Link: SJW virtue signalling and hidden classism

It’s barely hidden.

http://www.isegoria.net/2017/07/confronted-with-sandwiches-named-padrino-and-pomodoro/

“American upper-middle-class culture (where the opportunities are) is now laced with cultural signifiers that are completely illegible unless you happen to have grown up in this class. They play on the normal human fear of humiliation and exclusion. Their chief message is, “You are not welcome here.”

Freudian signifiers, btw.

Those are Freud.

Cultural Marxism is used by the middle class whites to keep the working class oppressed – by creating new oppressed classes that crowd them out for rentseeking.

Irish comic character cast as mixed mystery meat

https://mic.com/articles/152038/zendaya-is-mary-jane-in-spider-man-homecoming-so-of-course-there-s-racist-backlash

Parents

Mixing nixes the white recessive genes. This isn’t political, it’s Mendel.
If you do not agree, you literally need to pick up a school book because you are inferior in intellect to a child.

Detour for butthurt:

aintevenmad

Behold, an Egyptian! And he’s one of the swarthier looking ones!

At best, they’re tan. And the ancient ones were paler because the Muslims hadn’t invaded yet and raped the women as slaves. #history #educateyourself

Fuck Afrocentrists claiming the white people stole from them for once! [FBI data, suck it]
We have genetic proof from mummies, documentation from the time and other cultures and artwork showing the elite (at least) were, in fact, pale. As in, white. This is conclusive, definitive and anyone arguing differently is a rent-seeker on white achievement. Cleopatra was Ptolemaic dynasty, a Greek-racial line (fun facts: the Greeks used to be blond closer to the founding of their Empire, Helen of Troy was blonde, but as they mixed and became swarthier, the Empire fell; I’m sure that’s a coincidence and nothing to do with Calhoun). She insisted on using Greek in documents in tandem and preferentially. The Rosetta Stone is no coincidence, and they used many languages because the equivalent of newspapers were leaving out stone tablets with the official record on them.

blog.oup.com/2010/12/cleopatra-2/

Apparently speaking Afrikaans would make me suddenly Black? Does that mean white African settlers aren’t colonialist oppressors now? #unintendedconsequences

To sum up: it is quite possible that Cleopatra was pure Macedonian Greek. But it is probable that she had some Egyptian blood, although the amount is uncertain. Certainly it was no more than half, and probably less. The best evidence is that she was three-quarters Macedonian Greek and one-quarter Egyptian. There is no room for anything else, certainly not for any black African blood. 

But sure, these people are the ones telling us race doesn’t matter. Of course, all their actions show this.

cute wink

Back to the SJW corporate entryism problem murdering anything cool by making the bandwagon a campaign slogan when the entire purpose of comic book films is ESCAPISM from that EXACT bullshit…

(these people are Grundies, they are the anti-matter of cool)
(as in, all this casting tumblrism nonsense may be making comic films unbearable for regular people)

I love the logic of these people, the way they claim if this one actor doesn’t get this one role in this one appearance-based industry they chose to work in, then every example of that race is doomed to failure like the Borg, but with black people. Is that not racist to assume, that they need Blackwashing Welfare? Why can’t black people write more books and make those books into films? Would they not be as good/popular? Why play the Cup and Ball game with actors? (Although seeing the signalling SWPL out of their multi-million dollar jobs is a 24K gold lining to this, finally they see consequences, hence intersectionality, really Black Power Feminism, oddly hasn’t caught on).

We all know the Spiderman reboot has been a shit-show but to fuck up the romantic lead as well? The character is bland, she does nothing but look ginger. That is her purpose, look reddish and pout. They know the performance but assume this franchise is a shoo-in for purchasing toys. Seriously, check the BO figures and compare to the Irish-complexioned counterpart once these become available.

This girl isn’t even black, the worst part is they keep calling her black when she clearly isn’t. She’s mixed, an entire other group, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills the way they abuse the One-Drop Rule when it suits them, labelling anyone slightly black as Black (Obama, basically all the part-black scientists by descent), but using it yourself for scientific purposes (e.g. heart medicine, not poisoning them) is supposedly bad?

Heads will roll...

Yes, these two could be twins…

See, first they replace the white people in Hollywood because the propaganda didn’t go far enough in the past 50 years (dating site data), then when white people see their immigrant replacements in the street (and outnumbering them, plus super-fertility) their brains don’t flag it up, accepting it as normal. That’s the plan. They did the same with the false Fun Gay stereotype, but ignore the facts on suicide, drug use and domestic abuse, they cracked a joke in this show. Humour creates sympathy without actually doing anything, and oh look, the Funny Black Sidekick stereotype appears! Wow, such coincidences.

Political correctness lies to create change, thusly Progressivism is brittle and already crumbling, with nothing Patriarchal left to burn as a distraction. Regular people are noticing now and disoriented.

There’s nothing racist about noticing that there’s no such thing as a black girl without black hair, they are literally defined by their hair colour more than their skin, the defining character trait is red. This is like when they hired the talentless hack black girl to play Lady Guinevere, whose entire thing was being white in the legends of a white country that had a real Saxon king called Arthur in a white continent and then claimed it was cos she was ‘best for the part’ (then again with ANOTHER black/mix playing literally The White Queen) and everything was ‘mythical/fictional’ (so why not ‘hire’ a sock on a stick? logic) bull-SHIT.

Let us not forget the worst example in recent history.

The sequel is not canon, QED.

If they can get you to say up is down once, their politics of delusion have got you for life. We are not blind and people are not putting up with this pretension, that’s what it is, a pretense. If you enter a looks-based industry, you choose to be judged on your looks. If race doesn’t matter, this shouldn’t happen. Yet we even see it with models despite their casting also being chosen based on clothes revenue (because that’s their job, not to stand there, but sell) as an actress’ job is to sell the character they are based on.

Social justice gives people a chance who don’t deserve a chance, on the grounds that other people get chances. It’s cultural welfarism and the groups involved should reject it on principle. If they believed they had merit to compete fairly. You have a toy, they must get a toy. You get to play Princesses (European royalty), they must get a Black Princess because fuck logic even when it’s set in a non-monarchical society. Selling toys is one thing and I noticed Emma Watson didn’t insist Belle be played by a Black girl, but perverting historical record is fascist, next they’ll be deleting people from photos instead of cropping and painting over the skin of portraits in galleries.

Feminists should be pissed because this is seen as a half-measure from casting a black MAN, as if the women were inferior in import and expendable.

It’s like when we all pretended Rihanna looked good blonde to be polite instead of admitting she looked fake like a stripper. It’s jarring to see a black girl (well, brown) Act White. It’s like a Wigger but in reverse, just wrong. Where’s the cultural appropriation people for white people’s hair colour? Oh, magically they cease to give a shit, like the rest of us.

This is oddly racist against the Irish, more of whom were slaves than black people, period. [read a book, seriously]

I’m tagging this as anti-white because the Irish have all the recessive traits including distinctive red freckles (MJ = Irish) often with green/blue eyes, genetics win this round. This Z-list girl looks the opposite of MJ, total miscast on purpose because they expect character fans will always show up anyway out of loyalty (but reason to execs this will attract the black girl demo, that hate SFF unless a black girl is cast, so …they hate SFF full stop, it’s all Mary Sue-ing) – not so in reality for both $$$ claims, not with so many properties on the market at once, hiring some social media bint is demeaning to us all just put in a fucking Kardashian you PC-peddling scum ruining ART.

Expresses my feelings on this issue

inb4: I would support a Kardashian hired in the role because at least it would be entertaining.

Footnotes:

margaretgeorge.com/adventures-in-research/2010/10/entering-the-world-of-helen-of-troy/

Up until the last couple of centuries, ‘black’ as a descriptor of women referred to HAIR. It was presumed by skin that all women were white, and where black, the particular geography was mentioned instead. Helen’s hair was not mentioned but her fair skin was, and even if brown as a half-way measure, women frequently dyed it. Fairness of flesh was picked up on as a class cue, implying fairness of eyes and hair, which crowds rarely saw so it didn’t matter much.

biographyonline.net/women/cleopatra.html

She was a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty, a family of Greek origin that ruled Egypt after Alexander the Great’s death during the Hellenistic period. The Ptolemies, throughout their dynasty, spoke Greek and refused to speak Egyptian, which is the reason that Greek as well as Egyptian languages were used on official court documents such as the Rosetta Stone. By contrast, Cleopatra did learn to speak Egyptian and represented herself as the reincarnation of an Egyptian goddess, Isis.

I know I’ll still get some “it doesn’t matter”s and “you’re racist for discussing race” people trying to write ALL this proof off.

  1. If it doesn’t matter, don’t alter the casting.
  2. It’s a conversation on pop culture, when you bring up race, it is on the table for everyone to discuss EQUALLY because this isn’t a Race Powertrip Studies class where you can preach solo and silence groups you hate, oppressively.

Also, we’re now so far into counter-signalling that trannies are turning anti-LGBT to call trannies ‘trannies’ and degenerates. What a time to be alive. You’re still a dude in a dress Blaire, but it’s been fun. It’s like when Roosh tried to be a white supremacist for edge points or that honest Holocaust documentary Jew was called anti-Semitic.

what wut wtf shock surprise slow turn eh littlefinger pause got

Mill’s Liberty and do you have a right to ruin my life, indirectly?

I doubt those quibbling the scholar epithet (tongue-in-cheek, as you can plainly see) will claim to have noticed posts like this…

omg really wtf go away no audrey

I was reading around to a trounce a feminist at a cocktail party and this happens to be bizarrely applicable 150 years hence. I don’t usually read philosophy, most of being modernist trash. This selection is worth reading.

http://www.bartleby.com/130/4.html

each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights;”

Such as the right to have a non-cheating spouse.
There is more respect for a girlfriend/boyfriend arrangement than a marriage nowadays.

“and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law.”

Violating the spirit, not the rule. Common with narcissists. Technically, I did nothing wrong, they’ll say, because I did nothing illegal.
Good people will disapprove of bad people and this has never, nor shall ever, make us bad in turn. To be discriminating is a compliment. Judgement is a core component of thought.

“As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.”

Natural consequences are not oppression – common sense.
The problem being that modern man doesn’t stand the consequences. Deadbeat dads, rapists getting off on technicalities, being rude but toeing the line to antisocial, these things used to be dealt with, as they should. By allowing them to continue, we encourage others implicitly and the problems get worse. For example, without rap culture, men and women would be far less rude to one another in this century. Rappers talk about respect because they can’t get it. The entitlement mindset originates from these people, who think they can treat everyone like dirt because reputation is a white thing. Cat-calling is a black thing. Wolf-whistling isn’t insulting, it’s like applause. Anyone being rude to women in the street is acting black, whether they admit it or not.

I do not mean that the feelings with which a person is regarded by others, ought not to be in any way affected by his self-regarding qualities or deficiencies. This is neither possible nor desirable. If he is eminent in any of the qualities which conduce to his own good, he is, so far, a proper object of admiration. He is so much the nearer to the ideal perfection of human nature. If he is grossly deficient in those qualities, a sentiment the opposite of admiration will follow. There is a degree of folly, and a degree of what may be called (though the phrase is not unobjectionable) lowness or depravation of taste, which, though it cannot justify doing harm to the person who manifests it, renders him necessarily and properly a subject of distaste, or, in extreme cases, even of contempt: a person could not have the opposite qualities in due strength without entertaining these feelings.”

The manosphere’s PR problem that killed it.
PUA too.
Why’s it always the same people? They are deficient, pick a trait.
Degenerates and deviants are deficient people.

“Though doing no wrong to any one, a person may so act as to compel us to judge him, and feel to him, as a fool, or as a being of an inferior order: and since this judgment and feeling are a fact which he would prefer to avoid, it is doing him a service to warn him of it beforehand, as of any other disagreeable consequence to which he exposes himself.”

IRL detour since you seem to like the gossip. It was aimed at me so it’s legit to bring up. Skip ahead to the next quote if you like, but this childish BS is the reason I don’t defend them from misogyny claims anymore.
Their first tactic upon being warned (so they can’t play naive later) is to project. Not SJW but bird brains nonetheless, they always project. They keep calling me a man, hilariously, because of the quality content I produce (they believe no woman can ever be smarter than them, screw statistics), and their White Knight instincts would kick in otherwise, and …what was it? The most shared one was the baseless caricature of a fat ugly woman in her 30s living in Moscow because I praised Putin once, can you make a random guess what the person levying it looked like?

evil smirk cheeky cavill

Not this, that’s for fucking sure.

Single. 30s. Fat. Ugly. Does nothing but sit behind a keyboard and bleat about the flaws in others. Instead of hiding from it like he would and expected, I trumpeted it, because it isn’t true. It serves to make the speaker look like a liar. I love how ugly people call beautiful people ugly (not that he’d know for certain but perhaps he sensed from my prose). We laugh it off, it’s confusing. You wouldn’t dare look in our direction in public and we both know it. Looks are a curse, a distraction from being taken seriously on any topic. We also have to put up with these losers negging us on the reg. It never works. Ever. Negging is an implicit admission that 1. they think we’re superior and 2. they’re insecure just by looking at us. Why would that work? I’ve never seen a proof. I think they’re ruining one another’s chances to scupper the competition because a lot of them turn into super-sweet charades of themselves around us. Ignore the data that beautiful people have higher IQs, we expect it. We’ve been accustomed to bitchy rumours since childhood (oh a random guy online says I’m stupid, I guess the psychometrics must’ve been wrong, puh-lease).
It isn’t true so it doesn’t hurt. They fail to understand this because the insults lobbed at them are generally entirely accurate, it’s the veracity that stings. Names don’t hurt, unless it’s descriptive, unless it hits home. They so spoiled by social media they think they can speak to people however they like (including cultural betters like upper class Europeans, Know your place, plebians) without being matched back, as if freedom of speech singularly applies to those Starting It. Their assumptions are wrong. Polite is not nice. We treat as we find. A doormat is disrespected by 3rd parties for weakness, women especially must verbally defend themselves moreso than men because we cannot do so physically. They understand none of this, however painstakingly you explain.

ItjOKBM

Another kept trying to call me rude because he randomly tried to start a BDSM roleplay/sexting session around how he’d spank me. My relatives would kill him for that, or at least beat him to a bloody pulp, but over the internet he figured he was safe from any reproach or call-out. I’m a lady, and he knew that, and knew I’d never be comfortable with those sort of things. Ever. Even from a husband I’d suspect there’s something wrong with them, repressed rage. Clinically disturbed people enjoy the sadistic discomfort of others and their social harm often presents as insidious boundary-pushing like this. Without permission, any of this, I want to assert, I randomly get pages of explicit material ordering me to do various things, that I would happily report to the police as harassment, when it was a clear fetish he was getting off on and this was about the third or fourth time he’d mentioned it. Previously, I’d made it clear I didn’t care for those topics, personal ones, and assumed it had registered after an apology. I ignored the attempt and took the High Road, the highest possible road although I came to regret it, hoping it was a drunken mistake but knowing better, and we haven’t spoken since, good riddance to bad rubbish. I didn’t reply, you can’t get more feminine than that. You’d think these people would stop trying to cause social harm at this point. Didn’t stop him from setting his friends on me like a 13yo schoolgirl and they’re persisting in randomly trying to start drama up again, to try and use my reaction against me (while decrying it when Anita does it). Yeah, I’m the problem here, right? You keep coming back to my material, I remind comments who emptily complain on their behalf. I’d initially met both parties with sweetness and sympathy (my regular politesse) I soon found they didn’t deserve, so I withdrew it quietly, and this American-spat nonsense is their way of trying to get my attention again and in a twisted way, back on speaking terms. It won’t work because I’m more intelligent, yet that’s hardly saying anything. Once you’ve ruined your reputation as worthy of politeness, it’s gone, like virginity.
Back to liberty. That was too wordy, sorry.

It would be well, indeed, if this good office were much more freely rendered than the common notions of politeness at present permit, and if one person could honestly point out to another that he thinks him in fault, without being considered unmannerly or presuming.”

In Europe, you aren’t. Not among the old vanguard. New Money is easily offended. Their position is new and must be defended by offense. The upper class, moneyed or by blood, are wonderfully un-PC, note the Queen’s recent comments on rudeness of the Chinese only this week. It’s in our culture to express the truth. Nice and nasty. Nasty truth is a public sport, see Blackadder.
To a woman on an official visit, Prince Philip said “I would get arrested if I unzipped that dress!”.
Real genuine English people are like this. We don’t pull punches.
SWPL and other Americans think we should be push-overs because they believe Hollywood and they’re sanctimonious tosspots i.e. I heard “You have a Queen, you should be polite!” from a tourist who grabbed me.

Where do you get this? Americans don’t get to use the word rude to us, okay? Odds are you infringed on a dozen rules of etiquette before we said something, you deserve it. Take ya medicine.
You guys have the Puritanical speech culture, not us. Our monarch is famous for swearing in private. Bess is brutal.
We dragged Cromwell’s corpse through a street to gamble, swear like sailors and celebrate Christmas.

“We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates.”

One rotten apple spoils the barrel.

“We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment. A person who shows rashness, obstinacy, self-conceit—who cannot live within moderate means—who cannot restrain himself from hurtful indulgences—who pursues animal pleasures at the expense of those of feeling and intellect—must expect to be lowered in the opinion of others, and to have a less share of their favourable sentiments; but of this he has no right to complain, unless he has merited their favour by special excellence in his social relations, and has thus established a title to their good offices, which is not affected by his demerits towards himself.”

One of my favourite parts. “He has no right to complain.” The proof of wrong is in the mirror.
They won’t respect themselves, they shouldn’t expect respect. This simple and the way people are raised with common sense.
People who self-abuse (food, sex, rest, things required for life taken to extremes) or are self-destructive in behaviour get no sympathy from the silent majority. First time, certainly, fifteenth? Get out of here. They always say the same thing, that we’re deliberately hurting them and making it worse. No, we’re cutting off the enabling teat, the milk of human kindness. Tough love.

Remember when oppression was used in the correct context? Ostracism and shame work because they crave popularity, being feeble individually.

Encroachment on their rights; infliction on them of any loss or damage not justified by his own rights; falsehood or duplicity in dealing with them; unfair or ungenerous use of advantages over them; even selfish abstinence from defending them against injury—these are fit objects of moral reprobation, and, in grave cases, of moral retribution and punishment.

And not only these acts, but the dispositions which lead to them, are properly immoral, and fit subjects of disapprobation which may rise to abhorrence.

A reputation isn’t unjust if your actions earned it.
He did X, is not a slight, it’s a fact.
Therefore he is Y type of person, has some grounds to it.
Z, we must avoid his rot, may be fair too, if a danger is presented and the warnings are clear.
People have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Cruelty of disposition; malice and ill-nature; that most anti-social and odious of all passions, envy; dissimulation and insincerity, irascibility on insufficient cause, and resentment disproportioned to the provocation; the love of domineering over others; the desire to engross more than one’s share of advantages; the pride which derives gratification from the abasement of others; the egotism which thinks self and its concerns more important than everything else, and decides all doubtful questions in its own favour;—these are moral vices, and constitute a bad and odious moral character:”

Real deviants. Who harm their social group.
Devaluation is something they get off on, little known fact.
It’s like a list of flaws commonly found in adjacent parts of the internet. The anger outs them. Like their SJW enemies, they cannot take a joke. The narcissism of small differences.

If he displeases us, we may express our distaste, and we may stand aloof from a person as well as from a thing that displeases us; but we shall not therefore feel called on to make his life uncomfortable. We shall reflect that he already bears, or will bear, the whole penalty of his error; if he spoils his life by mismanagement, we shall not, for that reason, desire to spoil it still further: instead of wishing to punish him, we shall rather endeavour to alleviate his punishment, by showing him how he may avoid or cure the evils his conduct tends to bring upon him.

This only works after the first time, or first few times, to be liberal. If they ignored the proscriptions passed down in childhood, why would they listen as a selfish, closed-minded adult? Better to mock them and how they deserved it, for correction. Gentle but effective.
Even excessively liberal judges give stiffer sentences to repeat offenders.

He may be to us an object of pity, perhaps of dislike, but not of anger or resentment; we shall not treat him like an enemy of society: the worst we shall think ourselves justified in doing is leaving him to himself, if we do not interfere benevolently by showing interest or concern for him. It is far otherwise if he has infringed the rules necessary for the protection of his fellow-creatures, individually or collectively. The evil consequences of his acts do not then fall on himself, but on others; and society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate on him; must inflict pain on him for the express purpose of punishment, and must take care that it be sufficiently severe.”

No clemency.

Degeneracy is a character defect. A core fissure of flaws. It cannot be scrubbed out, they’ll keep sucking the marrow from the good until the leech is detached from its host, and this leaves nothing of aid for the other good people. As we see in compassion fatigue, goodness, compassion and charity are a finite resource. They are natural nomads because nobody will put up with them, frequently abandoned by their family, most of their friends, or they have a psychopath’s rotation that last about two years because they too, have it up to here. If only people came with dust covers and reviews. If evidenced, Peeple would’ve been a fine idea. It would reintroduce the social considerations of a high trust society where word gets round.

“The distinction here pointed out between the part of a person’s life which concerns only himself, and that which concerns others, many persons will refuse to admit. How (it may be asked) can any part of the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other members? No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his near connexions, and often far beyond them. If he injures his property, he does harm to those who directly or indirectly derived support from it, and usually diminishes, by a greater or less amount, the general resources of the community. If he deteriorates his bodily or mental faculties, he not only brings evil upon all who depended on him for any portion of their happiness, but disqualifies himself for rendering the services which he owes to his fellow-creatures generally; perhaps becomes a burden on their affection or benevolence; and if such conduct were very frequent, hardly any offence that is committed would detract more from the general sum of good.

Finally, if by his vices or follies a person does no direct harm to others, he is nevertheless (it may be said) injurious by his example; and ought to be compelled to control himself, for the sake of those whom the sight or knowledge of his conduct might corrupt or mislead. And even (it will be added) if the consequences of misconduct could be confined to the vicious or thoughtless individual, ought society to abandon to their own guidance those who are manifestly unfit for it? If protection against themselves is confessedly due to children and persons under age, is not society equally bound to afford it to persons of mature years who are equally incapable of self-government?

Act like a child, claim paucity of agency or naivety, have the restriction in freedoms OF a child.

“I fully admit that the mischief which a person does to himself may seriously affect, both through their sympathies and their interests, those nearly connected with him, and in a minor degree, society at large. When, by conduct of this sort, a person is led to violate a distinct and assignable obligation to any other person or persons, the case is taken out of the self-regarding class, and becomes amenable to moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the term. If, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them, he is deservedly reprobated, and might be justly punished; but it is for the breach of duty to his family or creditors, not for the extravagance.”

Don’t tell the MGTOW/MRA that fathers are responsible for their families too. In fact, as men, the gender roles posits more responsibility than women could ever require.
You see why I go on about fake moral authority? If you can’t mind your own business, your hypocritical advice is unwarranted and unwelcome. You are fit to have an opinion but not to dispense it. Would you take diet advice from the obese? Why take advice on morality from a pervert, one who perverts the rules of decency – and for fun?
These people dispense pretty words on doing what you like without attention to duty. In a society, you have duties. Deal with it.

“In like manner, when a person disables himself, by conduct purely self-regarding, from the performance of some definite duty incumbent on him to the public, he is guilty of a social offence.”

Few vices are entirely private.
You used to be able to fine cheating spouses and their lovers. You want the cream? Pay for the pussy. They expect to have the benefits of the husband (cooking, cleaning, rutting) without the duties, see a pattern in the entitlement?
The problem with society isn’t stupid people. It’s that we, the rest of us have to live with them and make allowances for them like children, then we are expected to show sympathy to hedons. Ancient hedons were more like modern stoics actually, they had clear limits and rarely indulged, except when they did, they weren’t guilty about it. That’s the reason. Not that vice or indulgence is innately a good. The ancients, however tawdry their society, never went to this extreme of dopamine-drowned stupidity.

If society lets any considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences. Armed not only with all the powers of education, but with the ascendancy which the authority of a received opinion always exercises over the minds who are least fitted to judge for themselves; and aided by the natural penaltieswhich cannot be prevented from falling on those who incur the distaste or the contempt of those who know them; let not society pretend that it needs, besides all this, the power to issue commands and enforce obedience in the personal concerns of individuals,”

Nanny State.

“in which, on all principles of justice and policy, the decision ought to rest with those who are to abide the consequences. Nor is there anything which tends more to discredit and frustrate the better means of influencing conduct, than a resort to the worse. If there be among those whom it is attempted to coerce into prudence or temperance, any of the material of which vigorous and independent characters are made, they will infallibly rebel against the yoke. No such person will ever feel that others have a right to control him in his concerns, such as they have to prevent him from injuring them in theirs; and it easily comes to be considered a mark of spirit and courage to fly in the face of such usurped authority,”

Too many edgy people using insults without a place.
The Right isn’t exempt from false pride.

“and do with ostentation the exact opposite of what it enjoins; as in the fashion of grossness which succeeded, in the time of Charles II, to the fanatical moral intolerance of the Puritans.”

Reverse psychology.
Stupid people do it constantly, thinking they’re so clever.
They want me to be good, so I’ll be bad, I’ll show them being bad is good! They can’t trick me into doing what’s bad for my self-interest!

High time preference personified.

We have a saying you Yanks might like.

“Leave ’em to it.”
It means we let them go and get themselves into trouble, but we won’t rescue them.
We won’t lift a finger. We absolve ourselves of responsibility for them.
I think one of our cultural misfires is self-help. It makes people determined to misbehave. You can’t self-help unless you’re a therapist.

“With respect to what is said of the necessity of protecting society from the bad example set to others by the vicious or the self-indulgent; it is true that bad example may have a pernicious effect, especially the example of doing wrong to others with impunity to the wrong-doer. But we are now speaking of conduct which, while it does no wrong to others, is supposed to do great harm to the agent himself: and I do not see how those who believe this, can think otherwise than that the example, on the whole, must be more salutary than hurtful, since, if it displays the misconduct, it displays also the painful or degrading consequences which, if the conduct is justly censured, must be supposed to be in all or most cases attendant on it.

They out themselves, as with liars who make things up about their imagined enemies.
If you’re in the right, you won’t need to lie.

These people used to keep it to the underground. It was never out, in the open and public. They could never brag and the media derided them (they love salacious gossip like the Americans now). Those who aren’t ashamed of past misconduct are as bad as the Kardashians, they twist it into a point of pride. Again.

facepalm leslie howard

As if they’re whiter than white, more good than the people who’ve been good this whole time.

“There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings…But there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it.”

“These teach that things are right because they are right; because we feel them to be so. They tell us to search in our own minds and hearts for laws of conduct binding on ourselves and on all others.”

Ironically, those ‘philosophers’ slag off women for being emotional, irrational and having no ability to argue.
Projection Parade. The lust lies.
Here’s the SJW pseudologic:

“The Secretary, however, says, “I claim, as a citizen, a right to legislate whenever my social rights are invaded by the social act of another.””
“So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them: for, the moment an opinion which I consider noxious passes any one’s lips, it invades all the “social rights” attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other’s moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.”

Nope, you are 100% fully responsible adult. Responsible for oneself. Nobody else is more responsible for you, than you.

For those who signal all they like about degeneracy;

“It also appears so to me, but I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilized.”

Sorry America.

“So long as the sufferers by the bad law do not invoke assistance from other communities, I cannot admit that persons entirely unconnected with them ought to step in and require that a condition of things with which all who are directly interested appear to be satisfied, should be put an end to because it is a scandal to persons some thousands of miles distant, who have no part or concern in it. Let them send missionaries, if they please, to preach against it; and let them, by any fair means (of which silencing the teachers is not one,) oppose the progress of similar doctrines among their own people.

If civilization has got the better of barbarism when barbarism had the world to itself, it is too much to profess to be afraid lest barbarism, after having been fairly got under, should revive and conquer civilization.

A civilization that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy, must first have become so degenerate, that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it.

If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians.”

The Black Pill.

If you admire or fear your inferiors, they win.

Elsewhere he wrote about suppression of opinion, and noted there are three beliefs: false, half-true and entirely true.

“First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.”

Ironically, I got that one from wikipedia.
Similar text wall, same chapter as top, here: http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/four.html

Choices connotes consequence.
If you consent to a choice, you consent to the risk of bad consequence, and you must accept it as gladly as you would have done the good, to take your lumps because welcome to adulthood, everyone does.
R-types have one thing in common. They want to be celebrated for existing.
Even their opinions, in their grandiose mind, are worth a living. Hang market demand.
However, a logician would correctly assert that one should place like opinions in a book and charge for that instead. The readers would get a higher quality for a cheaper price, a physical product, the author more money, yet the frauds on places like Youtube never do this because people wouldn’t read their books. Why? People want their free opinion to laugh at them. You don’t pay the village idiot to be a clown because he isn’t trying, it isn’t work for him.

I sourced these third party quotes.

millnaturalconsequences millnaturalconsequences2

As well as this, a little later is the jape.

Spencer’s hedonism committed him to the view that life is worthless in the absence of pleasure or happiness.” pp.104 Hayek on Liberty, Third Ed.
I have never seen a better definition of hedonism or the r-mindset. Kudos, Sir.

They want freedom – from consequences.

laughing lol haha liar liar

That’s a good one.

Video: Europe (Whites) finally learning to say No after Cologne

Cologne seems to be the flashpoint for the EU’s naive populace that the MSM has been lying to them.

The screeching is palpable. What do you mean, we don’t have a right to use your land and its resources (women)?

Left: This isn’t supposed to happen??? We brainwashed them from birth! Racist! Wait, it isn’t working! Bigot! No, not that one either! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Oh phew, that still works. It’s OK guys we’re still subverting and destroying Western Civ! Good talk! Jazz hands!

Someone really needs to tell Stefan about Magic Dirt.

It’s based on the Sociologist’s Fallacy that crossing a border will induce magical whole body changes and drag a Third Worlder into the Very Model of a First World NW Europe Gentleman, genetics and all.

Wait until rations come in, won’t that be fun? Grow a Victory garden against who?

This German man needs to grow some balls. He is practically begging Stefan to give him permission to act. Many Europeans are in this tricky halfway position. They’re gathering information, unsure how to act on it.

Waiting for something.

Moving too early is as bad as moving too late.

My advice? Plan for your loved ones. That is it, you owe nothing to the people who betrayed you. Be brutal in who you include, who would die for you? Emergency fund, urgency plans if you need to flee. For the present, I’d normally say remain there, but with the new ‘shelter’ opening up, you might be targeted for your baby. However, you need that support network and so does baby. There is no exit, nowhere to escape. Move as one or fortify. Prepare.

You see little rebellions. First they say No to one sex tourist treating the cream of Europe like a brothel. And the dominoes fall. Point and shriek enough times and you’ll eventually land on a real threat.

“The Left has no facts. The Left has only verbal abuse.”

The Left has been hemorrhaging devotees as the EU blimp has trundled along, making curious noises. Nobody wants to be stuck at the end with the losers. Simply look at the consequences, they cannot be avoided any longer. There is no time.

“The Left have nothing, they can’t have reality, brain size, IQ,  biology, cultural history, inbreeding, genetics, and religious intolerance, theocracy, no separation of Church and State like all of the things that are gonna come in that are problematic.” Game recognized.

They’re hoping the Right dies fighting these guys while they are cowering playing Damsel and hide. “Let’s you and him fight.” Why, the Right ask? Why do I need to fight if I just stop him coming over here to my land?
They are manufacturing a Civil War because an Inter-European War has been a null option since all the brainwashing on WW2. They’ll come up with excuses to sit out, probably a new form of mental illness you can’t falsify. Once the currency goes kaput (sorry), these pampered little hipsters in their gated communities will need the protection of a scapegoat. Who better than literal rape culturalists?
These refugees may be the foot soldiers, but people are fingering the leaders, and they don’t like that.
Why should we fight for you, the Right ask?

They have no answer. Mumbling about we’re all human, we all bleed red.
Fine, the Right say, you go do it. Who is ‘we’, paleface? Where were you? Who are you, to order me? We are not kin. We are not ingroup. You said patriotism is evil, so you won’t desire its protections, right? “Rough men stand ready to do violence… for their own. They aren’t playing pawn to be moved around by propaganda anymore and it’s beautiful.
They wanted division based on politics, they got it. Loud and clear, signal received. In Europe, the elite have nothing to do with this, they’ll be fine. Always, they’ll pay their way into safety. This isn’t an issue about the rich. If you look at the UK media, it is overwhelmingly middle class. Who do they get a hate-on for? Marx’s pets, the poor.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/20733/how-media-became-painfully-middle-class
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/01/tv-industry-middle-class-endemol-shine-tim-hincks-diversity
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/roifield-brown/uk-media_b_4733905.html

This is a class war, and the native poor are seeing it.
One factor they have in their favour: voting bloc.
Why else would the right wing be winning recently, if not for that crucial bastion of support, traditionally belonging to the Left? But the Left sold them out. They favoured the Outgroup. Oh this poor (outgroup), anyone but the evil white men! 
Those natural conservatives (who prize country and family above all else) are finally leaving the abusive relationship and voting with their feet. To the left, this is unprecedented. An end of Left/Right they call it, because people are’t fitting into their neat little boxes anymore (vote based on class). Oh, L/R exist still, but their definitions are outdated. That’s what you get for living in an Ivory Tower instead of the Real World. The left’s response, at our last election?

How dare these poor people be so selfish.

Seriously, that was the best they could come up with. The mind boggles.

Who made these people poor? They’re looking into it now. This was the first election the media tried to rig by controlling the information flow – and failed. Almost a year later, they have nothing, they refuse to admit trashing the economy (like Brown selling off all our gold for pittance) or screwing over the workers for foreign labour with immigration, despite unemployment/underemployment. Like SJWs (their leadership since Blair), they’ve doubled down. Did we vote in the immigrant Jewish rich bloke who never worked a real job in his life? No.

We’d rather have the posh, rich closeted gay pig-fucker. Dwell on this. It’s the Principle.
Look at the suffrage post and who voted in the Left for a long period (men) and this becomes apparent. The poor, white men are on strike from social justice warriors. Their wives too and this female vote finally turning up to the polls, angry enough, was the crucial deciding point (the ‘Mum vote’) in landing it for the Tories.

Did you see the pink Labour van? It was like Monty Python. The conversations over the kitchen table? Wow.

This is a trend. We are at Stop. Wait……

It carries on….

No. Not now. Never. Never again. I’m gonna give you to the count of three to get off my land before we rearrange your face into a Picasso. The police have been called and your trial date confirmed. The State will escort you to The Wall now. Secret Police: We’ll deport you to Hell personally. Who needs that much paperwork?

Watching it in real-time is like;

I guess we need to accept this has happened and it's going to get pushier

Knowing it’s going to get worse with the economy. But since I am white and belong here, also like;

Our elders are criticizing us because we see past their BS.

It’s a strange two-minds situation.
You want to limit damage but you wonder if that would just prolong the problem.
There is a beauty in the justice of sitting back and watching the Left’s high time preference destroy their ideology. They won’t get back in once this is over.

UK Universities want to lie and say Africans were here first

http://mantalk.mobi/British-Universities-Change-History-by-Teaching-Students-Africans-Were-First-Settlers

Some of the most reputable British educators have been corrupting the minds of young students by lying about the roots of their country. They have suggested teaching a course which is built out of the lies of insecure minorities that feel a white Great Britain shouldn’t be a cornerstone of its history but, rather, its history should reflect the morals of current society. The course which I’m referring to teaches students that the first British settlers were actually Africans. This, of course, is nothing more than bullshit which should be shamed, but since the story has been published, little to no changes have been made. The deplorable act of revising a nation’s history and culture were not done because of new discoveries which demanded the history book accommodate the new findings but, instead, the changes were made as a way to dethrone the white Englishman in his own country.

It’s such a barefaced lie.

It fails on every factual level.

Even if that were true hypothetically, they’d have evolved lighter skin and so on. Making it false still.

Nothing scares them like the truth on anthropological origins (Multi-Regional).

The politically driven curriculum will be distributed to thousands of students at Oxford and Cambridge who believe they are getting an objective history. Instead, they are being fed a Marxist fairy tale that never happened. The course’s creator shamelessly admits the whole perspective is made up, fabricated and absolutely fiction; however, feels it’s important that the English population address their ‘white male-dominated’ view of history and society.

As opposed to current academia, which is totally true?

What’s next, since they’re pushing We Wuz Kangs Afrocentrism? Magic Melanin Theory?

Video: The Death of Europe | Gene Wars

The abs of Satan metaphor will haunt me.

Clearly, it does violate the Non-Aggression Principle. 
Humans need two things to live: land and resources on that land.
Humans have a right to their homeland.
To violate these properties by invasion is a clear violation.

I’m surprised he doesn’t know about the UN definition of genocide.
Mostly, it isn’t murder. It’s slower, subtler and far more insidious.

The Golden Rule doesn’t work when most of the world follows Might is Right. Followers who advocate that should never be allowed in a leadership position.

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf

Under 6. Genocidal Acts;

Acts that could be obvious “elements” of the crime of genocide as defined in Article 6 of the Rome Statute, 4 such as killings, abduction and disappearances, torture, rape and sexual violence; ‘ethnic cleansing’ or pogroms;5 • Less obvious methods of destruction, such as the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival and which are available to the rest of the population, such as clean water, food and medical services;6 • Creation of circumstances that could lead to a slow death, such as lack of proper housing, clothing and hygiene or excessive work or physical exertion; • Programs intended to prevent procreation, including involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage and long-term separation of men and women; • Forcible transfer of children, imposed by direct force or through fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion; • Death threats or ill treatment that causes disfigurement or injury; forced or coerced use of drugs or other treatment that damages health

The 1948 definition is THE definition, one page crystal-clear;

http://www.teachgenocide.org/files/UN%20Definition%20of%20Genocide.pdf

General Assembly Resolution 260A (III) Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

Unnecessary war
Prison (genetic death)
Violent crime
Abortion

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Anti-white propaganda
Censorship laws to prevent speaking out

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Take the land of another group
Plunder the resources so there is less for them
This is called Multiculturalism.

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

“Sex Education”
Taxpayer funded contraception to minors

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Social Services.

So when you hear the phrase “white genocide”, don’t laugh – remember how this applies only to Europe (homeland of white people) right now.