Don Adrian

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

@LiseSorensen_ Jeg vedder på at det å få halsen skåret opp og øynene revet ut føles akkurat som å høre, checkes notes, hatefulle ytringer.

[ShitpostGateway @ShitpostGate]

Counter point

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

@AuronMacintyre No, it’s just a government gay that likes fingering black guy ass.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Trois intellectuels qui, dans les années 60, pondent des livres illisibles au fond d'amphis parisiens. Aucun n'a jamais tenu une arme. Aucun n'a jamais entendu parler de Southampton.

Et pourtant, soixante ans plus tard, c'est leur idée qui tient la main qui menotte Henry Nowak, 18 ans, pendant qu'il se vide de son sang.

Comment passe-t-on de l'un à l'autre? Il n'y a pas de hasard. Il y a une ligne droite. Je vais vous la dérouler, maillon par maillon.

Premier maillon. Ces philosophes lâchent une idée d'apparence inoffensive: la vérité ne serait jamais neutre, ce serait toujours une construction du pouvoir. Donc on pourrait, et on devrait, se méfier des faits eux-mêmes. Ils n'ont pas voulu ce qui allait suivre. Mais ils ont armé un mécanisme: le soupçon généralisé envers le réel.

Deuxième maillon. Cette idée traverse l'Atlantique et mute dans les universités américaines. Elle rencontre une impulsion noble, la repentance, reconnaître des injustices historiques réelles. Et elle la transforme en tout autre chose: une hiérarchie morale permanente. Des groupes classés selon leur degré supposé de victimité. Oppresseurs d'un côté, opprimés de l'autre. Pour toujours.

Troisième maillon, et c'est là que tout bascule. Une fois qu'on classe les gens par groupe, on cesse de les juger par leurs actes. On les juge par leur catégorie. La crédibilité n'est plus méritée, elle est assignée d'avance.

Quatrième maillon. Black Lives Matter en fut l'apogée liturgique. « I can't breathe » devient une formule sacrée. La règle implicite: croire d'office la victime désignée, soupçonner d'office l'oppresseur désigné. Avant les faits. À la place des faits.

Comprenez bien ce qu'on installe là. Pas une opinion. Un réflexe. Un automatisme cognitif gravé dans des institutions entières: l'accusation venue de la « bonne » catégorie l'emporte sur ce que vous voyez de vos propres yeux.

Et un réflexe, on sait ce que ça fait à des hommes ordinaires.

Je me suis longtemps passionné pour la psychologie, et une période m'obsède: l'après-guerre. Le moment où des chercheurs se sont posé la question la plus dérangeante du siècle. Comment l'Allemagne nazie avait-elle transformé des pères de famille ordinaires en bourreaux de camp?

La réponse, ils ne l'ont pas trouvée chez des monstres. Ils l'ont trouvée chez des hommes parfaitement banals.

Hannah Arendt a appelé ça la banalité du mal. L'historien Christopher Browning, en étudiant le bataillon de réserve 101 (des policiers d'âge mûr, des pères, des commerçants), a montré que ce ne sont pas des fanatiques qui ont fusillé des civils, mais des hommes normaux incapables de désobéir au cadre dominant.

Puis vint Milgram. À Yale, environ deux tiers de gens ordinaires ont infligé ce qu'ils croyaient être des décharges mortelles, simplement parce qu'une autorité le leur ordonnait. L'expérience de la prison de Stanford a montré la même chose sous un autre angle: donnez à quelqu'un un rôle et un cadre, et il s'y conformera jusqu'à l'inhumain.

La leçon n'est pas allemande. Elle est humaine. Le mécanisme s'active dès qu'un cadre moral dominant fait craindre la sanction sociale plus que ne compte le témoignage de ses propres yeux. L'individu cesse de voir ce qu'il voit. Il voit ce que le cadre l'autorise à voir.

Maintenant, rejouez la scène de Southampton au ralenti.

Henry Nowak, 18 ans, poignardé, allongé au sol, répète aux policiers « j'ai été poignardé », « je ne peux plus respirer ».

Réponse de l'officier: « I don't think you have, mate. »

Pendant ce temps, son meurtrier retourne la situation d'une phrase: il aurait été victime d'une agression raciste, on lui aurait arraché son turban. L'officier n'a pas vu Henry. Il a vu deux catégories. D'un côté, un homme qui dégaine le script de l'agression raciste, crédible par défaut. De l'autre, un jeune homme blanc à terre, sans grief à brandir, sans formule sacrée à réciter, suspect par défaut.

Le cadre a choisi à sa place. Il n'a même pas eu à réfléchir. C'est ça, le conditionnement: la pensée a déjà eu lieu, avant lui. Exactement le mécanisme de Milgram, de Browning. Un homme normal qui cesse de croire ses propres yeux parce qu'un cadre moral lui a appris ce qu'il devait craindre.

René Girard avait tout décrit. Le coupable détourne sa faute en désignant un bouc émissaire, et le système l'accepte d'autant plus volontiers qu'il colle au rôle attendu. Henry n'a pas été cru parce qu'il ne pouvait pas jouer la victime. Sa catégorie le lui interdisait.

Souvenez-vous. Le monde entier s'est agenouillé pour quatre mots, « I can't breathe ». Des entreprises, des gouvernements, des stades entiers. Henry a prononcé exactement les mêmes mots, en train de mourir. Il n'y aura ni genou à terre, ni hashtag, ni minute de silence. Parce que sa mort ne sert pas le cadre. Elle le contredit.

Voilà l'inversion finale, et la plus monstrueuse. Une idéologie née en promettant de protéger les vulnérables a fini par apprendre à des hommes à ignorer la personne la plus vulnérable de la pièce, celle qui agonise, parce que sa catégorie n'était pas la bonne.

Et le vrai piège, c'est de croire que l'erreur aurait été de choisir le mauvais camp. Non. L'erreur, c'est de choisir des camps. De voir des catégories là où il y a un être humain qui saigne devant soi.

De Foucault à Southampton, voilà la ligne droite. Soixante ans pour qu'une idée abstraite apprenne à un homme à ne plus voir un enfant mourir sous ses yeux.

Henry Nowak n'avait rien demandé. Il demandait juste qu'on le voie.

Personne ne l'a vu.

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

Get the fuck outa here with this bullshit.
None of them were ever sorry about what that piece of shit did right before Christmas.

[SikhPressAssociation @SikhPA]

* Digwa family statement *

"We are deeply sorry...we would give anything to turn back time"

A statement from the Digwa family has been released regarding the tragic murder of Henry Nowak.

[John Carter @martianwyrdlord]

Regimists use accountability diffusion as their primary tactic for avoiding personal responsibility. No one person is entirely responsible, therefore no one is responsible at all. By this means they collaborate to commit shocking crimes, and get away with it. Lessons learned, thoughts and prayers, don't look back in anger, etc.

Take the rape gangs. These continued for decades, and continue to this day, because regimists ran cover in the media, shushed people for racism, generated fake studies demonstrating that white men are the real problem, arrested fathers for trying to intervene when the police wouldn't, looked the other way when little girls showed up with horrifying injuries, averted their eyes when foreign sexual predators lurked around school grounds, and on and on. For the rape gangs to do what they did, many thousands of people had to commit many thousands of acts of willful blindness and deliberate obfuscation.

Were those acts as bad as shoving a broken bottle of Jack Daniels up an eleven year old's vagina as she lay there in a heroin haze?

Most people would say no, they aren't AS bad, the rapists are much worse.

But they are every bit as bad, because they make it possible for the rape gangs to operate in the first place.

The correct response to this is to hold every single authority figure involved accountable, to the same degree as if they personally had raped little girls.

It's the same with Nowak.

The officers responding had been trained in a police culture that prioritized "anti-racism" to such a degree that they were primed to automatically believe a brown man's accusations of racism over his dying victim's pleas. They're responsible, yes, but so is every officer in the department, especially including the senior constables who fostered this culture of anti-white contempt with "race action plans" and DEI training and all the rest of it.

Every single one of them is guilty of murder.

Just as every single person who has worked for the British state at any point in the last thirty years is guilty of raping little girls.

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

Novak: “I’ve been stabbed”

Lady officer: “Oh no but we have to check don’t we”

Bodycam officer: ”No”

That retard should dig in trashcans for food for the rest of his life.
Right after spending 12 years in prison for gross negligence manslaughter.

[Europa.com @europa]

🇬🇧 Bodycam footage has been released showing Henry Nowak begging for an ambulance before being handcuffed behind his back.

Nowak: "I've been stabbed"

Officer: "I don't think you have mate"

Follow: @europa

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

I really hope they get the Colombian cartel treatment. Anything else would be an unjust outcome.

[Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧 @TRobinsonNewEra]

A gang of five invaders abducted a foreign tourist before subjecting her to 72-hours of violent gang rape in Italy.

The Colombian woman had arrived in Rome on May 9, before going for dinner alone near the city's Termini Station just ten days later.

She was taken by the invaders to an abandoned building, occupied by at least 22 illegal migrants, on Via Cesare Tallone, in Tor Cervara, on the eastern outskirts of the capital.

The victim was held captive in the complex for 72 hours, where she was forced to endure several gang rapes by five men who drugged her and threatened to kill her!

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

Anita Sarkeesian is the jews of the gaming industry.

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

@UriksFredrik @MagnusNebdal @haarvig Dårlig eksempel. Journalister lever ikke i den virkelige verden slik leger gjør; de lever i ordverdenen, hvor virkeligheten deres blir påvirket av måten de vinkler en historie på.

[Dave Greene @GreeneMan6]

We keep on encountering the same problem as we did in the video games discourse.

Humans have a built in psychological understanding of the difference between excess money and time when it’s possessed either by men or women.

“Girl dollars” and “Girl Leisure Time” are usually meant (almost) exclusively for self-care. After basic needs are met, any requirement that a girl’s wealth be used for anything she doesn’t “want” is treated as an external imposition.

“Boy Dollars” and “Boy Leisure Time” are meant first and foremost for security. After basic needs are met, Men must use their excess wealth to build a future for their kith and kin and mold the world in some way. Certainly, the man is allowed leeway to pursue crackpot ideas and passion projects. But these projects have to be part of a “plan” for the future. Only after this plan is secured can men pursue pure indulgences (like video games).

But this logic goes out the window under modern circumstances.

On its face, it is insane that a husband making 250k not cover his wife’s 90k debt. Failure to do so is NOT making a plan for his future family. Fertile marriages have to operate under the assumption that the woman will be pregnant tomorrow. That’s a multi-year obligation with more than a 90k opportunity cost for the woman. Letting the family sit in bad debt to make some kind of “point” is the picture of male tyranny. No responsible father would give his daughter to a man who thinks like that.

But looking at the things the other way, without the traditional assumptions of marriage, it’s insane that this guy pay the girl’s debt.

Here, we have to talk about the “girl plan”. Since the 90s, our society has deemed it necessary to ensure that average single women be on a track to have the same standard of living as women married to high-earning men. As such, there are entire educational and employment systems used to create a track for women to earn very high salaries by working on things they otherwise think are “validating” and avoiding things they consider arduous. Moreover, since most young women plan to marry a man who can provide future political and economic stability with his “boy dollars” and “boy leisure time”, the money she earns are “girl dollars” for “girl leisure time” naturally earmarked for “self-care”.

Thus occurs a situation I have seen many times. Guy grinds into lucrative but dull professional, pays debt, works long hours. Woman follows passion uses money for self-care. Boy meets girl, girl wants boy to pay, wonders why he is not following a passion to change the world like she is.

Now ideally, guy does pay, guy fulfills passionate desire to conquer the world and forge a future for his family in whatever spare time he has left after 50-60 hours of work.

However, in no way is this system we have built in the name of fairness “fair”. Sure, you can pay your wife’s 90k student debt. But is there any understanding that the next 90k of opportunity-work she has will be spent on making a family rather than just more “self care”? After all, her time now equates to “girl dollars” which are implicitly earmarked for “self care”, taking that away is “oppressive”.

Moreover, due to the political climate, I have seen ridiculous situations. Man goes and works long hours to compete with women and immigrants, then pays half his paycheck for his wife’s degree in “Women and immigrant empowerment studies”, spends his time worrying about how his son won’t be dispossessed by immigrants while his wife uses money she earned as the company’s “Immigrant empowerment officer” on self-care.

The situation is insane. It’s like we have decided that for every pump filling up the reservoir there needs to be an equal and opposite pump draining it. Then we wonder why the reservoir is always dry.

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

@micsolana You instinct is blue because that’s the world you want to live in. Civilized, clean and predictable. And you know that the others will do the same.
Then you remember you live in a different world, dirty, uncivilized even, and chose red hoping they don’t understand the question.

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

@NihilNothings That’s because STEM kids have to live in reality while theater kids live in a makeshift world.
Were communism or socialism to work it would have by now. It was tried by many different peoples far smarter than theater kids. And they were wrong.

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

There are two neurochemicals that feel good.

Dopamine, which mediates pleasure. And serotonin, which mediates happiness.

Anyone who confuses the two, as we see in the comic below, puts his mind, body, and spirit in grave danger.

Pleasure, unlike happiness, is not sustained. It exists only at the moment that an external, pleasurable stimulus is applied to your nervous system.

Eating cake stops feeling good the moment you stop eating cake. If you want to keep feeling good, you have to eat more cake.

And, for neurochemical reasons I won't get into, the second slice of cake never tastes as good as the first.

So pretty soon, you're fat, and you're not even enjoying your cake all that much.

Happiness, however comes from your internal state. The two most important kinds of happiness are a feeling of accomplishment, and a feeling of connection to other people.

Lifting weights can sometimes feel good, if you're young and healthy and feeling particularly energetic, but it usually doesn't. Quite frequently, at the moment, it sucks.

But if you can bend down, grab 525 pounds that's sitting on the floor, and stand up with it, you accomplished something. And the knowledge that you did that never entirely leaves you. It is a source of happiness, knowing that you did the thing.

Serotonin, for other neurochemical reasons I won't get into, doesn't produce a diminished response. You cannot overdose on happiness and become insensitive to it.

Diana, the video game character, is indeed designed entirely to make the player feel good. You're supposed to protect, care for, and teach her. And this is supposed to give you feelings of connection and accomplishment.

That's happiness.

But people who weren't properly loved as children (perverts), or who haven't accomplished anything in life (socialists), or both (Marxists), often haven't felt that much happiness, and haven't learned how to get it.

When they look at this child character, they realize she is supposed to make them feel good, but the only way of feeling good that they understand is pleasure. Not happiness.

And most basic way you get pleasure from another human being is sex.

This is why they have trouble NOT sexualizing any positive interaction. They call any positive regard for another human being "dick-riding", or other sexualized terms. Any friendship between two men is a "bro-mance" to them.

Human interactions are not inherently enjoyable to them, and so they analyze every relationship for dopamine potential. Can I use this person to score drugs? Can I have sex with them? Will they agree with me, praise me, or validate my opinions? Can I get money from them that I can use to get drugs or sex?

What these people need explained to them is that this interaction is supposed to feel good to you without involving your penis in any way.

And if it doesn't, if it doesn't even make sense to you, then your parents failed you. And you have our sympathy for that, but it isn't our fault, and we're not going to stop being happy for your sake.

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

Never let a good crisis go to waste - Winston Churchill

[Rebecca Mistereggen @RMistereggen]

«Vi bygget opp Norge etter terroren» – Hvem tror Jonas Gahr Støre han er?

I dag flyttet statsministeren inn i det nye regjeringskvartalet og brukte anledningen til å sidestille 22. juli og andre verdenskrig. Et bygg som har tatt 15 år å bygge, på et hinsides budsjett, hvor politikere får tilgang til ting de nekter innbyggerne; parkeringsplasser og sikkerhet. «gjenoppbygging etter krigen», du, det høres vakkert ut. Problemet er bare at virkeligheten 15 år senere ikke matcher retorikken.

«Vi bygget opp Norge etter krigen. Nå har vi bygget opp Norge etter terroren», nøyaktig hva har du bygget opp, Jonas? Jeg har lett med lykt og lupe, uten suksess. Med mindre jeg snur på det da, så klart: Dere har bygget opp volden, voldtektene og gjort Norge mer utrygt. Dere har bygget opp eksporten av strømmen vi trenger her hjemme. Dere har bygget opp miljøødeleggelser med vindkraft, og økt tallene for døde fugler. Dere har økt polariseringen ved å slå alle som er uenig med dere i hartkorn med en massemorder, selv når man siterer statistikk fra politiet eller SSB. Dere har økt innvandringen, dere har økt misbruket av velferdsstaten, dere har økt matkøene hos frivillige organisasjoner. Dere har økt terskelen for å klare seg selv. Så vidt meg bekjent har også PSTs avverget flere terrorangrep.

Jonas, du fremstår som en mann som fortsatt lever i 2011-narrativet. Og da er jeg hyggelig. Du snakker om gjenoppbygging som om det eneste som truer Norge er «hat» fra innenlandske ekstremister. Men den største utfordringen for den norske modellen i dag er ikke Breivik-kloner, det er en innvandringspolitikk som har skapt nye spenninger, redusert tillit og satt velferdsstatens under press, så vel som å ha importert konflikter som ikke hører hjemme i Norge.

Norge er fortsatt rikt takket være olje, institusjoner og historisk homogenitet, men tilliten som etterkrigsgenerasjonen bygget er ikke uendelig. Den krever vedlikehold gjennom ærlig politikk om integrering, grenser, kriminalitet og verdier. Du har sørget for det motsatte.

Å bruke 22. juli som et evig moralsk skjold mens man ignorerer dagens statistikk, bidrar ikke til gjenoppbygging. Tvert om.

Vi trenger ikke mer symbolsk «gjenoppbygging». Vi trenger en ærlig erkjennelse av hva som faktisk har endret seg i Norge de siste 15 årene, og ikke minst politikk som setter vanlige nordmenns trygghet og fellesskap først.

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

@benjabrin I really think this has something to do with the decision.

[Zack Kanter @zackkanter]

One huge drawback of nuclear power is that it doesn’t dismantle systems of oppression - it only produces clean energy. This makes it unsuitable for solving the climate crisis, which isn’t just about the environment. https://t.co/tkgWSCWbQK

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

If your value system is incompatible with the place you immigrate to, you either change or you leave.

-end

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

The idea that you could emigrate to another country and not try to adhere to it's customs, social norms, or be a part of the community that took you in, is a retarded idea. One that, dare I say, only an idiot academic could think of.

1/6

[Shadi Hamid @shadihamid]

My new @washingtonpost column:

Why do Muslims need to be like everyone else? A case against assimilation.

https://t.co/XreIcwhW5y

[Don Adrian @dadrianon]

You do not get to impose your religious, moral, or cultural values on the native culture. You don't get to form separate societies and assert influence in order to promote your own interests to the detriment of others. You don't have that right.

5/6