“White people are out of their minds, and they have been for a long time … White people feel that we are bullying them when we bring up race,” she said.
Really? Want to have the real race talk honey? Last I checked you woke pieces of shit have been terrified of any racial realities like the bell curve, global violent crime data, and on and on.
I remember reading about lynchings a while back, popular cases and whatnot. The largest lynching in America was of Italian mobsters that murdered the beloved police chief and by either corruption or technicality or something had them innocent. The entire white town stormed the jail, dragged them from their cells and lynched the 10 of them in the square.
The rest of American lynchings are largely similar: mob justice when the system was going to let guilty men roam free. It's not great, but it's a far-cry from what I was taught in school where the KKK would lynch some black guy for just walking down the street.
The rest of American lynchings are largely similar: mob justice when the system was going to let guilty men roam free.
Absolute fucking nonsense, when many lynchings were conducted after convictions of people, when the police literally handed suspects over to the mob. One of the lynchings in The United States of Lyncherdom written by Mark Twain cited a lynching that was stopped by police who mob attackers who stormed a police station when they were told the execution of the convict would take place the next day.
Lynchers are violent savages who are engaging in the highest form of virtue signaling. They do not, never have, and never will, care about the individual case compared to how good it may make them feel or look to tell everyone how they have so much solidarity with an allegedly aggrieved community that they can slaughter people without cause.
This is one of the reasons the 2nd amendment is so important: lynch mobs should be killed on sight by their victims.
But I suppose the failed lynching of Kyle Rittenhouse was just a natural response of a loving community that had seen far too many white people go free from murder, and they didn't want to let yet another white active shooter go; right?
Maybe you're right. This probably falls into "vengeance is for the Lord" territory.
I think I'm just too frustrated with being beaten over the head about how bad America/whites are for lynchings. I see some shrill harpy screeching at people for 'racism' and think "Maybe the old ways weren't so bad".
Well if you'll be conciliatory, so will I, I apologize for being a cunt. It's my default setting on the internet.
The problem with that particular section of history is that the Left occupied that section before they claimed they always stood against it, and it was really right-wing. There is a reason that the absolute pinnacle of early 20th century progressiveness included and avowed white supremacist president. Jim Crow was a Democratic institution that turned the south into a 1 party state.
The reactionaries on the right simply latch onto stuff that's labeled "bad guy" by the Left, and then claim that everyone the Left calls "good guy" are also Leftists. It's a nasty habit that they have to learn to break.
What was evil about lynchings were how they were built into the cultural fabric of the south as a cultural institution in and of itself, rationalized exactly the way you did. But that was done on purpose by the Democrats in order to facilitate a society which used extreme violence as a way to socially order society. Using modern terms, it was a form of anachro-tyranny. It had been a problem for over a century, but the Democrats weaponized it during reconstruction, and given it full government support as they re-conquered the south. But, when it made it's ugly re-appearance on occasion, they couldn't even get a hold of it when they tried. It's very similar to what Democrats & BLM does now.
This was because, prior to the collapse of Democratic control in the South, the culture of the place was built upon the resentment that we see the modern Democratic party spreading everywhere. The Solid South wasn't just prepared to be violent towards blacks, as SupremeReader showed. They were also prepared to be violent towards whites for being northern "yankees" and "carpet baggers" even in the 1960's. So yeah, it wasn't just a simple black-white thing like the Left demands you accept. They demand you accept that, because if you look into the nuance and details, you realize just how fucking culpable they are for the whole thing.
The constant undertone of resentment and hatred was what the Left institutionalized, and it's what they spread everywhere they go because it's a methodology of control. Given the opportunity, they'll do it again, and we're watching it happen. That's why it has to be opposed so fervently. They are re-naming "lynching" into "accountability", and that must be openly resisted or it will start slaughtering people as it did before.
Great read thanks. I feel bad because I checked out completely in school, so my history is fuzzy and only really forming around Wikipedia articles I get interested in.
I've thought and expressed for a while that "cancel culture" is just a social lynching. It's offensive and not part of a society I want to live in. Your example of Kyle Rittenhouse is helpful for me to understand the context/gravity of a real lynching.
Idk if this is cliche but another thing you touched on is how hateful and vile leftists are. As if the spirit animating them IS evil. I might mouth off some ignorant thing or say something uncharitable in frustration, whatever. But I never feel what they're feeling. In their "fight against -isms" they literally want to kill you and torture your family. They cackle and gloat when someone they don't like gets sick or is in pain.
Also they actually first set her on fire but this didn't kill her, and they cut her stomach when she was still alive. She was hanged upside down by her feet, not hanged by her neck. It was way worse then I remembered it.
The largest lynching was of many (exact number unknown) local blacks after one killed a white man, in the early 20th. They included a pregnant woman who complained after her husband was killed, and they hanged and shot up her, then cut off her unborn baby and stomped it, and finally burned her body.
You know, maybe 43% is 43% not because being a 43%er makes you notably more likely to commit suicide compared to other similar disorders, but because if you're a 43%er you're likely also going to seek out "woke" psych help and get people like this woman.
Funny thing is that she thinks conservatives are psychologically healthier than white liberals because conservatives acknowledge their hate while white liberals deny its existence. If I were a prominent conservative pundit, I would push her as a legitimate progressive. Placed in a position of power, she would actually force white liberals to sacrifice something.
Audio of the talk was posted on the substack online platform of former New York Times opinion writer and editor (((Bari Weiss))) on Friday, along with an interview of Khilanani conducted by writer and podcaster (((Katie Herzog.)))
A flyer promoting the talk and posted online by (((Weiss))) titled the lecture, “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind” and included “learning objectives” such as “Set up white people’s absence of empathy towards black rage as a problem” and “Understand how white people are psychologically dependent on black rage.”
Another note. Upon re-reading the article, it sounds like she realized what she was doing was wrong, and was taking steps to stop her murderous fantasies (i.e. she stopped watching the news).
You've just arrived in a new town, seeking your fortune, and you need psychotherapy. In this town, there are two psychologists. The first psychologist appears perfectly sane, makes lucid statements, and her office is immaculately clean. The second psychologist is obviously insane, spewing incomprehensible word salad, interspersed by threats of violence. Her office is filthy—giant tumbleweeds of cat hair drift across the floor. Which psychologist do you want to perform your evaluation?
The problem started when people stopped saying this is a white country. It was.
there was, of course, the negro, but we all know about that mistake. Then (((someone))) was like: "hey fellow whites, this country was created for everyone, remember?"
I feel like the problem is people failing to realize that racialists like yourself will always seek to destroy the population they claim to protect, in order to promote their own personal vision of what that population should be.
Within the reactionary right are far too many idiots who think that Leftist dogma like racial solidarity, racial socialism, and racial justice will protect them from Leftists. One way or another you'll be the race traitor you claim to oppose because a) you'll side with white Leftists because they are white, b) you'll side with white Leftists because you are a Leftist.
Despite whites being the inventors of, and driving force for, Socialist dominance and popularity all across the world; you still think that creating a "White country" will prevent Leftism. Even white ethno-states like Sweeden, Scotland, and Ireland embrace Leftism willingly, and you still don't get it.
Oh look, here's Gizortnik come to tell us not to look out for our interests in the face of people openly proclaiming their desire to murder us on racial grounds.
You're looking out for your personal interests by advocating for a collectivism where you don't have to do shit, and you get all the reward. No different from what BLM does.
Socialism is less of a danger than multi-culturalism. I've looked beyond my interest-group ideology (libertarianism) towards what actually makes societies work. Society exists because people set aside their self interest in favor of building the common infrastructure. Now why would anyone do that? They do that because they feel kinship with other members of their society -- even the least able. They do that because they want to set an example for their children and leave to them a foundation. No one can afford to care for the entire world. There has to be an us and a them. The only tie that successfully binds humans is blood.
Call it socialism if you want. The opposite is anarchy and moral decay.
If you concluded that racialism makes societies work instead of human freedom, you are the highest form of idiot.
They do that because they feel kinship with other members of their society -- even the least able.
Yup, and racialism has proven that that has never done that even once. At no time, in the history of politics and nation-building, has a group of people simply put away all of their differences and lived in harmony because there is some tacit genetic relationship between them and another group of people.
It has never happened. Racialism, being a particularly ignorant strand of progresivisim, affiliates people who are genetically dissimilar, and claims that they are all homogeneous to one degree or another culturally, despite literally millennia of them highly similar genetic groups explicitly creating rival tribes, factions, religions, civilizations, empires, countries, and nations.
You have nothing in common with people you claim to be genetically related to, at the scope you're talking about. In the same way that Wayne Brady has literally nothing in common with Shaka Zulu. Literally nothing. No shared language, no shared values, no shared culture, no shared society, no shared history, no family lineage. Nothing. "They're black according to Americans" is the only thing in common between the two.
That is what you are relying on to form a kin based community. That's incredibly stupid.
Race is a worse intertermporal abstraction than even Homo Globo, because at least Globalism promotes a homogeneous culture. Race can't even do that. All your racial collectivism exists to do is allow you to take credit for shit you didn't do, while excusing your own failures for a sense of oppression and victimhood. We wuz kings and shit. It's not good enough. It's not good enough to build a society on. It's not even good enough to build a person on.
Then there's the concept of "feeling kinship", as if families don't have terrible mistrust and conflict with one another. You could only be stupid enough to believe that familial kinship meant anything if you grew up in a sheltered and coddled home, and never experienced anything related to "family court". It turns out, blood isn't thinker than water, and it's damn sure not thicker than money.
That sense of kinship can only exist based on shared values, and amicable relationships. Culture links people. Shared prosperity unites them.
The idiocy of National Socialism destroys both. The Socialist rhetoric inevitably balkanizes people into useful power blocks. A volksgemeinschaft is an a useles term uniting utterly dissimilar people under a racial banner which is defined solely by the leadership of the party and never anyone else under any circumstance.
This is why BLM is a National Socialist organization and it is why they are destroying the lives of Black people, including killing them directly.
There has to be an us and a them.
More idiotic socialism. History is not now, and has never been, a zero sum game.
The opposite is anarchy and moral decay.
Socialism is not the opposite of Socialism. The anarchy and moral decay is the order of Socialism. That can't be fixed with more Socialism. Or even "real" Socialism.
Really? Want to have the real race talk honey? Last I checked you woke pieces of shit have been terrified of any racial realities like the bell curve, global violent crime data, and on and on.
I've never felt bullied. If I've felt anything, it's exile.
Yeah, no. Non-whites have been chimping out for decades. It can be scary, sure, but we've seen plenty of it.
Wanna see something really scary? Crack a history book and see what happens when white people get angry.
In the past, white people got angry and did things in reaction to less than what they put up with today
I remember reading about lynchings a while back, popular cases and whatnot. The largest lynching in America was of Italian mobsters that murdered the beloved police chief and by either corruption or technicality or something had them innocent. The entire white town stormed the jail, dragged them from their cells and lynched the 10 of them in the square.
The rest of American lynchings are largely similar: mob justice when the system was going to let guilty men roam free. It's not great, but it's a far-cry from what I was taught in school where the KKK would lynch some black guy for just walking down the street.
Absolute fucking nonsense, when many lynchings were conducted after convictions of people, when the police literally handed suspects over to the mob. One of the lynchings in The United States of Lyncherdom written by Mark Twain cited a lynching that was stopped by police who mob attackers who stormed a police station when they were told the execution of the convict would take place the next day.
Lynchers are violent savages who are engaging in the highest form of virtue signaling. They do not, never have, and never will, care about the individual case compared to how good it may make them feel or look to tell everyone how they have so much solidarity with an allegedly aggrieved community that they can slaughter people without cause.
This is one of the reasons the 2nd amendment is so important: lynch mobs should be killed on sight by their victims.
But I suppose the failed lynching of Kyle Rittenhouse was just a natural response of a loving community that had seen far too many white people go free from murder, and they didn't want to let yet another white active shooter go; right?
Maybe you're right. This probably falls into "vengeance is for the Lord" territory.
I think I'm just too frustrated with being beaten over the head about how bad America/whites are for lynchings. I see some shrill harpy screeching at people for 'racism' and think "Maybe the old ways weren't so bad".
Well if you'll be conciliatory, so will I, I apologize for being a cunt. It's my default setting on the internet.
The problem with that particular section of history is that the Left occupied that section before they claimed they always stood against it, and it was really right-wing. There is a reason that the absolute pinnacle of early 20th century progressiveness included and avowed white supremacist president. Jim Crow was a Democratic institution that turned the south into a 1 party state.
The reactionaries on the right simply latch onto stuff that's labeled "bad guy" by the Left, and then claim that everyone the Left calls "good guy" are also Leftists. It's a nasty habit that they have to learn to break.
What was evil about lynchings were how they were built into the cultural fabric of the south as a cultural institution in and of itself, rationalized exactly the way you did. But that was done on purpose by the Democrats in order to facilitate a society which used extreme violence as a way to socially order society. Using modern terms, it was a form of anachro-tyranny. It had been a problem for over a century, but the Democrats weaponized it during reconstruction, and given it full government support as they re-conquered the south. But, when it made it's ugly re-appearance on occasion, they couldn't even get a hold of it when they tried. It's very similar to what Democrats & BLM does now.
This was because, prior to the collapse of Democratic control in the South, the culture of the place was built upon the resentment that we see the modern Democratic party spreading everywhere. The Solid South wasn't just prepared to be violent towards blacks, as SupremeReader showed. They were also prepared to be violent towards whites for being northern "yankees" and "carpet baggers" even in the 1960's. So yeah, it wasn't just a simple black-white thing like the Left demands you accept. They demand you accept that, because if you look into the nuance and details, you realize just how fucking culpable they are for the whole thing.
The constant undertone of resentment and hatred was what the Left institutionalized, and it's what they spread everywhere they go because it's a methodology of control. Given the opportunity, they'll do it again, and we're watching it happen. That's why it has to be opposed so fervently. They are re-naming "lynching" into "accountability", and that must be openly resisted or it will start slaughtering people as it did before.
Great read thanks. I feel bad because I checked out completely in school, so my history is fuzzy and only really forming around Wikipedia articles I get interested in.
I've thought and expressed for a while that "cancel culture" is just a social lynching. It's offensive and not part of a society I want to live in. Your example of Kyle Rittenhouse is helpful for me to understand the context/gravity of a real lynching.
Idk if this is cliche but another thing you touched on is how hateful and vile leftists are. As if the spirit animating them IS evil. I might mouth off some ignorant thing or say something uncharitable in frustration, whatever. But I never feel what they're feeling. In their "fight against -isms" they literally want to kill you and torture your family. They cackle and gloat when someone they don't like gets sick or is in pain.
Also they actually first set her on fire but this didn't kill her, and they cut her stomach when she was still alive. She was hanged upside down by her feet, not hanged by her neck. It was way worse then I remembered it.
Ok that's straight up pagan depravity
The largest lynching was of many (exact number unknown) local blacks after one killed a white man, in the early 20th. They included a pregnant woman who complained after her husband was killed, and they hanged and shot up her, then cut off her unborn baby and stomped it, and finally burned her body.
Blacks wouldn't be burning cities every summer if this was our response every time they tried to.
Something something something, the day the Anglo Saxons learned to hate...
That’s so weird how the people she fantasizes about killing thinks she’s being a bully, isn’t it? Silly white people...
What an intensely bitter and hateful person. Her life must be miserable.
This is the kind of person that argues for red flag laws and for your children to be taken away because you raise them Christian LOL.
Correct.
It's very common that people like this are anti-gun, because they are secretly afraid of what they would do themselves.
Physician, heal thyself. Or kill thyself, either one.
I fear for any white patient or student left in her care.
You know, maybe 43% is 43% not because being a 43%er makes you notably more likely to commit suicide compared to other similar disorders, but because if you're a 43%er you're likely also going to seek out "woke" psych help and get people like this woman.
Her head is clearly the wrong size. It either needs a good shrinking, or a sudden, rapid expansion.
she belongs in a padded room.
Funny thing is that she thinks conservatives are psychologically healthier than white liberals because conservatives acknowledge their hate while white liberals deny its existence. If I were a prominent conservative pundit, I would push her as a legitimate progressive. Placed in a position of power, she would actually force white liberals to sacrifice something.
So sick of these morons. She needs to stay in India to avoid pesky white people.
The funny thing is based on her picture if anyone saw her in the street it is very possible they would mistake her for white on first sight.
Really? Uh, nuh.
Everybody is missing the source for all of this at the New York Post. That tells the whole story.
https://nypost.com/2021/06/04/nyc-pyscho-fantasizes-about-shooting-white-people-in-yale-talk/
Here it is revealed that
Every Single Time?
Yes, clearly the racist Indian is actually being hypnotized by the Jews, you fucking retard.
No one is capable of hating white people without the Jews being involved somehow. You've figured it out. Have a sticker.
I know you're so retarded that (((Heinrich Himmler))) would send you to be gassed in the T4, but Bari Weiss (who is often linked here) is the one who publicised it: https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-psychopathic-problem-of-the-white
At least the dean at Yale saw there was a problem instead of applauding her stunning and brave speech.
Another note. Upon re-reading the article, it sounds like she realized what she was doing was wrong, and was taking steps to stop her murderous fantasies (i.e. she stopped watching the news).
You've just arrived in a new town, seeking your fortune, and you need psychotherapy. In this town, there are two psychologists. The first psychologist appears perfectly sane, makes lucid statements, and her office is immaculately clean. The second psychologist is obviously insane, spewing incomprehensible word salad, interspersed by threats of violence. Her office is filthy—giant tumbleweeds of cat hair drift across the floor. Which psychologist do you want to perform your evaluation?
The problem started when people stopped saying this is a white country. It was. there was, of course, the negro, but we all know about that mistake. Then (((someone))) was like: "hey fellow whites, this country was created for everyone, remember?"
I feel like the problem is people failing to realize that racialists like yourself will always seek to destroy the population they claim to protect, in order to promote their own personal vision of what that population should be.
Within the reactionary right are far too many idiots who think that Leftist dogma like racial solidarity, racial socialism, and racial justice will protect them from Leftists. One way or another you'll be the race traitor you claim to oppose because a) you'll side with white Leftists because they are white, b) you'll side with white Leftists because you are a Leftist.
Despite whites being the inventors of, and driving force for, Socialist dominance and popularity all across the world; you still think that creating a "White country" will prevent Leftism. Even white ethno-states like Sweeden, Scotland, and Ireland embrace Leftism willingly, and you still don't get it.
Oh look, here's Gizortnik come to tell us not to look out for our interests in the face of people openly proclaiming their desire to murder us on racial grounds.
I'm here to tell you to stop lying.
You're looking out for your personal interests by advocating for a collectivism where you don't have to do shit, and you get all the reward. No different from what BLM does.
As a white person why should I allow this person to live in my country?
Why should I, as someone who actually values human freedom, allow you to live in mine?
Because valuing human freedom involves allowing people to hold views you disagree with. Now answer my question you vile piece of filth.
Socialism is less of a danger than multi-culturalism. I've looked beyond my interest-group ideology (libertarianism) towards what actually makes societies work. Society exists because people set aside their self interest in favor of building the common infrastructure. Now why would anyone do that? They do that because they feel kinship with other members of their society -- even the least able. They do that because they want to set an example for their children and leave to them a foundation. No one can afford to care for the entire world. There has to be an us and a them. The only tie that successfully binds humans is blood.
Call it socialism if you want. The opposite is anarchy and moral decay.
If you concluded that racialism makes societies work instead of human freedom, you are the highest form of idiot.
Yup, and racialism has proven that that has never done that even once. At no time, in the history of politics and nation-building, has a group of people simply put away all of their differences and lived in harmony because there is some tacit genetic relationship between them and another group of people.
It has never happened. Racialism, being a particularly ignorant strand of progresivisim, affiliates people who are genetically dissimilar, and claims that they are all homogeneous to one degree or another culturally, despite literally millennia of them highly similar genetic groups explicitly creating rival tribes, factions, religions, civilizations, empires, countries, and nations.
You have nothing in common with people you claim to be genetically related to, at the scope you're talking about. In the same way that Wayne Brady has literally nothing in common with Shaka Zulu. Literally nothing. No shared language, no shared values, no shared culture, no shared society, no shared history, no family lineage. Nothing. "They're black according to Americans" is the only thing in common between the two.
That is what you are relying on to form a kin based community. That's incredibly stupid.
Race is a worse intertermporal abstraction than even Homo Globo, because at least Globalism promotes a homogeneous culture. Race can't even do that. All your racial collectivism exists to do is allow you to take credit for shit you didn't do, while excusing your own failures for a sense of oppression and victimhood. We wuz kings and shit. It's not good enough. It's not good enough to build a society on. It's not even good enough to build a person on.
Then there's the concept of "feeling kinship", as if families don't have terrible mistrust and conflict with one another. You could only be stupid enough to believe that familial kinship meant anything if you grew up in a sheltered and coddled home, and never experienced anything related to "family court". It turns out, blood isn't thinker than water, and it's damn sure not thicker than money.
That sense of kinship can only exist based on shared values, and amicable relationships. Culture links people. Shared prosperity unites them.
The idiocy of National Socialism destroys both. The Socialist rhetoric inevitably balkanizes people into useful power blocks. A volksgemeinschaft is an a useles term uniting utterly dissimilar people under a racial banner which is defined solely by the leadership of the party and never anyone else under any circumstance.
This is why BLM is a National Socialist organization and it is why they are destroying the lives of Black people, including killing them directly.
More idiotic socialism. History is not now, and has never been, a zero sum game.
Socialism is not the opposite of Socialism. The anarchy and moral decay is the order of Socialism. That can't be fixed with more Socialism. Or even "real" Socialism.