Intersectional Jewing

jew_tears_intensify

Concerning the jew victim narrative, AKA the jew version of history, which provides the much longer-term foundation for the past century’s jew-defined/jew-driven anti-White “anti-racism” and post-WWII identity politics. The latest twist in the jew narrative concerns intersectionality, which encompasses all the bitter squabbling over rank in the anti-White victim hierarchy. The Occupy Wall Street movement called this hierarchy the progressive stack.

Broadly put, intersectional jewing is what happens when one form of jewing comes into conflict with another. The conflict I focus on here arises mainly out of the clash between two jew narratives: the lie that jews are “white”, and the lie that Whites are evil. There is also a clash between the jew “anti-racism” fraud and the ongoing developments coming out of White science, mostly having to do with genetics and race.

In this podcast I reexamine a number of older topics and connect them with more recent examples.

The intersectional jewing connection first clicked for me while writing about Bret Weinstein at Evergreen. The Tuvel Affair and Trans-Reality are all about the jewing and counter-jewing around sexual degeneracy and transracialism/crypsis.

An early example was discussed in Liberalism as a Suicide Pact, which has to do with the common kikeservative assertion that “muh liberalism/constitution is not a suicide pact” (for the jews) originating from Jackson’s dissent in Terminiello.

The jewsmedia white-washing of the kikeservative Trump administration is discussed in A Tale of Two Steves: Decoding the Ongoing Bannonocaust and Intrigue in Trump’s Palace.

Non-White/anti-White jew double-talk is covered in Jews Debate Whiteness and Jew Identity: Non-White, Anti-White.

Ezra Levant jewsplains the jewing of “hate speech” jewing in Canada.

Lawrence Auster’s The First Law of Jewish Influence.

Alt-jew/JRx: On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction.

Jonathan Haidt at Duke: Two incompatible sacred values in American universities. A description of Haidt’s this-jewing-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-jews shtick:

“When I went to Yale, in 1981, it said above the main gate ‘Lux et Veritas’: Light and Truth. We are here to find truth,” Haidt says as he paces the stage at the Students for Liberty conference in Washington. “This is our heritage all the way back to Aristotle, Plato, Socrates.” But the pursuit of truth is being supplanted by a new mission, he warns, the pursuit of social justice. He paraphrases Marx: “The point is not to understand the world; the point is to change it.”

It’s human nature to make things sacred — people, places, books, ideas, Haidt says. “So what’s sacred at a university?” he asks. “Victims are sacred,” he answers. And a victimhood culture offers only two ways to get prestige: Be a victim, or, if you can’t manage that, stand up for victims. How? “By punishing the hell out of anyone who in any way, shape, or form, even inadvertently, marginalizes a member of a victim class.”

He clicks to reveal a slide titled “The Six Sacred Groups.” “The Big 3″ are Blacks, Women, LGBT. “The Other 3″ are Latinos, Native Americans, Disability. The list of sacred victims, he says, is growing. Among the newly sacrosanct are Muslims, transgender, and Black Lives Matter. “I’m in no way saying these are not victims,” Haidt says. “I’m not dismissing claims of systemic racism. I’m just pointing out that the quasi-religious conflicts we have on campus nowadays tend to revolve around these groups.”

Hysterical Jamie Kirchick’s Dykes vs. Kikes. The official response from the dykes:

Zionism is an inherently white-supremacist ideology. It is based on the premise that Jewish people have a God-given entitlement to the lands of historic Palestine and the surrounding areas. This ideology has been used to justify dozens of laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel, segregated road systems in the West Bank, and forced removal of Palestinian families from their homes in order to make way for Jewish-only housing, among other violent and discriminatory practices. We recognize that Zionism is not synonymous with Judaism, but instead represents an ideology that uses legacies of Jewish struggle to justify violence.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

Jews Debate Whiteness

in_case_of_emergency_jew

Non-White critics of the recent Hollywood remake of Wonder Woman, specifically the casting of former Miss Israel Gal Gadot in the lead role, prompted an argument among jews whether Gadot and jews more generally are “white”.

Nothing about their exchange will surprise regular readers here, but it may help educate Whites who are just beginning to grapple with identity, race, and the jew problem. Under the current anti-White/pro-jew regime most Whites are conditioned to be more comfortable hearing jews complain about “anti-semitism” and their White problem, rather than the other way around. So here you go, this conversation is for you.

If you can look beyond the superficial details – this actress, this movie, in 2017 – what you’ll get here is a glimpse of jewing across space and time. It’s easy to imagine the countless similar debates jews have had in their shtetls and ghettos over the past millenia – though instead of Whiteness at these times and places they would have been arguing about whether or not Babylonianess, Egyptianess, Greekness, Romaness, Spanishness, Russianess, or Germaness was good or bad for the jews.

The links are presented in chronological order. Most of the articles are referring and responding to each other, so the excerpts below capture the most relevant, least redundant portions of the exchange. Even so, it’s a long read. If at any point you get bored or nauseous then by all means skip to the end where I’ll sum up the key points.

The back-and-forth started (seemingly out of the blue) a few months before focusing on and expanding around Gadot.

24 Jan 2017, Dani Ishai Behan, timesofisrael.com: Are Jews A People of Color?:

For as long as we can remember, our people have always occupied a racially “ambiguous” position in North America. Although at first we were considered ‘Asiatics’ alongside other West Asian ethnic groups (leading to numerous attempts at denaturalizing us), lobbying efforts would eventually expand the definition of White to include Middle Easterners and North Africans. However, a political climate has emerged in recent decades wherein our racial status is once again mired in bitterness and uncertainty.

All throughout history, the racial othering of Jews has led to some pretty horrific results, so it is understandable why some would prefer to leave race/ethnicity out of the equation altogether. But at the same time, conceptualizing Jews as either “white” or “just a religion”, as many of our detractors are wont to do, helps to perpetuate a culture of antisemitism on the anti-racist left. That is to say, if we are “just white people with funny hats”, then we are perforce not “really” an oppressed group, thereby enabling anti-racists to retain their credentials without having to listen to Jews or take our concerns seriously. This construct is also inextricably tied up in antisemitic politics, reifying notions of Jewish “privilege” along with the (incorrect) aspersion that Israel’s re-establishment was a “white colonial” project, implying that Ashkenazic Jews (who made up the majority of pre-1948 Zionist olim) are foreign interlopers with no real roots in the region and whose attachment to the land is, at best, inauthentic, inorganic, and exclusively religious in nature.

Another argument that is frequently made is that a large percentage of us have white-ish appearances, but this is fairly common among all Levantine groups, not just Jews. Moreover, fair skinned Latinos, Iranians, Pashtuns, and Native Americans aren’t exactly rare either. This is called “white passing”: the ability to blend in and escape some of the more immediate effects of non-whiteness while still suffering from the marginalization and othering that non-Jewish minorities experience. To put it another way, looking white is not the same as being white.

I’ve heard all of the arguments for Jewish “whiteness”, but I have yet to hear one that is truly convincing.

1 June 2017, Matthew Mueller, comicbook.com, Wonder Woman: There IS A Person Of Color In The Lead Role:

Yep, with a quick google search, it turns out that Gal Gadot is not actually Caucasian, but is in fact Israeli.

Gadot was born in Rosh Ha’ayin, Israel, and served in the Israeli Defense Force for two years before winning Miss Israel in 2004. Yes, she won Miss Israel, but she isn’t a person of color? You get why that doesn’t make sense, right?

Simply put: LOOKING White, doesn’t mean you ARE white

1 June 2017, S.I. Rosenbaum, twitscreech, starts here:

oh my god ok OFFICIAL EXPLANATION OF ASHKENAZI ETHNICITY: 1/????

When modern racial categories were being invented in Europe ~1492, they stuck Ashkenazim and Sephardic Jews in a separate category.>

Up til WW2 Ashkenazim were viewed by whites as a racial category distinct from “white” and “colored.” >

In the U.S, Ashkenazim have been assimilated to some extent to WASP culture and gradually afforded “white” status (on a conditional basis)>

We have many of the privileges of “regular” whites. Probably the best way to think of Ashkenazim in America is “white passing.” >

But even when we’re “not white” we’re not “of color.” We revert to that separate racial category outside the “white/colored” dichotomy. >

2 June 2017, Noah Berlatsky, forward.com, Why Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman Is White / Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman Is White — Let’s Not Pretend Otherwise:

The whiteness of “Wonder Woman” doesn’t seem up for debate. And yet, some have decided to debate it. An argument has been bubbling underground on social media that Gal Gadot, who plays the title role, is actually a person of color. It was aired in full by Matthew Mueller at comicbook.com. “Gal Gadot is not actually Caucasian, but is in fact Israeli,” Mueller announces confidently. He then goes on to chastise POC critics for not recognizing her casting as triumph for diverse representation.

Mueller doesn’t actually have much of an argument. He mentions a Times of Israel blog post which points to the history of Jewish oppression and waffles back and forth on whether Jews might be considered POC. But mostly Mueller just announces “Gadot is Israeli!” like a magician pulling a piece of lint out of a hat and trying to convince you it’s a rabbit.

Mueller can get away with this slapdash approach because race is itself such an incoherent concept. Mueller argues that “Caucasian” equals “white,” as if whiteness is an actual ethnicity or regional background.

But the truth is that whiteness isn’t a biological or historical truth; it’s a fuzzy, culturally determined category that has fluctuated widely over time. At various historical moments and in various places, Irish people, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, and, of course, Jews, have been excluded from the category of “white people.” It may seem ridiculous to say that a nationality like “Israeli” is non-white—but Donald Trump racialized the nationality of Mexicans during the 2016 campaign. Whiteness isn’t a formally defined, logical system. It’s a blunt instrument designed to enable some people to hurt others. As such, it doesn’t have to be particularly elegant or well made.

In this context, the best definition of white people is simply “people who are considered white.”

Perhaps the clearest sign that Gadot is white, though, is Mueller’s own argument. The fact that some groups who were once seen as non-white have become white and successful is a constant talking point for people who don’t want to deal with ongoing racism. Robert Kennedy famously pointed to the success of the Irish to deflect James Baldwin’s criticisms of racism in the United States. The very incoherence of whiteness becomes a way to defend whiteness. “Our ideology makes no sense; therefore we can’t actually be oppressing you” is a ridiculous argument, but a consistently popular one.

Gadot is white. But that’s not to say that Jews face no discrimination. On the contrary, Gadot’s casting illustrates the quieter, ongoing failures of Jewish representation in superhero films. As I’ve discussed here before, Hollywood seems constitutionally incapable of casting a Jewish actor to play a Jewish hero whose Jewishness is narratively acknowledged. Gadot can be Wonder Woman only if she sets aside her Jewishness as a visible identity. Heroism is only available as a reward for assimilation.

The Wonder Woman film challenges the idea that only men can be heroes. But it accepts the conventional wisdom that says that, to be a hero, you must disappear into whiteness. That’s a message that hurts people of color. And it’s a message that ultimately hurts Jews who are not people of color as well.

4 June 2017, Dani Ishai Behan, timesofisrael.com, Yes, Ashkenazi Jews (Including Gal Gadot) Are People of Color:

Jews are a historically persecuted and displaced Middle Eastern ethnicity indigenous to Israel, as well as one of the oldest and most continuous victims of European colonialism. However, the “anti-racist” left is generally hostile to Jews (particularly Ashkenazim aka Jews who wound up in Central and Eastern Europe as a result of colonialism) identifying as Middle Eastern, as a people of color, or even as a minority at all.

Now let us take a look at the history and heritage of Ashkenazi Jews. An indigenous people of the Middle East, Ashkenazi Jews were driven out of their homeland by European (and later Arab) colonists and taken as slaves to Europe where they were consistently regarded as savages, periodically massacred, and excluded from society on the grounds that they are a foreign, non-Christian, and non-European (or in the words of our European oppressors: Oriental/Asiatic) presence on European soil. The above-mentioned race categories created during the Inquisition were really a direct response to the possibility that the Spanish crown hadn’t successfully expelled ALL of the Jews and Moors in their midst. As such, an edict called “limpieza de sangre” (“purity of blood”) was made law, wherein anyone of non-European descent (i.e. Jewish or Arab-Moor) was given the ultimatum of conversion to Christianity or death. And even those Jews who did convert were still viewed with suspicion, and treated as second class.

The acknowledgement that Ashkenazim are non-European/non-white, which really dates all the way back to the pre-Christian era, continued to pervade Western society into the Enlightenment era and beyond. A few choice quotes from some of the more notable European philosophers (as well as some who are less notable) should prove instructive….

Behan here quotes past remarks on the jew problem from several prominent White men, whom he calls “anti-semites” because they recognized jews as alien and/or harmful to their people.

Furthermore, in this new era of political correctness, and with full knowledge that Jews stood much to gain from the Western left’s newfound respect for indigenous rights and protection of disadvantaged minorities, those whose hearts continued to smolder with antisemitism changed course and cast Jews as “white Europeans”, thereby allowing them to continue ostracizing us a backwards, oppressive, powerful, and malignant force.

Back to Rosenbaum, she goes on to assert that Ashkenazim enjoy all of the “regular privileges” white people do, which is false. She is conflating the ability to pass (a common trait for certain POC groups, especially other Middle Easterners – Jews aren’t “special” here) with actually being white, despite her earlier concession that they’re not the same thing.

Granted, some Ashkenazim – as well as some non-Ashkenazim – do have ambiguous or ostensibly “white” facial features, which are mainly the result of Cossack rapes during pogroms, and can therefore camouflage themselves, but a very large number cannot. As can be seen in the link I just posted, many either have a “Jewish” appearance, or a full blown Middle Eastern one. Moreover, having to hide one’s ethnic background just to be treated as a “normal” human being is not privilege, because white people (*actual* white people, not Jews, Arabs, etc) don’t have to do this. They don’t need to change their names, or flatten their noses, or bleach their skin, or straighten their hair, or take their kippahs off, etc. The fact that Ashkenazim, and white passing Jews in general, need to *work* just to be seen as regular people really says it all, and many (if not most) don’t even have the ability to do that. It’s simply not comparable.

More to the point, Jews are perhaps the oldest victims of what has come to be known as Orientalism. From the Greek and Roman colonial era where we were deemed “savages” in need of culture and enlightenment, to the evolution of these views under Christianity, to Enlightenment era Europeans openly declaring that we are Asiatics who are therefore culturally stagnant and incapable of reason, science, or progress, Orientalism has always been the bedrock of European antisemitism.

All in all, we mustn’t make the mistake of assuming Jews enjoy “white privilege” just because our experiences are not symmetrical with those of African-Americans or Hispanics, as to do so would be unreasonable, fallacious, and hypocritical (again, no other ethnic minority is held to this standard). Anti-Jewish racism looks different because the stereotypes are different. In other words, we are not viewed by society as “uneducated thugs”, but as “dishonest”, “conniving”, “clannish”, and “bloodthirsty” mongrels who control everything behind the scenes, and these racist tropes play out in the way we are treated in this country. Moreover, we are frequently profiled at airports, viewed with suspicion when we are too successful, assumed to be in control of the US government, assaulted on the streets, typecast on TV and in movies (barring a number of exceptions) as geeks, criminals, hypochondriacs, and other stereotypes, our scalps are molested for horns by strangers, and so on and so forth.

Inasmuch as a group’s non-whiteness is contingent on their history, experiences, heritage, and relationship with the concept of “white” as defined by its pioneers, Ashkenazim certainly do qualify as a non-white people.

But unlike Rosenbaum, Noah’s arguments invoke – intentionally or otherwise – the very popular antisemitic myth that Gadot (and presumably all Ashkenazim) is an ethnic European, not a Semite/Middle Easterner. And as I previously noted here, being exiled/taken as slaves to Europe and raped during pogroms after our land was taken from us does not make Ashkenazim white, or European. To brazenly conflate any portion of our people with those who tried for so long to erase us is one of the worst insults you could possibly hurl at a Jew. It is literally giving Europeans antisemites the very thing they’ve wanted all along – for us to be whitewashed and ultimately disappear.

That aside, Berlatsky himself doesn’t seem too sure of what whiteness actually is, wildly oscillating back and forth between “it’s all about appearance” and “it’s complicated”. For instance, he initially disputes the idea that whiteness “is an actual ethnicity or regional background”, only to later contradict himself within the same piece by declaring Gadot to be “white” because she is fair skinned and “European” (even though Ashkenazi Jews are not European – see above).

Jews qua Jews (barring white converts like Ivanka Trump, who make up less than 1 percent of the global Jewish population) are people of color, and the fact that this is even controversial at all sheds light on how deeply entrenched antisemitism has become as once again, the Jew is being made the “other of others”.

5 June 2017, Joel Finkelstein, forward.com, /a>Are Gal Gadot And Other Ashkenazi Jews White? The Answer Is Complicated…And Insidious:

So, is Gal Gadot white? Is she North African/Middle Eastern and Israeli and Jewish and European and white? Is she all six of these things? Or perhaps something else? Who decides whether Jews are white, and what forces guides those decisions?

The ambiguity of Jewish ethnicity serves as a perverse weapon in hands hostile to Jewish identity. It leaves Jews historically vulnerable to anti-Semitism from extreme ideologies on both sides of the political spectrum; Jews are at once the ultimate insiders (white) or ultimate outsiders (other).

The authoritarian right, as recent studies suggest (and as any casual trip to 4Chan will confirm), couples Jewish privilege to themes of parasitism and conspiratorial, outside power. Message boards and twitter feeds everywhere on the right confirm the alarming growth of these racialized ideas at disturbing rates in right-wing social media. The authoritarian right, like the Nazis, attack the Jew as the ultimate outsider to the singular cause of ethnic nationality.

On the extreme left, Jews assume the mantle of ultimate insider. Unlike right wing authoritarian anti-Semitism, left wing anti-Semitism asserts Jewish whiteness excludes Jews from being persecuted. In this psychological fantasy, Jews emerge as powerful white insiders: the elite. Under the thin veneer of social justice, this poisonous narrative forcibly decouples Jewish identities and legitimate suffering from the causes of all other oppressed persons of color. For the far left, a Jew is the ultimate white person. Stalinists decried the insider, “corrupt bourgeois nationalists” to target Jews specifically and forcibly send them to Gulags en masse and redistribute their wealth.

Being white is the new version of the insider and outsider game in identity politics.

On the right, whiteness projections transmute to a mirror opposite. The popular alt-right blogger Radix decries “the rise of a hostile Jewish elite,” a privileged other, he admonishes his readers, threatening the purity of white America itself. In light of this, it is clear that being “white” emerges as a central, modern grammar of “othering” in Jewish existence for both poles of the political extremes.

When we believe, as Noah Berlatsky argues, that “being white is really just a matter of what people see you as,” I would respectfully suggest that history and current events should give Jews pause. For the sake of Jewish life everywhere, let’s start by educating ourselves to understand dangerous nuances of whiteness and how it plays so perniciously into an anti-Semitic reality that we internalize when we believe it. Anti-Semitism, from the left and right, is the largest and most systematic global operation of persecution ever launched against a single people.

7 June 2017, Noah Berlatsky, forward.com, Why Do White People Get Mad When They’re Called White? / Why Do White People Get Mad When We Call ‘Wonder Woman’ White?

When I wrote a piece at the Forward pointing out that Gal Gadot is white, I did not expect there to be a backlash. Gadot is, after all, playing a white character; she was clearly cast because people see her as white.

The argument that she was a person of color was transparently made in bad faith; it was meant to distract from actual POC folks asking for better representation. I thought I was making a fairly uncontroversial point.

White people, though, really don’t like to be told that they’re white. The piece prompted a number of rebuttals, including one by Dani Ishai Behan at the Times of Israel and a piece by Joel Finkelstein at the Forward’s contributor’s network.

Finkelstein and Behan, though, barely mention the issue of casting. Instead, they both spiral off to argue that Jews are oppressed. Jews certainly have been oppressed in some times and places. But white Jews are not currently shut out of roles in Hollywood. If someone says, “I cannot get a job because I am discriminated against,” and you respond by saying, with Behan, “well, my ancestors may at one point have been raped by Cossacks,” you’re not participating in a good faith discussion. You’re trying to cloud the issue so you don’t have to face the particular injustice that’s in front of you at the moment.

The move to talk about something else — anything else — is, ironically, typical of the way in which whiteness defends itself when challenged. Finkelstein and Behan insist they are not white. Okay, then. Why then are they so desperately uninterested in the injustices and indignities meted out to people of color? Finkelstein says it is anti-Semitic to advance a narrative that “decouples Jewish identities and legitimate suffering from the causes of all other oppressed persons of color.” But there is not a word in his piece about the causes of those other people of color, even though the conversation was originally about the fact that people of color don’t get represented as heroes in Hollywood. There is an issue facing people of color on the table. When you talk about standing with them in suffering, are you actually standing with them? Or are you standing on their necks?

The history of Jewish oppression should, ideally, be a way for Jews, white or otherwise, to align themselves with marginalized people. The legacy of anti-Semitic caricature, as just one example, should make Jewish people aware of the importance of media representation. Film and television can lead people to hate others, to ignore others, and even to doubt themselves.

Jews who are white have a choice. We can side with the marginalized, noting that Jewish safety in a white society is uncertain, and what is done to others may one day, again, be done to us. Or we can leverage our particular history of past discrimination as a rhetorical weapon against folks who face discrimination now. To do the latter, no matter one’s color or background, is to embrace whiteness.

7 June 2017, Sarah Tuttle-Singer, timesofisrael.com, I am a light-skinned Jew. I am not ‘White’:

I am a light-skinned Jew.

I am not “White.”

Because Jews are a people — in many colors — from deep ebony all the way to alabaster — who can trace their DNA to a little strip of land no bigger than a fingernail.

And we are not “White.”

And just as science and genetics back this up,** historically in America we’ve been treated as non-White.

It’s true — we aren’t discriminated against the same way as People of Color.

And I am NOT comparing our experience to the systemic and systematic discrimination and outright persecution that many people continue to face in America to this day.

And it’s true, we DO enjoy White Privilege to a large extent… that is, until people find out we are Jewish and then that can change in a quick slither across the face — whether it’s a joke about how rich we must be, or a comment about how we must not be “fully Jewish” because we don’t have a big nose or dark hair or horns or some bullshit, or “is it true you drink Christian blood.”

And I am not looking for sympathy or acceptance or recognition — and to be very clear, I DO NOT identify as a person of color nor would I ever compare my experience to the violence and suffering many continue to suffer to this day.

But I am not White.

I am a light-skinned Jew.

And if you negate my family’s experience as non-whites who were treated as non-whites by Whites, if you deny the discrimination and persecution my people have experienced in America over the years — some systemic, some isolated, but all real and pervasive, then you are erasing our history as Jews in America and there’s a word for that: anti-Semitism.

**If you take the ancestry DNA test and you’re Eastern European Jewish, your results will be “ashkenazi Jewish” – NOT Eastern European.

8 June 2017, Avital Norman Nathman, kveller.com, Are Jews White? Here’s My Answer:

To say Judaism is complex, particularly when you place it in the context of history, is an understatement. As a people, we’ve been “othered” for most of our existence. There’s always been a king or führer or government who has seen to that: to remind us that we’re not like the majority, that we’re supposedly less than, different, and separate. This idea has essentially been imprinted into our DNA over the years.

Because others have defined us by our differences, it’s natural that we too—as a people—seek some definition of who exactly we are. This debate has been happening way before Gal Gadot, and I don’t think there’s an end to it in sight. Is Judaism a religion? An ethnicity? A race? All of the above? I understand why we grapple with these questions continuously because they hit at our identity: Who are we? What are we?

So are Jews white? The question in and of itself is super restrictive and exclusionary. We first need to look at the very real fact that Jews of color exist (despite the fact that Judaism in general has a problem with remembering that). Jews of color are people of color. They’ve got it going on double: Judaism and being a visible person of color.

But people like me? I’m white passing. When somebody looks at me—despite my frizzy curls and prominent nose—I’m read as a white woman. I experience and benefit from as much white privilege as the next white woman. This matters when it comes to me walking down the street, in retail situations, or interacting with the police. Sure, my obviously ethnic name might raise a prejudiced flag if I’m applying to a job or something else, and micro-aggressions are real. But in the majority of my day-to-day life living in America? I am white and experience all the benefits that come with it, regardless of my Judaism.

So… I’m white. But yes, I’ve experienced anti-Semitism (that time in high school when my boss called the cash register the “Jewish Piano” was fun). I’ve had the fear in my heart when Jewish Day schools were being targeted with bomb threats since my son attends one. And I won’t even get into the anti-Semitic dreck I’ve been assaulted with on social media. So yes, I can definitely understand the desire to be as far removed from “white” (aka the folks who perpetrate all of this) as possible.

However, I can experience all of that and still benefit from the infrastructure set up by years of white supremacy. White privilege and anti-Semitism can occur simultaneously. Yes, that’s incredibly frustrating, but that’s also reality. One does not negate the other.

Checking off “white” on a census or acknowledging how I benefit from white privilege doesn’t negate or erase the very real way Jews have been (and still are) treated. It does not cover up my ancestry—how my Bubbe survived the Holocaust along with her family while living in the woods of Poland in underground bunkers and in barns; how my grandfather survived a handful of concentration camps before being liberated from Dachau. How both of them witnessed and experienced unimaginable horrors simply for being Jewish. I’m a first generation American Jew that grew up bilingual. I get that for all intents and purposes I am an other, and that my privileges could be snatched away from me under certain set of circumstances.

My history is real. The history of our people is real. But my place—as a white passing woman—in current society is also real. It is up to me to balance the two,to use that privilege and benefits gained by white supremacy to change the current system where people of color are the ones being hurt by systematic racism and oppressive infrastructure. Because when it really comes down to how I identify, the Jew in me realizes that acknowledging my privilege today enables me to take care of those around me, using what I’ve got.

13 June 2017, Tamar Herman, forward.com, What Gadot As ‘Wonder Woman’ Means To This Jewish Woman / The Gal Gadot Representation Conversation We’ve Been Missing:

Gal Gadot is as white, as I am. That level of whiteness is (sometimes) disputed as Ashkenazi Jews have, at least in recent American history, become the Schrodinger’s cat of racism. Which was why when someone erroneously claimed that Gadot is a person of color, it raised a lot of hackles, particularly because Wonder Woman had no lead characters of color.

Gadot isn’t just another white woman on screen, and it’s dismissive to say so. We wouldn’t be having debates about Ashkenazi heritage in 2017 if that were true. Gadot (and myself) are privileged in this day and age based on the color of our skin. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have the result of thousand of years of racism raging through our bloodstreams, and minds, filled with suffering and not being allowed to participate in mainstream society.

For the first time that I can recall, I was watching a visibly Jewish woman, speaking with an accent audibly tinged with Hebrew, aka the sound of Judaism for thousands of years, depicting a warrior who fights not just for herself, but for the greater good. It didn’t matter that Gadot was playing a fictional demigoddess built on Greek mythology. Every time I looked at her, every time she spoke, the thought, “Wonder Woman is Jewish!” raced through my mind.

16 June 2017, Mark Tseng-Putterman & Rebecca Pierce, forward.com, Gal Gadot Is Not White, Say Jews Of Color / What Jews Of Color Hear When You Say Gal Gadot Isn’t White:

Many have argued that while Gadot’s Diana is a strong female character, the film flattens womanhood to white womanhood, mostly showing a white woman moving through a white world and reminding woman of color that victories for white women’s representation often don’t make room for meaningful intersectionality.

This critique, largely put forth by black women, has been dismissed wholesale with claims that Gadot, an Israeli Jew of Ashkenazi heritage, is in fact a woman of color.

However, in the Jewish community, the controversy over Mueller’s article reignited a conversation about Jewish racialization and whiteness. As Jewish people of color working for racial justice and liberation in the United States, Israel, and Palestine, watching this conversation tiptoe around questions of white supremacy while centering the perspectives of white Ashkenazi Jews has moved us to intervene with our own perspectives.

The discourse has been suspect, often conflating race, ethnicity, nationality, and genetics. Besides Mueller’s nonsensical claim that Israeli is a race rather than a nationality (which obscures the oppression of racial minorities in Israel), his uncritical use of the term “Caucasian,” a pseudo-scientific term popularized by 18th century race scientists, sets us up for a conversation dependent on the logics of disproved race science rather than contemporary realities of politics, power, and privilege.

Reactionary pieces in The Times of Israel were not much better. Dani Ishai Behan and Sarah Tuttle-Singer alluded to particular Jewish genetics that prove Jews are a people of color, with Tuttle-Singer writing that “we are not white…science and genetics back this up.” The irony that, in an attempt to brand the “antiracist left” as anti-Semitic, Behan and Tuttle-Singer are parroting the same racial pseudoscience that Nazi Germany used to differentiate Jews from “Aryans,” appears to be lost. The myth that race has a genetic or biological basis was roundly refuted in a necessary Haaretz piece in which Ruth Schuster reminded commentators “there is no gene for ‘race’.”

What is the political impulse behind white Jews refusing to be named as white? Clearly, as the derailment of the original conversation about representation of women of color in film shows, it is not out of political identification with people of color. And while Behan bemoans the “troubled” relationship between the “‘antiracist’ left” (scare quotes his) and the Jewish community, branding those who question Jewish complicity with white supremacy as anti-Semitic make clear he is not interested in engaging racial justice movements in good faith. As with the American Jewish institutions that cut ties with the Movement for Black Lives over the latter’s inclusion of Palestine liberation in its policy platform, the derailment of the conversation about Wonder Woman and POC representation by white Jews reminds us that the antiracist left does not have an anti-Semitism problem so much as many in the Jewish community have an anti-racism problem.

Lastly, as Black and Asian American Jews living and organizing in the United States, we are struck by the utter exclusion of the perspectives of Jewish people of color in the conversation. Despite our active engagement and prior writings on the topic, the discourse surrounding Gadot has been primarily white Ashkenazi Jews talking to one another. We question the centering of white Jews as experts on issues of Jews and race as Jewish people of color who necessarily understand the intersections of anti-Semitism and white supremacy based on lived experience. Meanwhile, the vitriolic response we have received when we have shared our voices — including being likened to Holocaust deniers — reflects the realities of racism within the Jewish community. If white Jews are people of color, what does that make us? The combined exclusion and vitriol directed towards our voices and perspectives reminds us that ironically, there is no room for Jewish people of color within a white Jewish racial frame that casts itself as non-white.

Let me start by pointing out that this neurotic talmudic exchange is a perfect example of two jews having three opinions about what’s best for the jews. It’s a semi-coded argument about Whites and Whiteness, conducted by jews on all sides. Though some dance around it more than others, all of them agree there is a fundamental difference between Whites and jews. They all identify themselves entirely positively as jews, and all regard Whites entirely negatively.

All these jews are perfectly fluent in the thought and language of anti-White “anti-racism”. The debate is more of a collegial intra-tribal conversation. It touches on virtually every Frankfurt School/Critical Theory/identity politics/semitically correct term or idea ever weaponized for use against Whites. Key words: othering, oppression, privilege. Key concepts: us versus them, who/whom.

To put it in something akin to their own terms, what these jews are discussing is intersectional jewing. As I’ve previously noted (here and here) “anti-racist” jewing has metastasized into something so baldly anti-White that it is beginning to blowback and interfere with the jewing of the jews who are still dissimulating as White.

What these jews are disagreeing about here is the narrative, how to jewsplain all this duplicitous jewing in some way that doesn’t place any blame on jews. Their problem lies in the apparent conflict between two big lies they have promoted: the idea that jews are White, and the idea that Whites are privileged and “racist”.

Some jews – like Behan, Mueller, and Tuttle-Singer – are relatively frank in describing Whites as enemies. They see no value in encouraging the conflation of jews with Whites. Other jews – like Berlatsky, Nathman, and Herman – favor maintaining the pretense, arguing that in the balance jews benefit from their transracial fraud. They insist they are “white”, or that goyim mistake them as such, but express no shared interests with Whites. On the whole they are more apt to express sympathy and see common interests with other non-Whites.

It is no surprise that the mixlings – Behan and Tseng-Putterman and Pierce – make the plainest distinction between jews and Whites. They’ve chosen their chosen halves. Nor it is any shock that the most visibly jewy jew – Berlatsky – likes the “jews are white” mask. He appreciates that jews can thus white-wash their jewing.

Of all this intersectional jewing the most emblematic moment was the two “anti-racist” people of discolor oyveying lamely about all the other jews being too “white” and taking the genetic/biological basis of race, and specifically jewry, for granted. Indeed, it is through hybrids that jewry’s virulence is most clearly expressed. The jew oppression narrative mutates and squirts about in awkward ways as the parasite manages various hosts, and crosses over to new ones, all necessitated by its very own zionism-for-me-chaos-for-thee jewaforming activity.

Finally, notice that none of the articles linked above mentions that jews run Hollywood and created the comic genre from which Wonder Woman and many of the more recent popular films derive. Herman’s emoting almost spills the beans. Most goyim don’t realize it, but the comic/Hollywood superhero is a jew metaphor, it’s how jews imagine themselves.

11 June 2017, Nathan Abrams, haaretz.com, The secret Jewish origins of Wonder Woman:

Jews sought invisibility and had to earn their “whiteness.” It was only begrudgingly bestowed upon them when they had assimilated to the point of no longer being perceived as a threat by mainstream society.

But all of this misses the point. Superheroes all have a coded Jewish history, whether they were invented by Jews or not. To paraphrase the great American comedian Lenny Bruce: If you’re a superhero, you’re Jewish even if you’re goyish.

Like all the other jews, Abrams propounds a typical jew version of history, portraying his toxic tribe as having no agency and thus no responsibility for anything even as he describes everything as springing from and revolving around them.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

Fake News, Lethal Narratives

lying_jewsmedia

The ever so subtly amended paragraph from America’s Lethal Politics now reads:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.

What is so special about Giffords? Why is the Jew York Times still promoting an imaginary connection between her shooter and Palin? Can you guess?

In 2011 the shooting of Giffords triggered the jewsmedia to unleash a torrent of vitriol at Palin and her White supporters. Palin called out the dishonest screeching in the jews’ own terms, which triggered the yids to really flip their lids.

In retrospect it wasn’t an isolated incident but a preview of the increasingly open anti-White hostility of the jewed elite, which they later really let hang out during Trump’s selection campaign. The thrust of the jewsmedia narrative, then as now, is that somebody else’s rhetoric is somehow inspiring violence. Of course words can inspire violence. Nobody understands this better than that most privileged tribe, constantly lecturing everybody else about the danger of tribalism, whose own toxic anti-White rhetoric prevails not only in the media but also in academia, the judiciary, and all major political parties.

The furor which erupted from the echo chamber in the wake of James Hodgkinson’s attack is theatre. The fakery extends well beyond a single paragraph, op-ed, publisher, or shooting. The spectacle created by the “left”-posing jewsmedia and the “right”-posing alt-jewsmedia, pointing and sputtering at each other, and especially at their designated kikeservative punching bags, is a deliberate and concerted distraction. The purpose is to keep the goyim on the defensive, scrambling to justify our beliefs, our speech, our guns, our very existence.

What all this jewsmedia screeching serves to do is shift attention away from the harm caused by their own rhetoric, harm so ubiquitous that it goes largely unremarked upon. Consider the disease, corruption, ripoffs, beatings, rapes, murders, bombings, and wars inspired or enabled or justified by the bipartisan anti-White/pro-jew regime’s narrative. Notice that they never take the slightest responsibility for causing any of this harm. They constantly screech as if they are victims not because they are ignorant or insane, but because they know well the harm they’re causing and the response it calls for.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

Niggers and Kikes, United Against Whites

maher_carmichael_lear

Notice all the cucks and niggers pretending to be offended at Bill Maher’s latest act, calling himself a house nigger. Among other things it demonstrates the power of taboos, how simply uttering certain magic words can unleash a torrent of emotion and vitriol, even if much of it is fake.

The nature of this power is revealed in who censures whom. If political correctness is a war on noticing, as Breezy Steve Sailer often notices, then semitical correctness is the war on noticing jewing. Thou shalt not mention jews or their jewing – that’s the One Strange Trick behind the current prevailing structure of taboos.

This tantrum Maher triggered has everything to do with mistaking him for “white”. In reality he’s anti-White. Indeed, he’s a shape-shifting transracialist mischling, a professional celebrity crypto-jew. He’s an actor-provocateur whose career consists of playing the white-faced minstrel, pissing on White norms while tilting impotently against semitical correctness. His job, couched in snark and irony, is to stake out what is or isn’t taboo and for whom, to spell out the unwritten rules by making an example of himself.

It is the pretense that Maher is “white”, an exemplar of “white privilege”, which makes his use of the word nigger “racist”. It is the white-washing of this jew’s jewing which makes it perfectly semitically correct to loath him. To call him out and loath him for being a particularly toxic jew is the exact opposite, perfectly semitically incorrect, six gorillion times worse than saying nigger.

Just prior to hysteria Maher inspired the jewsmedia was busy promoting a positive attitude about niggers saying nigger. The difference is complementary, not contradictory. Whereas Maher’s shtick is aimed at demoralizing the White goyim, The Carmichael Show strikes a defiant tone aimed at emboldening the black goyim.

The jewsmedia’s PR included this helpful little aside:

The use of the word is not unprecedented – see All in the Family. But that aired “before political correctness,” jewsmedia house niggress Loretta Devine said at NBCU Summer Press Day

Yes, see All in the Family, the icebreaker for prime-time anti-White talmudvision. Bill Maher’s jewing pales in comparison to Norman Lear’s. The old kike is jewing away to this day, ever more openly relishing it as he descends into senility. In May Lear invited Jerrod Carmichael on his podcast specifically so they could say nigger together.

Listening in you’ll notice that the real Carmichael, behind the uppity talmudvision nigger act, is a true jewsmedia house nigger. Jewsmedia jews made him, own his black ass, and he’s happy with the arrangement. More to the point, notice that neither Lear nor Carmichael bother to pretend jews are White.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

The Weinstein Problem is Evergreen

two_jews_discuss_anti-racism

It takes an hour of dancing around for these two jews, Rubin and Weinstein, to get across what’s happening at Evergreen State College – that Weinstein has been mistaken for White and thus falsely accused of “racism”, that he is in fact an anti-White jew. In Weinstein’s Wall Street Journal op-ed and short interview with Tucker Carlson he avoids mentioning these particular aspects of his identity, though they are crucial to making sense of the controversy. It is only over the course of the long interview with his tribemate that it emerges Weinstein is only speaking out, and being given sympathetic jewsmedia attention, because he sees himself as a righteous jew and “anti-racist”.

The exchange between Rubin and Weinstein is so long and elaborately coded because they both well understand that bluntly stating what’s going on would give the game away. The name of the game is “anti-racism”, a jew-led and racially-motivated assault on Whites whose scope and harm extends far beyond this recent and relatively minor incident at Evergreen. The “social sciences” departments at universities have for decades effectively served as “anti-racist” weapons labs and proving grounds, where anti-White rhetoric and tactics are developed and tested before being deployed more broadly for use by governments and corporations.

“Anti-racism” is a full-spectrum assault. At one end are jews who openly identify and organize as jews to advance the interests of jews. These jews claim moral authority as an historically marginalized and oppressed minority while barking commands at ostensibly non-jew institutions. On the other end of the spectrum are jews who infiltrate and influence ostensibly non-jew institutions from the inside, where they dissimulate as “white”. These jews claim moral authority as “fellow whites” while shitting on Whites.

There are more jews along the spectrum than at either end – some more pro-jew, others more anti-White. But all their “anti-racism” pushes in the same general direction, faulting Whites for being White while excusing jew jewing. The terminology of semitical correctness is orwellian, the rationale tautological. Opposition to the assault on Whites can by definition only come from “racists”. Noticing that the assault on Whites is led by jews, or that jews network to protect each other from such targeting, is “anti-semitism”. To distinguish Whites from jews is “racist”. To fail to distinguish jews from Whites is “anti-semitism”.

So what’s going on at Evergreen is really just a bit of blowback. “Anti-racism” has always been a mask for anti-Whitism, but its true nature is now becoming more overt. It is starting to materialize as official restrictions and physical attacks on Whites, unabashedly justified as compensation for “White privilege” or “White supremacy”. The attack has progressed to the point that any White in a position of power or privilege who might unapologetically identify as White has already been removed, so now it is starting to redound somewhat onto the army of transracialist jews who have steadily and stealthily taken their place.

The controversy around Evergreen shines a light on the “anti-racism” double-talk. For years, when the “Day of Absence” was a passive-aggressive non-White boycott targeting Whites, Weinstein sympathized. He even thought it wan’t effective enough. Now that the event has metastasized into a thinly-veiled White ban, where anyone with whitish skin is actively harassed, Weinstein is suddenly opposed. His various attempts to explain this change are telling.

Speaking in brief to a general audience Weinstein is dishonest. Put on the spot about his racial motives by Carlson, the otherwise articulate Weinstein “uhh… wells…” his way past it. He’s just “deeply progressive” and “troubled about what this implies about the state of the left”. He specifically blames the Evergreen administration for his troubles, and particularly George Bridges, though he struggles to explain why. Credulous Carlson fails to press Weinstein, all too eager to mistake him as a victim of the “Campus Crazyiness” rather than one of its quite willing and conscious proponents.

In his WSJ op-ed Weinstein is even less forthcoming about his identity and motives. Instead he focuses on channeling Niemöller, painting himself as a canary in the coalmine. Here too Weinstein lays the blame on Bridges, though apparently only for being more committed to the anti-White “anti-racist”/”social justice”/”critical theory” agenda than he is himself.

It is only when speaking at length with Rubin, who cohencidentally happens to be a friend of Weinstein’s brother, that we get a glimpse of Weinstein’s real identity and motive. Early on Rubin asks Weinstein why he changed his position on Evergreen’s anti-White “Day of Absence”, why he is only now speaking out. Weinstein explains, “I’m jewish, and, umm, alarm bells go off when I’m told I’m not supposed to be somewhere”.

Much later in the interview Rubin kids Weinstein about his “deep progressive” shtick and they share a knowing chuckle. Weinstein smirks as he admits he’s an “anti-racist”. He complains there isn’t enough “nuance” in existing narratives, either on campus or in the jewsmedia, wishing he could just say, “oy vey, stop attacking me already, I’m an anti-White jew”, without saying it.

Indeed, Weinstein is “anti-racism” personified, the tip of a gigantic but largely hidden and ever-shifting jew-berg. He’s vilified by anti-White goyim, who actually hate him for behaving like a jew, but who would never dare say so because that would be “anti-semitism”. And he’s lionized by White goyim, who mistake him as a “fellow white”, but who would never dare say so because that would be “racism”. To top it off he paints himself as the victim while he calls for the head of his nominal boss. As he subtly intimates to Rubin, Bridges’ crime is in taking “anti-racism” too far, thus failing to protect jews like himself from the harmful effects of the anti-White war they are waging.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

The Jew Coverup

freud_fraud_anti-white

I stumbled across this coverup of a coverup at Wikipedia. The Freudian Coverup:

The Freudian Cover-up is a theory first popularized by social worker Florence Rush in the 1970s, which asserts that Sigmund Freud intentionally ignored evidence that his patients were victims of sexual abuse.

Early within Freud’s career, he believed that little girls often experienced sexual abuse, since most of his patients were predominantly women and consistently reported childhood instances of sexual molestation. Many of Freud’s patients suffered from a common Victorian diagnosis, hysteria. Since his hysterical patients repeatedly reported sexual abuse, most often naming their fathers as the abusers, Freud drew a causal connection between sexual abuse and neurosis. This became the frame for the seduction theory, in which he pointed to a direct connection between sexual abuse in childhood and adult hysteria. According to Florence Rush, author of The Freudian Cover-up, this repeated and persistent incrimination of fathers by his patients made him uneasy, and led him to abandon the seduction theory.

Freud wasn’t trying to protect fathers, he was protecting his tribe. An Analysis of Freud’s Jewish Identity:

Freud’s early patients were almost exclusively Jewish women, yet there is little mention of this in Freud’s writings. Working with these women, Freud recognized the limitations of electrotherapy, the treatment of choice for mental illnesses such as hysteria, and argued that electrotherapy was successful only because of its suggestive effects rather than because of its actual effect on the nervous system. The missing variable in Freud’s rejection of electrotherapy, as Gilman notes, was the prevailing question in 19th-century medicine: race. Indeed, Freud found, upon his return to Vienna from Paris, that statements about the Jewish predisposition for forms of mental illness were commonplace. In fact, some sought to make a distinction in mental stability between secular and nonsecular Jews. These debates led Freud to abandon the idea of hysteria as an inherited disease with a racial component.

The so-called Freudian coverup happened at about the same time jews generally began abandoning the idea of race and started pushing anti-White “anti-racism” instead, just as an immune response to rampant jewing in Europe, the first truly racially-aware White state, was rising to state power in Germany. What a cohencidence.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

Linder is Right

what_would_breivik_do

Linder Daily Commentary, 2017-05-14:

#HeroDylannRoof

He’s a conscious martyr, similar to #HeroAndersBreivik. He refuses to accede in the diminishing of his own act, in the erasure of its significance. Which is what the court, the psychoanalsyts and his own defense, or some portion of the three, is trying to do. It’s the same thing as that article on the alt-right concerning Nagle’s upcoming book yesterday. The powers that be refuse to acknowledge the data (((their))) horrorshow called society has produced, and, in turn, refuse to admit that an honest, rational man could be driven to kill people to try to change things.

Linder Daily Commentary, 2017-05-15:

Racism: Whites Defending Themselves Is Worst crime of All

Far worst than gang rape, which the anti-White all-jew media call “grooming.” This is Rotherham. You probably remember what went on there. If you’re not noticing that other races are different…and threatening to your own…then you’re well down the road to not defending your own kind, literally your own sons and daughters. And this is a part of what the judeo-Bolshevik scam-conception of ‘racism’ means. If you’re not allowed to observe that X race is different from yours, and actually endangers it, then the flip side of that is you are forced to play make believe. Society becomes a form of charades. As I’ve said, it’s akin to being a kid forced to sing “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” by the madman who highjacked your schoolbus. The jew says: “You can’t call things what they are. That’s hate. And it’s a crime.” You can only call things what we say they are. This all changes when we kill the jews, and that is the only thing that will change anything – violent racial self-defense. It’s already started, it’s just infrequent. Anders Breivik, Dylann Roof and Tim Mair are three who dared defend their kind.

Linder Daily Commentary, 2017-05-19:

What’s the Cutting Edge for the White Movement?

Rallies have grown, and become better coordinated than in years past. That should continue. But ultimately, fine words butter no parsley. Alt-put, unapplied torches save no monuments. I believe the time for violence is here: Anders Breivik fired the starting gun for the Age of Killing the Enemy.

Linder Daily Commentary, 2017-05-22:

Liars Call It Suicide

It is murder by jew. Call it what it is. The libertarians won’t. The Takimag twinks won’t. White Nationalists must. Between 1997 and 2010, for example, the last Labour government allowed a staggering 2.2 million people to settle in this country, the equivalent of two Birminghams. Under David Cameron, the Tories promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands. Yet the latest figures show that annual net migration is about 273,000, roughly a city the size of Hull arriving every year. He observes immigration has always been “immensely unpopular.” Then why are you using the term suicide instead of murder? Someone directs this. Someone the political leaders are afraid of. They’re not really leaders, are they? They’re cucks doing the bidding of a superior force – Soros, Rothschild, et al. The solution is to exterminate jews and all who serve them. And that’s the bottom line. No one can gainsay that argument and conclusion. It is pure White gold truth.

Linder Daily Commentary, 2017-05-23:

The Latest Terror Attack: Manchester

What’s the point? To terrorize people so routinely they give up and accede to a world government in order to end the terror. It says this in the Protocols. The governments letting these ‘people’ in know exactly what will happen. They intend it. They seek an outcome. Until jews are exterminated, there will be more of these attacks. The jewish media are on the same side as the terrorists, and so are the jew-controlled nominally Western governments.

Many Whites are starting to realize that the proper response to the situation we’re confronted with doesn’t involve apologizing or cucking harder. And it’s starting to dawn on others, a bit farther along, that voting and demonstrating harder aren’t viable solutions either.

Thanks Trump!

Alt-jew types grudgingly acknowledge there is a war on “whites”. Alt-right types grudgingly acknowledge the jews are driving it. They’re all basically dragging their feet, looking for a way to avoid putting one and one together, or searching for some alt-answer.

Alex Linder has a singular knack for cutting through the bullshit, identifying the crucial dots, and connecting them – clearly stating the existential threat and the justified response. As he often puts it: WHITE GENOCIDE IS (((THEIR))) PLAN: COUNTER-(((EXTERMINATION))) IS OURS.

If you alt-feel compelled to argue whether every alt-jew is responsible this merely makes you an alt-nazi, your time and energy flowing into the alt-end moderates, gatekeepers, and entryists desire.

As the old saw goes, the beatings will continue until morale improves. The war will remain one-sided until Whites stop deploring those who fight back. The problem is moral fraud, not clarity, too few Linders and Breiviks, not too many.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

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+

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light