Majorityrights Central > Category: Global Elitism

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...

Business Insider writer, Ruchika Agarwal, claims that racial discrimination has no scientific basis and yet everybody perceives racial categories. [?]

The particular evidence that she cites being studies that show that people are less empathetic to other races.

She suggest that while it is hard to control unconscious responses, conscious efforts to combat bias and increased interaction with other ”races” could help our brains see that our brains are “99.99% the same.”

These conclusions by this recent economics and telecommunications graduate from The University of Florida reveal her institutional conditioning.

Despite the fact that everybody perceives racial categories, even on levels of pre-conscious brain function, these categories “don’t exist!”

Here are the scientific premises she takes:

1) Race as a category is perceived in neurological responses of the older parts of the brain but 2) can be rejected as categorizations on a conscious level through neural re-routing in newer parts of the brain.

These are the same premises that Dr. MacDonald takes in his classic article, “White Ethnocentrism - Can Americans Really Be Brainwashed?”

However, MacDonald renders diametrically opposite inferences and prescription.

- that racial categories are perceived pre-consciously in older parts of the brain and therefore do exist.

- that racial categories can be consciously denied through conditioning of the newer parts of the brain and therefore that is cause for concern (because it means that Whites can be brainwashed).

- hope of defending against brainwashing through conditioning of newer parts of the brain might be found in the process of making conscious assertion of identification with heretofore implicit White groups - as Scott Roberts is doing by making explicit pro White statements before groups of Trump supporters, who are an implicit White identity.

This kind of thing should be done to counteract the reverse position, the kind of brainwashing that this being promulgated through the University of Florida:

- racial categories are perceived by everyone, even on an unconscious level - therefore do not exist?

- racial categories can be denied by the newer parts of the brain, therefore that is cause for encouragement - [!??] that we might throw-off accountability to the wisdom of our human ecology and systemic history?

- racial categorization might be overcome ultimately through increased mixing with other ” ” races” ” as it will compel people to overcome their implicit identities - [!??] i.e., their precious, ancient evolution survived through a myriad of struggles and adaptations?

Business Insider, “There is no scientific validity to this dangerous and pervasive notion — yet all of us are probably guilty of it”

In their 2009 paper in The Journal of Neuroscience, researchers at Peking University did an experiment in which they showed white and Chinese students clips of white and Chinese faces both in pain and not in pain while they measured their brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The researchers were paying particular attention to brain activity in an area of the brain called the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which scientists think plays a key role in registering our own pain and empathy for another person’s pain.

For all of the participants, ACC activity was significantly higher while they were viewing painful expressions on the face of someone of their own race, and lower when they viewed pain on the face of another race. The results were in accordance with the hypothesis the researchers started with — that social relationships between individuals influence empathic responses, where an individual experiences higher empathic responses for those in the same perceived social category.

[...]

No one wants to believe that he or she is racist. However, there is enough conclusive evidence to suggest that the vast majority of us are either consciously or sub-consciously less empathetic toward people of other races. While it is hard to control subliminal responses, a conscious effort to act without bias could be a way to combat the surreptitious racism. Or maybe increased interactions with different ‘races’ could help our brains see that we are 99.9% the same.

Merkel: intent on revenge / genocide of Germans

TNO, “Germany Introduces Forced Integration” 16 April 2016:

The German government is to give nonwhite invaders preference in the job market and will legally force residential mixing in terms of a new “integration law.”

The law will artificially create 100,000 jobs which will exclusively be allocated to “refugees”—even though there are currently 1.81 million Germans who are unemployed.

To enable this preferential treatment, a currently-existing law which requires employers to give preference to German job applicants will be suspended for three years—in other words, unemployed Germans will be pushed to the back of the seeking-work queue in favor of the nonwhite invaders.

The seasonally adjusted harmonized jobless rate in Germany was, according to Trading Economics, recorded at 4.3 percent in February of 2016, unchanged from the January rate. This means that 1.81 million Germans are out of work.

The proposed law, announced this week by the Angela Merkel government, is being packaged as a measure designed to make “refugees integrate into society in return for being allowed to live and work in the country.”

Under the conservative-socialist coalition government’s measures, the “asylum seekers” will face cuts to their welfare payments if they refuse to attend language classes or “lessons in German laws or cultural basics.”

It has not been said what these “cultural basics” will entail, but, given their behavior in Germany up to this time, they will probably include exhortations not to rape, rob, commit crime, how to use toilets, etc.

The new law will also “punish” the nonwhites if they move away from the white German towns where they have been placed—because the law says the forming of “ghettos” must be prevented.

At the same time, Israel practices racial separatism, seeing no reason to take-on immigrants, let alone assimilate them with integration. On the contrary, the Jews protect their E.G.I. as sacrosanct while compelling others to blend-away theirs with each other.

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.

Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the European Commission:

Diversity is now in some parts of Europe seen as a threat.  Diversity comes with challenges.  But diversity is humanity’s destiny. There is not going to be, even in the remotest places of this planet, a nation that will not see diversity in its future.  That’s where humanity is heading.  And those politicians trying to sell to their electorates a society that is exclusively composed of people from one culture, are trying to portray a future based on a past that never existed, therefore that future will never be.

Europe will be diverse, like all other parts of the world will be diverse.  The only question is, how do we deal with that diversity?  And my answer to that is, by ensuring that our values determine how we deal with diversity and not giving up our values to refuse diversity.  That will bring us down as a society.

If we don’t get this right, I truly believe Europe will not remain the Europe we built.  Europe will not remain a place of peace and freedom, for very long.

The person who, just yesterday, uploaded this video to YouTube claims that the original speech was made in October 2015, which would be one month after this little Timmermans gem, with which MR readers will be familiar:

Frans Timmermans, the Dutch vice-president of the European Commission, said that “diversity was the future of the world,” and that Eastern European nations would just have to “get used to that.”

It still seems very extraordinary - as if it can’t really be happening - that there are white men in this world who are so corrupted and cosseted by the government bubble that they believe they don’t have to listen to the European public at all about the European public’s ethnic survival.  They can just duck away with a little double-speak about mono-ethnicity having never existed in Europe.  They say it.  It becomes true in their heads. They free themselves thereby to act as they choose.

Yes, this one makes great play of the “human destiny” of gene-killing not just his own racial Europe but, eventually, every other ethnic group and tribe in the world, however small.  But you and I both know it’s racial Europe he personally intends to see successfully “diversified”, and it’s the necessary, righteous activism of racial Europeans which worries him.  On which point, the YouTube thread has some incendiary responses, including several not at all subtle calls to violence.  If there is going to be another Anders Breivik, Mr Timmermans should reflect long and hard as to why.

Particularly as I was the instigator of the original phase of skepticism with regard to “Giacomo Vallone”, with critical remarks in regard to the positions he espoused in an interview with “Dana Antiochus” at Renegade Broadcasting, it is relevant to weigh-in on this matter. While that exchange quickly exposed him in a lowly and amateurish sock-puppetting effort at dividing Europeans against each other, the combination of that amateurishness and the obvious anti-racial nature of his position caused me to not take him, or his associated “European Knights Project”, too seriously. Still, his motives were of the worst kind. It has more serious implications as that project has germinated into controversial engagement with prominent ranks of White advocacy.

Is he the same person as Jack Sen? Well, both Sen and Vallone are associated with the European Knights Project. That’s enough for me to dismiss them both. That is why I will only belatedly confirm together with you as to whether or not it is indeed the case that they are one and the same; though a cursory comparison of Sen and Vallone discussions seem to indicate one identity, we know enough about both of them already to dismiss them.

My run-in with Giacomo Vallone wasn’t the first time that I had to take serious issue with a guest at another network - I took issue with Mark Dyal at Counter-Currents, and I still believe that I was right to do that as well: The thanks I got for that was being banned from Counter-Currents (oh well). Mark Dyal showed up as a guest of Dana Antiochus with the same kind of bullshit and I had another run-in with him there: Renegade should have appreciated that bit of critique also. However, I’ve also had reservations about Dana Antiochus - though I might be unfair to him. While I tried to be friends with Renegade, as you’ll see, they turned out to be too right-wing in the end.

I tell you this - that Metzger is right about right-wingers.

They are disingenuous and/or naive and their tentosphere is always ripe for infiltration.

Anyway, the scandal in the tentosphere now is not only to see Giacomo Vallone as a fraud who has made his way into conversation with White Nationalism, but that he’s actually the same person as Jack Sen - also having made his way into conversation with WN.

I was repulsed by Giacomo Vallone for a number of reasons from the onset, but he and his “European Knights Project” not only managed to get interviews with Renegade et al., but notably with Professor MacDonald. MacDonald is a bit too open to those with advanced academic pedigrees (Vallone claims to have graduated Princeton) and demeanor and a bit too closed to those without that. But that’s another matter and not a major point here; MacDonald is a wonderful scholar despite sometimes not being the best judge of character.

In general, it is right-wingishness and desperation for social prosthesis to compensate for their anti-social positions that creates this vulnerability; a tentosphere trap that Jews maintain - a key objective being to keep us as right-wingers and “THE Left” as the enemy.

Now then, I was a bit skeptical (and couldn’t be bothered since he is out of the ballpark) about the possibility that Vallone was the same person as Sen. Nevertheless, I already had sufficient evidence that Vallone and The European Knights Project are bad news: promoting civic nationalism, promoting black and mixed race people (e.g., “part black people are OK”) and for some reason, inciting strident hatred between Germans and Poles; and apparently anybody and Poles; not only that, but using sock-puppets to instigate that divisiveness.

There was no reason to doubt that his dealings with White Nationalism were disingenuous and it was disappointing that MacDonald, et al., would entertain him. Mike Delaney also spoke with Vallone not long ago - an interview posted by Anglin - but these latter two are middle brow right-wingers, so their rubbing elbows with Vallone did not pique my attention in the sense that one of “ours” was being infiltrated. I would be quite happy for the Daily Stormer to crash and burn. It deserves to.

Then Jack Sen came onto the radar screen of WN, appearing at Jez Turner’s London Forum and on Kevin MacDonald’s site. These are people that I like, even if their right-wingishness causes them problems. I even posted the talk Sen gave to London Forum here at Majorityrights - it was about UKIP being controlled opposition, infiltrated by Jewish interests and so on. That didn’t raise red flags for me - if he, KM and Jez suddenly liked each other, it seemed that he might indeed be a guy coming to his senses. What was curious, however, was his association with The European Knights Project, and Vallone, as I already knew that they were colossal bullshit.

Still, I’m not regularly following the goings-on of every right-winger as I already have their perfidy conceptually circumscribed. I might look at what they are up to, as they are engaged on the same turf, consider what is useful and reject what is not; but I’m not letting them dictate my terms, any more than I’d let Jews do it. So, if they want to rub elbows with Giacomo Vallone and the European Knights Project, it’s their ship that’s going down. I advise White advocates not to be right-wingers, but that’s all I can do. KM, Greg Johnson and the rest of those among what I’ve taken to calling the tentosphere have tended to double-down in their position that “The Left” is the enemy.

Matt Heimbach is also cooperating with Sen and The European Knights Project - it seems as if there might be a corollary there, probably unbeknownst to Heimbach, to his being banned from The U.K. Sen was so disappointed about the ban?

Coming back to the show that has taken center ring for now, it is clear that “Giacomo Vallone” is bad news, but is he also the same person as Jack Sen? That really would be something as we will see in a moment by some of the implications.

But even if they are not the same person, the very fact that Sen would be associated with Vallone and the The European Knights Project is damning enough.

Lets set out the thread beneath the 2013 interview of Giacomo Vallone by Dana Antiochus at Renegade.

If it’s Jack Sen doing this sock puppetry then that really would be something. We’ll come to what Jack Sen might be up to after I set out this thread where I started the fight which initiated the awareness that Giacomo Vallone might be something more negative than just an ignorant newby. I begin with the first comment and before long, you’ll see what will be shown to be Vallone using sock puppets to instigate German-Polish animus.

Renegade, Dana Antiochus interviews Giacomo Vallone, 14 Oct 2013

Comments

DanielS
2 years 5 months ago

Giacomo Vallone’s remarks are not only tactless to the cause of mutual cooperation of European nationalism, but wrong..

READ MORE...

Whereas he used to have a completely botched notion of post modernity - mixing-up what should be the antidote to modernity and liberalism with liberalism itself - it now appears that we are improving Dugin’s understanding - viz., that modernity is the problem and the essence of liberalism.

His ideas in this talk are largely amenable and well considered.

His proposition that the state is a bit too much of an artifice to suffice by itself and that there needs to be a hypothesized realm, as we would say, beyond the physically verified moment, which girds and orients a people, is also well considered.

 

However, now that we are getting him to a better understanding of “post moderntiy”, viz. White post modernity, we need to get him to a better understanding of biological reality and “racism.”

 

 

Anti-racism is the quintessential modernist liberal notion; it is a Cartesian farce: It has been proposed as innocent but it is not -

Anti-racism is prejudiced, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

For “racism” is a necessary concept in a benign form, which is not supremacism nor a singular conclusion to aggrandizement and annihilation of an opposing people (as YKW propose and liberals might accept as a definition). It is in fact, a practical concept that is practiced by ordinary people everyday of necessity, as a non-Cartesian requirement of the human condition, of being in the world - one must discriminate in human-sized categories, including social classification - of one’s own people and of other peoples - to form a coherent basis of ones own and to form a basis of human ecologies for our systemic coherence, social accountability, warrant and agency.

These classifications are “hermeneutic”, that is to say that they are not absolutely empirically based in every moment, as the taken-for-granted and the state of partial knowledge - faith, if you will - must subsist behind the working hypothesis.

Call it a working hypothesis, call it faith, call it rules, call it narrative, call it taken for granted, call it the partly unknown, call it a mystery, a quest, an adventure, some of that as you must, some of it you might, as it has practical function to ensconce the under-determining facts of the empirical; but I have believed and continue to believe that a sacred overlay, in orientation and guidance of a people is a good idea.

I believe that it is a hermeneutic notion nevertheless, which is itself accountable to deal concretely with biology, sex and genetics, mediating toward fairness and justice in regards to this social capital - otherwise, without this empirical accountability, this “spiritual” realm will be the realm of evil charlatans.

(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)