Tag Archives: language

The Language of Racial Psychology

baddog

This short article, How Evolutionary Psychology Illuminates Everyday Life, by Glenn Geher, highlights a few common idioms which have to do with group relations. These two are particularly interesting:

4. Eye for an eye.

I’ve written extensively that we are giving, altruistic species (see Geher, 2015). But we’re not dumb. The nature of altruism in a species like ours is conditional – we tend to help in a strategic manner. We tend to help people who have helped us in the past. Helping others who don’t help you leads to a scenario of possible exploitation, and evolutionary forces would have selected against such non-reciprocated helping (see Trivers, 1971). Similarly, it’s not good social policy to be a punching bag. If you let someone walk all over you and don’t retaliate, then (a) that person learns that he or she can continue to be a jerk to you and (b) others come to see you as exploitable. The whole “eye for an eye” things helps us understand all of these dynamics.

2. Tail between your legs.

Across many species, dominance hierarchies exist in social contexts (see Geher, 2014 for a summary of this concept). And lots of non-verbal behavior is associated with dominance-related contexts. When two dogs squabble for dominance, the loser takes on a unique and highly observable posture – it walks away with its tail between its legs. This is a signal that it has tried to achieve a higher status position than it really warranted – and is now signaling all this information to the others. When a person makes a bold social move that fails, you can see it in his or her face – as if he or she is a dog walking with its tail between its legs.

It’s easy enough to apply these terms to the anti-White/pro-jew zeitgeist. In the wake of the last big squabble for dominance seven decades ago the non-reciprocating eye-for-an-eye jerks have dominated and exploited the dumb punching bag losers, flaunting “our” altruistic norms not only without retaliation but with Whites instead tucking tail.

This way of describing the psychology seems more illuminating than the “pathological altruism” rhetoric I’ve been criticizing recently.

Charlie Hebdo and What Heebs Do

what_heebs_do

Some observations on the assassination of Charlie Hebdo “satirists” in France last week – specifically how jews have pushed their “free speech, not hate speech, jews define hate” meme.

There is a distinct contrast between the jewsmedia response to the Hebdo attack, Anders Breivik’s attack in Norway in 2011, and their initial reaction to Mohammed Merah’s shootings in Toulouse in 2012.

Hebdo was anti-nationalist. In 1996 Cavanna, Val and Charb (three pillars of Charlie Hebdo) organized a public petition to ban Front Nationale and personally delivered the signatures they collected to the French government.

This animus is in step with The Demonization of Marine Le Pen by the broader jewsmedia.

Hebdo was also anti-islam/anti-muslim. This is what the mainstream jewsmedia found most controversial about it. It does not fit the liberal, leftist or cultural marxist mindset. It is neo-con. Like The Jew Republic under Peretz, but in crude cartoon form.

The controversy reflects a division among jews on whether the islamization of dar al goyim is good for the jews. Outside Israel the clearest ideological distinction between so-called “liberal” and “conservative” jews is where they stand on this issue.

“Liberal” jews see muslims as “new jews”, as allies. They think it best for the jews to extend some degree of special “hate speech” protection to muslims. “Conservative” jews see muslims as “islamofascists” (“new nazis”), as enemies. They think it best for the jews if muslims can be freely mocked and ridiculed – satirized – as Hebdo did.

Heebdo illustrates and defines the term, and also links and comments on some prominent examples.

Shyster Sheldon Nahmod is a professor who describes himself as a “well-known expert on constitutional law, civil rights and the law of Section 1983” (which was “enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871” and “was originally designed to combat post-Civil War racial violence in the Southern states”).

Nahmod offers the following heebdo:

One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech, including but not limited to the anti-Semitic kind. Hate speech and anti-Semitism are major concerns in Europe and the Middle East and remain a nagging concern in the US as well. Hate speech can be defined as speech directed at a historically oppressed religious or racial minority with the intent to insult and demean. Hate speech undermines social attitudes and beliefs, it isolates its targets and it tends to silence them because they are often stunned and unable to respond. Hate speech also traumatizes (think of the effect it had on survivors and other Jews when the Nazis threatened to march in Skokie). We all know some of the hateful slurs that are too often directed against Jews, blacks, Latinos and Italians in this country.

This captures the essence of what you find when you search for “free speech” “hate speech” – lots of jews explaining how “free speech” is not “hate speech”, with jews literally defining “hate”. The decisive factor is identity and intent, who/whom, not words. The key phrase is “historically oppressed religious or racial minority”, the generalized-jew template, how jews describe themselves without using the word jew. It’s part and parcel of the broader jewish narrative.

As I indicated in Christmas 2014, jew worship is openly promoted at the highest levels of government. Charlie Hebdo has been criticized for blasphemy against the dieties of muslims and Christians, but for jews the mere caricature of a generic jew is regarded as blasphemous.

One of the examples the New York Times attached to Proud to Offend, Charlie Hebdo Carries Torch of Political Provocation was a Hebdo cover depicting the Le Pen father and daughter in a concentration camp tower, laughing, with the “new reactionary” jew Eric Zemmour sitting between them looking sour. It is included in the article only as an example of something regarded as offensive and provocative to jews, because it toys with the most holy iconography of jew-worship.

If you like my podcasts, see TFeed.

With Jews We Lose

with_aipac_we_lose

Robert Ransdell’s slogan, “With Jews We Lose”, is excellent. It is a clear and pithy statement of fact which provokes exactly the kind of fundamental, existential thoughts about identity Whites need to be thinking.

Who is us? What’s best for us?

The answer to both questions is: Not jews.

Traitorous fools like Joe Biden applaud jewish influence. The truth is that the jews have caused Whites incalculable harm, infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting every European nation in history. Over time they have crippled or destroyed them all.

More than a hundred and thirty years ago patriotic Germans realized that their nation was being ruined by jews. Heinrich von Treitschke popularized the slogan “Die juden sind unser Unglück!” (“The jews are our misfortune!”). Decades later it was adopted as a motto by Der Stürmer.

It’s time for Whites to stop losing. Time to start thinking and doing what’s best for your race. Time to see the jews’ implacable fraud and anti-White hostility for what it is. Time to respond. Time to put an end to it.

Jews and “New Jews”, The Poisonous Victim Narrative

Jewish and Muslim leaders link arms in silent march to honour victims of shooting at Ozar Hatorah school in Toulouse

James Kirchick explains Why ‘Islamophobia’ in Europe Cannot Be Equated With Anti-Semitism, Either in Nature or Degree, at Tablet Magazine:

Much of what passes these days for “Islamophobia”—a conversation-stopping word meant to render any and all criticism of Islam as “racist”—simply cannot be equated with anti-Semitism, either in nature or degree. To express qualms about the reactionary attitudes prevalent in many Muslim communities about women, as did the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn (who was murdered for his heresy), is not racist, nor is it in any way comparable to the bigotry directed at Jews, historically or today. In the United States, FBI statistics show that, since Sept. 11, anti-Semitic attacks have far outnumbered anti-Muslim ones. In Europe, mobs do not rampage and attack Muslims or mosques following Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks, as Jews are regularly assaulted whenever tension flares in the Middle East.

None of this should obscure the fact that there are important similarities between the Muslim and Jewish experience, of both today and yesteryear. Muslims, Reed College Anthropology Professor Paul Silverstein told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2006, are “the object of a series of stereotypes, caricatures and fears which are not based in a reality and are independent of a person’s experience with Muslims.” Replace “Muslims” with “Jews” and you get a serviceable definition of anti-Semitism. In Europe today, both Muslims and Jews have been the targets of campaigns aimed at outlawing their traditional religious practices, namely, circumcision and the provision of kosher or halal food. Claiming their real motive to be concern for the “bodily integrity” of children or “animal welfare,” militant European secularists portray Muslims and Jews as barbaric peoples stuck in the past. Living in Germany two years ago at the height of the country’s anti-circumcision hysteria, I was confronted with provocative advertising campaigns that effectively likened Jews and Muslims to child molesters. French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who likes to fashion herself a friend of the Jews, has called for banning not only the headscarf but also the kippah in public.

Nothing new here – just your typical jewish double-talk and hypocritical in-your-face moralizing. Muslims are innocent victims, just like jews, only less so. Whites are the Other, the common enemy, their mutual victimizers, stereotyped as “hysterical” “militant” “provokers” whose “stereotypes, caricatures and fears are not based in a reality”.

Kirchick illustrates how the jewish narrative is extended into a more generalized victim narrative, a narrative in which “racism” and “islamophobia” are both similar and yet incomparable to “anti-semitism”. This reflects the archetypical role of the jews as the first and foremost victim-narrators. The term “new jews” makes this role explicit, designating some group as junior victim-narrators, like the jews, and implying a special status, like the jews. Thus “new jews” are righteous, but not as righteous as the real jews, who otherwise wouldn’t need to be invoked, much less get to have a say in it.

The fact is that the jewish narrative and its terms are used proactively and aggressively, not defensively. The target of their aggression, their characteristic psychopathologization and demonization, is Whites. Their anti-White narrative has been institutionalized and is now a commonplace in the judaized corporate media.

This long-term jew-led assault has put Whites collectively on the defensive, leaving us disoriented and demoralized. In reality Whites, who according to the jewish narrative control everything, have no political representation as such. Leaders who openly and unapologetically identify with and advocate White interests have been excluded or hounded out of power as “racists”. The consequences of this have been disastrous for Whites.

Just one tip of one bloody iceberg has come to light in Rotherham. Unsurprisingly, there have been efforts to mischaracterize the harm as self-inflicted or as a consequence of partisanship. It is neither. What is evident in the revelation of this long-term and wide-spread predation is not only the humiliation of being colonized and despoiled by hostile aliens, but the enervating way in which it has been directly facilitated by the jews and their poisonous narrative.