The Tuvel Affair

trust_me_fellow_whites_this_has_nothing_to_do_with_jewing

A major (((identity politics))) hissyfit spilled out of its jewniversity incubator and into the broader jewsmedia limelight over the past month or so. The controversy was triggered by “feminist philosopher” Rebecca Tuvel’s paper, In Defense of Transracialism:

In this article, I argue that considerations that support transgenderism extend to transracialism. Given this parity, since we should accept transgender individuals’ decisions to change sexes, we should also accept transracial individuals’ decisions to change races. I entertain and reject four objections that suggest a society should not accept an individual’s decision to change races.

Wikipedia’s Hypatia transracialism controversy page provides a semitically correct overview of the affair so far, naming the most prominent personalities involved and linking the most significant critiques and articles. My intent is to call attention to the role jews and jewing play in the affair, a crucial aspect which has been effectively ignored and even obscured by all the squid ink.

In this case, as usual, jews are jewing away with impunity. Big-mouthed jews and their toxic ideas dominate the conversation, on all sides, across academia and media as a whole, yet it goes on unrecognized as such. What sets this particular example apart is the issue at the heart of it, so-called transracialism, which helps enable jews to jew with impunity.

Transracialism is really just a new term for an old fraud, commonly known as passing. In the case of jews passing has a long history and is better understood as a form of crypsis.

Goyposing in academia and media today typically involves jews actively posturing as “white” so as to claim the moral authority to say something poisonous to or about “fellow white people”. More generally, the pretense that jews are “white” serves to shift attention and blame for jew over-representation or malfeasance onto Whites, toward whom jews actually feel no loyalty or sympathy. The effect of this white-washing also manifests indirectly in critics – jew or otherwise – who obviously feel freer to criticize jews under the pretext that they’re attacking “whites”.

Every facet of this fraud can be found in the Tuvel affair. Is Tuvel a jew? That’s not clear, and nobody in the jewstream is even asking. Several critics and defenders assert Tuvel is “white”, but there are a few indications that she’s a jew, part-jew, or somehow otherwise connected to jews. For one thing, her surname is suspiciously rare and jewy. For another, she began her argument in favor of transracialism by pointedly referring to the exclusionary attitude of jews, a sore subject for mischlings/mamzers. Here’s how Tuvel put it:

Generally, we treat people wrongly when we block them from assuming the personal identity they wish to assume. For instance, if someone identifies so strongly with the Jewish community that she wishes to become a Jew, it is wrong to block her from taking conversion classes to do so. This example reveals there are at least two components to a successful identity transformation: (1) how a person self-identifies, and (2) whether a given society is willing to recognize an individual’s felt sense of identity by granting her membership in the desired group. For instance, if the rabbi thinks you are not seriously committed to Judaism, she can block you from attempted conversion. Still, the possibility of rejection reveals that, barring strong overriding considerations, transition to a different identity category is often accepted in our society.

Visibly jewy Nora Berenstain has been broadly cited for the earliest, most hysterical response to Tuvel’s argument, though her name is omitted from many such accounts. Berenstain’s Facebook post, since deleted, provides a taste of state-of-the-art semitical correctness promoted in jewed academia:

Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege. In her discussion of “transracialism,” Tuvel doesn’t cite a single woman of color philosopher, nor does she substantively engage with any work by Black women, nor does she cite or engage with the work of any Black trans women who have written on this topic.

Berenstain’s complaint was that Tuvel should have cited more non-Whites and non-men (like Berenstain) specifically because they aren’t White men. This screech was soon echoed in a public condemnation, signed by more than a hundred outraged “scholars” who demanded that the publisher take down Tuvel’s article. To Berenstain’s cry for preferential treatment for non-White non-men they added their own, and specifically faulted Tuvel for mentioning jews jewing openly as jews:

It mischaracterizes various theories and practices relating to religious identity and conversion; for example, the author gives an off-hand example about conversion to Judaism

The initial wave of screeching about Tuvel’s argument triggered an even larger wave of corporate jewsmedia counter-screeching. The back and forth echoes on still. Though plenty of the original screeching was overtly anti-White, the counter-screeching completely ignored this. To the extent any attention was paid to the limited mention of jews, it was only to dismiss it.

In fact, another reason to suspect that Tuvel has some connection to The Tribe is how her critics have chimped out almost entirely over her argument, without calling for personal sanctions, as they normally would for someone who is White. She also has many jew defenders, most of whom don’t even care what her argument is, which is not something they normally do for someone who is White.

“Right”-posing jew Ben Shapiro, for example, blamed “leftist academia” and wrote:

as an Orthodox Jew, I can say that the essay characterizes Judaism’s view of conversion quite properly

Academic insider jew Brian Leiter is a better example. Leiter was among the first and most prominent of the counter-screechers, but studiously avoided the anti-White/pro-jew attitudes of the screechers and instead focused on defending Tuvel from “defamation”:

I confess I’ve never seen anything like this in academic philosophy (admittedly most signatories to the “open letter” are not academic philosophers, but some are). A tenure-track assistant professor submits her article to a journal, it passes peer review, it is published, others take offense, and the Associate Editors of the journal declare that “Clearly, the article should not have been published” and that the abuse to which the author is being subjected is “both predictable and justifiable.”

He filed this claim under “Authoritarianism and Fascism Alerts”. Tellingly, just last December he was mocking White genocide, filed under “Academic Freedom”, hinting that jews like himself define genocide and don’t see themselves as White. More tellingly, in 2010 he wrote a bit he filed under “What is Philosophy?” titled Jewish Poker:

Ephraim Kishon has a story called “Jewish Poker”. Jewish poker is played without cards so all you can do is bluff – and you have to bluff high. I think that this is the secret of Derridean post-modernism as currently practised in U.S. humanities departments: in the end, it’s all competitive hyperbole – who can be more radical?

Someone starts off with a huge unsupported generalization. For example, they write a book saying that the whole of Western thought is under the hegemony (good word) of (say) “logocentrism”, that its genealogy has to be exposed and deconstructed to reveal the Other that it “covers over and disavows”.

That’s a high bid, but you can top that. Why not write a review saying that this is to give “the Other” a “hegemonic status”, that this too needs to be deconstructed and given a genealogy? Say that the re-valuation of values hasn’t been radical enough, that “the Nietzschean trans-valuation is far from being complete: in its second stage, at the threshold of which we find ourselves today, it will necessitate a de-hierarchization of the already inverted values, so that alterity, too, would lose its newly acquired transcendental status, just as sameness and identity did in twentieth-century thought.”

Kishon described the environment not only in philosophy, but in jewed academia more generally. At the time Leiter himself noted that “the philosophy blogosphere worked itself into quite a tizzy over these remarks, no doubt because they hit so close to home”, i.e. because contemporary philosophy is so jewed. Seven years later this is just as relevant to the Tuvel affair, where so much of the screeching is based on the unquestioned premise that philosophy is too White, and none of the counter-screeching tizzy has anything to do with defending Whites.

So what is the fuss? I think I covered the basics well enough in Trans-Reality. The jewed academia/jewsmedia consensus back then was to hail gender-bending Jenner as a brave hero and to mock frizzy-haired Dolezal as a bad joke. The response to Tuvel’s argument about transracialism only hammers home that consensus.

Race is a social construct but transracialism isn’t real, cry the jews pretending to be “white”. “Racism” is prejudice plus power, cry the jews who dominate the anti-White academia and media.

One last example from anti-White jewsmedia jewess Pheobe Maltz Bovy, who literally just wrote a book jewsplaining how jews are “white”, and Whites have privilege, but jews don’t. In this case she wrote to say there’s nothing to see here:

In The Article, Tuvel “suggest[s] that Dolezal offers an important opportunity for us to think seriously about how society should treat individuals who claim a strongly felt sense of identification with a certain race. When confronted with such an individual, how should we respond?”

I’m suggesting, in turn, that we take a step back and ask: Are we, in fact, confronted with such individuals? Because if we’re not (and Tuvel admits as much), then we’re giving rather a lot of weight to the well-being of made-up, thought-experiment-inhabiting people, and putting their feelings above those of people who do in fact exist and do in fact make their wishes known.

Put another way: Transgender is a thing, transracial is not. There are people who suffer tremendously from being assigned a gender at birth that does not match up with who they are. These are real people who really exist. Are there people in the same boat where race is concerned?

Like most of the screechy anti-White elite Bovy regards “transgenderism” as unquestionably natural and normal. Unlike most everyone else Bovy demonstrates how jew-to-”white” transracial goyposing works while claiming it doesn’t exist:

There are certainly cases of racial identity being ambiguous, and yes, racial identity has margins. (Trust me, I’m an otherwise white person not considered white by white supremacists!) That, however, is something else.

With transracial, meanwhile, literally all that’s at play – again, where actual people are concerned – is, there are many black people who find “transracial” to be, well, racist. But there isn’t any competing concern of the transracial community because guess what? There isn’t a transracial community, let alone an oppressed transracial community. So what you’re defending, in effect, when you defend the non-existent transracial community is the right to be gratuitously offensive. Because that’s the demand white people – not all, but lots – are actually making.

“Trust me, fellow white people, transracialism has nothing to do with jews or their jewing. It’s all about whites oppressing blacks.”

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

18 thoughts on “The Tuvel Affair”

  1. Trans-whatever-ism is awesome! Because all categories are mere social constructs, it’s my right to identify as a black lesbian disabled Hispanic Muslim woman, and so help my employer fill its diversity quotas without hiring unproductive chair-warmers.

  2. Last week, on Stormfront Radio, Don Advo mentioned Michael Medved’s new theory: the idea that race is “self-definitional”. (Michael Medved is a Jewish talk show host):

    Yesterday [Michael Medved] was talking about this awful, disgusting, deplorable, Charlottesville rally –a neo-nazi rally. He identified Richard Spencer by name, and said how awful and dangerous and pathetic it was that some White people have bought into this myth, this fake news, this outrageous idea that White people are going to become a minority in this country by way of mixed-race marriage and immigration. He said this is absolutely nonsense, and you have to understand something: race is self-definitional !!!

    Source: Stormfront show – May 16, 2017 Hour 2 (at 6:30)

  3. New jewed anthropology narrative: One race, the migrating mixing European race – welcome home niggers!

  4. In fact, another reason to suspect that Tuvel has some connection to The Tribe is how her critics have chimped out almost entirely over her argument, without calling for personal sanctions, as they normally would for someone who is White. She also has many jew defenders, most of whom don’t even care what her argument is, which is not something they normally do for someone who is White.

    This is how jews Brendan O’Neill and Cathy Young are towards Lauren Southern in this vid. For some odd reason they absolutely adore “alt-right” Lauren. Young even goes so far as to say Southern can’t be jewish because she has blond hair. Oy vey.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GTgazCv9O0

  5. The jewing in the Tuvel Affair is obscured by buckets of academic/feminist/trans squid ink. In the Spencer/Fair Affair the jew-on-White aggression is much more overt, barely sublimated as (((fellow white person))) vs “nazi”.

  6. The lessons of the Rebecca Tuvel witch-hunt | Free speech | Race | USA | spiked:

    The Tuvel affair provides a window into the state of academic and intellectual life today, and it’s not a pretty sight. There are many worrying implications one can draw from this debacle, but I would highlight four points.

    First, the response to Tuvel’s article makes clear that many feminist and pro-trans academics prefer to call out and censor rather than engage with arguments, like Tuvel’s, that might challenge their orthodoxies. Listen to Berenstain’s list of complaints: ‘Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. She uses the term “transgenderism”. She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia”.’

    Berenstain is not debating the substance of Tuvel’s ideas – she is simply declaring that certain words are taboo, and is mad that Tuvel crossed her line by using them. Her criticisms are full of jargon (‘deadnames’, ‘discursive transmisogynistic violence’), deployed to establish her authority as part of the in-group, the self-appointed high priestesses that get to determine what is acceptable. And, like many do today, she equates words with violence, in order to exaggerate the extent of harm caused.

    A typical alt-jewsmedia complaint about jewed academia, couched as a critique of the “liberal-left” (“left-liberal” is a favorite weasel term of fifth columnist “right”-posing jew Auster and his sycophants).

  7. If race is a social construct, doesn’t exist, etc etc then I submit (((they))) are contradicted by the following:

    Morgoth’s Yeshiva mainly thinks the objective is a “police state”. But the stats of 1 dead invader -vs- ~20 dead White females of reproducing age whose lineage has been stubbed out with them tell me it’s a war of RACIAL extinction waged by an illegitimate government which has not only permitted the presence of a growing physical menace but actively encouraged it. UK: over 2 million Third World aliens allowed permanent settlement under Labour Government, 1997-2010.

    QUI FACIT PER ALIUM, FACIT PER SE.

    People on UK forums are asking who to vote for in the General Election 8 June. The expected outcome with Labour is as above, but more; the Conservatives have persistently lied for over 70 years and actively promoted alien racial intrusion, run down British industry, exported jobs overseas and persecuted child abuse whistleblowers, including at least one Metropolitan police officer. And if elected will try and shut down the internet and have full frontal White lockdown. The Lib-Dems and other rag-ends are largely with them. Which leaves UKIP, who have not only appeased Muslims, e.g. regarding halal (see Stoke on Trent elections / Paul Nuttall) but now deselected as candidate Anne Marie Waters even though she’s basically an (((EDL))) affiliate.

    Aside from spoiling the ballot paper, voting for a BNP or NF leftover if present (neither in my constituency) all we have left to hope for is a European sub-nuclear war in which Russia comes off best and creates enough real havoc in UK to encourage locals to finally take the initiative in a scenario where they think they have nothing left to lose.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSETwwfaVFE

  8. 36 Under 36 2017 Media – Yair Rosenberg | Jewish Week:

    Rosenberg partnered with a programmer in San Francisco to create an automated Twitter account called “Imposter Buster” tasked with detecting fake Twitter accounts created to impersonate and defame Jews and other minorities.

    “These tools are universal,” said Rosenberg, who has shared his techniques with Muslim leaders so they can fight Islamophobia online.

    Yair Rosenberg, with some help from Joshua Goldberg and Michael Ron David Kadar, fighting defamation by transracial imposters.

  9. Another Professor, Another Mob:

    If social-justice warriors can come for a man like Bret Weinstein, they can come for anyone.

    . . .

    Because if the mob can come for a man like him, an anti-racist who speaks the language of “consciousness” and “oppression” fluently — because it is his own — it can come for anyone.

    Students demand firing of college professor who objected to event that kicks white people off campus – TheBlaze:

    Weinstein then said that, if he and the students could have a peaceful discussion, they could be successful in steering the college in the direction of their values.

    Another campus identity politics dustup in the jewsmedia limelight, the anti-White animus more overt. The organizers of Evergreen’s “Day of Abscence”, where non-Whites leave campus to demonstrate against Whites, and which has been going on for years, decided that this year they would ban Whites from campus instead.

    Weinstein’s letter wasn’t a defense of White students or Whites generally. He merely objected to the nature of the protest being too obvious. He declared that he personally would not obey the ban while subtly noting his non-White anti-White bona fides. This triggered even more shrill anti-White screeching, and more important, calls for Weinstein’s head.

    Now the national jewsmedia is interested, once again playing up the personal “witch hunt” angle while playing down the pervasive and on-going jew-driven anti-White environment from which it arises.

  10. What Philosophers Must Learn from the Transracialism Meltdown, by Spencer Case, who mostly pretends all the screeching has to do with some failure in logic or the perception of Tuvel as an “accidental subversive”. Then comes this conclusion, seemingly out of the blue:

    In reality, a zealous minority has achieved dominance not through rational suasion, but through what I call “weaponized fragility”. Their claim to be powerless is ironically a real source of power as they go on the offence by taking offense. Philosophers would rather give wide clearance to certain topics than to risk upsetting these very powerful, very vulnerable people. The Hypatia affair is significant because it lays bare the intolerant nature of this kind of activism and the consequences of continually appeasing it. Whether or not this moment represents a turning point depends on whether philosophers are willing to recognize this, rather than treating the so-called “Hypatia affair” as an isolated incident. If philosophers want to reclaim their discipline, then they must reassert their right to ask unwelcome questions.

    Philosopher reassert thyself! Just call them jews. “OY VEY HOLOCAUST SHUT IT DOWN”, they will screech in unison, providing the ultimate lesson in “weaponized fragility”, AKA “going on the offence by taking offense”. Ask an “unwelcome question” about jews or jewing to find out what “a zealous minority has achieved dominance not through rational suasion” means.

    But let’s not kid ourselves. Philosophers and intellectuals, as a class, have consistently failed to defend Whites from the predations of jews, most finding it more personally expedient to collaborate with or pretend they don’t exist. Usually both. Even among the few who do fight the primary instinct is not to simplify and polarize, which would better serve the addled host, but instead to elaborate and objectify, which better serves the parasite.

    Today, of course, of the 80% of philosophers who are supposedly “white” men, many are actually jews. 100% are (((philosophers))). Case, writing at (((Quillette))), is a perfect example.

  11. Here’s a taste of the anti-White/anti-male mindset that dominates contemporary (((philosophy))), and (((academia))) more generally, an attitude the jewsmedia shares and echoes approvingly – until some more or less ambiguous jew gets caught up in it.

    Philosophy is for posh, white boys with trust funds’ – why are there so few women? | Higher Education Network | The Guardian, January 2015:

    Since the blog started, there have been several very public high-profile sexual harassment scandals in philosophy. And there’s now starting to be a backlash against the feminists who have “taken over the profession” and who are now said to wield enormous power to persecute.

    The truth is we’re not running the profession: we’re still down at 17-29%. We’re starting to make some small bits of incremental progress in fighting a problem that’s been going on far too long. This is an enormous source of hope, for me. But it’s far from a complete turnaround. And we have even further to go with other issues. As male as philosophy is, for example, it is far, far whiter – and philosophers are barely beginning to address this problem.

    When I declared that I was going to do a master’s in philosophy my father was pretty horrified. Philosophy is for posh, white boys with trust funds.

    My father’s image of the uselessness of philosophy reflects a wider suspicion outside (and even inside) academia that it’s merely a relic of the past, languishing in the shadows of science.

    In some sense my father is right: pursuing an academic career in philosophy is rather cavalier, for there’s no guarantee of a job at the end of many years of study. I suspect this may explain why ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the discipline. Add to this philosophy’s eye-blinding whiteness and it is easy to see the lack of appeal.

  12. The jewed elite LOVE “transgenderism” but HATE transracialism. Why? Tuvel’s argument is that the two are logically similar and should both be regarded as true. Case argues that the “zealous minority” screeches because they fear Tuvel’s argument opens the door to an argument that trans-whatever is false.

    My argument is that the jewed elite are inverting reality to serve their own ends. Gender is so clearly and deeply biologically ingrained that outside rare genetic dysfunctions “transgenderism” is nothing more than mental dysfunction, given Frankenstein-like substance only by means of jewed elite propaganda, pharmacology, and surgery. Transracialism, on the other hand, is typified not by Dolezal-like dysfunction (as Bovy pretends), but by the perfectly functional furtive parasitic behavior of the jews of the jewed elite itself (as Bovy exemplifies). Transracial crypsis/passing of the jew-to-”white” sort explains the strident anti-White racial animus of the supposedly “white” elite, as well as their desire to stymie any perception of their fraud as such.

  13. Jonanthan Haidt, a “product of assimilated jews”, jewsplains The blasphemy case against Bret Weinstein, and its four lessons for professors.

    Just more squid ink. Haidt doesn’t even try to explain why counter-screechers (like himself) only express concern for the (((individual liberals))) (like himself) caught up in “witch hunts”, but don’t oppose the ubiquitous anti-White screeching of the regime as a whole.

    The term “witch hunt” is characteristically used by counter-screechers, falsely implying that the anti-White screeching reflects a White puritan mentality rather than a jew jewing mentality. Toxic jewsmedia jew Jesse Singal used the term early in the Tuvel Affair.

  14. Radical Canadian bill could mean jail for rejecting transgenderism: critics:

    [Jordan Peterson] said what’s happening around Bill C-16 is an extension of the “ideological war” that’s been “ripping” campus apart. He described as a battle between modernism and an “ideological variant that is rooted in what is known as post-modernism, with a neo-Marxist base.”

    You could just call them jews, but that’s already illegal in the bagel republic of Canada. What’s happening is an extension of existing laws prohibiting “hate speech” and “holocaust denial”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>