Tag Archives: jewish influence

The OYYYY VEEEEYYYYYY Heard Round the World 2.0

diversity_makes_the_jews_who_are_replacing_whites_strongerI was not there, but I think my take on Charlottesville 1.0, and the two most substantial comments I’ve made about it since, were correct.

How Jews Jewsplain Jewing:

Charlottesville demonstrated that Whites cannot freely assemble and speak, as Whites, in public. The swift and hysterical reaction from the local, state, and federal governments, officially condemning Whites because “anti-semitism”, demonstrated that Whites and jews are political opposites. Decades of phony judicial dancing around race and privilege have suddenly been supplanted by explicit executive and legislative proclamations that the regime is officially anti-White out of deference to jews.

The ongoing chutzpathic attempt to invert this reality, to portray the kikeservative-in-chief as a tool of “anti-semites” rather than jews, merely reflects how thoroughly jewed the media and current political system are. Trump viciously counter-attacks anyone who attacks him. Everyone but the jews. When the jews kick, Trump licks.

“Don’t Be Evil” is Code for “Be Anti-White”:

White men flocked to Charlottesville en masse sensing the potential for righteous combat with anti-Whites, and the first thing most every alt-righter with a soapbox did in the aftermath was balk at and denounce that urge. Their fake hero ultimately denounced them. They ignored it. Whites are so accustomed to our fake heroes shitting on us that we take it for granted.

What makes this a tragedy is that it could be different. White as a race have a characteristic capacity for daring, for heroism, for collective mercilessness aimed at enemies, especially traitors. This capacity isn’t gone, it has been hijacked and circumcised. The jews make movies glorifying White self-sacrifice and directing it toward their own ends, even as they psychopathologize its use toward our own. Unlike White misleaders, the jews don’t discourage fanaticism and violence, they deliberately stoke it and AIM IT AT WHITES. While the Ignatievs and Ciccariello-Mahers slyly incite White genocide, the Taylors and MacDonalds respond by babbling nonsense about “pathological altruism”. This behavior is not a product of jew dominance and White failure, it’s the cause.

Whites need to get their heads straight, demand more, tolerate less. It starts, or doesn’t start, with leadership.

For the past year the jewsmedia has moaned about Charlottesville 1.0, shocked that a handful of Whites had the audacity to gather publicly and chant, “jews will not replace us”. The Whites who did that are heroes – they provoked and flushed out the anti-White/pro-jew regime.

A year later and the fake hero, the kikeservative-in-chief, still hasn’t done anything for his White supporters. Instead he tries to please the jews who condemn him by condemning all types of “racism”. The jewsmedia screeches, predictably, that this isn’t anti-White enough. Will he respond by defending his White supporters? No. He’ll respond just as he did last year, by kicking his lickers and licking his kickers.

So far Charlottesville 2.0 is looking like 1.0, but this time with hardly any prompting from defiant Whites. Anti-Whites now constitute all sides of the theatrical production, their only real disagreement being how far and how fast to elevate non-Whites above Whites.

On Tribalism

chicken-swingersHere’s an instant classic in the vast, age-old genre of jews praising jews for their jewing. David Greenberg, author of Republic of Spin, reviews David Frum’s Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic:

Has any group of thinkers stood faster in defense of its principles since the rise of Donald Trump than the neoconservatives? A decade ago, when the political right had fallen on hard times, the neocons were derided by almost everyone for furnishing an intellectual rationale for the invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush ’68. But since 2016, neoconservatives—practically alone on their side of the aisle—have consistently opposed Trump for the damage they see him doing. Writers like Max Boot ’92MA, Eliot Cohen, Jennifer Rubin, James Kirchick ’06, Bret Stephens, Cathy Young, and Bill Kristol have resisted the pressures of tribalism at a moment when few dare to leave their partisan tents.

What did these “right”-posing anti-White jews do? They crossed party lines to join their “left”-posing anti-White tribemates in screeching at Whites. Frum was one of the first to cry out in pain as he attacked Whites:

As community cohesion weakens, moral norms change. What would have been unacceptable behavior in a more homogenous national community becomes tolerable when a formerly ascendant group sees itself at risk from aggressive new claims by new competitors. Trump is running not to be president of all Americans, but to be the clan leader of white Americans. Those white Americans who respond to his message hear his abusive comments, not as evidence of his unfitness for office, but as proof of his commitment to their tribe.

But it’s difficult to say which jew in Greenberg’s list is most noxious.

The Yale Review link comes via Sailer, whose usual shtick is to pretend jews are “white”. Confronted with perfectly sober evidence that jews literally see themselves as the opposite of White the best Breezy Steve can do is try to laugh it off:

In the Current Year, are Members of the Tribe as witty as they used to be? Their current moral panic over “tribalism” is a particularly funny example of today’s Jews not getting the joke.

As usual, the joke is on Whites. When jews moralize against White tribalism (or supremacism, or victimology, or fake news, or privilege, or fragility, or hate, or any other buzzterm the jews have weaponized and aimed at Whites) it’s not because they are unaware that the shoe fits their tribe better than anyone else. By so brazenly trying to shift blame onto Whites they are clearly expressing their keen racial awareness and seething racial animus.

Jews Jewing Jewishly

tengrim01-bigSome big academic jew got weinsteined last week. Setting aside the melodrama, articles in the jewsmedia aimed at keeping jews well informed provide some indication of the elaborate degree to which they obsess over their collective interests, in this case fretting about “jewish continuity” and “jewish survival” in the face of some blowback from the toxic feminist and race-mixing agendas they have long and shamelessly promoted amongst Whites.

How Jewish Academia Created A #MeToo Disaster, The Forward:

At the end of World War II, several Jewish communal bodies, most importantly the American Jewish Committee, funded scholars to study Jewish life and used those studies to prescribe communal priorities.

It is no accident that by the early 1970s, a so-called marriage crisis emerged as a core priority of Jewish communal institutions, fueled by population surveys and anecdotal evidence. The achievements of second-wave feminism seemed stacked against the blunt tools that Jewish social scientists used to measure what communal leaders increasingly termed “Jewish survival.”

Marriage, inmarriage, and fertility rates among American Jews all were declining, while women’s aspirations for careers, for public power, and for control over their bodies and sexuality all seemed to be on the rise.

Starting in the 1980s and growing in the 1990s and beyond, a Jewish communal infrastructure empowered a class of social researchers to generate the data from which policy decisions would be made.

The fall of a top sociologist could change the field of counting Jews, Jewish Telegraph Agency:

Over and over, across decades and cities throughout the United States, sociologist Steven M. Cohen painted a picture of American Jews using a consistent set of questions.

How much do Jews love Israel? How many Jewish friends do they have? Do they attend a synagogue? Do they belong to one? Perhaps above all, are they married to Jews and raising Jewish children?

The titles of articles that Cohen has written over the years reflect the demographic concerns — and anxieties — of a generation of Jewish planners: “Lessons Learned From Orthodoxy’s Dramatic Growth.” “Can Intermarriage Lead to an Increase in the Number of Jews in America?” “Conservative Jewry’s Numbers Plummeting, but Core Engagement Steady.”

“We would argue that numerical strength is inherently valuable and essential to the meaningful Jewish life of American Jewry,” he wrote with a colleague, Mijal Bitton, in a 2015 article titled “More Is Better When It Comes to Jewish Numbers.”.” “More engaged Jews mean stronger communities able to mobilize more people and more resources, critical to achieving political influence, social diversity, cultural creativity and religious vitality.

“Not just researchers, but the American Jewish community has been concerned with the size of the population and changes in the population of different communities,” Leonard Saxe, director of the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University, wrote in an email to JTA.

Some take issue in particular with Cohen’s focus on Jewish continuity — the question of how many Jews will exist, identify as Jews and affiliate with Jewish institutions in future generations. Cohen has long cited statistics to conclude that the ever rising numbers of Jews marrying people of other faiths is “the greatest single threat to Jewish continuity today.”

“What I would love to see change are some of the questions that get asked, and specifically the questions that shape the debates over continuity and the birth rates of Jews,” said Deborah Dash Moore, a professor of American Jewish history at the University of Michigan. “Stop assuming that there are gradations of being Jewish that make one better than the other, that intermarriage is a bad thing or that intermarriage is a good thing.”

As usual, the conflict is fictitious, just jews arguing with jews about what’s best for jews.

Johnson’s Jews

trust_me_you_stupid_entryist_hatersDov Bechhofer Did Nothing Wrong is less about what Bechhofer did and more about what Greg Johnson is doing. Bechhofer has already disavowed the dissembling and dissimulation Johnson senselessly praises him for. Johnson is writing instead to argue that he, Greg Johnson, has done nothing wrong.

To make his case Johnson quotes one of the last (and most telling) of the rabbi’s son’s most based comments at Counter-Currents:

I’ve had it in my head to write a little something called “A Jewish Defense of Anti-Semitism,” but it’s been slipping my mind. In short, the vocal majority of Jews act so irritatingly and display such reprehensible attitudes – publicly and privately – that I’d rather see a “tempered” anti-Semitism now than see Jewish perfidy continue without consequence until, as Johnny Cash might say, the man comes around. Because he will. As I frequently tell Jewish acquaintances, if there is another Holocaust, it will be entirely of their doing

The way I read that, Bechhofer was concerned about jewing becoming too obviously anti-White, worried that the White reaction might be bad for jews, and decided to help his tribe by trying to moderate the White reaction. Such entryism is hardly new or even rare. Rather than seeing it as bad for Whites, Johnson sees it as a perfect opportunity to explain his vision of uniting Whites and jews against the people he perceives as the real problem.

The name Dov also made it highly likely he was Orthodox, which was interesting to me, because since 2016, I have been seeing signs that significant numbers of Orthodox Jewish men in their 20s are plugging into the Alt Right and White Nationalism. This phenomenon bears watching, since it may herald a split in the Jewish community, which is the major impediment to white identity politics.

The “split” Johnson sees among jews is non-White/anti-White identity politics, jews arguing with jews about what’s best for jews. It’s an argument that actually highlights the fact that jews see themselves as racially distinct from and at odds with Whites, and that they see it as good for jews that Whites remain confused on this point.

There is a world of difference between Jews like Michael Hart and Laurence Auster, who claim that Jews are white and seek to police anti-Semitism in the White Nationalist movement — and Jews like Dov or Gilad Atzmon, who do not try to alter our movement but instead seek to change Jewish attitudes toward white identity politics. None of them are “us.” But the former are subversives. The latter are allies.

It is more reasonable to assume different jews are subversive in different ways. Bechhofer was trying to change White attitudes. When he was called out, likely by a tribemate, he responded by immediately apologizing to his tribemates.

The organized Jewish community has played a disproportionate role in creating this crisis and preventing racially-conscious whites from dealing with it. A terrible reaction is brewing. White ethnostates are the only solution.

Moreover, Bechhofer did not fall in with the juvenile buffoons, LARPing Nazis, and violent thugs who have hijacked the most important cause on the planet and driven it off a cliff. He gravitated to the best of the movement — Counter-Currents, VDare, American Renaissance — and tried to imagine humane solutions to this mess. He doesn’t need “professional help” to deal with “issues.” He’s one of the sane ones. It is the rest of society that has gone mad.

Who is Johnson praising? A subversive jew. Who is Johnson accusing of wrong-doing, specifically “hijacking”? That would be his bugbear, “LARPing Nazis”.

Johnson’s greatest ally wasn’t even pretending to be for Whites against jews. He was merely in favor of jews continuing to feed on Whites rather than offing us. That’s what Johnson is swooning over. Johnson isn’t an idiot who can’t understand this. He doesn’t want to understand. He’s posturing as a racially conscious leader while advising Whites to welcome subversive jewing. Why? Because that is easier than admitting he is wrong.

Coordinated Amplified In-Your-Face Jewing

The full text of their monolithic demands, via The Jewish Chronicle:

Today, Britain’s three leading Jewish newspapers — Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and Jewish Telegraph — take the unprecedented step of speaking as one by publishing the same front page.

We do so because of the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government.

We do so because the party that was, until recently, the natural home for our community has seen its values and integrity eroded by Corbynite contempt for Jews and Israel.

The stain and shame of antisemitism has coursed through Her Majesty’s Opposition since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015.

From Chakrabarti to Livingstone, there have been many alarming lows. Last week’s stubborn refusal to adopt the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, provoking Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge to call her leader an antisemite to his face, was the most sinister yet.

Labour has diluted the IHRA definition, accepted in full by the government and more than 130 local councils, deleting and amending four key examples of anti-Semitism relating to Israel.

Under its adapted guidelines, a Labour Party member is free to claim Israel’s existence is a racist endeavour and compare Israeli policies to those of Nazi Germany, unless “intent” – whatever that means – can be proved. “Dirty Jew” is wrong, “Zionist bitch” fair game?

In so doing, Labour makes a distinction between racial anti-Semitism targeting Jews (unacceptable) and political anti-Semitism targeting Israel (acceptable).

The reason for this move? Had the full IHRA definition with examples relating to Israel been approved, hundreds, if not thousands, of Labour and Momentum members would need to be expelled.

With the government in Brexit disarray, there is a clear and present danger that a man with a default blindness to the Jewish community’s fears, a man who has a problem seeing that hateful rhetoric aimed at Israel can easily step into anti-Semitism, could be our next prime minister.

On 5 September, Labour MPs vote on an emergency motion, calling for the party to adopt the full IHRA definition into its rulebook.

Following that, it will face a binary choice: implement IHRA in full or be seen by all decent people as an institutionally racist and anti-Semitic party. After three deeply painful years for our community, September is finally make or break.

These jews are shamelessly singling out and demanding privileged treatment for jews, in terms spelled out by jews, solely because they are jews. The Labour party has in fact already conceded on all these points. The increasingly hysterical screeching of these jews, as if they are victims of some injustice, is aimed at extending the privileged treatment even to jews who are openly acting as agents of a foreign state.

Ron Unz on Jewing

itz_cominSome highlights from Ron Unz’s long article, American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion:

To put it bluntly, Jews have divine souls and goyim do not, being merely beasts in the shape of men. Indeed, the primary reason for the existence of non-Jews is to serve as the slaves of Jews, with some very high-ranking rabbis occasionally stating this well-known fact. In 2010, Israel’s top Sephardic rabbi used his weekly sermon to declare that the only reason for the existence of non-Jews is to serve Jews and do work for them. The enslavement or extermination of all non-Jews seems an ultimate implied goal of the religion.

Jewish lives have infinite value, and non-Jewish ones none at all, which has obvious policy implications. For example, in a published article a prominent Israeli rabbi explained that if a Jew needed a liver, it would be perfectly fine, and indeed obligatory, to kill an innocent Gentile and take his. Perhaps we should not be too surprised that today Israel is widely regarded as one of the world centers of organ-trafficking.

If the Gentile population became aware of these Jewish religious beliefs and the behaviors they promote, major problems for Jews might develop, so an elaborate methodology of subterfuge, concealment, and dissimulation has come into being over the many centuries to minimize this possibility, especially including the mistranslation of sacred texts or the complete exclusion of crucial sections. Meanwhile, the traditional penalty for any Jew who “informs” to the authorities on any matter regarding the Jewish community has always been death, often preceded by hideous torture.

In 2009, Gene Expression blogger Razib Khan interviewed eminent evolutionary theorist David Sloan Wilson on the group selection ideas that have been his major focus. During this hour-long discussion, the theories of MacDonald became a major topic, with Wilson seeming to take them quite seriously, and pointing out that within the scientific framework “parasitism” has a simple technical definition, namely the exploitation of the large by the small. Unsurprisingly, the video record of such extremely touchy subject matter was quickly truncated to just the first 11 minutes, and eventually completely removed from both YouTube and BloggingHeadsTV. But it still at least partially survives in archived form

Unz maybe forgot to enable Javascript while looking at that BH page. The mp3 is 404, but the complete video is still there. I’ve put the 11 minute archive.org excerpt, which is the most critical part of the conversation, on TFeed.

In recent years, the history of Jewish expulsions from various European societies over the last thousand years has received considerable attention. The total number is somewhat disputed but almost certainly in excess of 100, with the 1930s policies of Hitler’s Germany being merely the most recent example, and Wired Magazine provided an interesting graphical presentation of this large dataset in 2013. Given these unfortunate facts, it may be difficult to point to any other group so consistently at bitter odds with its local neighbors

Most of these disheartening facts that have so completely upended my understanding of reality over the last decade could not possibly have come to my attention until the rise of the Internet, which partially broke centralized control over the distribution of information. But many other people surely must have known large portions of this important story long before that, and recognized the very serious consequences these matters might have for the future of our society. Why has there been so little public discussion?

I believe one factor is that over the years and the decades, our dominant media organs of news and entertainment have successfully conditioned most Americans to suffer a sort of mental allergic reaction to topics sensitive to Jews, which leads to all sorts of issues being considered absolutely out of bounds. And with America’s very powerful Jewish elites thereby insulated from almost all public scrutiny, Jewish arrogance and misbehavior remain largely unchecked and can increase completely without limit.

I’ve also sometimes suggested to people that one under-emphasized aspect of a Jewish population, greatly magnifying its problematical character, is the existence of what might be considered a biological sub-morph of exceptionally fanatical individuals, always on hair-trigger alert to launch verbal and sometimes physical attacks of unprecedented fury against anyone they regard as insufficiently friendly towards Jewish interests. Every now and then, a particularly brave or foolhardy public figure challenges some off-limits topic and is almost always overwhelmed and destroyed by a veritable swarm of these fanatical Jewish attackers. Just as the painful stings of the self-sacrificing warrior caste of an ant colony can quickly teach large predators to go elsewhere, fears of provoking these “Jewish berserkers” can often severely intimidate writers or politicians, causing them to choose their words very carefully or even completely avoid discussing certain controversial subjects, thereby greatly benefiting Jewish interests as a whole. And the more such influential people are thus intimidated into avoiding a particular topic, the more that topic is perceived as strictly taboo, and avoided by everyone else as well.

For example, about a dozen years ago I was having lunch with an especially eminent Neoconservative scholar with whom I’d become a little friendly. We were bemoaning the overwhelmingly leftward skew among America’s intellectual elites, and I suggested it largely seemed a function of our most elite universities. Many of our brightest students from across the nation entered Harvard and the other Ivies holding a variety of different ideological perspectives, but after four years departed those halls of learning overwhelmingly in left-liberal lock-step. Although he agreed with my assessment, he felt I was missing something important. He nervously glanced to both sides, shifted his head downward, and lowered his voice. “It’s the Jews,” he said.

I do not doubt that much of the candid analysis provided above will be quite distressing to many individuals. Indeed, some may believe that such material far exceeds the boundaries of mere “anti-Semitism” and easily crosses the threshold into constituting an actual “blood libel” against the Jewish people. That extremely harsh accusation, widely used by stalwart defenders of Israeli behavior, refers to the notorious Christian superstition, prevalent throughout most of the Middle Ages and even into more modern times, that Jews sometimes kidnapped small Christian children in order to drain their blood for use in various magic rituals, especially in connection with the Purim religious holiday. One of my more shocking discoveries of the last dozen years is that there is a fairly strong likelihood that these seemingly impossible beliefs were actually true.

It appears that a considerable number of Ashkenazi Jews traditionally regarded Christian blood as having powerful magical properties and considered it a very valuable component of certain important ritual observances at particular religious holidays. Obviously, obtaining such blood in large amounts was fraught with considerable risk, which greatly enhanced its monetary value, and the trade in the vials of this commodity seems to have been widely practiced. Toaff notes that since the detailed descriptions of the Jewish ritualistic murder practices are very similarly described in locations widely separated by geography, language, culture, and time period, they are almost certainly independent observations of the same rite.

Wow, just wow. Their particularist/supremacist religion, organ traffiking, fraud and lying as tribal values, swarming and screeching critics to death, Kevin MacDonald and the biological/parasitic view, the history of expulsions, the role of the jewsmedia, ritual murder. Unz cites so many of the most important aspects of jewing that, other than their toxic six million screeching, it’s hard to think of anything significant he missed. At any rate, gathering and connecting so many aspects at once, without being mealy-mouthed about it or trying to shift blame for it all elsewhere, makes anything he left out beside the point. The point is the exact opposite of the dissembling about jews pumped out by their apologists: jewing is real, jewing matters, jewing is harmful.

The fact that Unz is not just a jew, but a jew with a long history of public political activism, justifies a deep skepticism of his motives and intent. Unz unselfconsciously touches on (and minimizes) the issue when he writes:

Much of this dishonesty obviously continues down to recent times since it seems very unlikely that Jewish rabbis, except perhaps for those of the most avant garde disposition, would remain totally unaware of the fundamental tenets of the religion that they claim to lead

Of course it’s not just rabbis or their religion. This mentality Unz discusses – their racial animus, the disdain and visceral hostility jews exhibit toward non-jews, justifying their aggression by crying victim – is a collective and historic phenomenon. It’s blatantly visible in the constant shameless screeching of all those secular jews in the jewsmedia and all those jews on the internet demanding privileges and policies specifically benefiting jews, decrying “bigotry” and “hate” as if someone else is a better example than themselves, painting any opponent as both mentally ill and deserving of punishment. The pattern is visible as far back in history as you care to look.

Unz implies he didn’t know about or understand jewing until he read Shahak and MacDonald a decade ago. I don’t buy it. But even if it’s true, why did he not blow the whistle sooner? Has he only now realized that jewing is wrong and must be stopped? Absolutely not. He’s a cold and calculating fish. He estimates a backlash is inevitable now and he’s trying to get out in front of it. That’s what he’s been doing for this past decade. He certainly hasn’t decided to side with Whites against jews. As with the relative handful of jews who criticize their own tribe, Unz is the exception that proves the rule. He doesn’t want to end jewing, just moderate it, to sustain it.

Anti-Masking Unmasked

shlomo_says_take_off_your_masks

A new anti-mask bill, H.R.6054 – Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018, is causing some controversy, mostly because it includes the word “antifa” in its title. The body of the bill doesn’t mention “antifa”. The core of it is instead stated in seemingly neutral terms:

Ҥ 250. Interference with protected rights while in disguise

“(a) In general.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

Anti-mask laws aren’t new. Dishonest discussion of them swirls around the judeo-liberal charade known as “civil liberties” or “equal rights”. Taken at face value, the bill only reinforces existing “rights” laws. These laws are interpreted to privilege “protected classes” over Whites. Critics of the bill use this same “rights” rhetoric, fretting that the law will somehow infringe these existing anti-White “rights”. Republican Congressmen Are Pushing Anti-Antifa Bill is a typical jewsmedia example:

The legislation, which could send people to prison for up to 15 years, mirrors controversial state laws originally designed at cracking down on the Ku Klux Klan. But unlike those state laws, Donovan’s bill is a direct shot at leftist protesters. And it might be unconstitutional, experts say.

“The thing I think is kind of funny is that the title is refers to ‘antifa,’” Ruthann Robson, a law professor at the City University of New York told The Daily Beast. “One issue there would be: is this law targeting a certain group of people?”

Just to be clear, these jewsmedia “experts” are concerned that anti-White/pro-jew thugs continue to enjoy their constitutional “rights” to use violent extralegal political terror tactics against Whites. These “experts” have some cause for alarm because even existing anti-mask laws, which were created by jews to target White groups, are nowadays sometimes hampering anti-Whites.

The screeching about the bill gives the impression that it might somehow set back the anti-White agenda on a federal level. But that’s not likely given the current anti-White/pro-jew interpretation of “rights” laws, never mind more recent explicitly anti-White/pro-jew legislation. Whatever its author’s intent and despite the title it is entirely possible that this bill, if it ever becomes law, would only make interference with anti-White/pro-jew “rights” a federal offense. For example, it could be used to prosecute someone for anonymously “oppressing” jews on the internet.

Cochran on White Racial Pre-History and the Aryans

contemplating_nature

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.