The Daily Express: How Romanian Criminals Terrorise Our Streets
So, in the UK, the press and government are stirring up hysteria about the influx of Romanians and Bulgarians into the country once a non-migration treaty expires in 2014. It seems suspicious that the country that downplays this:
as just the work of a few hundred “criminals”–take a good look at the crowd–would feel so panicky about an influx of White Christians from elsewhere in the EU. Especially in light of news like this:
Funny. Two Birminghams, two countries, both browned-down. For my British readers, I’m referring to Birmingham, Alabama.
Anyway, I’m not going to insult the reader’s intelligence by pointing out exactly what this means or portends. I suspect, however, that if “50,000–70,000” Somalis were gearing up to land in London next year, the British Prime Minister would be dancing a grim and suicidal/genocidal jig over the arrival of more diversity.
It seems so blatant the way the British press are playing up the imminent threat of this “invasion” of Romanians and Bulgarians while playing DOWN the criminality of Blacks and Muslim immigrants.
For the record, here are some Bulgarians:
Here are some Romanians:
And here are some modern ‘British”:
Who would you rather have hanging around?
Anyway, old chap, I leave you with a cross-pond
We be waitin’ on the playground,
Chillin’ in the park,
To gang up on some white kids
Dat come creepin’ after dark.
We be mobbin’ in the Wal Mart
All us brother thugs,
We runned in here to steal some beer,
We get thirsty sellin’ drugs!
Then we be tryin’ all yo’ windows
And pullin’ on the locks,
Yo’ wife get hurt while you at work,
She gonna taste a nigga’s cock!
Then we gonna sling some dope
An’ count a pile of cash
And mix us up some purple drank
An’ if we have to, beat some ass.
It’s a busy life out here in the hood,
Murder, rape and robbery,
But our needs are taken care of,
Thanks to yo’ generosity.
You see, we is clothed and we is fed,
With gov’ment cheese and gov’ment bread,
Our mayhem, it take calories,
And we get ’em from our EBTs.
It’s frustrating being a Leftist. Leftists in their collective munificence have a grand and beautiful vision for mankind and they get very, very annoyed when reality gets in the way of their plans.
A most frustrating conundrum for many progressives (who are often secret Marxists or quasi-Marxists) in the 20th century (and today) is the way various theories of worker’s revolution consistently did not work out the way Marxists insist they should. You notice that I keep using the present tense. Some quick and dirty notes about real Marxists:
1. They did not disappear when the Soviet Union fell. All that did was royally piss them off. Imagine how stupid they felt; their one big success down the toilet in less than 80 years. And with the whole world watching, too!
2. Marxists are defined by their fanatical and stiff-necked insistence that human history is naturally GOING SOMEWHERE. Things are the way they are because things were the way they were and things will be the way they will be because of things being the way they are. PERIOD. History cannot be consciously changed through force of will, collective or individual. It’s a conveyor belt, so HANG ON!
3. Marxists define morality as anything that leads workers to revolution. Anything that hinders revolution is immoral or, at least, unethical.
Said Lenin: “Communist morality is that which serves this struggle and unites the working people against all exploitation, against all petty private property; for petty property puts into the hands of one person that which has been created by the labour of the whole of society. In our country the land is common property.”
4. Marxists insist history necessarily progresses thus:
primitive humans in family groups>>
end of history.
Each “stage” lays the groundwork for the next, within each stage are sub-stages and between each “stage” is some sort of revolution. Nation states can begin as monarchies and end up democratic nations, for example.
Russia’s revolution in 1917 broke some of the rules, as it jumped from fiefdom over capitalism straight to socialism or some brutal semblance of it (called “War Communism.”) Lenin and his ilk claimed it was possible because the education and evolving consciousness of the masses had outstripped the development of the economy and, thus, some compromise was going to be needed, intellectually. This breaking of the rules of Marxist revolutionary progression, by the way, is a popular excuse among Leftists as to why the Soviet State failed. The superconscious/subconscious cultural and organizational groundwork necessary for socialism wasn’t laid properly, as capitalism never flourished in Russia. Thus, the USSR was doomed to fail. This is what they say, anyway.
But I digress. Badly.
Privilege as Insurance Against Revolution
Anyway, Leftist intellectuals have been trying for 100 years to explain why revolution hasn’t happened first in the most developed capitalist nations on earth, as Marx predicted it should. Why in the world would all those poor, oppressed workers keep busting their asses to keep rich people rich? Why would they keep paying rent to those parasitical landlords? Why do they keep paying mortgages to filthy, evil bankers? Don’t they know they are being exploited? What are they, stupid?
This is the question that has obsessed the Left since the 1920s. Why are you working for The Man when you could shoot him and his family and start running things with your high school football buddies?
In order to explain the problem, Marxists got the idea that the answer must be in the CULTURES that give rise to or are compatible with capitalism. So, starting in the late 1910s, Marxist sociologists got down to work, thinking and talking about it ad nauseam. Eventually, an Italian Marxist named Antonio Gramsci came to the conclusion that the anti-revolutionary urge must lie in ACCULTURATION and the structuring of society.
Gramsci, though not himself Jewish, was one of the founders of the Frankfurt School of Marxism, a group of mostly German-speaking Jewish Marxists. They make for interesting reading that you can do elsewhere.
After all this, I come to my point.
The Frankfurt School’s Marxists concluded that the owning class or bourgeoisie, being the lazy exploiters that they were, had engineered—consciously and unconsciously—various social strata and subclasses. They were at the very top, of course, while the lumpenproletariat (the ghetto-dwelling scum of the earth) remained at the bottom. Between them were layers of insulating coolies, kiss-asses and water carriers that worked jobs like the clergy, law, middle management, the military, police, civil service, etc. These people agree to work so hard for the owners because they are implanted with FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS, the Marxist term for the “incorrect” notions you have about yourself. You know, like that you belong to a race or ethnic group or nation or family group.
This is from Tim Wise’s own website:
“For those who come out of a Marxist tradition, and who insist that the working class has false consciousness, which leads them to ignore or misunderstand their true interests — and that this consciousness has been instilled in them largely by capitalists — what is often ignored is the way that white privilege, relative to people of color, has served as the transmission belt of false consciousness.”
In the Marxist’s mind you are only one thing: YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. You are only a class and any other distinction is a lie. Period. This is what people like Tim Wise mean when they say that “White Privilege” hurts white people, too. After all, it keeps them from hating and overthrowing “the system”!
Because of the total, albeit hidden, control that the bourgeois have over capitalist societies, they have the ability to assign to these groups STRUCTURAL PRIVILEGE that keeps them motivated to work and also keeps them oppressing by the very nature of their existence. The privilege might mean that the law goes easier on them, that their behaviors are considered “normal,” that they get all the best jobs, that university classes are taught with their class and ethnic backgrounds in mind, and so on.
This belief is based on nothing scientific; the Marxists merely “analyzed” or “criticized” history and came up with this sub-theory under the larger theory of Marxist revolution (or lack thereof).
So, quick recap: the rich are rich because they steal from the worker and workers don’t rise up, in part, because the rich keep them divided and spying on/controlling each other. Those who help the rich stay rich are the benefactors of STRUCTURAL PRIVILEGE.
Marcuse, MacIntosh and Wise
Now. When Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they shut down the Frankfurt School and some of the Jews running it ended up in the United States. Most important of these was Herbert Marcuse, who came to America in 1934, became a citizen in 1940 and taught at Columbia, Harvard and Brandeis.
While Marcuse was in Waltham teaching at Brandeis, Peggy MacIntosh was matriculating at Harvard, just across town. Peggy MacIntosh is the woman who is noted for making the notion of “white privilege” popular with her “Invisible Backpack” franchise/lecture that gets foisted on white college students with some regularity. She might even be said to have brought the term “white privilege” to the masses. I can’t find any record of MacIntosh having attended a guest lecture or anything by him, but Marcuse was, among Silent Generation moonbats like Peggy MacIntosh, a very popular figure. Very popular, indeed.
In 1988, MacIntosh published a paper titled “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming To See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies.” In it, she essentially regurgitates standard Frankfurt School Marxist arguments about the role gender and race play in keeping oppressed people (she, being a feminist, explicitly includes women) oppressed. Around this same time, “anti-racist” Tim Wise was making news in the New Orleans area by using media and political pressure to force Tulane University—the private, Jew-friendly private college (Tim Wise is half Jewish) where he was a student—to stop holding stocks in South African corporations, as the money was supporting the apartheid regime.
A couple years later, he was a founding member of LCARN, a group formed to keep White Nationalist and ex-Klansman David Duke from being elected Senator from Louisiana. It is not inconceivable that Wise would have been exposed to MacIntosh’s work at the liberal Tulane or that MacIntosh might have seen an article about Wise’s work and that some connection might have been made. I can’t say for certain.
The larger point that I mean to make is that Tim Wise’s bread and butter argument—that white people are socially and economically privileged solely by the nature of their race and that they oppress non-whites necessarily and eternally just by going to work at 3M and then home to the suburbs—is a Marxist idea.
And note carefully…It is not disguised as science, it is not argued to be the result of methodical research. One cannot dissect a dead White man and find his privilege. The notion of WHITE PRIVILEGE is a politically radical idea originally meant to explain why the races of America don’t join together, gang up on rich people and live in harmony like a human rainbow under a race-neutral socialism. It is not presented as a Marxist idea or one rooted in Leftist politics. It is presented as a fact and couched in the language of actual research.
By now, MacIntosh and Wise have done an excellent job–Wise is better at it, being louder and more abrasive–of spreading the “White Privilege” gospel while simultaneously obfuscating the genealogy of the notion of “White Privilege.” Most of the clueless college students forced to sit through “Invisible Backpack” seminars or lectures will be too young to recognize Marxist thought and many will simply take the information at face value. And the idea will continue to take root as “truth.”
But you’ll know better, dear reader. Or perhaps you’ll simply buy it and let the Toiletnation fester just a bit more.
Have a read, America:
Surreal? Yes. True? Yes, unbelievably.
I’ll summarize the 11-page directive from the Department of Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. None of the following is made up or exaggerated. Quotes are italicized.
“Attention, teachers and administrators of Massachusetts:
- Massachusetts Law says that LEGALLY a person’s gender is whatever a person insists it is.
- So…a pupil’s gender is whatever he or she (it?) says it is. To wit:
The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student or, in the case of young students not yet able to advocate for themselves, with the parent. One’s gender identity is an innate, largely inflexible characteristic of each individual’s personality that is generally established by age four, although the age at which individuals come to understand and express their gender identity may vary based on each person’s social and familial social development. As a result, the person best situated to determine a student’s gender identity is that student himself or herself.
- You must agree to what the kid says. Arguing will get YOU in trouble UNLESS you think they are up to something, which you must determine through mind reading.
[T]he only circumstance in which a school may question a student’s asserted gender identity is where school personnel have a credible basis for believing that the student’s gender-related identity is being asserted for some improper purpose.
- If the boy insists that he is a girl, you must call him “SHE”. If you continue to call him “HE,” you are in the wrong and can be disciplined. If the boy insists upon being called by a girl’s name, you must do so, and change the records.
[W]hen requested, schools should accurately record the student’s chosen name on all records, whether or not the student, parent, or guardian provides the school with a court order formalizing a name change.
- If the child and parents want to keep the real gender of the child secret from most of the staff and students, it must be allowed.
- School records must not reflect biological sex, but “gender identity.”
For transgender students, however, a documented gender marker (for example, “male” or “female” on a permanent record) should reflect the student’s gender identity, not the student’s assigned sex.
- A child must be allowed to use whatever facilities corresponds to the gender it SAYS it is. YES, this includes bathrooms and locker rooms.
In all cases, the principal should be clear with the student (and parent) that the student may access the restroom, locker room, and changing facility that corresponds to the student’s gender identity.
- The discomfort of the normal kids is no reason to keep the girl who insists she is a boy out of the boys’ locker room. Ignore their protests.
Some students may feel uncomfortable with a transgender student using the same sex-segregated restroom, locker room or changing facility. This discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student. School administrators and counseling staff should work with students to address the discomfort and to foster understanding of gender identity, to create a school culture that respects and values all students.
- Students and teachers should be thoroughly thought-controlled whenever possible so that all of this seems normal.
In order to further a safe and supportive school environment for all students, schools should incorporate education and training about transgender and gender nonconforming students into their anti-bullying curriculum, student leadership trainings, and staff professional development.
As with other efforts to promote a positive school culture, it is important that student leaders and school personnel, particularly school administrators, become familiar with the gender identity law, regulations, guidance, and related resources, and that they communicate and model respect for the gender identity of all students.
That is all.”
This is Toiletnation.
The CNN story about Illinois becoming the latest state to allow SodoMarriage is an interesting listen.
It seems that those paranoid right-wing hatemongers who suspected that SodoMarriage would take over America via a political “domino effect” were right. Illinois is right next door to Iowa where SodoMarriage became legal in 2009 through some of the most egregious judicial activism seen in this country since the 1950s. Don’t be surprised if Ohio–that bizarre state that fancies itself as conservative–is next.
I chose the picture above because it shows the crowd at a pro-SodoMarriage rally somewhere in Illinois. I’ve decided that that person right in front is the perfect poster…er…individual for gay marriage. Why?
1. Because he or she is ugly–The sodomite lobby is one that–as yesterday’s entry made clear–is not above the politics of personal destruction. Cross the sodomites by daring to oppose them, and they will–WILL–go after you, your job, your family. Also, the very notion of a sodomite relationship being granted the dignity of a state-recognized “marriage” is like political ipecac: it just makes one puke.
2. Because he or she is loud–Sodomites are a minority, and a small one. The total homosexual population is estimated at between 2 and 6 percent of the national population. We’re talking one or two million people–ten million at MOST. Can you remember the last full week of news in which you didn’t hear them mentioned?
3. Because he or she is creepy–Is that a male or a female? When I saw the picture, it immediately brought to mind the drag-queen elevator killer from “Dressed to Kill,” complete with leather jacket. To wit:
The insistence that something as unnatural and destructive as SodoMarriage be accepted and sanctioned is about as good for the society that hosts it as cancer is for the human body. Not because of sheer volume or numbers, as is the case with uncontrolled immigration, but because it undermines the society’s sense of normalcy and forces the majority to oppress its instinct.
France just buckled on a national level in the last few days, but only after stiff opposition from an interesting coalition of movements that marched in the streets.
So the sodomites continue to advance while Western Culture continues to rot and decline.
What else is there to say?
Diana Medley is a Special Education teacher in the Northeast School Corporation of Sullivan County, Indiana and, while at church, spoke on camera to WTWO-TV saying that “Being Gay Is A Choice.” She went even further, saying that she wasn’t sure that gay people even have a purpose in life. Gays are mad about that, as you might guess. But why was she even on TV in the first place?
You see, this Indiana school district has a lesbian couple planning on coming to its prom and some of the parents and children don’t like that. They think it’s unwholesome and weird, which, to those of us who didn’t major in bullshit, it is. So, they’re looking into holding an “alternative prom” at a local church so that at least one gathering in town that night isn’t besmirched by the latest in politically correct mental illness. And one of the organizers is Ms. Medley.
In the course of doing some limp-wristed local muckraking, a TV station interviewed some of the “hateful, slack-jawed yokels” who dare not accept the love that dare not speak its name. Ms. Medley, somewhat admirably (if somewhat undiplomatically), chose to call things as she sees them. Watch:
Fair enough. Maybe you disagree. If someone like you or I were to disagree with someone on television, we’d say: “What an ass,” and continue doing something useful. But disagreement is simply not enough for the modern Rump Ranger Ascendant. It seems the gays want her fired and/or disciplined. To wit:
Google “Diana Medley” Petition
But, so far, the school district has made it clear that they won’t fire her for her off-campus activities.
But, alas, I guarantee this isn’t over for the Pink Stasi, who wants to control and eventually end all speech that doesn’t accept and praise sodomy as normal and wholesome. You see, even if you say it at church, at home, in your yard or while checking your mail, the sodomites have figured out how to shut you up…and that’s to twist your words or intentions, label you a bigot and threaten your job. If they succeed in getting you fired, they have punished you and warned the next guy.
This is the strategy of “Repressive Tolerance,” a program outlined by Marcuse. The philosophy is rooted in the idea that fascism takes advantage of free speech to plant its ideas in the listener who then, robot-like, becomes a fascist, ends all free speech and kills Jews, sodomites and Communists.
A quote from Marcuse’s essay (linked above): “[In democratic governments] tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery.”
Guess who defines “fear and misery”, now known as “bullying”?
Thus, Repressive Tolerance means limiting free speech for the Right and its Republican Reactionaries while insisting upon it for the Left and its Lesbian Loons, no matter how offensive, hateful or stupid their statements are.
The irony of the approach is so glaringly big and so amazingly intellectually insulting that it is usually lost on the sorts of nose-ringed perverts and radicals who embrace it.
Ms. Medley is safe for now but don’t be surprised if the Knob-Gobbling Hobgoblins succeed in pressuring her employer into getting rid of her or threatening her until she quits.