Hey, hipster, would you bang ?!!

hipster would you bang

Would you bang her, Hipster Racist ?

This one’s a big time “counter-jihad” Jew. You know, more wars for Israel, murder all the Palestinians, Americans must spill their blood to defend the apartheid regime of Jew bigotry in Zionist-occupied Palestine.

He sees nothing wrong with wealthy Jewish men buying sex from teenage white Christian girls. He’s literally rooting for Epstein, wishing he had escaped:


Last time I pointed out the big time “neo-reactionary” Jim Donald at blog.jim.com. His blog is full of “ephebophiles” and even one frequent commenter called “JewishPedophile.” Also, big supporter of Jews and Israel, almost certainly a Jew himself. Even many of his fellow NRx types have called him out on his border-line promotion of pedophilia. His commenters have nothing negative to say about wealthy Jewish men pimping out white Christian girls – even outright raping them, because they liked it, supposedly.

It just confirms my beliefs. Right-wingers are stupid and evil, and Jews are always anti-White and anti-Christian and anti-European, even when they are posing as “men of the West.” Not a single Jew is expressing any concern for all those raped and extorted “shiska” girls.

“Neo-reactionary” Whites are idiots, utterly suckered into yet another Jew ideology. They won’t even defend their own girls – their own daughters – from Jewish predation.


Source: https://hipsterracist.wordpress.com/2019/07/20/more-right-wing-jews-defending-jeffrey-epstein/

Comment: According to the Christianity of liberal WASPs, there is no meaningful difference between Ostjuden !@#!-ing WASP jailbait and WASP-men !@#!-ing Ostjude jailbait. Defending yourself is evil. Defending your community is evil. Collective interests do not exist. Communities do not exist. Only individuals exist. And all individuals are equal. Hipster Racist does not act according to the presuppositions of his own worldview. His position is self-refuting.


pre proto germanic

Recordings of this interview are currently being studied by the Department of Linguistics, as the language spoken by the subject was later found to match no known language, living or dead. Early indications are that it might be related to pre-Proto-Germanic.


  • The first, and most common, is that SCP-4666 will kill all members of the family save for one child under the age of 8, whom it will abduct. SCP-4666 will inflict incapacitating injuries to family members while they are sleeping, then herd them into a single room of the dwelling where it will proceed to kill them in view of each other. The method of killing varies with the event, and will typically be preceded by some form of torture, which appears to serve a ritualistic purpose (see “Weissnacht Events Log” below).
  • In the second scenario, which has occurred in roughly 15% of known Weissnacht Events, SCP-4666 will not harm the family. Family members will report hearing footsteps inside their dwelling during the night, though no signs of forced entry will be found. In the morning children will discover presents at the foot of their beds; these will consist of toys crudely crafted from the remains of human children (see “SCP-4666-A Instances Log” below).


On 02/01/2018, several SCP-4666-A instances were discovered at a family’s residence in Hoonah, Alaska, following the conclusion of Weissnacht Event #060198. Among these instances was SCP-4666-A-0960, which consisted of a crude, life-sized doll made from the emaciated body of a female child, to which the following modifications had been made:

  • A dress made from various pieces of dirty, discolored clothing had been sewn around the body, and in several places, into the body’s skin.
  • The mouth had been sewn shut with thread made from human tendons, and the lips painted red with a solution consisting primarily of human blood.
  • The fingernails of another child had been glued over the body’s fingernails with pine resin; these had been painted red with the same human blood-based solution. Three of the body’s fingers were missing.
  • The entire scalp had been removed from the head, and the scalp of another child with long, blond hair sewn onto the head in its place. The hair had been tied into two braids.
  • Both eyes had been removed, and two large round pebbles on which eyes had been crudely painted placed into the empty orbits.

Upon examination by the family, the child from whom the doll had been made was found to be still alive, albeit unconscious. Authorities were notified, and the child was airlifted to Bartlett Regional Hospital in Juneau, Alaska, where she survived for 18 hours. Two Foundation agents were dispatched, and were able to interview the subject (see “Interview Log” below). Following the subject’s death, her body was confiscated by the agents, and all witnesses amnesticized as per standard procedure.

DNA testing revealed the subject had been Ekaterina Morozova, age 7, a known abduction victim of SCP-4666 taken from her family’s residence in Dubovka, Russia on 02/01/2016. Autopsy of the subject’s body showed she had been severely malnourished during the two years following her abduction, which had resulted in considerable stunting (weight was only 15 kg, height was only 90 cm). A number of scars and burns were present on her skin, and she had suffered two bone fractures (left tibia and left ulna) that had not been reset and had healed improperly. Hands were heavily callused. Cause of death was attributed to multiple organ failure resulting from severe, sustained malnourishment.

Source: http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-4666



Readers might have noticed that the previous post on Jeffrey Epstein focused almost exclusively on the potential political fallout of new investigations into his numerous dalliances with teenage girls, rather than the “morality” or “legality” of such interactions. Here is why. Firstly, anybody who has read enough human history or studies the world around them understands that human beings, as a species, lack the concept of anything approaching “morality”. Whatever passes as human “morality” is best described as selective hypocrisy towards others while turning a blind eye to their own selves. A good contemporary example of this is people in USA pretending to be outraged by “human rights violations” in China while imprisoning far more people (numbers and percentage) than the later. Or how most Americans pretend that ‘social credit score’ is a bad idea while trying to improve their own private credit scores while also cheering on internet monopolies who sell their personal information to other corporations and government agencies etc.

Similarly, the concept of “legality” is highly dubious. Let us not forget that USA was founded on land stolen from its original inhabitants who were genocided and later built by the institution of race-based slavery. In fact, slaves rather than land or machinery accounted for the largest class of financial assets in pre-1860 USA. Similarly, the systemic theft and genocide of many millions in early 20th century Congo perpetrated by Belgium (under Leopold II) was “legal” as were the various genocides perpetrated by the Turkish (12) and Nazi regimes (34) in the first half of the 20th century. The same can be said about the Late Victorian Holocausts in certain parts of India and Bengal famine of 1943. We should also not forget that overt race-based discrimination was official government policy in USA until the late 1960s and its less obvious manifestations persist to this day. My point being that “legality” is nothing more than whatever the governing system in power chooses to support and enforce.

With that in mind, let us have a look at other aspects of the case against Jeffrey Epstein.

1] Many of you might might have noticed that Epstein is being portrayed as sexual predator of children. But is that correct? Based on what we know about the evidence so far, most of the girls he was involved with were between 15-17. While some might want to see a 15-17 year old girl as a child.. but let us get real.. while girls between 14-17 are not “legally” adults, they are certainly not prepubescent aka children. The medical definition of a child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty. There is a very good reason most if us make the distinction between children and teenagers. Even if we assume that Epstein’s encounters were largely with girls between 14-16, there is no evidence (as of yet) that even one was pre-pubescent or even barely pubescent.

2] So let us talk about how age of consent in USA ended up at 18, and yes.. it does vary a bit across jurisdictions. FYI, it varies even more around the world. One can, however, see a trend where most reasonably well-off and stable countries seems to put it around 16. Note that the age of consent in almost all countries is lower than the age at which people can vote or enter into legal contracts as adults. I am guessing that you are now starting to see why the age of consent became what it is now in USA. While it is easy to argue that, for the vast majority of human history, a girl past menarche was considered a women- there is another way to make a similar argument. It starts by considering human agency aka capacity of a person to make conscious decisions and act in a given environment.

Human agency, however, is not an all or none thing. For example, the vast majority of people do not believe that a 10-year old has the mental maturity to vote in elections or enter into legal contracts on their own. However, the same people will not challenge the agency of that child to make choose their hobbies or which peers they develop friendships with. The question is.. why is that so? One could make the argument that choosing hobbies and friends can often be almost as consequential as voting in elections or entering into some legal contracts. In my opinion, the difference between the two categories of decisions (listed above) is correlated to the ability to understand their impact. A 10-year old can quickly gauge positive and negative effects of having certain hobbies and making certain friends. However, he or she, does not yet have sufficient experience with politics or legal contracts to properly assess benefits and risks of their decisions.

3] And this leads us to the rationalization for Patriarchy aka subjugation of women in agriculture-based societies. Have you ever wondered how a small percentage of rich men justified patriarchy, racism and oligarchical systems of governance? Easy.. they justified everything from patriarchy, racism and socio-economic oligarchy by claiming that certain groups such as women, non-whites and non-rich people were either incomplete humans or non-human and hence lacked capability for full human agency. Claiming that the target of abuse, exploitation, theft etc had reduced or no capacity for personal human agency has always been the most important argument to justify such shitty behavior. Indeed, first and second wave feminism, anti-racist movement, anti-colonial movements and socialism spent much time successfully arguing that the groups they represented were capable of full human agency. So why are modern leftists and the “woke” crowd trying to turn back the clock?

The thing is.. human agency does not follow made-up rules of social conventions or currents norms of “respectability”. For example- a woman is not always going to aim for a respectable guy or girl. Indeed, she may actually prefer the so-called ‘bad boy’ type over the pathetic doormats aka beta. Similarly, one has to factor that a woman may end up having sex with guys for all sorts of “less respectable” reasons such as monetary or career gains or just temporary infatuation. In other words, accepting the fact that women have personal agency means also accepting that they will often willingly act in ways that not “proper”, “nice” or “respectable”. But how does this apply to the Epstein saga?

4] Have you ever considered the possibility that all those teenage girls who were blowing or riding Epstein were fully aware of what they were doing and did so voluntarily? But why would they have sex with a guy old enough to be their father? Well.. maybe they did it for the money. Epstein always paid the girls, he had sex with, quite generously. And this is also true for the non-teenage women who had transactional sex with him. One could go so far as to say that having sex with Epstein opened many opportunities for the women he fucked. By all accounts, his so-called “sex slaves” now have far richer lifestyles than they would otherwise have had. But.. but.. what about “human trafficking”. Well.. it is just the modern version of what used to be called “white slavery” in USA.. an ironic term, if you ask me. Long story short, both terms have nothing to do with helping women and everything to do with maintaining a particular racial hierarchy.

Now tell me.. how was willingly giving BJs to Epstein for lots of money any worse than working at Walmart? How was willingly having sex with him for money more degrading than working at Amazon or a subcontractor for FakeBook and Google? Why was willingly having sex with him for money any more nauseating than being on the staff at the mansion or luxury yacht of some rich asshole? How was sucking of Epstein for decent money more dehumanizing than working at a call center? How was jerking him off any more disgusting than working for internet click-bait mills such as BuzzFeed. In summary, it is clear that the teenage girls in question understood what they were doing for money. I am not saying that they liked it, but they went along anyway- for the money. Most importantly, they were clearly mature enough to understand and demonstrate their personal agency.

And you know something else.. the financial and psychological outcome for Epstein’s “sex slaves” has, so far, been much better than those who enlist in the american armed forces.

Now let’s ponder what Alex Acosta did in the in the Jeffrey Epstein case. He agreed not to prosecute Epstein for crimes committed in Florida that are traditionally state-law crimes (sex with under-aged girls, recruiting them into prostitution, etc), and because Florida already was prosecuting a case against Epstein, prosecuting him again for the same crimes violates the spirit of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, even though I am, of course, aware that the Supreme Court believes in a “dual sovereignty” doctrine in which they consider federal government and the state government to be like different nations. (The op-ed by Edwin Meese III also talks about violating the spirit of Double Jeopardy.)

As Trump said today about Acosta (who resigned, the latest innocent victim of #metoo), “He made a deal that people were happy with, and then 12 years later they’re not happy with it.” Up until this month, the topic of Epstein was mostly relegated to far-right conspiracy theorists. Epstein was a lot friendlier with bigwig Democrats, including Bill Clinton, than he was with any Republicans. (When Epstein knew Trump, Trump was just a rich playboy type who was not associated with the Republican Party or with conservatives in general.)

* * *

Check out this 2016 article at the Daily Mail with paparazzi-type photos of all the beautiful young (but not under the legal age in New York) women going in and out of Epstein’s Upper East Side townhouse mansion.

Apparently, there are a lot of women out there who like having a billionaire (or at least billionaire-like) sugar daddy.

* * *

Here’s the most compelling thing I’ve read (in New York Magazine) hypothesizing that Epstein was running some sort of blackmail scam rather than a real hedge fund.

And this blog post has an interesting conspiracy theory, almost believable. Especially with the warning at the end: “There’s no need to invoke the Mafia/Russia/Mossad/CIA/etc, that’s just needlessly overfitting.”

So people are obsessing about some girls who were sort of like prostitutes, instead of the real victims who are the extremely rich people who Epstein blackmailed. If this theory is true. Girls being prostitutes are a dime-a-dozen, while a blackmail scheme like this is epic, making Epstein the greatest criminal mastermind of the century.

* * *

My dream scenario is that Epstein disappears after he is let out on bail, becoming the worlds’ most wanted fugitive, but releases all of the blackmail he has on the rich and famous and connected in order to punish them for letting this happen to him, and they all go to prison.

But anything that sounds too good to be true probably isn’t true.




Brengt Esperanto geld in het laatje?

Inleiding:  Marc van Oostendorp ken ik uit de Esperanto-beweging.




his website

Ja, ik schrijf altijd van die leuke stukjes over interessant nieuw of minder nieuw neerlandistisch onderzoek, of met observaties over taal, of met milde grapjes over de managementcultuur.

Maar vandaag heb ik geen zin.

Sinds vrijdag ben ik heel bezorgd en heel boos. De idiote aanbevelingen uit het vreselijke rapport Van Rijn lijken nu te worden overgenomen door de minister van wetenschappen, drs. I. van Engelshoven. In een tijd van ongekende welvaart, in een tijd van allerlei oververhitte maatschappelijke discussies waarvan we de aard en structuur nauwelijks begrijpen, in een tijd waarin Nederlandse wetenschappers wereldwijd geprezen worden om de doelmatige manier waarop ze met hun middelen omgaan, in een tijd dat menige collega zich volkomen over de kop werkt, besluit drs. I. van Engelshoven dat het wel genoeg is, met die hele wetenschap.


Al het geld moet naar beta/techniek, want alleen die brengen geld in het laatje. Dat veel rechtschapen onderzoekers in die sector helemaal niet zitten te wachten op geld dat moet komen uit de afbraak van de rest van het gebouw van de wetenschap, doet er niet toe. Dat sommigen onder hen zelfs waarschuwen dat met een dergelijke plotselinge ongeleide groei er allerlei problemen ontstaan in hun eigen discipline – de minister is er doof voor.

Minister drs. I. van Engelshoven, van het D66, de partij die zich graag afficheert als onderwijspartij en die onder andere daarom de stem van veel wetenschappers heeft gekregen. Op advies van een commissie onder leiding van drs. M. van Rijn, van de PvdA, nog zo’n partij die het doet voorkomen het beste voor te hebben met het onderwijs. Onthoud dat alsjeblieft als je de volgende keer moet stemmen. Al weet ik ook niet goed in de handen van welke partij de wetenschap nu wél veilig is.

En wie beschermt ons ondertussen? De Leidse hoogleraar Koreastudies Remco Breuker wees er dit weekeinde op het rapport van Rijn uitlekte op de dag van de eerste grote demonstratie van WOinActie; en de colleges van bestuur van de (meeste) Nederlandse universiteiten waren niet bij die actie en reageerden niet op dat uitlekken. Ze hadden een ‘heidag’.


De Vereniging van Nederlandse Universiteiten (VSNU) heeft als voorzitter drs. P. Duisenberg (VVD) gekozen, die zelf in zijn tijd als Kamerlid al pleitte om geld over te hevelen van andere vakken naar beta/techniek. De VSNU heeft nu weliswaar een keurige verklaring doen uitgaan, maar het is niet zo gek dat individuele wetenschappers niet bruisen van vertrouwen in de Colleges van Bestuur of in de VSNU.

Sommige stemmen beweren dat er 2000 banen van onderzoekers in de alfa/gamma/medische wetenschappen (bien étonnés) zouden verdwijnen als deze plannen doorzetten. Belangrijker nog dan dat: een belangrijk deel van het fundament van Nederland wordt zo weggeslagen.

Bange tijden

Het is het soort maatregel dat je eerder in Hongarije verwacht: weg met de lastpakken. Dit alles overigens met het valse argument dat afgestudeerden in deze disciplines moeilijk een baan zouden vinden. Alsof de universiteit geen intellectueel fundament van de samenleving is, maar een baantjesmachine. Alsof bijvoorbeeld geesteswetenschappers niet altijd een baan vinden (zij het misschien niet altijd een met een dure lease-auto; dát lijkt het werkelijke verschil).

Ik persoonlijk pik het niet meer. Het zou, vind ik, in een tijd van zoveel politiek cynisme en onbenullig materialisme, onverantwoord zijn om te doen alsof alles business as usual is. Het is tijd om in actie te komen. En dat kan altijd alleen maar op 1 manier: door je te organiseren. Ik heb me daarom voorgenomen me inde zetten voor WO in Actie, zo’n beetje de enige hoop in deze bange tijden. (A.s. vrijdag bij de AOb, St Jacobsstraat 22, Utrecht).

Morgen schrijf ik wel weer een vrolijk stukje over een grappig taalverschijnsel, want dat is natuurlijk waar het werkelijk om gaat. Als ik mijn goeie humeur dan weer een beetje terug heb.

Bron: https://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2019/06/geen-zin-in-een-leuk-stukje/