Tucker GASSES, SKINS and LAMPSHADES Jew Calling for Censoring “Hate Speech”

Eric Striker
Daily Stormer
August 1, 2017

Jewish entry into prestigious fields must be restricted because they see everything as a means to a political end. They buy names you trust (New York Times, for example), coordinate hostile take overs of entities you respect (Harvard and Yale), and earn credentials in fields we socially defer to in order to push their agenda of displacing gentiles and muffling all cries of: “hey Jews, stop displacing gentiles!”

In the latest example, the “neuroscientist” (((Lisa Feldman Barrett))) wrote an op-ed in the Jew York Times claiming that engaging in political speech Jews don’t agree with is actually an act of violence. She asserts all kinds of dubious – even freshly made-up – clinical terms for how words are converted into “chronic stress” for the leftist or protected class who is losing the argument.

Tucker did great in this interview because he cut right through all the Jew bullshit – more proof that Tuck isn’t a typical conservative at all. He came right out and said the truth: this woman wants to censor political opinions she doesn’t agree with, and she herself wants to do the censoring.

Feldman Barrett wrote for the New York Times:

Imagine that a bully threatens to punch you in the face. A week later, he walks up to you and breaks your nose with his fist. Which is more harmful: the punch or the threat?

The answer might seem obvious: Physical violence is physically damaging; verbal statements aren’t. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

But scientifically speaking, it’s not that simple. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.

Your body’s immune system includes little proteins called proinflammatory cytokines that cause inflammation when you’re physically injured. Under certain conditions, however, these cytokines themselves can cause physical illness. What are those conditions? One of them is chronic stress.

Your body also contains little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes. They’re called telomeres. Each time your cells divide, their telomeres get a little shorter, and when they become too short, you die. This is normal aging. But guess what else shrinks your telomeres? Chronic stress.

Entertaining someone else’s distasteful perspective can be educational. Early in my career, I taught a course that covered the eugenics movement, which advocated the selective breeding of humans. Eugenics, in its time, became a scientific justification for racism. To help my students understand this ugly part of scientific history, I assigned them to debate its pros and cons. The students refused. No one was willing to argue, even as part of a classroom exercise, that certain races were genetically superior to others.

So I enlisted an African-American faculty member in my department to argue in favor of eugenics while I argued against; halfway through the debate, we switched sides. We were modeling for the students a fundamental principle of a university education, as well as civil society: When you’re forced to engage a position you strongly disagree with, you learn something about the other perspective as well as your own. The process feels unpleasant, but it’s a good kind of stress — temporary and not harmful to your body — and you reap the longer-term benefits of learning.

What’s bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.

That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.

In other words, Feldman Barrett’s perspective is that politically incorrect opinions can be allowed only if the non-Jewish or non-leftist point of view is mock-debated by a Jew or leftist – thus set up to throw the game ala Washington Generals. Genuine advocates for opinions the majority of normal Americans agree with, on the other hand, are acts of hate speech. Noises pushed out by the larynx are the equivalent of punching someone, according to this Jewish despot.

She doesn’t come out and say it, but the “expert conclusion” is that physically assaulting someone with an opinion you find offensive is actually self-defense – which is the campus “anarcho-communist” SJW consensus. Another conclusion – if someone as milquetoast as Milo Yiannopolous and his speech is categorized as “violent” – is that the federal government ought to prosecute and imprison people for their ideas like they do in Merkelian Europe.

Lastly, it goes without saying that non-transsexual whites would not be protected in the frame Feldman Barrett is proposing. The only students who are racially abused and gaslit on modern American campuses are white students – often by their own professors – and it is safe to assume most Feldmans like it that way. Try being a white minority in a high school and see how much either students or administrators care about your physical wellbeing, never mind your psychological health.


So in the end, this debate isn’t even about hate speech or people’s feelings, even if ostensibly it is presented that way. It is about Jews being able to attack Western civilization and the people who built it without being able to fight back. The feelings of gays, fat women and middle-class college blacks are nothing but an alibi.

So why did Tucker keep pressing this Jew on who should decide what hate speech is? Why did she refuse to answer?

Because they both know her real opinion, and if the Goyim knew, they would dismiss her as a kook right off the bat.

Jews hide their “power levels” – just like some people on the Alt-Right.

Join the discussion at TGKBBS