All posts by Tanstaafl

Blog

Ron Unz on Jewing

59 Comments

itz_cominSome highlights from Ron Unz’s long article, American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion:

To put it bluntly, Jews have divine souls and goyim do not, being merely beasts in the shape of men. Indeed, the primary reason for the existence of non-Jews is to serve as the slaves of Jews, with some very high-ranking rabbis occasionally stating this well-known fact. In 2010, Israel’s top Sephardic rabbi used his weekly sermon to declare that the only reason for the existence of non-Jews is to serve Jews and do work for them. The enslavement or extermination of all non-Jews seems an ultimate implied goal of the religion.

Jewish lives have infinite value, and non-Jewish ones none at all, which has obvious policy implications. For example, in a published article a prominent Israeli rabbi explained that if a Jew needed a liver, it would be perfectly fine, and indeed obligatory, to kill an innocent Gentile and take his. Perhaps we should not be too surprised that today Israel is widely regarded as one of the world centers of organ-trafficking.

If the Gentile population became aware of these Jewish religious beliefs and the behaviors they promote, major problems for Jews might develop, so an elaborate methodology of subterfuge, concealment, and dissimulation has come into being over the many centuries to minimize this possibility, especially including the mistranslation of sacred texts or the complete exclusion of crucial sections. Meanwhile, the traditional penalty for any Jew who “informs” to the authorities on any matter regarding the Jewish community has always been death, often preceded by hideous torture.

In 2009, Gene Expression blogger Razib Khan interviewed eminent evolutionary theorist David Sloan Wilson on the group selection ideas that have been his major focus. During this hour-long discussion, the theories of MacDonald became a major topic, with Wilson seeming to take them quite seriously, and pointing out that within the scientific framework “parasitism” has a simple technical definition, namely the exploitation of the large by the small. Unsurprisingly, the video record of such extremely touchy subject matter was quickly truncated to just the first 11 minutes, and eventually completely removed from both YouTube and BloggingHeadsTV. But it still at least partially survives in archived form

Unz maybe forgot to enable Javascript while looking at that BH page. The mp3 is 404, but the complete video is still there. I’ve put the 11 minute archive.org excerpt, which is the most critical part of the conversation, on TFeed.

In recent years, the history of Jewish expulsions from various European societies over the last thousand years has received considerable attention. The total number is somewhat disputed but almost certainly in excess of 100, with the 1930s policies of Hitler’s Germany being merely the most recent example, and Wired Magazine provided an interesting graphical presentation of this large dataset in 2013. Given these unfortunate facts, it may be difficult to point to any other group so consistently at bitter odds with its local neighbors

Most of these disheartening facts that have so completely upended my understanding of reality over the last decade could not possibly have come to my attention until the rise of the Internet, which partially broke centralized control over the distribution of information. But many other people surely must have known large portions of this important story long before that, and recognized the very serious consequences these matters might have for the future of our society. Why has there been so little public discussion?

I believe one factor is that over the years and the decades, our dominant media organs of news and entertainment have successfully conditioned most Americans to suffer a sort of mental allergic reaction to topics sensitive to Jews, which leads to all sorts of issues being considered absolutely out of bounds. And with America’s very powerful Jewish elites thereby insulated from almost all public scrutiny, Jewish arrogance and misbehavior remain largely unchecked and can increase completely without limit.

I’ve also sometimes suggested to people that one under-emphasized aspect of a Jewish population, greatly magnifying its problematical character, is the existence of what might be considered a biological sub-morph of exceptionally fanatical individuals, always on hair-trigger alert to launch verbal and sometimes physical attacks of unprecedented fury against anyone they regard as insufficiently friendly towards Jewish interests. Every now and then, a particularly brave or foolhardy public figure challenges some off-limits topic and is almost always overwhelmed and destroyed by a veritable swarm of these fanatical Jewish attackers. Just as the painful stings of the self-sacrificing warrior caste of an ant colony can quickly teach large predators to go elsewhere, fears of provoking these “Jewish berserkers” can often severely intimidate writers or politicians, causing them to choose their words very carefully or even completely avoid discussing certain controversial subjects, thereby greatly benefiting Jewish interests as a whole. And the more such influential people are thus intimidated into avoiding a particular topic, the more that topic is perceived as strictly taboo, and avoided by everyone else as well.

For example, about a dozen years ago I was having lunch with an especially eminent Neoconservative scholar with whom I’d become a little friendly. We were bemoaning the overwhelmingly leftward skew among America’s intellectual elites, and I suggested it largely seemed a function of our most elite universities. Many of our brightest students from across the nation entered Harvard and the other Ivies holding a variety of different ideological perspectives, but after four years departed those halls of learning overwhelmingly in left-liberal lock-step. Although he agreed with my assessment, he felt I was missing something important. He nervously glanced to both sides, shifted his head downward, and lowered his voice. “It’s the Jews,” he said.

I do not doubt that much of the candid analysis provided above will be quite distressing to many individuals. Indeed, some may believe that such material far exceeds the boundaries of mere “anti-Semitism” and easily crosses the threshold into constituting an actual “blood libel” against the Jewish people. That extremely harsh accusation, widely used by stalwart defenders of Israeli behavior, refers to the notorious Christian superstition, prevalent throughout most of the Middle Ages and even into more modern times, that Jews sometimes kidnapped small Christian children in order to drain their blood for use in various magic rituals, especially in connection with the Purim religious holiday. One of my more shocking discoveries of the last dozen years is that there is a fairly strong likelihood that these seemingly impossible beliefs were actually true.

It appears that a considerable number of Ashkenazi Jews traditionally regarded Christian blood as having powerful magical properties and considered it a very valuable component of certain important ritual observances at particular religious holidays. Obviously, obtaining such blood in large amounts was fraught with considerable risk, which greatly enhanced its monetary value, and the trade in the vials of this commodity seems to have been widely practiced. Toaff notes that since the detailed descriptions of the Jewish ritualistic murder practices are very similarly described in locations widely separated by geography, language, culture, and time period, they are almost certainly independent observations of the same rite.

Wow, just wow. Their particularist/supremacist religion, organ traffiking, fraud and lying as tribal values, swarming and screeching critics to death, Kevin MacDonald and the biological/parasitic view, the history of expulsions, the role of the jewsmedia, ritual murder. Unz cites so many of the most important aspects of jewing that, other than their toxic six million screeching, it’s hard to think of anything significant he missed. At any rate, gathering and connecting so many aspects at once, without being mealy-mouthed about it or trying to shift blame for it all elsewhere, makes anything he left out beside the point. The point is the exact opposite of the dissembling about jews pumped out by their apologists: jewing is real, jewing matters, jewing is harmful.

The fact that Unz is not just a jew, but a jew with a long history of public political activism, justifies a deep skepticism of his motives and intent. Unz unselfconsciously touches on (and minimizes) the issue when he writes:

Much of this dishonesty obviously continues down to recent times since it seems very unlikely that Jewish rabbis, except perhaps for those of the most avant garde disposition, would remain totally unaware of the fundamental tenets of the religion that they claim to lead

Of course it’s not just rabbis or their religion. This mentality Unz discusses – their racial animus, the disdain and visceral hostility jews exhibit toward non-jews, justifying their aggression by crying victim – is a collective and historic phenomenon. It’s blatantly visible in the constant shameless screeching of all those secular jews in the jewsmedia and all those jews on the internet demanding privileges and policies specifically benefiting jews, decrying “bigotry” and “hate” as if someone else is a better example than themselves, painting any opponent as both mentally ill and deserving of punishment. The pattern is visible as far back in history as you care to look.

Unz implies he didn’t know about or understand jewing until he read Shahak and MacDonald a decade ago. I don’t buy it. But even if it’s true, why did he not blow the whistle sooner? Has he only now realized that jewing is wrong and must be stopped? Absolutely not. He’s a cold and calculating fish. He estimates a backlash is inevitable now and he’s trying to get out in front of it. That’s what he’s been doing for this past decade. He certainly hasn’t decided to side with Whites against jews. As with the relative handful of jews who criticize their own tribe, Unz is the exception that proves the rule. He doesn’t want to end jewing, just moderate it, to sustain it.

Blog

Anti-Masking Unmasked

7 Comments

shlomo_says_take_off_your_masks

A new anti-mask bill, H.R.6054 – Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018, is causing some controversy, mostly because it includes the word “antifa” in its title. The body of the bill doesn’t mention “antifa”. The core of it is instead stated in seemingly neutral terms:

Ҥ 250. Interference with protected rights while in disguise

“(a) In general.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

Anti-mask laws aren’t new. Dishonest discussion of them swirls around the judeo-liberal charade known as “civil liberties” or “equal rights”. Taken at face value, the bill only reinforces existing “rights” laws. These laws are interpreted to privilege “protected classes” over Whites. Critics of the bill use this same “rights” rhetoric, fretting that the law will somehow infringe these existing anti-White “rights”. Republican Congressmen Are Pushing Anti-Antifa Bill is a typical jewsmedia example:

The legislation, which could send people to prison for up to 15 years, mirrors controversial state laws originally designed at cracking down on the Ku Klux Klan. But unlike those state laws, Donovan’s bill is a direct shot at leftist protesters. And it might be unconstitutional, experts say.

“The thing I think is kind of funny is that the title is refers to ‘antifa,’” Ruthann Robson, a law professor at the City University of New York told The Daily Beast. “One issue there would be: is this law targeting a certain group of people?”

Just to be clear, these jewsmedia “experts” are concerned that anti-White/pro-jew thugs continue to enjoy their constitutional “rights” to use violent extralegal political terror tactics against Whites. These “experts” have some cause for alarm because even existing anti-mask laws, which were created by jews to target White groups, are nowadays sometimes hampering anti-Whites.

The screeching about the bill gives the impression that it might somehow set back the anti-White agenda on a federal level. But that’s not likely given the current anti-White/pro-jew interpretation of “rights” laws, never mind more recent explicitly anti-White/pro-jew legislation. Whatever its author’s intent and despite the title it is entirely possible that this bill, if it ever becomes law, would only make interference with anti-White/pro-jew “rights” a federal offense. For example, it could be used to prosecute someone for anonymously “oppressing” jews on the internet.

Blog

Turkheimer Attacks Cochran

21 Comments

heritable_traitsStereotypical sciency jew Eric Turkheimer has responded to Greg Cochran’s recent comments concerning (sterotypical sciency jew) lying about race. Cochran on Zimmer, and Correcting an old Misimpression:

Comparing groups of humans to breeds of dogs is perhaps the laziest analogy in the history of human behavior genetics. It’s what high school kids write me about when they first become interested in the subject. You could start with the fact that dogs have been systematically selected for physical and behavioral characteristics for many thousands of years; humans have not. That is part of what makes the argument so gross, but it isn’t what is most important here.

Hominins are the first and foremost selected animal, domesticated prior to and more thoroughly than dogs. So Turkheimer is wrong on that point. Beyond that his argument is that Cochran is stupid – the kind of argument an elementary school kid makes. He concludes by projecting his own tribe’s behavior onto Cochran:

It is not Carl Zimmer who lets his policy preferences color his view of science. It’s Cochran

Turkheimer puts the bulk of his effort into trying to keep the argument in the weeds, away from who is lying and why, away from the jewing Cochran describes without explictly identifying as such.

I agree with Cochran: if someone found a well-understood genetic mechanism that had a deterministic effect on behavior within a close range, some IQ equivalent of webbed paws, and groups turned out to differ in that mechanism, the race-hereditarians would have what they want. But it hasn’t turned out that way. What a well-intentioned hereditarian ought to be doing is searching for a mechanism of that kind, and some of them are; more power to them. I don’t think they will be successful but I have no fundamental problem with the effort. That’s science.

The more significant agreement between Cochran and Turkheimer is in trying to discuss the long-term one-sided controversy over race – decades of jew-led jew-serving anti-White/anti-“racist” policy preferences, and the recent jew-led jew-serving attempt to spin the potential revelation of their aggressive fraud into something that’s still good for the jews – as if it has nothing to do with jewing. Furthermore, Turkheimer is only now pretending he does not oppose the investigation of racial differences. He’s already on record taking the opposite stand. He anticipates this might be used against him, so he quotes it selectively himself:

Why don’t we accept racial stereotypes as reasonable hypotheses, okay to consider until they have been scientifically proven false? They are offensive precisely because they violate our intuition about the balance between innateness and self-determination of the moral and cultural qualities of human beings. … because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair.

Nevertheless, it is this stereotypical chutzpathy, trying to dictate what everyone else is allowed to think, which created the impression Turkheimer nows calls a “misimpression” and is trying to “correct” by burying it in pilpul:

If groups can differ in those superficial characteristics, why can’t they differ in behaviors as well? This is the very core of the hereditarian argument. My answer is above: the problem is that the relationship between genotype and “nose, lip and eye shapes” on the one hand, and extraversion and IQ and criminality on the other, are fundamentally different.

And that difference has ethical content (implications?). Think for a minute: why do we hold someone responsible for their criminal behavior, but not for the texture of their hair? Hair texture is determined by our genes; we don’t have any choice about it, and groups of people with a certain kind of hair just are the way they are. There is no ethical content to hair texture, no hope that things will be different someday. On the hereditarian view, IQ as a heritable trait is just the same, at maybe a slightly lower level of heritability. That’s the way people are born, there is nothing you can do about it. And because everything is heritable, blunt hereditarianism leads to an obviously false view in which everything, including all of the innumerable behavioral differences among various groups of people– are just a reflection of the way people are born. Hair texture and complex behavior are both heritable, but the causation that underlies the heritability of hair texture is not like the heritability of behaviour, for which the human central nervous system, the greatest engine of anti-determinism ever designed by evolution, is interposed between genotype and phenotype.

Turkheimer makes a bogus distinction between genetically simple and complex racial differences, dressing up as “ethics” a sciency-sounding false dichotomy reflecting his own policy preferences. On the one side he puts visible racial physical traits, which are harder to deny, and which he now proclaims do not hurt his feels. On the other side he puts racial mental traits, the mere thought of which very much offends the stereotypical jew’s screechy bloody victim commissar mentality, and discussion of which Turkheimer and his tribe more generally make no bones about seeking to forbid because they are jews.

Whatever their genetic complexity, mental differences are more crucial to social structure, thereby survival, and are for that reason more deserving of scrutiny. As to Turkheimer’s silly thought experiments… Why shouldn’t one collective hold another responsible for their behavior? Why shouldn’t any collective distinguish itself from others in any way they see fit – simple, complex, physical, or mental? Hominin groups have always done so, still do so, and always will. Indeed, biologists understand discrimination as part and parcel of speciation, a facet of evolution, characteristic of all life.

More to the point, jews do it, and have no peer in this regard. They self-identify both genetically and culturally and shamelessly collectively criminalize their enemies – as “racists”, “White supremacists”, “holocaust deniers”, “anti-semites” – for merely expressing thoughts one or more jews see as threatening to themselves. This is the essence of what Turkheimer previously argued, the basis of the “ethical principle” argument he now omits:

Why Race Science is Objectionable

If I may address my fellow Jews for a moment, consider this. How would you feel about a line of research into the question of whether Jews have a genetic tendency to be more concerned with money than other groups? Nothing anti-semitic, mind you, just a rational investigation of the scientific evidence. It wouldn’t be difficult to measure interest in money and materialism, and it wouldn’t surprise me if as an empirical matter Jews scored a little higher on the resulting test than other groups. As a behavioral geneticist I can assure you without reservation that the trait would be heritable, and, if anyone bothered to take the time to find out, specific genes would have small associations with it. Of course, this research program has already been carried out, at least to the extent the relevant technology was available in 1939.

He could have said “muh six million”, but “1939” gets the idea across well enough.

More recently Turkheimer was perfectly pleased to cite tribemate Cofnas’ positive generalizations about jew mentality – his just-so “default hypothesis” that jews are blameless because they’re smarter and live in cities and have forever screeched as if they have being victimized by the many hosts they’ve parasitized and killed.

What “offends” jews is simply any hint of non-jews doing anything that might obstruct their jewing. They sometimes wrap their special pleading in more broad-minded rhetoric, but at root the ethical principle is whatever’s best for jews. The prevailing anti-White/anti-“racist” narrative and the ongoing phony debate around race and race-related science has everything to do with jews and their jewing. Cochran and Turkheimer both know it. Cochran won’t say it directly. Turkheimer already has.

Blog

WAH WAH

30 Comments

It was “WAH WAH”. As in “BOO HOO”. A fitting reaction to a ridiculous sob story. Perhaps too measured, considering the chutzpathic aggression cloaking itself in crocodile tears. “How absolutely dare you!”, cries the absolute fraud.

This whole sick hoax culture is a jew construct. They swarm and screech in pain as they tell everybody else what to do for their benefit. When they’re not crying “nazi” they’re crying that somebody else is crying “nazi” too much. The kikeservative-in-chief is Hitler 2.0, and every day is holocaust day.

WAH WAH!

WAH WAH!

The Jewish Community Doesn’t Ignore Human Suffering:

I must cry out—where are our Jewish leaders now when we need action to stand up to this very present threat to humanity right inside our nation? Where are the kinder transport efforts of our day? Where is the moral outrage? The demonstrations? The marches on Washington? The busloads of attorneys going to the border to help? What can we do to coalesce and save these families in their time of crisis?

I never expected to have to be part of a rescue of people whose lives were so basically threatened. I assumed, naively, that this was all history to be absorbed, but not repeated. But now I am confronted with the reality that evil remains in our world and must be struck down.

As before, we as a community must join our outraged voices in a chorus that demands action—not just words. We can make a difference. We can – through our collective power – force change. We can and we must stand up to evil and lead the way to protecting those families on our borders.

WAH WAH!

Jews Should Disown Stephen Miller Over Trump’s Family Separation Disgrace:

“My nephew and I must both reflect long and hard on one awful truth. If in the early 20th century the USA had built a wall against poor desperate ignorant immigrants of a different religion, like the Glossers, all of us would have gone up the crematoria chimneys with the other six million kinsmen whom we can never know.”

Being a Jew is about respecting historical memory. It is about exercising responsibility to each other and, by extension, to others who require empathy and assistance. We are admonished to protect the stranger, to recognize that there is one law for residents and aliens alike, to treat others as we wish to be treated. This isn’t liberal or conservative, left wing or right. It’s foundational. These are values shared by Jews across the political spectrum, who may differ on their responses and policy proposals but still adhere to a basic respect for human dignity.

WAH WAH!

WAH WAH!

The havoc wrought by jewing isn’t funny. Mockery is just a simple and effective way to trigger jews and their tools into dropping the act and revealing their true nature.

Blog

Taylor vs Twitter

17 Comments

unless_you_are_white

Some twits and a press release this week claimed Jared Taylor’s lawyers had “won the first round” against Twitter. Reading the court transcript there are a few more realistic things to say about it.

First, hearings like this are by design biased in the plaintiff’s favor. Twitter doesn’t want to go to trial, so they’re trying to convince the judge that Taylor’s claims are baseless. The judge argued in this instance almost as if he were an advocate for Taylor. He favors a trial, but intimated several times that his attitude during a trial would be different.

Second, no surprise, Taylor’s complaint does not focus on race. He is not challenging Twitter’s anti-White censorship, much less highlighting the central role organized jewry has played in driving that agenda. Instead the focus of the complaint is on “viewpoint discrimination” and whether Twitter falsely led users to believe they really allow “all types of speech”. The judge sees it as a public interest lawsuit. Twitter’s lawyer argued that Taylor brought the suit to serve the narrower interests of himself and his non-profit organization. As he put it:

this is a suit about these two plaintiffs with an enormous public stake in this case; they say that their whole enterprise of spewing… white — you know, white racism to the world depends on Twitter; that they built their enterprise around this.

Finally, in comments like this one and the ones below Twitter’s lawyer made it clear that Twitter does indeed engage in anti-White censorship and asserted that they have the legal right to do so. While trying to excuse Twitter’s not-so-free speech fraud the lawyer said:

And that was not a promise that, for a — six, seven, eight years, everybody who’s come onto the platform, no matter what they do, no matter whether they’re white supremacist or not, contrary to the Twitter’s, you know, evolved standards, that was not a promise that we never can take your account down.

. . .

Your Honor, you’re suggesting that a general statement six years ago somehow binds Twitter — when does that stop? When does that — when does that stop? Twitter can’t evolve, as the world changes vastly, and sees that white supremacy is having a major problem on its platform, it can’t act to control that?

The lawyer admits that Twitter banned Taylor because of race. He takes it for granted they are justified to ban Whites merely for being White, at least as long as they tack on the semitic buzzterms “racist” or “supremacist”. This is the heart of the issue, despite Taylor’s attempt to avoid it.