Turkheimer Attacks Cochran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Race Science is Objectionable

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

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

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

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

21 thoughts on “Turkheimer Attacks Cochran”

  1. As always, eventually it becomes too much. Then America, like Germany, Spain, and all the other countries before will have to go through a terribly cataclysmic period in which (((they))) are expelled and things will be really shitty. History doesn’t repeat? I’m not so sure.

  2. Not a single thing jews claim in science, psychology, or history should be trusted. They’ve committed so much intellectual fraud in the past century alone that I’m even starting to doubt Einstein’s theories.

  3. “…the history of human behavior genetics”

    He already, out of the gate, invents a bizarre jew-paradigm. There’s no such thing as “human behavior genetics”. There is human behavior. There is the field of genetics. And though each term is ultimately related, they are two distinct things. Jews never cease with their word-sorcery, do they.

    Great article, BTW. And the meme up top is a keeper!

  4. When a jew speaks or writes, flip it 180 and you’re closer to the truth. Put another way, think or do the opposite.
    A few examples;
    Border open for White countries
    Border closed for Israel

    Jews are a religion not a race
    Athiest jews, jew DNA markers.

    Diversity is a strength
    Whites cannot exist

    White racial supremacy
    Whites dont really exist.

    Whites are born evil oppressors
    Everyone has the birth right to live next door to Whites.

    And on and on and on and on etc…

  5. Attention Tommytards:


    BBC Radio 4
    “Social media in the dock:
    Sir Brian Leveson, head of criminal justice in the courts of England and Wales, tells Joshua Rozenberg that the law needs updating to cope with the growth in social media…. ”
    Producer: Neil Koenig.
    Researcher: Diane Richardson.

    According to UK Column News 2018-07-04 beginning @17’19 (on YouTube) there is an unconfirmed report via 3rd party tweet that Leveson LJ will be hearing Tommy Robinson’s appeal this month. If correct one wonders if Sir Brian will now be recusing himself given this radio program.

  6. ‘I’m even starting to doubt Einstein’s theories’

    He took Ether out of Science and now we have string theory etc. Look up tge phrase ‘the Einstein terror’

  7. KSA, the reason that you can trust Einstein’s theories is that they’re not Einstein’s theories, they’re his plagiarized product of someone else’s work. He didn’t come up with them as his own discrete theories, but rather, put his stamp on them as a way of co-opting someone else’s work to take credit for it. E.g., it can be good work–Einstein didn’t crate it as subverter-jew, but stole it as thief-jew.

    Think of the difference between buying a small business from a Jew versus the Jew using some bought regulation to take over someone else’s small business. You can pretty reasonably assume that the business the Jew wants to sell you might be shoddy, versus the one he wants for himself being probably sound.

    Given the way movies and sitcoms from the 20th to the 21st century have changed our language, substituting Einstein references for “smart” or “doing well,” his plagiarism really served them well. It’s an open secret that he stole the theories associated with him, but like MLK’s plagiarism, their power is so great that it doesn’t even matter that the truth is already known. Our relationship with Jews is like that of a chick chained in a basement with her captor, where he often goes out for a few days and leaves the key within her reach, but she’s too emotionally shattered to even bother escaping.

  8. Cochran responds to Turkheimer with more willful ignorance.

    Turkheimer speaks!:

    He talks about how complex and non-deterministic that process is.

    That’s bullshit: complexity doesn’t imply non-determinism.

    . . .

    It may be logically impossible for Turkheimer . . . Kevin Mitchell, for equally mysterious reasons . . . Both are making use of nonexistent general principles to further a particular conclusion.

    . . .

    Turkheimer also says that we don’t really know anything about polygenic differences unless we understand the mechanisms. And usually we don’tn know the mechanisms: even when we know that a given allele boosts a horse’s speed, or a Guernsey’s milk production, or makes dachshunds have short legs, we usually don’t know exactly how it works. Often we haven’t the faintest. Which is why we couldn’t select for fast horses or cows that produce lots of milk- except that we could and did, hundreds of years ago, thousands of years ago. You don’t need o know how a plus allele or minus allele for trait X works to be able to [reasonably] accurately predict the consequences. Investigating mechanisms is going to be difficult in highly polygenic traits: those alleles favoring high trait value could work through a number of different mechanisms. We don’t know the mechanisms involved in the behavior of Turkheimer’s dogs – but in that case it doesn’t bother him. In humans, not knowing mechanisms bothers him: He wants humans to be special. And hey, they are, but not in the way he would like.

    Actually I don’t quite believe this of either Mitchell or Turkheimer. I think they’re trying to arguing away stuff they don’t like.

    The question is why. What motivates jews like Reich, Zimmer, Turkheimer, Lewontin, Montagu, Gould, Kamin, … to lie about race? Is there some racial genetic pattern to their jewy jewing? Maybe they behave as they do because they’re tribemates?

    This game where intellectuals pretend the other guy is stupid is stupid. The irony is that they’re debating the significance of racial differences, and the issue they’re dancing around is the role racial mentality plays in that debate. Turkheimer jewsplained why he lies. It’s not clear why Cochran plays along. He’s regarded (and obviously prides himself on being seen) as “heterodox”. He’s also otherwise straightforward and spare in his words, critical of verbosity and bullshit. Why won’t he, in this particular case, apply Occam’s Razor, cut the bullshit, and just call out the jewing as jewing?

    Mitchell, by the by, looks like a swarthy sephardic jew. Marrano? Black Irish? Maybe Cochran thought throwing him in the mix would obscure the pattern. It doesn’t.

  9. Our relationship with Jews is like that of a chick chained in a basement with her captor, where he often goes out for a few days and leaves the key within her reach, but she’s too emotionally shattered to even bother escaping.

    Good analogy. Stockholm Syndrome, the kikeservative kick/lick cycle, gaslighting, Weinstein Syndrome – all facets of the same abusive mind-fuck dynamic. It’s a parasite/host relationship.

  10. In German, Einstein translates as one stone. When asked to explain the operative (evaporative cooling, ΔT 2°) mechanism of the Drinking Bird One-stone was baffled. The ancient philosophers were right; physics and metaphysics are conjugate. Love your work Tan. Something to reflect on; Φ:1:φ


  11. Interesting factoid about “Stockholm Syndrome”.

    Years ago the Larouche organization, and possibly others, referenced the same characteristic behavior, but called it “Bettelheim Syndrome” for Bruno Bettelheim, e.g. http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2001/eirv28n28-20010727/eirv28n28-20010727_046-peter_singer_another_promoter_of.pdf (first paragraph).

    For some reason, beginning around 1973, it has been increasing described without mentioning its Jew source.

  12. Norvin Hobbs said he wanted to have fast talking points to help people understand our situation. The Kalergi plan is the fastest way I’ve been able to explain it to people. Tan, if you don’t want these type of messages to other people I completely understand and I’m not offended if you don’t post this. I just don’t want to have a YouTube account.

  13. Cult of quantum Nobel laureate Richard Feynman elucidates on magnetism. An antidotal description is not an explanation. The global gaslighters have perverted science, metaphysics, and medicine in the same they have with history and political discourse. Peek behind the curtain and you will find the Wizard of Zion frantically pulling levers and adjusting dials. The distended ego projecting is simply a method of inducing fear. Fear is the mind killer. Courage, heart, and brains Dorothy.


  14. I suggest race realists should focus less on pushing racialism and more on attacking the human racial/sexual singularity of “equality” that the enemy touts daily.

    This article demonstrates the ease with which the con man can fool his audience by two devices; first cast doubt over a complex issue (the complexity of racialism making it easy prey) and then to ram it home, they appeal to a deciding moral argument for fair play for all racial groups which, White people for better/worse, are acutely receptive and therefore ever so vulnerable.

    Can anyone find a paper asserting that all humans are biologically equal? I doubt it. The nearest to that absurdly grand assertion would probably be Lewontin on race, see “Lewontin’s Fallacy” independently exposed by two academics.

    To understand this, I suggest, turns the tables for us. The proposition of racial/sexual/ability equality is preposterous but still we hear it forced on us in the media to ever greater degree. So attack in place of defend.

    For an amplified example, let’s say I am an African Ethiopian female transgendered to a male and I want to win the Mens World 100m sprint. It’s my dream and despite being stick thin, 5 ft tall and albeit pumped full of ‘corrective’ testosterone, if I don’t win due to my dreams and dedication and my journey on daytime TV it be the White man’s racist fault, because well, we’re all the same. Did I mention I’m an amputee with one leg? But it’s my dream!

    So please, let the best trolls for us take the reigns and tear-down. Don’t punt race realism so much. Forget building up our belief system among anti-Whites. The weight of tribe-owned corporate media against us is decisive. Racial realism is too complicated and should only be taught to people already persuaded that the System has been lying and that they are then ready to entertain our observations as I presume the audience here is.

    I suggest the key word is “militant”. We must be militant using every tool however dirty and to some extent I think this is taking place, but White people still dream of honour and justice.

    Yes White people admire honour. Honour between White people and indeed to other races, that’s potentially affordable. Against the genocidal maniacs of the Tribe, no, there must be no honour except where it suits publicity purposes. That’s how they operate, by fair means or foul and no quarter given to us – ever. It’s White Genocide. That is “Geno” for Genome and “cide” for murder. The murdering of our genes without a shot fired (mostly so far, unless you’re South African).

    Lastly, I grew up learning crime doesn’t pay. What a lie. Organised international crime certainly pays, indeed, evil pays when I think of the Islamic torture and child sexual abuse in Britain and trafficking to Israel. We must sink near to the depths of our foes to destroy them and somehow remain human. All that matters right now is that we genetically make it though this. Then WE get to teach our descendants: Never forgive. Never forget.

    Until then, please tear down equality as anything fair just or real rather than argue race realism. I would urge this is our primary target and name the “Jewish community” as implicated down through history every time as we do it.

  15. “…My answer is above: the problem is that the relationship between genotype and “nose, lip and eye shapes” on the one hand, and extraversion and IQ and criminality on the other, are fundamentally different…”

    This statement has been proven false by the long term Russian domesticated red fox experiment. They took wild foxes and kept breeding only the ones that were more tame and succeeded. These animals have a lot of the mannerisms of dogs and the most tame love the company of people.


    You could actually use the argument that dogs show the same, and they do, but this experiment was done recently and fully documented. It’s irrefutable that temperament can be breed for.

    I personally believe that Jews are really the remnants of Neanderthals. I know this seems far fetched but from long time watching of the Jews you know something is up when they attack an idea very strongly. One such idea is phrenology. It means just the form of skull today but I believe it meant the whole organism in an earlier meaning. Look at a really Jewy Jew or the caricature of one and what do you see, a Neanderthal. They look just like Neanderthals. That they went to extreme lengths to blot out the idea that form of skulls and bodies is helpful in classifying people should tell you the idea has merit.


  16. How and Why Scientists Lie About Race ~ Spawk Talk

    A fairly comprehensive detailing of the mid-history of the sciency jew anti-“racism” fraud. True to form, the (((race realist))) who wrote it lies in their own way about the who and the why – naming the most prominent fraudsters (“Montagu”, Lewontin, Gould, Sussman) without ever identifying them as jews, downplaying their motives as political rather than racial.

    The whole site is empty now. It went dark after this, which shows two of the three most recent posts were Cofnas-like attempts to exculpate jewy jewing.

  17. If he’s older and deeply embedded in a takes itself seriously ‘intellectual’ culture, religious (esp. Christian) or faux political (esp. conservative), this fella would have a problem switching to plain truth. That was the purpose of those cultures – to drive those guys confused and silent.

    I have little doubt that his denial of Jewish responsibility for everything he complained about, in spite of all the evidence he was seeing back in the day at majorityrights, contributed to the otherwise brilliant John S Bolton’s early death from ‘psychological’ problems. http://jsbolton.blogspot.com/


    I think it’s great for us that Jews have destroyed confidence in traditional religions and political divisions. When Trump dies of burger overload and Jared Taylor commits White suicide all that’s left that is meaningful is race.

Comments are closed.