Blog

The OYYYY VEEEEYYYYYY Heard Round the World 2.0

58 Comments

diversity_makes_the_jews_who_are_replacing_whites_strongerI was not there, but I think my take on Charlottesville 1.0, and the two most substantial comments I’ve made about it since, were correct.

How Jews Jewsplain Jewing:

Charlottesville demonstrated that Whites cannot freely assemble and speak, as Whites, in public. The swift and hysterical reaction from the local, state, and federal governments, officially condemning Whites because “anti-semitism”, demonstrated that Whites and jews are political opposites. Decades of phony judicial dancing around race and privilege have suddenly been supplanted by explicit executive and legislative proclamations that the regime is officially anti-White out of deference to jews.

The ongoing chutzpathic attempt to invert this reality, to portray the kikeservative-in-chief as a tool of “anti-semites” rather than jews, merely reflects how thoroughly jewed the media and current political system are. Trump viciously counter-attacks anyone who attacks him. Everyone but the jews. When the jews kick, Trump licks.

“Don’t Be Evil” is Code for “Be Anti-White”:

White men flocked to Charlottesville en masse sensing the potential for righteous combat with anti-Whites, and the first thing most every alt-righter with a soapbox did in the aftermath was balk at and denounce that urge. Their fake hero ultimately denounced them. They ignored it. Whites are so accustomed to our fake heroes shitting on us that we take it for granted.

What makes this a tragedy is that it could be different. White as a race have a characteristic capacity for daring, for heroism, for collective mercilessness aimed at enemies, especially traitors. This capacity isn’t gone, it has been hijacked and circumcised. The jews make movies glorifying White self-sacrifice and directing it toward their own ends, even as they psychopathologize its use toward our own. Unlike White misleaders, the jews don’t discourage fanaticism and violence, they deliberately stoke it and AIM IT AT WHITES. While the Ignatievs and Ciccariello-Mahers slyly incite White genocide, the Taylors and MacDonalds respond by babbling nonsense about “pathological altruism”. This behavior is not a product of jew dominance and White failure, it’s the cause.

Whites need to get their heads straight, demand more, tolerate less. It starts, or doesn’t start, with leadership.

For the past year the jewsmedia has moaned about Charlottesville 1.0, shocked that a handful of Whites had the audacity to gather publicly and chant, “jews will not replace us”. The Whites who did that are heroes – they provoked and flushed out the anti-White/pro-jew regime.

A year later and the fake hero, the kikeservative-in-chief, still hasn’t done anything for his White supporters. Instead he tries to please the jews who condemn him by condemning all types of “racism”. The jewsmedia screeches, predictably, that this isn’t anti-White enough. Will he respond by defending his White supporters? No. He’ll respond just as he did last year, by kicking his lickers and licking his kickers.

So far Charlottesville 2.0 is looking like 1.0, but this time with hardly any prompting from defiant Whites. Anti-Whites now constitute all sides of the theatrical production, their only real disagreement being how far and how fast to elevate non-Whites above Whites.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+
Blog

On Tribalism

23 Comments

chicken-swingersHere’s an instant classic in the vast, age-old genre of jews praising jews for their jewing. David Greenberg, author of Republic of Spin, reviews David Frum’s Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic:

Has any group of thinkers stood faster in defense of its principles since the rise of Donald Trump than the neoconservatives? A decade ago, when the political right had fallen on hard times, the neocons were derided by almost everyone for furnishing an intellectual rationale for the invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush ’68. But since 2016, neoconservatives—practically alone on their side of the aisle—have consistently opposed Trump for the damage they see him doing. Writers like Max Boot ’92MA, Eliot Cohen, Jennifer Rubin, James Kirchick ’06, Bret Stephens, Cathy Young, and Bill Kristol have resisted the pressures of tribalism at a moment when few dare to leave their partisan tents.

What did these “right”-posing anti-White jews do? They crossed party lines to join their “left”-posing anti-White tribemates in screeching at Whites. Frum was one of the first to cry out in pain as he attacked Whites:

As community cohesion weakens, moral norms change. What would have been unacceptable behavior in a more homogenous national community becomes tolerable when a formerly ascendant group sees itself at risk from aggressive new claims by new competitors. Trump is running not to be president of all Americans, but to be the clan leader of white Americans. Those white Americans who respond to his message hear his abusive comments, not as evidence of his unfitness for office, but as proof of his commitment to their tribe.

But it’s difficult to say which jew in Greenberg’s list is most noxious.

The Yale Review link comes via Sailer, whose usual shtick is to pretend jews are “white”. Confronted with perfectly sober evidence that jews literally see themselves as the opposite of White the best Breezy Steve can do is try to laugh it off:

In the Current Year, are Members of the Tribe as witty as they used to be? Their current moral panic over “tribalism” is a particularly funny example of today’s Jews not getting the joke.

As usual, the joke is on Whites. When jews moralize against White tribalism (or supremacism, or victimology, or fake news, or privilege, or fragility, or hate, or any other buzzterm the jews have weaponized and aimed at Whites) it’s not because they are unaware that the shoe fits their tribe better than anyone else. By so brazenly trying to shift blame onto Whites they are clearly expressing their keen racial awareness and seething racial animus.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+
Blog

Jews Jewing Jewishly

21 Comments

tengrim01-bigSome big academic jew got weinsteined last week. Setting aside the melodrama, articles in the jewsmedia aimed at keeping jews well informed provide some indication of the elaborate degree to which they obsess over their collective interests, in this case fretting about “jewish continuity” and “jewish survival” in the face of some blowback from the toxic feminist and race-mixing agendas they have long and shamelessly promoted amongst Whites.

How Jewish Academia Created A #MeToo Disaster, The Forward:

At the end of World War II, several Jewish communal bodies, most importantly the American Jewish Committee, funded scholars to study Jewish life and used those studies to prescribe communal priorities.

It is no accident that by the early 1970s, a so-called marriage crisis emerged as a core priority of Jewish communal institutions, fueled by population surveys and anecdotal evidence. The achievements of second-wave feminism seemed stacked against the blunt tools that Jewish social scientists used to measure what communal leaders increasingly termed “Jewish survival.”

Marriage, inmarriage, and fertility rates among American Jews all were declining, while women’s aspirations for careers, for public power, and for control over their bodies and sexuality all seemed to be on the rise.

Starting in the 1980s and growing in the 1990s and beyond, a Jewish communal infrastructure empowered a class of social researchers to generate the data from which policy decisions would be made.

The fall of a top sociologist could change the field of counting Jews, Jewish Telegraph Agency:

Over and over, across decades and cities throughout the United States, sociologist Steven M. Cohen painted a picture of American Jews using a consistent set of questions.

How much do Jews love Israel? How many Jewish friends do they have? Do they attend a synagogue? Do they belong to one? Perhaps above all, are they married to Jews and raising Jewish children?

The titles of articles that Cohen has written over the years reflect the demographic concerns — and anxieties — of a generation of Jewish planners: “Lessons Learned From Orthodoxy’s Dramatic Growth.” “Can Intermarriage Lead to an Increase in the Number of Jews in America?” “Conservative Jewry’s Numbers Plummeting, but Core Engagement Steady.”

“We would argue that numerical strength is inherently valuable and essential to the meaningful Jewish life of American Jewry,” he wrote with a colleague, Mijal Bitton, in a 2015 article titled “More Is Better When It Comes to Jewish Numbers.”.” “More engaged Jews mean stronger communities able to mobilize more people and more resources, critical to achieving political influence, social diversity, cultural creativity and religious vitality.

“Not just researchers, but the American Jewish community has been concerned with the size of the population and changes in the population of different communities,” Leonard Saxe, director of the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University, wrote in an email to JTA.

Some take issue in particular with Cohen’s focus on Jewish continuity — the question of how many Jews will exist, identify as Jews and affiliate with Jewish institutions in future generations. Cohen has long cited statistics to conclude that the ever rising numbers of Jews marrying people of other faiths is “the greatest single threat to Jewish continuity today.”

“What I would love to see change are some of the questions that get asked, and specifically the questions that shape the debates over continuity and the birth rates of Jews,” said Deborah Dash Moore, a professor of American Jewish history at the University of Michigan. “Stop assuming that there are gradations of being Jewish that make one better than the other, that intermarriage is a bad thing or that intermarriage is a good thing.”

As usual, the conflict is fictitious, just jews arguing with jews about what’s best for jews.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+
Blog

Johnson’s Jews

77 Comments

trust_me_you_stupid_entryist_hatersDov Bechhofer Did Nothing Wrong is less about what Bechhofer did and more about what Greg Johnson is doing. Bechhofer has already disavowed the dissembling and dissimulation Johnson senselessly praises him for. Johnson is writing instead to argue that he, Greg Johnson, has done nothing wrong.

To make his case Johnson quotes one of the last (and most telling) of the rabbi’s son’s most based comments at Counter-Currents:

I’ve had it in my head to write a little something called “A Jewish Defense of Anti-Semitism,” but it’s been slipping my mind. In short, the vocal majority of Jews act so irritatingly and display such reprehensible attitudes – publicly and privately – that I’d rather see a “tempered” anti-Semitism now than see Jewish perfidy continue without consequence until, as Johnny Cash might say, the man comes around. Because he will. As I frequently tell Jewish acquaintances, if there is another Holocaust, it will be entirely of their doing

The way I read that, Bechhofer was concerned about jewing becoming too obviously anti-White, worried that the White reaction might be bad for jews, and decided to help his tribe by trying to moderate the White reaction. Such entryism is hardly new or even rare. Rather than seeing it as bad for Whites, Johnson sees it as a perfect opportunity to explain his vision of uniting Whites and jews against the people he perceives as the real problem.

The name Dov also made it highly likely he was Orthodox, which was interesting to me, because since 2016, I have been seeing signs that significant numbers of Orthodox Jewish men in their 20s are plugging into the Alt Right and White Nationalism. This phenomenon bears watching, since it may herald a split in the Jewish community, which is the major impediment to white identity politics.

The “split” Johnson sees among jews is non-White/anti-White identity politics, jews arguing with jews about what’s best for jews. It’s an argument that actually highlights the fact that jews see themselves as racially distinct from and at odds with Whites, and that they see it as good for jews that Whites remain confused on this point.

There is a world of difference between Jews like Michael Hart and Laurence Auster, who claim that Jews are white and seek to police anti-Semitism in the White Nationalist movement — and Jews like Dov or Gilad Atzmon, who do not try to alter our movement but instead seek to change Jewish attitudes toward white identity politics. None of them are “us.” But the former are subversives. The latter are allies.

It is more reasonable to assume different jews are subversive in different ways. Bechhofer was trying to change White attitudes. When he was called out, likely by a tribemate, he responded by immediately apologizing to his tribemates.

The organized Jewish community has played a disproportionate role in creating this crisis and preventing racially-conscious whites from dealing with it. A terrible reaction is brewing. White ethnostates are the only solution.

Moreover, Bechhofer did not fall in with the juvenile buffoons, LARPing Nazis, and violent thugs who have hijacked the most important cause on the planet and driven it off a cliff. He gravitated to the best of the movement — Counter-Currents, VDare, American Renaissance — and tried to imagine humane solutions to this mess. He doesn’t need “professional help” to deal with “issues.” He’s one of the sane ones. It is the rest of society that has gone mad.

Who is Johnson praising? A subversive jew. Who is Johnson accusing of wrong-doing, specifically “hijacking”? That would be his bugbear, “LARPing Nazis”.

Johnson’s greatest ally wasn’t even pretending to be for Whites against jews. He was merely in favor of jews continuing to feed on Whites rather than offing us. That’s what Johnson is swooning over. Johnson isn’t an idiot who can’t understand this. He doesn’t want to understand. He’s posturing as a racially conscious leader while advising Whites to welcome subversive jewing. Why? Because that is easier than admitting he is wrong.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+
Blog

Coordinated Amplified In-Your-Face Jewing

23 Comments

The full text of their monolithic demands, via The Jewish Chronicle:

Today, Britain’s three leading Jewish newspapers — Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and Jewish Telegraph — take the unprecedented step of speaking as one by publishing the same front page.

We do so because of the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government.

We do so because the party that was, until recently, the natural home for our community has seen its values and integrity eroded by Corbynite contempt for Jews and Israel.

The stain and shame of antisemitism has coursed through Her Majesty’s Opposition since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015.

From Chakrabarti to Livingstone, there have been many alarming lows. Last week’s stubborn refusal to adopt the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, provoking Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge to call her leader an antisemite to his face, was the most sinister yet.

Labour has diluted the IHRA definition, accepted in full by the government and more than 130 local councils, deleting and amending four key examples of anti-Semitism relating to Israel.

Under its adapted guidelines, a Labour Party member is free to claim Israel’s existence is a racist endeavour and compare Israeli policies to those of Nazi Germany, unless “intent” – whatever that means – can be proved. “Dirty Jew” is wrong, “Zionist bitch” fair game?

In so doing, Labour makes a distinction between racial anti-Semitism targeting Jews (unacceptable) and political anti-Semitism targeting Israel (acceptable).

The reason for this move? Had the full IHRA definition with examples relating to Israel been approved, hundreds, if not thousands, of Labour and Momentum members would need to be expelled.

With the government in Brexit disarray, there is a clear and present danger that a man with a default blindness to the Jewish community’s fears, a man who has a problem seeing that hateful rhetoric aimed at Israel can easily step into anti-Semitism, could be our next prime minister.

On 5 September, Labour MPs vote on an emergency motion, calling for the party to adopt the full IHRA definition into its rulebook.

Following that, it will face a binary choice: implement IHRA in full or be seen by all decent people as an institutionally racist and anti-Semitic party. After three deeply painful years for our community, September is finally make or break.

These jews are shamelessly singling out and demanding privileged treatment for jews, in terms spelled out by jews, solely because they are jews. The Labour party has in fact already conceded on all these points. The increasingly hysterical screeching of these jews, as if they are victims of some injustice, is aimed at extending the privileged treatment even to jews who are openly acting as agents of a foreign state.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+
Blog

Ron Unz on Jewing

56 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.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+
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.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+
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.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light