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

Consider the following true story. A Jewess noticed that a shape vaguely resembling a swastika had been patterned into a rug sold by a national retailer. She insisted the rug be removed from their shelves. Her complaints caused the company to recall the product. This doubtlessly cost the company unknown thousands or even millions of dollars in lost revenue and costs. This is particularly true when one calculates the damage to the company’s image.

The company clearly had no intention of displaying a swastika in their product. Thus intention is irrelevant. The Jewess 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. 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 making a civilizational cohabitation impossible.

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 making a civilizational cohabitation impossible.

We 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 (Jewish Esoteric Moralization) 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, 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 as well, 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
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.

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

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