The article says: The University of Illinois has cancelled plans to host a talk by Nobel Laureate James Watson after faculty raised concerns about his discredited views on race and intelligence.
What has become of journalism? It says Watson's views on race and intelligence have been 'discredited'. What it means is 'disapproved'. Just because something has been 'disapproved' by official dogma doesn't mean it's been 'discredited' scientifically. To be sure, we don't know all the scientific data yet on race and intelligence(and other traits), but more studies and research are revealing that race is real and general racial differences are real. Much of science on humans are clouded with PC because of sensitivities that may be understandable. But just because something is controversial doesn't mean it's 'discredited'. Indeed, the fact that people like Michelle Obama need Affirmative Action to get into elite colleges in any significant numbers indicates racial differences in IQ. Also, the fact that mulattoes tend to do better in cognitive abilities suggest having some white genes boosts IQ. This is especially true of blacks with Jewish blood. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest general IQ according to Steven Pinker. So, if blacks have some Jewish IQ, it could be Jewish IQ traits that make them smarter than most blacks.
And this dynamics also shows up in sports. Why is that Asians with black blood do better in sports than Asians without black blood? Some yrs ago, some half-Japanese/half-black guy won the Decathlon. Why was he a better athlete than pure-blood Japanese? Because he has black blood. Also, in the summer Olympics, the Japanese track team had some fast runners who were half-black. Why were they faster than most Asians? Black blood. Blacks without Japanese blood do great in sports, but most Japanese without black blood are not competitive in most sports worldwide. So, if a half-Japanese/half-black guy is good at sports, it's most likely due to black blood.
Also, why were these half-black Japanese almost always children of Japanese women and black men? Because Japanese women notice racial differences. They find black men to be sexually superior to shorter, smaller, and softer Japanese men. So, they rejected yellow men and had sex with 'superior' black men.
It's the same reason why white women say 'if you go black, you don't go back'. Spike Lee made a movie about it too in JUNGLE FEVER. Why is American College and Professional Sports mostly about Jungle Fever and white male Cuck behavior? Blacks dominate sports because they are more muscular. And white women increasingly reject white men as 'flabby, soft, and slow.' And white males --- whom black males contemptuously deride as 'white boys' --- slavishly accept their racial-sexual inferiority vis-a-vis black males, cheer for black males athletes as god-like heroes, and willingly surrender their right to white women on the basis that superior black guys deserve them. (White males seek consolation by taking yellow women on the basis that yellow women find white men superior to yellow men. So, if white males play cuck to black males, yellow males play cuck to white males. Regardless of PC dogma about races being equal, the racial-sexual dynamics of America is all about hierarchy.)
And madonna the singer had a big career by having sex with tons of black athletes. Why did she choose black men over Mexican men or Asian men? Because it's common knowledge in Pop Culture that black men are more muscular and have longer penises, which is promoted by Hollywood, TV advertising, and sexual entertainment, all of which are controlled by Liberal Democratic Jews, not by KKK or Neo-Nazis. Indeed, it is interesting that Liberals and Jews, who always berate America for being 'racist' and 'supremacist', often perpetuate racial-sexual supremacist stereotypes about how white women should really go with black men because they are superior in manhood. ADL, SPLC, and colleges are always on the lookout for 'racial supremacism' and 'misogyny', but they ignore such where they are most obvious and all around us. Sports is racially supremacist since blacks dominate. NFL and NBA are biologically discriminatory against non-blacks for the most part. Los Angeles has many more Mexicans than blacks, but the team is mostly black and no Mexican. Though there is no legal policy that bans Mexicans, the factor of biological discrimination means that NBA might as well put up a sign that reads: "No Chihuahuas and Mexicans Allowed". Also, if you want to find 'misogyny', all you have to do is look at Rap Culture where black males call women 'bitchass ho's', but then given the popularity of rap music among white women, it appears they like being debased and conquered. And if any people receive racial-supremacist adulation in the US, it is the Jews. Because Jews hate Russia and Iran, US foreign policy has been geared against those nations. And because of Jewish-Supremacism, the US favors Zionists over Palestinians. The very people who bitch about 'white supremacism' ignore all this. And if you want to watch racial supremacism, just turn on the TV. It's all around in Jewish-controlled media. The media says black men are the most superior men because they rap loudest, run fastest, and punch hardest. And it says white women are the most desirable. So, the New Eden will be created by black men(as superior men) conquering the wombs of white women(as superior women) while cuckolded 'white boys' look on the New Racial Reality with submissive wussiness.
There is even a cuckold fetish among Liberal intellectual men who get off on seeing black men hump their women, and these white women prefer black men. So, Liberals tell us, "Race is unreal and there are NO racial differences', but these very same people are inviting black men to do white women on the basis that black men are better than wussy white boys. Go figure. No wonder Liberal whites see psychiatrists. They are dishonest with themselves and the world.
So, despite all the PC yammering about racial equality, in ACTUAL PRACTICE, much of social behavior is predicated on perceived racial differences that everyone notices but pretends not to. The rule should be ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS. We need to judge people by what they do, not what they say. We should judge reality by what we see happening, not by what the lying media/academia say we should believe. We are too tolerant of lies. Granted, lies are necessary in life to get along with people. If a fat ugly woman asks you if her new hairdo looks nice, you should compliment her even if she doesn't look good. It's just being civil.
But the objective of real academics and real journalism isn't to be 'nice' and 'sensitive'. They must seek and speak the truth, and it just so happens that reality is often dark, unpleasant, discomfiting, ugly, or subversive of official dogma
Now, on the subject of Charles Murray according to Vox.com
If you want JUNK SCIENCE, I think this is it:
Progs have fallen under the fallacy of automatic radicalism. They assume, because Murray believes in racial differences, he must be a Nazi since Nazis also believed in racial differences.
But truth is a matter of degrees, not an either/or dichotomy.
For example, not every socialist is a Stalinist or Pol-Pot-ist. One can be a socialist in the sense of a social-democrat who doesn't want to eradicate entire classes of 'kulaks'.
Likewise, one can be race-ist in the sense of believing that races exist and racial differences are real. After all, -ism just means 'belief'. It doesn't mean supremacism or imperialist hatred/contempt.
Being this kind of rational race-ist isn't same as being a radical racist like a Nazi. Also, a rational race-ist is open to new facts and data about race. In contrast, what radical racists and radical anti-racists have in common is a dogmatic belief that truth is fixed and no deviance shall be tolerated.
So, Nazism said 'Aryans' are better than Slavs, and that's that, no need for any further argument.
So, radical anti-racists say there are NO racial differences, and if you say otherwise, you are a renegade who must be destroyed... despite the mountain of evidence that the main reason for black violence is (1) blacks are more muscular (2) blacks are naturally more aggressive. Radical racism of Nazis justified mass invasion of lands of lesser races. And radical anti-racism of Progs ignores the threat that black immigrant-invaders pose to Europeans-as-the-weaker-race vulnerable to black physical, criminal, and sexual domination.
Anyway, the problem isn't race-ism(belief in races and racial differences) but radical race-ism. But then radicalizing ANYTHING turns it evil. Rational Socialism can mean public libraries. Radical socialism leads to Gulag and Khmer Rouge. Rational Race-ism can mean better understanding of why Jews dominate Wall Street and why blacks dominate NFL and why it's dangerous to integrate with certain races. (If Liberal Jews integrate with large number of blacks, the result will be stronger blacks kicking Jewish ass and black men taking Jewish women from Jewish men as Jewish women will come to see Jewish men as wusses beaten and humiliated by stronger black men. One reason why Jews joined White Flight was because blacks kicked Jewish ass with ease.) Radical racism can mean Nazi Concentration Camps and War on Russia and Jews.
In Crown Heights riots, why did blacks kick Jewish ass? Why did Jewish men cower while black men beat them up? Blacks are more muscular. Regardless of which side was right or wrong, the fact is the violence was entirely black-on-Jewish since Jews are physically no match for blacks. There are more men built like Muhammad Ali among blacks whereas your average Jew is built like Albert or Mel Brooks. But then, Jews are smarter, which is why a Jew is more likely to own an NBA or NFL team while a black guy is more likely to play in one. How can anyone not notice racial differences unless one is in a hopeless state of denial induced by PC and craven cowardice?
Compare the Jew and the Negro.
Even as Jews were part of Freedom Riders to end Segregation the South, they joined white flight to segregate themselves from black crime. Consider Hyde Park where University of Chicago is. It's filled with Jewish Liberals who bitch about 'racism', but their safety and security from surrounding black neighborhood is guaranteed by a DOUBLE WALL of police protection. Jews may say 'black lives matter' but what they really do is 'Save our Jewish lives from black thugs with Walls of Blue Police':
Anyway, one can be a rational socialist like a social-democrat who sees both the value of socialism but also the need for market economics. One can be a rational race-ist and understand the factor of racial differences in society but still work towards racial tolerance and understanding(if not equality, forever a utopian dream). One would have to give into the Fallacy of Automatic Radicalism to believe that someone's rational view must be radical because radical versions of it have existed in the past or can exist among some minds.
If we follow that logic, we might as believe that those who believe in political freedom MUST BE anarchists. And we must assume that since there have been extreme religious communities(like Jim Jones Town), every religious person must be a theocratic fanatic or cultist. Just like not every Muslims is a radical Islamist who supports terrorism, not every race-ist is a radical racist. He can be a rational race-ist who, based on facts and reason, notices that races are the product of evolution and that differences exist among races that are consequential. (It's been said average Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is 110 or even 115. Is this consequential to humanity? Just look at the Nobel prizes in physics, chemistry, and medicine. Jewish IQ has had profound impact on the world. Jews made more money, gained more influence, and steered global policy toward serving Jewish interests. Just ask the Palestinians who suffer Apartheid conditions under Jews but get no sympathy from Congress that is owned by AIPAC). Also, the best way to defeat radicalism is with rationalism, not with radical ignorance, which is what PC is about. In the end, truth cannot be suppressed forever. It's like the best way to combat sexual disease and debauchery is through sensible and rational education about sexuality and sex, not total sexual ignorance.
A rational discussion of race and racial differences can take the subject away from radicals. But if PC insists on Radical Ignorance/Mendacity, then the issue of race and racial differences will be owned by radical racists since they are the only ones with mad courage to discuss it.
It's like when the ruling orders in the past ignored or suppressed the problems of poverty among the working masses and the poor, the issue came to be owned by radical socialists in some parts of the world. Best weapon against radicalism is rationalism, not willful ignorance, censorship, dogmatism, and coercion.
In a way, Progs are secretly envious of Murray because he's had the courage and conviction that they lack. Sure, they mask their craven cowardice with Social Justice sermonizing, but the fact is Murray has shown a willingness to think outside the box. Prog scribes haven't. It's like communist commissars beat their chest and made lots of noble-sounding noises about the heroic proles and evil bourgeoisie. In truth, they were hack careerists who just regurgitated approved cliches to protect their privilege in the system. It was all about Peer Pressure than Peer Review.
Now, the problem wasn't so much that Murray wrote about race differences in IQ.
The problem was he found differences between whites and blacks, showing lower IQ among blacks.
Suppose Murray had written about relative IQs of Chinese and Russians or between Iranians and Kurds. Suppose his findings said Iranians have higher IQ than Kurds or some such. I don't think anyone would have cared. Or, suppose his finding showed that blacks have higher IQ than whites. That too wouldn't have made much difference. If anything, it might even have been welcomed. The problem is that he provided data showing that blacks have lower IQ.
THAT was the no-no. Why?
As stated above, Political Correctness is tolerant of or even approving of certain kinds of racial supremacism. So, it's okay for Pop Culture to tell white women, "Look, black men got more muscle, got manlier voices, and got bigger dicks. So, ditch those slow wussy white boys and have babies with superior black men." Such tropes are all over the place in Jewish-controlled pop culture. Also, if studies show that women have higher verbal IQ than men, that finding is also okay. Also, the media have promoted the idea that mixed-race people are smarter, better, and more beautiful than mono-racial people. But how can that be? If PC says 'race is just a social construct and not real', then how can a person of mixed race be better than mono-racial person when race isn't real to begin with? If race isn't real, then there can be no mixed-race person since race simply doesn't exist. But don't expect any logic or consistency from PC. We will just have to believe that Mexicans, Moroccans, and Kazakhis are the most superior, smartest, and most beautiful people in the world since they are racially mixed.
Anyway, the controversy surrounding Murray's BELL CURVE is due to the historiography of taboo. It's because blacks have a special historical place in the US, and this has led to certain social sacraments and taboos.
In the past, whites justified their supremacism over blacks on basis that blacks are not as intelligent or capable. So, slavery and explicit racial discrimination came to be associated with such attitudes.
Therefore, any discussion of black-white IQ differences, however true they may be, tends to be controversial because of cult of 'white guilt' in relation to history.
Now, I can understand why this would be morally or emotionally charged due to historical reasons, but from a scientific viewpoint, what is true is still true. True social science must always favor rationalism and factualism over emotionalism and sympathism.
Here is a thought experiment: Suppose bigger and stronger blacks had enslaved the smaller and weaker Japanese. Suppose blacks justify their dominance over Japanese on the basis that blacks are tougher and stronger, thereby superior(on those terms), people whereas Japanese are weaker and smaller people, therefore inferior and deserving to be ruled by blacks.
Suppose black enslavement of Japanese is ended because blacks come to realize that slavery is wrong regardless of racial differences.
Suppose blacks try to make amends by pretending that blacks and Japanese are equal in size and strength. Because blacks had invoked black physical domination over the Japanese as rationale for enslavement of Japanese, blacks come to see any discussion of physical differences as associated with slavery and racial oppression. So, black PC insists that race is just a social construct and there are no differences in physical attributes. However, despite this dogma, Japanese continue to under-perform in sports, fighting, and etc in relation to blacks.
But suppose a black Charles Murray, or Leroy Murray, comes along and says the reason why Japanese continue to do less well in sports is due to them being naturally smaller and weaker.
But then, suppose Leroy Murray is attacked for his 'racism' that demeans Japanese.
Leroy Murray is accused of thinking like the old black slavers who justified Japanese slavery on the basis of Japanese being smaller and weaker than blacks.
Since Leroy Murray's views(blacks are bigger and stronger than Japanese) sound similar to the views of past black supremacists who'd once justified Japanese slavery on black physical power, he is reviled as a 'black supremacist'.
But the thing is Leroy Murray is not calling for return of Japanese slavery or racial discrimination. He is not calling for taking away rights from Japanese. He is just saying that the reason why Japanese continue to achieve less in sports is because there are natural differences, and that the continued failure of Japanese relative to blacks cannot be blamed on past slavery.
Or suppose the US had been dominated by blacks who subjugated other races. Suppose blacks controlled sports and came up with the rule: ONLY BLACKS ALLOWED. So, only blacks can do boxing, football, basketball, track and field, and etc. Other races cannot participate or must play in separate leagues(but never in the Main Leagues reserved only for blacks). So, naturally, all of Sports are dominated by blacks due to social discrimination in favor of blacks. But, suppose blacks come to realize that such rules are 'racist', unjust, and discriminatory. So, they strike down such rules and make sports open to all races: Whites, yellows, browns, Arabs, Hindus, etc. And the hope is that the sports teams will become proportionally representative of all groups. But even with the removal of social barriers, blacks continue to dominate sports. Some exceptional whites and few others do make the team, but sports remains black-dominated despite the absence of laws that says "ONLY BLACKS CAN PLAY". Now, why would this be? Occam's Razor explanation would be that blacks are naturally better at sports. So, even with new laws that ban discrimination, sports continue to be dominated by blacks. But suppose black 'progressives' insist that such views are 'racist' and that the continuing lag of non-black races in sports must be blamed on 'past discrimination'. And suppose anyone who says otherwise is censored, reviled, and attacked. And the PC media says his ideas have been 'discredited' even though all the raw data are really in his favor.
The fact is biology matters. If indeed the PAST matters so much, why did blacks make such great gains in sports? After all, whites did everything to prevent black success in athletics. Whites felt threatened by black athletic ability since it would lead to fall of white male pride and loss of white women to black men. Whites did not want blacks to succeed in boxing, football, and other sports. But against all those odds and pressures, blacks succeeded in sports? Why? Because of natural differences. Despite all the white resistance, the fact is evolution made blacks better at sports. That is why blacks beat up whites and humiliated white males. That is why black males came to see white males as a bunch of 'faggoty ass pussy white boys'. Now, suppose blacks had the IQ and physique of Jews. They would likely have succeeded more in cerebral areas than in sports regardless of past injustice.
Some might argue that blacks got good at sports because they weren't encouraged to hit the books and instead used for manual labor. But Mexican peasants weren't encouraged to read books either. Also, Americans see Mexicans mainly as farm labor and manual work. So, how come Mexicans aren't good at sports? Also, keep in mind that Americans let in Chinese in the 19th century to do backbreaking manual labor in building railroads. But Chinese-Americans were never good at sports and did better in school. Why is that? Higher IQ than blacks, lower athleticism than blacks. We cannot pretend that nature and genetics don't matter.
Anyway, one can believe in racial differences and still oppose laws for racial discrimination.
Abraham Lincoln made an anti-slavery argument despite arguing that blacks are not as smart as whites.
Putting aside the issue of blacks and IQ, racial differences are real. Why? If one grows up in an integrated community, and it's hard not to see racial differences. From my personal experiences as a child, I recall black kids were tougher and more muscular. And more aggressive. They were the loudest, must thuggish, and most unruly. They were most likely to beat up other kids. Some even beat teachers, and many teachers were afraid of them. Even in 6th grade, there were black kid who were bigger and stronger than male teachers. They were most likely to beat up and rob people.
Some people say poverty is the reason for black violence, but suppose blacks were built like Jews or Vietnamese and had less aggressive temperaments. Would they be so dangerous? No.
We pretend that ONLY WHITE REDNECKS IN THE DEEP SOUUUUUTH are for segregation, but we see the same patterns in the North too. (Whites in the North opposed Forced Segregation in the South but opted for Free-to-Choose Segregation for themselves: They used their freedom to flee from larger number of blacks out of fear of black crime and violence. Segregation or Integration, it is wrong if FORCED.) And even Liberal Jews ran from blackening areas because stronger blacks were kicking Jewish ass. Jew Flew was part of White Flight. Blacks are very physical and aggressive in their culture and manner. So, it doesn't matter if you're a nice liberal Jewish guy who respects MLK. To a black person, you're just a 'faggoty-ass slow, honkey motherfuc*a'. That is why Liberal Jews did what all other whites did. They ran from blacks due to violence and also because their kids got bullied by stronger blacks in school.
I know 'progressive' elites got fancy Ph.D's and official credentials and love to put on holier-than-thou airs, but based on what I saw with my own eyes, Howard Stern speaks more truth than fancy academics and yuppie journalists:
Now, ideally, academics should be courageous seekers of truth, but they are first and foremost careerists who cravenly seek social approval. So, they want to be part of The System(with Jewish domination of media and academia), and so, they play the game to put food on the table and be invited to cocktail parties with 'cool' and 'respectable' people.
Murray could have played that game and been showered with more prizes, and for awhile, he just played 'libertarian' and won many sponsors. But, he had more courage than most, and he was willing to ask controversial questions. Courage is something sorely missing among academics and intellectuals due to lack of nerves, resolve, and principles. We still have First Amendment and Free Speech in the US, but liberty doesn't guarantee courage and conviction. Since most people who become academics and writers tend to be beta-male dorks, they will back down, get on their knees, and submit to the power that threatens to take away their professional positions and reputations that come with it. Most academics and journalists in the US are hardly different from their counterparts in autocracies. They all serve the Official Narrative and dare not challenge the Sacred Cows of Consensus.
Sure, the penalty for dissidents and heretics isn't as severe in the US as in the old USSR, Castroite Cuba, North Korea, or Nazi Germany. You won't get dragged off to the Gulag or get a bullet in your head. Or be forced to sit through brutal Struggle Sessions, as in Maoist China.
Rather, you will be sent to Sensitivity Training and you are expected to debase yourself and profusely apologize and promise never ever to say such things again(though in the so-called 'liberal democracies' of EU and Canada, you can be fined or jailed for what the Powers-that-be deem as 'hate speech'). But then, there is no guarantee that your submission to sensitivity training or apologies will get you off the hook. James Watson chickened and apologized, but he's still banned by the University of Illinois(just like Steven Salaita). Charles Murray was surely wounded too emotionally for the attacks, but he's got more sand than most. He refused to take back what he wrote or said; he refused to cave into fear even when nearly all the Jewish-dominated PC-infected media and academia denounced him as a renegade.
So, he was attacked by the System as a heretic and renegade. It's like the scene in ZARDOZ. 'Renegade, renegade, renegade'.
It's funny that Murray's arguments, based on mountains of data, are called 'junk science' whereas the truly junky PC social science that the commissars push is called 'real science'.
But then, in the USSR, Marxism was promoted as scientific materialism and those who argued otherwise were deemed 'mentally ill'.
Anyway, racial differences are real. We can see it in physical attributes. Why is most racial violence black on white and black on non-black? It is because black are more muscular and more aggressive. Colin Flaherty has documented tons of this:
To understand crime in America, we have to understand racial differences. It's not just about poverty. After all, some communities have low crime despite poverty.
To understand high crime rates among blacks and why blacks so often attack non-blacks, we cannot ignore the fact that blacks are more muscular and are naturally more aggressive.
After all, even White/Jewish/Asian Liberals supported New Democrat Bill Clinton because he said he would get tough on Crime, codeword for Black Thuggery. And indeed, he locked up record numbers of black 'super-predators'. Also, how did Democratic cities make a comeback? By embracing blacks? No, by reducing black numbers via gentrification, which is a code-word for de-negro-fication.
Now, one needs to ask... if Jews use their power to gentrify cities and lock up tons of blacks(or stop and frisk) them because they know, deep down inside, that blacks are more threatening and dangerous, why do they push the Narrative of racial equality? Why do Jews who control the media whitewash black thuggery and crime by referring to black aggressors as 'teens' and 'youths'?
It's because the US is really a Jewish Supremacist Nation. And in order for Jewish Power to remain supreme, it has to paralyze white gentile power with 'white guilt'. And making whites feel guilty about blacks is part of the strategy.
After all, if whites knew the truth about racial differences, they would understand that the REAL reason for black failure in education and economics is due to lower IQ and more unruly temperament. And then, whites would feel less guilty since black pathology owes more to 100,000 yrs of evolution in Africa than 200 yrs of slavery in the US. So, Jews keep pushing the 'white guilt' narrative about blacks in order to keep white folks feeling morally paralyzed. Thus, whites aren't allowed moral autonomy. The cult of 'White Guilt' says that blacks are morally justified for just being black and Jews are morally justified for just being Jews. They need not feel any guilt(despite the fact that blacks had slavery for 10,000 yrs in Africa and despite Jewish roles in slave trade, Jewish role in communism, and Jewish role in Nakba and mass looting of Russia in the 90s). Jews are good as Jews, and blacks are good as blacks. They don't need approval or benediction from others to feel good about themselves. But white gentiles are not allowed such moral pride. How is this useful to Jews? If whites lack moral pride and autonomy, the ONLY way they can feel justified is by pleading for the approval of the Sacred People, Jews and blacks(and homos). And this is why whites in both Political Parties totally suck up to Jews. Without Jewish approval, whites are nothing. Indeed, isn't it curious that, no matter how much Jewish Liberals attack and demean White Conservatives, the latter keep praising Jews as a holy people and singing endless hosannas to Israel, Israel, Israel? Jews shat on John McCain in 2008. He blows Jews. Jews pissed on Mitt Romney in 2012. He sucked Jewish cock. Jews vomit on Trump, but Trump kisses Zionist ass. Jews got white people by the balls.
When a people lack moral pride/autonomy, this is how they act. They become emotional slaves of another people who have the moral pride/autonomy. Since the PC Narrative says Jews & blacks are angels while whites are sinners, the ONLY way whites can feel justified is by sucking up to Jews and blacks. Deep down inside, Jews don't care for blacks, but Jews do find blacks useful (1) as cash cows in sports and entertainment and (2) for milking 'white guilt' over slavery, thus paralyzing white pride and solidarity. (Oddly enough, ALL whites, even recently arrived Polish immigrants, must share in this 'white guilt' even though most whites in the US have NO slave-owner ancestry. In contrast, even recent African immigrants, whose ancestors actually sold black slaves to whites, enjoy affirmative action and get to shroud themselves in the cult of Selma. The ONLY whites exempted from White Guilt are Jews, but then, Jews rigged the Narrative that way.) Some will say Jews do this because they are so conscientious. If Jews are indeed so, why do they make the US support Zionist-supremacist imperialism over Palestinians? Why haven't Jews apologized for Nakba? Why haven't Jews come clean up about their mass murder as communists or mass-robbery as finance-capitalists? Why haven't Jews apologized to Chinese for destroying countless lives through opium addiction? Why haven't most Jews faced up to the fact that the biggest slave traders and slave owners in the New World were Jews in Brazil, which took in 10x the number of slaves that the US did?
No, Jews cleverly manipulate the politics of guilt to increase their own power and paralyze the power of their rivals, real or perceived.
Also, notice how Jews manipulate the politics of Hate Speech to shut down Palestinian voices. Where is outrage from Vox on this? But then, Vox is run by Jewish supremacists who hire minions who stick to the Narrative:
Also, notice how Jewish supremacists have used their muscle to pressure all 50 states into supporting Zionist supremacism over Palestinians who still live under Occupation. How many in the media or academia will express outrage over this? If you do, Jews will gang up on your and fire you, just like Steven Salaita got canned. Jews take pride in using boycott to end segregation in the South. But Jewish supremacists now pressure the US government to keep supporting Zionist supremacism and apartheid policies in West Bank. Will anyone at Vox take this up with Eza Klein the Zionist?
Jewish supremacists who rule the US know it's good to be The King.
Anyway, professional-progressives prefer to lie because they've enjoyed privilege all their lives. So, they don't know the reality on the ground level. They only live in academic bubbles and cherry pick the data they want to see. And even though their kind denounce 'white privilege', they are also addicted to it. After all, attacking 'white privilege' is a ticket for white elites to keep their white privilege. Since they bleat about 'white racism', it means they are 'good whites', and that means they deserve their good kind of white privilege that attacks bad kind of white privilege. In contrast, anyone who has courage like Murray often loses their 'privilege'. After Bell Curve, Murray was shunned by the RESPECTABLE community.
Anyway, even within the same race, we can believe in IQ differences and still not believe in slavery.
If US were all white, people would still believe that those who go to elite colleges are smarter than those who go community colleges. It doesn't mean people with IQ of 140 or above should enslave people with IQ of 100 or below or deny them rights. (But then, the elites do seem to believe that democracy is too good for Deplorables who voted for Trump and nationalism than for Hillary and globalist Replacism. In a way, how the elites see the native masses is worse than slavery. At least masters felt some degree of responsibility to their slaves. In contrast, today's Western elites see their own people as trash to get rid of and replace with Third World folks. Even when White Death was devastating communities, there was silence among white elites. Funny that the elites who idolize Emma Lazarus[who called on the 'wretched refuse' to come to America] see their own people as wretched refuse to be disposed of and replaced by new peoples, as if running a nation is like shopping. Get rid of 'old stuff' and just get new stuff. This is worse than Bush II telling people to shopping after 9/11. He meant shopping for stuff. Today's elite toss out native folks and shop for new folks.)
It is true that there are physical differences among races. Consider the following links:
Now, keep in mind that the official dogma once said there were no racial differences in athletic ability. But we know now there are profound differences.
And this has profound impact on society. If blacks are better at sports, it means they are more muscular and faster. So, it means racial violence is more likely to be black on white, black on Muslim, black on Asian, black on Mexican, and etc since blacks are tougher. It's no wonder that white flight, yellow flight, and brown flight has been from black areas.
Also, how come there is the jungle fever thing? Why is it about white women going for black men and rejecting white men? It's funny that 'liberals' attack the notion of racial differences but promote jungle fever, cuckold sex, and mantras like 'if you go black, you don't go back'. What does that mean?
It really means white women find black men to be more muscular, more manly, and bigger-penised. So, when white women go black, they can't find satisfaction in slow, dweeby, and flabby white boys anymore.
Now, KKK and Neo-Nazis don't control pop culture, TV, pornography, and media. No, Liberal Jews control them, but it promotes jungle fever on the basis that white women should reject white men(as inferior) and go with superior black men. Sounds like racial supremacism to me.
If they really want to fight racial supremacism, how come they don't tackle issues like that?
Also, if the US is surpremacist-anything, it is JEWISH SUPREMACIST.
Jews are 2% of the population. Ideally, they should have 2% of wealth, 2% of influence, 2% of media control, 2% of academic representation, 2% of Hollywood control, 2% of Las Vegas control, 2% of finance control, and etc. After all, if EQUALITY is so important, then we need proportionality.
Suppose US were 5% Hindu but Hindus controlled 90% of media, 60% of Wall Street, most of Hollywood, and etc. People would say US is a Hindu-supremacist state, just like Imperialist India was once British Supremacist since British minorities had supreme control over the native masses.
Given that Jews, who are 2% of the population, control 90% of media, 60% of Wall Street, monopolize the internet with Facebook and Google, control Hollywood and Las Vegas, and own all politicians in Congress via AIPAC, the US is a Jewish-supremacist nation.
Also, Jews favor other Jews. Take Ezra Klein who got showered with millions to run Vox.com. Who gave him the money? Jewish-Zionist oligarchs. Now, why do you think these super-rich Jews shower fellow Jews with such cash? Some will say it's because rich Jews are 'progressive' and favor other 'progressives' and, as such, Jewishness has NOTHING to do with it. But surely there are Palestinian-American progressives too. Now, what are the chances that rich Jews would have given many millions to a Palestinian-American like Steven Salaita to run Vox? No, they gave it to Ezra Klein since, despite his bogus 'progressive' credentials, he sounds like a Zionist-imperialist supremacist who's been relatively silent about the Jewish oppression of Palestinians.
Also, what would happen to the gentiles working at Vox if they were to confront Ezra Klein about Zionist oppression of Palestinians and Zionist-supremacist control of US media and Congress? Suppose gentiles at Vox all go to Klein and demand that Vox run a series of articles condemning over and over the decision of all 50 US governors to suppress and penalize BDS movement. Indeed, imagine that. Zionists still occupy West Bank and force apartheid policies on Palestinians, BUT every US governor, Republican and Democrat, side with Zionist supremacists over Palestinians.
Now, if gentiles at Vox were to demand that Klein use Vox to condemn American's anti-BDS policy, what would happen to those gentiles? They better head to the unemployment office.
Also, how come no one asks why Jews who push 'progressive' policies on gentiles exempt it for themselves? Just think. Iran has no nukes. Never had it. And Iran allowed many inspections as part of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In contrast, Israel never signed onto such treaty. It stole nuclear secrets from the US. (During Cold War, Jews even stole atomic secrets and passed them to Stalin the mass killer.) Israel also passed nuclear secrets to white-ruled Apartheid South Africa. Israel has 300 nuclear bombs.
So, Israel violates all international standards and norms. It was created by massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. It still occupies West Bank and keep stealing land. It has tons of nukes to blow up Iran many times over. It only allows Jewish-immigration while telling Europe and Asia to welcome massive foreign invasion. Israel is the #1 espionage threat in the US. Israel also stole US secrets and sold them to China. Israel even medically treats ISIS terrorists and helps them against Assad. Israel also attacked USS Liberty but covered up the crime and called it an 'accident'. Also, Jewish Neocons told lies to invade Iraq and destroy that nation. Liberal Zionists around Obama told lies to destroy Libya. They also used Obama to aid 'moderate rebels' ---Alqaeda --- in Syria. And the list goes on and on.
But the US showers Israel with $4 billion every year, and every Congressman whore says Israel is the greatest friend of the US. Why?
Another thing. Jews keep telling us that America was unjust in the past because it favored whites and Europeans over others. They say New America is better because it takes in people from all over the world and treats them equally. If so, why does the US favor Israel over others? Why does it favor Zionist imperialists over Palestinians? Why does it shower Israel(that has illegal nukes) with tons of aid while targeting nations like Iran for sanctions when they have no nukes? And why is there a Jewish Pride Month when Jews are only 2% of the population? And why is there a Holocaust Memorial when US had nothing to do with the Holocaust?
US is a Jewish-supremacist state. Jews are not opposed to supremacism per se. They love their own supremacism and prop it up by distracting people with the bogeyman of 'white supremacism'. This is why Jews exaggerated the Alt Right that has no money and no organization. Alt Right, whatever its ideology, has NO POWER. It has no representation in FBI, CIA, Congress, NSA, Pentagon, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Music Industry, Pornography, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and etc.
It wasn't the Alt Right that did Nakba on Palestinians. It's not Alt Right that is forcing apartheid policies in the West Bank. It's not Alt Right that financially looted Russia in the 90s and killed millions of people as a result from poverty. Uber-Jews did that. It's not Alt Right that cooked up WMD lies and destroyed Iraq. Uber-Zionists did that. It was not Alt Right that starved 500,000 Iraq kids to death. Uber-Zionist monster Madeline Albright did that. Alt Right didn't lock up record numbers of blacks in the 90s. Clinton did that. Alt Right didn't come up with Stop and Frisk. Bloomberg and Rahm Emanuel came up with that. It's not Alt Right that used Wall Street to fleece the world. Mostly Jewish-owned Wall Street firms did that. They stole billions upon billions and then got bailout from their boy Obama, their dog and pet, who is now raking in $400,000 per speech from Wall Street. Alt Right doesn't own Las Vegas that addicts people to gambling and fleeces them. Las Vegas is run by Jewish supremacist Zionist like Sheldon Adelson who calls for nuking of Iran.
NSA that spies on all of us is controlled by globalists, Jews, and homosexuals. Music Industry that gives us black thug gangsters yapping about 'kill that nigga' and 'bitchass ho' is owned by Jews. So, Jews rake in billions by sensationalizing black murder and mayhem and misogyny. Pornography has been controlled by Jews from day one, and it uses white gentile women as cumbuckets and sex meat. That is how Jews see women of other races.
Facebook that steals personal information and sells them to companies is run by Zuckerberg the weasel-like Jewish Zionist supermacist. Jews are the supremacists. Since they don't want us to notice their supremacist power, they divert us with BS about 'white supremacism', Russia-Russia-Russia, Yellow Peril, and the Muslim Terrorist hysteria. Democrats fall for Russia-Russia-Russia hysteria, Republicans fall for Muslim-Terrorist-hysteria.
In truth, the reason why so many Muslims became angry terrorists is because the Jewish-controlled West used American Might(with help of NATO) to destroy several Muslim nations in the interests of Zionism. Jews play both sides. It's like Jack Abramoff the Neocon Jewish creep played both sides when he fuc*ed over Indian communities.
It's like Zionist encourage white Christians to hate those 'muzzie terrorists'. They tell white Christians that Jews/Israel are the BEST FRIENDS of white Christians, and therefore, it's noble for white Christian Americans to join the military to fight those evil muzzie terrorists in the Middle East. Such wars lead to devastation of nations like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria.
Policy of INVADE leads to refugee crisis and Muslim migration.
But then, once the Muslims come to the West, those very Jews(who'd urged white Christians to destroy Muslim nations) embrace Muslims and say, "We Jews and you Muslims are the best of friends against those evil white racist Islamophobic Christians."
I mean how low can you get? But because Uber-Jews control all the media and shape the Narrative and because Jews own all the whore-politicians, they get away with everything.
How do we know Jews are supremacist in the US? The only true intersectionality among all political voices is "WE MUST SERVE ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL; WE MUST PRAISE JEWS, JEWS, JEWS."
Even a Democrat and a Republican who hates one another over everything will suddenly hug and kiss one another over Jews and Israel. If Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity have one thing in common, it's about favoring Zionists over Palestinians. If Bill Maher and Tucker Carlson agree on one thing, it is the need to praise and worship Israel and Jews.
Now, some Jews will deny that Jews have supremacist power. But some Jews, like chutzpahistic Alan Dershowitz, will admit Jews have supreme power and DESERVE it.
According to the Liberal Progressive Zionist Dershowitz Logic, because Jews made America 'great', their interests must take precedence over those of Palestinians. That's like a rich man saying, "Since I made more money for the nation, my vote should count more than the votes of the toiling masses." Because Jews made America 'great', Jews deserve to steer US foreign policy to favor Zionist oppressors over Palestinians. That is Liberal Progressive Jewish Logic. Notice only Mondoweiss and few alternative media criticized Dershowitz on this. MSM totally ignore such arrogance on the part of Jews. But then, Jewish supremacism controls most of the media, and the New-Jewish-Boys-and-Girls-Network favors fellow Jews over others. (Btw, Dershowitz is only half-right. It is true that Jewish smarts played a key role in many technological innovations that grew the US economy. But Jewish control of finance has led to scum like Bernie Madoff and Goldman Sachs oligarchs fleecing the world many times over. Much of Jewish wealth is ill-gotten. Just consider how Jews looted Russia in the 90s. It was a case of Wow, Simply Wow.)
I mean the current Russia Hysteria is totally about Jewish Supremacism. Jews exploited post-communist Russia to loot most of the wealth. At one time, Boris Berezovsky owned all the Russian media, just like handful of Jewish oligarchs control all the media in the US. He used media power to ensure Yeltin's reelection in 1996. Also, Russian Jews had the backing of US Jewish media oligarchs. TIME magazine, the rag of Jewish supremacism, boasted about how the US interfered in Russian elections and ensured Yeltsin's win:
Jews thought Putin would be just another puppet like Yeltsin, but Putin, as a patriot, restored some degree of national sovereignty from total Jewish globalist supremacist control. That is why Jews hate him and Russia. They fear that what Russia achieved --- gaining independence from total Jewish globalist supremacist control --- may spread to other nations. That is why Jews hysterically promote this Russia Narrative. By vilifying Russia(as if the Cold War is still on), Jews are trying to make normalization of relations between US/EU with Russia difficult. The world now revolves around the Axis of Jewish supremacist paranoia, neurosis,and pathology. Jews project onto Russia all the dirty supremacist tricks that they themselves are experts at.