Tag Archives: jewish influence

Calling Out the Cuckery

Audio 28 July 2015 Tanstaafl 24 Comments

The term cuckservative is shaking up the American political discourse. It originated outside the corporate judaized mainstream, in reaction to the destructive, destabilizing, degenerate policies of the anti-White/pro-jew regime. Cuckservative is as insult, an accusation, an indictment aimed at those who participate in this poisonous regime by those of us who are sick and tired of being poisoned.

Cuckservative has gained traction so quickly because it strikes a big, fat, pulsing White nerve. The term is an expression of White racial grievance. It has crystallized and brought forth decades worth of pent up White anger, resentment at being lied to and betrayed by White political leaders who have been going along to get along, dog whistling what they have to to get elected, and then giving the country away to aliens, people whose thoughts and desires and behaviors are so different from ours that they alienate us even when they’re not physically hostile and dangerous.

There are many aspects of the term cuckservative and the reaction it’s creating that are good and indicate a shift in a positive direction for Whites. There are also a few aspects that cause some concern.

On the good side, the cuckservatives and their cuckers haven’t yet figured out how to effectively deflect or defuse the accusation. The main response has been no response. The relatively few defenses have so far been along the lines of, “that’s racist, this is coming from White supremacists”, which only confirms the charge that cuckservatives, and the system they serve, are anti-White. Another type of reaction – the insinuation or counter-accusation that the term is being pushed by “liberals” – reflects the blinkered bunker mentality that afflicts those Whites who continue to work within the anti-White regime. They so want to keep on working within it that they pretend it is all that really exists.

The term cuckservative is breaking through and spreading through White minds faster and more broadly than other explicit attempts to craft language to express White interests have been. Bob Whitaker’s mantra, which has been spreading gradually for years, was too wordy and ironically stated. Even the more recent, shorter slogans expressing the same basic sentiments – that anti-“racism” is code for anti-White and to fight White genocide – just haven’t spread as quickly as cuckservative has. I think these other terms have helped. They’ve prepared the ground, and they’ll probably enjoy more use going forward. Many Whites don’t want to be discriminated against for being White, but they still aren’t willing to identify positively as White. The polarization created by the term cuckservative will surely encourage more Whites to see that they do have a racial identity, that they do have racial interests. More will find the nerve to say, “Yes, I’m White, and I’m angry, because I can see the media, the schools, the laws, the government, the whole system is anti-White. It has been working against me and my kind. That’s not right, and it’s got to go.”

I’m also glad because I think cuckservative also takes the wind out of the sails of “White pathology”. That’s the truly pathological idea that Whites are a race of catladies, that we’re driving ourselves to extinction because our ancient altruistic hunter-gather personality traits are reasserting themselves, causing us to want to smile as we give everything over to the hostile, alien invaders flooding our former homelands. “White pathology” is the idea that we’re doing this to ourselves, or at least that we’re literally programmed to be exploited by others. That it’s in our DNA.

The attack on cuckservative demolishes this “White pathology” suicide meme in two ways. First, if it wasn’t already obvious that many Whites oppose the anti-White regime, the popularity of the cuckservative attack demonstrates that the White opposition is broader than many of us imagined. So, no, we’re not a race of catladies. Second, it takes two, or more, to cuck. Cuckservative better fits the reality than catlady, in the same way genocide fits better than suicide. The leaders who are selling out and betraying us aren’t catladies. They’re not impoverishing themselves serving nameless, faceless, agentless cats. They’re enriching themselves personally by serving the interests of anyone and everyone but Whites, other people who every day more freely express their own “vibrant” non-White/anti-White racial identity. The word cuck evokes the biological roots of the injustice, the despicable, disgusting, deplorable, exploitative nature of the crime.

I’ve made the argument many times that parasitism is a more accurate term for what’s happening. Cuckolding is just one aspect of parasitism. Cuckholding hints at sexual deviance and gives perverts a cheap thrill, whereas parasitism more completely encompasses the sick, subversive, collective nature of the phenomenon – the infiltration, manipulation, and exploitation of one group for the benefit of another.

So on the downside, the term cuckservative is not as clear or racially explicit as parasitism or “White genocide”. In fact it’s more popular because of that, because it offers some wiggle room for the merely less squishy Whites to point their finger at the more squishy Whites and say, “they’re the problem”. Some Whites are using cuckservative only because they think they can tell themselves and their critics that, really, they’re not racists, they’re just upset about their money being given away or their Christian values being trashed, by other White people. In other words, they’re not really conscious of their racial interests, much less that they have racial enemies.

Another reason the term is so popular (and another downside) is because it plugs into the mental mold of the existing system – it focuses attention on just one half of the left/right, liberal/conservative, two-faces-of-the-single-party that is judeo liberal democracy. There are in fact White cuckees and jew cuckers in both halves of the anti-White/pro-jew system. The left side is certainly more explicitly anti-White, and it is the increasing obviousness of this hostility which has brought the anger at cuckservatives, who are seen as capitulating to this obvious enemy. There is a false impression, which is only reinforced by the partisan roots of the word cuckservative, that the source of the hostility is “the left”, that it arises more from some abstract ideological wonkery rather than from an inherent and implacable racial animus.

The White traitors on the left are just more out of the closet about it. As Robert Frost put it way back in 1961, “A liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel.” That captures a good part of the cuck mentality. We could call White liberals cuckerals, to match cuckservatives, but from what I’ve seen the terms libtard and shitlib are already far more popular.

There’s also some ambiguity to the term cuck which isn’t good. Calling someone a cuck could be taken to imply they’re a victim, that they’re the one being harmed. In the strict, biological sense of the word, you’re only being cuckolded if it’s your resources being taken and used to the benefit of another. That sense of the word technically fits someone like Jeb Bush, who married an anti-White mestiza, better than it fits a mere closeted queer RINO, like Lindsey Graham. But in both cases the outrage aimed at these two cuckservatives and others is collective, not personal. The politicians being called cucks are being accused mainly of giving away other people’s resources, the resources of their partisan base or race, not their own.

Which brings me to the last nit I have to pick with the term cuckservative. It mistakenly implies the traitor is weak, effeminate. In this way it is similar to the catlady slur. It’s easy to mock and taunt weaklings. They don’t fight back. But when you call these traitors out, and calling them cuck works well enough, they will fight. Generally speaking these are men and women who have risen to where they are in the poisonous anti-White environment because they have a lack of racial loyalty and a lack of scruples, not because they lack the will to seek and hold fast to personal power.

Still, as powerful as they may seem, the White traitors aren’t running the show. As I’ve just pointed out, they’re generally self-interested individuals. They aren’t really any more loyal to each other or their party or its abstract ideology than White voters. They aren’t in cahoots with each other either. The old boys club of White supremacy is long gone, not much more than a figment of jewish imagination at this point. It lives on in the imaginations of others mainly because of the propaganda the jews produce and distribute via media and academia.

What’s so demoralizing about the Whites at the top is that even the ones who aren’t actively selling out are keeping their mouths shut. They know that to even say something sympathetic about Whites, as a group, is “racist”, so they don’t. You occasionally hear someone say that cuckservatives, or other White politicians, are just afraid of being called names like “racist”. That isn’t accurate. A good part of their motivation is fear of pain. Fear of being punished, fear of being ostracized. It isn’t pain alone, and it isn’t a desire for power, fame or fortune alone. It’s both. It’s carrot and stick.

The jews are the ones wielding the carrots and sticks. The jews aren’t cucked. The jews aren’t White. The jews are the ones who are organized, and have always been organized, as a group. They’ve been organized and aggressing against Whites, from within White societies, for millenia. The jews are the source of the racial animus against Whites. The cucker is not “the left”, or “the right”, but the jews who fund and dictate the policies of both sides of the system. That’s why it is not just an anti-White system but a pro-jew system. That’s why the one unshakable principle that none of the White cucks, left or right, dares to question is jewish privilege. Jewish power is so thorough-going and secure inside America that jews have for decades been able to control American foreign policy to the painfully obvious benefit of Israel, a foreign ethnostate of jews, by jews, and for jews.

In the 1980s the well-known cuckservative William F. Buckley purged Joe Sobran from conservativism specifically for being insufficiently respectful of the jews and Israel. Since then jewish power has only grown. Nowadays every significant politician from every “Western” country sooner or later makes a pilgrimage to Israel to pay symbolic tribute to their jewish overlords.

Some of the people tossing around the cuckservative charge don’t realize it, yet, but the reason that term is bound to cause a real backlash from the regime isn’t because it embarrasses the traitors, or upsets the blacks or browns. It will be because it displeases the jews. The charge that White politicians are ignoring or betraying White political interests is a direct challenge to the jews and their narrative. Under the current zeitgeist Whites aren’t supposed to advocate for their interests as a group, that’s “racist”. If you do so with any hint that you understand that the jews are your opponents, not just standing in the way but the ones who are actively deconstructing and destroying White racial interests, then you’re a “nazi”.

Everybody knows the jewish narrative, that “racists” and “nazis” are not just wrong but crazy and evil. But the pols and pundits at the top also know that the first rule of jew rule is that nobody talks about jew rule. The notion that the jews and their interests are at the crux of it all this cucking business is already visible in some articles and comments. This may grow. I hope it does. That would be good for Whites.

The traitors certainly know who’s got the carrots and sticks. Super-cuckservative Mike Huckabee just recently provided an excellent example of both the dominant and unspeakable nature of the jews’ narrative and power. Huckabee tried to explain how he objects to the recent US nuclear agreement with Iran because he thinks it’s bad for the Israelis, and used the jewish holocaust narrative when he did it. He was immediately upbraided by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a jewess politician from “the left”. His crime, apparently, was using terms that the goyim aren’t supposed to use, even in service of the jews. She actually demanded an apology.

Politicians who aren’t traitors also know about jewish power. They also understand that there are penalties for speaking against it. From France there is news that the nationalist politician Jean-Marie Le Pen is going to be prosecuted, again, for confronting the primacy of the jews and their narrative. As The Independent reports:

The decision to prosecute followed the aging politician’s comments on French television in April when he said: “Gas chambers were a detail of the war, unless we accept that the war is a detail of the gas chambers.”

He responded to the new charges by referring to the recent public protests that followed the muslim attack on Charlie Hebdo. He said:

“I thought that millions of French people had marched for freedom of expression”

“I thought that included the right to blaspheme. And this is blasphemy, isn’t it? It is after all an almost religious point.”

(For context see Charlie Hebdo and What Heebs Do and Decoding Jew-Worship and Blasphemy.)

But that’s the moral of the jewish narrative, that the jews are paragons of virtue, the highest moral authority. Thus it is right that they dictate what’s good and bad, what’s allowed and not allowed. The White race traitors say and do what the jews tell them to, even if it makes for something that looks like a glaring contradiction – arguing open borders and multicult for the US and security and ethnic homogeneity for the jewish state, for example. Whether any of them actually believe the fairy tales the jews tell, or not, they know the jews will punish them if they misbehave. That threat, and the fear it inspires, is what looms behind all the cucking.

Blog

Dylann Goes Through the Roof

19 June 2015 Tanstaafl 42 Comments

“You rape our women and you’re taking over our country.” – Dylann Roof

It seems a White man has finally fired back in the decades-long war on Whites. The motive Roof purportedly stated, as relayed in early reports, is quickly being buried beneath a public outpouring of loathing aimed at Whites more broadly. The anti-White hostility is coming largely from non-Whites, of course, but much of it is also coming from deracinated Whites, and some even from racially-aware Whites, who should know better.

That much of this hostility originates from and is amplified by the jewsmedia is really just a consequence of jew rule, one indication that “they” have already taken over “our” country. Yet, in spite of the jewsmedia’s modus operandi, their usual attempt to bury what they can and distort what they can’t, a more or less fuzzy awareness of the harm caused by non-Whites still somehow seeps into some White heads.

Some of that awareness comes via first-hand experience. Some by word-of-mouth. The majority is undoubtedly spreading via social media and the internet more generally. Likewise what we know about Roof. At this point it’s difficult to know exactly what Roof thought. We should discover more during his trial, assuming he is ever afforded an opportunity to speak. Frankly, I wonder less about why Roof acted as he did than why there aren’t more Whites doing so. I don’t wonder if the jews will let a good crisis go to waste rather than using it as a pretext to ban the “hate” speech and guns they’re always looking to ban anyway.

For the jewsmedia it hardly matters that Roof appears White and is at least somewhat racially conscious. Their anti-Whiteness is ineffable and irrepressible. This was evident, for example, in the anti-White assumptions and speculations that they so freely expressed about the Beltway snipers and the Boston bombers before the perpetrators were identified. In George Zimmerman’s case they maintained their anti-White narrative even after it was visibly demonstrated to be false. With Roof they’ve only finally found the Great White Perp they’ve long been crying about. And even in this case, what Roof is accused of pales in comparison to the mountain of White casualties who have been targeted quite deliberately for rape, beatings, and murder by non-Whites. The jewsmedia derides and minimizes even the most common and blatant portion as “the Knock-out Game” – it’s just a game, goyim, only “racists” care about such things.

It’s also hardly surprising that non-Whites in general, who usually have nothing more to whine about than “micro-aggressions” and “cultural appropriation”, are once again suddenly interested in appropriating the White concept of justice from the “White supremacist” “oppressors” they insist on living amongst. Even when it’s one of their own who stands accused they think, speak, and organize monolithically, along racial lines – so there really is no difference here. As absurd as they may believe race is, they’ve accepted their assigned place in the jew-led anti-White “people of color” coalition. Nobody really cares what they think, especially not in the judaized overclass. And Whites shouldn’t.

What disturbs me most about the shooting is the reaction of Whites. I understand that most Whites are deracinated. They feel leaderless and powerless, able only to witness with a vague foreboding what they see going on around them. They may understand that something has gone horribly wrong in what used to be their country, but they’re too busy or afraid to think too deeply about it. They hear the drumbeat of the anti-White jewsmedia, but don’t consciously associate the animus as coming from the jews. To the extent they even think about jews they imagine them as some exotic kind of “white”. Thus when they hear the jewish narrative blaming all the problems on “racism”, effectively blaming Whites and only Whites, they internalize and adopt that poisonous attitude as their own. The demoralizing, pathological effects of this are visible every day, not only in the jewsmedia headlines, but on the internet, and in our face-to-face interactions with family and friends.

Among the most disturbing reactions are those coming from some race-aware Whites, as if their main concern is to openly condemn Roof or his actions. Perhaps they believe this will help either themselves or Whites generally. It won’t. They know, or should know, about the jewsmedia poison. That non-White anti-White hostility is implacable. That Whites need positive, unapologetic leaders. That White concerns and morality, starting with the very definition of right and wrong, can only be legitimately rooted in what is healthy or unhealthy for Whites, as a group. That the utopian “liberal” (now “conservative”) dream of creating a race-blind society has not only failed, but can never work, no matter how hard Whites try. That non-Whites, led by the hyper-self-interested jews, wouldn’t let it work even if it could, even if Whites foolishly continued to try to include and tolerate everybody. That instead Whites are being destroyed in the attempt.

In fact, the clearer the disastrous outcome, the clearer the complicitly of those who do nothing to reject and oppose it, let alone join in the anti-White chorus.

Dylann Roof didn’t cause any of this to happen. His actions haven’t made any of it worse either, but only concentrated and revealed the anti-White miasma that what was already there. Like a lightning rod. How everyone else reacts when the lightning strikes is their own choice, and their own responsibility.

Age of Treason Radio

Trans-Reality

Audio 16 June 2015 Tanstaafl 6 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

We’re going to compare and contrast two recent controversies, one involving Bruce Jenner, the other involving Rachel Dolezal. And of course we’ll also discuss what this all has to do with the jews.

The two controversies revolve around the same core issue – the poisonous concept of fluidity, an extension of identity politics, which is itself an extension of the constantly metastasizing jewish intellectual movement known as cultural marxism or multiculturalism. Fluidity is the idea that individuals have a right to choose who they are, to be what they want to be, that social considerations or even physical biological realities are not or should not be any real constraint. It’s the idea that what what you think and believe and imagine you are matters more than anything else.

This idea of fluidity is part of a larger social context in which integration, mixing, blurring, “diversity” – anything degenerate, really – is put forth by cultural and political elites as right and good, and thus something that can and has been compelled by force. Meanwhile anything separate, homogeneous, with clear borders – anything necessary for the continuity and survival of a people, really – is portrayed as wrong and even evil, and thus can and has been targeted for destruction.

Such an abstract and objective description is really just the universalist sugarcoating over a deeper fraud, a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the racial animus that’s behind multiculturalism, driving it all. The driving force and it’s goals are not at all universalist but utterly particularist. It is really all about tearing down and destroying anything and everything European or White. It’s about marching through the institutions created and formerly dominated by Whites, now dominated by jews, and using those positions of authority to denounce Whites, to make the world safe for the jews first and foremost.

Clouding the issue is the fact that the jewish nature of this aggression has all along been largely disguised, cloaked by the earlier promotion and preeminence of “liberalism” – particularly secularism, individualism, and pluralism. The aggression has advanced most recently under the pretense of promoting “freedom” and “tolerance” and “equality” for everyone, even as the efforts have become ever more especially and obviously to secure special preferences and privileges for various “minorities”, and accompanied by ever shriller condemnations of “White supremacy”, “White privilege”, and Whites generally.

Identity politics is only superficially about everyone having and celebrating their unique identities equally. Behind the facade it’s a thoroughly jewish construct. It’s about jews with a strong jewish identity and racial animus for Whites spinning a historic narrative of victimhood and oppression. Jews and their holocaust narrative are at the absolute center, serving as the template, defining and driving a larger coalition of narrowly self-interested deviants, degenerates, feminists, and non-White “people of color”, inciting and uniting and directing them against Whites, and especially White heterosexual men.

So it’s against this cultural backdrop that we have in the first instance this idea of fluid gender in the spotlight, focused at the moment on Bruce Jenner, a famous White man, Olympic gold medal winner, married three times, father of four children. Jenner declared that he had long wished he was a woman and had finally resolved that he would undergo surgery to make himself look more like one physically. He then appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine, dressed in a woman’s swimsuit, sporting breast implants, long hair, and makeup. The caption read, “Call me Caitlyn”, the new name Jenner has selected for himself. The jewsmedia celebrated.

Unfortunately, most of us have heard of this kind of sexual deviance before – transexuals, trannies, the T in LGBT – but Jenner’s fame and the jewsmedia’s hoopla took the already toxic contemporary popular culture to a whole new level of bizarre. What’s new about transgenderism is that it goes beyond tolerating a mentally deranged individual’s desire to be something they’re not, and becomes a metric by which everyone else’s value is measured by their willingness to say they approve of behavior that should repulse anyone healthy and normal. Abnormal and unhealthy are the new normal and healthy.

Late last week the other controversy sprang up, this one around a relatively unknown local leader of a black political organization named Rachel Dolezal. The initial report concerned her claim that she was the victim of “hate”, her 8th or 9th such complaint in as many years. This time around she claimed she had received a letter whose contents she found offensive. Pictures of nooses or whatever. This time it was also almost certainly a hoax, since the letter was supposedly received at a post office box that only herself and her staff had access to, and yet it’s stamp had not been cancelled, signifying that it had not actually been handled by anyone at the post office.

The jewsmedia regularly announces “hate” crimes, and almost as regularly but more quietly and ambiguously announce the corresponding hoaxes, when the supposed victim actually turns out to be the perpetrator. What made the Dolezal story stand out was the revelation that she had all along been hoaxing her blackness, that she was in fact a White woman who had simply frizzed her hair, darkened her skin, and passed herself off as black.

In Dolezal’s case the spotlight is shining on transrace, the fluidity of race. Coming so soon after the celebratory circus the jewsmedia had made about Jenner, the glaring similarity of their bizarre pretense is easy to see, and easy to mock. A glaring contrast is also clear. The jewsmedia which hailed Caitlyn Jenner has been either ambivalent or disapproving about Dolezal. The most common theme is an irrational insistence that the two situations are completely different.

The size, swiftness, and character of the public response has been telling in it’s own way. However relentless and pervasive the jewish promotion of the lie that neither race nor gender are rooted in biology, it is a lie, and many people aren’t buying it. The general consensus, in social media for sure, but even in the jewsmedia, is that Dolezal is a fraud, that she can’t possibly be black because she has no black ancestors. In other words, when it comes to racial identity, genes are the decisive factor. What Dolezal’s case demonstrates is that you can feel black, marry black, go to a black school, dedicate your life to serving blacks, you can look and act and you might even be mistaken as black, but none of that can actually make you black. For that you have to have black ancestors.

The case is similar for Jenner, though the jewsmedia treats it as though it is different. Despite Jenner’s surgery he’ll never really be a woman. The jewsmedia hype about him will in fact make it less likely he will even be able to even sincerely fool anyone. Just like Dolezal now that she’s been outed.

There are a few articles about these controversies that I’d like to cite, read excerpts from, and comment on, tying into and adding to what I’ve already said. However tempting it may be to simply disregard what’s happening and chalk it all up to insanity, the overarching point I’d like to make is that there is some sense that can be made of this if we read between the lines.

Paul McHugh, the former Psychiatrist in Chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital, wrote an article about Jenner titled, Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme, published on the web site Public Discourse. McHugh noted that what is today called transgenderism used to be a rare phenomenon but has dramatically increased in recent years. He describes this pathological behavior as “mental unrest” and attributes it’s spread to the spread of a pathogenic meme:

The champions of this meme, encouraged by their alliance with the broader LGBT movement, claim that whether you are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is more of a disposition or feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons.

. . .

But the meme—that your sex is a feeling, not a biological fact, and can change at any time—marches on through our society. In a way, it’s reminiscent of the Hans Christian Andersen tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of special beauty imperceptible to the rude or uncultured, paraded naked through his town to the huzzahs of courtiers and citizens anxious about their reputations. Many onlookers to the contemporary transgender parade, knowing that a disfavored opinion is worse than bad taste today, similarly fear to identify it as a misapprehension.

I am ever trying to be the boy among the bystanders who points to what’s real. I do so not only because truth matters, but also because overlooked amid the hoopla—enhanced now by Bruce Jenner’s celebrity and Annie Leibovitz’s photography—stand many victims.

. . .

Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

Emperor’s clothes indeed, but even McHugh’s truth-telling is couched in semitically correct compassion for the most botched. The suicides are only the tip of the iceberg. The bulk of the harm is being done to the many more otherwise healthy men and women whose minds are more subtly poisoned by this pathologenic transgender meme, who as a consequence will never form a proper family, and thus never reproduce.

McHugh does at least try to identify the source and driving force. He notes that:

both the state and federal governments are actively seeking to block any treatments that can be construed as challenging the assumptions and choices of transgendered youngsters

Furthermore:

The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.

But gird your loins if you would confront this matter. Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.

McHugh’s diagnosis of transgenderism dovetails very well with Kevin MacDonald’s description of the jewish culture of critique. A comparable diagnosis surely applies to transracialism. At the center of the moral fury in both cases is the jewish holocaust narrative.

Another psychologist commented was quoted in an article at People.com titled, Psych Expert: Rachel Dolezal Not Like Caitlyn Jenner. The author claims that “most people” think Jenner and Dolezal have “very little in common” but:

Some commenters on the internet likened Dolezal to someone who is “transracial”

To explain how “very different” transracial is from transgender she quotes a “racial identity expert”, who says:

“I would say being LGBTQ, there is strong evidence that there is a biological [reason behind it],” . . . “Caitlyn Jenner is not identifying with being a woman because of the upbringing and cultural conditioning.”

This is at odds with what McHugh described as the pathogenic meme behind transgenderism, “the idea that sex is a feeling, not a biological fact”. I think McHugh’s view is far more credible for reasons I’ll describe in a bit.

Concerning the problematic internet comments connecting transgender to transracial:

“I think [the comparison] is all an attempt to not really see the issue. The issue is deception, honesty and pretense. You have to get to the bottom of that.”

The “expert” is referring here to the jewsmedia talking point, popping up in many places now, that the big difference is that Dolezal was a fraud, dishonest. The reality is that Jenner, if he’s telling the truth now, has admitted that he has been lying to his friends and family for a much longer time.

The reality is that the idea that gender is not essentially biological is just as false as the idea that race is not essentially biological. Both ideas are a very deliberate deception. As McHugh puts it, anyone who confronts the deception faces fury.

The issue here is honesty, says the “racial identity expert”. The name of this expert, according to the article, is Derald Wing Sue. The article fails to identify Sue as a professional non-White anti-White. As his page at Wikipedia describes him:

Sue was born in Portland, Oregon to a Chinese American family. He lived in a predominantly white neighborhood, with his parents, four brothers, and one sister[3] where was reportedly bullied and teased on a regular basis, due to his race[4] which later influenced his studies in cross cultural counseling.[5] Two individuals who influenced Sue’s path of study were Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.[3]

. . .

first president of the Asian American Psychological Association

. . .

Sue’s ethnic minority status was his biggest influence in pushing for multiculturalism in psychology.

What’s more, Sue teaches this pathogenic meme known as “White privilege”. It’s the explicit premise of a presentation of his on the internet titled, What Does It Mean to Be White. It describes how he did some “research” that sounds like a stripped down version of the Whiteness Project I wrote about in November of 2014. In academia the word Whiteness is a deception. What it really describes is anti-Whiteness.

When this chinaman asked Whites what Whiteness means to them they mostly claimed they didn’t know, didn’t care. They were visibly disturbed and agitated by the question. He also asked non-Whites, and they revealed their sympatico with the “White privilege” meme Sue teaches – they see Whites as oblivious of their “privilege”, and they think being White means always being right, never having to explain yourself or apologize.

The fact that a racial alien who has not only demonstrated his anti-White animus but is actually paid to do so is called upon by the jewsmedia to comment on the behavior of White people in any way is a good sign that Whites do not have any tangible political power, never mind privilege.

The NAACP Statement on Rachel Dolezal came shortly after she was outed as White:

One’s racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership. . . . the NAACP remains committed to securing political, educational, and economic justice for all people, and we encourage Americans of all stripes to become members and serve as leaders in our organization.

More deception. This is a good example of a particularist organization trying to cloak itself with universalist-sounding rhetoric. What the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is claiming is that it doesn’t discriminate against anyone who is willing to help them advance black interests.

On Monday Dolezal announced her resignation. She made no apologies. Instead she reiterated her commitment to “human rights” and advancing black interests.

Dave Chappelle a black who has made a career out of joking about race was serious about Dolezal:

“The world’s become ridiculous,” he told the awestruck grads at George Washington University’s Lisner auditorium. “There’s a white lady posing as a black lady. There is not one thing that woman accomplished that she couldn’t have done as a white woman. There’s no reason!

I think this reflects the poisonous effect that “White privilege” propaganda has even on blacks. They see even deranged Whites like Dolezal as golden, simply because she’s White. The false assumption is that Whites have even one university which teaches a positive view of our race, or even one organization that can provide us a with a stable career working for the advancement of our race. The truth is that Dolezal’s anti-White career was, materially speaking at least, far easier to pursue and more lucrative than any pro-White career. The race-based “storm” she says she’s experienced for a few days, and couldn’t take, is a taste of what she would have faced on a regular basis as a White woman openly trying to advocate for the advancement of her own race out of an office in Spokane.

The New York Times, the belly of the jewsmedia beast, ran an article titled Black or White? Woman’s Story Stirs Up a Furor:

Faking a racial history, in either direction, raises difficult questions about what race is and why it matters, and about the assumptions people make.

Jim Crow laws often imposed a “one-drop rule” so that people with even a sliver of black ancestry, no matter how white they appeared, were legally considered black. It is only because of that history that Ms. Dolezal could be accepted as black, said Martha A. Sandweiss, a history professor of Princeton University.

“There was very little to be gained by identifying yourself as black, so if you did, no one questioned it,” said Ms. Sandweiss, author of “Passing Strange,” an acclaimed book about a man who did just that in the late 19th century. “It shows how absurd racial classifications often are.”

What the Dolezal incident demonstrates is that there is something to gain, and there’s a new one-drop rule. No matter how black you appear, you need at least a sliver of black ancestry. So far as I know the current anti-White regime has squelched or avoided any legal challenge of it. Dolezal sued Howard University for discrimination against her, as a White woman. She lost.

Martha Sandweiss is another one of these deceptive “experts” on race. In fact, it appears she’s transracial, like Dolezal but different in an important way. From what I can tell she’s actually a jewess who’s posing as “white”. And like the chinaman “expert”, her expertise, her profession, is being critical of Whites.

There was an article about Sandweiss in the Princeton Alumni Weekly in 2009, with a title based on her jewsmedia-acclaimed book, Passing Strange: A Gilded Age Tale of Love and Deception Across the Color Line. American Renaissance reprinted it in 2009 under the title A Strange Double Life. The jewess’ double life as “white” went unmentioned.

If this story reminds readers of The Human Stain, Philip Roth’s novel about a half-black, half-white man passing as white and Jewish, you’re not alone. Sandweiss thought of it frequently during the four-and-a-half years she spent writing Passing Strange, especially with the number of times she had to fill in historical blanks.

“That was absolutely an inspiration for this book. I admire that book so much, how Roth gets inside of his character’s heads and imagines their motivations. Certainly many times working on this book I wished I was a novelist so I could narrate with a kind of a magnificent omniscience what’s really going on here.

“But I’m not a novelist, and I’m certainly not a brilliant novelist like Philip Roth. I’m a historian who lives and dies by her footnotes. This is a history book.”

(Uptown Girls is Sandweiss’ 2013 NYT review of Miss Anne in Harlem by Carla Kaplan. More of the same – concerning the “fiction of race”, the “absurdity of the one-drop rule”, and effusive praise for a tribemate spreading similar poisonous memes.)

Here’s why the jewsmedia attitude toward the transracial idea is generally negative even while their attitude toward transgender is positive. The jews deliberately promote fluidity of both race and gender, but the fluidity of race is of more critical importance to their parasitic lifestyle. Promoting a certain one-way belief in the fluidity of race helps enable jewish infiltration and manipulation of their hosts. The promotion of gender fluidity comes later, as part of the exploitation and parasitic castration of their hosts. Naturally jews are interested in racial identity and passing, thus they set themselves up as authorities on these subjects. They think deeply about these things, but they don’t want their hosts thinking too deeply about it.

Last week Andrew Joyce published a good article following up and expanding on a point I took issue with in Gaslighting. In Jews, Communists and Genocidal Hate in “Whiteness Studies” Joyce examines not just Noel Ignatiev but the jewy clique around him. He doesn’t directly address gender or race fluidity, but he does at least identify the jewish source and driving force behind these poisonous anti-White memes.

The open pursuance of ‘Whiteness Studies’ must be perceived as nothing less than an act of extreme, even violent, aggression against the White race.

Joyce gets less coherent toward the end when he tries to tie it in with his previous description of “White pathology” and “suicide”:

One major factor facilitating this ethnically suicidal behavior is the ongoing Jewish domination of academia and the constant mutation of what may loosely be termed ‘Frankfurt School’ ideologies into superficially novel intellectual movements. There is really nothing novel at all about ‘Whiteness studies.’ It is simply the latest guise for the radical critique of White culture and, all Talmudic logic about ‘race as a construct’ aside, the active promotion of White genocide. The hypocrisy of the Jewish architects of ‘Whiteness studies’ is self-evident — made clear in their total lack of identification with Whites, and in their very strong identification with Jewish culture and group interests. It is tragic, criminal in fact, that this corrupt cabal of ethnic activists and dysfunctional Communist wannabe-Jews has hijacked positions on faculty, has obtained access to elite publishing outlets, and with it, significant power and influence over culture.

The second factor at play in the success of ‘Whiteness studies’ is the ongoing problem of White pathology. One side of white pathology is altruism towards other races. The even more insidious side is the tendency towards self-hate.

Even according to the details of his own description of the non-jews who were involved as wannabe-jews, it’s really the same single factor – a jewish intellectual movement. I find it frustrating that a mainstream figure like McHugh won’t mention the jews, but will at least identify the ideas jews promote as pathogenic, whereas Joyce will bluntly identify the jews and what they’re doing, but still talks about the pathological behavior of Whites as if it’s something separate.

To conclude, the gist of what I’m getting at this time, which bears repeating, is that abnormal is the new normal. Trans-reality is a jewish construct.

Now more clearly than ever before in history, the problem is jewish rule. The fact is that jews are so powerful and privileged that hardly anyone in any position of power dares to openly challenge them or any of their cultural or moral dictates, no matter how obviously destructive. When supposed leaders and pundits aren’t snickering nervously, mocking “conspiracy theories” about “the jooos”, they’re loudly proclaiming their respect and admiration for jews, as a group, as a people, and denouncing anyone who doesn’t as the enemy, as literally evil. It’s more bizarre really than even the controversies around Jenner and Dolezal.

My point is that jews clearly use their influence in media and academia to define and promote pathogenic memes – the fluidity of gender and race are just two prominent examples. They do this because it’s good for the jews. They benefit from the almost-anything-goes atmosphere they create. In particular, they are the foremost practitioners of transracialism. They’ve used it throughout their history, not just recently, and not only to infiltrate and manipulate White hosts.

Age of Treason Radio

Anti-“Racism” is a Jewish Construct

Audio 19 May 2015 Tanstaafl 18 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The poisonous bit of anti-wisdom that “race is a social construct” is one of the most common expressions of anti-“racism”. The truth is the opposite – society is a racial construct.

In Race and Jews – Part 6 we examined how the jews were for race before they were against it, how their stand on race has shifted over the past century, guided by the underlying principle that good is what’s good for the jews.

In The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity:

Goldstein describes the private communications between jewish leaders in America. In 1909 these leaders feared that race scientists were close to declaring the jews a non-White race, and so they conspired to:

enlist the help of an anthropologist in order to get “a very strongly worded declaration as to the practical identity of the white race,” one that would presumably leave no doubt as to the whiteness of Jews.

During the first two decades of the twentieth century, Columbia University Processor Franz Boas was the best known anthropologist of Jewish origin in the United States. Boas shared the concern of the Jewish communal elite about racial nativism, but his preference to identify as a German American rather than as a Jew prevented him from engaging too directly in Jewish defense efforts during these years. Instead, Boas worked to discredit the centrality of race in evaluating human capabilities, arguing that differences between groups–including those between blacks and whites–were heavily influenced by environmental factors. Because these ideas contradicted the overwhelming consensus about the importance of racial differences in the United States, however, they offered little to Jewish leaders hoping to win acceptance for their group in white America.

The other jewish scientist that jewish leaders enlisted was Maurice Fishberg. In a book published in 1911:

Fishberg argued that the jews were not a “race, creed or nation” but simply a “social phenomenon”.

The reception from jews was cold. Goldstein tried to explain the apparent conflict like so:

If Jews found that race was an increasing liability and threatened to lump them with nonwhites, they also found themselves unable to break the emotional commitment they had to a racial self-understanding. The result was a constant stuggle with these two powerful impulses for inclusion and distinctiveness, one that led many acculturated Jews to assert their status as a religious group in public while privately clinging to a much broader racial understanding of Jewishness.

In my assessment these “two powerful impulses for inclusion and distinctiveness” are not at odds but are instead exactly what a parasitic organism needs to succeed. The parasite must infiltrate, manipulate and exploit its host, and in doing so it must detect and disarm the host’s defenses while being mindful enough not to attack or destroy its own.

The topic here is an extension of information and arguments laid out in a previous series of installments on race science, including a 5-part series on Race and Genetics, a 5-part series on Race and Anthropology, and finally a half-dozen more parts focused on Franz Boas and his proteges, titled Race and Fraud.

Peter Frost is a contemporary physical anthropologist, a scientist who studies the evolutionary genetic nature of the most visible racial attributes of Whites, namely skin, eyes and hair. He describes his work like so:

My own research has focused on the sex difference in human complexion. In short, women are paler and men ruddier and browner because of differing amounts of hemoglobin and melanin in the skin’s outer layers.

This subject has also led me to the puzzle of European pigmentation, i.e., the highly visible facial and body hues that occur almost wholly in Europeans. How can we explain the wide range of hair colors, the equally wide range of eye colors, and the maximum lightening of the skin? These color traits are a puzzle, all the more so because they do not have a single genetic cause.

For example, see his articles Why do Europeans have so many hair and eye colors? and Why are Europeans so white?

Frost is a favorite among “human biodiversity” enthusiasts, especially the subset of the HBD-o-sphere which has coalesced around unz.com, a web site run by the anti-White jew Ron Unz. The discussion at unz.com is “race realist” in the sense that the false mainstream “race is a social construct” tenet of anti-“racism” does not prevail. Even jews come up for discussion. However, amongst HBD writers and commenters, at unz.com and elsewhere, there is a conspicuous preponderance of jews, part-jews, jew-firsters, and outright jew-worshippers. One of the consequences is that whenever the jews do come up for discussion, so do all the old evasions and excuses.

It is in this context that Frost published a series of articles, both at unz.com and on his personal blog “Evo and Proud”, concerning Franz Boas and the origins of anti-“racism”.

In the first article, The Franz Boas you never knew, Frost argues that early in his career Boas believed race differences were real, significant, and rooted in biology. But:

Something critical seems to have happened in the late 1930s. When Boas prepared the second edition of The Mind of Primitive Man (1938), he removed his earlier racialist statements. The reason was likely geopolitical. As a Jewish American seeing the rise of Nazi Germany, he may have felt that the fight against anti-Semitism would require a united front against all forms of “racism”—a word just starting to enter common use and initially a synonym for Nazism.

Boas died in 1942 and the leadership of his school of anthropology fell to Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. With the end of the war, both of them wished to pursue and even escalate the fight against racism.

As we have already seen above, Boas was hard at work against race science long before the national socialists rose to power. As early as 1909 jewish leaders saw race science as a problem for the jews and were looking for a way to co-opt it, to establish that jews were White, so they wouldn’t be excluded.

They won by attacking on multiple fronts. Today “race is a social construct” prevails, and “there is no such thing as the White race”, at least in the judaized mainstream. The recognition that jews are not White, in body or mind, but are instead the hostile enemies of Whites, is considered just as scandalous among the jewy “race realists” as it is in the judaized mainstream.

Frost’s conclusion contains his thesis:

Boas had sought to strike a new balance between nature and nurture in the study of Man. The war intervened, however, and Boasian anthropology was conscripted to fight not only the Axis but also racism in any form. Today, three-quarters of a century later, we’re still fighting that war.

It is Frost who is seeking to strike a new balance. The current thoroughly judaized, anti-White regime sees Boas as a hero, a champion. Pro-White jew-wise dissidents properly finger Boas as an enemy and villain. Both sides agree that Boas was the earliest, most prominent, and most prolific proponent of what eventually became anti-“racism”.

Frost is trying to argue that Boas is somewhere in the middle, just a guy trying to strike a balance – who only sided with his own race when pushed into it by the evil “nazis”. In fact, Frost takes that argument a step farther by trying to argue that the jews as a group are not responsible for anti-“racism”. In other words, he’s excusing the jews.

I think Frost is White. I don’t know. He thinks more like a White man than a jew. His view comes across as objective rather than emotional, especially regarding the jews. He calls the stuggle between “racism” and anti-“racism” a war – and though he’s actually engaged in it, a soldier in the ongoing battle over the idea of race rooted in science, he doesn’t seem to want to take it seriously as a war and side with his own team, against the aggressors. He sees and understands the racial identification and concerns of the jews, but does not feel his own.

Frost’s argument has been challenged by the pseudononymous blogger n/a (not applicable?) who writes at “race/history/evolution notes”. n/a has a deep understanding of race – genetics, history, and the jews. I think n/a is a he, an American, a logical thinker, probably a scientist of some sort. He identifies very strongly with “WASP”s, to the point of recognizing and disliking that term as an enemy slur, in much the way national socialists dislike “nazi”.

n/a often takes issue with someone, like Frost, who misunderstands or misrepresents history, especially regarding WASPs, America’s founding stock, and especially when it involves the jews.

n/a’s appreciation of European history and the jews was visible when he identified the spirit of neo-reaction (AKA judeo-reaction) in 2009, before it had even had adopted a name, mocking the mindset of it’s part-jew guru Moldbug: “Bring back Monarchy so I can live out my dream of becoming a court Jew”.

n/a took issue with a comment Frost made where he let slip the argument behind his argument.

Reply to Peter Frost’s most recent bizarre attempt at rewriting history (part 1):

Peter Frost has previously claimed:

Anti-racism was neither solely nor primarily a Jewish invention. It initially arose through a radicalization of the abolitionist movement in the early to mid 19th century, its adherents being overwhelmingly of WASP origin. It then fell into decline, largely in response to the failure of black emancipation and the growing influence of Darwinian thinking in the social sciences. It was this half-discredited antiracism that Jewish immigrants, like Franz Boas, encountered in the late 19th century and the early 20th. With the rise of Nazi Germany, antiracism made a resurgence, and Jewish intellectuals certainly contributed to this resurgence for obvious reasons. But it was at all times as much a northeastern WASP cultural trait as a Jewish one.

He’s now back with more of this:

How did [Franz Boas’s] views on race evolve over the next twenty years? This evolution is described by Williams (1996), who sees his views beginning to change at the turn of the century. After getting tenure at Columbia University in 1899, he became immersed in the elite liberal culture of the American northeast and began to express his views on race accordingly. [. . .]

From 1900 to 1930, Boas seemed to become increasingly liberal in his views on race, but this trend was hesitant at best and reflected, at least in part, a change in the audience he was addressing. As a professor at Columbia, he was dealing with a regional WASP culture that still preserved the radical abolitionism of the previous century. A good example was Mary White Ovington, whose Unitarian parents had been involved in the anti-slavery movement and who in 1910 helped found the NAACP. Boas was also dealing with the city’s growing African American community and, through Ovington’s contacts, wrote articles for the NAACP. Finally, he was also dealing with the growing Jewish community, who identified with antiracism partly out of self-interest and partly out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture.

It’s an outrageous distortion of history to suggest Jews supported antiracism “out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture”.

Most northeasterners, of any class, were never abolitionists (antislavery does not equal abolitionist), and even most abolitionists did not advocate anything approaching modern anti-racism.

No major constituency in America denied the existence of biological differences between blacks and whites when Boas immigrated, and advocating such views provided no quick path to social advancement (though obviously, at a deeper level, Boas was no doubt motivated by a desire to eliminate “anti-semitism”).

It would have been very strange indeed for a physical anthropologist in 1890s America to outright deny the existence of race or obvious racial differences. What matters is the direction in which Boas differed from his contemporaries. And there’s no question Boas was promoting “anti-racism” from the outset.

The sneer quotes n/a puts around enemy propaganda terms demonstrates his awareness of and disdain for them as such.

Reply to Peter Frost (part 2): Boas was a product of German(-Jewish) culture, not American culture:

The version of history in which Franz Boas was a dispassionate purveyor of real talk who picked up anti-racism from “liberal WASPs” is of course wholly Peter Frost’s own invention. This scenario finds no support outside of Frost’s imagination.

Boas’s agenda remained consistent over his entire career, and it’s not an agenda he picked up in America. Boas was born in Germany, studied anthropology in Germany, brought his fully-formed worldview with him from Germany, and continued to identify with Germany throughout his life.

Nor was it “liberal WASPs” Boas primarily affiliated himself with in America.

n/a excerpts parts of an academic anthropology paper from 1982, titled Types Distinct from Our Own: Franz Boas on Jewish Identity and Assimiliation, by Leonard Glick. The synopsis reads:

Boas’s published writings on assimilation were deeply influenced by his German Jewish background. In particular, his unwillingness to recognize Jewish cultural identity as a reality was central to his persistent emphasis on human plasticity and his insistence that people not be “classified” in groups.

Boas’s work is marked with the deepest irony, in that his position on these questions was shaped – far more deeply, it would seem, than he recognized – by his own heritage as a German Jew and by formative years which coincided precisely with an eruption of the most explicit and virulent anti-Semitism in Germany prior to Hitler.

In other words, Boas’ outward anti-“racism” sprang from his inner jewishness.

The paper concerns, from a jewish point of view, an interesting period in German history, after the emancipation of the jews and prior to the rise of national socialism. Those who trace anti-“racism” back to abolitionism, including Frost, usually neglect to consider the connection between the emancipation of jews and negroes, and that the one preceded and undoubtedly influenced the other.

Reply to Peter Frost (part 3): The founding of the NAACP.

Reply to Peter Frost (part 4): Grant vs. Boas:

From Jonathan Spiro’s Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant:

. . .

If, as we delve into these complicated and long-forgotten controversies, the issues sometimes seem arcane if not downright petty, it will be good to bear in mind that, like the Cold War battles over Quemoy and Matsu, a great deal more was at stake then met the eye. The lives of millions of persons depended on the struggle over the validity of scientific racism.

For years, however, Boas had been diligently training a cadre of professional anthropologists who shared his revulsion for the theories of Grant, so that by the end of the 1910s Boas was surrounded and supported by a growing group of scholars well positioned to use their expertise to join in the assault on eugenics. Some of the more important anthropologists who received their Ph.D. from Boas were A. L. Kroeber (who earned his degree in 1901), Robert Lowie (1908), Edward Sapir (1909), Alexander Goldenweiser (1910), Paul Radin (1911), Leslie Spier (1920), Ruth Benedict (1923), Melville Herskovits (1923), Margaret Mead (1929), and Ashley Montagu (1937). With the exception of Kroeber, Benedict, and Mead, all were Jews, many were immigrants, and several were both. (It was a poorly kept secret that Ashley Montagu, the son of a Polish-born Jewish tailor, had been Moses Israel Ehrenberg before metamorphosing into Montagu Francis Ashley-Montagu.)

The old name game.

On a theoretical level the debate between the Grantians and the Boasians pitted the defenders of heredity against the proponents of environment. Intellectually, the split was a disagreement between adherents of polygenesis, who were obsessed with the classification of races, and adherents of monogenesis, who were fairly certain that races were socially constructed myths. And professionally, it was a conflict between an older generation of physical anthropologists (often gentleman amateurs with no academic affiliation or perhaps an association with a museum) and the newer generation of cultural anthropologists (usually trained professionals with full-time positions in academia). But for all that, it was difficult not to notice that at heart it was a confrontation between the ethos of native Protestants and the zeitgeist of immigrant Jews.

The older generation of amateurs were aristocratic WASPs with the money and leisure time to ponder fossils as an avocation, whereas the younger generation of professionals were immigrant Jews who saw higher education as a route to social respectability and jobs in academia as a means of economic survival.

Contra Frost, it was “difficult not to notice” that the conflict was between White racialists and jewish anti-“racists”.

Polygenesis is the theory that the continental races evolved separately and crossed the threshold to become “human”, capable of art, culture, civilization, separately. Monogenesis is the theory which has been popularized as “out of Africa”, summed up in the poisonous aphorism, “we’re all one race, the human race”.

In this next part n/a cites an anthropology book published in 2004 which argues for the biological reality of race. Here we see an argument for the longer-term and decidedly jew-driven nature of the anti-“racist” war.

Reply to Peter Frost (part 5): anthropology as the science of race:

In discussing the history of anthropology, Sarich and Miele (in Race: The Reality of Human Differences) find it useful to:

highlight three critical junctures in which science, politics, and personality interacted: the disputes between Ernst Haeckel and Rudolf Virchow, between Franz Boas and Madison Grant, and finally between Carleton Coon and Ashley Montagu.

Of the two cases that played out in America, both involve race-denialist Jewish immigrants opposing “northeastern WASPs” with colonial roots (Coon’s ancestry is 3/4 colonial New England and 1/4 Cornish; all of Grant’s ancestors were in America before 1790, at least half of Grant’s ancestry can be traced back to New England).

. . .

Haeckel and all he came to champion were opposed by his former professor, the distinguished biologist Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902). The conflict between them was both personal and political.

Virchow, whose name and appearance betrayed a Slavic ancestry

Haeckel was a strong supporter of the German Volk and Reich; Virchow was a radical advocate of social reform who fought at the barricades in the revolution of 1848.

Eugenics is applied race science – helping to guide politics, shaping government policies.

When Galton died in 1911, eugenics was widely accepted not only in Britain and Germany but in the United States as well. Raymond Pearl, professor of biology at Johns Hopkins University (then a supporter of eugenics but later an opponent), noted that by 1912, “eugenics was catching on to an extraordinary degree with radical and conservative alike.” [. . .]

At the start of the twentieth century, most American anthropologists came from wealthy Brahmin families and were educated at Harvard University. They were solidly in the eugenics camp, agreeing with [Francis] Galton on both individual and race differences. And then, as one author put it, Along Came Boas. His name is hardly a household word, but it is no exaggeration to say that Franz Boas (1858-1942) remade American anthropology in his own image. Through the works of his students Margaret Mead (Coming of Age in Samoa and Sex and Temperament in Three Societies), Ruth Benedict (Patterns of Culture), and Ashley Montagu (innumerable titles, especially the countless editions of Man’s Most Dangerous Myth), Boas would have more effect on American intellectual thought than Darwin did. For generations, hardly anyone graduated from an American college or university without having read at least one of these books. They all drew their inspiration from Boas’s The Mind of Primitive Man.

. . .

Before Boas, anthropology was the study of race. After Boas, anthropology in America became the study of culture

. . .

Franz Boas was a dark-haired Jewish immigrant from a leftist milieu, educated at German universities steeped in the ideals of the Enlightenment. Madison Grant, an archetypal Nordic, was a lawyer turned amateur biologist and a pillar of America’s WASP establishment. Grant claimed that his fellow American Nordics were committing racial suicide, allowing themselves to be “elbowed out” of their own land by ruthless, self-interested Jewish immigrants, who were behind the campaign to discredit racial research.

. . .

Coon vs. Montagu:

The Boasians were outsiders. Papa Franz and many of his students were Jews, though “the preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of anthropologists in subsequent generations has been downplayed in standard histories of the discipline.” Some, like Boas himself, were immigrants to boot. Montagu was born Israel Ehrenberg in the working-class East End district of London, England. He was so leery of anti-Semitism (“If you’re brought up as a Jew, you know that all non-Jews are anti-Semitic . . . It’s a good working hypothesis”) that he reinvented himself as Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu from London’s well-to-do West End financial district, complete with a posh public school accent. When he came to the United States, Montagu played the role of the British headmaster, lecturing American audiences before a receptive media on the foolishness of their prejudices. Later he dropped the hyphen and became simply Ashley Montagu.

Mead and Benedict could point to WASP pedigrees as pure as Madison Grant’s, but Mead was bisexual and Benedict a lesbian. At that time, those sexual orientations were far more stigmatized than they are today. Their sexual preferences are relevant, be cause developing a critique of traditional American values was as much a part of the Boasian program in anthropology as was their attack on eugenics and nativism. [. . .]

Whatever their individual origin, the Boasians felt deeply estranged from mainstream American society and the male WASP elites they were displacing in anthropology.

. . .

According to Degler, “Boas almost single-handedly developed in America the concept of culture, which, like a powerful solvent, would in time expunge race from the literature of social science.” In fact, Boas achieved his goal only with help, including a great deal from a most unwelcome source— Hitler and the Holocaust. After World War II, “race” and “eugenics” became very dirty words.

. . .

In 1949 the United Nations Educational, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was called upon to adopt “a program of disseminating scientific facts designed to remove what is generally known as racial prejudice.” For the drafter of the first UNESCO statement, Ashley Montagu, this was an opportunity to deny the reality of race.

. . .

ASHLEY MONTAGU VERSUS CARLETON COON

The preliminary match in anthropology’s fight over race was Virchow versus Haeckel. Then there was Boas versus Madison Grant. The final match in anthropology’s dispute went the distance.

. . .

[Carleton Stevens] Coon believed that race was a central issue and his job as an anthropologist was to study race; Montagu felt his was to banish race to the periphery and replace it with the concept of “ethnic group.” He began his effort to have the word “race” replaced by “ethnic group” in his 1942 book, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. When he was selected to draft the initial (1950) UNESCO Statement on Race, Montagu was given a platform from which to present his view to a much larger, non-academic audience.

Carleton Coon‘s magnum opus was the physical anthropology textbook, The Origin of Races (1962). He was a proponent of polygenesis.

There is one other point about Frost’s narrative which he continues to repeat and which n/a does not address. In his third post on the subject, Age of reason, Frost reasserts:

The interwar years gave antiracism a new lease on life, thus reversing a long decline that had begun in the late 19th century. This reversal was driven largely by two events: the acrimonious debate over U.S. immigration in the mid-1920s and Hitler’s rise to power in the early 1930s. Many people, especially academics, were convinced of the need for an uncompromising war on “racism”—a word just entering use as a synonym for Nazism.

Frost’s insistence that “racism” was a synonym for “nazism” would appear to undermine his own argument that anti-“racism” was not primarily a jewish invention. He has at the same time implied that Boas and jews generally were, but of course, opposed to “nazism”, it’s synonym.

The fact that “nazism” remains a synonym for “racism” and both are slurs to this day, seven decades after the “nazis” were destroyed, is because the jews won that war and now more or less openly dominate Western culture and promote their narrative, their morality, via education and mass media.

The understanding is beginning to spread that anti-“racism” is really just anti-Whitism. The fact that the terms “racism” and “anti-semitism” so often appear together in political rhetoric is evidence that it is jews who are defining and driving the regime’s anti-White/pro-jew political agenda. The fact that the word “combat” is often attached to these terms – as in “combating racism and anti-semitism” – is evidence that it is a war, a one-sided war on Whites in which jews openly organize conferences, call for laws, and direct governments to dedicate funds for their benefit.

What has happened in the past century is quite different from the way Frost and other jew-excusers see it. As I put it in Race and Jews – Part 7:

During the 19th century and into the 20th Whites were just beginning to appreciate the depth and breadth of their roots, their biological relationship with each other, but also to recognize their common parasite. They were beginning to appreciate just how biologically and psychologically distinct and implacably alien and hostile the jews are and have always been. How the jews have in fact insisted upon being and remaining this way.

This growing understanding of their roots, this racial consciousness, was not fabricated out of nothing, but was based on evidence gathered from study and research – archeology, linguistics, biology. It was spreading not only among the elite, the intelligensia, but was beginning to trickle out to the masses too.

In the first half of the 20th century Madison Grant’s Passing of the Great Race and Lothrop Stoddard’s Rising Tide of Color were popular books. White understanding of race was increasing.

In 1933 the national socialists took power in Germany, and for the first time a White European government officially and definitively answered the question, “who is us”, and pursued policies guided by the principle, “what’s best for us”, racially. Expressing a collective group-consciousness that for the first time approximated (and took into account the competitive and adversarial nature of) the kind of collective awareness of identity and interests that the jews had been practicing for millenia among Europeans.

Even before this, before this racial consciousness had fully coallesced into a national socialist government, those jews most aware of their collective interests recognized this burgeoning understanding among their host as a threat to the jews. They saw that jews embracing race was not going to be good for the jews in the long run.

By the time national socialism rose to power in Germany the jews had come to the consensus that race was definitely bad for the jews, and they were throwing all their efforts into an idea, a movement that would eventually be called “anti-racism”.

“Anti-racism” is a jewish contruct, though they have tried to generalize it and otherwise obscure this. As many Whites are beginning to realize, “anti-racism” is really just anti-Whitism. It is a movement, a perverse way of thinking about race that doesn’t abolish the idea of race, but simply inverts White consciousness – making White bad and non-White good. It was inspired and continues to be led and driven by jews who think that this is what’s best for the jews.