Majorityrights News > Category: European culture

Related - TheLocal.de: Teenage girl stabbed to death in broad daylight in west German park. The scene of the murder in Viersen. Photo: DPA

Women in Germany feel largely unable to move about large cities without risk of verbal or physical harassment, a new study suggests. Every fourth woman reports experiencing sexual harassment in her city.

Almost no women feel safe when traveling about the large German cities of Hamburg, Berlin, Cologne and Munich, according to a study by the German branch of Plan International, a children’s rights organization.

For the study, dubbed “Safe in the City,” almost 1,000 women aged 16-71 were requested to place markers on an interactive map in city locations that they have experienced as safe or unsafe. Eighty percent of altogether 1,267 marked locations were classified as unsafe, for reasons including verbal harassment when jogging in the park, badly lit streets, stalking or unwanted touching of a sexual nature.

Read more: The sexual harassment video that shook Germany

“Our survey shows that girls and women do not really feel safe or able to move freely in their city. On average, each of the respondents marked one unsafe location in her surrounding area,” said Maike Röttger, the director of Plan International in Germany.

“Every fourth woman has experienced sexual harassment and every fifth woman has been followed, insulted or threatened,” Röttger said, adding that the study findings were concerning.

Nighttime fears

The most frequent reasons given for feeling threatened were encounters with people under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, badly lit paths and parks and lonely areas where no help would be available in the case of an emergency.

Röttger called for action, saying that every girl and woman had a right to move about in her city freely and without fear. She said they should be included in planning and structuring their urban surroundings to make them safer.

Read more: Merkel says Cologne NYE assaults will have far-reaching consequences

But Röttger also called for a change in thinking about gender roles, saying many boys and men still thought it was all right to harass women. “Underlying stereotypes and discrimination are the reason why girls and women cannot feel safe,” she said.

According to the study, women felt most in danger after dark, with 806 of the 1,014 negative markers indicating evenings or nights and only 208 applying to the daytime.

A 2018 study carried out by Plan International in New Delhi, Sydney, Lima and Madrid made similar findings, with most girls and women saying they feel unsafe in those cities.

If I understand correctly, Pete Townshend is rendering a similar account through his Rock Opera “Tommy”... the story of a traumatized boy, Tommy, who reacts with selective mutism (also deafness and blindness in “Tommy’s” case).

Anyway, “Tommy” came right to mind when listening to Rose Kitten’s true story of childhood trauma and the resulting selective mutism that she overcame.

The Who - Tommy, Can You Hear Me?

Warning: Third Positionism and its vulnerability with a backdoor for entryism and manipulation for its no-account foolishness.

Interventions: GOP, The Enemy of the People

DanielS:

Thamster engaged in terrible strawman misrepresentations of what is being done with pragmatism, describing it as “mere” pragmatism, and the “post modern” mere choice of identity: viz the original practicality of moral concerns is not mutually exclusive to depth of concerns nor even their idealization, sacralization and inspiration, inbornness and non-negotiableness. ....while Christianity has had great practical utility from its onset: for our enemies as a red caping of our moral order.

Thamster WitNat
Highlighted reply
Thamster WitNat

44 minutes ago (edited)
lol strawman, hardly. You are the one misrepresenting here.

I was referring to a tendency for many in the “dissident right” (if we want to go with that as a broad term) to engage in the question of religion by stating we need to either find one or create one more conducive to our politics. Packaged with that is the idea that religion serves as a survival mechanism where you pick and choose aspects of them suited to that end. The reason for this view of religion? A pragmatic concern with constructing one more in line with our politics. In other words, reducing religious truth to our own political interests. That is hardly a genuine answer to the problem but its a common one I see in these circles. Pragmatic because the question of truth is decided on by its practical implications over its absolute commitments. I am not talking about PRAGMATISM as a philosphy, I am talking about the pragmatic aim of this view in a general sense. Obviously stating that religion can have practical concerns as well as sacralization and ideaization that is non-negotiable is completely beside the point.

I also never said the postmodern “mere” choice of identity” I said this view of religion plays (broadly) within the framework of postmodernism that fascists are seemingly opposed to. Of course, for that to make sense, you would have to agree with me that the bulk of postmodernism is a continuation of modernism even if it began as a critique of it. I have expounded this view elsewhere.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
Daniel Sienkiewicz
14 minutes ago (edited)

​@Thamster WitNat

“lol strawman, hardly. You are the one misrepresenting here.

I was referring to a tendency for many in the “dissident right” (if we want to go with that as a broad term) to engage in the question of religion by stating we need to either find one or create one more conducive to our politics.”

While those on the dissident right may have a superficial idea as to the process of religion, I’m gathering that I did not misrepresent your argument, as I am satisfied that a religion, as any moral ordering, has practical matters negotiated between people at its origin.

The difference between an authentic religiosity as opposed to an affectation adopted or imposed (as in the case of Christianity) is that it emerges out of the concern to connect and hold to account a group’s systemic relations (you know the etymology re-ligia). Whereas Christianity tethers us to Noahide law, an affectation of kosher imposition, jurisdiction and expropriation.

“Packaged with that is the idea that religion serves as a survival mechanism where you pick and choose aspects of them suited to that end.”

You don’t pick and choose what has survival value to your people, but you do sacralize what is crucial and make taboo what is harmful.

“The reason for this view of religion? A pragmatic concern with constructing one more in line with our politics. In other words, reducing religious truth to our own political interests.”

In this argument you are relying too much on the word “mere”, which is the strawman element….“mere” pragmatism, “mere” politics, “mere” construction.

“That is hardly a genuine answer to the problem but its a common one I see in these circles.”

Obviously I am not going to defend people in the “dissident right” and your point is well taken regarding the adoption of Orthodox Christianity and probably in regard to some of their larpish attempts to represent pagan religions.

But the recognition of the need for a religion, to facilitate our group pattern on a semi transcendent level, beyond the unworthiness of some of our people and the imperfection of the rest of us, is necessary for many reasons, not least of which is to carry us beyond cynicism for the fact of our imperfection (to say the least).

“Pragmatic because the question of truth is decided on by its practical implications over its absolute commitments. I am not talking about PRAGMATISM as a philosphy, I am talking about the pragmatic aim of this view in a general sense.”

Let me call attention to Kant’s use of the word “practical” when discussing the topic of morality.

I’ll cop to a bit of No-true-Scotsmanning here when I suggest that it is furthermore practical to have ideals and aesthetic inspiration.

The purpose of this exercise is to relocate our agency in the service of our interests; that we can have hope to re-establish a moral order which centers the biological interest of our species. ...not so much to defend pragmatic philosophy, commendable though it is: Hilary Putnam, “the great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible.”

“Obviously stating that religion can have practical concerns as well as sacralization and ideaization that is non-negotiable is completely beside the point.”

...well, if your point is to say that people on the dissident right are prone to retain the liberal idea of shopping around, picking and choosing, yes, good point, among the several reasons that you are interesting to listen to…..

But if your point is to criticize post modern philosophy and pragmatism as they should be understood in underpinning White interests, then not besides the point.

“I also never said the postmodern “mere” choice of identity” I said this view of religion plays (broadly) within the framework of postmodernism that fascists are seemingly opposed to.”

Ok, fair enough point - If - if their understanding of postmodernity is the hyper-relative, dada deconstructionist, ironically adopted situational nonsense that its been red caped for Whites as being what “post modernity” truly is. Then agreed.

“Of course, for that to make sense, you would have to agree with me that the bulk of postmodernism is a continuation of modernism even if it began as a critique of it. I have expounded this view elsewhere.”

Not exactly. Post modern philosophy as it is misrepresented is really a continuation of modernity, its late stage fallout - misrepresented as “post modernity” since the antagonists to our interests do not want us to understand the accurate purpose of post modern performance requirements as it would facilitate our systemic survival as opposed to the ravages of modernity, its arbitrary experimentalism in promise that change necessarily leads to progress, and as opposed to maintaining traditions, where they are anachronistic and no longer serviceable..

And conversely, to be able to invoke the best of modern advance and tradition without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of lacking modern sophistication, but mostly, to be able to protect our inherited forms,  the maintained organization of which requires that post modernity be properly understood: hence why it is that our adversaries have perpetuated the hyper relative misrepresentation: they want to keep us disorganized.

Summer Hike Vlog // Patriotic Alternative

READ MORE...

Observing that Marxism’s internationalist trajectory aims ultimately at the withering-away of the state, Majorityrights has put forth an ethnonationalist platform pro-actively, one which I call White Left Ethnonationalist in order to distinguish it from Jewish power and influence, from Abrahamism of any denomination, from Nazism, from scientism and nutty conspiracy theories. The concept White Left Ethnonationalism places only a bit more emphasis on social accountability in order to give the fact of our social indebtedness a modicum more attention, compensatory of what we are used to and what we have been allowed as a people in order to facilitate borders for our people (once bordered, our emergent qualities will take care of most problems); and this platform also corresponds to anti-supremacism and anti-imperialism. As such, it is consonant with international nationalism - nationalism for all peoples. It can also be consonant with Dangerfield’s newly coined term and concept, “Cultural Nationalism.”

Because it is defined by ourselves, it is drastically different from economic Marxism; we can have private property, free enterprise, outcomes according to merit; and naturally it is the opposite of Cultural Marxism; on the contrary, it is pro-White for both our genus and species of ethnonationalism; facilitating the interest of our people and our natural predilections, individual liberty, science and tech, etc.

Again, for all those who have unwittingly gone along with the Jewish program to rail against “the left” and “lefties” your efforts are not in vain as it is easily understood that you speak of the internationalist/anti-nationalist, anti-White left.

And we reclaim our terminology of the left for our definition as nationalists, to wrest its correspondence with social capital and unionization thereof, thus providing a structure of accountability, social correctivity and thereby group maintenance along with other positive and necessary social features that have been obstructed for our people; while averting the Jewish trap of reaction - and their “solutions” into sundry, destabilizing right wing perfidy, back doors from accountability and means for their infiltration, coercion and direction, whether identifying as right or turd positiononism.

Voice of Europe 22 June 2020

By ARTHUR LYONS

Dear Followers,

The editorial staff at Voice of Europe’s regrets to inform you, our readers, that we will be ceasing our news publishing operations indefinitely. Our decision, of course, comes with the heaviest of hearts and follows months of increased censorship from Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Furthermore, our ability to monetize our content, which had already been greatly diminished as a result of the virus’s economic effects, was recently taken away completely when our ad platforms banned us outright. Unfortunately, we do not receive nearly enough financial support from you, the readers, to cover the costs of our operation. For all of these reasons, we’ve decided end Voice of Europe.

Like you, we at Voice of Europe are also deeply concerned about the dark place that our society seems to be headed. We have clearly entered a time where sharing facts which aren’t in line with the mainstream narrative is no longer tolerated.

We are grateful for the support that you’ve shown us over the years.

Farewell.

VoE Team

Watch live coverage as Elon Musk’s SpaceX works with NASA to launch the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule with two U.S. astronauts, the first mission of its kind to the International Space Station in nearly a decade.

Contrasts at present are in high relief:

Between the culture that would launch space colonization in response to natural challenges to one which would open our borders and interpersonal bounds to human and pervasive ecological destruction; lock us down and ruin our agentive capacity for independence in defense of our national and interpersonal bounds; coupled by taking another liberal step back from those who would riot, infringing our private boundaries further in violence and destruction; putting the kabash on economic independence as much as possible; while generally making life on earth miserable; obstructing earthly management, hastening the need to colonize outer-space indeed.