The Right not to be offended in one’s own lands

Consider the following true story. On December 4th, 2014, Cheryl Shapiro was shopping in the national American retailer Walgreens, when she noticed, much to her horror, a swastika patterned onto a roll of blue and silver Hallmark wrapping paper.

In truth the pattern was much closer to an elaboration of the decorative device known as the “Complex Greek Meander.” In fact, if anything, this elaboration only further obscured the integrated element one might identify as a swastika.

Shapiro, on the other hand, told ABC news she was “[blown] away.” According to the Los Angeles Daily News she immediately called her Rabbi. “I want it out of the store, but I wanted this to go national. I want this out of the stores nationally,” Shapiro told reporters. She was confident the design was an “intentional” reference to Nazi Germany.

Yet one searches the hundreds of comments in the comment section on the ABC website that reported the story for a single person that agrees the shape appearing in the wrapping paper was a swastika. Even The Times of Israel, who picked up the story, closed the article with the wry line “Shapiro is expected to fully recover from the ordeal.” The article itself was sectioned under a headline that said “Do Nazi it” which read aloud also says “do not see it.”

hanukkah-swastika-wrappingjpeg-00832.jpg
Yet one searches the hundreds of comments in the comment section on the ABC website that reported the story for a single person that agrees the shape appearing in the wrapping paper was a swastika. Even The Times of Israel, who picked up the story, closed the article with the wry line “Shapiro is expected to fully recover from the ordeal.” The article itself was sectioned under a headline that said “Do Nazi it” which read aloud also says “do not see it.”

Indeed the tone and language of the article implied a broad knowledge in the Jewish or Israeli community of certain overly sensitive or “trigger happy” Jews. Yet here it was implied as merely an amusing, perhaps even useful feature of Jews, as opposed to problematic behavior in need of correction. Better over-sensitive, than under-sensitive. This is actually in some ways imitable.

Doubtlessly the careful product managers at Walgreens and Hallmark, whose livelihoods hinge primarily on making good inventory decisions, were entirely unaware that the product could be interpreted as a swastika.  In a “move possibly intended to head off negative press more than to concede that the design contained the Nazi symbol” as The Times of Israel speculated, both Walgreens and Hallmark quickly complied, recalling the product nationwide and apologizing profusely in the common pattern. Occurring during the holiday season, this doubtlessly cost the two companies unknown hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. This is particularly true when one calculates the potential damage to both companies’ images.  [1][2][3]

The company clearly had no intention of displaying a swastika in their product. BUT intention is irrelevant. The woman had the right to decide what was offensive to her regardless of what the company intended. But, of course, this is only one such example of a phenomenon that repeats itself on a second by second basis throughout the West.

Aryans must forever be in constant fear of offending non-Whites or Jews, whether deliberately or unintentionally, or risk having their lives ruined. Here the criteria for offense is determined unilaterally by the Jew or non-White or by their champions among the Whites. Hence, likewise, we shall grant ourselves the same unilateral rights vis-à-vis non-Whites.

Here is a simple formula: That which offends is that which demoralizes and disempowers. Indeed, at root, one finds offensive that which is disempowering to him. Understanding this formula, naturally competing racial groups will find different if not opposite things offensive, thereby ultimately making a civilizational cohabitation impossible. They will also frequently react oppositely to a common stimuli, with one group becoming moralized while another group becomes demoralized.  What follow are a few simple examples to make what should be an obvious point.

170914054101-xxxtentacion-lyching-video.jpg
Here is a simple formula: That which offends is that which demoralizes and disempowers. Indeed, at root, one finds offensive that which is disempowering to him. Understanding this formula, naturally competing racial groups will find different if not opposite things offensive, thereby ultimately making a civilizational cohabitation impossible. They will also frequently react oppositely to a common stimuli, with one group becoming moralized while another group becomes demoralized.  What follow are a few simple examples to make what should be an obvious point.

In the modern era, where a Jewish dominated media seeks to assure a general perspective in agreement with a liberal, Jewish consensus, we, nevertheless, find massively divided opinions between the races.  Take the figure of President Donald Trump. According to polls conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in 2018, 80% percent of American blacks considered him racist, while 75% of Hispanics.  In contrast, less than 50% of Whites consider him racist. [4]

Here we start with a common leftist assumption: a sense by non-Whites that Trump is racist is tied directly to a sense that his presidency will also be harmful or unhelpful to their group interests.  Even the deracinated White conservative concedes this while arguing their perception is based on false fears or a “wrong mindset.”  Hence non-Whites were demoralized in overwhelming numbers by the election of Trump, while Whites relatively less so. Of course this is not the full picture.

The unprecedented, massive rallies leading up to Trump’s unlikely election, doubted by every mainstream media source and belied by every highly regarded polling agency, itself bears clear evidence to the fact that a significant portion of voting Whites were, indeed, moralized to some important extent by Trump’s campaign and election.

Similar disparities between White and non-White moralization appear when we see black and White reactions to events like the shooting death of African American Michael Brown. There it is clear that blacks became demoralized and angered at the prospect that White policeman Darren Wilson might not receive punishment (or adequate punishment) for shooting Brown. In fact some significant number of black Ferguson residents and out-of-town “protesters” would ostensibly conclude a series of frequently violent riots and protests spanning over a period of two years was their only path toward justice.

Yet according to a Rasmussen poll,[5] black demoralization and an ostensible sense of black disempowerment because of the event was not shared by Whites. While 57% of blacks believed Darren Wilson should be found guilty of murder, only 17% of Whites shared this opinion.  While these examples, which amount essentially to ethnic conflicts, are dramatic political examples, why should we doubt, for example, fictionalized or parabolic presentations of ethnic or racial conflicts, developed specifically to elicit emotions, would not engender similar feelings in viewers, even if relatively muted or only subliminally felt?

B9315352655Z.1_20141203064607_000_G1I9A6NIB.1-0.jpg
While 57% of blacks believed Darren Wilson should be found guilty of murder, only 17% of Whites shared this opinion.  While these examples, which amount essentially to ethnic conflicts, are dramatic political examples, why should we doubt, for example, fictionalized or parabolic presentations of ethnic or racial conflicts, developed specifically to elicit emotions, would not engender similar feelings in viewers, even if relatively muted or only subliminally felt? 

Or more generally, why wouldn’t we guess, for example, that the depiction of a non-White succeeding over a White in some fictionalized conflict, arbitrarily determined by some screenwriter, or even in an actual, fairly refereed sporting match, wouldn’t also be experienced as demoralizing to the White audience member, while moralizing to the non-White audience member at least on a subconscious or unadmitted level?  After all, both the fictionalized parable and the sporting  match certainly are developed and viewed in order to elicit emotional reactions.

In the latter sports example, or in the cited examples of Donald Trump and Michael Brown, we concede the leftist assumption that Whites do have a “problem with racism” and it’s not really about “fair play” or “justice” in the mind of Whites as they may like to pretend, even to themselves.  Indeed, since the White athlete, the White policeman, the White politician or the White TV character are more similar to the White audience member than their non-White counterpart on the most visceral and basic level, they are also more similar to the reflected image in a mirror in which the White audience member might gaze.

Hence it seems a safe assumption that that White audience member would be moralized by seeing his own reflection or something relatively close to it succeed, while demoralized by seeing it fail. Arguably the public nature of a media presentation may even cause him to experience a subconscious, vicarious humiliation through the failure of this “reflection” or representation. Or it may cause him to divorce himself from this “loser,” which is in a final sense himself and certainly his race.  All of these ideas are especially true if such depictions of failure are continuously repeated.

It seems possible as well the Aryan is equally or more demoralized by the idea that he has lost “fairly” or was simply “not good enough.” The entire notion of the “White Hope” in boxing is in fact predicated on the assumption that Whites are moralized by seeing other Whites succeed, even if, implicitly, this is something for which they should feel shame. Hence it follows they are, by degrees, demoralized, made upset or offended by seeing a black boxer succeed over a White boxer, while a black is moralized by the same sight.

But really is such a laborious logical proof even required? These things are obvious to healthy people. They are obvious as well to non-Whites and certainly Jews, as this study will discuss. The need for positive role models of successful non-Whites for example, is a well-known demand of the left.  The assumption is that these successful models are moralizing.

In any case it’s true that Aryans have the deepest obligation to ourselves, not to find things arbitrarily offensive. After all, while a man and his family should not eat poisonous things, they must eat and eat well. We have not grown great by closing ourselves to the world. Yet only we shall decide what we eat.

We will discover in our exploration of JEM several common symbols, figures and parables in Myth that are offensive to us. We will be accused of “reading into,” misinterpreting or misunderstanding these symbols or parables. When the symbolist or parabolist is unavailable for comment, doubtlessly these claims will come as passionately from individuals that have not themselves created these parables — as if, curiously, they know better.

While they will be lying and we deciphering correctly, this is actually entirely irrelevant. Indeed, if our adversary may choose what offends them, as did Cheryl Shapiro, so shall, of course, we decide what offends us, “plausible deniability” be damned. We as well have the right to interpret symbols and parables proffered by others for ourselves, disregarding whatever explanations are offered. Indeed, our criteria need be justified only to ourselves.

In fact, understanding Art as a mating song, we might well determine that it is offensive by itself that another people have developed this parable or symbol. That is, in any case, our right. Certainly, too, any flattering paean they develop in honor of our race in the future, as a means of re-ingratiating themselves with us, we will view with the utmost suspicion.

Indeed, if men can’t agree on what is offensive, and some find such conditions “too stifling” or “creatively limiting,” then it seems certainly a separation of societies is in order for the sake of “freedom” for all involved. Of course, we are obliged to ban, closely regulate or “contextualize” symbols and parables that are demoralizing to Aryans, whether subtly or explicitly, whether developed consciously or unconsciously. After all, these are our children. We will not have other races announcing or even vaguely insinuating the inferiority of our sons, whether moral or otherwise.

Jean-Baptiste_Oudry_-_Le_loup_et_l'agneau.jpg
Enter a captionIndeed, if men can’t agree on what is offensive, and some find such conditions “too stifling” or “creatively limiting,” then it seems certainly a separation of societies is in order for the sake of “freedom” for all involved. Of course, we are obliged to ban, closely regulate or “contextualize” symbols and parables that are demoralizing to Aryans, whether subtly or explicitly, whether developed consciously or unconsciously. After all, these are our children. We will not have other races announcing or even vaguely insinuating the inferiority of our sons, whether moral or otherwise.

If we decide “arbitrarily” that symbols like the Raven, the Laurel and the Wolf are symbols that are offensive to us in certain contexts, we have that prerogative. If we decide that the names Michael, Joseph and Jonathan are offensive to us in certain contexts, we are wholly entitled to this. If we decide the use of the color red can be in certain contexts especially offensive, again, this is our immortal, ironclad right.

These things are, indeed, in certain contexts every bit as offensive to us as, allegedly, the Swastika is to the Jew.[6] In fact, more so. Indeed, as the Swastika is now a simple way of making an open declaration of war on Jews, these esoteric symbols mentioned here assume our stupidity and blindness, they are a way of stabbing us in the dark. Theoretically they are an insult to our intelligence. Yet the profound irony, of course, is that our inability to recognize these incessant mocking insults until now is merely proof of our magnanimity and trustfulness. But, alas, it is a trustfulness that is now forever gone.

Again, we decide what parables and symbols we will tolerate, not them.

[1] Brenda Gazzar, “Porter Ranch woman gets Hanukkah ‘swastika’ wrapping paper taken out of Walgreens stores”, Los Angeles Daily News, December 8, 2014 retrieved online July 30, 2019

[2] John Fisher, Wrapping Paper With Swastika Pattern Recalled by Walgreens, ABC News website, Dec 8, 2014 retrieved online July 30, 2019

[3] TOI Staff, Walgreens pulls ‘swastika’ gift wrap, The Times of Israel, 8 December 2014, retrieved online July 30, 2019

[4] Emily Swanson, Russell Contreras, Most Americans say Trump is racist, The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, Wed, Feb 28, 2018 retrieved online July 30, 2019

[5] A Tale of Two Cities? Blacks, Whites Sharply Disagree About Ferguson, Rasmussen Report, August 18, 2014, retrieved online July 30, 2019

[6] These examples are names and symbols that are explicated in this study.

One thought on “The Right not to be offended in one’s own lands

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s