Farage in Mississippi
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 25 August 2016 06:14.
The Hunting of the Snark
Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 23 August 2016 19:32.
Leaked Report Links Turkey to ISIS And 25% “German” ISIS are Turks
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 18 August 2016 05:09.
Director of Social Media at Sweden’s Bonnier Publishing Says Sweden and Europe Is Too White
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 17 August 2016 05:03.
Leaked! Soros funded group that spied on anti-Muslim activists
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 16:33.
Blacks riot in Milwaukee, loot, burn businesses, hunt Whites, pull from cars, “get the White bitch”
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 15 August 2016 15:22.
Elderly woman stabbed 30 times
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 15 August 2016 07:46.
Vetted moderate Muslim preacher in Wales: “Take White British women as sex slaves”
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 14 August 2016 21:11.
Black on Asian Crime in America
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 14 August 2016 18:36.
“What the Refugees Bring to Europe is Worth More Than Gold” - President of European Parliament
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 14 August 2016 17:27.
UK: Massive Nonwhite Vote Fraud
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 14 August 2016 16:58.
Unconditional Birthright Citizenship for Persons Born in a Country (Map)
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 14 August 2016 16:43.
Leaked Soros documents reveal plan to flood European cities with Somalians
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 14 August 2016 13:56.
Gaddafi: “You idiots, I had warned you!”
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 13 August 2016 13:17.
Polygamy - Monogamy Map Worldwide
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 12 August 2016 22:22.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 07:23.
Black violence is the norm rather than the exception
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 09 August 2016 14:59.
Invader Terror Closes Down French Events
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 08 August 2016 05:58.
Nonwhite Invasion of Europe Unabated
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 08 August 2016 04:06.
What’s four years between friends
Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 06 August 2016 10:17.
Greg Johnson is Wrong - in an important way.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 06 August 2016 09:33.
Portuguese Nationalists Will Not Accept Islam: Demonstrate Isil Beheddings Before President
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 06 August 2016 08:22.
Somali Muslims given behind-the-scenes tour at major U.S. airport to show cultural sensitivity
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 06 August 2016 07:29.
Czechia does not want to end up like France or Germany
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 06 August 2016 05:57.
Theresa May visit to Poland and Slovakia Regarding Brexit
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 05 August 2016 09:27.
The Visegrád Four unite on forest management and ecology
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 05 August 2016 09:09.
“Attack result of mental health issues, victims selected at random”: location’s significance ignored
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 04 August 2016 16:26.
The wisdom of the body vs social norms
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 04 August 2016 13:01.
“Feral inner city black culture not result of racism or White privilege, but of liberal mindset”
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 31 July 2016 20:03.
For Such A Time As This: Hillard Clump policy against Iran & Asian/White Ethnonational cooperation
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 31 July 2016 16:38.
Islamists attack French church, slit priest’s throat
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 27 July 2016 05:19.
Black Lives Matter Protesters Torch Beaumont-sur-Oise
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 25 July 2016 17:18.
Kumiko Oumae interviews Matt Parrott, Part 2
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 25 July 2016 08:31.
Majorityrights Central > Category: Linguistics
“There is no such thing as society”
In that act of being mistaken, anyway - let’s leave a way out for people understandably reacting to the Jewish misrepresentation of the terms, “left” and “post modernity”.
Internal Relation and Emergence
You don’t have to take a position which places your people (praxis) as the central gauge. You can go on like a right wing fool for Jews and place a “quest for truth, facts and universal foundations” (and “inequality” even?) above all - even wreck your own people in that “noble quest;” but you’d be an unnecessary fool, a dupe for Jews and Jewish thinking in so doing. You don’t have to put our people at the center - but you can, as factual verification and reality checking are available in an instant if you are not dealing with reality; whereas the principles upholding our people took many centuries to create and are much more precious and difficult to reconstruct, if ever they can be. It isn’t necessary to place facts at the center - people are born of facts and if afforded correct principles, proper agency and accountability, our people will come to continually adjust their interests with the facts. Hence, the right’s whole arbitrary-making quest for facts and episodic verification at the expense of principled interest in our people is the height of folly.
Chasing mere facts and perfect verification away from “faith” in our people will tend to take them into runaway, beyond our people’s systemic interests - as opposed to taking the White post modern turn into its facilitation of the preservation and reconstruction of our people - where the facts are ensconced in the sufficiently deep emergent reality of our people’s systemic history to afford re-framing at their authentic place in relation to our human ecological system.
Right and Altright reactionary fan club - scavenging the wreckage of continued reaction.
The right, “alternative right”, those in their orbit, lay in wait as vultures for things like GW’s latest surprise: as I stepped aside from a discussion of British politics, he applied the theoretical wrecking ball again to “THE left” and “post modernity” at their behest (he isn’t so lame as to have to do it for himself); ill-prepared for the surprise in that context, I put up a threadbare defense against what I’ve come to see as a part of GW’s autobiography - “champion of the right, universal foundational unifier against the left’s class divisiveness.”
GW - working class hero who sees their classification as a critical problem of imposed nationalist division.
If you are coming here, like myself, chances are that you appreciate GW’s ability - you delight as he wields a scalpel on behalf of White/ethno-national sovereignty, more often a wrecking ball to the pretenses of academia and scholarship that are working against it.
We value this, want him to continue, want him to be satisfied with his part and his contributions.
What follows here is going to show little appreciation for that, which is abundant and shows forth in spontaneity for the surfeit of his intelligence - often yielding indispensable flourishes and insights that I myself cherish. This piece is rather an ungrateful piece in that regard, given that he has stood by me as I set about chartering a new platform for Majorityrights; and I sent scurrying many who had deep appreciation and respect for him as well; but it is neither for myself nor “his own good” that I proceed not feeling particularly guilty about that - nor is the matter of face saving a pressing matter for either of us - the sake is proper theoretical grounds, which is always my central motivation. Still this will appear rather like a hit piece - as it takes aim, focuses on the clumsier props of GW’s worldview, philosophical underpinnings and aspirations - not on better sides and ideas, which will emerge cybernetically in balance of fact.
If you are coming here, you probably appreciate and identify with GW’s rogue path: as a completely disaffected outsider to the academic fray, he early on rejected the nonsense coming out of there, particularly from fields dealing with social issues. And you delight along with him as he continues to apply the wrecking ball to their cherished liberal ruses under cover of “The left”, their wish to open important borders and boundaries, to bring down individual merit, to drag others down into primitive individual and group failure - instinctively, you sense him taking down liberal bullies who are smug enough to insulate themselves from the consequences of the unsupportable concepts of social “justice” that they wield against those native White populations least responsible for others problems, most likely to suffer from liberalism and least likely to gain from the applications known as “The Left” - applications which can recognize just about any collective unionization of interests except one kind - White. Certainly a (((coincidence))).
Most people who’ve come here, myself included, have also experienced mystification over GW’s not being satisfied with that. You have been at least temporarily mystified as he evades into the arbitrary recesses ever available by the empirical philosophy that underpins modernity; and as he continually applies its wrecking ball, secure in the faith that it will leave in its wake only that which is fine and good; a wrecking ball summarily dismissing scholarship, conceptual tools and principles that others set forth to guide social action.
I have been stunned as he sends the wrecking ball my way as well, summarily dismissing even carefully culled and profoundly warranted philosophical ideas, eminently useful conceptual tools and important rhetorical positions that I have geared to his same White ethno-nationalist interests; while his modernist philosophy willy-nilly casts me into the role of the “lefty academic” foil in key moments.
I am no longer mystified by this.
A reactionary position is mostly retreating (evading) and attacking - whatever looks like an enemy or Trojan horse - but for its instability, it is susceptible to chase after the red cape.
An early contentious streak in the autobiography over-reinforced by circumstance, ability and admirers.
GW is wonderful, we love GW, but like the rest of us, he is not perfect. There is a residual strain of contentiousness in his autobiography that stems from his early disaffection and precocious disregard of liberal prescriptions coming from academia. It’s a part of his autobiography that he takes a great deal of pride-in. It is also socially confirmed enough so that he continues to chase its red cape known as “THE left;” and keeps applying the modernist wrecking ball to any concepts the tiniest bit speculative in circumscribing social interests; or adopting any terms also used by liberal “left” academics - even if used in different ways, he will understand it in THE left way that he is familiar with - and summarily dismiss it as such or apply the wrecking ball.
Unlike most people disaffected of liberal academia, he is not of the working class sort content to shake his fist at academic pomposity, to find solace in a beer and the pragmatism of his working class buddies, allowing the union misrepresentatives to negotiate his interest with their fellow liberals of academic background; nor is he content to join in with the White collar and middle class who typically denounce the worst of academic socialists as unrealistic, while they go along with the liberal anti racism of the academe, signaling their one-upness to the lower classes by denouncing as backward superstition whatever defensively racist discrimination they might even require.
He does share a few things in common with the typical middle class perspective however. Naturally, he has a bias toward viewing his success in positivist terms, as having come about from his gray matter and personal initiative, not because he derived any benefit from artificially imposed social bounds against competition and to circumscribe cooperation.
Though he can relate to the working class “xenophobia”, he maintains that their maintenance of who they are among a collective “we” (i.e., particular native European nationals) and their choice of whom to intermarry with (same particular native European national) is something that should and can emerge naturally from their genetics - an identity that will emerge naturally, provided they do not have liberal, Fabian and Marxist ideas imposed upon them; the last thing GW wants is to impose another artifice upon them, one which he believes could divide them against their upwardly mobile English brethren, and in turn, divide the middle class even more against them. I.e., the “left” and “right” is normally taken as an economic divider and unifier of class, not a racial nationalist one as I am proposing. The middle class, as much as any, might be reluctant to ‘get it’ and not identify with a “White left,” in which case we would be back to the divisive issue, not the uniting issue that both GW and I seek - we may not agree on terminology but we do agree on native nationalism.
Thatcherite obectivism a means for personal advancement and foundational unification of nationalism.
In fact, GW is a native nationalist, deeply offended by the class system which has long hampered English unity. Thus, he is not content to disavow the worst of liberal and Marxist academics, writing-them-off as the idiots that they are, while leaving the working class to the fate that liberalism will bring to them, and, if left unabated, to all of us eventually. Like a few, more ambitious among us, he set about to get things right, to open a platform for White nationalists, even before it was quite the immanent practical necessity that it is now.
He aspires to identify the ontological connection between all English classes which, if unfettered by artificial constructs, would have them acting as native nationalists in loyal unanimity to their interests.
In that regard, Margaret Thatcher represented to him a liberating moment from the incredibly burdensome artifices of liberal, Fabian and Marxist Left union delimitations and by contrast an opportunity to unite as nationalists on natural positivist grounds.
Normal first reaction that doesn’t take Post Modern turn as it fails to see liberalism flying under left colors.
Indeed, most anybody of this ambition, myself included, who cares about our race and its ethnonational species, starts out in reaction to the absurd, contradictory and destructive liberal rhetoric coming out of academia and reaches to grab hold white knuckle to foundational truths, particularly scientific fact, which cannot be bamboozled by the rhetoric of liberal sophistry (which we later come to recognize as more often than not, Jewish in original motive). And we do grab hold white knuckle - that is to say, scientistically, in rigid over and misapplication of hardish science to the social realm, as we cannot trust the social realm, its rhetorical caprice if not deception - its ongoing disordering effects that apparently threaten to rupture social order anew with every agentive individual. Coming from a non-Jewish, Christian cultural perspective, where our bias starts, if not Jesus, we first liken ourselves to Plato and then modern scientists seeking to gird and found our place and our people’s place, whereas “they” are Pharisees and sophists, wielding the sheer rhetoric that we are going to debunk with our pure, native ability and motives. In a word, we are going to do science against their dishonest bias against us - they are indeed being deceptive and biased on behalf of unfair people; we see it as our objective to establish universal foundational truth that will be unassailable to this sophistry.
That is the normal first reaction of a White person who cares about themself and our people - it was mine and it was GW’s - a nascent White nationalist in response not only to the anti-White discourse coming out of the university, but in response to the very frame of the discourse - that is to say, taking on the frame [Jewish and liberal social stuff and lies versus White science and truth] - against accusations of privilege, racism and exploitation, we sought pure innocence in truth beyond social tumult and disingenuous rhetorical re framing. We (understandably) acted with absolute revulsion to anything like social concern and accountability - why should we be accountable to ever more alien imposition? - itself neither offering nor asking for an account sufficient to maintain our EGI - and where our people are eerily unconcerned or antagonistic to our people as well, we are only more compelled to take on the task ourselves - to pursue pure warrant. Our first reaction to the liberal chimera called “THE left” is: “I” noble servant of postulates - theorems - axioms - upon universal foundational truth.”
Beyond our people’s relative social interests even, we must save ourselves from the lies of “The left” (never minding that their first lie is that they represent our left) and found our moral/ontological basis where Jews, other tribalists and our selfish liberals, who only care about themselves, can never again manipulate it. We hold white knuckle, rigidly, in reaction to Jewish sophistry.
History will show that our people who pursued and secured sovereignty, health and well being found a philosophy advanced of that - competent and able to secure their social interests. They’d taken the White Post Modern turn from this reactionary position.
For reasons unfolding here, including reasons of his personal autobiography, GW has yet to appreciate and take the post modern turn.
Personal ability and interpersonal circumstances have facilitated his carrying-on in a typical first philosophical position of an amateur outsider in regard to academia - the epistemological blunder of “they are just sophists who provide nothing but nonsense while ‘I’ and my pure thoughts in relation to ‘theory’ am going to set the world aright” - an epistemological error in the relation of knower to known that is born in reaction and puerile hubris, carried on by being strong, smart enough to persist long after most people would shrink back from the signs of its limitations; going further uncorrected as it has been endorsed by “no enemies to the right” (a dubious principle, if there ever was one); it has grown into a surprisingly big and audacious ego wielded as a wrecking ball against “post modern philosophy.” We are supposed to rest assured on his faith that in the aftermath of wreckage, that the emergent qualities of his mind are all that is required besides the occasional foil to play off of in order to clarify and carry the modernist program forward to unshakeable, universal, foundational truth - unassailable to any social reconstruction. Never mind that we are already willing to agree upon most of the fundamental rules that he would seek - our agency is not necessary if it is going to suggest anything like planned social construction of systemic defense. No, that’s all impure stuff to be cast aside; and by contrast of true Platonic form, if you are freed from that ignorance and come to know the good he will secure, you will do that good.
He is not satisfied to simply negotiate, reason-things-out and reach an understanding among his people, he is not even particularly concerned that it won’t be a damn bit of good if people can’t understand his philosophical yield - he wants to secure that good on ontological foundations beyond praxis - beyond the capacity for manipulation. Most sophomores abandon this, their freshmen objective, as not only obsolete philosophy, but in fact, come to recognize it as destructive philosophy - a destruction which GW continues, with tremendous faith, without need of Aristotelian compass, that tremendous confidence to persevere where Wittgenstein failed.
The boomer generation - libertarianism and egocentrism.
The likes of Bowery and GW will be slower, if ever, to make the turn in direction, not because they are stupid, of course, quite to the contrary, but because they have the mental horsepower necessary to keep patching and operating the antiquated and obsolete technology that is modernity; and stem predilection both motivates them and enables them to do that; they are more self sufficient, less immediately reliant on the social (why carry others weight?); more confirmed by females by being reliable as such (concentrating on how to do things, not stepping on the toes of females by asking questions of social control - as long as you are at one end of the competition you are OK - liberal or the right wing end); confirmed by non academic workers in their more pragmatic concerns; and confirmed by right wingers in their penchant for anti-social theory beyond social manipulation - exactly, they are also slow to take the turn, of course, because they have an understandable lack of trust in liberal-social narratives; this unwilingness to suspend disbelief may be increased inasmuch as they have benefited as baby boomers, less harried for their identity in the parts of their life-span experienced prior to the culture of critique and in their personal initiatives after its reprieve - in Bowery’s case, with aspects of the objectivism behind Ron Paul’s libertarian “revolution”; and in GW’s case, during the Thatcher years (Thatcher’s initial backers having discovered her reading Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, who obliviously carried forward upon the Tractatus) - years of brief, partial liberation from liberal-left union fetters - “there is no such thing as society” - in either case, a false friend facilitated as false opposition - viz., an expression of steered objectivism derived of Austrian schools beginning with Wittgenstein.
The title is a projection of objectivism. Subtitle: look who else is reading it.
What is confirmed to me - in a roundabout way, when GW dons his powdered wig, grabs a quill pen, does his best John Locke or whatever voice serves, and says oh, “that’s just Aristotle and his rhetoric,” “all of the good ideas are coming from the right”, “based in nature, none of this praxis stuff”, says that he “never loses an argument against academics”, etc., then continually re-applies radical skepticism of the empiricists and their forerunners - is that he is showing an ego driven and confirmed desire to carry-on the “pure” modernist project; viz., in his ontology project and his destruction of everything in its path, even treating Aristotle and William James as utter morons, GW is revealing a vain desire to do something all alone, like a combination of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosphicus and Heidegger’s Being & Time: “The world is everything that is the case” meets “the worldhood of the world” - without the post modern implications of the latter. All that is required is the emergent qualities of his mind to set the world’s ontology aright - it will be “unassailable” by liberal, social, “left” rhetoric.
His reaction, confirmation and penchant for empirical verification against Jewish rhetoric has apparently caused him to disregard the post modern turn that was occuring also in Heidegger’s philosphy, albeit in Heidegger’s case, in that somewhat rigid, German way (which I find endearing).
GW appreciates Heidegger, so why does he not move forward from 1927 and why does he retreat to 1921 and the Tractatus? That he consders “OF being” the better starting point than Heidegger’s “There Being” provides a clue to ego centrism and Cartesian anxiiety - he not only proposes the reconstruction of the Cartesian starting point, “Of being”, but proposes it as an exclusive position, not even taking hermeneutc turns with Heidegger’s non-Cartesan starting point, “There being.”
“Unassailably” proclaiming that “The world is everything that is the case”
Whereas Wittgenstein himself was forced to yield-to, if not recognize the necessity of, the post modern turn - so much so that he was embarrassed by his effort at a complete ontology in The Tractatus Logico Philosophicus - having proclaimed its logic “unassailable” at once upon completion, he later repudiated it, even took to referring to its author as if a different person.
The Motivation for Post Modernity
Part of the craze for “post modernity” is that people (correctly) sense that modernity is destroying their differences, their traditions, their ways of life, their people and their very lives. And yet they frequently found traditional societies destructive as well. Therefore they were happy to have not only backing of cross cultural studies, vouching that different ways of life are valid, but also some confirmation from the very foundational math and science which modernity pursued to an apex that finally turned back on itself.
Kurt Gödel had demonstrated that a theory of any complexity could not be both complete and unambiguous.
Neils Bohr had priorly announced that there is no instrument fine enough to resolve the wave/particle distinction.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle elaborating from that was subtler still - that the observer is engaged in interaction and has reflexive effects upon that which he observes.
Confirmation of Aritstotle’s Praxis and suggestion that it should be the radical basis of assessment, not pure objective facts.
These findings confirmed Aristotle’s premises as set forth in Nichomachean Ethics - on the nature of Praxis - people are in reflexive relation, mostly requiring a degree of practical judgement as they are less predictable than the theoretical causality which the hard sciences pursue. It also would suggest placing praxis more in the center than theory - i.e., a socially based perspective where people are the arbiter, as opposed to “I think therefore I am” in relation to non-interactive third person behavioral units; a pursuit even outstripping the subject ultimately in favor of fixed theoretical facts - the Cartesian relation (pursued non-relation, as it were) of knower to known.
Vico was first to take the hermeneutic turn against Descartes, to bring ideas into historical context, the relation of knower to known into the social worlld of praxis
A relation knower to known other than the Cartesian model is required by modernity’s recognized failures and impervious destruction.
For those who care about people, who see the destruction of Descarte’s “relation” of knower to known, who understand the wisdom of Aristotle, realize that Vico - Descartes’ first major critic - was in fact, proposing the taking of theoria into praxis: i.e., correcty placing people and praxis at the center of his world view. He was setting forth the historical, hermeneutic world view, the post modern world view. And, in turn, those who understand Heidegger will see that he was following in that same direction, which may be called “existential” and which is centered in praxis - the social world.
The White Post Modern turn is, of course, the best and most moral perspective for advocating people - Whites especially - Jews don’t want that and so they fool the uneducated masses and most of the educated masses as well by reinterpreting the terms by which people - viz., White people - might understand this - and they get them to react against didactic misrepresentation. That is, they are getting them to react in aversion to what is good and healthy in racial advocacy by having made it didactic in misrepresentation - e.g., the highly sensible Post Modern is presented as “dada” (whereas I have secured its sensible form in White Post Modernity).
Bowery and GW were impelled on, for the didacticism of the (((liberal-left - contradiction of terms))) and for the (((misrepresentation))) that was this false opposition and its false promise to liberate us from The left, among other reasons. Objectivism, the neoliberalism and libertarianism of the Austrian school of economics, Thatcherism, is merely a false opposition that (((they))) set up against “(((The Left))).” It is a product of late modernity, derived of the Vienna School of Logical Positivism, which in turn was derived of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.
Again, that was Wittgenstein’s attempt to set-out a comprehensive and “unassailable” ontology - “The world is everything that is the case.” He would later say that the Tractatus was “not a very good book”, lest he be mistaken for one not recognizing that those who had taken the post modern turn had left this philosophical quest behind. Nevertheless, the Austrian school of logical positivism founded upon the Tractatus lived on through his cousin Hayek (who Thatcher was discovered dutifully reading); it was then taken up by von Mises et. al, who would conveniently and explicitly adopt this no-account modernist program against any one of subsequent generations who was the least bit reflective, who had any social complaints about how they and their people had been left without social capital after this generation of egocentric locusts devoured all social capital in their path. Waiting generations of right wing reactionaries, ensconced in their well protected Internet bubbles, were ready to look up to these libertarians for their lack of social concern, conveniently blaming the socially conscientious of prior generations for the problems - “The Left”, where not “hippies”, were the ones asleep at the wheel and leading us over a cliff, “but not the objectivists” and not (((The YKW))).
One-up intransigence of boomers meets generation Internet bubble for a right-wing cocktail, silencing socially conscientious voices between.
Because of GW’s unwillingness to trust anybody but himself, he takes recourse in the one aspect of the post modern turn where his first person account of all the world’s foundations might be claimed - emergentism. He has a problem, however, when I say that the world still interacts. He has to take recourse to the absurdly arbitrary claim that “life doesn’t interact.”
Emergentism, in fact, is one of the key contributing factors to the post modern turn - it challenges the reductionism and fixedness of the modernist ontology project in an important sense - the emergent whole being greater than the sum of its parts means that significant referents are changeable in complex systems, thus qualifying Bowery’s criticism - “there is either a referent or there is not” - as this charge must yield to the fact that facts can be re-framed as they emerge physically, as they are designated by individuals and as they emerge in social consensus. And yes, what emerges still interacts in a myriad of ways.
Gen Xer’s were a bit late for the ride
“There is no such thing as society”
Their lack of faith in the social narratives as they are applied by YKW is understandable, the faith they show in the guiding principle of modernity to leave only what is fine and true in the wake of their wrecking ball is not. There comes a time to suspend disbelief. To draw a hypothetical boundary around our people is as good a time and place as any. “Wise men see lines and they draw them” - William Blake. And its not so hypothetical.
Perhaps because their boomer generation was early in line and they were intelligent enough to position themselves by means of objectivism for a deck chair on the higher end of a sinking Titanic, they can take some solace in writing-off those who might be going under first, if it does go down, as hazards of nature, having not acted “naturally” in EGI - Bowery in particular, being motivated by an affinity for the individuality of northern Europeans, abandoned ship (MR, anyway) when Dr. Lister and I began raising criticisms of “individualism über alles” and raising social concerns against that.
In fact, for this reason, Bowery issued an ultimatum (“either him or Lister”) which defaulted to Graham’s more social side, upon which Bowery expressed his “revulsion” for Majorityrights.
Way down in the profound gears of ship’s engine room, we were given the shaft: YKW misdirection of “left” as our enemy as opposed to potential utility of a White Left - unionization of Whites against liberalism come by any means, Jews or otherwise.
Andrew Joyce demonstrates that as opposed to “the left”, the more descriptive and useful term for what our enemies are prescribing for us - viz. liberalism - can be used with perfect coherence. He even alludes to the profound significance of it by article’s end - likening the matter of our course as directed by Jewish interests and their liberal minions to an issue way down in the engine-room of the ship - the implicit matter of “liberalism” as the prescription of the enemy as opposed to “leftism” as our key affliction - like a gear being controlled by YKW way down there, on a level normally taken for granted, about which we normally suspend disbelief, but where a very fundamental change in bias needs to occur for the sake of our racial solidarity and defense.
We had previously observed Tobias Langdon (at TOO) making this transformation and now Joyce is doing it too - a very good move.
Bloomfield Ave. at Sunoco, focal point of a Seton Hall LS study showing it to be where most tickets are issued in a de facto border patrol between the races (it is also four blocks from where I was born).
It is my responsibility to undertake a critical discourse analysis of a Seton Hall Law School study depicted by “Vice News” - as it purports to represent, but rather misrepresents to the world, the reality of an area that I know, having been born and raised there. I will examine this discourse as set out in the Vice News video called, “Driving While Black in New Jersey.” This might prevent (((misrepresentation))) ergo misapprehension by people from other areas and nations as to the reality of black, “latino” and White interests as manifest in this area.
Having experienced differences between demographics and towns in this area, having driven up and down Bloomfield Ave. countless times, I have some insight, as it is not only the hub of this Seton Hall Law study in traffic policing policy, it was an unavoidable artery constituting..
..a connection to the place of my birth, my father’s birth and my grandmother’s house in an Italian enclave in the North Ward of Newark; it also a connection to other Whites, as I’d pass through always White Bloomfield via Bloomfield Ave. on my way to and from the house where I grew up - in predominantly White Montclair, just over the line of Glen Ridge, a few blocks from the Western border of Bloomfield.
De facto border White/Black. Montclair is left of Glen Ridge
But Bloomfield Ave. also constituted a dividing line from surrounding black Newark and East Orange - a nightmare that pushed up against the White Bloomfield and North Ward of Newark, which was pushed up against the Bloomfield town-line along Bloomfield Ave.
Though always having mixed racial and economic demographics, ranging from poor, to the middle classes and the fabulously wealthy, Montclair remains mostly White particularly because of its middle and upper class properties. Bloomfield, on the other hand, though all White, had always been more uniformly lower middle class. Therefore, to remain the White town that it has been would be more tricky; but somehow, despite black East Orange looming ominously just to its south, it always did stay all White, until recently.
It was tricky for the Italian enclaves of Newark to stay White as well - traditionally they relied on a much less tolerant communal temperament that could extend to a somewhat exaggerated vigilantism and ethnocentrism; and thriving communities focused around a catholic church; but now only that vestigial Italian North Ward “community” remains.
This all occurs in Essex County, New Jersey, which is a part of what is called “the megopolis” - a heavily populated extension of greater New York City. Along with its mixed demographics it is also mixed with splendid suburban opulence, post industrial and urban blight. Newark is the largest city in Essex County and in New Jersey. It is mostly black as a result of the kind of “urban renewal projects” that E. Michael Jones describes in “The Death of The Cities”, viz., clandestine projects to break-up ethnic Catholic communities. From this failed liberal social project to integrate blacks, the city went on to suffer riots from the blacks in 1967 and it never recovered.
However, again, that vestigial Italian enclave, “The North Ward”, did survive, kind-of - there I was born, there we visited grandma’s on Sundays, there I returned to live twice, in 1988 and 1996 - just one block from Bloomfield Ave and the border of Bloomfield, New Jersey - always a lower middle class town and always all White, until fairly recently, when I began to see backs moving in. Then it became a cautionary tale that I would relate to people about the science fiction nightmare that can happen - what I’ve seen happen as blacks begin to move into a formerly all White town - and as such, what must not be let to happen: easier said than done with our YKW adversaries.
Bloomfield Ave., Bloomfield, New Jersey
Why objectivist criteria will not suffice to create a border between nations and race.
The film makers set the discourse frame through an academic declaration by Seton Hall Law Professor, Mark Denbeaux, who claims on the basis of a study of traffic ticketing by race, that it is an overwhelmingly objective fact that the Bloomfield, New Jersey police are persecuting blacks and latinos with traffic violations; and in effect making them pay disproportionately for Bloomfield’s municipal budget. His students go on to make additional objective claims on the basis of the study that this is a form of racial discrimination along a de facto border and discouragement of minorities from becoming ensconced in White Bloomfield by means of a de facto “taxation.”
On a higher analytical frame, Seton Hall LS is building a case, accusing The Bloomfield P.D. of violating The U.S. Constitutional rule of non-discriminating objectivity, alleging that they are imposing a relativistic penalty for non-White transgression into Bloomfield.
[Fast paced but hushed music sets the tone to be on clandestine alert among darting police cars and bustling courtrooms]
Hurt feelings while awaiting imposition of a fine
The film makers continue to exploit objectivist criteria in the next sequence, as they focus on “the feelings” of blacks. “Feelings” are, after all, sensory “facts”, nothing socially constructed or any of that nonsense - a Lockeatine empirical basis has been enshrined as means for the pursuit of happiness and liberty; to live by one’s own senses is definitive of what it means to live in accordance with the U.S. Constitution: hence, these feelings must be important objective grounds, and are to be respected as a sensory means which people have to overcome the discriminatory fictions of racial classification. The film will invoke compensatory sympathy for how a black man must feel, their special feelings, as their rights are violated when they get pulled over by police - Whites might also feel uneasy when pulled-over by the police, but never mind.
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 -
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]
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:
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:
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.
We are taken into the court as the students and Professor file-in. The Judge addresses the room.
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.
“That’s a huge problem” is a fallacious claim, discussed by former policeman, James Lancia
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.
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:
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.
[all legal and technical aspects of the car check out OK (though they did find a switch blade left by a prior renter)].
[it is sufficient bate for police]
[they start playing the sympathetic atmosphere music again, no rap or anything like that]
[camera indicates that this experiment was conducted January 21, 2016 at 9:29 P.M.]
So, they are baiting, fishing for a bad police reaction; this is not a neutral, “objective” experiment.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
“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.
This is a good example of where objectivism does not suffice, and will tend to work counter-to patterned White interests.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 continues the language game of rational blindness:
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:
The irony is, that if the police were to focus only on crime that blacks would be a much larger percentage of those appearing in court and being penalized.
Whites would be penalized less.
However, a means by which the police could invoke and patrol a de facacto border to protect Whites from crime and violence prone blacks and latinos would be hampered to the detriment of all.
It’s called crime prevention and it is a legitimate form of community pattern tax; which, in truth, is only a provisional border solution until such time as real borders between peoples as nations can be established because mere segregation under the same government does not suffice - particularly not inasmuch as Jews are involved -
This has all been something of detour - on Bloomfield Ave. - from my thesis: why won’t “objectivism” suffice against Jewish tropes, such as “Driving White Black in New Jersey” or “Black Lives Matter”? Because they understand and misrepresent racial advocacy as praxis - which we need to recognize but fail to recognize for their misrepresentation and distortion of its premises; and they rely upon us to go on with our western tradition of pursuing objectivity - pure quest, “the prejudice against prejudice” - while they know that racial defense cannot be based on facts alone, and they hoist us by this petard as much as they can (a la Alinsky); they will just find another rhetorical angle where one fails to impugn our objectivity, and we are at a massive disadvantage (save perhaps for science) so long as we keep trying to play the objectivist game. Racial defense requires rhetorical advocacy and a recognition, contrary to the academic and media brainwashing that comes from Jews, that taking our own side is at least a tad speculative but essential for our coherence, accountability, agency, warrant and our human ecology.
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.
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.
How about walking while White?
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?
I thought the most interesting comment in and around Greg Johnson’s article, Roosh Really is a Rape Advocate (& a Rapist, if He’s Telling the Truth), was Greg’s own, in regard to the woman in Iceland who Roosh claimed to have sex with despite the fact that she was so drunk as to be incapacitated from consenting or not. Greg said that if she agreed to have sex with him the next morning that not only did that not mean she had not been raped the night before, but that consent afterward made it only worse for the fact that it could promote the idea that such behavior would have happy endings (with enough repetitions, it would not have happy endings).
I would like to add that I can well imagine that in a circumstance like that, a woman can agree to have sex with him the next morning and again in an attempt to reinterpret the relationship and her own agentive part in her mind, because it would be too painful to believe that she was violated in a profound way and had no agency. Thus, she might try to go with the idea of superimposing a relational level and her agency retroactively to reframe what was an instance of non-consent if not rape in that episode - re-framed under “a dating relationship with a ‘bad boy’ whose wild side I should be able to handle, being an independent woman and all.”
Long story short: she could have been raped even though she consented afterward - and a woman might act that way because she is insufficiently conscious of her interests and/or perhaps cannot handle the idea of the best and most important gift that she had to offer having been taken by the person treating her the worst - a con-man rapist who cared nothing for her as a person or on a relational level.
Speaking of which, that is what makes Roosh so disgusting. This sand ****** said it was his objective and continues to be his objective to have sex with as many beautiful woman as possible - and that he has been teaching men to do that as well. His response to antagonists in the media is that he will accumulate as many more women as he can.
This was my first occasion to hear and see Roosh V. speak. I must say that I am negatively impressed - his attitude, his mannerisms, his way of speaking - bopping, swaying and grooving - his motives and his way of arguing are either entire affectations of black people or his middle eastern background is more niggerish than I had realized.
One thing is certain, he does not think and act like a European man and nobody should respect him as a model as such. He is a sand-wigger. It is no wonder that he is trying to teach White men how to act like niggers and Muslims - and to have as much respect for White women as a nigger or Muslim would. Nor is it a wonder that he would now try to take cover under a position of Abrahamic religion - that he is promoting a traditional Muslim model of gender arrangements for all.
Neither he, nor the males he teaches, are cultivating a way to pursue relationships with women that they care about, confirming and reconstructing views and European ways that are important, in fact vital to them. No, just the technique to pander to the universally lowest common denominator of their basest instincts and reconstructing that, while going through their cautionary barriers, including White national barriers, and discarding them.
Who does he think he is to target White women - in as many numbers as possible - with his Negroid/Muslim mentality? And who got the idea that it was Ok for him to target White women and others and pursue alpha nigger behavior? Would this sand ****** talk and have people act this way to his sister, Iranian and Armenian women?
“At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.”
It would be nice if that happened - I could picture Roosh being held down and fucked by a few giant Polish queers in jail:
“It took four hours and at least thirty attempts to push into his ass: ‘no, Roosh cried, no!’ until the large, very large penis was finally allowed to enter and stretch Roosh’s asshole to his great pain. Ooh the giant faggot sighed upon the most satisfying ejaculation into Roosh’s asshole, you are the finest little bitch! I just know you’ll come back to give me some skull in the morning -
- I think your mouth IS big enough!”
Better still, stay the fuck out of Poland and all of Europe, sand-******.
Only a wigger could admire this guy and find him appealing. He has no place anywhere near WN. Quite the opposite.
Since I am paying more attention to things Asian as a result of Kumiko’s participation here, a couple of videos and a composition of Facebook comments relevant and illustrative of issues that I have been discussing have come to my attention.
Asian illustrations of..
1. Advised social confirmation and elevation: of the value of ordinary routine practices; in this case, participation in social routine.
2. Bad parenting advice: “You are from Sweden” and simply Swedish by proposition - abrogates racial accountability and leaves one susceptible to Jewish trolling for racial divisiveness and strife instead. Why the suspicion of Jewish trolling? Because of a salient example…
3. A composition of fake tweets: attributed to Americans apparently mocking the atomic bombing of Japan:
Kumiko likes Korean and Japanese pop music videos and she showed me this Japanese one.
If WN can show bearance upon what might otherwise be construed as an appeal to yellow fever by the presentation of this video, there is actually bearing upon an important point that I made in my article about “the dark side of self actualization” and how to otherwise moderate and optimize actualization.
That is to say, one thing that needs to happen in our re-socialization of actualization is for the value of individual self actualization to become part of a rotating and optimizing process of attention, to where it does not always and statically occupy the top of a hierarchy. That over-emphasis has, of course, destabilized and lent to the rupture of our racial/social systemic homeostasis. The inference I’ve made is that one of the aspects of actualization that needs to be constructed, elevated in importance and encouraged to enjoy is not only a sufficient amount of routine but also routine social participation in our tried and true practices and procedures. That will not only allow us to learn from our forebears but it is also necessary to create a platform for elaboration and innovation; i.e., it is prerequisite and socially as important as actualization.
This video shows a song and dance of girls in Japanese postal service uniforms. The point that I am trying to make is that celebrative or otherwise reverential treatment like this, of the ordinary and social routine, might help to emphasize sufficient sufficience, so to speak, in enjoyment of necessary but ordinary social routines, unions, trade guilds, syndicates and with it, an elevation of appreciation of ordinary necessity so that it is not dwarfed nor its vital necessity discouraged by singular social appreciation and veneration of the extraordinary and the sacred.
I hypothesize this elevating celebration of routine (in this case social) practices as one side of the necessary elevation of the social esteem of routine; another side of “routine” elevation would be ceremony and sacral treatment of exemplary practices.
2. Bad parenting advice: The oriental woman in this video was adopted by Swedish parents and brought-up with that idea that she is “simply Swedish, the same as any other Swede”, by proposition.
By contrast, if she were taught that she was an adopted girl of Korean descent, who was and should be welcomed as counting of a manageable, benign but accountable enclave of Swedish nationals…
...there is insufficient accountability in insistence upon her parents well meaning but bad advice - simply asserting that she is Swedish just like all other Swedes.
She sets herself up for abuse
Adopted by Swedish parents and growing up in Sweden, she responds to the question from a Swedish man, “where are you from?” that she is “from Sweden.” The man responds in turn, “no, where are you really from?”
She takes this as an example of “racism” and tries to correct the man in the motive she perceives of his question, answering that she is “Swedish just like every other Swedish national” - as her parents taught her.
However, I’d guess that the man’s question was not “racist” in a negative sense. Yes, it was racial in the sense that he was trying to get an accurate sense of how to classify her, but why? Because he thought negatively of her and of her being in Sweden? Probably not.
He was quite possibly asking her for one or all of the following three reasons:
a) He found her attractive and wanted to know where her sort was from for future and general reference.
b) He found her attractive and saw the question as an opportunity for an ice breaker.
c) If she answered, “Korea”, chances are that he would enjoy showing his good-will toward her, by confirming her honest account and her people as really OK, and that as a part of a reasonable and accountable number of her kind of immigration, take occasion to show support for her participation with Sweden.
That is to say, what the man was doing was “racism” by definition in the sense that he was attempting to classify people genetically (not doing the mere liberal thing of pretending to be blind to racial classifications but judging people instead by propositions), but it was, in all likelihood, a benign kind of classifying, motivated by respect and a wish for accountability.
Because she treated it as “racism”, i.e., classification for negative motives, she attempted to denounce it and hide behind the well meaning but fundamentally dishonest advice of her parents that as a propositional Swede she was the same as an evolutionary Swede.
As such she denies the possibility of honest accountability that would serve to limit negative treatment of her in Sweden and gain her support from those who have an honest concern for the management of native Swedes.
Instead, for denying accountability and denouncing the account requested as “racist” she sets herself up for abuse from at least two kinds in particular.
She will perhaps get some abuse from jealous and racially concerned Swedes, e.g., Swedish women miffed with yellow fever. That would be understandable if Asian immigration were taken too far at any rate, but when there is no accountability it is likely to be more provocative of the racially sensitive Swede for her to say, “I am the same as you”, have the same history, etc. But even at that, it is probable that she did not really receive much of the gaffe from true Swedish women. What abuse that she got and experienced, with truly saddening pain, most likely came from Jewish trolls looking to stir conflict between Whites and Asians.
3. What makes me hypothesize Jewish trolling? viz., that Jewish trolls can be trying to provoke her and provoke conflict between Whites and Asians?:
How about this. Kumiko showed me this composition, supposedly of Facebook posts by American people speaking of their own accord, saying that they are happy that Japan sustained nuclear bomb attacks in WWII and would be quite happy for it to happen again.
I grew up in America and for 34 years spent there never encountered an American who would speak remotely like this about Japan or the atomic bombing of Japan. Furthermore, if one reads these comments it is clear by a careful discourse analysis that the writer of all of these comments is one or a few people. If one is more careful still, to take style and motive into account, the Jewish hand is evident.
Though it may seem like obvious trolling to some of us, unfortunately this was apparently taken seriously by some Japanese audiences and even shown on Japanese news as if it were an honest reflection of American sentiments - when in truth, these are not remotely accurate statements of Americans: Stay classy America? No, stay “classy” with your divide and conquer chutzpah Jews - greatest shame is upon you and we are watching you.
Full composition under the fold..
A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PDF), has illustrated the relationship between between geography, linguistics, and genetic data. By comparing geographic data for phonemes and alleles, they have come to the conclusion that in most parts of the world, languages and genes exist in the same locations and often appear to have travelled along the same migration routes.
Their abstract reads:
The overall result seems to be that language and ethnicity do share common geographic boundaries, if the effects of recent colonial history are ignored.
This is being re-posted for a few reasons.
In the years since it was first posted there has yet to be any argument to refute its value to organizing the perspective of interests in whole and fundamental parts for those who care about European peoples. Though its further detail and application would provide benefit, it has not yet gained the currency it should have among WN, who mostly continue to argue that they are “of the right wing”, against “The Left” or “neither left nor right”, thereby foregoing organization in their power, and reacting as our enemies would have it.
The White left thesis may not have gained currency for another reason - it had a very short time (about 4 hours) as a leading article when first republished at Majority Rights before J. Richards posted a sensationalistict, highly conspiratorial and tabloidesque story, with ridiculous imagery leaping forth (the photoshopped arms on this man seem to parody the image just below on the White Left article) - distracting from the careful discussion that the White Left thesis deserves.
Next, for this essay to be understood properly, it needs the context of being published alongside the Kant essay (his moral system as coherence, accountability, agency and warrant). In fact, for the purpose of the Kant essay to be understood, it also needs this juxtaposition; but while important, it is a primary step at this point to the highly relevant arguments which the White Left essay makes. So as not to not distract from these more relevant concerns thus, I place the Kant essay secondly and under the fold, only advising that philosophically, theoretically, it is antecedent for a proper understanding of the history of European philosophical requirements. Finally, republication will provide occasion to shore-up minor errors that should not be passed-on as these essays are a worthwhile resource.
Leftism as a Code Word (Part 1):
When our advocates call our enemies The Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.
In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]
Dr. Norman Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.
In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal in what she promoted than leftist.
In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; i.e, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equally? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.
These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.
Naming the Jew can be risky business indeed and that assuredly accounts for why White advocates have used code words: e.g., liberals, non-Christians, leftists, etc. I submit that if one is in a situation where it is too dangerous to name the Jew, then liberal – at least in terms of its fundamental meaning, viz., openness to other groups of people – is the better code word as it also encompasses those problems of ours that are truly not of Jewish making but of our own. And that the Left is the worst code word. That is the subject of this thesis, for reasons that I will elaborate shortly. Agreed, the charge of liberalism is problematic, with a decided image problem, it has one appearing stodgy and logically entailing ground yielding conservatism in response; thus, another term should be supplied – but not the Left.
When one does have to confront the Jewish question more directly, but is in danger, not free to speak in just any way, one of the best strategies for defending against charges of anti-semitism should be to distinguish between “virulent” and “relatively benign” Jews in accordance with Faussette and Bowery’s theory regarding the cycle of Jewish virulence. Jews, long a people without a nation (beginning with Babylonian captivity and for nearly 2,000 years after that), developed an uncaring, parasitic relation to their host nations, particularly among the elites of their vested interest. After a period of consolidating the wealth of a nation to themselves, the most ‘virulent’ ones escape over the border for a new host country to exploit, while the relatively ‘benign’, situated and accountable ones are subject to the wrath of the host nation’s people who realize belatedly, “’the Jews’ did this to us!” This perpetuates the cycle as the virulent elite bribe their way into a new country, gain farther sympathy, critical absolution and pseudo-justification for their exploits as they point to what ‘they do to us’: the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Roman occupation.
With this distinction however, we should be able to mitigate the charge of anti-semitism, noting that our large grievance is with the virulent elite (as well as with White traitors, especially those in influential positions) not with those Jews normal, situated and accountable to a local culture. Nevertheless, as anybody who has experience will tell you, the pattern of antagonism and indifference to European interests exists not only among Jewish elitists, but in them as a whole. Thus, we need to discriminate against them and separate from them as an entire group, even if some are worse than others and should be looked upon as more criminally liable.
. . .
As with most normal White people, liking my people and myself, I spent most of my life saying that I was neither Left nor Right, if those terms emerged as an issue.
For good reason: as with all normal White people, I’d been repulsed, had a very strong aversion to identifying as leftist. I saw rabid Jewish advocates of non-Whites along with anti-White Whites and heard them called “THE Left” all my life. Yet, I looked at what was being called “the Right”, and I could not quite do that either – it meant that one would be an ignorant hole by definition. I use this vulgarism deliberately to demonstrate that you can indeed, define a term through the pattern of its use in common parlance. Note that a person will be called a hole when they harm others when they do not have to; or, when they let people harm them when they do not have to. That’s characteristic of the Right for a reason – they’re not accountable; they wish to believe in their sheer, objective innocence and not accountable to an encompassing, but delimited “we”, as such.
However, with our struggle’s growing recognition of the disregard of our people in more difficult circumstances, middle, working class and more, their increasing awareness having shown in the Wall Street protests; moving to understanding of the consequences of corporate plutocracy’s quest for cheap labor; its transgression of borders; its relation to the military industrial complex - growing recognition that this is not in our interest as Whites – our need to not identify as rightists becomes acute.
At the same time, with the population explosion threatening to overwhelm our demographic and our environment, it is also of acute importance to not identify with the phony “Left” either, which is really just more catastrophic liberalism, if you look at it. That understood, I have come to the realization that saying one is neither Left nor Right is an inarticulate halfway point to extricating oneself from promulgated Jewish definition of the terms. That once one sorts out Jewish perversion and corruption of the terms, that the Left is the best way for us to identify as White advocates.
When our advocates call our enemies “the Left” they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.
Our advocates are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations hiding behind a twisted definition of “the Left.” The Left has the moral high ground and the label, Left, has the appearance of that moral high ground because it is supposed to be socially accountable, even if it is a misnomer: which it is, in Jewish application of the term – leftist classification indeed, for Jews, non-Whites, and anti-White Whites, but prescribing obsequious, cataclysmic liberalism for Whites. With that, they are obfuscating the motive of Jews to define us as Rightists and their motivation to drive us there when we react to this misnamed liberal prescription.
At the same time, our advocates are obfuscating our other large problem – our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability – that is Rightism.
While Jews will use this argument too, that they are simply better, meritorious, when it serves their interests, Jewish political planners and academics generally want to maneuver us into a rightist position because it leaves us naive, organizationally weak, amoral, and unaccountable to our own as a relational class of people. White traitors also want us to be rightists so that they can avoid accountability.
Finally, in calling “the Left” our enemy, our advocates obfuscate the means of solution by creating an aversion to what we need – a social classification of ourselves as a people, a full class of people. The Left is always about social classification if you sort out abuse of the term.
Understood how the term is deployed when clear, “The Left” is a function of systemic classification, designating a group of people the interests of whom are to be looked after as a class – protecting against outsiders, e.g. “scab” union busters and plutocratic exploitation of labor. We classify ourselves as Whites for highly analogous reasons: to protect ourselves from opportunistic outsiders and from elitist exploitation and indifference.
If our philosophy is correct, as White advocates, we are leftists - that is because we are advocating a people, not objective facts. We are not simply describing facts, independent of interactive involvement and consequences. We are, if we are good White advocates, saying, “if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it, to talk about it, at least, it may make a noise, but may as well not for all it matters.” We are taking a people-centric perspective and a White-people-centric position, specifically. We are acknowledging that nothing exists outside of interaction and how facts count must be negotiated between people. As mammals, caring about closer personal relationships, as we do, we most crucially care about White people.
In fact, the moment we refer to ourselves as Whites, or indigenous Europeans – when we refer to ourselves as a people - we are classifying, we are parceling a relative classification of ourselves socially and that is the reality. Whereas the Right, inasmuch as it pursues objectivism independent of interaction, social interaction, and a negotiation of how things count, is always something of an illusion.
If Kevin MacDonald looks at two DNA strands and says, this one is Jewish and this one is White, he must address at least one colleague with this information, in seeking agreement. In some cases, data will be agreed upon by nearly 100% of people and that will generally be called, “objective.” A few may disagree, but they will be considered crazy. Nevertheless, the data, the observation and how it counts, occurs in social interaction (or it may as well not occur at all).
Moreover, to identify who we are as a full social class would give us the moral high ground and powerful organizational function at once. Whereas, when we are made averse to the term Leftism, we are obstructed from accountability to the relative classification of ourselves and others as a people – a classification that takes into account processes, all stages of development (within the lifetime) and evolution (beyond the lifetime); a classification that makes an important difference as it takes into account and respects our paradigmatic differences, differences that make a difference from other groups; our qualitative form and function, systemic pattern, its ecological disbursement, niche differences, logics of meaning and action understood as vastly different from non-Whites; that can make us more cooperative among ourselves and less conflicting with non-Whites when practicality is the better part of valor.
The White Class: viz., persons of native European descent, with interests relative to its class as such, would entail two-way accountability straight away, from those on top and from those in developmental, marginalized stages; i.e., to our relative, relational interests, irrespective of whether White traitors and non-Whites, those outside the White Class, are more or less “objectively” capable. Non-Whites might be allies, but they are not in the class. White traitors are traitors, their abilities only making them more offensive. The White Class, The Indigenous European Class (with its subcategories, yes), would define who we are and to whom we are largely accountable
Coming back to our first big problem in calling “them” the “Left.” ...
When our advocates attribute Leftism to our enemies, they are not addressing the agentive Jewish machinations against our people, but rather attributing the problem to an ideology or less, a devil word, the “Left.” This obfuscates the fact that Jews are classifying themselves and looking after their own interests, hiding their own agency in promoting hyperbolic liberal ideas and antagonism to Whites – promoting those outside or antagonistic to the White Class as “marginals” come to “enrich” us. Jewish agency is hidden behind the attribution of “the Left” – whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC.
Our second big problem obfuscated by calling our enemies, ‘the Left.’ Our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability.
Whether of religious speculation which seeks to establish its pure innocence, a clique of scientistic elitists who seek to establish the pure objective warrant of their discoveries, or the pure might-makes-right of the quasi-individual and the corporate “individual” of U.S. law, the Right is characterizable as a quest for objectivism which would make quick work of accountability – through a naïve wish to be innocent through objectivism or worse, through a cynical wish to avoid accountability through a pretense of objectivism.
The White Leftist perspective would not begrudge persons who do some things better their due, their difference, so long as they are accountable to the relative interests of the class; however, people tend to want to believe their success is more a result of their sheer independence than it actually is – the Right is pseudo objectivist, faithfully, slavishly leaving nature to its own devices – “we are caused”, pseudo detached from the social, anti-social, therefore unaccountable and inhumane as such – “that’s just the way it is”, according to nature. Failing that, the Right can and will often seek to evade account in the elusive and insensible speculation of religion.