Tag Archives: race

Ugh, it’s a Krug

A few days ago Jessica Krug, a tenured professor at George Washington University, posted a bizarre confession. I’ve excerpted the key bits. The Truth, and the Anti-Black Violence of My Lies (archive.is):

To an escalating degree over my adult life, I have eschewed my lived experience as a white Jewish child in suburban Kansas City under various assumed identities within a Blackness that I had no right to claim: first North African Blackness, then US rooted Blackness, then Caribbean rooted Bronx Blackness. I have not only claimed these identities as my own when I had absolutely no right to do so — when doing so is the very epitome of violence, of thievery and appropriation, of the myriad ways in which non-Black people continue to use and abuse Black identities and cultures — but I have formed intimate relationships with loving, compassionate people who have trusted and cared for me when I have deserved neither trust nor caring. People have fought together with me and have fought for me, and my continued appropriation of a Black Caribbean identity is not only, in the starkest terms, wrong — unethical, immoral, anti-Black, colonial — but it means that every step I’ve taken has gaslighted those whom I love.

. . .

Mental health issues likely explain why I assumed a false identity initially, as a youth, and why I continued and developed it for so long; the mental health professionals from whom I have been so belatedly seeking help assure me that this is a common response to some of the severe trauma that marked my early childhood and teen years.

. . .

That I claimed belonging with living people and ancestors to whom and for whom my being is always a threat at best and a death sentence at worst.
I am not a culture vulture. I am a culture leech.

. . .

I should absolutely be cancelled. No. I don’t write in passive voice, ever, because I believe we must name power. So. You should absolutely cancel me, and I absolutely cancel myself.

What does that mean?

I don’t know.

. . .

I have built my life on a violent anti-Black lie, and I have lied in every breath I have taken.

There are no words in any language to express the depth of my remorse, but then again: there shouldn’t be. Words are never the point.

. . .

I don’t know how to fix this. I am attempting to lay out a timeline of my deceit to better understand all whom I have violated and how, and to begin to imagine how to restore, to address, to redress… But I can’t fix this.

. . .

To everyone who trusted me, who fought for me, who vouched for me, who loved me, who is feeling shock and betrayal and rage and bone marrow deep hurt and confusion, violation in this world and beyond: I beg you, please, do not question your own judgment or doubt yourself. You were not naive. I was audaciously deceptive. I have a very clear, loud conscience, but I have acted as if I had none. I gaslit you. I begged for your compassion and love for my isolation and loneliness — real and raw feelings, but borne of the avalanche of deceit.

. . .

I have no identity outside of this. I have never developed one. I have to figure out how to be a person that I don’t believe should exist, and how, as that person, to even begin to heal any of the harm that I’ve caused.

***

No white person, no non-Black person, has the right to claim proximity to or belonging in a Black community by virtue of abuse, trauma, non-acceptance, and non-belonging in a white community. The abuse within and alienation from my birth family and society are no one’s burden but my own, and mine alone to address. Black people and Black communities have no obligation to harbor the refuse of non-Black societies. I have done this. I know it is wrong and I have done this anyway.

Krug admits she’s a liar and that her entire career as a professional black was an elaborate identity fraud, which makes it difficult to take anything she has ever said or ever will say at face value.

She says she perpetrated her fraud while being fully conscious that it was harmful to others. She claims to feel remorse, but provides no good reason for anyone to believe it. She doesn’t say why she decided to make her announcement, and preemptively shrugs off what she intends to come of it. It seems she was exposed and confronted and wanted to “get ahead of the story”.

She claims she has no identity beyond pretending to be someone she isn’t. This can be understood to include her “lived experience as a white jewish child” rather than contradicting it. It might be amusing to hear her expound on this oxymoronic “White jew” lie, but anyone paying attention should already understand.

The plainest way to put it is that Krug is a jew who, for whatever reason, decided to pretend not to be. Despite her supposed “mental health issues” she exhibited a keen understanding of racial identity and social psychology, and an irrepressible will to shape the thinking of others. She built a successful career for herself as an anti-White professional intellectual in academia. In all these ways her behavior has been typically jewy.

Krug did in secret what jews organized and acting as jews are doing openly. As one professional jew put it frankly to tribemates, There Is a Jessica Krug in Every Jew. The problem from that jew’s point of view is that his tribe isn’t jewing hard or openly enough. He gets closer than usual to the truth when he writes, “We’d like to think that we can be like everyone else, but we’re not. … The world feels that we are causing them to hate each other, and this is why they hate us”.

Krug’s biggest lie is The Lie, the lie the parasite tells its host, the lie standing behind all the other lies. “The host is the oppressor, the parasite is their victim”, hisses the parasite. The terrible reality is that the host is relatively clueless, whereas the parasite is hyper-aware of who they are and what they’re doing. Krug fittingly describes herself as a leech. Caught lying she simply continues lying, acting as if her main victim has been the blacks she befriended, allied herself with, and continues to pander to, rather than the Whites she vilifies and continues to incite attacks against. There is no sign that she ever decried jews or their jewing, or that she ever will.

To get a sense of the depth and range of Krug’s chameleon-like abilities compare and constrast this performance with this one.

Krug says she “gaslighted those whom I love”. Gaslighting is a trendy term, mostly misapplied. Krug however is a specialist, and she uses the term correctly. It specifically has to do with relationships based on lies, the psychological mechanics of fraud, the abuse of trust and its impact. The cure for gaslighting is for the abused to recognize that the abuser is not the friend, lover, or ally they present themselves as, but an enemy.

Speaking of gaslighting, most reporting and commentary in the jewsmedia aimed at the goyim has gone along with Krug’s charade, deploring the imaginary harm done to blacks, attributing her behavior to her supposed Whiteness, and limiting any mention of her jewness to an uncritical echoing of her “White jew” lie.

This has been true even for op-eds signed by the jewsmedia’s house-broken blacks. Jessica Krug offers a twisted example of White privilege and Jessica Krug Is Just Another Rachel Dolezal are two versions of the same stupid narrative. The WaPo version is a bit more polished, boiling down and putting the main point in its title. The bitchmedia version spells out the White-washing, baldly describing Krug’s characteristically jewy jewing while misidentifying it as the epitome of Whiteness:

Krug, who adopted the moniker Jess La Bombera, wasn’t only satisfied with becoming a tenured professor, publishing a book through a major academic trade press, and being regarded as an expert in African American studies. She also had to become a gatekeeper of Blackness—a moral pillar who determined who was working on behalf of Black people and who needed to be held accountable for not doing enough. “She consistently trashed women of color and questioned their scholarship,” political anthropologist Yarimar Bonilla, who teaches at Hunter College and the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, tweeted. “She even described my colleague Marisa Fuentes as a ‘slave catcher’ in the introduction to her book. Kind of amazing how white supremacy means she even thought she was better at being a person of color than we were.”

Everything about Krug’s behavior—from her defensiveness and the calculated theft of opportunities from actual Black scholars to her inherent feeling of superiority—screams of whiteness. Her near immediate pivoting to victimhood—everything is in my control, but nothing is—also echoes the whiteness that has allowed white people to colonize lands and then claim to be oppressed within the very nations they pillaged.

. . .

Colorism—a system that privileges lighter-skinned people and other features that signify a proximity to whiteness at the expense of darker-skinned people—becomes a useful weapon for white women who choose to cosplay as Black. Gatekeepers trust light-skinned people to be stewards of their own stories and of Blackness at-large, leaving little room for those darker than them to question their right to Blackness. These conversations devolve quickly from rightful questioning to being perceived as untrusting and envious. White women who’ve studied Blackness enough to emulate it know this and manipulate it—using colorism, though its impact on darker-skinned people, to shield themselves from legitimate inquiry.

. . .

Pretty soon, Kruger will be on the morning show circuit, which she will leverage into a book deal and a documentary—raking in money from the deception itself. It sounds like the best version of being “canceled,” as she declared herself in her Medium post. As Krug rebrands herself—this time as a white woman victimized by a system that racializes people—what becomes of the people she’s harmed? Are they suddenly collateral damage in her quest to declare her right to be Black until it no longer suits her? There are people whose trust she gained, who defended her, and who bought into her lie. How can Krug atone in any meaningful way without recentering herself? She can’t, and she also won’t simply go away because the audacity of whiteness won’t allow her ego to do that either. The burden can only be carried insofar as it benefits her, and when it became too heavy, finally weighing on her moral center or career goals, it became easy to shed the very Blackness she once cloaked herself in as a form of repelling armor. That, to be clear, is the whitest part of it all.

The WaPo op-ed concludes with this whopper:

In 2020 in this country, Whiteness still carries a lot of privilege — including, perhaps, the privilege to get away with pretending to be Black.

That’s right. Whites get all the blame for jews jewing jewily. It’s quite a privilege. And the same switcheroo is used to jewsplain away jewy networking at the highest levels of power, from Jeffrey Epstein to Donald Trump. We can expect to see similarly cohencidental networking if and when we ever find out who was responsible for backing and advancing Krug.

The most irksome thing about these sneaky jew-serving narratives conflating jews with Whites is how they are complemented by the brazenly jew-serving narratives portraying jews as utterly distinct and different from Whites, as the innocent victims of and racial enemies of Whites.

The Krug affair is one of those seemingly silly stories most White people will briefly snigger at and then quickly forget. Unfortunately, it is also emblematic of the current jewed anti-White regime. Would that the problem were just one wacky jewess. It isn’t. She is just the tip of the latest, trending phase of jewing, the “wokeness” inspiring everyone to lash out at White people.

It’s not that pundits are blind to all this jewing, can’t understand it, or are unable to describe it. Many present themselves as authorities on what’s going on, then very deliberately omit the jew part. Last week, for example, the jew Glenn Greenwald was very eager to echo and promote a very serious White-washing of “wokeness”, a “great essay” describing “how white elites are exploiting and weaponizing their own self-serving definitions of ‘racism'”.

It’s yet another example of the “White jew” lie.

The author, Columbia sociologist Musa al-Gharbi, is visibly non-White and describes himself as “a core member of Heterodox Academy”, an alt-jew cabal promoting “classical liberalism” to the goyim. The essay’s disingenuous title is Who gets to define what’s ‘racist?’

One key insight of the “discursive turn” in social research is how concepts are defined, and by whom, reveals a lot about power relations within a society or culture. These definitions are not just reflections of social dynamics, but can have important socio-political consequences downstream: they can help legitimize or delegitimize individuals, groups and their actions; they can render some things more easily comprehensible and others less so; they can push certain things outside the realm of polite discussion, and introduce new elements into the language game.

The term “racist” is no exception.

In the past, racism primarily denoted overt discrimination, bigotry, or racial animus. Incidents of this nature are far less common and far less accepted than they were in previous decades. Indeed, in contemporary U.S. society, one of the very worst charges that can be leveled against someone – especially a white person – is to accuse them of being racist.

On balance, both of these developments are great.

. . .

Looking at GSS and ANES data, highly-educated whites tend to be more ‘woke’ on racial issuesthan the average black or Hispanic; they tend to perceive much more racism against minorities than most minorities, themselves, report experiencing; they express greater support for diversity than most blacks or Hispanics; they report more favorable attitudes towards people of racial/ ethnic ‘outgroups’ over their ‘ingroup’ – and are the only ethnic or racial group to exhibit such tendencies.

How can this phenomenon be explained?

One approach might be to argue that relatively well-off and highly-educated liberal whites — by virtue of their college education and higher rates of consumption of ‘woke’ content in the media, online, etc. — simply understand the reality and dynamics of racism better than the average black or Hispanic. I would strongly advise against anyone taking a stand on that hill.

What is more plausible is that many whites, in their eagerness to present themselves as advocates for people of color and the cause of antiracism, neglect to actually listen to ordinary black or brown folk about what they find offensive, or what their racial priorities are.

White elites —who play an outsized role in defining racism in academia, the media, and the broader culture — instead seem to define ‘racism’ in ways that are congenial to their own preferences and priorities. Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites. Charges of “racism,” for instance, are primarily deployed against the political opponents of upwardly-mobile, highly-educated progressive white people. Even to the point of branding prominent black or brown dissenters as race-traitors (despite the reality that, on average, blacks and Hispanics tend to be significantly more socially conservative and religious than whites).

Gharbi is describing how jews define “racism” and use it to attack Whites. That would be more obvious if he noted how the same people who define “racism” also define “anti-semitism”, and how they use that to cancel even non-White goyim. Do “highly-educated liberal whites” really they think and behave as a group? What role do jews play? How much of this “highly-educated” and “liberal” business is just a disguise for jews and their jewing? How many hostile anti-White Krugs are out there posing as White? An honest sociologist might ask questions like this, but as Cuddihy noted, sociology is a sect of jewing.

One Big Lie of the thoroughly jewed anti-White regime is that race is entirely a social construct. Another is that it’s really complicated, which is why an army of professional leeches must constantly jewsplain how non-White is good and White is bad. But then that simple truth falls out of every one of these transracial scandals. What makes these scandals scandalous is the fact that race is a heritable, genetic, biological trait. And despite the jew lies, even the most racially mixed and least intelligent hominins instinctively grasp that truth.

“Wokeness” is a Jew Construct

Here’s another professional jew claiming responsibility, connecting the dots between BLM, liberalism, and the Enlightenment. Recounting the “song of jew history” (the jew version of history, the eternal screech), he jewsplains how jews with a particularist “jew lives matter” idea always foremost in their own minds “practically invented” the toxic universalist ideas which have repeatedly killed their hosts.

Zionism is the Jewish Black Lives Matter – The Forward:

Throughout history Jews have tried the “all lives matter” argument. We brought the idea of ethical monotheism to the world — under the foundational beliefs that all humans are created in the image of God. In a world dominated by social hierarchies, the early Israelites and prophets railed against this unjust caste system, starting a long process of moral progression. We practically invented the idea of “all lives matter.”

According to Jewish tradition, we then tried teaching this to the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans – yet their hostility towards others, specifically us, went unstopped. We engaged in medieval debates with the Christain hegemony, making the argument that all humans are inherently valuable and godly. Yet the libels, pogroms and scapegoating never ceased.

Finally, we thought after the Enlightenment that anti-Semitism would soon be over. Finally the world recognized that all lives matter — that people have fundamental and unalienable rights that need not depend on color or creeds. Yet we all know how that worked out.

. . .

The “all lives matter” song of Jewish history slowly stopped and was replaced by “Jewish lives matter.” A state for the Jews, in our historic and indigenous homeland, where we can govern and protect ourselves, cultivate our tradition and keep it alive, and be a refuge for any Jew in trouble. Yes — Zionis mis the ultimate claim that Jewish lives matter.

Jews have come to the difficult but important realization that we need to occasionally thrust aside universalism in favor of particularism. We understand that while we need to be constantly dedicated to global and universal issues, Jewish-specific education and protection is paramount to our well-being. We have no issue proudly advocating for the fact that “Jewish lives matter.”

Because of this, we don’t just have a moral imperative to support Black Lives Matter. We have a personal one. The same history and values that inspire me to be an outspoken Zionist underpin my support for Black Lives Matter.

Our prophets teach that in Messianic times the entire world will come together in a monolithic utopia where there is no more strife or war. Until then, we need to be on the frontlines of racial justice and yes, that means rejecting broken and ineffective claims such as “All Lives Matter.”

“Messianism” is jewing. The term refers specifically to the shameless jew-serving moralizing with which they have repeatedly turned their host societies inside out and upside down. The current moral panic, “wokeness”, is just the most recent example.

Many jewsmedia pundits have noticed this moralizing. Most critique its religious character, and its war-like character, while ignoring its jewy character. We’re In A Cultural Civil War. It’s Time For Conservatives To Fight Back is a typical “classical liberal” take:

In some sense this is entirely psychological. A relatively small group of radical left-wing activists is using classic cult psychology to wage psychological war against the rest of us. They are the vanguard of what can only be described as a religious movement in America.

Indeed, Black Lives Matter and its attendant ideology contain all the elements of a religion: it promulgates doctrines that are explicitly normative, it has a cosmology and a morality, its claims are not subject to or consistent with scientific proofs. James Lindsay has gone further and described it as a cult, with recognizable and well-established features of a cult such as initiation, indoctrination, and cult reprogramming.

But this is a religious movement unlike any we’ve seen before, because unlike established religions it’s formally secular enough to be allowed into purely secular institutions of public life. This is why the Black Lives Matter agenda and The New York Times’ 1619 Project are being taught openly in our public schools.

We certainly have seen this kind of “formally secular” religion before. Consider the “nazi death camp” and “six million” shibboleths. These Big Lies have been openly taught in public schools for decades. What’s more, jews organized openly as jews stage an annual public spectacle whereby their most useful servants make a pilgrimage to worship jews and recite their cultish beliefs about jewland.

Anything critics say about “the BLM agenda” applies even more so to jewing. No doubt that’s why many of the pundits who might say something critical of blacks decide not to. They’re not afraid of the blacks. They’re afraid of the jews who see “black lives matter” as a proxy for “jew lives matter”. Whites who have already accepted some form of jew worship will find it easier to accept black worship. They need only imagine blacks as their “new jews”. They might feel some cognitive dissonance when jews screech about black “anti-semitism”, but the jewsmedia will surely help them work that out.

Lindsay’s The Cult Dynamics of Wokeness, linked in the Federalist article quoted above, equates the “wokeness” behind BLM to anti-“racism” (another jew construct) and notes its similarity to Christianity (yet another jew construct):

“Christ died for your sins, so you can be forgiven” is a Christian example, and “Be an antiracist. Help us dismantle the system and build a better world” is an “antiracist” example.

Lindsay elaborates upon the emotional and psychological manipulation of “the mark” by “the cult”, but also connects it to Marxism, another “formally secular” bit of jewing:

I know this part gets a little heady, but it’s important. Critical consciousness is, formally, the cult mentality of Karl Marx’s conflict theory. Conflict theory, in briefest explanation, is the idea that society is broken into different groups or classes (for Marx, they were economic classes, and for the Woke, they are social group-identity classes) that are oppressive on one side, oppressed on the other, and in conflict over this. That is, conflict theory is the belief that different social groups in society are always in conflict with one another for power and dominance, and that rather than working together in complex, dynamical ways that can be mutually beneficial, they are at war. A critical consciousness means realizing this and that you are somehow personally complicit in creating the material conditions for that war and need to “do better,” either by renouncing your dominance (if dominant) or by agitating for a full-on revolution (if oppressed).

Critical consciousness is therefore a very cartoonish, us-versus-them reading of the world. This mentality, of course, tweaks various psychological and social impulses in people as described in social identity theory, for example, and dramatically increases what’s called “parochial altrusim.” This means strongly favoring the in-group (here, the cult) and forgiving it for every excess and abuse while becoming overtly hostile to the out-group (here, everyone else in society and society itself) and reading everything it does in the worst light possible. This is obviously core to the present sociological dynamic! It also dramatically increases cult commitment, adding an overtly warlike tenor to the us-against-them mentality, which in critical cults like Wokeness is us-against-the-world.

. . .

To summarize, then, Wokeness is a cult. It might even be, in its broadest functions, a proper religion at this point with a describable and fanatic cult element within it and protected by the relative reasonability of the broader faith. Antiracism, in particular, under its auspices is explicitly framed religiously and with clear patterns of cult initiation written all over it. This is what we’re up against.

This cult mentality Lindsay describes as manifesting in Christianity and Marxism springs from the more ancient and potent “critical consciousness” of jews. They translate their cabalist term “tikkun olam” as “social justice”. It means: “help us dismantle the (non-jew) system and build a better world (for jews)”.

The jews have always had an us-against-the-world mentality, a jews-versus-goyim “reading of the world”. Just a few months ago, amidst the hysteria around coronavirus, before BLM and “wokeness” went viral, jews were shamelessly screeching that “anti-semitism” is the real pandemic everyone should worry about. In that screeching it was clear that they see non-jews as diseased and ever more jewing as the cure.

The Tribe refers to themselves, among themselves, as “The Tribe”. They see themselves as morally and culturally distinct from and superior to non-jews. They see themselves at perpetual war with non-jews. Their primary weapons are emotional and psychological manipulation, using their long-standing dominance of the mass media and academia to constantly accuse non-jews, especially Whites, of oppressing them. The oppression narrative at the very center of “wokeness” isn’t a non-White construct, it’s a jew construct. In the “wokeness” narrative Whites remain the oppressors, the epitome of evil, and the jew role, by definition good, has simply been generalized to include all non-Whites. As jews sometimes put it, the non-Whites are the “new jews”.

“Supercession” is the religious term for this kind of jew-sanctioned, jew-serving extension of jew mentality. There’s a cargo cult quality to other non-Whites trying to ape the jews. This is especially the case with “wokeness”, where the jew role isn’t explicit, making it more likely some goy will lose the plot and either conflate or distinguish Whites and jews in a way that displeases the “fellow oppressed”.

Early in his article Lindsay notes:

The concept of “white fragility” in the antiracist Woke cult is exactly this sort of emotional shakedown. White fragility separates white people and their “adjacencies” into exactly two types: racists (who admit it) and racists (who are too emotionally fragile to admit it).

The concept of “anti-semitism” is where the concept of “racism” and this newer, more precisely-targeted buzzterm “White fragility” come from. “Anti-semitism” is the original “original sin”. The jews separate non-jews into exactly two types of “anti-semite”: those who know, and those who don’t know yet.

Another mainstream “classical liberal” has written pointedly about this jewing-by-other-means without identifying it as such. Andrew Sullivan coyly asks, Is There Still Room for Debate?

The orthodoxy goes further than suppressing contrary arguments and shaming any human being who makes them. It insists, in fact, that anything counter to this view is itself a form of violence against the oppressed. The reason some New York Times staffers defenestrated op-ed page editor James Bennet was that he was, they claimed, endangering the lives of black staffers by running a piece by Senator Tom Cotton, who called for federal troops to end looting, violence, and chaos, if the local authorities could not. This framing equated words on a page with a threat to physical life — the precise argument many students at elite colleges have been using to protect themselves from views that might upset them. But, as I noted two years ago, we all live on campus now.

In this manic, Manichean world you’re not even given the space to say nothing. “White Silence = Violence” is a slogan chanted and displayed in every one of these marches. It’s very reminiscent of totalitarian states where you have to compete to broadcast your fealty to the cause. In these past two weeks, if you didn’t put up on Instagram or Facebook some kind of slogan or symbol displaying your wokeness, you were instantly suspect. The cultishness of this can be seen in the way people are actually cutting off contact with their own families if they don’t awaken and see the truth and repeat its formulae. Ibram X. Kendi insists that there is no room in our society for neutrality or reticence. If you are not doing “antiracist work” you are ipso facto a racist. By “antiracist work” he means fully accepting his version of human society and American history, integrating it into your own life, confessing your own racism, and publicly voicing your continued support.

This suppression orthodoxy is visible in its purest form when jews swarm and screech about “anti-semitism” and “anti-semites”. It’s chilling effect is visible in these jewsmedia pundits describing “wokeness” as if it has no connection to jewing.

Whites “liberals” who display their “wokeness” by saying “black lives matter” are doing the same thing as White “conservatives” waving a jew-state flag and proclaiming that they “stand with Israel”. It is not an act of self-abnegation. Quite the opposite. They are trying to protect and even elevate themselves. Whites who have accepted and internalized the jew lie that race is a social construct may even imagine they can change teams, or “convert”, as if they were jews. Even those who don’t believe the lies understand they can get ahead by mouthing those lies more quickly or convincingly than others.

Job #1 of the jews’ anti-“racist” “work” has been painting Whites as public enemy #1. “Wokeness” is a recent extension of that project, an add-on to “political correctness”, which itself is more aptly described as semitical correctness. The jewing that begat “wokeness” isn’t shrinking or being displaced. It’s adapting and growing.

To be woke is to wake up to the truth — the blinding truth that liberal society doesn’t exist, that everything is a form of oppression or resistance, and that there is no third option. You are either with us or you are to be cast into darkness.

The truth is that liberalism and the Enlightenment belong to an earlier, now obsolete phase of jewing. It was characterized by jews dissimulating as “fellow whites”. This newer phase, the Enrichment, is characterized by jews dropping their “white” mask. In this phase jews are openly screeching as jews, jewsplaining how their jewness sets them apart, how their oppression status outranks any other and thus entitles them to tell non-jews what to think about anything.

The truth is that even the “wokest” non-White goy who somehow vexes jews gets piled on almost as viciously as any uppity White goy. Swarming screeching jews overrule any truth, trump any chimpout. However “nuanced” the pilpul gets when jews try to jewsplain what everyone else should think about “wokeness”, their premise is always the same. They either support it or oppose it because that’s what they think is best for their tribe. That’s the essence of semitical correctness.

Whenever a newer, more cryptic offshoot of jewing intersects an older, more in-your-face form of jewing, the jews on all sides will ensure the former is what gets corrected. Here’s an example:

The BBC has reportedly ordered its television presenters not to wear Black Lives Matter (BLM) badges on air after Campaign Against Antisemitism exposed worrying antisemitism in the movement and its other extreme views emerged.

. . .

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “We are not surprised that the antisemitic outbursts and revelations of other extremist views from within the BLM movement are causing those who had lent their support to distance themselves. All decent people oppose racism, which is why seeing anti-Jewish racism emerging from within the movement against anti-black racism has been an ugly sight. Prejudice cannot be beaten with more prejudice.”

Here the anti-White teacher is correcting their student.

Discussing DNA and White Origins with Norvin Hobbs

Live stream tonight at 10PM ET/7PM PT. We’ll talk about human origins, reviewing the ongoing conflict between the anti-White jew narrative and race science reality. Attached are a few images capturing the spirit of the topics we’ll cover. [UPDATE 6 June 2019: YouTube banned Norvin, the original livestream is available on BitChute, another copy is here.]

This first image depicts the hominin branch Whites are part of (represented by the khoisan bowman, AKA kang) in relation to the broader hominid tree. This image illustrates the relationship between species and race, and the important point that speciation is the rule. Source: Understanding Evolution – How Humans and Apes Fit Into the Tree of Life.
ape_evolution

This image zooms in on the components of the extant hominin branch, minus the more ancient branches, notably homo erectus, from which DNA has not yet been recovered. Source: Tracing the peopling of the world through genomics, 2017.
3-Figure2-1

These are slides 18 and 26 from R1b and the People of Europe: An Ancient DNA Update, based on data from Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe, 2015. The latter illustrates the genetic admixture within the previous image’s “Ancestral European” branch – AKA White people.
r1b-and-the-people-of-europe-an-ancient-dna-update-18-1024r1b-and-the-people-of-europe-an-ancient-dna-update-26-1024

The source for this image contains much more information concerning Aryans/Yamnaya and their Ancient Northern European (ANE) component.
yamnaya

This is a recent depiction the Out of Africa narrative. Source: Climate and the peopling of the world, 2016.
nature19471-f1

The speciation of various African branches from each other and non-African hominins is far more ancient than previously admitted. Source: Human Species May Be Much Older Than Previously Thought.
639178e0-4834-4f4c-9890-ed4ed8232016-human-family-tree

The result of a century of jewing on anthropology. Source: Anthropologists in their native habitat: on Facebook, holding signs, 2015.
jewed_anthropology

This image comes via Razib Khan, who in 2012 coyly asked, Are Jews white? The answer is no. Beyond the genetic differences, which explain why, the fact is that jews see themselves as distinct from and at odds with Whites.
nature09103-f2.2

Some other older posts/podcasts which are relevant: Who’s White? – Part 1 …, The Racial Roots of Europeans – Part 1 …, Understanding Kostenki 14 (Markina Gora), The White Race and its Discontents, Cochran on White Racial Pre-History and the Aryans. Our previous conversation: Live Stream with Norvin Hobbs.

UPDATE: Audio-only mp3 attached. Bonus topic: CRISPR.
CRISPR

The Pocahontacaust: Jewsmedia Affirms One Drop Rule, Genetic Basis of Race

elizabeth_one_drop_warrenRace is a social construct, the jewsmedia regularly screeches. The lie is revealed by controversies like this.

Elizabeth Warren Releases DNA Results: She’s Native American:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has taken the extraordinary step of releasing DNA test results that provide “strong evidence” that she has Native American ancestry, the Boston Globe reports. The possible Democratic presidential contender for 2020 has been repeatedly mocked by Donald Trump and other Republicans over her ancestral claims—one of Trump’s sick jokes is to call Warren “Pocahontas.”

The Pocahontas gibe has never hinged on whether Warren actually has some small amount of non-White DNA. The sick joke is that, under the current anti-White regime, people in positions of power who look White are rewarded specifically for disavowing Whiteness. This reality has not changed. The jewsmedia take confirms it. It only seems humorous to Whites to the extent it strikes us as absurd, to the extent we do not understand or do not want to understand what it implies about our current situation.

What has changed, only slightly, is the jewsmedia’s rule for racial dispensation. Before 2015 the only thing anyone had to do to justify their jewsmedia-defined righteousness was shit on Whiteness. Since 2015 certain figures have been checked for non-Whiteness. Warren’s drop of non-White blood, real or imagined, is truly potent. It demonstrates that the lying jewsmedia recognizes race is genetic, and takes for granted that even vanishingly small bits of DNA can divide racial right from racial wrong.

Rachel Dolezal and Julia Salazar are two other recent demonstrations of this rule, though both were jeered by the jewsmedia rather than cheered.

In 2015 the jewsmedia denounced Dolezal as a racial fraudster. For years Dolezal had passed as a black among blacks, going well beyond merely renouncing Whiteness. But according to the jewsmedia she didn’t have any black DNA, and therefore couldn’t legitimately claim to be black.

In 2018 the jewsmedia denounced Salazar as a racial fraudster. For years Salazar had passed as a jew among jews, going well beyond merely renouncing Whiteness. But according to jews who made a point of scrutinizing her ancestry she didn’t have any jew DNA, and therefore couldn’t legitimately claim to be a jew.

Cohencidentally, in all three cases it is jewsmedia jews, so prone to goyposing as “fellow whites”, so chutzpathically crying out about someone else’s racial fraud. The jewy joke, as always, is on Whites, especially White Trump supporters, who respond to the increasingly blatant, hostile, and jewy anti-White animus by laughing brainlessly. They dislike “the media”, “political correctness”, and “racism”, while professing love and admiration for The Tribe which defines and drives it all. This double-think is embodied in the head Pocahontas mocker, the kikeservative-in-chief himself. Pilloried daily by the jewsmedia in explicitly anti-White terms, Trump never so much as addresses his White supporters as White, never identifies the “enemy of the people”, the enemy of his White supporters, as jews jewing jewily. His insincere BUILD/LOCK/DRAIN sloganeering and the insincere jewsmedia hand-wringing over it have not been replaced by jewing. The theatre is part and parcel of the jewing.

In the years to come the jewsmedia will surely push farther along these lines. Whites posing as non-White, and non-jews posing as jews, will have to do more than simply mouth support for the anti-White agenda. They’ll need a DNA test. The minimum requirement for non-White/jew DNA will increase over time, because more “diversity” means less Whiteness. Though often obscured by the jewsmedia’s squid ink, the litmus test for jewness and jew-constructed anti-“racism” has and always will be genetic.

Turkheimer Attacks Cochran

heritable_traitsStereotypical sciency jew Eric Turkheimer has responded to Greg Cochran’s recent comments concerning (sterotypical sciency jew) lying about race. Cochran on Zimmer, and Correcting an old Misimpression:

Comparing groups of humans to breeds of dogs is perhaps the laziest analogy in the history of human behavior genetics. It’s what high school kids write me about when they first become interested in the subject. You could start with the fact that dogs have been systematically selected for physical and behavioral characteristics for many thousands of years; humans have not. That is part of what makes the argument so gross, but it isn’t what is most important here.

Hominins are the first and foremost selected animal, domesticated prior to and more thoroughly than dogs. So Turkheimer is wrong on that point. Beyond that his argument is that Cochran is stupid – the kind of argument an elementary school kid makes. He concludes by projecting his own tribe’s behavior onto Cochran:

It is not Carl Zimmer who lets his policy preferences color his view of science. It’s Cochran

Turkheimer puts the bulk of his effort into trying to keep the argument in the weeds, away from who is lying and why, away from the jewing Cochran describes without explictly identifying as such.

I agree with Cochran: if someone found a well-understood genetic mechanism that had a deterministic effect on behavior within a close range, some IQ equivalent of webbed paws, and groups turned out to differ in that mechanism, the race-hereditarians would have what they want. But it hasn’t turned out that way. What a well-intentioned hereditarian ought to be doing is searching for a mechanism of that kind, and some of them are; more power to them. I don’t think they will be successful but I have no fundamental problem with the effort. That’s science.

The more significant agreement between Cochran and Turkheimer is in trying to discuss the long-term one-sided controversy over race – decades of jew-led jew-serving anti-White/anti-“racist” policy preferences, and the recent jew-led jew-serving attempt to spin the potential revelation of their aggressive fraud into something that’s still good for the jews – as if it has nothing to do with jewing. Furthermore, Turkheimer is only now pretending he does not oppose the investigation of racial differences. He’s already on record taking the opposite stand. He anticipates this might be used against him, so he quotes it selectively himself:

Why don’t we accept racial stereotypes as reasonable hypotheses, okay to consider until they have been scientifically proven false? They are offensive precisely because they violate our intuition about the balance between innateness and self-determination of the moral and cultural qualities of human beings. … because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair.

Nevertheless, it is this stereotypical chutzpathy, trying to dictate what everyone else is allowed to think, which created the impression Turkheimer nows calls a “misimpression” and is trying to “correct” by burying it in pilpul:

If groups can differ in those superficial characteristics, why can’t they differ in behaviors as well? This is the very core of the hereditarian argument. My answer is above: the problem is that the relationship between genotype and “nose, lip and eye shapes” on the one hand, and extraversion and IQ and criminality on the other, are fundamentally different.

And that difference has ethical content (implications?). Think for a minute: why do we hold someone responsible for their criminal behavior, but not for the texture of their hair? Hair texture is determined by our genes; we don’t have any choice about it, and groups of people with a certain kind of hair just are the way they are. There is no ethical content to hair texture, no hope that things will be different someday. On the hereditarian view, IQ as a heritable trait is just the same, at maybe a slightly lower level of heritability. That’s the way people are born, there is nothing you can do about it. And because everything is heritable, blunt hereditarianism leads to an obviously false view in which everything, including all of the innumerable behavioral differences among various groups of people– are just a reflection of the way people are born. Hair texture and complex behavior are both heritable, but the causation that underlies the heritability of hair texture is not like the heritability of behaviour, for which the human central nervous system, the greatest engine of anti-determinism ever designed by evolution, is interposed between genotype and phenotype.

Turkheimer makes a bogus distinction between genetically simple and complex racial differences, dressing up as “ethics” a sciency-sounding false dichotomy reflecting his own policy preferences. On the one side he puts visible racial physical traits, which are harder to deny, and which he now proclaims do not hurt his feels. On the other side he puts racial mental traits, the mere thought of which very much offends the stereotypical jew’s screechy bloody victim commissar mentality, and discussion of which Turkheimer and his tribe more generally make no bones about seeking to forbid because they are jews.

Whatever their genetic complexity, mental differences are more crucial to social structure, thereby survival, and are for that reason more deserving of scrutiny. As to Turkheimer’s silly thought experiments… Why shouldn’t one collective hold another responsible for their behavior? Why shouldn’t any collective distinguish itself from others in any way they see fit – simple, complex, physical, or mental? Hominin groups have always done so, still do so, and always will. Indeed, biologists understand discrimination as part and parcel of speciation, a facet of evolution, characteristic of all life.

More to the point, jews do it, and have no peer in this regard. They self-identify both genetically and culturally and shamelessly collectively criminalize their enemies – as “racists”, “White supremacists”, “holocaust deniers”, “anti-semites” – for merely expressing thoughts one or more jews see as threatening to themselves. This is the essence of what Turkheimer previously argued, the basis of the “ethical principle” argument he now omits:

Why Race Science is Objectionable

If I may address my fellow Jews for a moment, consider this. How would you feel about a line of research into the question of whether Jews have a genetic tendency to be more concerned with money than other groups? Nothing anti-semitic, mind you, just a rational investigation of the scientific evidence. It wouldn’t be difficult to measure interest in money and materialism, and it wouldn’t surprise me if as an empirical matter Jews scored a little higher on the resulting test than other groups. As a behavioral geneticist I can assure you without reservation that the trait would be heritable, and, if anyone bothered to take the time to find out, specific genes would have small associations with it. Of course, this research program has already been carried out, at least to the extent the relevant technology was available in 1939.

He could have said “muh six million”, but “1939” gets the idea across well enough.

More recently Turkheimer was perfectly pleased to cite tribemate Cofnas’ positive generalizations about jew mentality – his just-so “default hypothesis” that jews are blameless because they’re smarter and live in cities and have forever screeched as if they have being victimized by the many hosts they’ve parasitized and killed.

What “offends” jews is simply any hint of non-jews doing anything that might obstruct their jewing. They sometimes wrap their special pleading in more broad-minded rhetoric, but at root the ethical principle is whatever’s best for jews. The prevailing anti-White/anti-“racist” narrative and the ongoing phony debate around race and race-related science has everything to do with jews and their jewing. Cochran and Turkheimer both know it. Cochran won’t say it directly. Turkheimer already has.