All posts by Tanstaafl

Blog

Yes We Can

30 Comments

Why can’t we talk about IQ?, by Jason Richwine, 9 August 2013:

The American Psychological Association (APA) tried to set the record straight in 1996 with a report written by a committee of experts. Among the specific conclusions drawn by the APA were that IQ tests reliably measure a real human trait, that ethnic differences in average IQ exist, that good tests of IQ are not culturally biased against minority groups, and that IQ is a product of both genetic inheritance and early childhood environment. Another report signed by 52 experts, entitled “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” stated similar facts and was printed in the Wall Street Journal.

“These may be harbingers of a shift in the media’s treatment of intelligence,” an optimistic Charles Murray wrote at the time. “There is now a real chance that the press will begin to discover that it has been missing the story.”

He was wrong.

For too many people confronted with IQ issues, emotion trumps reason. Some are even angry that I never apologized for my work. I find that sentiment baffling. Apologize for stating empirical facts relevant to public policy? I could never be so craven. And apologize to whom — people who don’t like those facts? The demands for an apology illustrate the emotionalism that often governs our political discourse.

What causes so many in the media to react emotionally when it comes to IQ? Snyderman and Rothman believe it is a naturally uncomfortable topic in modern liberal democracies. The possibility of intractable differences among people does not fit easily into the worldview of journalists and other members of the intellectual class who have an aversion to inequality. The unfortunate — but all too human — reaction is to avoid seriously grappling with inconvenient truths. And I suspect the people who lash out in anger are the ones who are most internally conflicted.

But I see little value in speculating further about causes. Change is what’s needed. And the first thing for reporters, commentators, and non-experts to do is to stop demonizing public discussion of IQ differences. Stop calling names. Stop trying to get people fired. Most of all, stop making pronouncements about research without first reading the literature or consulting people who have.

This is not just about academic freedom or any one scholar’s reputation. Cognitive differences can inform our understanding of a number of policy issues — everything from education, to military recruitment, to employment discrimination to, yes, immigration. Start treating the science of mental ability seriously, and both political discourse and public policy will be better for it.

The schism runs deeper than IQ. IQ denial springs from group difference denial, i.e. race denial, which springs from jew denial. The political discourse is profoundly shaped by the anti-White/pro-jew nature of the current regime, an expression of jewish power.

Anyone who wants to do so can talk about IQ, or race, or even the jews. It depends on who they praise or attack. For decades the regime has promulgated a narrative in which race and the jews matter more than anything else. It’s a narrative in which jews are good and Whites are evil. The regime’s orwellian term for this narrative is “white privilege”.

Only those who oppose or in some way threaten the regime or it’s narrative are subject to sanction. The regime, more than anything else, is a mindset – a mindset created and driven by jews, for the benefit of jews.

Richwine must know all this. His mentor Charles Murray knows. As other former participants have put it, in order to participate you must know, even while you pretend you don’t.

While Whites have for the most part abandoned the debate on race, some are still intent on debating immigration. Trying to avoid race they focus on money or IQ instead. It’s not working. Now the debate is focused on whether Richwine is a “nazi”. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When jews have power, every dissident looks like a “nazi”.

Jewish power is rooted in denial. Denial that jews have power. Denial that jews are anti-White. Can Whites stop this denial? Yes we can.

Blog

White Privilege and Jewish Power

33 Comments

For more than a year the jewsmedia has been trying to turn the shooting of a black nobody by a mestizo nobody into an indictment of White “racism” and “privilege”. Meanwhile the top two candidates to replace Ben Shalom Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve are Larry Summers and Janet Yellen. All three are jews, but you won’t hear anything critical of that in the jewsmedia.

The jewish paper of record provides a typical example of how the jewsmedia goes about ignoring the jewish elephant in the room. The Battle for the Fed and In Tug of War Over New Fed Leader, Some Gender Undertones spin the struggle for power between two jew-dominated factions into a story about men versus women. Though “diversity” usually means less White, in this case it means less male.

Knowing how often jews are conflated and confused with Whites, I searched out commentary on Janet Yellen white privilege. Remarkably, I found only one article that put these four words together on the same page. Progressive Reading List at Winning Progressive calls Yellen “the best candidate to chair the Federal Reserve”, and in a separate item links The Privilege of Whiteness, describing it as:

an essay on the privilege that we place on whiteness in our society by treating white people as individuals while people of other races are racially profiled far too often.

The anti-White essay is by Paul Waldman. Another jew. These days just about anything serves as a pretext for anyone in the jewsmedia to decry White “racism” and “privilege” – it has become the new normal. The same critics don’t have anything to say about White “privilege”, much less jewish dominance, at a prominent and preeminent seat of financial and political power.

Empirically, jews are regarded as distinct from Whites. Jews like David Sirota, Tim Wise and Paul Waldman may pretend they are “white” because it helps enable their White bashing, and too many Whites are willing to go along with the charade. But the fact is that in the jew-dominated mainstream media and academia it is Whites who are most consistently criticized as a group. To the extent Whiteness is a “default setting”, as jews like Waldman argue, it is as the target for blame. Beside Sirota, Wise and Waldman, the most vile and blatant examples of anti-White invective come from jews like Susan Sontag (“the White race is the cancer of history”) and Noel Ignatiev (“the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the White race”). Why? Because jews as a group regard themselves not only as distinct from the White race, but at odds with it. Those who speak most stridently against Whites are not “self-hating” Whites, or even White-hating Whites – they are jews doing what they think is best for jews.

Constant complaints about White “racism” and “privilege” serve to distract attention away from jewish power. There are no complaints about White “privilege” at the Fed because it would call attention to jewish power. Those who hold power in the anti-White regime are either jews, in bed (literally or figuratively) with the jews, and/or are afraid of what will happen to them if they oppose the jews. They may complain about Whites. They may even pretend jews are “white”. But they will not abide complaints about jews. This is an indication not only of the power jews have, but the duplicitous and toxic nature of that power.

Blog

You White People

13 Comments

White People: “Check Your Privilege”

This brief screech makes the anti-White drive behind anti-“racism” plain. It’s not about creating a fair or equal or post-racial society – it’s about guilt-tripping Whites into funding our attackers, funding our own genocide.

I’d like to know more about this speaker, her identity and other activism, but from her appearance, tone and message here I think it’s likely she’s a jew. It’s an interesting point, but the rest of what I’ll say here doesn’t hinge on it.

I found this video at Moonbattery, where Dave Blount notes:

It is beyond obvious that the government/media axis converted the Trayvon Martin shooting into a race issue and then hyped it through the ceiling in order to exacerbate racial tensions. The only question is: why would they do this, positioning themselves firmly on the side of blacks, when blacks make up only 12% of the population? This pro-Trayvon protester provides the answer

. . .

When it comes time to make Whitey into lampshades, there will be no shortage of white volunteers to man the guard towers at the concentration camps. It will be whites who oversee the whole operation. Liberalism works by manipulating the weak-minded through self-hatred.

I think Blount is right in spirit, in that he’s recognizing and expressing his opposition to something he sees as wrong, even if only in terms of the moral standards endorsed by “liberals”, i.e. according to the holocaust narrative.

“[W]hy would they [the government/media axis, the screecher] do this” is an excellent question. But the answer is lacking. This call for Whites to not only acquiesce but collaborate with our own destruction merely shines a light on the tactics, the mechanics, the HOW. It does not explain the reason, the motive, the WHY. Blount does not examine the WHO closely enough, either denying the reality and significance of race, or at least seeing it only in coarse black and white terms.

The more incisive question to consider is, WHO is doing what to WHOM and WHY?

Blaming “liberalism” is an evasion. Likewise for misidentifying the problem as “self-hate” rather than White-hate. The jewish-looking, jewish-sounding woman in the video doesn’t seem to hate herself. She’s lecturing “YOU White people”, whom she clearly doesn’t identify with in any positive sense. Even if you want to imagine she’s WhiteWhiteWhite, what she’s doing is encouraging Whites to hate Whiteness, to hate other Whites who don’t. In what sense is this “self-hate”? In what sense is this “liberalism”? And even if you define “liberalism” as such – WHO makes it so and WHY?

It turns out the who and why are right in the forefront of Blount’s mind, right there in his rhetoric about lampshades. Jews see themselves as distinct from Whites. They resent Whites. It is a racial disctinction. It is a racial animus. When jews blame Whites for this state of affairs and its consequences, entirely, they confirm both the distinction and their animus.

This is why jews, at least, side with blacks against Whites. Jews see it as righteous exactly because they see jews as disctinct from Whites, racially, and deem such actions as being good for the jews. This is in direct contrast to the Whites who side with blacks, who are moved to act against their own race and told to feel righteous about it exactly because it is good for everybody but Whites. The motives couldn’t be more different.

To put it bluntly, the driving force against Whites springs from jews. To the extent “liberalism” plays a part it is to encourage Whites to idealize equality and tolerance, to fantasize that race doesn’t or shouldn’t matter. Among other ill effects this blinds and desensensitizes Whites to the anti-White hostility of jews. Indeed, the idea that the problem is “liberalism” or “self-hate” is just more of the same poison. If you think White-hate is bad, and wish to oppose it, then you’re already a “racist”. You might as well open your eyes, set aside the excuses, and face the rest of the ugly reality.

Blog

Discussing Trayvon/Zimmerman with Carolyn Yeager

9 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Prayer, Anger and Protests Greet Verdict in Florida Case, NYTimes.com:

Lawmakers, members of the clergy and demonstrators who assembled in parks and squares on a hot July day described the verdict by the six-person jury as evidence of a persistent racism that afflicts the nation five years after it elected its first African-American president.

“Trayvon Benjamin Martin is dead because he and other black boys and men like him are seen not as a person but a problem,” the Rev. Dr. Raphael G. Warnock, the senior pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, told a congregation once led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Dr. Warnock noted that the verdict came less than a month after the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to void a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. “The last few weeks have been pivotal to the consciousness of black America,” he said in an interview after services. “Black men have been stigmatized.”

To the extent blacks have been stigmatized it is due to their own misbehavior and despite the best efforts of the jewsmedia, which has excused and even glorified them for decades.

I’ll join Carolyn tonight to discuss this in the second hour of the Heretics Hour, which starts at 9PM ET at the White network.

UPDATE: Racial Politics in the Aftermath of the Zimmerman Verdict (mp3).