The Photo that BBC Banned

bbc-russ

There are so many things I like about that photo. They make me think about Donald Trump just having won the New Hampshire primary. How about that couple in the foreground. The sexual polarity that pleases the viewer with its evocation of vitality’s strong-beating heart. The lovely woman looks up at her man adoringly, fully absorbed in him. He holds her and nods to the world. His careless hair and insouciant cigarette take me back to when I was 22. There are other things I like about that scene… something I recently wrote about commonplace things being imbued with revolutionary meaning.

But there are those who hate that photo so much, they’ll censor it. A photographer named Michael Hockney submitted the above photo to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for some kind of a readers’ contribution gallery. That image, according to Hockney, was rejected on the basis of not meeting BBC guidelines—of decency, one presumes—and thus it was not accepted for publication.

As you can see below, Twitter also blocked it from auto-display in its feeds due to “sensitive content.” England used to look like that, but that was destroyed. As Ramzpaul quipped, no wonder that the globalists want a war with Russia.

Quips aside, we will eventually be forced to choose our allegiance. Will you pledge yours to the reptiles who find your White space, your White vigor, your White future indecent?

bbc3

Advertisements

57 thoughts on “The Photo that BBC Banned

  1. Fascinating commentary.

    The picture has obviously been Photoshopped. Notice, for example, the brightness highlighting the couples to the Right, as opposed to the general darkness to the Left, of the photo (nice editorial work, if the Photoshopper did that consciously). Also, the couples on the right appear to be comprised of the same models, albeit it from different angles (examine the “careless” hair on the young man’s forelock, and the blonde girl’s reversed-angle hairstyle, respectively). Notice the difference in scale between the two couples and the pedestrians to their left (again, nice work if intended).

    Something else: the inconsistency between the Cyrillic lettering on the crosswalk sign in the foreground and the Tuborg beer sign in the background. The cigarette in the man’s hand and the general street scene make me think this photo may a composition of Danish origin, probably an advertisement.

    Having said that, I do wonder why the BBC and other transnational organizations would memory hole (override their algorithms pertaining to) this picture.

    (((Who))) knows?

  2. Bicksnood…

    As an informal profiler, I would say those are not the same models. The males’ chins are definitely different as are the females’ foreheads and dimple patterns. And the pedestrian to the left appears to be a very short Asian female. As well, nearly all on the left are dressed in black giving a more general sense of darkness. What’s odd about the lettering?

  3. Far too heterosexual for the Beeb, but (I was reading yesterday) in 1961 they banned (wouldn’t play) Geoff Goddard’s Johnny Remember Me, though that did not stop that song from becoming a number one hit for John Leyton. I remember, vaguely, a time (circa 1980) in England when the relationship between the sexes was as relaxed as that in the photo. No longer.

    What the Beeb really objects to, of course, is the cigarette. The Beeb are weird: I recall on one of their message boards setting out the opening lines of The Inferno of Dante, when a fellow commenter then duly set out what he said was the correct translation of those lines and to prove his point also gave the opening in the original Italian. His message was deleted as the only acceptable language for the board was English. Whereas I agree that the language of the board should be English nevertheless …

  4. I think that the lighting is simply that the sun is at an angle where the people on the left are in the shadows of the buildings and the people in the right are in the direct light.

    The Tuborg ad is not in Cyryllic, that is true, however advertisements on billboards in big cosmopolitan cities are often in the language of the product they are advertising. German products would be fairly common there.

    The pointed obelisk with the five-pointed star in the upper right hand corner might be identifiable. St Petersburg is a good guess.

    My opinion is that it is not photoshopped beyond the usual adjustments.

    The street level looks great. There is so much nothing like that, around here. Even in places where is a street scene, such as the trendy urban neighborhoods – not like that. The young people who inhabit those scenes are Americans and they are infected with something. We call it the poz now and it might as well be a virus.

    Not everyone is sick, it is not as grim as that, but there is something weird about it all. I think that one of the things that makes a typical American scene so “weird” – and i have commented this before – is that so many of the people are unsure of their status, and that throws everything off.

    The people who are unsure of their status though, here, are the young people who would be the analogs to the the two couples in that picture. In America what would those two couples be like? The guys do not have that lively look in their eyes. Often they have a faggy fashion and mannerisms of a woman. And the women, the girls, … don’t even get me started. They are confused, and they overcompensate with exaggerated confidence and sexuality, which breaks them, eventually.

    But not everyone is so lost as that. There is the set of accomplished middle-aged people, who also inhabit that urban scene. The guys with challenging employment and looks and not fat, and their wives who are mothers with children and not too fat themselves. But those are middle-agers, if some young middle-agers, and they necessarily don’t bring to the scene that certain something of youth.

  5. As for that picture being banned on the media of the BBC and Twitter.

    Without knowing the details beyond the original post, i don’t think that too much can be read into it – beyond that it’s just them (the media hacks) being fags.

    Which i guess is the point, but it is like the question of the NFL game balls on the other thread. It is a decision made by humans so expect weirdness.

    The people who work for the media don’t want to be reminded of how they are ruined fags, of how everything they do is about the protecting their own status investment in a system that promotes and maintains degenerates and weakness.

    See for example the Roosh video, making the rounds recently. Now Roosh is his own topic, but he appeared well in that video, and hats off to him for “maintaining frame” and for turning the tables on those cockroach faggots who thought they would be questioning HIM.

    Some stupid entitled bitch asked Roosh if he didn’t know that some of his articles would be offensive and his reply was a confident “So what?” (It is still sometimes hard to believe that a Professional Reporter thinks that some written words being offensive, is in itself a basis for criticism.)

    We are dealing with idiots and children, and to regard them as anything other than that is to concede to them the argument. Until they can argue like adults, their positions can’t be taken seriously.

    Somehow just allowing for their argument, is conceding their argument. Because their argument is essentially “Me, feelings hurt, listen to me!” and so if the response, “Oh your feelings are hurt, i am listening” well then they have won the argument.

    The argument has to be won on the level of Identity. We don’t care that your feelings are hurt. We are not on the same side. Take your hurt feelings back to YOUR camp, to the weirdos there and see how THEY can nurture you, back to health.

    And see, they can’t, that’s the thing. They are living at our expense. They need us.

    It is not just the physical infrastructure that they need us for – they are wanting from us Emotional Armature.

    That is a nice fancy phrase, and it’s just the ticket. They need to be supported not only physically but emotionally.

  6. Oh, and Trump won last night.

    We are still going to run out of oil, and not be able to maintain these server farms, not to mention food production and so what will Trump do about that?

    But in the meantime, Trump 2016

  7. Those two couples do look like they might be one and the same. And their images cut out.

    I would wager that they are photoshopped in.

    If that is the case, it is a weird gimmick from the photog.

    Any photographer who presents something that is photoshopped, as not photoshopped, is engaged in dissimulation and it is “post-modern” and disingenuous game-playing, juvenile and ironic. A silly little joke on the viewers for some twitter laughs? grow up.

    The medium of photography is that it is a real image. And if it is not a real image, then it is not photography. Playing with the light and color is one thing, but mixing and matching images is another.

  8. I wonder what specifically they objected to in the photograph? I wouldn’t think they could claim “lack of diversity’ if they were talking about urban St. Petersburg, could they?

    Or was it the cigarette, as someone suggested?

  9. Incredibly Slavic-looking face.

    My allegiance is not with the reptiles, you know that, PA. It’s time to choose sides.

  10. Maybe some low-level staffer at the BBC viewed the photo and banned it after seeing some Euro symbols or signs they didn’t understand?

  11. In general, the BBC is run by Jews, gays, and gay Jews. That’s a lot of hostility and dysfunction in one place, so the “reason” for banning the photo could be almost anything.

    While the current head of the Beeb isn’t Jewish, it’s hard to tell in the UK. A previous BBC head was one Michael Ian Grade, Baron Grade of Yarmouth. Sounds plenty British, but he’s Jewish. A lot of Jews in UK assimilated and took on very British names.

    Then there are the obvious ones. E.g. long-time BBC director of television was one Danny Cohen, who recently left. Upon his departure, one Twitter person noted: “Sad that @DannyCohen is leaving the BBC, he genuinely understood and believed in the importance of diversity in the BBC.”

    Same old, same old.

  12. Two things I noticed and one in which you pointed out, that she’s adoringly gazing at him and two, he’s looking away from her. The CH lessons are finally paying off.

    Thanks for posting this.

  13. I wonder what specifically they objected to in the photograph? I wouldn’t think they could claim “lack of diversity’ if they were talking about urban St. Petersburg, could they?

    Amren once had an article discussing an episode of “The View” where they reviewed video of the Royal Wedding between William and Kate Middleton and Sherri Shepherd starts screeching “Where’s the black people?” And, of course, a whole host of media publications started decrying the “lack of diversity” at the Royal Wedding.

    And not one of the liberals seemed to comprehend that white folks have their own ancestral countries where they’re a majority because that’s where they evolved. In their mind, if they look up and see any desirable scene and no blacks are present that automatically signifies racism and “exclusion.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382074/Royal-wedding-2011-The-Views-Sherri-Shepherd-asks-Where-black-people.html

  14. “And not one of the liberals seemed to comprehend that white folks have their own ancestral countries where they’re a majority because that’s where they evolved. In their mind, if they look up and see any desirable scene and no blacks are present that automatically signifies racism and “exclusion.”

    Y’know, I’m not going to deny any of that; in fact, I’m annoyed by that as well.
    But before you go taking to task good ol’ Sherri from “The View,” you may have noticed that you don’t exactly see the creme de la creme of Black Intelligentsia too often holding forth on the news and other contemporary topics of import in the mainstream media.

    This is one of my pet peeves; you can cherry pick regaling tales about how ridiculous was Kanye West’s vitriol on Bill Maher —- but every now and then you might wonder just WHY West is even ON the show, beside legitimate journalists and activists or whatever.

    IMO, such routine scenarios are evident points-of-fact of Limousine-liberal racism; it’s really pretty pathetic: they get to berate their racial peers and lessors as ignorant racists, while indulging their own vanity by championing racial ‘others’ they actually either pity or consider beyond the pale.

    I believe PA and I discussed this at GLP or OneSTDV; he put it in the alt-right perspective of NAMs dancing for their liberal masters —– a rather self-serving perspective for he and his.
    Understandable enough. But don’t simply presume that all the other ‘others’ in the equation are fine and down with this little act of minstrel-like agit-prop.

    As I’ve said before, you’ll see Kanye and Chuck D and whomever on Nightline opining on the latest riots and marches in Ferguson, yet you DON”T see Justin Bieber or Lindsay Lohan furrowing their brows on the Charlie Rose show, as the rapper Mos Def was recently.

  15. Elk… Those are not the same couple. Very different chins on the males and different foreheads on the females… And you can also see a “wrinkle” in the right-side cheek/mouth of the female on the right that does not exist in the girl on the left.

  16. thordaddy you probably are right on that they are different people, but it is odd how they look so similar. And they still look cut out, and “photoshopped” in. Apparently there are tells for that, and people who do that work will know.

    ************

    This is one of my pet peeves; you can cherry pick regaling tales about how ridiculous was Kanye West’s vitriol on Bill Maher —- but every now and then you might wonder just WHY West is even ON the show, beside legitimate journalists and activists or whatever.

    IMO, such routine scenarios are evident points-of-fact of Limousine-liberal racism; it’s really pretty pathetic: they get to berate their racial peers and lessors as ignorant racists, while indulging their own vanity by championing racial ‘others’ they actually either pity or consider beyond the pale.

    I believe PA and I discussed this at GLP or OneSTDV; he put it in the alt-right perspective of NAMs dancing for their liberal masters —– a rather self-serving perspective for he and his.

    Those are amusing examples and it seems a fair point, but i don’t know that that sort of liberal racism is to the advantage of White advocates, because it allows for liberals to affirm the status quo: that racism exists and is holding down the black man, see for example Coolio or whatever dog they got next on the show who is happy to complain and make their (liberal) case for them – and convincingly and sympathetically at that!

    Those guests such as Coolio (who was on Maher) are chosen because they are sympathetic, or in the case of Chuck D, convincing. It is my impression that those guys advocate that racism is real and they are being held back by it. Them making that case effectively is not in the interests of White advocates.

    nikcrit is implying that their appearances as doofuses, is a point for White advocates.

    But no. That is not a sound basis of White advocacy. Though it does make for some material for “this clown world” – who they got on next Marge?

    Is it in the interests of Whites for blacks to look like clowns, on national media? Do they look like clowns, on Charlie Rose, or do they seem somewhat convincing that they are put upon and being held back.

  17. In my previous comment, the third paragraph after the row of asterisks is also meant to be italicized, as part of the selection of the comment from nikcrit.

  18. Off topic. Yahoo recommended this news story,
    Black Princeton Professor Goes Off On Social Media Following Her Arrest.

    Check out her picture. She is a young black woman with the name Imani Perry and a Princeton Professor of … African-American studies.

    It is a funny story, she got pulled over for doing 67 in a 45 and was driving with a suspended license and there was a warrant for her arrest for unpaid tickets. But according to her she got harassed because she was a beautiful strong black woman and the racist white officer wanted to “cop” a feel and generally just abuse her, and maybe rub up on her during the “body search”.

    First of all she is not too bad looking. If you like dark meat, that is.

    But second is that she is an idiot because she made these social media posts that were untruths – lies they are sometimes called – about a topic (called “racism”) that her entire prestigious career is based upon. She makes these lies and expects to get away with it.

    Instead though she is called out on it, on Yahoo no less. There are some 3,000 comments and without checking them i am sure they are mostly fed up with her.

    But she will get away with it, right?

    African-American studies professor, at Princeton no less (one of the Big Four), gets harassed, just for fun of it really, felt up by a white cop, traumatized, abused, … turned on. Wonder Twin powers activate, form of … Rape Fantasy!

    What are the odds that SHE – a Princeton professor – gets harassed by The Man?

  19. In a totally off topic moment — cuz I’m feelin’ my German — ladies and gentlemen, I give you, THE GREAT FRANZL LANG! The Jodlerkönig!

    Should ever you have a temptation to explore the glorious world of Bavarian yodeling, go right to the best, Franzl Lang. None ever better.

  20. Come on Nikcrit…. The reason one will see a Kanye, Chuck D or Mos Def on Maher is because they can attack “white supremacy” and Bill Maher won’t dare play “devil’s advocate.” In the same vain, a Miley Cyrus or Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber can neither defend nor deny “white supremacy” so there is no real “there” there. What these “white” entertainers know of “white supremacy” is no more than what they have been spoon fed from the likes of Kanye, Chuck D, Mos Def and a compliant Bill Maher.

  21. In the same vain, a Miley Cyrus or Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber can neither defend nor deny “white supremacy” so there is no real “there” there.

    No, I’m saying it’s specious and lame in the more abstract complaint that they consult black pop-cult celebs, period, to opine on supposedly ‘serious’ social issues and current events, while you never see equally air-headed white pop stars tapped to do as much.

    I say there’s some blue-pill venality at play —— they get to indulge their humiliation impulse on two levels: toward their peers and toward the ‘lessors’ they use as pawn to play status games with said ‘peers.’

  22. they consult black pop-cult celebs, period, to opine on supposedly ‘serious’ social issues and current events, while you never see equally air-headed white pop stars tapped to do as much.

    Don’t you? I mean, I dunno, I have always avoided shows like Maher and Stewart and Colbert and whoever does that stuff now because I can’t abide all the smug self-congratulation, but in the few times I’ve been stuck watching, it seems to me there is a relentless parade of whites spouting their Progressive views. Not so much singers, I grant you, but you see white actors often enough. And I’m pretty sure when someone like Springsteen gets on he’s busily working a political angle.

    Still, I think you have a point that black celebrities somehow are ceded greater moral standing. Just like that what’s her name woman back when Code Pink was protesting wars. The one with the dead son. She was granted the status of Great Moral Avatar on War seemingly by all the media simultaneously. Similarly, blacks are always the One Source of Truth on racial issues, as if white people can’t make intelligent observations on the subject.

    PS – Sorry about my Yodeling bomb last night. I was in a bit of a Suburban_elk mode, if you know what I mean. Keyboards should have breathalyzers attached.

  23. O.T.@PA:

    You might find this link interesting; the writer is a self-admitted ‘Cathedralist,’ but in her analysis and reckoning of the realpolitik, she seems to be conferring with opinions and political conjecture that you foresee developing in Europe.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/opinion/the-end-of-the-merkel-era.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&moduleDetail=inside-nyt-region-4&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region

    *Some of the links at the bottom of this article that the author has written might be interesting too.

  24. Come on Nikcrit…. The reason one will see a Kanye, Chuck D or Mos Def on Maher is because they can attack “white supremacy” and Bill Maher won’t dare play “devil’s advocate.”

    The funniest thing I’ve ever seen is MSNBC’s habit of trudging out Ray Nagin annually during hurricane season to act as their panel expert on disaster preparation. They’d have him discussing economic impact and all of the issues surrounding how “the poor” could be affected.

    Yes, Ray Nagin. (until he had to report to federal prison for corruption last year)

    I’d have to call that the definition of black privilege.

  25. Off topic. Yahoo recommended this news story,
    Black Princeton Professor Goes Off On Social Media Following Her Arrest.

    A while back there was also a Dean of Journalism at North Texas who penned a column about how she was harrassed, profiled and stopped in her own neighborhood for nothing more than “walking while black”. Dash cam footage released a few days later completely debunked her story:

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20151111-dorothy-bland-i-didnt-intend-to-become-a-public-figure.ece

  26. I cannot imagine the grovel fest that is going on in the Democratic Debate right now. Two aging whites falling over themselves to see who can kiss the most black arse for 120 minutes.

  27. @peterike,
    Here’s a “Sacrilege of the Week” fo you to consider:

    That sort-of Sprechertine, fast-paced-style yodel that you linked to (and that is a popular subcult pasttime here in my beloved Brewtown) is similar in many ways to the rapid-fire gangsta rap sytle of one Bones,Thugs and Harmony.

    I know that’s a hard sell for most people, even music fans with eclectic tastes. But just objectively consider the following track, and note how similar in pace and delivery-style is the sung-and-stated verse: both styles are more ‘talk-sing’ than straight-out singalong or rapping in tone.

    B,T&H and some German yodelers: un-E-Z-bedfellas, fo’ sho’, nigga!
    \

  28. I cannot imagine the grovel fest that is going on in the Democratic Debate right now

    I’m currently less than a mile from where the two are facing; this morning, more than a couple dozen cars got towed for not moving from their street parking near the auditorium within the 24-hours warning time. there are some small crowds in the nearby student union, most Sanders supporters; he seems to really hit the zeitgeist this winter; even the female-oriented student groups are backing him..

  29. Sanders is going to get absolutely crushed in the Sun Belt, though.

    Black leaders are shunning Sanders almost as decisively and swiftly as they abandoned Hillary for BHO during the 2008 campaigning.

  30. But just objectively consider the following track, and note how similar in pace and delivery-style is the sung-and-stated verse: both styles are more ‘talk-sing’ than straight-out singalong or rapping in tone.

    With only a few exceptions, that “rap-singing” style has come to characterize any Hip Hop that originates outside of New York City. And unfortunately, the heavy use of auto tune is also a major feature now, as well.

  31. So we dont get a final word on whether that photo is shopped?

    But there is not much of a scene comparable to that, around here, in this top twenty or so metro. Without going into a failed attempt to describe the scene, it always seems to be that people are scurrying around. The girls are usually scurrying and frantic (not to mention bitchy!) and the guys are either A) furtive and faggy, or B) fronting, or C) legitimately confident and those of that last category are the exception and for the most part they don’t make up the scene.

    The scene is “supposed” to be where those people who are yet finding their way, their place – young people for the most part – mingle and mix and get sorted out. So it is predisposed toward unestablished youth. Those graduated into higher ranks are elsewhere. If they are still hanging onto the scene, that disqualifies them from graduating.

    Everyone, all types, is on the street, and just about everyone goes to the mall. But at the same time there is a separate scene for the social people who want to be seen. So i am beating around the bush to say that in America where are the happy kids, where is the happy youth contingent.

    All healthy kids have a happy stage, but around here and in America it looks to me frantic and fronting – the results of “stress” and these kids sensing that their status is not contained within any structure, and so it comes down to being a sexy bitch or a thug.

    My description of the scene and those within it is hermetically excluding those who are by nature and circumstance more successful and well adjusted – because that is my point. I guess i am saying that the scene is about finding’s one place, rather than being social and enjoying the company of other people. This is some circular reasoning, but let it stand for now. I am supposing the scene to be social school from which people graduate into the world.

    And the question is, how the scene is acting and effecting (no sic) the status of its youthful human charges. It is turning them into vaginas and penises. Sexpot whores and frontin thugs. Because without a more aspirant overlay, it is the waterhole on the African savannah and a bunch of animals milling about getting something to drink and watching for who is in heat. Good fun stuff but.

  32. The second point i wanted to make, on this fine early morn (and oh dont forget Valentine’s Day – get your shopping done early! at LEASE a dozen flowers and a gift certificate to Forever 21 maybe some place more current, and a weak ass effort at a home cooked meal involving spaghetti and gourmet organic sauce) – is a general one on the nature of identity politics, and it was brought to mind from that Roosh clip. Which clip brings up again the topic of Roosh, which separate topic is for another time.

    But recall that woman reporter said to Roosh, and i am just this using that as an example because it is current – she said to him as an argument that his articles were OFFENSIVE and was he not aware of that.

    I was joking that something being offensive is not in itself the basis for an argument – except that it IS the basis of an argument, and it is so on the level of Identity.

    The woman’s argument was that her identity as a woman was threatened (by someone else’s words and ideas).

    I want to point out that that argument is granted credibility, and won or lost, if it is not called out. The argument of “i am offended” is simply the argument of identity, where the identity in question is given value and more importantly, allowed to be defined, by the one party being offended.

    Because what is at stake, in the argument in toto, is on the very nature of this “woman” – the particular woman making the argument, and “woman” in general. If she is allowed credit for taken offense, then her thoughts and feelings, and her terms, about what is a woman, are (implicitly) ceded. So effectively she will have won the argument, because what is at stake, is her Identity and its definition.

    In the particular example, the question is about sex and rape and women and the Venn diagram comprised thereof. And so a woman crying offense is simply rejecting the proposed ideas without explanation or elaboration. Like i say, if we are arguing as adults, then exploration and elucidation of the ideas in question is necessary. That would be the point of talking.

    I am making this point, although it is tedious, because of how prevalent those identity arguments are, from the other side.

  33. * Piddly ass edits suck yeah yeah yeah yeah

    I want to point out that that argument is granted credibility, and won or lost, if it is not called out. The argument of “i am offended” is simply the argument of identity, where the identity in question is given value and more importantly, allowed to be defined, by the one party being offended.

  34. So basically, the moral of the story is that our society wants for a structural overlay and without it the kids determine their hierarchy along animal lines.

    But hey the business of America is business, right? It was great selling off the land. I heard some people got rich. So what’s Europe’s excuse. Do they have another excuse, for selling out.

    We took the easy way out, because “it seemed like a good idea at the time.” And as my mom might say, Well it was.

  35. The street scene is America is messed up because white people are not asserting themselves. In so many places white people have ceded the ground and given up space. And derived from that trend is the effect on individual lives and their outcomes. That derived trend is a sort of bete noire, if you will, for reasons having to do with personal presentation and status, and the pain of it all, the insecurity and humiliation of having to acknowledge and confess your own loss. Simply the loss of your own neighborhood. You go out to the store or the mall or the street or wherever it is you go – and you are intimated because scary black kids.

    Look i am sorry to confess all this in such simple terms. I am not scared. I am a brave white warrior and no one fucks with me ever. See the humor there. They call that self-parody, and it is used ironically to express an idea. I think the point is made. Or is it?

    I forget where i was going with this. I wanted to tie it back into what PA suggested the other day, about how this effect of white people losing ground and ceding space and the derivative consequences on their lives and their own social nature and how they get along. That whole effect is somehow tied into the breach of the social contract, which contract (or compact) apparently was outlined by some Scotsman back awhile ago, and he said that people give up, to the state, their right to do violence in exchange for protection, by the state.

    And now that compact with the state is broken. White people are no longer capable able or willing to assert their own interests because they ceded that capability and willingness to the state – but the state is no longer protecting them.

    And so here we are. Being humiliated on the street, and in all our “public” space which is no longer public. Whatever it is that makes it public is gone. We have lost our claim to it because we are vulnerable in it because we are unwilling and or unable to enforce within it our will and interests.

  36. Here is an example. It almost trivializes my point because it seems petty. But on the other hand, part of the point is just how these endless little things add up.

    On the bus the other day some black punks were swaggering around and one with his sagging pants walked by and his butt was too close to my face. Disrespectful. And furthermore he sort of challenged me with a hard look.

    Well so what do you do. I am not too eager to square off against two punks. Too much to lose. That is the end of the story.

    It seems like an impossible situation. These are teenagers and they are not going to stop with the provocation and the bullshit. Even if those two are backed down, well it’s another two the next day and 10 times a day and every day after that.

    It is exhausting, and on the personal, unsustainable, and as a middle-aged man i am not up for it anymore. But everytime out on the street it’s punks swaggering around and sticking their butt in your face.

    Realistically, they need to go. Something about the dynamics of the present arrangement is precluding taking them out. I can’t shoot them. I can’t challenge them to a duel. I am not going to fight them in street fashion which would be … too risky and i would eventually lose anyways for certain and sure.

    That street style thug toughness is a very real thing, and i don’t see too many white champions. There are effectively – none. There are some white guys who run the criminal gangs from South of the Border. Such as Anton Chigurh.

    The principle theme of that book, No Country for Old Men, is the inevitability of Anton Chigurh. That is THE principle theme of it. How he is out there, in the same way that D. was certain that his antihero was in fact lurking miserably in the basement.

  37. It’s the little things that tell the story and that people remember.

    As to photoshopped or not, I don’t know. There are ways of checking that digitally. Otherwise, the place to look is hair at closeup. Extremely hard to crop around it, though there are ways around that too, such as green screen behind the models.

  38. That is some pretty hard stuff. Hard medicine, the indians might say!

    That book is copyright 2005. It’s all a premonition, about how the new hard reality is self-selecting for the most effective and brutal killers. That is what is doing down there, South of the Border.

    And in contrast what are Americans selected for. At this point can we even call ourselves pigs?

  39. These are teenagers and they are not going to stop with the provocation and the bullshit.

    I often link the American/Western situation with their Eastern European historic analogues, and I do that for two reasons: the ‘write what you know’ thing, and because part of what makes me interesting in this sphere is the slightly off-center perspective I bring. Plus, history teaches, or at least helps put things into context so they don’t seem larger than life and thus not so psychologicaly overwhelming.

    Elk’s observations of loss of public space in that anarcho-tyranny way reminded me about about 1939 (pre-war) Danzig/Gdanks.

    There was a story I remember seeing on TV as a kid in the 70s about a Polish mailman whose route ran through a German neighborhood. By the treaty of Versailles, The Free City of Danzig was shared by Germany and the newly formed Polish state. It was under UN’s oversight, with neither country owning it. Germany needed the territory to be contiguous with Prussia (now northeastern Poland) and Poland needed it for access to sea. The population was a mix of Poles and Germans, plus Kashubians. (A subethnic or micronation group, they are still around and going strong. They speak a dialect of Polish that requires effort for me to understand).

    The mailman story. Anyway, just before the outbreak of WWII, an older, small framed Polish mailman hated his route because German teenage boys and kids in packs would beat him up. His story was told as part of the larger story of the defense of the post office once war broke out, which is a heroic story in its own right. It was dramatized in Gunther Grass’s “The Tin Drum.”

    A middle aged non-tough-guy White man here or in Germany /Sweden /France today experiences something similar to that mailman’s experience. Brevik wrote about Paki/Somali teens terrorizing the streets and fast food hangouts in Norway.

    But there is a key difference. The K/r selection model is useful. Or the wolves/vermin model.

    1939 Germans and Poles were both K-selected but Germany was stronger and more dangerous. The Pole’s archetypal fear of the German was the fear of someone with agency, who can destroy you on your terms, by your own strengths of direct confrontation.

    Not so with non-White occupants of modern Western countries. As an adversary, they are an opportunistic scavenger, not a carnivorous predator. They are a symptom of your present weak condition, not your existential-battle better.

  40. “Not so with non-White occupants of modern Western countries. As an adversary, they are an opportunistic scavenger, not a carnivorous predator. They are a symptom of your present weak condition, not your existential-battle better”

    Just so. Whites could roll them up in an instant if they decided to (were allowed to).

    Though I wonder. Let’s say there was some nationalist revolution in Germany (or anywhere else in the EU) and a coup took over and strung Merkel and a host of other white traitors up on ropes. And then they started to round up/send back the darkies. Do we really think Poz-merica would just sit back and say “Well it’s Germany’s business”? I doubt it. American troops in Germany would probably be ordered to step in and take out the German nationalists and protect the aliens. And what on earth could Germans do to fight back, even if the German army were leading the coup?

    The global presence of America really reduces the chances of any kind of true nationalist revolution in Europe, because the American military would NOT be on the side of ANY nationalist movement.

  41. I often link the American/Western situation with their Eastern European historic analogues, and I do that for two reasons: the ‘write what you know’ thing, and because PART OF WHAT MAKES ME INTERESTING IN THIS SPHERE IS THE SLIGHTLY OFF-CENTER PERSPECTIVE i BRING. Plus, history teaches, or at least helps put things into context so they don’t seem larger than life and thus not so psychologicaly overwhelming.

    I agree with you. What I would call the ‘partly alien-eye’ perspective can yield freshly original insights.
    But: I think such a circumstance can create fresh ‘blindspots’ too: More specifically, I think you sometimes project your monoracial background FROM BIRTH onto us more decadently meta-incubated westerners, who grew up in the multi-cult bazaar from birth.

    I’m not saying your constantly blind to such differences; not by any means. But I do think there are lapses, in which such consciousness wavers and that which shows up in the resulting other deliberations.

  42. Elk:“So basically, the moral of the story is that our society wants for a structural overlay and without it the kids determine their hierarchy along animal lines.”

    Yeah, that pretty neatly sums it up, IMO.
    I think if people reflexively accepted that as a premise, there’d be a lot less circle-like and reductive arguing and not as much time would be wasted.

  43. BTW, you all know those Hitler-screaming-to-fake-subtitles parodies. Just saw one in Polish, so I’ll just translate the fake dialogue. It’s a good synopsis of the actual migrant politics.

    [Hitler (representing Merkel here) watches his generals point to Berlin on the map]

    General: Here is the current report concerning the migrants. Syrians are closing in from the south. From the east, Eritreans and Pakistanis. Libyans and Somalians are approaching from the remaining directions.

    Hitler: The bastards are encircling us. But fuck ’em, we’ll send some of them to Poland.

    Generals: Mein Fuhrer… Poland… is not agreeing to accept the refugees.

    [Hitler goes silent, hand shaking, removes glasses and whispers]

    Hitler: Juncker. Schultz. Tusk. Stay here. The rest of you get the fuck out.

    [Room empties except for the few named]

    Hitler (ranting): What the fuck is this? Why in the fuck did we buy 90% of Polish media? To what cock’s sake are we paying Bienkowska so much money, or Buzkow and the other lackeys? Don’t they like to eat kebabs in Poland?

    [Distraught staff members in the hallway are hearing the rant]

    Hitler continues screaming: Michnik [note: (((editor-in-chief))) of the shitlib rag Gazeta Wyborcza] even blocked the comments section in Wyborcza!! And they still don’t want the immigrants??

    General: Mein Fuhrer, nobody reads the Wyborcza anymore.

    Hitler: So what in the fuck are you still waiting for?! Buy the Republika and Niezależna now!

    General: Mein Fuhrer, we tried but they won’t sell.

    Hitler: You pack of loser incompetents! The entire Western Europe is awaiting the refugees and you can’t even handle Poland?

    [Throws his pencil down in disgust and continues…]

    Hitler: On top of that, the [Warsaw region] governor is permitting some nationalist rallies!! What the fuck is all this supposed to mean??

    [Scene of distraught staff in the hallway; then back to Hitler]

    Hitler: TVN and TVP are supposed to be showing scenes with children, not, for whore’s sake, with draft-aged young men!

    [Hitler sits down, speaks calmly]

    Hitler: What are we going to do with so many immigrants? How much money are we supposed to be blowing on falafels and kebabs? They don’t even want to work in the factories! … there is nobody to make the new BMWs and Volkswagens… We have to punish the Poles somehow. We’ll close all of our supermarkets there.

    [Scene in the hallway, a woman consoles another woman]

    Woman: Don’t cry, Ela, you’re still an EU commissioner…

    [Back to Hitler]

    Hitler (quietly, after some thought): I get no use out of any of you. I ought to throw all of your worthless asses out of the European Commission.

    Hitler (after more reflection): There is one last hope… connect me with Pope Francis. But if they don’t listen to him…

    [Hangs his head]

    ****

    Great comments in this post’s thread, beginning to end. Even the yodel/rap duel. (I’ve listened to Langl before. Check out “Heidis Eben – Mein Vater ist ein Wandersmann”)

  44. Let’s say there was some nationalist revolution in Germany (or anywhere else in the EU) and a coup took over and strung Merkel and a host of other white traitors up on ropes. And then they started to round up/send back the darkies. Do we really think Poz-merica would just sit back and say “Well it’s Germany’s business”? I doubt it.

    Too bad the Cold War had to end, when Chile, Nicaragua and other countries had violent, conservative revolutions we used to support them covertly to keep them on our side. (or just have the CIA start those reactionary revolutions ourselves)

    The USA has gotten soft without an enemy.

    Of course, Germany is something different if a true anti-immigrant groundswell took root. Economic sanctions from the EU would be debated first.

    American troops in Western Europe are hardly outfitted for any “suppressive” activity there, thankfully. There’s now less than 50,000 American troops in Germany and bases are scattered East-West along a somewhat narrow band across the center part of the country, which makes sense if they’re based on opposing Russian incursion into resource-rich areas or into France.

  45. And didn’t the EU already vote twice on imposing “mandatory” immigration quotas on each member country, based on GDP, population, land area, etc.? (they would be the ones to determine the thresholds, of course) Nigel Farage went ballistic and I think the UK’s response was surprisingly tepid, even from David Cameron and his ilk.

    Switzerland already said hell no and bolstered their own laws limiting bulk immigration.

    Both of those votes proposed a financial penalty of some small percentage of the GDP for member states who don’t comply. Such financial penalties would actually be a blessing for the right, just like Germany’s war reparations penalties $$ caused Germany to have a huge surge of nationalism after WWI.

  46. “If she is allowed credit for taken offense, then her thoughts and feelings, and her terms, about what is a woman, are (implicitly) ceded.”

    Yes, that is true. And if you notice in such debates, the ‘woman’ in question would be much, much more angry and offended if the hypothetical female you conjure is more generously comprehended for her sense of offense; they’d prefer you be antagonistic AND unrepentant upon after-the-fact review.

  47. — I think such a circumstance can create fresh ‘blindspots’ too: More specifically, I think you sometimes project your monoracial background FROM BIRTH onto us more decadently meta-incubated westerners, who grew up in the multi-cult bazaar from birth.

    And yet I seem to have arrived at the same place as all these “bazaar” guys on the Alt-Right.

    — I’m not saying your constantly blind to such differences; not by any means. But I do think there are lapses, in which such consciousness wavers and that which shows up in the resulting other deliberations.

    Do you have any examples? Not rhetorical; point out my specific lapses for the sake of helping me stay sharp.

  48. And yet Nikcrit, your imposition of a “monoracial” projection on the part of PA only works to obscure the European ethnies’ war on the white race. Race is a liberated extrapolation of ethnicity. In other words, ethnicity IS MORE PARTICULAR than race. Per reality, there is NO UNIFYING principle amongst the European ethnic collage nor its diaspora such that a real unifying principle must be found amongst the white RACE. The unifying principle to which ALL INTELLIGENT white men can agree is a memetic ideation of objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection, as highest reality and our universally operative paradigm. This paradigm “stands” antithetical to the zeitgeist and ITS INHERENT DESIRE to impose by any means necessary a “universal equality,” The Redundant Phenomenon.

  49. “This paradigm “stands” antithetical to the zeitgeist and ITS INHERENT DESIRE to impose by any means necessary a “universal equality,” The Redundant Phenomenon.”

    No, we’ve gone over this a thousand times: the ‘desire’ is not to impose a ‘universal equality’; it’s to impose a aspirational ‘supremacism’ that doesn’t preclude X-amount of people simply because of the accident of birth (e.g., certain racial or ethnic background).

    I can somewhat see your point if you ever reshaped your argument to include-vs-exclude those who, say, are mentally handicapped, and how an egalitarian impulse toward those of that fate could have a crippling effect on society. But you’ve never made a clear, cogent case for how non-discriminatory deliberation on one’s racial-ethnic background is one and the same with ‘universal equality.’

    And I get the feeling that any response you now provide will send me and any others back down the same ol’ rabbit hole.

    Do you have any examples?

    Not specifically off the top of my head; just noting that what may seem ‘unnatural’ to one person may be familiar and ‘natural’ from the genetic-get-go to another. In any case, I’ll try to be more precise when the muse is firing on all cylinders.

  50. And the question is, how the scene is acting and effecting (no sic) the status of its youthful human charges. It is turning them into vaginas and penises. Sexpot whores and frontin thugs. Because without a more aspirant overlay, it is the waterhole on the African savannah and a bunch of animals milling about getting something to drink and watching for who is in heat. Good fun stuff but.

    well, you mentioned the social contract also in this msg string and I would argue that it provided much of the original “aspirant overlay” you speak of, or at least Hobbes’ vs. Locke’s, in that the former held much less faith in the goodness of man’s inherent nature, so such a ‘compact’ was needed…… Some of your description of contemporary public space, the melancholy and psyche disaffections, is perhaps so because of the transitory nature of such space; it’s an american work ethos ‘inbetween,’ not so much a destination in and of itself, compete with purpose and fulfillment……. I recall doing an internship out east for several weeks when I was a senior in college in the late 80s; there was a girl I met who attendend Hampshire University; she was getting her M.A. and she was doing her thesis on shopping malls, which were only about ten-to-fifteen years old at the time; she foresaw malls going beyond merely providing the usual goods and becoming mental sanctuaries, fulfilling all sorts of social needs and yearnings… In a way, her futuristic visions and treatment of the subject was surpassed by reality, which of course is often stranger than fiction.
    When I first read your commments on the subject of ‘public space,’ i thought of that woman right away.

  51. So Nikcrit…. You are telling me all this “equality” stuff is really just LIBERAL “supremacism?” Is this not just MORE liberal equivocation?

    The reality is that the “metaphysics” of the liberated masses DOES NOT RECOGNIZE objective Supremacy (nor self-evidently subjective (s)upremacy as legitimate).

    THE AIM is to DISPROVE a “master race” and not to prove one could exist.

    There is NOTHING INDIVIDUALLY that precludes Nikcrit from striving towards Perfection and FRANKLY the zeitgeist could care less. ALL THAT MATTERS is whether a collective of white men strive towards Supremacy THUS MAKING CLAIM on a Master Race? Do you think the liberated “white” “elite” are making a claim for Master Race?

  52. Pingback: O Poder das Imagens | Nuvem de giz

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s