Tag Archives: race

The Tuvel Affair

trust_me_fellow_whites_this_has_nothing_to_do_with_jewing

A major (((identity politics))) hissyfit spilled out of its jewniversity incubator and into the broader jewsmedia limelight over the past month or so. The controversy was triggered by “feminist philosopher” Rebecca Tuvel’s paper, In Defense of Transracialism:

In this article, I argue that considerations that support transgenderism extend to transracialism. Given this parity, since we should accept transgender individuals’ decisions to change sexes, we should also accept transracial individuals’ decisions to change races. I entertain and reject four objections that suggest a society should not accept an individual’s decision to change races.

Wikipedia’s Hypatia transracialism controversy page provides a semitically correct overview of the affair so far, naming the most prominent personalities involved and linking the most significant critiques and articles. My intent is to call attention to the role jews and jewing play in the affair, a crucial aspect which has been effectively ignored and even obscured by all the squid ink.

In this case, as usual, jews are jewing away with impunity. Big-mouthed jews and their toxic ideas dominate the conversation, on all sides, across academia and media as a whole, yet it goes on unrecognized as such. What sets this particular example apart is the issue at the heart of it, so-called transracialism, which helps enable jews to jew with impunity.

Transracialism is really just a new term for an old fraud, commonly known as passing. In the case of jews passing has a long history and is better understood as a form of crypsis.

Goyposing in academia and media today typically involves jews actively posturing as “white” so as to claim the moral authority to say something poisonous to or about “fellow white people”. More generally, the pretense that jews are “white” serves to shift attention and blame for jew over-representation or malfeasance onto Whites, toward whom jews actually feel no loyalty or sympathy. The effect of this white-washing also manifests indirectly in critics – jew or otherwise – who obviously feel freer to criticize jews under the pretext that they’re attacking “whites”.

Every facet of this fraud can be found in the Tuvel affair. Is Tuvel a jew? That’s not clear, and nobody in the jewstream is even asking. Several critics and defenders assert Tuvel is “white”, but there are a few indications that she’s a jew, part-jew, or somehow otherwise connected to jews. For one thing, her surname is suspiciously rare and jewy. For another, she began her argument in favor of transracialism by pointedly referring to the exclusionary attitude of jews, a sore subject for mischlings/mamzers. Here’s how Tuvel put it:

Generally, we treat people wrongly when we block them from assuming the personal identity they wish to assume. For instance, if someone identifies so strongly with the Jewish community that she wishes to become a Jew, it is wrong to block her from taking conversion classes to do so. This example reveals there are at least two components to a successful identity transformation: (1) how a person self-identifies, and (2) whether a given society is willing to recognize an individual’s felt sense of identity by granting her membership in the desired group. For instance, if the rabbi thinks you are not seriously committed to Judaism, she can block you from attempted conversion. Still, the possibility of rejection reveals that, barring strong overriding considerations, transition to a different identity category is often accepted in our society.

Visibly jewy Nora Berenstain has been broadly cited for the earliest, most hysterical response to Tuvel’s argument, though her name is omitted from many such accounts. Berenstain’s Facebook post, since deleted, provides a taste of state-of-the-art semitical correctness promoted in jewed academia:

Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege. In her discussion of “transracialism,” Tuvel doesn’t cite a single woman of color philosopher, nor does she substantively engage with any work by Black women, nor does she cite or engage with the work of any Black trans women who have written on this topic.

Berenstain’s complaint was that Tuvel should have cited more non-Whites and non-men (like Berenstain) specifically because they aren’t White men. This screech was soon echoed in a public condemnation, signed by more than a hundred outraged “scholars” who demanded that the publisher take down Tuvel’s article. To Berenstain’s cry for preferential treatment for non-White non-men they added their own, and specifically faulted Tuvel for mentioning jews jewing openly as jews:

It mischaracterizes various theories and practices relating to religious identity and conversion; for example, the author gives an off-hand example about conversion to Judaism

The initial wave of screeching about Tuvel’s argument triggered an even larger wave of corporate jewsmedia counter-screeching. The back and forth echoes on still. Though plenty of the original screeching was overtly anti-White, the counter-screeching completely ignored this. To the extent any attention was paid to the limited mention of jews, it was only to dismiss it.

In fact, another reason to suspect that Tuvel has some connection to The Tribe is how her critics have chimped out almost entirely over her argument, without calling for personal sanctions, as they normally would for someone who is White. She also has many jew defenders, most of whom don’t even care what her argument is, which is not something they normally do for someone who is White.

“Right”-posing jew Ben Shapiro, for example, blamed “leftist academia” and wrote:

as an Orthodox Jew, I can say that the essay characterizes Judaism’s view of conversion quite properly

Academic insider jew Brian Leiter is a better example. Leiter was among the first and most prominent of the counter-screechers, but studiously avoided the anti-White/pro-jew attitudes of the screechers and instead focused on defending Tuvel from “defamation”:

I confess I’ve never seen anything like this in academic philosophy (admittedly most signatories to the “open letter” are not academic philosophers, but some are). A tenure-track assistant professor submits her article to a journal, it passes peer review, it is published, others take offense, and the Associate Editors of the journal declare that “Clearly, the article should not have been published” and that the abuse to which the author is being subjected is “both predictable and justifiable.”

He filed this claim under “Authoritarianism and Fascism Alerts”. Tellingly, just last December he was mocking White genocide, filed under “Academic Freedom”, hinting that jews like himself define genocide and don’t see themselves as White. More tellingly, in 2010 he wrote a bit he filed under “What is Philosophy?” titled Jewish Poker:

Ephraim Kishon has a story called “Jewish Poker”. Jewish poker is played without cards so all you can do is bluff – and you have to bluff high. I think that this is the secret of Derridean post-modernism as currently practised in U.S. humanities departments: in the end, it’s all competitive hyperbole – who can be more radical?

Someone starts off with a huge unsupported generalization. For example, they write a book saying that the whole of Western thought is under the hegemony (good word) of (say) “logocentrism”, that its genealogy has to be exposed and deconstructed to reveal the Other that it “covers over and disavows”.

That’s a high bid, but you can top that. Why not write a review saying that this is to give “the Other” a “hegemonic status”, that this too needs to be deconstructed and given a genealogy? Say that the re-valuation of values hasn’t been radical enough, that “the Nietzschean trans-valuation is far from being complete: in its second stage, at the threshold of which we find ourselves today, it will necessitate a de-hierarchization of the already inverted values, so that alterity, too, would lose its newly acquired transcendental status, just as sameness and identity did in twentieth-century thought.”

Kishon described the environment not only in philosophy, but in jewed academia more generally. At the time Leiter himself noted that “the philosophy blogosphere worked itself into quite a tizzy over these remarks, no doubt because they hit so close to home”, i.e. because contemporary philosophy is so jewed. Seven years later this is just as relevant to the Tuvel affair, where so much of the screeching is based on the unquestioned premise that philosophy is too White, and none of the counter-screeching tizzy has anything to do with defending Whites.

So what is the fuss? I think I covered the basics well enough in Trans-Reality. The jewed academia/jewsmedia consensus back then was to hail gender-bending Jenner as a brave hero and to mock frizzy-haired Dolezal as a bad joke. The response to Tuvel’s argument about transracialism only hammers home that consensus.

Race is a social construct but transracialism isn’t real, cry the jews pretending to be “white”. “Racism” is prejudice plus power, cry the jews who dominate the anti-White academia and media.

One last example from anti-White jewsmedia jewess Pheobe Maltz Bovy, who literally just wrote a book jewsplaining how jews are “white”, and Whites have privilege, but jews don’t. In this case she wrote to say there’s nothing to see here:

In The Article, Tuvel “suggest[s] that Dolezal offers an important opportunity for us to think seriously about how society should treat individuals who claim a strongly felt sense of identification with a certain race. When confronted with such an individual, how should we respond?”

I’m suggesting, in turn, that we take a step back and ask: Are we, in fact, confronted with such individuals? Because if we’re not (and Tuvel admits as much), then we’re giving rather a lot of weight to the well-being of made-up, thought-experiment-inhabiting people, and putting their feelings above those of people who do in fact exist and do in fact make their wishes known.

Put another way: Transgender is a thing, transracial is not. There are people who suffer tremendously from being assigned a gender at birth that does not match up with who they are. These are real people who really exist. Are there people in the same boat where race is concerned?

Like most of the screechy anti-White elite Bovy regards “transgenderism” as unquestionably natural and normal. Unlike most everyone else Bovy demonstrates how jew-to-”white” transracial goyposing works while claiming it doesn’t exist:

There are certainly cases of racial identity being ambiguous, and yes, racial identity has margins. (Trust me, I’m an otherwise white person not considered white by white supremacists!) That, however, is something else.

With transracial, meanwhile, literally all that’s at play – again, where actual people are concerned – is, there are many black people who find “transracial” to be, well, racist. But there isn’t any competing concern of the transracial community because guess what? There isn’t a transracial community, let alone an oppressed transracial community. So what you’re defending, in effect, when you defend the non-existent transracial community is the right to be gratuitously offensive. Because that’s the demand white people – not all, but lots – are actually making.

“Trust me, fellow white people, transracialism has nothing to do with jews or their jewing. It’s all about whites oppressing blacks.”

A Shift in Revulsion

mixed_up

The revulsion at race mixing was transformed into revulsion directed at “nazis”, because jews.

Science. 1973 Nov 23;182(4114):790-6.

Geneticists and the biology of race crossing.

Provine WB.

Abstract

Geneticists in England and the United States clearly reversed their published remarks on the effects of race crossing between 1930 and 1950. The reversal occurred in two steps. First came the change in the 1930′s from a condemnation of wide race crosses to an agnostic view. The second change, from the agnostic view to the belief that wide race crosses were at worst biologically harmless, took place during and shortly after World War II. The entire reversal occurred in the light of little new compelling data from studies of actual human race crosses. The lack of new data is unsurprising. Few geneticists wished to initiate experiments that took three human generations to complete. And controlled race crosses are hard to arrange, even with government grants. What might be more surprising was the willingness of geneticists to make such positive statements about race crossing when they had so little reliable genetic evidence. I interviewed or wrote to ten prominent geneticists who worked on human genetics between 1930 and 1950. Not one believed that new evidence on race crossing was the primary reason why geneticists changed their minds about the effects of race crossing. One plausible explanation, that the rise of “population thinking” (44) caused geneticists to change their minds, does not fit the evidence. Castle was no more of a “population” thinker than East, yet they differed radically in their conclusions about race crossing. What, then, did cause geneticists to change their minds? Most important was the revulsion of educated people in the United States and England to Nazi race doctrines and their use in justifying extermination of Jews. Few geneticists wanted to argue, as had the Nazis, that biology showed race crossing was harmful. Instead, having witnessed the horrible toll, geneticists naturally wanted to argue that biology showed race crossing was at worst harmless. No racist nation could misuse that conclusion. And geneticists did revise their biology to fit their feelings of revulsion. Geneticists’ ideas about the related question of hereditary mental differences between races is perhaps undergoing a similar development to that seen earlier in their ideas about race crossing. In 1951, judging from the response to the Unesco second statement on race and comments in genetics literature, most geneticists agreed with Muller that races probably differed in significant average mental traits. By 1969, when Arthur Jensen advocated this view in his controversial article (45), most geneticists who spoke publicly on the issue had adopted an agnostic position. Knowledge of hereditary racial differences in IQ had scarcely changed since 1951, but society had changed considerably in racial attitudes. It will be interesting to see if during the next several decades geneticists will argue, on the basis of little additional evidence, that hereditary mental differences between races do not exist. I am not condemning geneticists because social and political factors have influenced their scientific conclusions about race crossing and race differences. It is necessary and natural that changing social attitudes will influence areas of biology where little is known and the conclusions are possibly socially explosive. The real danger is not that biology changes with society, but that the public expects biology to provide the objective truth apart from social influences. Geneticists and the public should realize that the science of genetics is often closely intertwined with social attitudes and political considerations.

PMID: 4583525

Decoding the Racial Political Discourse, 2016

shlomo_says_phobia

Democrats, Not Trump, Racialize Our Politics, by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal, 27 Nov 2016:

Democratic (((pundits))) are calling on their party to court working-class and non-coastal whites in the wake of this month’s electoral rout. But the Democratic Party is now dominated by identity politics, which defines whites, particularly heterosexual males, as oppressors of every other population in the U.S. Why should the targets of such thinking embrace an ideology that scorns them?

The most absurd Democratic meme to emerge from the party’s ballot-box defeat is the claim that it is Donald Trump, rather than Democrats, who engages in “aggressive, racialized discourse,” in the words of a Los Angeles Times op-ed. By contrast, President Barack Obama sought a “post-racial, bridge-building society,” according to New York Times reporter Peter Baker. Obama’s post-racial efforts have now “given way to an angry, jeering, us-against-them nation,” writes Baker, in a front-page “news” story.

[Ta-Nehesi] Coates’s melodramatic rhetoric comes right out of (((the academy))), the inexhaustible source of Democratic identity politics. The Democratic Party is now merely an extension of (((left-wing))) campus culture; few institutions exist wherein the skew toward Democratic allegiance is more pronounced. The claims of life-destroying trauma that have convulsed (((academia))) since the election are simply a continuation of last year’s campus Black Lives Matter protests, which also claimed that “white privilege” and white oppression were making existence impossible for black students and (((other favored victim groups))).

Hillary Clinton employed classic Democratic “racialized discourse” throughout the campaign. During a Democratic presidential primary debate in January 2016, Clinton agreed that it was “reality” that police officers see black lives as “cheap.” In a February debate, she accused Wisconsin, along with other states, of “really systemic racism” in education and employment. In July she called on “white people” to put themselves in the shoes of African-American families who “need to worry” that their child will be killed by a police officer. When Clinton called half of Trump’s supporters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it” who belonged in a “basket of deplorables,” she was speaking the language of (((the academy))), now incorporated into (((the Democratic worldview))).

Mac Donald attempts to spin the conflict as a black war on Whites, but the Clinton campaign was speaking the anti-White language of jews.

See also: Decoding the Racial Political Discourse (2012).

Why Dylann Roof is RIGHT! – Whites UNDER-REACT to Racial threats

dylann_roof_100_1644

Rather than making a podcast of my own this week, I’m going to urge you to listen to this one instead. It was originally posted on YouTube. All I’ve done is carve out the unique commentary (leaving out the several other short videos the author attached to the end of his) and transcode the audio to MP3 (leaving out the author’s image slideshow). If you can, I encourage you to watch the whole thing in its original form.

As I described when I first linked the video a few days ago, this podcast contains some very sobering testimony from a White man in Africa, a Boer. Dedicating a post to it gives me a chance to say a bit more about it, and a few other Roof-related items and issues.

First off I’ll say that I had never heard from this Boer before, but was curious about what else he had to say and where his podcasts and other work was published. Starting at History Reviewed Channel, on YouTube, it’s apparent that he’s made several other podcasts, before and since this one. From URLs attached to some of them it seems he operates a set of similar-looking websites, including Ban Judaism, AfricanCrisis, AmericanCrisis, and HistoryReviewed. Some of the items on these sites are snippets of private chats, like this one. Some involve “The Editor”, a handle I recalled running across on Twitter, and which turns out to point back to the same person.

Regardless of who this man is, what he has to say in this podcast makes alot of sense. What he says comports, just as the general views attributed to Dylann Roof do, with my own view of reality, sanity, and morality – as far as I can tell, a more or less accurate description of what’s happening and why. I feel compelled to choose my words so precisely and cautiously because there are two strong currents among Whites which put forth more or less opposing views.

The first current, which is to condemn Roof, attacking his sanity and morality, I have already addressed. I consider this current itself to be not only mistaken but worthy of attack. The tragedy is that it’s proponents support and agree with Roof’s motives, but in joining the enemy to condemn Roof’s actions end up undermining themselves, calling into question their own motives and actions.

The second current, which is to dismiss Roof, attacking his reality, and thus by extension the White racial reality, I have not previously addressed. The Boer does so very briefly at the start of his podcast. In my own view this “psyops”/”truther”/”crisis actors” current is also mistaken, but not worthy of attack. More than anything else it is a distraction. It’s true-believing core proponents fundamentally disagree with Roof’s purported motives – at best because they are deracinated, at worst because they are anti-”racists” and jews. They present a false critique of the jewsmedia narrative, providing in fact an astroturf extension of the distortion and confusion the corporate jewish media creates, toward the same anti-White ends. In other words, they are part of, or at least participating in, the larger “psyop” they complain about. In this case I think the tragedy is in some jew-wise White racialists lending this surreal phenomenon credence and attention.

The authenticity of Dylann Roof, the Boer, and even myself is something Whites must judge for themselves. A measure of skepticism is normal and healthy, and I think Whites could use more of it when dealing with anything coming from the jewsmedia or academia. I think that if anything Whites underestimate the jews, their perfidy, and the confusion they very deliberately create around race, politics, and history.

That said, I’ll repeat that the manifesto attributed to Roof and the commentary coming from the Boer both strike me as authentic. If either are in fact coming from jews, who are presumably trying to discredit pro-White motives by tying them to violent acts, then they are failing. If it is jews, then they are doing a good job, making so much sense, that they do a bad job of discrediting White racial consciousness. My argument against the Roof-condemners is that they discredit themselves by arguing in terms of a morality or sanity they otherwise demonstrate they do not actually believe. My argument against the Roof-disbelievers is that they discredit themselves by arguing for a measure of skepticism and consciousness they otherwise demonstrate they do not practice.

The Boer well describes the current zeitgeist in Africa and America. Though he doesn’t identify it as such, he describes the jew’s oppression narrative behind this zeitgeist, driving it morally and ideologically, consistently excusing non-Whites and blaming Whites for everything, no matter the circumstances.

The Boer’s main point, with which I concur, is that the essence of “liberal”/jew power is lying, the con job, fraud. To that he adds the point that behind their dishonest rhetoric and argument they have other, hidden interests and loyalties at heart – either involving themselves personally, their employer, or non-Whites (and jews) more generally. That White “liberals” are race traitors, a worse kind of enemy compared to blacks. That their nightmare is that enough Whites will recognize that the threat posed by their lies is real, has to be taken seriously and stopped, especially by resorting to violence. And finally, based on his personal experience with the course of events over the past 60 years in Africa, he opines that “right-wing”/racialist Whites have failed because they have underestimated the extent and gravity of the situation, whereas the “liberal”/jew lying, and especially guilt-tripping, has been ruthless, and with devastating effect.

The Boer understands more about the jews than he lets on in his podcast about Roof. In another podcast, published just before Roof’s reprisal, he shares his attempt to describe the jewish problem to a friend. Whites colonised Blacks; Jews colonise Whites! – JEWS 101: Introduction to the Jewish problem puts it in a pithy way that any White should be able to comprehend, but especially those Whites outside Europe, for whom the colonialism guilt-trip hits closest to home. I would describe the relationship as parasitism rather than colonialism, and trace it back far beyond Spain 500 years ago, but the way the Boer sees and describes it is definitely on the right track. The colonialism analogy is perhaps even better for persuading someone who is still under the influence of Christianity, or finds an understanding rooted more in sociology than biology more appealing.

The Boer identifies two analogues to Roof – Anders Breivik, with whom most Whites are at least somewhat familiar, and Barend (Hendrik) Strydom, a Boer with whom most Whites outside of Africa are probably completely unfamiliar. As the various articles on the murderpedia.org page make clear, Christianity played an important role in Strydom’s mindset, which he shared with his family and the larger Boer White nationalist group to which he belonged. I found these passages particularly interesting:

By the time (Barend) Hendrik Strydom was sixteen he was already a member of a number of extremist right-wing organisations and had visions of an all-white nation being established in South Africa. He claimed to have attended a veldschool in Standard 8, where he had been warned against the communist system as well as drug and alchohol abuse. “We were taught to be proud of our country,”he said. “I began to read many books on politics in South Africa and also attended right-wing meetings. They were the only true political movements – unlike the Nationalist government which lies to the people.” He saw some of the reform movements introduced by the government as a ,sell-out. His views were encouraged by his father, Mr Nic Strydom, an ex policeman, an elder in the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk, and a former regional leader of the Heidelberg Afrikaaner Weerstands beweging (AWB). Mr Nic Strydom would later claim proudly in court that he had ‘planted the seeds of religion and right-wing political views’ in his son’s heart. He also maintained that his son was a dedicated churchgoer and a person who strongly believed in God. “I explained to him that, according to the Bible, each nation should have its own church and religion, which Hendrik accepted whole heartedly.” It was also Mr Strydom’s belief that ‘blacks were animals’. “Blacks are not human beings according to the Bible, and many books I have read, and in my eyes they are animals. Many books Hendrik and I have read state, among other things, that Jews of today are not whites, blacks are animals and all whites stem from the Israelites,” Mr Strydom added.

“I became more aware of the enemy, especially people belonging to the left-wing organizations such as the United Democratic Front and the so-called Workers Union and their affiliated organizations, which were all African National Congress front movements.” He saw the actions, which the government was taking to combat internal rebellion as ineffective and began to fear that South Africa was going to the communists.

Despite this realization, Strydom selected random blacks as targets, not White/jew communists. More important, he never expressed regret or otherwise betrayed himself, his cause, or his people:

On Wednesday, 17 May, Mr Justice Louis Harms found Strydom guilty on all counts and called for arguments in mitigation of sentence. “I see what I did as totally correct,” Strydom declared the following day. “If I had to do it again I would do the same thing”. When questioned about the Wit Wolwe movement, Strydom maintained that it had been established in February 1986, but would give no further details. The police claimed that investigations indicated that the Wit Wolwe was merely a figment of Strydoms imagination. When it was put to the accused that he was bragging in an attempt to make himself important, Strydom denied this.

Even more important, his family and his people, the Boere, did not abandon or betray him:

In a press interview given a few days after the sentencing, Mr Nic Strydom told reporters: “I’m proud of Hendrik because he sacrificed himself for his beliefs. He is an honest man and I respect him for that. He killed for love the love of a nation.”

Contrast this with Roof’s family, one of which supposedly expressed an eager desire to condemn and even “push the button” himself, not only before the trial, but before he could possibly have known hardly anything about what had happened or why. And though they should have been, knowing what they know, the many pro-Whites who similarly rushed to condemn Roof were really no better in this regard.

More about the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, or Afrikaner Resistance Movement:

The AWB was formed in 1973 by Eugène Terre’Blanche and six other far-right Afrikaners. Terre’blanche remained the leader until he was murdered on his farm in 2010.

The AWB flag is composed of three black sevens (forming a triskelion) in a white circle upon a red background. According to AWB, the sevens, ‘the number of JAHWEH’, ‘stand to oppose the number 666, the number of the anti-Christ’. Red is considered to represent Jesus’ blood, while black stands for bravery and courage. The inner white circle symbolises the “eternal struggle”, or according to other sources “eternal life”.[30] The flag bears a resemblance to the Swastika flag used by the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany.

In the case of Strydom and the AWB, Christianity posed no moral obstacle to their racialism and even the use of violence in pursuit of their survival as a people. Likewise for some black nationalists, like the New Black Panthers. See, for example, Malik Shabazz Calls On Charleston Crowd To Finish “Mission” Killing “Slave Masters”. Shabazz urges violence and alludes approvingly to the black adoption of the oldest of jewish lies, their slaves-in-Egypt narrative.

Contrary to those White racialist naysayers who argue that it’s impossible to simply replace the jews in “what’s best for the jews”, in one way or another this is what nearly everyone actually does. It goes well beyond the confused racialism of black and White Christians who spell out their we-are-the-real-jews substitution more or less explicitly. Even those secular “liberal” (which includes most “conservative”) Whites who wouldn’t recognize it as such justify themselves with a mutation and expansion of the jewish moral code, a concern for “what’s best for jews/non-Whites”, which may in part even be sincere, but most of which is just a disguise for a narrower, “what’s best for myself”.

Dylann Goes Through the Roof

dylann_roof

“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.

Trans-Reality

fluid_frauds_dolezal_jenner

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.

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.

Anti-”Racism” is a Jewish Construct

combat_racism_for_the_jews

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.