Tag Archives: idw

Bari Weiss, Superjewess

Bari Weiss – Where Did the Media Go Wrong?

In this interview with two sympathetic alt-jew jesters Weiss revels in her hyper-tribalist jew identity while venting her hostility toward Whites. She sees herself first and foremost as a member of the world’s first and foremost collectively-imagined victim collective. She laughs as she refers to herself as an “unhinged zionist”. She describes her worldview as “liberalism”, claiming it is based on the “truths” that everyone is an individual, created in the image of “god”, and therefore should be treated equally by law. She says “no person should be held to a standard of collective innocence or collective guilt” due to their “immutable characteristics”.

This is the standard IDW shtick, though IDWers more typically avoid saying the jew part out loud. They prefer the jew-led war on Whites continue by deception, under the guise of “liberalism”. They oppose the more overt “wokeism” tack only because they believe more open aggression may somehow not work out as well for jews. Weiss makes her jew-first mindset more plain than usual, causing more cognitive dissonance. (Her new podcast, laughably titled “Honestly”, is bound to be more of the same “liberalism” double-talk.)

The portion of Weiss’ motivation which she does not credit directly to being a jew she attributes indirectly to an inner voice telling her to fight “anti-semitism” for her tribe’s collective benefit. She wrote what has to be the six gorillionth book on the subject.

As Weiss jewplains in the interview, she deplores “the right” because “anti-semitism”, but thinks it’s obvious to everyone. She prefers to focus on screeching about “anti-semitism” on “the left” (citing Columbia and the Jew York Times as her primary examples) because she imagines it is relatively unrecognized and unopposed.

Weiss is not so much stupid, delusional, or even hypocritical as she is unapologetically, unselfconsciously, and unfathomably jewy. Convinced that the jew-first “left” and “right” just aren’t good enough, she seeks to spawn a jew-first “center”.

You can picture Weiss’ frustration when she finally decided to leave the Jew York Times, having screeched herself hoarse at the supposed “anti-semitism” of all those uppity house niggers and with no White men left to blame. After so many hard years in the mainstream jewsmedia, boosted by her tribemates from one cushy position to another, constantly discussing what is or isn’t good for her tribe, Bari Weiss is now a mogul, raking in the shekels at the alt-jewsmedia hub Substack, finally free to be the Superjewess she always wanted to be.


More fictitious conflict – alt-jews screeching at alt-jews about how dangerous a world full of toxic jewing is for jews.

Claire Lehmann (founder of alt-jew organ Quillette):

James Lindsay is now peddling White Genocide Theory. Implying that a genocide against whites in the US is imminent has the potential to inspire racist violence. Such comments are extreme, reckless, & irresponsible. They should be denounced.

Opposition to “wokeness” & Critical Race Theory is one thing. Suggesting that the majority racial group in the US is on the verge of being slaughtered is another. If a sharp line is not drawn between the 2, they will become conflated by progressives to discredit anti-CRT efforts;

And possible maniacs / extremists / people who have become insane via over-exposure to the internet may also feel inspired, emboldened, & validated to commit terrorist violence. James Lindsay needs to stop. Now.

Oy vey, shut it down. Sounds just like Greenblatt.

Lehmann’s hysterical reaction was apparently triggered by this twit from Lindsay:

In light of “On Having Whiteness,” which characterizes white people as parasites with no known permanent cure, I’m going to re-up this statement I made before about Wokeness containing the seed of a genocide.

Lindsay is arguing that Whites are being treated like jews, and Lehmann is screeching that comparing Whites to jews is the real crime.

Lindsay was talking about On Having Whiteness, a particularly toxic bit of anti-White jewing written by Donald Moss and published recently by PubMed. Here’s the abstract:

Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has-a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites-to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure.

The jews describe “anti-semitism” in the same terms – as a disease, rooted in biology.

This is a good example of White-washing. Moss, a typically racially hyperconscious and neurotic jew psychoanalyst, is characteristically projecting his own peculiar tribe’s parasitic behavior onto Whites.

Lindsay and Lehmann’s screeching is, of course, also characteristically jewy, born out of their shared concern that the increasingly explicit anti-White “wokeness” jewing might blowback onto jews. Their fake fight is part and parcel of the increasingly lame anti-White “classical liberal” jewing that “wokeness” is supplanting.

Lindsay’s frequent collaborator and co-author Helen Pluckrose just spoke with Lehmann. During their chummy conversation Pluckrose awkwardly tried to explain the larger fake conflict between “liberalism” and “wokeness”:

[T]hey decided that liberalism couldn’t do the job that it was meant to do, and they decided this precisely at the time when it had just done it, it was still doing it. It’s, ha ha, it’s infuriating.

To put it more directly, jews decided that “liberalism”, an outgrowth of their Enlightenment psyop, had done its job. The basic idea of “liberalism” was that jews are just like Whites, only better. It enabled jews to more thoroughly infiltrate and exploit their White host. Now, having just about sucked that host dry, the basic idea of “wokeness” is that jews are just like non-Whites, only better. This enables jews to detach themselves from Whites even as they shift the blame for all their jewing onto us.

Liberalism vs Wokeism – The Fix is In

Michael Tracey started a Clubhouse chat to discuss how the Clubhouse chats he’s in always devolve into a criticism of “wokeism”, and how nobody in his “liberal” bubble ever tries to defend it. For about 90 minutes that’s exactly what happens. Very boring, very politically correct – with everyone trying to sound like a deep thinker, unable to plainly state what they’re thinking.

Somebody recorded the bulk of the conversation and uploaded it to YouTube: “Is Clubhouse Obsessed with “Wokeism”?” Feb 26th 2021. I transcoded it to mp3.

Without the aid of Clubhouse avatars it’s sometimes hard to tell who’s speaking. The speaker’s race is easier to guess. Tracey bragged that there were plenty of non-White participants from various countries, but for the most part they conformed to White social norms. The jewy-behaving moderators carefully curated the conversation, allowing a series of jewy- and black-sounding voices to “popcorn in” and say their little piece of nothing.

The conversation finally got interesting at about 1:20:00, when the first overt defender of “wokeism” spoke. The mood becomes increasingly fraught. Within ten minutes someone was announcing that “the milquetoast stuff needs to stop” and the conversation needs to be about “White supremacy”.

About two hours in an aggressive nigress named Brooklyn enters, starts berating Tracey, gets admin privileges, and bounces Tracey out of his own chat. The mood changes dramatically. Niggers now control the room, whooping and high-fiving, talking over each other.

Even as they settle down it becomes clear that black social norms are very different. Brooklyn and the other field niggers are incensed that White people had the audacity to speak about proprietary black topics using proprietary black words. They giggle as they silence non-blacks. They institute “stack”-style moderation, explicitly privileging blacks. Brooklyn asserts the term and tactic were invented by blacks.

House niggers who were in the room from the start drop their masks and denounce the previous long boring politically correct conversation as “anti-black” and “violent”. They praise the field niggers for swooping in and saving them. The field niggers castigate the house niggers, accusing them of “cooning“.

One of the milquetoast nigresses says Tracey made her a moderator, and that she was the one who started the coup by elevating Brooklyn. They share a knowing laugh about their virtual “Haitian revolution“.

Tracey never saw any defense of “wokeism” because it’s proponents don’t defend, they attack. Like jews, blacks imagine themselves as victims of oppression, at the hands of Whites, and in their minds this naturally justifies the hostility and aggression they direct at Whites. They act offended at the idea that they have to argue with or even explain what they want.

At 2:45:00 Brooklyn notices Bret Weinstein is in the room. Saying Weinstein is a “mad racist” who is supposedly promoted by Clubhouse, she invites him to speak.

For years Weinstein has danced around what he is and what he believes. Here he finally copped to it, and did so even more bluntly than his older brother recently has.

Weinstein: Can I ask something of you, before I answer your questions?

Brooklyn: Did you answer those questions? Do you support White supremacy, are you anti-“racist”…

Someone else: and transphobia.

W: Okay. I’m happy to do all these things, but I would ask you to try to listen…

B: Listen, white man, we’re in charge here, okay? We axed you some questions. You can answer or you can go.

Some black male: Here’s da problem Bret. It’s the same thing as if I was to axe the president of the United States, or the previous president…

B: We’re not gonna do dat. Axe him, bro. Are you anti-racist? Are you transphobic? Are you anti-black, like give us the answers right now and quickly or you gonna get off the stage.

W: Sure, sure. 100%. But let me correct something Marcy said first.

B: 100% what? Are you 100% anti-black or are you 100% anti-racist? What’s goin on?

W: I am 100%…


B: Can you all stop trying to let this man wiggle out of answering the questions?

W: First of all, I’m not a classical liberal, I’m an actual liberal. Okay? Far left. Have been my whole life. I am thoroughly anti-racist by any normal definition, but I don’t like Kendi’s definition of anti-racist, it doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not by any stretch of the imagination a White supremacist. As a matter of fact I’m not even sure I qualify as White. I’m jewish. It’s a different thing. My people have been persecuted by Europeans…

B: You are just spicy white, but continue.

W: Okay, fine, I’ll take that. I just don’t think it’s a simple issue. And to be honest I’m…was there a third question? Oh, am I transphobic? I am not the least bit transphobic. As a matter of fact I…

B: Stop right there.

At this point the discussion goes off into the “transphobia” weeds, with everyone involved oddly eager to drop any further discussion of the difference between Whites and jews. Shortly thereafter Weinstein describes himself as an evolutionary biologist. Brooklyn says, “A eugenicist. Dats what you mean.” A minute later they call Weinstein a White supremacist and mute him.

There is no reason to listen to the entire 5 hour and 20 minute recording. The 8 or so minutes with Weinstein are the most telling, capturing the essence of the farce, which is itself a microcosm of the shift in the broader jew agenda, the replacement of “liberalism” with “wokeism”.

Dissembling dissimulating jews, authors of the oppression narrative, posing as White liberals, leading the White surrender to non-Whites. To the extent the Weinsteins ever argue with non-Whites it is only to get across their point that, as jews, they also see Whites as their enemy.

Weinstein’s Complaint

Eric Weinstein, who organized and gave the Intellectual Dark Web cabal its name, and who, like his brother Bret, has generally tried to downplay his jewy identity, had an epic meltdown over #jewishprivilege trending on Twitter.

This is noteworthy because Weinstein and his cabal have for several years made a point of publicly posturing as if they oppose “identity politics” and “tribalism”, supposedly because they regard these things as a violation of their “liberal” principles. Yet the inclusion of full-time full-throated jew-firster Ben Shapiro in the IDW made it clear from the beginning that their “liberalism”, like all “liberalism”, is just a swindle, an indirect way for jews to advance their collective interests while advising Whites to abandon ours.

Shapiro has always been the most flamboyantly out jew most directly connected to the cabal, but IDW-orbiting jewess Bari Weiss is comparable. Most of the rest of the cabal has instead followed the lead of the Weinstein brothers, mostly leaving the “as a jew” part out of their (public) moralizing. It is there, burning furiously, driving their words and deeds. They just pretend it isn’t.

I first noticed Weinstein beginning to crack and reveal the significance of his inner jew in February 2019, when kinda-sorta down-low fellow tribemate Glenn Greenwald called Dave Rubin in particular and the IDW in general “self-serving, tribalistic frauds”. This prompted Weinstein to respond with an odd ramble he titled Glenn Greenwald, @IlhanMN, the Rosenbergs, Anti-semitism, Progressives, Silence, Speech and the IDW: a thread. His key point: “I’m pretty sure we are moving to normalize anti-semitism through clear support for BDS in the Democratic Party”.

In this Weinstein revealed that he is animated by the same consciously jewy concerns as any other jew. They just disagree over how the current two-party system, which is effectively controlled by jews, might better serve their tribe. The more blatant and thorough-going jew control gets, the more shrilly jews screech as if uppity goyim are the real problem. Though many jews pretend that being a jew has nothing to do with their politics, they give the game away when they start screeching about “anti-semitism”. The “liberal” mild-mannered Clark Kent jew suddenly transforms into Superjew, the messiah swooping in to fight for his tribe.

Anyway, I’ve previously noted that Weinstein’s older, more subtle form of “liberal” jewing led directly to the newer, more explicitly anti-White BLM/”wokeness” form of jewing. Many jews are already on board with the new program, but a substantial subset are like Weinstein – deeply, deeply concerned that the non-White goyim waging open war on the White goyim might not be the best thing for the jews right now.

Bret Weinstein expressed his concerns along these lines in June 2017, and that led to the formation of the IDW cabal. Bret has always been painfully careful in choosing his words, and became even more so over time. His brother Eric is much less reserved. Like so many other jews, Eric Weinstein was pushed over the edge by uppity goyim talking about jew privilege on his internet. He literally began his rant with MUH HOLOCAUST:

My #JewishPrivilege: I’ve never spent a night hungry. There was always a roof over our heads. Never went to jail or onto food stamps. First cousin froze to death escaping Babi Yar. Attended the top school in Los Angeles. My cousins Eva & Miriam Kor were a Mengle Twin experiment.

Weinstein made several more posts in this vein, making it very clear that he equates being a jew with being a victim, with being oppressed. What’s more, he conveys this view in a deeply personal way, recounting a string of stories he and his extended family have been stewing over and passing along for generations. He specifically cites supposed oppression of his family by Russians, Germans, and Americans. He airs his hostility shamelessly, revealing not just his own tribalist mentality, but his understanding that this hostile attitude is shared and regarded as perfectly normal by his brother, his family, and his tribe.

The outburst gets really eye-opening when he tries to jewsplain that jews like himself support BLM/”wokeness” to the extent it is anti-White, but oppose it splashing over onto the jew ethnostate:

So, if you want to know where this cashes out: We have *finally* become mildly well to do. Precarious, but more fortunate than many.

The word “Privilege” makes me laugh however. Every person who has Jews they know and love, knows the truth: we are always simply between pogroms.

Anyone who refers to Jews as having “White Privilege” as in “above the real problems” is either:

  • A) Ignorant of history and one book away from understanding the honest error.
  • B) An idiot.
  • C) An out and out anti-Semite.

Yes, some of us are now doing ok.

Yet it’s never for long.

And this is why so many of us Left leaning Jews are so confused by our black brothers and sisters. We see your pain. We see the invisible bigotry against you. We saw the FBI’s war on your community. We fought along side you based on your reasoned grievances. For almost 100 years.

But as you see we are open that things have gotten much better for us. As they have for you. Yes 1865 is more recent than others imagine. So is 1945. Yes lynchings are horrific. So are pogroms. You face structural oppression. So do we. Your pain is invisible to many. Ours too.

Cards on the table: I‘m in awe of Black *achievement* and am shocked by desires to tell others like us that we‘re all fine because we are pink and may finally have 2 sheckles to rub together. Our two communities don’t belong in the oppression Olympics. We‘re both superachievers.

Why do I oppose #BlackLivesMatter when I am committed to Black Lives Mattering and an end to structural oppression? Because you can’t call a community more vulnerable than even Blacks “genocidal” in your platform. Israel has issues, but “genocide” is like modern blood libel.

So let’s cut the crap. We have a deeply flawed country to fix & you can count on my support. But it isn’t as bad as it once was for Blacks or Jews & money doesn’t do as much as folks think in the face of murderous rage. Let’s all ease up on “Privilege” as a way of avoiding this.

This is so much solid gold that it makes me wonder if he’s trolling. I don’t follow him closely, but I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure he’s completely serious.

“we are always simply between pogroms” (t.jew)

“our black brothers and sisters . . . We fought along side you” (against Whites)

“Yes 1865 is more recent than others imagine. So is 1945. Yes lynchings are horrific. So are pogroms. You face structural oppression. So do we. Your pain is invisible to many. Ours too.” (“hello my fellow victims of Whites”)

“We‘re both superachievers.” (lolwut)

Weinstein is making a tribalist appeal. He’s not arguing as an individual, as a “liberal”, or even as a leader of the IDW cabal. He’s speaking to blacks as a member of The Tribe. He’s saying that blacks who mistake jews for Whites are A) stupid, B) stupid, or C) crazy. He sees blacks and jews as more similar, and thus as natural allies against Whites.

Myron Wallik may have been better known, but Weinstein’s mask drop is more comprehensive.

Israel has issues, but “genocide” is like modern blood libel.

There’s the rub. First, you can see that jews regard their own oppression narrative as a weapon in the way they sneer and hiss when it’s aimed at themselves. Second, to jews the black goyim are still just goyim, and though most jews wouldn’t spell it out as clearly as Weinstein does, they all think the goyim must never forget that jews make the rules.

Cochran on White Racial Pre-History and the Aryans


Two weeks ago Greg Cochran spoke at length on a podcast titled history of Europe. It was in fact a recounting of the biological origins of the White race, meandering but comprehensive, and with a specific focus on the Aryan component. There is little or no written record for much of the period of time Cochran discusses. What he lays out is more a synthesis of evidence and inference, gleaned from the latest genetics research, and meshed with older (and still ongoing) archeological and linguistic research.

This podcast is well worth listening to from beginning to end, despite its length, and despite the insufferably insecure and nasally host, who interrupts mainly to remind the audience that, as a jew, he must mispronounce Yamnaya like a rabbi mangles a swastika.

Who is Cochran? Here’s how some (((human biodiversity))) fanboys described him in 2007:

A professor at the University of Utah, Cochran is a physicist, an anthropologist, and a genetics researcher and theorist. He’s well known for his belief that many ailments that we now think of as genetic might well be of pathogenic origin instead. With Henry Harpending and Jason Hardy, he authored a paper suggesting that the high average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews — as well as their pattern of genetic diseases — might be an evolutionary consequence of their history of persecution and their emphasis on jobs involving lots of brainpower. The paper received extensive coverage in The Economist and The New York Times.

Cochran has worked in defence and aerospace; he has speculated that homosexuality might be caused by an infection; he has written a number of articles for the American Conservative scornful of the Bush administration; and he shows up periodically at Gene Expression.

Cochran is a formidable heterodox intellectual, in other words: not only legendarily smart and fearless, but blessed with a remarkable memory — he was once a College Bowl contestant. The Economist called him “a noted scientific iconoclast.” GNXP’s Razib says of Cochran, “Information technology is a deadly weapon in this man’s hands. Greg Cochran is a genius, and he’s got the ‘fuck you’ money to prove it.” Steve Sailer has written of Cochran:

“I stay in touch with some quite smart people, but even among them, Gregory Cochran is legendary for the ferocity of his scientific originality … I can attest that, although a physicist by education and the leading theorist of evolutionary medicine by avocation, Cochran also has memorized almost the entire political and military history of the human race … When I’m reviewing a historical film such as ‘Master and Commander’ or ‘Hero’ and I need to pretend to actually know something about the Age of Nelson or China’s Warring States era, a call to Cochran will not only fill me in on what happened, but, more importantly, why it happened.”

Not irrelevant to all this is the fact that Cochran has been right about Iraq.

Heterodox intellectual? Indeed. Cochran is heterodox like mealy-mouthed mischling Steve Sailer, whose “race realist” fanbase loves loves loves his speaking-truth-to-fellow-white-people shtick, tactically vacillating between racially distinguishing and conflating jews with Whites, depending on what’s best for jews. And Cochran is an intellectual like the infamous cuck Charles Murray, that useful high-IQer with whom Cochran shares a strange interest in extolling jew IQ. This is the same “heterodox intellectual” narrative toxic “race realist” jews like Nathan Cofnas use as an excuse for jews jewing Whites to death.

I’ve discussed the broader alt-jewing phenomenon at some length over the years. The earlier HBD and NRx alt-jew intellectual movements long elevated the likes of Murray, Sailer, and Cochran as spokesmen for what is effectively a jewed reaction to jewing. But the current year’s even jewier alternative to jewing is here now, proclaiming itself “the intellectual dark web” – thanks Eric Weinstein! – and characteristically crying out in pain as it tells JOG what to do – thanks Bret Weinstein! A major hive of this same old-new cabal is the jew Jonathan Haidt’s Heterodox Academy. HxA, for short, answers the increasingly obvious anti-White jew orthodoxy of the academy with a lame bit about “increasing viewpoint diversity”. The big concern there is that alt-jews like Haidt, the Weinsteins, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Steven Pinker, and Christina Hoff Sommers retain their freedom of speech, to express their alt-digsust for “racists” and “nazis”. Good goys and part-goys still serve as cover for all the jewy screeching about tribalism, but the veil is slipping, bigly.

Interestingly, the link to that Cochran fanboy quote above comes from a comment on a blogpost he made in 2015. In that post Cochran deliberately shits on “nutty ideas”, specifically some ideas which run counter to the jew orthodox version of WWII. I remain more impressed by what Revilo Oliver has written about FDR and Pearl Harbor and what Thomas Goodrich has written about the brutal treatment of Germans during and after the war. To my knowledge Cochran has never expressed the slightest skeptism, much less scorn concerning the utterly orthodox and far more consequential lies told about that war by jews. From their ritualistic repetition of a particular number, to their incredible stories about gas showers, lampshades and soap, geysers of jew-blood, magical rainbow colors of jew-smoke – there are many issues any truly heterodox individual could easily object to and even mercilessly mock if their greater desire to be seen as an “intellectual” didn’t get in the way. Not to mention the desire to stay out of prison. Even a dimwit has some inkling of the screeching and harassment they’d suffer if they were to challenge any aspect of the semitically correct narrative. The difference is that intellectuals know why, and more important, are clever enough to imagine some other explanation, or at least keep their mouth shut.

I have no doubt Cochran knows many things, and understands many better than I ever will. My understanding of White racial history, at least with regard to the latest genetic developments, comes in part through him. Pierce’s Who We Are is more detailed, and a better investment in time. Cochran adds the recent genetic coroboration of the story. He knows well that jews are genetically and mentally distinct from the Europeans whose pre-historic roots he describes. This makes it difficult to listen to him complain about jew geneticist David Reich’s mixing-is-good narrative, or the widespread post-war psychopathologization of the pre-war understanding of the Aryans, as if he doesn’t know what it’s about. He knows, he just won’t say it plainly.

Even so, Cochran isn’t likely to be lionized by any heterodox intellectual dark web jews. Why not? Because last month, as part of a series of posts reviewing Reich’s book, Cochran named names. In a post titled Live Not By Lies he called out Reich and the sciency anti-“racist” tribemates:

Reich talks about the anthropologists [ Montagu] , geneticists [Lewontin] , and sociologists that have argued that ‘race’ has no biological reality, that there are not really any significant biological differences between races, that research into such differences should be banned ( why is this necessary if differences don’t exist?), etc. All liars, of course.

. . .

Reich explains how recent genetic analysis shows that people’s genes cluster in ways that correspond pretty well with old-fashioned notions of ‘race’. He prefers to talk about ‘ancestry’, because (in his view) the word ‘race’ is too ill-defined and loaded with historical baggage. Whatever.

He goes on to say that people that deny the possibility of substantial differences between populations just can’t do it anymore: they’re putting themselves in an indefensible position. He is wrong: sure, their position is logically indefensible, the facts are against it, but what does that matter? The significantly crazier idea that there are no differences between the sexes – that sexual dimorphism itself is a myth promulgated by the Gnomes of Zurich or the orbital mind-control lasers – has become very powerful in much of the Western world: barking-mad craziness apparently doesn’t need to defend itself.

He says that geneticists have tended to ‘obfuscate’ on this topic, mentioning Richard Lewontin. I’d put it a bit differently: they lie.

. . .

Reich mentions independent genome bloggers, some of them skilled analysts, who are on the whole less inclined to go along with the usual falsehoods. He thinks that means you can’t keep up the charade: again, he’s very likely wrong, not least because those skilled genome bloggers have a tiny audience. More important, Reich himself doesn’t want to keep up the charade. That may matter.

Reich goes on to demolish some fairly common false arguments about how different human races – excuse me, ‘ ancestral populations ‘ – really can’t be very different, at least not in any traits that would upset people. You know, for the same reasons that dog breeds can’t really be very different.

. . .

Reich often seems to think that if a result wasn’t proved using powerful contemporary genomic methods (what he uses), it wasn’t really known at all. If I don’t know it, it’s not knowledge: that’s a wrong way of thinking.

next fallacy: human populations just haven’t been separated long enough to have changed much due to selection. He knows that’s not correct. He points out that in many cases populations have been separated for 50,000 years, while some African groups appear to have been separated far longer, perhaps 200,000 years. A recent study showed that there has been noticeable evolutionary change in the English over the past 2000 years: selection for increased height, infant head circumference, blondness, etc etc. If it can happen there in 2000 years, it can happen anywhere.

And he expects that more such racial differences will be found – but now he has to weasel again. He says that nobody knows what those differences will be!

OK, Cochran weaseled. He didn’t mention all this lying has to do with jews and their jewing. He actually acts flummoxed by Reich’s typical loxist behavior, viciously attacking non-jew scientists whom Cochran respects:

Next he slams people that suspect that upcoming genetic genetic analysis will, in most cases, confirm traditional stereotypes about race – the way the world actually looks.

The people Reich dumps on are saying perfectly reasonable things. He criticizes Henry Harpending for saying that he’d never seen an African with a hobby. Of course, Henry had actually spent time in Africa, and that’s what he’d seen. The implication is that people in Malthusian farming societies – which Africa was not – were selected to want to work, even where there was no immediate necessity to do so. Thus hobbies, something like a gerbil running in an exercise wheel.

. . .

He criticized Nicholas Wade, for saying that different races have different dispositions. Wade’s book wasn’t very good, but of course personality varies by race: Darwin certainly thought so. You can see differences at birth. Cover a baby’s nose with a cloth: Chinese and Navajo babies quietly breathe through their mouth, European and African babies fuss and fight.

Then he attacks Watson, for asking when Reich was going to look at Jewish genetics – the kind that has led to greater-than-average intelligence. Watson was undoubtedly trying to get a rise out of Reich, but it’s a perfectly reasonable question. Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than the average bear and everybody knows it. Selection is the only possible explanation, and the conditions in the Middle ages – white-collar job specialization and a high degree of endogamy, were just what the doctor ordered.

Watson’s a prick, but he’s a great prick, and what he said was correct. Henry was a prince among men, and Nick Wade is a decent guy as well. Reich is totally out of line here: he’s being a dick.

Now Reich may be trying to burnish his anti-racist credentials, which surely need some renewal after having pointing out that race as colloquially used is pretty reasonable, there’s no reason pops can’t be different, people that said otherwise ( like Lewontin, Gould, Montagu, etc. ) were lying, Aryans conquered Europe and India, while we’re tied to the train tracks with scary genetic results coming straight at us. I don’t care: he’s being a weasel, slandering the dead and abusing the obnoxious old genius who laid the foundations of his field.

. . .

He doesn’t just slander, he lies. He says “most stereotypes will be disproved.” Want to bet? Most stereotypes are true – true everywhere.

. . .

Reich’s position is that we don’t know anything until someone (him !) has analyzed it with modern genomic techniques. That’s ridiculous. Reich found that on average, given similar diets, northern Europeans are about a standard deviation taller than southern Europeans. But I already knew that, well before Reich was born. Seneca knew it: Tacitus knew it. There’s a reason the Byzantines hired plenty of Scandihoovians (including 7-footer Harold Hardrada) into the Varangian Guard. Mark Twain knew that Ashkenazi Jews were smart: he didn’t need IQ tests or GWAS for that.

. . .

When he says that we don’t have any idea what we’ll find, he’s lying again.

What’s going on here is that two big jew lies – that race and racial differences aren’t biological, and that the Aryans were merely a mythical creation of the stupid/crazy/evil “nazis” – are falling apart in the face of recent genetic revelations. Cochran calls out the lying, but won’t explicitly identify it as jewing. Reich himself comes as close as most jews ever get, by blaming Europeans for everything, as usual:

Reich: Archaeology has always been political, especially in Europe. Archaeologists are very aware of the misuse of archaeology in the past, in the 20th century. There’s a very famous German archaeologist named Gustaf Kossinna, who was the first or one of the first to come up with the idea of “material culture.” Say, you see similar pots, and therefore you’re in a region where there was shared community and aspects of culture.

He went so far as to argue that when you see the spread of these pots, you’re actually seeing a spread of people and there’s a one-to-one mapping for those things. His ideas were used by the Nazis later, in propaganda, to argue that a particular group in Europe, the Aryans, expanded in all directions across Europe. He believed that the region where these people’s material culture was located is the natural homeland of the Aryan community, and the Germans were the natural inheritors of that. This was used to justify their expansionism in the propaganda that the Germans used in the run-up to the Second World War.

So after the Second World War, there was a very strong reaction in the European archaeological community—not just the Germans, but the broad continental European archaeological community—to the fact that their discipline had been used for these terrible political ends. And there was a retreat from the ideas of Kossinna.

Zhang: You actually had German collaborators drop out of a study because of these exact concerns, right? One of them wrote, “We must(!) avoid … being compared with the so-called ‘siedlungsarchäologie Method’ from Gustaf Kossinna!”

Reich: Yeah, that’s right. I think one of the things the ancient DNA is showing is actually the Corded Ware culture does correspond coherently to a group of people. [Editor’s note: The Corded Ware made pottery with cord-like ornamentation and according to ancient DNA studies, they descended from steppe ancestry.] I think that was a very sensitive issue to some of our coauthors, and one of the coauthors resigned because he felt we were returning to that idea of migration in archaeology that pots are the same as people. There have been a fair number of other coauthors from different parts of continental Europe who shared this anxiety.

We responded to this by adding a lot of content to our papers to discuss these issues and contextualize them. Our results are actually almost diametrically opposite from what Kossina thought because these Corded Ware people come from the East, a place that Kossina would have despised as a source for them. But nevertheless it is true that there’s big population movements, and so I think what the DNA is doing is it’s forcing the hand of this discussion in archaeology, showing that in fact, major movements of people do occur. They are sometimes sharp and dramatic, and they involve large-scale population replacements over a relatively short period of time. We now can see that for the first time.

This is the kind of sciency jewy lying I quoted Cochran criticizing above. What the genetic analysis shows is that the ancestors of modern day Germanic people were in fact the Corded Ware people, who were in fact largely genetically descended from the Aryans, just as pre-war students of archeology and linguistics surmised, long before anyone had the benefit of DNA evidence. To his credit Cochran makes this point in the podcast. He goes even further, describing how northern Europeans, which pre-war racialists more precisely identified as the Nordic subrace, do in fact have more Aryan DNA, whereas southern Europeans, more precisely the Mediterranean subrace, have more of what Cochran calls Early European or Middle Eastern farmer DNA, as typified by contemporary Sardinians. On this point Cochran favorably cites a book published in 1926, The Aryans: A study of Indo-European origins, edited by Gordon Childe, opining that it was “mostly correct”. At one point Cochran also asserts that not everything the “nazis” believed was wrong. He complains about feeling compelled to say otherwise, while pretending not to understand why.

Yes, the national socialists were mostly correct about race and the pre-history of Europeans. They are demonized today exactly because they were also right about the jews. They correctly saw the jews not merely as non-Aryan but as an existential threat. The jews, especially the more sciency jews, understand this perfectly well. That’s why they’re in crisis mode. They understand these genetic revelations are damning, and potentially explosive, exposing the anti-“racist”/anti-“nazi” narrative jews have perpetrated for the better part of the past century as a fraud, as an excuse for their own racial animus and ongoing war on Whites. The consensus among jews, including alt-jews, is that this fraud has been good for the jews. In their view it is the potential collapse of this fraud, or worse, potential reprisals for it, which might be bad for the jews, and therefore must now be averted at all costs. They agree the goyim must never ever be permitted to freely discuss race or the harm caused by all this jewing, then or now, or the proverbial jig is up, all over again. They just disagree how to jewsplain it. That’s the backdrop behind all the jew-vs-alt-jew hyperventilating over Reich’s book, or for that matter, anything else about race-related science you might come across in the mainstream jewsmedia.

It’s not “nazis” dictating who can say what about race. It’s not Europeans telling GoogleTwitterFacebook who to shut down. It’s the jews.

Zhang: You end the book noting that you are optimistic that your work is “exploding stereotypes, undercutting prejudice, and highlighting the connections among peoples not previously known to be related.” I imagine you started writing this a few years ago. Given today’s political climate, are you still as optimistic now as you were when you started writing the book?

Reich: I think so. I know there are extremists who are interested in genealogy and genetics. But I think those are very marginal people, and there’s, of course, a concern they may impinge on the mainstream.

But if you actually take any serious look at this data, it just confounds every stereotype. It’s revealing that the differences among populations we see today are actually only a few thousand years old at most and that everybody is mixed. I think that if you pay any attention to this world, and have any degree of seriousness, then you can’t come out feeling affirmed in the racist view of the world. You have to be more open to immigration. You have to be more open to the mixing of different peoples. That’s your own history.

If you look seriously, history and his data says the opposite of what Reich claims. Speciation and competition are nature’s norms. This was the common understanding White intellectuals reached after Darwin. A firm biological understanding of race and jewing was blossoming by the 1930s. That understanding, along with tens of millions of White people, most of whom never understood why, were murdered because jews did understand.

The parasite-enabling migrating-mixing ideal is naturally promoted by the parasite exactly because it serves the parasite. It makes perfect sense that rootless cosmopolitan jews so shamelessly pump such poisonous reality-inverting lies into everyone else’s minds. Likewise how they always attach to it such characteristically jewy screeching deploring “predjudice” and “stereotyping”. Technically, the jews collectively behave more like a parasitoid. Even the relatively rare “heterodox” jews are more concerned to keep their hosts enfeebled, even unto death, than to moderate jew virulence.

As I understand it Cochran’s overarching insight, the idea that “many ailments that we now think of as genetic might well be of pathogenic origin instead”, was triggered by a story he read about parasitism, sometime before 1999. He read “about pathogens manipulating a host to get what they want”. This led him to a “new” germ theory, that all “big old diseases are infectious”. To my mind this is just the same old germ theory of disease – where there is pathology there is a pathogen. As with the lying about race and the Aryans, so it goes for the more recent queering of sexual dimorphism. By now, somewhere in Cochran’s big old brain he realizes his big old theory fits this jewing, in all its pathogenic forms. It’s a no-brainer. Unfortunately, Cochran is apparently too smart to have noticed that jews chutzpathically assert the opposite. Their big old idea is that the biggest, oldest disease is “anti-semitism”. That is to say, according to jews, non-jews are the disease, harmful to jewing. My theory? Many social pathologies have their origin in jewing. Moreover, the main cause of non-jews pathologically refusing to correctly perceive jewing as pathogenic, is also jewing.