Women Without Class

Originally Published November 26, 2011 at VoR; republished here for the sake of editorial correction and update - By Daniel Sienkiewicz

It was the ultimate YKW perversion of terms — civil rights, freedom and discrimination — culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Even a cursory glance over its statutes reveals obsolescence, disingenuousness and evil.

It takes no more than a glance at its statutes. One goes into an American institution and sees a placard looming overhead declaring “discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin…” to be illegal. Suddenly seeing discrimination rendered pejorative, illegal even, one experiences a vague feeling of dread.

You sense immediately that you are being told not to have so much as eyeballs by way of discriminatory capacity. You are to be utterly defenseless against biological antagonists, to have no present recourse against the destruction of that which is most important.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

I) Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. II) Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term “private.” III) Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin. IV) Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act. V) Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act. VI) Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding. VII) Prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.

In detail this Act is more Byzantine than that, and the ramifications of these prohibitions of discrimination are horrendous.

Even freedom of association, as it does not account for full processual development of those within the class, would not be sufficiently deep by itself, were it allowed. But while that objectivist, rational blindness leveraged by the technology of “civil rights” was bad enough, YKW interests perverted its meaning to violate even freedom of association by means of the Civil Rights Act.

Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, working alongside a Kennedy clan willing to sell out and open its country to catastrophic integration in order to gain power, along with a similarly disposed Lyndon Johnson, making a good bid for worst president ever, sundry other YKW and objectivist Whites, oversaw departmental operations (implementing the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education decision) in desegregating the University of Mississippi in September 1962 and the University of Alabama in June 1963 – where he personally moved Governor Wallace aside to open the door for Blacks; also worked with Congress to ensure the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and had significant help from Javitz and Celler (of 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act infamy), to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

These initiatives also established precedent for California’s Rumford Fair Housing Act of ‘63 which prohibited discrimination regarding whom one rents or sells property; and the ‘68 Fair Housing Act which extended that ruling to a national basis.

We have here in culmination the ultimate in doublespeak terms: “civil rights” equals being told whose babies we must pay for, with whom we must study, whose children we must educate (with precious knowledge tortuously acquired), to whom we must rent, to whom we must sell, whom we must hire, whom we must serve even in private businesses – and this is called “freedom.”

Waiting at Woolworth’s

The related decision regarding the Woolworth’s Lunch Counter, telling a private business whom they must serve, was always one that caused my mind to glitch, even at a rather young age. M.L. King, with help from YKW overlords organized Blacks and others, including a few no-class White women - such as Joan Trumpauer Mulholland - to “sit-in” at Woolworth’s and force a legal decision regarding desegregation of its lunch counters. The decision never made sense to me from the moment I heard about it – not in terms of anything that you can call freedom, anyway. Telling a private business whom they must serve, how, and whom they must hire – that is called “freedom”? It must be a YKW definition. “Freedom marches, freedom riders, civil rights” – right? Wrong. Rather quite civil wrongs.

Mulholland and Dr. King

Mulholland participating in the “sit-in” at Woolworth’s

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 went further by banning racial segregation “by businesses offering food, lodging, gasoline, or entertainment to the public.”

This would seem to be a clear violation of civic freedom, but YKW are skilled at promoting the self-destruction of Whites, who have been high on objectivism, while Blacks are hyper-assertive.

   

It is a civil right and its opposite is called illegal discrimination punishable by law. Do not discriminate; do not see the terror that you are confronted with; do not see that you are in something like a monkey cage, a planet of the apes (I can tell whether one has or has not been around many, depending upon an indignant response to that analogy or not).

In the article on Kant’s moral system, I mentioned a kind of anguish bordering on torture that I experienced when I was groping after a moral order: That anguish stemmed from having inherited an obsequious Christian rule structure - the golden rule - by which I was to somehow go up against America’s rule structure, lording as it did competition as noble for all and yet presenting me with still another obsequious and imperative rule in the form of the 64 Civil Rights Act; in confrontation with antagonistic demographics. Having experienced more than enough of them through forced busing to go to school with them, their riots of 1967 and 68 in the town of my birth, I was largely convinced that I did not want anything to do with Blacks. I assumed in my young age that it would be my prerogative one day, and that sane people would make the same choice. How could I believe that others, women even, could do other than legitimate separatism after seeing such things?

M.L. King Jr. and Malcolm X were at the U.S. Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill. This was the only time the two men ever met.

With Blacks rioting in Newark in the summer of 1967, my father’s generation repeating the “greatest generation” mantra that ‘you can’t fight City Hall’, the Vietnam War escalating unintelligibly so that no young person with a penis was immune from the draft, yes, I did have a certain yearning for the San Francisco version of that same summer of ‘67.

Beatle’s guitarist George Harrison did go there - to the Summer of Love Be-In festival in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park - but came away with a bad impression having dropped a bad batch of L.S.D. He saw these kids around him hideously spotted and vacuum-cleaner faced. From our perspective now, naturally it does not seem like such a bad scene, certainly the better option in the tale of two cities, Newark and San Francisco 1967. No wonder I was a bit reluctant to let that go, particularly enchanting it was to me as a child. I was a little disappointed when traditional women and men would say that was “all nonsense” or “the source of our problems”; and I was disconcerted to experience similar antagonism from feminists, particularly when the war had ended.

July 1967 Newark riots, left and center images.

Right, “The Summer of Love” follows the “Be-in” in San Francisco, 1967; George Harrison, Pattie (& the vacuum cleaner faces lol).

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 goes further to say that, “An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.”

Just Great (for non native English speakers, note the sarcasm please): You cannot discriminate against people that you do not like, whom you find immoral and dangerous.

While the dam had not burst through the 60s, 70s, or even into the early 80s, it was a period of ominous buildup, the implications of the rule structure and demographic make-up were pervasive and auguring catastrophe…

Once the Vietnam War had ended, traditional women were rearing their ugly head and feminism went into high gear, steam-rolling any agenda for White male needs, though many boys still had need for being, communal being (midtdasein). I had just assumed that everyone would naturally reject forced integration and charges of “racism” but young women did not seem quite as inclined. Why?

Let’s qualify all statements made about young women below to mean, at their worst/most opportune, given defective social structure and pandering. It would be clearly wrong to say that there are not plenty of cool White women. (1)

Thesis: Within the disorder resulting from civil rights (a feature of Enlightenment/Modernity) rupturing of classificatory (racial) bounds, the natural one-up position of young females (“you’re so wonderful, may I have a date?”; i.e., an expression of sperm being cheap, ovaries precious) emerges with increased significance as they are less accountable to their inheritance and more competed for, pandered-to even, from males of other groups.

a) Solicited of many directions, they typically become confirmed, articulate, confident, authoritative - let’s say sometimes beyond merit.

b) They have increased incentive to maintain the power of this position, a powerful gatekeeping role - a situation as liberal as possible, keeping men competing against each other as much as possible maintains it. With that, their natural tendency to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) increases to runaway effect.

c) Jewish pandering and objectivist interests combine with de facto need to classify, strengthening high contrast tropism toward those classifications, females and Blacks, too difficult to ignore.

. . . . . . . . . .

Within the disorder resulting from modernity and civil rights rupturing of classificatory (racial) bounds, the natural one-up position of young females (you are so wonderful, may I have a date? sperm is cheap) emerges with increased significance. Thus, puerile female bias and selective preferences will be over-valued and not sufficiently corrected by the many ameliorative aspects of the male selective bias. This disorder will disfavor the K selection strategy of Whites, evolved for planning and skills revealed in value over long patterns, against the Augustinian (natural) devils of the elements and seasonal deprivation; while modernity’s upshot of atavistic disorder and the one up puerile female, by contrast, will fall to R selectors, those evolved for brute tribal and episodic competition and display of palpable assertion on a base level; on the other hand it can also favor those tribalists, not necessarily R selective, but of a high i.q. type more skilled in Manichean (trickster, rule changing) devils of interpersonal, inter-group competition - those more cunning in the enactment of their group discrimination - YKW.

This will exacerbate an atavistic, Africanizing effect on the mass circumstance as sublimated concern for protracted pattern and preparation gives way in the disorder of modernity to an apparent value of more directly competitive, episodic assertion and selection - atavistic, thus closer to our primitive circumstance and evolution - a circumstance and selective bias liable to have created in Africans the hyper-masculine people that they are by comparison to other races (along with the social destruction of hyper masculinity); yet characteristics favorable once again where the disorder of modernity has ruptured accountability to protracted patterns to the point of atavistic circumstance, where episodic criteria emerge more important again - at least in the eyes of the puerile female gate keeper. 

a) Solicited from many directions.

Absent class bounds the one-up position of young White females re-emerges with increased significance. Occupying a more “addressive” position, they are solicited from many directions, becoming relatively confirmed, oriented, articulate, confident, and authoritative. A young man would make a mistake by trying to clarify the rules through meta-communication (orientative talk about how talk counts) as that is stepping on her toes as gate-keeper. And she can easily take many a brutal recourse should her position be disrespected, weaker sex and all of that. He can barely do anything right if that’s how she wants to see it (he can always be discharged as a wimp or a pig). She can do many things, arbitrarily, and get away with it. This is why one ought to exercise some caution when denouncing anti-racism. She sees this as a motion to limit her recourse and power. Whereas one perhaps used to seek out a priest, a scientist or a philosopher, now because of her increased one up position, one might be tempted to seek out a young woman to talk to directly in order to appeal to her in hopes of salvaging a human ecology and a human world.

b) Gate keeper position and genetic incitement multiplies

Whether it is civil rights of the objectivist kind, or the perverted Jewish kind of the 1964 Act, its rupturing of class bounds, developmental processes and accountability thereof, the natural tendency of young females to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) increases to runaway effect. Particularly absent class bounds, young females have increased incentive to maintain the power of their position as gatekeepers, irrespective of race, to the detriment of the White Class.

Moreover, they will empower men who prevent discrimination and maintain the disorder in order to maintain the position as gate-keepers to the extent they have it; they will even empower men otherwise disposed to racial consciousness inasmuch as they pooh-pooh the issue of race and the merit of White advocates.

Since miscegenation is among their greatest weapons, the same old yin-yang is going to go into effect as they empower “objective men” to clear away White men of racial/class consciousness.

The yin-yang has been in effect as long as I can remember, with the Democrats representing integrationist, mulatto supremacism, and the Republicans representing the dolts that women and Jews can control as if they were trying to say, “We’re so tough; racial consciousness is all nonsense”.

Therefore, sometime within the initial interaction episode, a young man is likely to get a litmus test as she asks what he thinks of Blacks and of racism. If he is honest enough to say that he does not like them, sees good reason for racial discrimination, he is likely to be ostracized. In fact, since miscegenation is one of the biggest threats at her disposal in maintaining that position, she may go to extremes to stigmatize those who challenge it. Naturally, she will be particularly fearful and aggressive to maintain the anti-racist taboo once she has crossed that line. Hence, it is not only Jews and men attempting to be innocent who hazard the White Class.

I understand the paranoia of those who do not want to take their eye off the power, who think that they are trying to divide and conquer by lowly racial conflict; but if the formalities of incommensurate logics of meaning and action, of qualitative, paradigmatic difference are swept aside in favor of the false comparisons of “non-equalitarianism” and no critique is made of disingenuous female positions, the same old cycle is going repeat largely to our detriment.

Okay, men have been inarticulate to their mandate for being – me too, somewhat. Having asserted early on in the gender agendas article that male being was warranted through co-evolution, I later fumbled a bit, speculating that perhaps women would not allow for it – doesn’t matter: White Male Being is warranted through survival and our co-evolution with our women for 40,000 years. Innocent until proven guilty, we co-create these women and children, Blacks do not.

Nevertheless, even though women and objectivist men are rupturing classification, Jews are not merely pandering objectively to natural inclination, they are instrumental in preventing corrective action.

c) Jewish pandering and objectivist interests combine with de facto need to classify (classification in human sized categories being a need in order to make sense of one’s circumstances).

Pandering to the addressive position of females, while not exclusive to Jews, is of especial significance coming from them. Powerfully organized as a class, historically threatened by Whites, Jews pander to this interface in order to weaken and demoralize the White class. Thus they play upon the objectivist upshot of disorder. Like women, Blacks represent a difference, a tropism too different to ignore within disorder despite prohibition of classifications; yielding a classification that grants them strength in solidarity, easy identity and coherence. This is farther bolstered by endless Jewish stories pandering to women as victims, women as heroes for advocating Blacks, Blacks in victim status; combining with the fact that Blacks are often emboldened by having less to lose; this in turn combines with the fact that Blacks are the opposite of being disadvantaged in some important respects; viz., long standing victimizers, exploiters of Whites and likely to have biological hegemonies - particularly in the atavistic circumstance of modernity where short term, episodic abilities appear valuable - they will compete effectively having evolved some 200,000 years prior to the 40,000 years of European differentiation. Not only that, but having evolved in a primordial disorder, their kind of selection has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, leaving puerile females within the disorder inclined to them and all the more; especially as the orienting organization of classifications are both prohibited and humanly necessary, the high contrast tropism of Black White, as hard to ignore as Male/Female, is farther exacerbated; females pandered to in torrents by Jews on that interface will keep the class disordered and its morale down.

Therefore, despite obvious, broad destruction to the class, ecology and accountability, and despite would-be corrective action - as most White men naturally and with good reason hate miscegenating White women - the pairing with this aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive people will increase, given the present rule structure. White men are prevented from doing anything about it largely due to the agency of Jewish machinations in interface with young females and objectivists within the disordered situation, absent racial classificatory bounds.

While Jews aren’t solely responsible for promoting miscegenation, they’re largely responsible; even more significantly, responsible for preventing White men from doing anything about it.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: “An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.”

Civil rights rupture developmental processes and the ecological pattern disbursement that would otherwise be managed and maintained by the class. With equality/non-equality being made central, as opposed to classification and maintenance of paradigmatic differences that make a formal difference, incommensurate logics of meaning and action are improperly meshed to the detriment of marginal Whites, and liable to create the narcissism of false comparison, unnecessary competition, reciprocally escalating diatribe and destruction.

To repeat: if people keep going around making equality a straw man and non-equality the thing as opposed to paradigmatic difference(s) and race (class) being the matter, this will create false comparisons and unnecessary, counter productive conflict; i.e., not that we should seek to avoid all conflict necessarily, but we do want the chips to fall on our side; we need for the conflict to be less arbitrary. (2)

For bringing to bear Black violence and destruction to the culmination of our 40,000 years of evolution, miscegenators and their instigators are no better, rather they are highly analogous to rapists and pedophiles; they might be considered accordingly. A scientistic view would say miscegenation is a naturally occurring fact. Rape and child molestation may be natural inclinations as well, but we do not accept them; rather we seek social injunction. In this example, the agency of a social constructionist view is superior to the mere causality of a scientistic view.

White men are warranted to Be as the White Class is warranted to Be by dint of our survival and co-evolution over the course of 40,000 years. Innocent until proven guilty, we make White women and children. Moreover, males have an underrated selective bias, preferring cooperative and thoughtful partners (3). Even the asymmetry of White female beauty that White men have co-created is a sign of genetic advance and harmonious niche adaptation to environment.

Normal White men don’t create the unnecessary wars, aren’t the ones exploiting others with fortune 500 companies, are not the ones over populating the world. Nevertheless, White men who are in developmental stages, on basic motivational levels seeking being, are going to be out of luck absent the class bounds. Our White class is seeking Being as well. It is struggling to assert the warrant to exist. It is the righteous fight, but fight smart we must, and look toward the power.

* * *

Absent class bounds and subject to the throes of Jewish machination, the large majority of White men are going to get screwed by those after “actualization” – like Malcolm X quoting Elijah Muhammad that the Black Man will rule – we instinctively answer “no thanks.”

Nevertheless, the Black Power movement was after actualization of power, a better fit to the American narrative and both feminist and traditional female motive to actualization than the incommensurate White male motive for Being - very difficult to articulate, it requires space and boundaries.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a rupturing of the White Class. After a laugh, cry or puke, settle down to see that it is evil.

Conclusion – Absent class bounds, the female one-up position emerges with increased significance, often beyond merit. This exacerbated pandering and incitement to genetic competition. We need White women with White class by contrast. Civil rights ruptured developmental processes within otherwise self-corrective patterns. Correction and advance requires the legitimacy of classification – The White Class.

* * *

(1) I love women, they are veritably my religion – 14 Words – especially in a racially homogeneous situation – though not as much in mixed one: With things being so foul, and their being so incredulous as to how I could be flustered over a rule structure and demographically mixed situation that was clearly auguring catastrophe, I’ve had to think about it. While there are ways in which females can legitimately share power, many of them, young in particular, do not merit the sort of power that they wield within the disordered context of modernity.

I am not promoting only traditional roles for women. Don’t you want more Virginia Abernethys? I do. It only requires the Class and that they undergo a bit more rigor on basic levels. Conversely, a bit more Being for men in exchange for maintaining the class – and it is warranted. White men’s existence is warranted as is The White Class.

(2) In fact, encouraging the natural animosity that Black women have toward White women taking Black men is a good angle, not only in discouraging such pairings, but also in agitating to bring the Jewish / objectivist system down which is so uncaring, having broached our most sacred and important human concern, our close personal relationships as they bear upon our survival. The beaming smiles of approval that I have received from Black women in those times when I antagonized interracial couples is an irony that stays with me. The “sisters” (Black women) obviously will not care too much about the White women who take their men. On the other hand, White men do not want Black women; we sense that it is going horribly backwards: their ugly symmetry a sign of primitive undifferentiation, imperviousness to environment and social concerns, disposition to thoughtless overgrazing.

Another strategy I find relatively effective is to agree with interracial couples that Black women are indeed, ugly. It tends to confuse them as the insulted party is not there; after all, what is he doing with a White woman if Black women are so great? (obviously, exercise discretion – you may not want to say “ugly”, you might best say nothing in some cases). If they will, let these enraged Black women be allies in taking down the Jewish/objectivist system - which has broached our most sacred, our close personal relationships – its total disregard for that which is most important to us, our co-evolutionary women. Nevertheless, when listening to David Duke interview Patricia McAllister, what struck me was her claim that Blacks ought to have half of America. Do you see what I mean by hyper-assertive? For all the money and treasures they have taken from us, the destruction wrought upon us, they should have half of America?… hmm.

Mulatto Supremacism is another legitimate contention which liberals and YKW can find difficult.

(3) As opposed to the female/Nietszchean perspective which values men big and strength exclusively, impervious and undaunted no matter what, Negroes with good digestive tracts. That may explain why the N word is prohibited by the female gate keeper’s union – the N word is not ok, but Himmler was well reasoned in wanting to genocide Poles – after all, the women are beautiful; we cannot have that when Black women have the humility to be so non-threatening – so often butt ugly.

Originally Published November 26, 2011 at VoR; republished here for the sake of editorial correction and update - By Daniel Sienkiewicz