Tag Archives: idw

Weinstein’s Complaint

Eric Weinstein, who organized and gave the Intellectual Dark Web cabal its name, and who, like his brother Bret, has generally tried to downplay his jewy identity, had an epic meltdown over #jewishprivilege trending on Twitter.

This is noteworthy because Weinstein and his cabal have for several years made a point of publicly posturing as if they oppose “identity politics” and “tribalism”, supposedly because they regard these things as a violation of their “liberal” principles. Yet the inclusion of full-time full-throated jew-firster Ben Shapiro in the IDW made it clear from the beginning that their “liberalism”, like all “liberalism”, is just a swindle, an indirect way for jews to advance their collective interests while advising Whites to abandon ours.

Shapiro has always been the most flamboyantly out jew most directly connected to the cabal, but IDW-orbiting jewess Bari Weiss is comparable. Most of the rest of the cabal has instead followed the lead of the Weinstein brothers, mostly leaving the “as a jew” part out of their (public) moralizing. It is there, burning furiously, driving their words and deeds. They just pretend it isn’t.

I first noticed Weinstein beginning to crack and reveal the significance of his inner jew in February 2019, when kinda-sorta down-low fellow tribemate Glenn Greenwald called Dave Rubin in particular and the IDW in general “self-serving, tribalistic frauds”. This prompted Weinstein to respond with an odd ramble he titled Glenn Greenwald, @IlhanMN, the Rosenbergs, Anti-semitism, Progressives, Silence, Speech and the IDW: a thread. His key point: “I’m pretty sure we are moving to normalize anti-semitism through clear support for BDS in the Democratic Party”.

In this Weinstein revealed that he is animated by the same consciously jewy concerns as any other jew. They just disagree over how the current two-party system, which is effectively controlled by jews, might better serve their tribe. The more blatant and thorough-going jew control gets, the more shrilly jews screech as if uppity goyim are the real problem. Though many jews pretend that being a jew has nothing to do with their politics, they give the game away when they start screeching about “anti-semitism”. The “liberal” mild-mannered Clark Kent jew suddenly transforms into Superjew, the messiah swooping in to fight for his tribe.

Anyway, I’ve previously noted that Weinstein’s older, more subtle form of “liberal” jewing led directly to the newer, more explicitly anti-White BLM/”wokeness” form of jewing. Many jews are already on board with the new program, but a substantial subset are like Weinstein – deeply, deeply concerned that the non-White goyim waging open war on the White goyim might not be the best thing for the jews right now.

Bret Weinstein expressed his concerns along these lines in June 2017, and that led to the formation of the IDW cabal. Bret has always been painfully careful in choosing his words, and became even more so over time. His brother Eric is much less reserved. Like so many other jews, Eric Weinstein was pushed over the edge by uppity goyim talking about jew privilege on his internet. He literally began his rant with MUH HOLOCAUST:

My #JewishPrivilege: I’ve never spent a night hungry. There was always a roof over our heads. Never went to jail or onto food stamps. First cousin froze to death escaping Babi Yar. Attended the top school in Los Angeles. My cousins Eva & Miriam Kor were a Mengle Twin experiment.

Weinstein made several more posts in this vein, making it very clear that he equates being a jew with being a victim, with being oppressed. What’s more, he conveys this view in a deeply personal way, recounting a string of stories he and his extended family have been stewing over and passing along for generations. He specifically cites supposed oppression of his family by Russians, Germans, and Americans. He airs his hostility shamelessly, revealing not just his own tribalist mentality, but his understanding that this hostile attitude is shared and regarded as perfectly normal by his brother, his family, and his tribe.

The outburst gets really eye-opening when he tries to jewsplain that jews like himself support BLM/”wokeness” to the extent it is anti-White, but oppose it splashing over onto the jew ethnostate:

So, if you want to know where this cashes out: We have *finally* become mildly well to do. Precarious, but more fortunate than many.

The word “Privilege” makes me laugh however. Every person who has Jews they know and love, knows the truth: we are always simply between pogroms.

Anyone who refers to Jews as having “White Privilege” as in “above the real problems” is either:

  • A) Ignorant of history and one book away from understanding the honest error.
  • B) An idiot.
  • C) An out and out anti-Semite.

Yes, some of us are now doing ok.

Yet it’s never for long.

And this is why so many of us Left leaning Jews are so confused by our black brothers and sisters. We see your pain. We see the invisible bigotry against you. We saw the FBI’s war on your community. We fought along side you based on your reasoned grievances. For almost 100 years.

But as you see we are open that things have gotten much better for us. As they have for you. Yes 1865 is more recent than others imagine. So is 1945. Yes lynchings are horrific. So are pogroms. You face structural oppression. So do we. Your pain is invisible to many. Ours too.

Cards on the table: I‘m in awe of Black *achievement* and am shocked by desires to tell others like us that we‘re all fine because we are pink and may finally have 2 sheckles to rub together. Our two communities don’t belong in the oppression Olympics. We‘re both superachievers.

Why do I oppose #BlackLivesMatter when I am committed to Black Lives Mattering and an end to structural oppression? Because you can’t call a community more vulnerable than even Blacks “genocidal” in your platform. Israel has issues, but “genocide” is like modern blood libel.

So let’s cut the crap. We have a deeply flawed country to fix & you can count on my support. But it isn’t as bad as it once was for Blacks or Jews & money doesn’t do as much as folks think in the face of murderous rage. Let’s all ease up on “Privilege” as a way of avoiding this.

This is so much solid gold that it makes me wonder if he’s trolling. I don’t follow him closely, but I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure he’s completely serious.

“we are always simply between pogroms” (t.jew)

“our black brothers and sisters . . . We fought along side you” (against Whites)

“Yes 1865 is more recent than others imagine. So is 1945. Yes lynchings are horrific. So are pogroms. You face structural oppression. So do we. Your pain is invisible to many. Ours too.” (“hello my fellow victims of Whites”)

“We‘re both superachievers.” (lolwut)

Weinstein is making a tribalist appeal. He’s not arguing as an individual, as a “liberal”, or even as a leader of the IDW cabal. He’s speaking to blacks as a member of The Tribe. He’s saying that blacks who mistake jews for Whites are A) stupid, B) stupid, or C) crazy. He sees blacks and jews as more similar, and thus as natural allies against Whites.

Myron Wallik may have been better known, but Weinstein’s mask drop is more comprehensive.

Israel has issues, but “genocide” is like modern blood libel.

There’s the rub. First, you can see that jews regard their own oppression narrative as a weapon in the way they sneer and hiss when it’s aimed at themselves. Second, to jews the black goyim are still just goyim, and though most jews wouldn’t spell it out as clearly as Weinstein does, they all think the goyim must never forget that jews make the rules.

Cochran on White Racial Pre-History and the Aryans

contemplating_nature

Two weeks ago Greg Cochran spoke at length on a podcast titled history of Europe. It was in fact a recounting of the biological origins of the White race, meandering but comprehensive, and with a specific focus on the Aryan component. There is little or no written record for much of the period of time Cochran discusses. What he lays out is more a synthesis of evidence and inference, gleaned from the latest genetics research, and meshed with older (and still ongoing) archeological and linguistic research.

This podcast is well worth listening to from beginning to end, despite its length, and despite the insufferably insecure and nasally host, who interrupts mainly to remind the audience that, as a jew, he must mispronounce Yamnaya like a rabbi mangles a swastika.

Who is Cochran? Here’s how some (((human biodiversity))) fanboys described him in 2007:

A professor at the University of Utah, Cochran is a physicist, an anthropologist, and a genetics researcher and theorist. He’s well known for his belief that many ailments that we now think of as genetic might well be of pathogenic origin instead. With Henry Harpending and Jason Hardy, he authored a paper suggesting that the high average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews — as well as their pattern of genetic diseases — might be an evolutionary consequence of their history of persecution and their emphasis on jobs involving lots of brainpower. The paper received extensive coverage in The Economist and The New York Times.

Cochran has worked in defence and aerospace; he has speculated that homosexuality might be caused by an infection; he has written a number of articles for the American Conservative scornful of the Bush administration; and he shows up periodically at Gene Expression.

Cochran is a formidable heterodox intellectual, in other words: not only legendarily smart and fearless, but blessed with a remarkable memory — he was once a College Bowl contestant. The Economist called him “a noted scientific iconoclast.” GNXP’s Razib says of Cochran, “Information technology is a deadly weapon in this man’s hands. Greg Cochran is a genius, and he’s got the ‘fuck you’ money to prove it.” Steve Sailer has written of Cochran:

“I stay in touch with some quite smart people, but even among them, Gregory Cochran is legendary for the ferocity of his scientific originality … I can attest that, although a physicist by education and the leading theorist of evolutionary medicine by avocation, Cochran also has memorized almost the entire political and military history of the human race … When I’m reviewing a historical film such as ‘Master and Commander’ or ‘Hero’ and I need to pretend to actually know something about the Age of Nelson or China’s Warring States era, a call to Cochran will not only fill me in on what happened, but, more importantly, why it happened.”

Not irrelevant to all this is the fact that Cochran has been right about Iraq.

Heterodox intellectual? Indeed. Cochran is heterodox like mealy-mouthed mischling Steve Sailer, whose “race realist” fanbase loves loves loves his speaking-truth-to-fellow-white-people shtick, tactically vacillating between racially distinguishing and conflating jews with Whites, depending on what’s best for jews. And Cochran is an intellectual like the infamous cuck Charles Murray, that useful high-IQer with whom Cochran shares a strange interest in extolling jew IQ. This is the same “heterodox intellectual” narrative toxic “race realist” jews like Nathan Cofnas use as an excuse for jews jewing Whites to death.

I’ve discussed the broader alt-jewing phenomenon at some length over the years. The earlier HBD and NRx alt-jew intellectual movements long elevated the likes of Murray, Sailer, and Cochran as spokesmen for what is effectively a jewed reaction to jewing. But the current year’s even jewier alternative to jewing is here now, proclaiming itself “the intellectual dark web” – thanks Eric Weinstein! – and characteristically crying out in pain as it tells JOG what to do – thanks Bret Weinstein! A major hive of this same old-new cabal is the jew Jonathan Haidt’s Heterodox Academy. HxA, for short, answers the increasingly obvious anti-White jew orthodoxy of the academy with a lame bit about “increasing viewpoint diversity”. The big concern there is that alt-jews like Haidt, the Weinsteins, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Steven Pinker, and Christina Hoff Sommers retain their freedom of speech, to express their alt-digsust for “racists” and “nazis”. Good goys and part-goys still serve as cover for all the jewy screeching about tribalism, but the veil is slipping, bigly.

Interestingly, the link to that Cochran fanboy quote above comes from a comment on a blogpost he made in 2015. In that post Cochran deliberately shits on “nutty ideas”, specifically some ideas which run counter to the jew orthodox version of WWII. I remain more impressed by what Revilo Oliver has written about FDR and Pearl Harbor and what Thomas Goodrich has written about the brutal treatment of Germans during and after the war. To my knowledge Cochran has never expressed the slightest skeptism, much less scorn concerning the utterly orthodox and far more consequential lies told about that war by jews. From their ritualistic repetition of a particular number, to their incredible stories about gas showers, lampshades and soap, geysers of jew-blood, magical rainbow colors of jew-smoke – there are many issues any truly heterodox individual could easily object to and even mercilessly mock if their greater desire to be seen as an “intellectual” didn’t get in the way. Not to mention the desire to stay out of prison. Even a dimwit has some inkling of the screeching and harassment they’d suffer if they were to challenge any aspect of the semitically correct narrative. The difference is that intellectuals know why, and more important, are clever enough to imagine some other explanation, or at least keep their mouth shut.

I have no doubt Cochran knows many things, and understands many better than I ever will. My understanding of White racial history, at least with regard to the latest genetic developments, comes in part through him. Pierce’s Who We Are is more detailed, and a better investment in time. Cochran adds the recent genetic coroboration of the story. He knows well that jews are genetically and mentally distinct from the Europeans whose pre-historic roots he describes. This makes it difficult to listen to him complain about jew geneticist David Reich’s mixing-is-good narrative, or the widespread post-war psychopathologization of the pre-war understanding of the Aryans, as if he doesn’t know what it’s about. He knows, he just won’t say it plainly.

Even so, Cochran isn’t likely to be lionized by any heterodox intellectual dark web jews. Why not? Because last month, as part of a series of posts reviewing Reich’s book, Cochran named names. In a post titled Live Not By Lies he called out Reich and the sciency anti-“racist” tribemates:

Reich talks about the anthropologists [ Montagu] , geneticists [Lewontin] , and sociologists that have argued that ‘race’ has no biological reality, that there are not really any significant biological differences between races, that research into such differences should be banned ( why is this necessary if differences don’t exist?), etc. All liars, of course.

. . .

Reich explains how recent genetic analysis shows that people’s genes cluster in ways that correspond pretty well with old-fashioned notions of ‘race’. He prefers to talk about ‘ancestry’, because (in his view) the word ‘race’ is too ill-defined and loaded with historical baggage. Whatever.

He goes on to say that people that deny the possibility of substantial differences between populations just can’t do it anymore: they’re putting themselves in an indefensible position. He is wrong: sure, their position is logically indefensible, the facts are against it, but what does that matter? The significantly crazier idea that there are no differences between the sexes – that sexual dimorphism itself is a myth promulgated by the Gnomes of Zurich or the orbital mind-control lasers – has become very powerful in much of the Western world: barking-mad craziness apparently doesn’t need to defend itself.

He says that geneticists have tended to ‘obfuscate’ on this topic, mentioning Richard Lewontin. I’d put it a bit differently: they lie.

. . .

Reich mentions independent genome bloggers, some of them skilled analysts, who are on the whole less inclined to go along with the usual falsehoods. He thinks that means you can’t keep up the charade: again, he’s very likely wrong, not least because those skilled genome bloggers have a tiny audience. More important, Reich himself doesn’t want to keep up the charade. That may matter.

Reich goes on to demolish some fairly common false arguments about how different human races – excuse me, ‘ ancestral populations ‘ – really can’t be very different, at least not in any traits that would upset people. You know, for the same reasons that dog breeds can’t really be very different.

. . .

Reich often seems to think that if a result wasn’t proved using powerful contemporary genomic methods (what he uses), it wasn’t really known at all. If I don’t know it, it’s not knowledge: that’s a wrong way of thinking.

next fallacy: human populations just haven’t been separated long enough to have changed much due to selection. He knows that’s not correct. He points out that in many cases populations have been separated for 50,000 years, while some African groups appear to have been separated far longer, perhaps 200,000 years. A recent study showed that there has been noticeable evolutionary change in the English over the past 2000 years: selection for increased height, infant head circumference, blondness, etc etc. If it can happen there in 2000 years, it can happen anywhere.

And he expects that more such racial differences will be found – but now he has to weasel again. He says that nobody knows what those differences will be!

OK, Cochran weaseled. He didn’t mention all this lying has to do with jews and their jewing. He actually acts flummoxed by Reich’s typical loxist behavior, viciously attacking non-jew scientists whom Cochran respects:

Next he slams people that suspect that upcoming genetic genetic analysis will, in most cases, confirm traditional stereotypes about race – the way the world actually looks.

The people Reich dumps on are saying perfectly reasonable things. He criticizes Henry Harpending for saying that he’d never seen an African with a hobby. Of course, Henry had actually spent time in Africa, and that’s what he’d seen. The implication is that people in Malthusian farming societies – which Africa was not – were selected to want to work, even where there was no immediate necessity to do so. Thus hobbies, something like a gerbil running in an exercise wheel.

. . .

He criticized Nicholas Wade, for saying that different races have different dispositions. Wade’s book wasn’t very good, but of course personality varies by race: Darwin certainly thought so. You can see differences at birth. Cover a baby’s nose with a cloth: Chinese and Navajo babies quietly breathe through their mouth, European and African babies fuss and fight.

Then he attacks Watson, for asking when Reich was going to look at Jewish genetics – the kind that has led to greater-than-average intelligence. Watson was undoubtedly trying to get a rise out of Reich, but it’s a perfectly reasonable question. Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than the average bear and everybody knows it. Selection is the only possible explanation, and the conditions in the Middle ages – white-collar job specialization and a high degree of endogamy, were just what the doctor ordered.

Watson’s a prick, but he’s a great prick, and what he said was correct. Henry was a prince among men, and Nick Wade is a decent guy as well. Reich is totally out of line here: he’s being a dick.

Now Reich may be trying to burnish his anti-racist credentials, which surely need some renewal after having pointing out that race as colloquially used is pretty reasonable, there’s no reason pops can’t be different, people that said otherwise ( like Lewontin, Gould, Montagu, etc. ) were lying, Aryans conquered Europe and India, while we’re tied to the train tracks with scary genetic results coming straight at us. I don’t care: he’s being a weasel, slandering the dead and abusing the obnoxious old genius who laid the foundations of his field.

. . .

He doesn’t just slander, he lies. He says “most stereotypes will be disproved.” Want to bet? Most stereotypes are true – true everywhere.

. . .

Reich’s position is that we don’t know anything until someone (him !) has analyzed it with modern genomic techniques. That’s ridiculous. Reich found that on average, given similar diets, northern Europeans are about a standard deviation taller than southern Europeans. But I already knew that, well before Reich was born. Seneca knew it: Tacitus knew it. There’s a reason the Byzantines hired plenty of Scandihoovians (including 7-footer Harold Hardrada) into the Varangian Guard. Mark Twain knew that Ashkenazi Jews were smart: he didn’t need IQ tests or GWAS for that.

. . .

When he says that we don’t have any idea what we’ll find, he’s lying again.

What’s going on here is that two big jew lies – that race and racial differences aren’t biological, and that the Aryans were merely a mythical creation of the stupid/crazy/evil “nazis” – are falling apart in the face of recent genetic revelations. Cochran calls out the lying, but won’t explicitly identify it as jewing. Reich himself comes as close as most jews ever get, by blaming Europeans for everything, as usual:

Reich: Archaeology has always been political, especially in Europe. Archaeologists are very aware of the misuse of archaeology in the past, in the 20th century. There’s a very famous German archaeologist named Gustaf Kossinna, who was the first or one of the first to come up with the idea of “material culture.” Say, you see similar pots, and therefore you’re in a region where there was shared community and aspects of culture.

He went so far as to argue that when you see the spread of these pots, you’re actually seeing a spread of people and there’s a one-to-one mapping for those things. His ideas were used by the Nazis later, in propaganda, to argue that a particular group in Europe, the Aryans, expanded in all directions across Europe. He believed that the region where these people’s material culture was located is the natural homeland of the Aryan community, and the Germans were the natural inheritors of that. This was used to justify their expansionism in the propaganda that the Germans used in the run-up to the Second World War.

So after the Second World War, there was a very strong reaction in the European archaeological community—not just the Germans, but the broad continental European archaeological community—to the fact that their discipline had been used for these terrible political ends. And there was a retreat from the ideas of Kossinna.

Zhang: You actually had German collaborators drop out of a study because of these exact concerns, right? One of them wrote, “We must(!) avoid … being compared with the so-called ‘siedlungsarchäologie Method’ from Gustaf Kossinna!”

Reich: Yeah, that’s right. I think one of the things the ancient DNA is showing is actually the Corded Ware culture does correspond coherently to a group of people. [Editor’s note: The Corded Ware made pottery with cord-like ornamentation and according to ancient DNA studies, they descended from steppe ancestry.] I think that was a very sensitive issue to some of our coauthors, and one of the coauthors resigned because he felt we were returning to that idea of migration in archaeology that pots are the same as people. There have been a fair number of other coauthors from different parts of continental Europe who shared this anxiety.

We responded to this by adding a lot of content to our papers to discuss these issues and contextualize them. Our results are actually almost diametrically opposite from what Kossina thought because these Corded Ware people come from the East, a place that Kossina would have despised as a source for them. But nevertheless it is true that there’s big population movements, and so I think what the DNA is doing is it’s forcing the hand of this discussion in archaeology, showing that in fact, major movements of people do occur. They are sometimes sharp and dramatic, and they involve large-scale population replacements over a relatively short period of time. We now can see that for the first time.

This is the kind of sciency jewy lying I quoted Cochran criticizing above. What the genetic analysis shows is that the ancestors of modern day Germanic people were in fact the Corded Ware people, who were in fact largely genetically descended from the Aryans, just as pre-war students of archeology and linguistics surmised, long before anyone had the benefit of DNA evidence. To his credit Cochran makes this point in the podcast. He goes even further, describing how northern Europeans, which pre-war racialists more precisely identified as the Nordic subrace, do in fact have more Aryan DNA, whereas southern Europeans, more precisely the Mediterranean subrace, have more of what Cochran calls Early European or Middle Eastern farmer DNA, as typified by contemporary Sardinians. On this point Cochran favorably cites a book published in 1926, The Aryans: A study of Indo-European origins, edited by Gordon Childe, opining that it was “mostly correct”. At one point Cochran also asserts that not everything the “nazis” believed was wrong. He complains about feeling compelled to say otherwise, while pretending not to understand why.

Yes, the national socialists were mostly correct about race and the pre-history of Europeans. They are demonized today exactly because they were also right about the jews. They correctly saw the jews not merely as non-Aryan but as an existential threat. The jews, especially the more sciency jews, understand this perfectly well. That’s why they’re in crisis mode. They understand these genetic revelations are damning, and potentially explosive, exposing the anti-“racist”/anti-“nazi” narrative jews have perpetrated for the better part of the past century as a fraud, as an excuse for their own racial animus and ongoing war on Whites. The consensus among jews, including alt-jews, is that this fraud has been good for the jews. In their view it is the potential collapse of this fraud, or worse, potential reprisals for it, which might be bad for the jews, and therefore must now be averted at all costs. They agree the goyim must never ever be permitted to freely discuss race or the harm caused by all this jewing, then or now, or the proverbial jig is up, all over again. They just disagree how to jewsplain it. That’s the backdrop behind all the jew-vs-alt-jew hyperventilating over Reich’s book, or for that matter, anything else about race-related science you might come across in the mainstream jewsmedia.

It’s not “nazis” dictating who can say what about race. It’s not Europeans telling GoogleTwitterFacebook who to shut down. It’s the jews.

Zhang: You end the book noting that you are optimistic that your work is “exploding stereotypes, undercutting prejudice, and highlighting the connections among peoples not previously known to be related.” I imagine you started writing this a few years ago. Given today’s political climate, are you still as optimistic now as you were when you started writing the book?

Reich: I think so. I know there are extremists who are interested in genealogy and genetics. But I think those are very marginal people, and there’s, of course, a concern they may impinge on the mainstream.

But if you actually take any serious look at this data, it just confounds every stereotype. It’s revealing that the differences among populations we see today are actually only a few thousand years old at most and that everybody is mixed. I think that if you pay any attention to this world, and have any degree of seriousness, then you can’t come out feeling affirmed in the racist view of the world. You have to be more open to immigration. You have to be more open to the mixing of different peoples. That’s your own history.

If you look seriously, history and his data says the opposite of what Reich claims. Speciation and competition are nature’s norms. This was the common understanding White intellectuals reached after Darwin. A firm biological understanding of race and jewing was blossoming by the 1930s. That understanding, along with tens of millions of White people, most of whom never understood why, were murdered because jews did understand.

The parasite-enabling migrating-mixing ideal is naturally promoted by the parasite exactly because it serves the parasite. It makes perfect sense that rootless cosmopolitan jews so shamelessly pump such poisonous reality-inverting lies into everyone else’s minds. Likewise how they always attach to it such characteristically jewy screeching deploring “predjudice” and “stereotyping”. Technically, the jews collectively behave more like a parasitoid. Even the relatively rare “heterodox” jews are more concerned to keep their hosts enfeebled, even unto death, than to moderate jew virulence.

As I understand it Cochran’s overarching insight, the idea that “many ailments that we now think of as genetic might well be of pathogenic origin instead”, was triggered by a story he read about parasitism, sometime before 1999. He read “about pathogens manipulating a host to get what they want”. This led him to a “new” germ theory, that all “big old diseases are infectious”. To my mind this is just the same old germ theory of disease – where there is pathology there is a pathogen. As with the lying about race and the Aryans, so it goes for the more recent queering of sexual dimorphism. By now, somewhere in Cochran’s big old brain he realizes his big old theory fits this jewing, in all its pathogenic forms. It’s a no-brainer. Unfortunately, Cochran is apparently too smart to have noticed that jews chutzpathically assert the opposite. Their big old idea is that the biggest, oldest disease is “anti-semitism”. That is to say, according to jews, non-jews are the disease, harmful to jewing. My theory? Many social pathologies have their origin in jewing. Moreover, the main cause of non-jews pathologically refusing to correctly perceive jewing as pathogenic, is also jewing.

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 alt-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.

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.