people’s response, needn’t be a whole lot of discussion, not much to debate, not much to say, no conversation - end of the talk business..

The YKW are equipped with a history of cultivated pilpul - highly developed rhetorical and verbal hair-splitting skills - that is accompanied by a knowledge of the necessity and opportunity in argumentative defense of the identity of oneself and one’s people; with that equipment, they have been notoriously successful in this big academic business of selling talk - it has reached its sine qua non in “critical theory”, by which theory of no theories for Whites, they have been able to sell talk while dismantling White defense. White Nationalists have some critical idea in defense of that now. However, they do not tend to realize that they are being mislead away from helpful theoretical apparatus by its widespread distortion.

Social consructionism is actually quite a useful tool for identity politics as it permits of things that mere facticity does not ensure, i.e. coherence, accountability, agency, warrant, broad perspective and social resource to reconstruct historico-systemic human ecologies.

However, through the talk that the YKW sell, they don’t want Whites to have that. Despite its value and with its appeal they have rather abused, misrepresented and distorted the concept beyond all reason - beyond the non-Cartesian mandate from which the concept of social constructionism was born, to where they’ve got ordinary people talking crazy and thinking that what it - social constructonism - means is that you can imagine yourself into being whatever you want, facts and other people’s understanding of the facts be damned.

I will only briefly note that there is nothing anti-Cartesian about taking such a view - it is as Cartesian as it gets. There is also nothing social and no social construction to saying “you can be whatever you imagine.”

In truth, the questions in these interviews are solipistic in nature, not social consructionist, as students are being asked if self creation (not social consruction) in spite of facts and other people’s understanding is good and possible.

However, it is not my purpose to lecture further, it is rather to have a fun look - it is funny - to see what this big university business has done to confuse these poor undergraduates at Södertörn University in Sweden. They are asked:

Is it important to decide your gender identity?

Am I biologically a man?

What would you say if I told you that I am a man?

If I say that I am Japanese, what would you say?

If I would like to be a cat and treated like a cat, then what?

What would you say if I say that I am two meters tall (6’6)?

What if I were to say that I am seven years old?

If I feel like a seven year old, should I get to date seven year old boys and girls?

Can I enroll in primary school again?

What does identity politics mean for you?

READ MORE...

Huge anti-Trump protest by Mexican advocates at Costa Mesa, California

Bobby civic Knight endorses Trump: What the cuck?

Cuckservative and famous college basketball coach, Bobby Knight, is a typical Republican and a typical Trump supporter - i.e., a no-nonsense, civic “real man”, one who would unite black and White in civic patriotism - a consummate disaster for EGI. However, there is hope in the kind of racial strife that might come about and be exploited of Trump’s ascendancy.

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...