The funny thing is that Leftists called Eysenck a 'Nazi' and other such things back in the day.

Result: 90%

Obviously a stupid test, since it presupposes a Left-liberal, individualistic worldview to be indubitably correct and that any answers to the contrary are necessarily false.

In reality, there is no reason why every person should be looked at on a case by case basis, since that blinds one to patterns. Worse still, it positivizes that blindness to the extent that it becomes a false virtue for those who lack true virtues to take up in their stead. 'Sure, I'm this and I'm that, but, hey, at least I'm not racist!' When you're making the same defensive argument that Jeffrey Dahmer made—that he didn't choose his targets based on race, therefore, he wasn't really that bad—you're clearly in the wrong. (Yes, Dahmer did disproportionately target black males, but that was because he found them attractive, not because he hated blacks, ergo, he can reasonably argue that he was not racist.)

Instead, you simply look at enough cases until you see sure patterns, and willingly blinding oneself to them, viz. refusing to 'generalize', 'paint with a broad brush', 'stereotype', is just plain irrational. If you lived in a city in which a gang whose colours were red mugged you several times, only a total moron would continue to relax around those clothed in red. But such irrationality is now a marker of a virtuous person.

Unfortunately, we live in a world in which people's heads are full of beliefs in false patterns—'I have found plenty of evidence for the existence of cisheteronormative patriarchy... but no amount of evidence would ever justify anti-semitism!'—and, in part because many of these beliefs in false patterns mutually excludes belief in true ones, they can see none of the true ones.

Firstly, belief in White privilege (viz. majority privilege strangely problematized when Whites have it) automatically blinds one to Jewish privilege because the latter seems prima facie improbable if the former is true. 'If Jewish privilege exists, wouldn't that mean that Whites do not have privilege? But Whites do have privilege; therefore, Jewish privilege cannot be true.'

Secondly, belief in Jews as the world's greatest victims also blinds one to it because it seems prima facie improbable that Jews can also have privilege if this belief is true. 'If Jews have privilege, wouldn't they use that to prevent the Holocaust? But the Holocaust happened; therefore, Jewish privilege cannot be true.'

Finally, peddling the idea of Jews as White also blinds one to it, since all evidence of Jewish privilege is simply reinterpreted as evidence of White privilege. Furthermore, it unfairly means that Whites cop the blame for all Jewish wrongdoings. 'Israelis are White; therefore, Whites are bombing Palestinian children! I hate Whitey!' It also justifies White under-representation: 'Blinken, Cohen, Garland, Haines, Mayorkas, Klain, Yellen, etc. are Jews, but Jews are White! What do you mean "Whites are under-represented"? Biden has plenty of Whites around him!'

All of this conceptual junk simply obfuscates real problems. And it benefits them immensely to spread this junk, since it clarifies nothing and complicates everything. It blinds, confuses, and stupefies the world. And nothing can happen to them when that is so: everything becomes endless argumentation, confusing problems for solutions, solutions for problems, symptoms for causes (like TheImpossible1 ranting obsessively about feminism), and the like.

'Everyone else oppresses us, we are the greatest victims of all time, somehow we have never oppressed anyone, somehow no one else has been greater oppressed than we, and we are somehow also White and people of colour at the same time, and when you do this and that you are Nazis and enemies of humanity but when we do those same things we are liberal democrats and your greatest allies, oh, and only people who want to oppress others question any of this.'