Tag Archives: race

Jewing and Science

science_of_jews

Professional anti-”racist” Gavin Evans hates that science keeps bumping into the reality of race. Is Evans a jew? He certainly quacks like one. His latest article, The unwelcome revival of ‘race science’, begins with a recitation of the same old tired anti-”racist” shibboleths:

One of the strangest ironies of our time is that a body of thoroughly debunked “science” is being revived by people who claim to be defending truth against a rising tide of ignorance. The idea that certain races are inherently more intelligent than others is being trumpeted by a small group of anthropologists, IQ researchers, psychologists and pundits who portray themselves as noble dissidents, standing up for inconvenient facts. Through a surprising mix of fringe and mainstream media sources, these ideas are reaching a new audience, which regards them as proof of the superiority of certain races.

The claim that there is a link between race and intelligence is the main tenet of what is known as “race science” or, in many cases, “scientific racism”. Race scientists claim there are evolutionary bases for disparities in social outcomes – such as life expectancy, educational attainment, wealth, and incarceration rates – between racial groups. In particular, many of them argue that black people fare worse than white people because they tend to be less naturally intelligent.

Although race science has been repeatedly debunked by scholarly research, in recent years it has made a comeback. Many of the keenest promoters of race science today are stars of the “alt-right”, who like to use pseudoscience to lend intellectual justification to ethno-nationalist politics.

On its surface, the anti-”racist” argument is circular. Race is a mere label, manufactured by “racists”. Race science is a fraud, perpetrated by “racists”. “Racists” imagine they are superior, therefore they suck. Where does “racism” come from? From “racists”! Round and round it goes.

Beneath this dishonest veneer the argument has always and only ever been this: Whites can’t be White, because that’s bad for non-Whites, first and foremost the jews. Here’s Evans’ version:

jewing_of_science

The supposed science of race is at least as old as slavery and colonialism, and it was considered conventional wisdom in many western countries until 1945. Though it was rejected by a new generation of scholars and humanists after the Holocaust, it began to bubble up again in the 1970s, and has returned to mainstream discourse every so often since then.

The White race didn’t invent slavery or colonialism. But the White race did invent science.

The jews invented anti-”racism”, and for that cause jews invented prodigious amounts of fake science – Freudian psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, Frankfurt school cultural marxism, critical theory. The most recent catch-all is called Whiteness studies. They invented “hate speech” and “hate crimes”. They invented holidays to celebrate outwitting and outlasting other races. They invented the blame-shifting reality-inverting narrative pinning everything on Whites, but most emphatically the gassing of six million jews six million times over.

If you’re looking for a better example of one race using state-supported pseudoscience and propaganda to express their hostility toward another, there isn’t any. The jew war on Whites started long before 1933, and only grew more intense after 1945. That’s not Evans’ concern. He worries that the use of science to justify jewing poses an insidious threat…to the jews.

The recent revival of ideas about race and IQ began with a seemingly benign scientific observation. In 2005, Steven Pinker, one of the world’s most prominent evolutionary psychologists, began promoting the view that Ashkenazi Jews are innately particularly intelligent – first in a lecture to a Jewish studies institute, then in a lengthy article in the liberal American magazine The New Republic the following year. This claim has long been the smiling face of race science; if it is true that Jews are naturally more intelligent, then it’s only logical to say that others are naturally less so.

The background to Pinker’s essay was a 2005 paper entitled “Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence”, written by a trio of anthropologists at the University of Utah. In their 2005 paper, the anthropologists argued that high IQ scores among Ashkenazi Jews indicated that they evolved to be smarter than anyone else (including other groups of Jews).

Evans is describing the latest intersectional jewing around race. By his own account the challenge to the anti-”racism” agenda is led by jews like Pinker, promoted by crypto-jewy institutions like The Jew Republic, to advance a biological theory justifying jewing. The point on which they all agree is that somebody else is to blame.

This evolutionary development supposedly took root between 800 and 1650 AD, when Ashkenazis, who primarily lived in Europe, were pushed by antisemitism into money-lending, which was stigmatised among Christians. This rapid evolution was possible, the paper argued, in part because the practice of not marrying outside the Jewish community meant a “very low inward gene flow”. This was also a factor behind the disproportionate prevalence in Ashkenazi Jews of genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher’s, which the researchers claimed were a byproduct of natural selection for higher intelligence; those carrying the gene variants, or alleles, for these diseases were said to be smarter than the rest.

Pinker followed this logic in his New Republic article, and elsewhere described the Ashkenazi paper as “thorough and well-argued”. He went on to castigate those who doubted the scientific value of talking about genetic differences between races, and claimed that “personality traits are measurable, heritable within a group and slightly different, on average, between groups”.

In subsequent years, Nicholas Wade, Charles Murray, Richard Lynn, the increasingly popular Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and others have all piled in on the Jewish intelligence thesis, using it as ballast for their views that different population groups inherit different mental capacities.

This is the usual jew-excusing narrative. The jews have no real agency, bear no responsibility for their actions. Racially predisposed to paranoia and neurosis, if not outright psychosis and sociopathy. Best known for their collective influence over politics, finance, media. For reading minds and policing thoughts. For monitoring or moderating all forms of discussion and information distribution. For giving each other awards. For demonizing and psychopathologizing racial enemies. Sometimes all at once. The problem, according to jews, is “racism”. Specifically opposition to jewing. Even mild criticism of jewing. The problem is not jewing. Cannot be jewing. Never jewing.

Population group is a clunky semitically correct replacement for race. Much like African-American is the new negro.

Racial traits are distinctive and heritable. This includes personality traits.

Evans implies there is something wrong with science or the theory of evolution, not the games with words and logic he and the Pinkers are playing. As if the indictment of Whites as a group, in distinction and deference to jews as a group, originates or even serves some purpose apart from jews jewing.

The jews know very well that “jew” is a hertiable genetic trait. They know jews are afflicted with specific DNA-rooted mental diseases. Though a limited amount of interbreeding with their host is essential to group survival, transracial fraud is much more common, and the core of jewry is remarkably insular and inbred. The genes most certainly flow outward rather than in. The more down-low and race-mixy jews direct resources in the opposite direction. You could call jewing predation. It is their stereotypical combination of furtiveness and screeching, like the cuckoo bird, which makes parasitism the more descriptive, more precise, more scientific term.

As the Boases and Fishbergs did a century ago, the Pinkers today promote a sciency view of race. Back then the goal was to deny jew racial distinctiveness. Now it is to assert racial distinctiveness as justification for special treatment which has grown too obvious to deny. This shift complicates the anti-”racist” surface game, but is perfectly in line with the anti-White jewing beneath. Indeed, Evans’ concern is not the jewing, but that non-jews have “piled in”, once again trying to exploit the eternal victims.

Evans concludes by reiterating to the most common anti-”racist” claims – that Whites being White is bad for blacks and jews, that race “has no grounding in scientific fact”.

The race “science” that has re-emerged into public discourse today – whether in the form of outright racism against black people, or supposedly friendlier claims of Ashkenazis’ superior intelligence – usually involves at least one of three claims, each of which has no grounding in scientific fact.

Evolution is the grounding for race in scientific fact. Evolution requires only two ingredients: heritable differences and selection among those differences. Speciation is one consequence, parasitism is another.

Jewing pursues the same ends by different means. Some jews attack “racism”. Others defend jewing. Most can effortlessly do both at the same time. The jews rightly view science as a tool, and more to the point, as a potential weapon. They disagree how to use the weapon while at the same time restricting such use by “racists”.

Narrative vs Science: Cheddar Man Gaslighting

nehlen_banned_for_semitical_incorrect_mashup_of_propreitary_jew_memesRace is real. Race matters. The jews define the moral and financial terms in which nearly everyone else thinks. They use this power to disarm, manipulate, exploit, and ultimately destroy others. If hearing any of those points clearly enunciated reminds you of jews screeching, then you know what semitical correctness is. The other, original sandnigger sharia.

Since 1945 race science continues under new euphemisms, though largely with the direct involvement if not supervision of hyper-conscious tribemembers. Resources are allocated and mainstream interpretations are shaped as per “good for the jews”.

Update in the semitically correct jewsmedia narrative. The first Britons were black, Natural History Museum DNA study reveals:

The results show, contrary to popular belief, that the founding generations of Britons owed more in appearance to Paleolithic Africans, from whom all humans descend.

Scientists said they show that commonly understood racial categories are historically only “recent constructions”.

Up to nine previous colonisations of Britain, via the now flooded European landbridge known as Doggerland, had been wiped out due to harsh temperatures.

But the roughly 12,000 humans in Britain at the time of Cheddar Man thrived and their DNA now comprises roughly 10 per cent of the genetic make-up of most white people currently living in the UK.

The essence of the aggression:

Dr Yoan Dieckmann, from University College London, who took part in the project, said: “The historical perspective that you get just tells you that things change, things are in flux, and what may seem as a cemented truth that people who feel British should have white skin, through time is not at all something that is an immutable truth.

“It has always changed and will change.”

Science politicized, weaponized poz, White genocide. Also, shut it down. Mr. Composite: “Cheddar Man being used politically to synthesize: 1. All shades of dark skin color are supra-racial “black” (I remain unconvinced of black Britons) 2. Since we’re all “black,” the West must accept its demise via mass immigration “because we’re all black immigrants.” Also, jews.…”

Black Cheddar as part of the larger one-race-the-migrating-mixing-nigger-race narrative. The following article is the closest the jewsmedia gets to telling the truth about the racial history of Britain. What’s conspicuously missing from such tales is any actual discussion of race – the genetic similarity of the peoples who conquered, colonized, and combined then, much less the glaring dissimilarity of the contemporary multicult. After Cheddar Man: How the mongrel English found their home during the Dark Ages:

By 954… A mongrel people had at last secured a safe place in which to live.

An analogous question of origins in North America. Here the racial nature of the conflict is made fairly explicit, from an anti-White point of view. Rejecting the Solutrean hypothesis: the first peoples in the Americas were not from Europe:

A recent Canadian documentary promoted a fringe idea in American archaeology that’s both scientifically wrong and racist

First, in addition to the scientific problems with the Solutrean hypothesis which I’ll discuss shortly, it’s important to note that it has overt political and cultural implications in denying that Native Americans are the only indigenous peoples of the continents. The notion that the ancestors of Native Americans were not the first or only people on the continent has great popularity among white nationalists, who see it as a means of denying Native Americans an ancestral claim on their land. Indeed, although this particular iteration is new, the idea behind the Solutrean hypothesis is part of a long tradition of Europeans trying to insert themselves into American prehistory; justifying colonialism by claiming that Native Americans were not capable of creating the diverse and sophisticated material culture of the Americas.

Interesting critiques, arguments, evidence.

☼ Survive the Jive ☽ : “Cheddar man, green triangle on this PCA, plots with other European Holocene samples (brown shapes) as I expected. Closest modern genetic match is Northern Europeans (Baltic/Nordic/British). Non-Europeans are even further away from him! #CheddarMan Read it and weep lefties… https://t.co/g3XmH30e5m ”

☼ Survive the Jive ☽ : “You can see how the mesolithic British samples are distinct from the Neolithic ones which more closely resemble modern Iberians than modern Brits. That is because we descend from the Indo-European beaker folk invasion 4.5k years ago”

Raising questions at least. Cheddar Man – Debunked

Good to know. This isn’t the first Cheddar Hoax. Media madness (original title: Sykes)

In 1997 Professor Bryan Sykes of Oxford University claimed to have obtained mitochondrial DNA sequences from Cheddar man, Britain’s oldest complete skeleton. The Mesolithic remains were found in Gough’s Cave in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, and now reside in the Natural History Museum in London. Results were obtained for hypervariable region 1, and a DNA match was found with a local man Adrian Targett. The story was reported in a number of newspapers at that time including The Independent and the Los Angeles Times. The story of the DNA testing of Cheddar Man was subsequently recounted in Chapter 12 of Sykes’ book The Seven Daughters of Eve (Bantam Press, 2001). Significantly, however, the research has never been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Ancient DNA testing has advanced considerably since 1997, and it is now appreciated that very strict protocols need to be followed. (See, for example, Ancient DNA: do it right or not at all and How to tell if an ancient DNA study is legitimate.) The results of the 1997 testing are, therefore, subject to reasonable doubt. Bandelt et al (2005) have suggested that the sequence was from contaminating modern DNA. We understand that the Natural History Museum have plans to resequence Cheddar Man’s DNA.

Skin color DNA. Pozzidonius: “Now that the Cheddar Man DNA paper was released today, below are my final thoughts on the authors’ findings re: his skin pigmentation (tl; dr: They didn’t even look for the right gene when making the “dark/black skin” prediction)…”

Skin color DNA science versus the “Cheddar Man was black” narrative (emphasis mine). Blue-eyed, dark-skinned, earliest modern Briton. – Page 72:

In other words, the evidence now points to West/East Africans and Ancestral South Eurasians developing dark/very dark skin from a series of mutations & selection on the MFSD12 gene, while northern Europeans’ lighter skin resulted from a analogous process primarily on the SLC24A5 gene. Some Northeast Asians (particular Tungusic-speakers and the [likely related] population referred to by Japanese as the “Yayoi” type) appear to have developed their own lighter skin based on an as yet-undiscovered gene distinct from SLC24A5.

Why did the Cheddar Man study neglect the Crawford et al paper, which was released 5 months prior? Why did the Cheddar Man authors go out of their way to revisit the skin color debate for WHGs (they seemed to feel the need to “correct” the Loschbour study by asserting that Loschbour, too had “very dark” skin) and Anatolian Farmers without even bothering to test literally the only SNPs known to cause “dark to very dark” skin color in non-Africans???

The authors simply start from the faulty assumption that dark/very dark skin was the ancestral phenotype for all human populations everywhere, when the reality seem that this trait is just as derived as light skin. Totally unacceptable from an academic viewpoint.

If Cheddar Man lacked the variant SNPs on MFSD12 (as expected), the chances are extremely high that he possessed “intermediate” skin coloration, likely within the range found in the modern Near East.

Loci associated with skin pigmentation identified in African populations

Despite the wide range of skin pigmentation in humans, little is known about its genetic basis in global populations. Examining ethnically diverse African genomes, we identify variants in or near SLC24A5, MFSD12, DDB1, TMEM138, OCA2 and HERC2 that are significantly associated with skin pigmentation. Genetic evidence indicates that the light pigmentation variant at SLC24A5 was introduced into East Africa by gene flow from non-Africans.

To sum up: Even relatively subtle racial differences can be objectively detected, even in relatively ancient DNA. The “black Cheddar” narrative is agitprop, a form of psychological warfare.

Niggers and Kikes, United Against Whites

maher_carmichael_lear

Notice all the cucks and niggers pretending to be offended at Bill Maher’s latest act, calling himself a house nigger. Among other things it demonstrates the power of taboos, how simply uttering certain magic words can unleash a torrent of emotion and vitriol, even if much of it is fake.

The nature of this power is revealed in who censures whom. If political correctness is a war on noticing, as Breezy Steve Sailer often notices, then semitical correctness is the war on noticing jewing. Thou shalt not mention jews or their jewing – that’s the One Strange Trick behind the current prevailing structure of taboos.

This tantrum Maher triggered has everything to do with mistaking him for “white”. In reality he’s anti-White. Indeed, he’s a shape-shifting transracialist mischling, a professional celebrity crypto-jew. He’s an actor-provocateur whose career consists of playing the white-faced minstrel, pissing on White norms while tilting impotently against semitical correctness. His job, couched in snark and irony, is to stake out what is or isn’t taboo and for whom, to spell out the unwritten rules by making an example of himself.

It is the pretense that Maher is “white”, an exemplar of “white privilege”, which makes his use of the word nigger “racist”. It is the white-washing of this jew’s jewing which makes it perfectly semitically correct to loath him. To call him out and loath him for being a particularly toxic jew is the exact opposite, perfectly semitically incorrect, six gorillion times worse than saying nigger.

Just prior to the hysteria Maher inspired the jewsmedia was busy promoting a positive attitude about niggers saying nigger. The difference is complementary, not contradictory. Whereas Maher’s shtick is aimed at demoralizing the White goyim, The Carmichael Show strikes a defiant tone aimed at emboldening the black goyim.

The jewsmedia’s PR included this helpful little aside:

The use of the word is not unprecedented – see All in the Family. But that aired “before political correctness,” jewsmedia house niggress Loretta Devine said at NBCU Summer Press Day

Yes, see All in the Family, the icebreaker for prime-time anti-White talmudvision. Bill Maher’s jewing pales in comparison to Norman Lear’s. The old kike is jewing away to this day, ever more openly relishing it as he descends into senility. In May Lear invited Jerrod Carmichael on his podcast specifically so they could say nigger together.

Listening in you’ll notice that the real Carmichael, behind the uppity talmudvision nigger act, is a true jewsmedia house nigger. Jewsmedia jews made him, own his black ass, and he’s happy with the arrangement. More to the point, notice that neither Lear nor Carmichael bother to pretend jews are White.

The Weinstein Problem is Evergreen

two_jews_discuss_anti-racism

It takes an hour of dancing around for these two jews, Rubin and Weinstein, to get across what’s happening at Evergreen State College – that Weinstein has been mistaken for White and thus falsely accused of “racism”, that he is in fact an anti-White jew. In Weinstein’s Wall Street Journal op-ed and short interview with Tucker Carlson he avoids mentioning these particular aspects of his identity, though they are crucial to making sense of the controversy. It is only over the course of the long interview with his tribemate that it emerges Weinstein is only speaking out, and being given sympathetic jewsmedia attention, because he sees himself as a righteous jew and “anti-racist”.

The exchange between Rubin and Weinstein is so long and elaborately coded because they both well understand that bluntly stating what’s going on would give the game away. The name of the game is “anti-racism”, a jew-led and racially-motivated assault on Whites whose scope and harm extends far beyond this recent and relatively minor incident at Evergreen. The “social sciences” departments at universities have for decades effectively served as “anti-racist” weapons labs and proving grounds, where anti-White rhetoric and tactics are developed and tested before being deployed more broadly for use by governments and corporations.

“Anti-racism” is a full-spectrum assault. At one end are jews who openly identify and organize as jews to advance the interests of jews. These jews claim moral authority as an historically marginalized and oppressed minority while barking commands at ostensibly non-jew institutions. On the other end of the spectrum are jews who infiltrate and influence ostensibly non-jew institutions from the inside, where they dissimulate as “white”. These jews claim moral authority as “fellow whites” while shitting on Whites.

There are more jews along the spectrum than at either end – some more pro-jew, others more anti-White. But all their “anti-racism” pushes in the same general direction, faulting Whites for being White while excusing jew jewing. The terminology of semitical correctness is orwellian, the rationale tautological. Opposition to the assault on Whites can by definition only come from “racists”. Noticing that the assault on Whites is led by jews, or that jews network to protect each other from such targeting, is “anti-semitism”. To distinguish Whites from jews is “racist”. To fail to distinguish jews from Whites is “anti-semitism”.

So what’s going on at Evergreen is really just a bit of blowback. “Anti-racism” has always been a mask for anti-Whitism, but its true nature is now becoming more overt. It is starting to materialize as official restrictions and physical attacks on Whites, unabashedly justified as compensation for “White privilege” or “White supremacy”. The attack has progressed to the point that any White in a position of power or privilege who might unapologetically identify as White has already been removed, so now it is starting to redound somewhat onto the army of transracialist jews who have steadily and stealthily taken their place.

The controversy around Evergreen shines a light on the “anti-racism” double-talk. For years, when the “Day of Absence” was a passive-aggressive non-White boycott targeting Whites, Weinstein sympathized. He even thought it wan’t effective enough. Now that the event has metastasized into a thinly-veiled White ban, where anyone with whitish skin is actively harassed, Weinstein is suddenly opposed. His various attempts to explain this change are telling.

Speaking in brief to a general audience Weinstein is dishonest. Put on the spot about his racial motives by Carlson, the otherwise articulate Weinstein “uhh… wells…” his way past it. He’s just “deeply progressive” and “troubled about what this implies about the state of the left”. He specifically blames the Evergreen administration for his troubles, and particularly George Bridges, though he struggles to explain why. Credulous Carlson fails to press Weinstein, all too eager to mistake him as a victim of the “Campus Crazyiness” rather than one of its quite willing and conscious proponents.

In his WSJ op-ed Weinstein is even less forthcoming about his identity and motives. Instead he focuses on channeling Niemöller, painting himself as a canary in the coalmine. Here too Weinstein lays the blame on Bridges, though apparently only for being more committed to the anti-White “anti-racist”/”social justice”/”critical theory” agenda than he is himself.

It is only when speaking at length with Rubin, who cohencidentally happens to be a friend of Weinstein’s brother, that we get a glimpse of Weinstein’s real identity and motive. Early on Rubin asks Weinstein why he changed his position on Evergreen’s anti-White “Day of Absence”, why he is only now speaking out. Weinstein explains, “I’m jewish, and, umm, alarm bells go off when I’m told I’m not supposed to be somewhere”.

Much later in the interview Rubin kids Weinstein about his “deep progressive” shtick and they share a knowing chuckle. Weinstein smirks as he admits he’s an “anti-racist”. He complains there isn’t enough “nuance” in existing narratives, either on campus or in the jewsmedia, wishing he could just say, “oy vey, stop attacking me already, I’m an anti-White jew”, without saying it.

Indeed, Weinstein is “anti-racism” personified, the tip of a gigantic but largely hidden and ever-shifting jew-berg. He’s vilified by anti-White goyim, who actually hate him for behaving like a jew, but who would never dare say so because that would be “anti-semitism”. And he’s lionized by White goyim, who mistake him as a “fellow white”, but who would never dare say so because that would be “racism”. To top it off he paints himself as the victim while he calls for the head of his nominal boss. As he subtly intimates to Rubin, Bridges’ crime is in taking “anti-racism” too far, thus failing to protect jews like himself from the harmful effects of the anti-White war they are waging.

The Jew Coverup

freud_fraud_anti-white

I stumbled across this coverup of a coverup at Wikipedia. The Freudian Coverup:

The Freudian Cover-up is a theory first popularized by social worker Florence Rush in the 1970s, which asserts that Sigmund Freud intentionally ignored evidence that his patients were victims of sexual abuse.

Early within Freud’s career, he believed that little girls often experienced sexual abuse, since most of his patients were predominantly women and consistently reported childhood instances of sexual molestation. Many of Freud’s patients suffered from a common Victorian diagnosis, hysteria. Since his hysterical patients repeatedly reported sexual abuse, most often naming their fathers as the abusers, Freud drew a causal connection between sexual abuse and neurosis. This became the frame for the seduction theory, in which he pointed to a direct connection between sexual abuse in childhood and adult hysteria. According to Florence Rush, author of The Freudian Cover-up, this repeated and persistent incrimination of fathers by his patients made him uneasy, and led him to abandon the seduction theory.

Freud wasn’t trying to protect fathers, he was protecting his tribe. An Analysis of Freud’s Jewish Identity:

Freud’s early patients were almost exclusively Jewish women, yet there is little mention of this in Freud’s writings. Working with these women, Freud recognized the limitations of electrotherapy, the treatment of choice for mental illnesses such as hysteria, and argued that electrotherapy was successful only because of its suggestive effects rather than because of its actual effect on the nervous system. The missing variable in Freud’s rejection of electrotherapy, as Gilman notes, was the prevailing question in 19th-century medicine: race. Indeed, Freud found, upon his return to Vienna from Paris, that statements about the Jewish predisposition for forms of mental illness were commonplace. In fact, some sought to make a distinction in mental stability between secular and nonsecular Jews. These debates led Freud to abandon the idea of hysteria as an inherited disease with a racial component.

The so-called Freudian coverup happened at about the same time jews generally began abandoning the idea of race and started pushing anti-White “anti-racism” instead, just as an immune response to rampant jewing in Europe, the first truly racially-aware White state, was rising to state power in Germany. What a cohencidence.

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).