Tag Archives: race

Turkheimer Attacks Cochran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Race Science is Objectionable

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

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

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

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

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 intellectuals know why, and more important, is clever enough to imagine some other reason, 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.

Jewing and Science


Professional anti-”racist” Gavin Evans hates that science keeps bumping into the reality of race. Is Evans a jew? He certainly quacks like one. His latest article, The unwelcome revival of ‘race science’, begins with a recitation of the same old tired anti-”racist” shibboleths:

One of the strangest ironies of our time is that a body of thoroughly debunked “science” is being revived by people who claim to be defending truth against a rising tide of ignorance. The idea that certain races are inherently more intelligent than others is being trumpeted by a small group of anthropologists, IQ researchers, psychologists and pundits who portray themselves as noble dissidents, standing up for inconvenient facts. Through a surprising mix of fringe and mainstream media sources, these ideas are reaching a new audience, which regards them as proof of the superiority of certain races.

The claim that there is a link between race and intelligence is the main tenet of what is known as “race science” or, in many cases, “scientific racism”. Race scientists claim there are evolutionary bases for disparities in social outcomes – such as life expectancy, educational attainment, wealth, and incarceration rates – between racial groups. In particular, many of them argue that black people fare worse than white people because they tend to be less naturally intelligent.

Although race science has been repeatedly debunked by scholarly research, in recent years it has made a comeback. Many of the keenest promoters of race science today are stars of the “alt-right”, who like to use pseudoscience to lend intellectual justification to ethno-nationalist politics.

On its surface, the anti-”racist” argument is circular. Race is a mere label, manufactured by “racists”. Race science is a fraud, perpetrated by “racists”. “Racists” imagine they are superior, therefore they suck. Where does “racism” come from? From “racists”! Round and round it goes.

Beneath this dishonest veneer the argument has always and only ever been this: Whites can’t be White, because that’s bad for non-Whites, first and foremost the jews. Here’s Evans’ version:


The supposed science of race is at least as old as slavery and colonialism, and it was considered conventional wisdom in many western countries until 1945. Though it was rejected by a new generation of scholars and humanists after the Holocaust, it began to bubble up again in the 1970s, and has returned to mainstream discourse every so often since then.

The White race didn’t invent slavery or colonialism. But the White race did invent science.

The jews invented anti-”racism”, and for that cause jews invented prodigious amounts of fake science – Freudian psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, Frankfurt school cultural marxism, critical theory. The most recent catch-all is called Whiteness studies. They invented “hate speech” and “hate crimes”. They invented holidays to celebrate outwitting and outlasting other races. They invented the blame-shifting reality-inverting narrative pinning everything on Whites, but most emphatically the gassing of six million jews six million times over.

If you’re looking for a better example of one race using state-supported pseudoscience and propaganda to express their hostility toward another, there isn’t any. The jew war on Whites started long before 1933, and only grew more intense after 1945. That’s not Evans’ concern. He worries that the use of science to justify jewing poses an insidious threat…to the jews.

The recent revival of ideas about race and IQ began with a seemingly benign scientific observation. In 2005, Steven Pinker, one of the world’s most prominent evolutionary psychologists, began promoting the view that Ashkenazi Jews are innately particularly intelligent – first in a lecture to a Jewish studies institute, then in a lengthy article in the liberal American magazine The New Republic the following year. This claim has long been the smiling face of race science; if it is true that Jews are naturally more intelligent, then it’s only logical to say that others are naturally less so.

The background to Pinker’s essay was a 2005 paper entitled “Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence”, written by a trio of anthropologists at the University of Utah. In their 2005 paper, the anthropologists argued that high IQ scores among Ashkenazi Jews indicated that they evolved to be smarter than anyone else (including other groups of Jews).

Evans is describing the latest intersectional jewing around race. By his own account the challenge to the anti-”racism” agenda is led by jews like Pinker, promoted by crypto-jewy institutions like The Jew Republic, to advance a biological theory justifying jewing. The point on which they all agree is that somebody else is to blame.

This evolutionary development supposedly took root between 800 and 1650 AD, when Ashkenazis, who primarily lived in Europe, were pushed by antisemitism into money-lending, which was stigmatised among Christians. This rapid evolution was possible, the paper argued, in part because the practice of not marrying outside the Jewish community meant a “very low inward gene flow”. This was also a factor behind the disproportionate prevalence in Ashkenazi Jews of genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher’s, which the researchers claimed were a byproduct of natural selection for higher intelligence; those carrying the gene variants, or alleles, for these diseases were said to be smarter than the rest.

Pinker followed this logic in his New Republic article, and elsewhere described the Ashkenazi paper as “thorough and well-argued”. He went on to castigate those who doubted the scientific value of talking about genetic differences between races, and claimed that “personality traits are measurable, heritable within a group and slightly different, on average, between groups”.

In subsequent years, Nicholas Wade, Charles Murray, Richard Lynn, the increasingly popular Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and others have all piled in on the Jewish intelligence thesis, using it as ballast for their views that different population groups inherit different mental capacities.

This is the usual jew-excusing narrative. The jews have no real agency, bear no responsibility for their actions. Racially predisposed to paranoia and neurosis, if not outright psychosis and sociopathy. Best known for their collective influence over politics, finance, media. For reading minds and policing thoughts. For monitoring or moderating all forms of discussion and information distribution. For giving each other awards. For demonizing and psychopathologizing racial enemies. Sometimes all at once. The problem, according to jews, is “racism”. Specifically opposition to jewing. Even mild criticism of jewing. The problem is not jewing. Cannot be jewing. Never jewing.

Population group is a clunky semitically correct replacement for race. Much like African-American is the new negro.

Racial traits are distinctive and heritable. This includes personality traits.

Evans implies there is something wrong with science or the theory of evolution, not the games with words and logic he and the Pinkers are playing. As if the indictment of Whites as a group, in distinction and deference to jews as a group, originates or even serves some purpose apart from jews jewing.

The jews know very well that “jew” is a hertiable genetic trait. They know jews are afflicted with specific DNA-rooted mental diseases. Though a limited amount of interbreeding with their host is essential to group survival, transracial fraud is much more common, and the core of jewry is remarkably insular and inbred. The genes most certainly flow outward rather than in. The more down-low and race-mixy jews direct resources in the opposite direction. You could call jewing predation. It is their stereotypical combination of furtiveness and screeching, like the cuckoo bird, which makes parasitism the more descriptive, more precise, more scientific term.

As the Boases and Fishbergs did a century ago, the Pinkers today promote a sciency view of race. Back then the goal was to deny jew racial distinctiveness. Now it is to assert racial distinctiveness as justification for special treatment which has grown too obvious to deny. This shift complicates the anti-”racist” surface game, but is perfectly in line with the anti-White jewing beneath. Indeed, Evans’ concern is not the jewing, but that non-jews have “piled in”, once again trying to exploit the eternal victims.

Evans concludes by reiterating to the most common anti-”racist” claims – that Whites being White is bad for blacks and jews, that race “has no grounding in scientific fact”.

The race “science” that has re-emerged into public discourse today – whether in the form of outright racism against black people, or supposedly friendlier claims of Ashkenazis’ superior intelligence – usually involves at least one of three claims, each of which has no grounding in scientific fact.

Evolution is the grounding for race in scientific fact. Evolution requires only two ingredients: heritable differences and selection among those differences. Speciation is one consequence, parasitism is another.

Jewing pursues the same ends by different means. Some jews attack “racism”. Others defend jewing. Most can effortlessly do both at the same time. The jews rightly view science as a tool, and more to the point, as a potential weapon. They disagree how to use the weapon while at the same time restricting such use by “racists”.

Narrative vs Science: Cheddar Man Gaslighting

nehlen_banned_for_semitical_incorrect_mashup_of_propreitary_jew_memesRace is real. Race matters. The jews define the moral and financial terms in which nearly everyone else thinks. They use this power to disarm, manipulate, exploit, and ultimately destroy others. If hearing any of those points clearly enunciated reminds you of jews screeching, then you know what semitical correctness is. The other, original sandnigger sharia.

Since 1945 race science continues under new euphemisms, though largely with the direct involvement if not supervision of hyper-conscious tribemembers. Resources are allocated and mainstream interpretations are shaped as per “good for the jews”.

Update in the semitically correct jewsmedia narrative. The first Britons were black, Natural History Museum DNA study reveals:

The results show, contrary to popular belief, that the founding generations of Britons owed more in appearance to Paleolithic Africans, from whom all humans descend.

Scientists said they show that commonly understood racial categories are historically only “recent constructions”.

Up to nine previous colonisations of Britain, via the now flooded European landbridge known as Doggerland, had been wiped out due to harsh temperatures.

But the roughly 12,000 humans in Britain at the time of Cheddar Man thrived and their DNA now comprises roughly 10 per cent of the genetic make-up of most white people currently living in the UK.

The essence of the aggression:

Dr Yoan Dieckmann, from University College London, who took part in the project, said: “The historical perspective that you get just tells you that things change, things are in flux, and what may seem as a cemented truth that people who feel British should have white skin, through time is not at all something that is an immutable truth.

“It has always changed and will change.”

Science politicized, weaponized poz, White genocide. Also, shut it down. Mr. Composite: “Cheddar Man being used politically to synthesize: 1. All shades of dark skin color are supra-racial “black” (I remain unconvinced of black Britons) 2. Since we’re all “black,” the West must accept its demise via mass immigration “because we’re all black immigrants.” Also, jews.…”

Black Cheddar as part of the larger one-race-the-migrating-mixing-nigger-race narrative. The following article is the closest the jewsmedia gets to telling the truth about the racial history of Britain. What’s conspicuously missing from such tales is any actual discussion of race – the genetic similarity of the peoples who conquered, colonized, and combined then, much less the glaring dissimilarity of the contemporary multicult. After Cheddar Man: How the mongrel English found their home during the Dark Ages:

By 954… A mongrel people had at last secured a safe place in which to live.

An analogous question of origins in North America. Here the racial nature of the conflict is made fairly explicit, from an anti-White point of view. Rejecting the Solutrean hypothesis: the first peoples in the Americas were not from Europe:

A recent Canadian documentary promoted a fringe idea in American archaeology that’s both scientifically wrong and racist

First, in addition to the scientific problems with the Solutrean hypothesis which I’ll discuss shortly, it’s important to note that it has overt political and cultural implications in denying that Native Americans are the only indigenous peoples of the continents. The notion that the ancestors of Native Americans were not the first or only people on the continent has great popularity among white nationalists, who see it as a means of denying Native Americans an ancestral claim on their land. Indeed, although this particular iteration is new, the idea behind the Solutrean hypothesis is part of a long tradition of Europeans trying to insert themselves into American prehistory; justifying colonialism by claiming that Native Americans were not capable of creating the diverse and sophisticated material culture of the Americas.

Interesting critiques, arguments, evidence.

☼ Survive the Jive ☽ : “Cheddar man, green triangle on this PCA, plots with other European Holocene samples (brown shapes) as I expected. Closest modern genetic match is Northern Europeans (Baltic/Nordic/British). Non-Europeans are even further away from him! #CheddarMan Read it and weep lefties… https://t.co/g3XmH30e5m ”

☼ Survive the Jive ☽ : “You can see how the mesolithic British samples are distinct from the Neolithic ones which more closely resemble modern Iberians than modern Brits. That is because we descend from the Indo-European beaker folk invasion 4.5k years ago”

Raising questions at least. Cheddar Man – Debunked

Good to know. This isn’t the first Cheddar Hoax. Media madness (original title: Sykes)

In 1997 Professor Bryan Sykes of Oxford University claimed to have obtained mitochondrial DNA sequences from Cheddar man, Britain’s oldest complete skeleton. The Mesolithic remains were found in Gough’s Cave in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, and now reside in the Natural History Museum in London. Results were obtained for hypervariable region 1, and a DNA match was found with a local man Adrian Targett. The story was reported in a number of newspapers at that time including The Independent and the Los Angeles Times. The story of the DNA testing of Cheddar Man was subsequently recounted in Chapter 12 of Sykes’ book The Seven Daughters of Eve (Bantam Press, 2001). Significantly, however, the research has never been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Ancient DNA testing has advanced considerably since 1997, and it is now appreciated that very strict protocols need to be followed. (See, for example, Ancient DNA: do it right or not at all and How to tell if an ancient DNA study is legitimate.) The results of the 1997 testing are, therefore, subject to reasonable doubt. Bandelt et al (2005) have suggested that the sequence was from contaminating modern DNA. We understand that the Natural History Museum have plans to resequence Cheddar Man’s DNA.

Skin color DNA. Pozzidonius: “Now that the Cheddar Man DNA paper was released today, below are my final thoughts on the authors’ findings re: his skin pigmentation (tl; dr: They didn’t even look for the right gene when making the “dark/black skin” prediction)…”

Skin color DNA science versus the “Cheddar Man was black” narrative (emphasis mine). Blue-eyed, dark-skinned, earliest modern Briton. – Page 72:

In other words, the evidence now points to West/East Africans and Ancestral South Eurasians developing dark/very dark skin from a series of mutations & selection on the MFSD12 gene, while northern Europeans’ lighter skin resulted from a analogous process primarily on the SLC24A5 gene. Some Northeast Asians (particular Tungusic-speakers and the [likely related] population referred to by Japanese as the “Yayoi” type) appear to have developed their own lighter skin based on an as yet-undiscovered gene distinct from SLC24A5.

Why did the Cheddar Man study neglect the Crawford et al paper, which was released 5 months prior? Why did the Cheddar Man authors go out of their way to revisit the skin color debate for WHGs (they seemed to feel the need to “correct” the Loschbour study by asserting that Loschbour, too had “very dark” skin) and Anatolian Farmers without even bothering to test literally the only SNPs known to cause “dark to very dark” skin color in non-Africans???

The authors simply start from the faulty assumption that dark/very dark skin was the ancestral phenotype for all human populations everywhere, when the reality seem that this trait is just as derived as light skin. Totally unacceptable from an academic viewpoint.

If Cheddar Man lacked the variant SNPs on MFSD12 (as expected), the chances are extremely high that he possessed “intermediate” skin coloration, likely within the range found in the modern Near East.

Loci associated with skin pigmentation identified in African populations

Despite the wide range of skin pigmentation in humans, little is known about its genetic basis in global populations. Examining ethnically diverse African genomes, we identify variants in or near SLC24A5, MFSD12, DDB1, TMEM138, OCA2 and HERC2 that are significantly associated with skin pigmentation. Genetic evidence indicates that the light pigmentation variant at SLC24A5 was introduced into East Africa by gene flow from non-Africans.

To sum up: Even relatively subtle racial differences can be objectively detected, even in relatively ancient DNA. The “black Cheddar” narrative is agitprop, a form of psychological warfare.

Niggers and Kikes, United Against Whites


Notice all the cucks and niggers pretending to be offended at Bill Maher’s latest act, calling himself a house nigger. Among other things it demonstrates the power of taboos, how simply uttering certain magic words can unleash a torrent of emotion and vitriol, even if much of it is fake.

The nature of this power is revealed in who censures whom. If political correctness is a war on noticing, as Breezy Steve Sailer often notices, then semitical correctness is the war on noticing jewing. Thou shalt not mention jews or their jewing – that’s the One Strange Trick behind the current prevailing structure of taboos.

This tantrum Maher triggered has everything to do with mistaking him for “white”. In reality he’s anti-White. Indeed, he’s a shape-shifting transracialist mischling, a professional celebrity crypto-jew. He’s an actor-provocateur whose career consists of playing the white-faced minstrel, pissing on White norms while tilting impotently against semitical correctness. His job, couched in snark and irony, is to stake out what is or isn’t taboo and for whom, to spell out the unwritten rules by making an example of himself.

It is the pretense that Maher is “white”, an exemplar of “white privilege”, which makes his use of the word nigger “racist”. It is the white-washing of this jew’s jewing which makes it perfectly semitically correct to loath him. To call him out and loath him for being a particularly toxic jew is the exact opposite, perfectly semitically incorrect, six gorillion times worse than saying nigger.

Just prior to the hysteria Maher inspired the jewsmedia was busy promoting a positive attitude about niggers saying nigger. The difference is complementary, not contradictory. Whereas Maher’s shtick is aimed at demoralizing the White goyim, The Carmichael Show strikes a defiant tone aimed at emboldening the black goyim.

The jewsmedia’s PR included this helpful little aside:

The use of the word is not unprecedented – see All in the Family. But that aired “before political correctness,” jewsmedia house niggress Loretta Devine said at NBCU Summer Press Day

Yes, see All in the Family, the icebreaker for prime-time anti-White talmudvision. Bill Maher’s jewing pales in comparison to Norman Lear’s. The old kike is jewing away to this day, ever more openly relishing it as he descends into senility. In May Lear invited Jerrod Carmichael on his podcast specifically so they could say nigger together.

Listening in you’ll notice that the real Carmichael, behind the uppity talmudvision nigger act, is a true jewsmedia house nigger. Jewsmedia jews made him, own his black ass, and he’s happy with the arrangement. More to the point, notice that neither Lear nor Carmichael bother to pretend jews are White.

The Weinstein Problem is Evergreen


It takes an hour of dancing around for these two jews, Rubin and Weinstein, to get across what’s happening at Evergreen State College – that Weinstein has been mistaken for White and thus falsely accused of “racism”, that he is in fact an anti-White jew. In Weinstein’s Wall Street Journal op-ed and short interview with Tucker Carlson he avoids mentioning these particular aspects of his identity, though they are crucial to making sense of the controversy. It is only over the course of the long interview with his tribemate that it emerges Weinstein is only speaking out, and being given sympathetic jewsmedia attention, because he sees himself as a righteous jew and “anti-racist”.

The exchange between Rubin and Weinstein is so long and elaborately coded because they both well understand that bluntly stating what’s going on would give the game away. The name of the game is “anti-racism”, a jew-led and racially-motivated assault on Whites whose scope and harm extends far beyond this recent and relatively minor incident at Evergreen. The “social sciences” departments at universities have for decades effectively served as “anti-racist” weapons labs and proving grounds, where anti-White rhetoric and tactics are developed and tested before being deployed more broadly for use by governments and corporations.

“Anti-racism” is a full-spectrum assault. At one end are jews who openly identify and organize as jews to advance the interests of jews. These jews claim moral authority as an historically marginalized and oppressed minority while barking commands at ostensibly non-jew institutions. On the other end of the spectrum are jews who infiltrate and influence ostensibly non-jew institutions from the inside, where they dissimulate as “white”. These jews claim moral authority as “fellow whites” while shitting on Whites.

There are more jews along the spectrum than at either end – some more pro-jew, others more anti-White. But all their “anti-racism” pushes in the same general direction, faulting Whites for being White while excusing jew jewing. The terminology of semitical correctness is orwellian, the rationale tautological. Opposition to the assault on Whites can by definition only come from “racists”. Noticing that the assault on Whites is led by jews, or that jews network to protect each other from such targeting, is “anti-semitism”. To distinguish Whites from jews is “racist”. To fail to distinguish jews from Whites is “anti-semitism”.

So what’s going on at Evergreen is really just a bit of blowback. “Anti-racism” has always been a mask for anti-Whitism, but its true nature is now becoming more overt. It is starting to materialize as official restrictions and physical attacks on Whites, unabashedly justified as compensation for “White privilege” or “White supremacy”. The attack has progressed to the point that any White in a position of power or privilege who might unapologetically identify as White has already been removed, so now it is starting to redound somewhat onto the army of transracialist jews who have steadily and stealthily taken their place.

The controversy around Evergreen shines a light on the “anti-racism” double-talk. For years, when the “Day of Absence” was a passive-aggressive non-White boycott targeting Whites, Weinstein sympathized. He even thought it wan’t effective enough. Now that the event has metastasized into a thinly-veiled White ban, where anyone with whitish skin is actively harassed, Weinstein is suddenly opposed. His various attempts to explain this change are telling.

Speaking in brief to a general audience Weinstein is dishonest. Put on the spot about his racial motives by Carlson, the otherwise articulate Weinstein “uhh… wells…” his way past it. He’s just “deeply progressive” and “troubled about what this implies about the state of the left”. He specifically blames the Evergreen administration for his troubles, and particularly George Bridges, though he struggles to explain why. Credulous Carlson fails to press Weinstein, all too eager to mistake him as a victim of the “Campus Crazyiness” rather than one of its quite willing and conscious proponents.

In his WSJ op-ed Weinstein is even less forthcoming about his identity and motives. Instead he focuses on channeling Niemöller, painting himself as a canary in the coalmine. Here too Weinstein lays the blame on Bridges, though apparently only for being more committed to the anti-White “anti-racist”/”social justice”/”critical theory” agenda than he is himself.

It is only when speaking at length with Rubin, who cohencidentally happens to be a friend of Weinstein’s brother, that we get a glimpse of Weinstein’s real identity and motive. Early on Rubin asks Weinstein why he changed his position on Evergreen’s anti-White “Day of Absence”, why he is only now speaking out. Weinstein explains, “I’m jewish, and, umm, alarm bells go off when I’m told I’m not supposed to be somewhere”.

Much later in the interview Rubin kids Weinstein about his “deep progressive” shtick and they share a knowing chuckle. Weinstein smirks as he admits he’s an “anti-racist”. He complains there isn’t enough “nuance” in existing narratives, either on campus or in the jewsmedia, wishing he could just say, “oy vey, stop attacking me already, I’m an anti-White jew”, without saying it.

Indeed, Weinstein is “anti-racism” personified, the tip of a gigantic but largely hidden and ever-shifting jew-berg. He’s vilified by anti-White goyim, who actually hate him for behaving like a jew, but who would never dare say so because that would be “anti-semitism”. And he’s lionized by White goyim, who mistake him as a “fellow white”, but who would never dare say so because that would be “racism”. To top it off he paints himself as the victim while he calls for the head of his nominal boss. As he subtly intimates to Rubin, Bridges’ crime is in taking “anti-racism” too far, thus failing to protect jews like himself from the harmful effects of the anti-White war they are waging.

The Jew Coverup


I stumbled across this coverup of a coverup at Wikipedia. The Freudian Coverup:

The Freudian Cover-up is a theory first popularized by social worker Florence Rush in the 1970s, which asserts that Sigmund Freud intentionally ignored evidence that his patients were victims of sexual abuse.

Early within Freud’s career, he believed that little girls often experienced sexual abuse, since most of his patients were predominantly women and consistently reported childhood instances of sexual molestation. Many of Freud’s patients suffered from a common Victorian diagnosis, hysteria. Since his hysterical patients repeatedly reported sexual abuse, most often naming their fathers as the abusers, Freud drew a causal connection between sexual abuse and neurosis. This became the frame for the seduction theory, in which he pointed to a direct connection between sexual abuse in childhood and adult hysteria. According to Florence Rush, author of The Freudian Cover-up, this repeated and persistent incrimination of fathers by his patients made him uneasy, and led him to abandon the seduction theory.

Freud wasn’t trying to protect fathers, he was protecting his tribe. An Analysis of Freud’s Jewish Identity:

Freud’s early patients were almost exclusively Jewish women, yet there is little mention of this in Freud’s writings. Working with these women, Freud recognized the limitations of electrotherapy, the treatment of choice for mental illnesses such as hysteria, and argued that electrotherapy was successful only because of its suggestive effects rather than because of its actual effect on the nervous system. The missing variable in Freud’s rejection of electrotherapy, as Gilman notes, was the prevailing question in 19th-century medicine: race. Indeed, Freud found, upon his return to Vienna from Paris, that statements about the Jewish predisposition for forms of mental illness were commonplace. In fact, some sought to make a distinction in mental stability between secular and nonsecular Jews. These debates led Freud to abandon the idea of hysteria as an inherited disease with a racial component.

The so-called Freudian coverup happened at about the same time jews generally began abandoning the idea of race and started pushing anti-White “anti-racism” instead, just as an immune response to rampant jewing in Europe, the first truly racially-aware White state, was rising to state power in Germany. What a cohencidence.

The Tuvel Affair


A major (((identity politics))) hissyfit spilled out of its jewniversity incubator and into the broader jewsmedia limelight over the past month or so. The controversy was triggered by “feminist philosopher” Rebecca Tuvel’s paper, In Defense of Transracialism:

In this article, I argue that considerations that support transgenderism extend to transracialism. Given this parity, since we should accept transgender individuals’ decisions to change sexes, we should also accept transracial individuals’ decisions to change races. I entertain and reject four objections that suggest a society should not accept an individual’s decision to change races.

Wikipedia’s Hypatia transracialism controversy page provides a semitically correct overview of the affair so far, naming the most prominent personalities involved and linking the most significant critiques and articles. My intent is to call attention to the role jews and jewing play in the affair, a crucial aspect which has been effectively ignored and even obscured by all the squid ink.

In this case, as usual, jews are jewing away with impunity. Big-mouthed jews and their toxic ideas dominate the conversation, on all sides, across academia and media as a whole, yet it goes on unrecognized as such. What sets this particular example apart is the issue at the heart of it, so-called transracialism, which helps enable jews to jew with impunity.

Transracialism is really just a new term for an old fraud, commonly known as passing. In the case of jews passing has a long history and is better understood as a form of crypsis.

Goyposing in academia and media today typically involves jews actively posturing as “white” so as to claim the moral authority to say something poisonous to or about “fellow white people”. More generally, the pretense that jews are “white” serves to shift attention and blame for jew over-representation or malfeasance onto Whites, toward whom jews actually feel no loyalty or sympathy. The effect of this white-washing also manifests indirectly in critics – jew or otherwise – who obviously feel freer to criticize jews under the pretext that they’re attacking “whites”.

Every facet of this fraud can be found in the Tuvel affair. Is Tuvel a jew? That’s not clear, and nobody in the jewstream is even asking. Several critics and defenders assert Tuvel is “white”, but there are a few indications that she’s a jew, part-jew, or somehow otherwise connected to jews. For one thing, her surname is suspiciously rare and jewy. For another, she began her argument in favor of transracialism by pointedly referring to the exclusionary attitude of jews, a sore subject for mischlings/mamzers. Here’s how Tuvel put it:

Generally, we treat people wrongly when we block them from assuming the personal identity they wish to assume. For instance, if someone identifies so strongly with the Jewish community that she wishes to become a Jew, it is wrong to block her from taking conversion classes to do so. This example reveals there are at least two components to a successful identity transformation: (1) how a person self-identifies, and (2) whether a given society is willing to recognize an individual’s felt sense of identity by granting her membership in the desired group. For instance, if the rabbi thinks you are not seriously committed to Judaism, she can block you from attempted conversion. Still, the possibility of rejection reveals that, barring strong overriding considerations, transition to a different identity category is often accepted in our society.

Visibly jewy Nora Berenstain has been broadly cited for the earliest, most hysterical response to Tuvel’s argument, though her name is omitted from many such accounts. Berenstain’s Facebook post, since deleted, provides a taste of state-of-the-art semitical correctness promoted in jewed academia:

Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege. In her discussion of “transracialism,” Tuvel doesn’t cite a single woman of color philosopher, nor does she substantively engage with any work by Black women, nor does she cite or engage with the work of any Black trans women who have written on this topic.

Berenstain’s complaint was that Tuvel should have cited more non-Whites and non-men (like Berenstain) specifically because they aren’t White men. This screech was soon echoed in a public condemnation, signed by more than a hundred outraged “scholars” who demanded that the publisher take down Tuvel’s article. To Berenstain’s cry for preferential treatment for non-White non-men they added their own, and specifically faulted Tuvel for mentioning jews jewing openly as jews:

It mischaracterizes various theories and practices relating to religious identity and conversion; for example, the author gives an off-hand example about conversion to Judaism

The initial wave of screeching about Tuvel’s argument triggered an even larger wave of corporate jewsmedia counter-screeching. The back and forth echoes on still. Though plenty of the original screeching was overtly anti-White, the counter-screeching completely ignored this. To the extent any attention was paid to the limited mention of jews, it was only to dismiss it.

In fact, another reason to suspect that Tuvel has some connection to The Tribe is how her critics have chimped out almost entirely over her argument, without calling for personal sanctions, as they normally would for someone who is White. She also has many jew defenders, most of whom don’t even care what her argument is, which is not something they normally do for someone who is White.

“Right”-posing jew Ben Shapiro, for example, blamed “leftist academia” and wrote:

as an Orthodox Jew, I can say that the essay characterizes Judaism’s view of conversion quite properly

Academic insider jew Brian Leiter is a better example. Leiter was among the first and most prominent of the counter-screechers, but studiously avoided the anti-White/pro-jew attitudes of the screechers and instead focused on defending Tuvel from “defamation”:

I confess I’ve never seen anything like this in academic philosophy (admittedly most signatories to the “open letter” are not academic philosophers, but some are). A tenure-track assistant professor submits her article to a journal, it passes peer review, it is published, others take offense, and the Associate Editors of the journal declare that “Clearly, the article should not have been published” and that the abuse to which the author is being subjected is “both predictable and justifiable.”

He filed this claim under “Authoritarianism and Fascism Alerts”. Tellingly, just last December he was mocking White genocide, filed under “Academic Freedom”, hinting that jews like himself define genocide and don’t see themselves as White. More tellingly, in 2010 he wrote a bit he filed under “What is Philosophy?” titled Jewish Poker:

Ephraim Kishon has a story called “Jewish Poker”. Jewish poker is played without cards so all you can do is bluff – and you have to bluff high. I think that this is the secret of Derridean post-modernism as currently practised in U.S. humanities departments: in the end, it’s all competitive hyperbole – who can be more radical?

Someone starts off with a huge unsupported generalization. For example, they write a book saying that the whole of Western thought is under the hegemony (good word) of (say) “logocentrism”, that its genealogy has to be exposed and deconstructed to reveal the Other that it “covers over and disavows”.

That’s a high bid, but you can top that. Why not write a review saying that this is to give “the Other” a “hegemonic status”, that this too needs to be deconstructed and given a genealogy? Say that the re-valuation of values hasn’t been radical enough, that “the Nietzschean trans-valuation is far from being complete: in its second stage, at the threshold of which we find ourselves today, it will necessitate a de-hierarchization of the already inverted values, so that alterity, too, would lose its newly acquired transcendental status, just as sameness and identity did in twentieth-century thought.”

Kishon described the environment not only in philosophy, but in jewed academia more generally. At the time Leiter himself noted that “the philosophy blogosphere worked itself into quite a tizzy over these remarks, no doubt because they hit so close to home”, i.e. because contemporary philosophy is so jewed. Seven years later this is just as relevant to the Tuvel affair, where so much of the screeching is based on the unquestioned premise that philosophy is too White, and none of the counter-screeching tizzy has anything to do with defending Whites.

So what is the fuss? I think I covered the basics well enough in Trans-Reality. The jewed academia/jewsmedia consensus back then was to hail gender-bending Jenner as a brave hero and to mock frizzy-haired Dolezal as a bad joke. The response to Tuvel’s argument about transracialism only hammers home that consensus.

Race is a social construct but transracialism isn’t real, cry the jews pretending to be “white”. “Racism” is prejudice plus power, cry the jews who dominate the anti-White academia and media.

One last example from anti-White jewsmedia jewess Pheobe Maltz Bovy, who literally just wrote a book jewsplaining how jews are “white”, and Whites have privilege, but jews don’t. In this case she wrote to say there’s nothing to see here:

In The Article, Tuvel “suggest[s] that Dolezal offers an important opportunity for us to think seriously about how society should treat individuals who claim a strongly felt sense of identification with a certain race. When confronted with such an individual, how should we respond?”

I’m suggesting, in turn, that we take a step back and ask: Are we, in fact, confronted with such individuals? Because if we’re not (and Tuvel admits as much), then we’re giving rather a lot of weight to the well-being of made-up, thought-experiment-inhabiting people, and putting their feelings above those of people who do in fact exist and do in fact make their wishes known.

Put another way: Transgender is a thing, transracial is not. There are people who suffer tremendously from being assigned a gender at birth that does not match up with who they are. These are real people who really exist. Are there people in the same boat where race is concerned?

Like most of the screechy anti-White elite Bovy regards “transgenderism” as unquestionably natural and normal. Unlike most everyone else Bovy demonstrates how jew-to-”white” transracial goyposing works while claiming it doesn’t exist:

There are certainly cases of racial identity being ambiguous, and yes, racial identity has margins. (Trust me, I’m an otherwise white person not considered white by white supremacists!) That, however, is something else.

With transracial, meanwhile, literally all that’s at play – again, where actual people are concerned – is, there are many black people who find “transracial” to be, well, racist. But there isn’t any competing concern of the transracial community because guess what? There isn’t a transracial community, let alone an oppressed transracial community. So what you’re defending, in effect, when you defend the non-existent transracial community is the right to be gratuitously offensive. Because that’s the demand white people – not all, but lots – are actually making.

“Trust me, fellow white people, transracialism has nothing to do with jews or their jewing. It’s all about whites oppressing blacks.”