On the Catastrophe of Jewish Pseudo-Intellectualism

Or: The Illogic of the Convinced

There is something awful in the middle of the modern mind: a set of structures, sub-cortical, that have strengthened over centuries, their neural pathways ossified, then inscribed in the concrete of brutalist boulevards—or worse still, painted in inevitable helvetica on blobitecture interiors. Its outputs resound in the duckspeak platitudes of a million diversity hires: one hears it in the HR cadence of barely sentient millennial women, among the over-educated, uptalking horde of russell group-graduated bongoloids, of NHS-promoting, self-caring, subtly-not-giving-a-f*cking post-metrosexual man. It is on the Left, in trannery and anti-white; and it is on the Right (although less boldly), among Elite Human Capital types.

This monster is not a new arrival; it was present too at the turn of the century, most clearly in the asiatic brutality of Bolshevism, in the language of Lenin and the screeds of Stalin, all syllogisms and self-proving paragraphs: ‘You see comrade, the spontaneous demonstrations of the revolutionary youth indicate that the march of proletarian democracy has acceded to its permanent stage: actually-existing socialism, and is therefore more than merely progressing, but in fact presently fulfilled within the boundaries of the world’s sole socialist state—ultimate loyalty is thus owed not to merely intellectual forms of revolutionary praxis, but rather to the structures in which said revolution has been substantiated: specifically, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’, &c.

This form of thought is not unique to any one place or people, being produced (or perhaps performed) everywhere mediocre minds meet. But there is one race by whom this method has been truly perfected: honed, over inbred generations, into a manipulative art. Masters of this approach were rewarded with wealth and wives, and their hyper-fecundity helped breed a sub-species especially competent in the supremacy of the symbolic.

But what characterises this approach, more than the pseudo-profundity, needless verbosity, or gate-keeping nomenclature, is its sheer stupidity. There is only the appearance of intellect—but scratch that sparkling surface, and behind gapes an expanse empty bar the bones left by the Holodomor, Asharshylyk, and Dresden.

Substack boasts a wide range of writers who embody this egregore, and none do so with such consistent stupidity as Deep Left Analysis (who offers us ‘Progressive, Elitist analysis’ on subjects ranging from race, economics, politics, and whatever else this Jew regards within his purview).

I find his work fascinating, and also enraging, because it typifies with such concision the absolute wrongness of this worldview—one that I, once, was ignorant enough to share.

In his recent offering, our esteemed stacker performs his penetrating analysis on that favourite canard of the Right: the reality of race, and its relation to IQ. Being wise, by virtue of his Chosen status, he already knows what the answer is: race, of course, does not exist. But for his readers (who presumably also share this a priori position, being highly educated and, more importantly, morally good people (of the heckin’ and wholesome sort)) mere assertion is insufficient: the claim must now be buttressed with hundreds of words. Enrobed, enmeshed, wreathed in pseudo-logic, it can be safely swallowed, like a bitter pill fed to a dog wrapped in ham.

academics: stop making race realists seem honest and smart.

Credentialism is bunk; anyone of sufficient IQ can pick up a book—but there are times when some formal education in statistics does seem requisite. Deep Left Analysis does not know how any of this works.

He starts by erecting a row of strawmen:

‘Race realism¹ is the following set of beliefs:

• There is an “Asian IQ,” which is the highest, around 105.

• There is a “white IQ,” which is lower than the Asian IQ, at 100.

• There is a “brown IQ” (Arab/Mestizo/Indian), which is lower than the white IQ, at around 90.

• Finally, there is an “African/aboriginal IQ,” which is between 60 and 85.

• All of these IQs are genetically determined, and any national variations within races can be blamed on the history of communism/poverty/geography/culture.’

Let us take them in turn.

1. There is no ‘Asian IQ’. ‘Asian’ is not a race. When race realists talk about ‘Asians’, especially in the American context, they are (obviously) referring to East Asians: particularly people from the Han Chinese, Japanese, and Korean ethnic groups.

2. Is ‘white’ a race? In a general sense, Americans of European descent are referred to as ‘white’. Naturally this group can be further broken down into its respective ethnicities, who have varying population IQs.

3. We can, for the purposes of white identitarian politics, lump together those American groups not included in ‘White’ or ‘(East) Asian’ as ‘Brown’. But ‘Brown’ is not a race. No race realist considers this a useful taxonomy. No serious scientist has ever proposed ‘brown’ as a human sub-species.

4. Africans and Aboriginals are not a race, being of disparate origins. ‘African’ isn’t a race either, as the populations included in the African continent include separate racial groups.

5. The IQ differences between different population groups have causes both genetic and environmental. No race realist claims national variations in IQ within races are purely environmentally determined. Obviously differences in IQ between national groups have a (partly) genetic basis, just as physical differences between national groups have a genetic basis.

The nature of Deep Left Analysis’ argumentation always proceeds in this manner. He will misunderstand some fundamental feature of the object of his critique, and mix categories at different levels of analysis (for example, smuggling in the category of ‘Asians’ (understood in the American context as a shorthand for North-East Asians)), while including within that bracket the entirety of the East/Central Asian space), in order to construct an argument whose conclusion is preordained. Similarly, he is describing a superficial, ‘naive race realism’ which has nothing in common with its scientific eponym (the theory that homo sapiens can be divided into sub-species, which represent useful, predictively valid taxa).

In short, rather than engage with the subject as an independent object of inquiry, representing some salient, measurable feature of extent reality, his approach is purely subjective, and solipsistic: he has inferred, from experience, or perhaps subconscious instinct, what he would like to be true, and then proceeds to construct an argument that, owing to the ignorance of both writer and reader, and his relative verbal dexterity, appears convincingly well-informed.

The actual beliefs of Race Realism might be described as follows:

• Like other organisms, the human species can be separated into sub-species (races);

• These sub-species have all hybridised with different species of hominin (such as neanderthals, denisovans, &c), and are adapted to different ecological niches, having been geographically separated (in some cases) for many thousands of years;

• These physical adaptations include changes in the nervous system;

• IQ represents a real, measurable cognitive trait, with a biological (neurological) basis;

• IQ is highly heritable, and has both an environmental and genetic component;

• Different human sub-species exhibit different population IQs, which reflect not only the different environmental factors to which they are currently subjected, but also the historic environments to which they are adapted (that is, their differing genetic inheritance);

• Human sub-species can be further divided into separate populations (ethnic groups), which also differ in their population IQs (again as a result of genetic and environmental factors);

• Different human sub-species can hybridise to produce new, mixed-origin ethnic groups (in fact, all extant human sub-species are themselves of diverse origins).

None of this is particularly difficult to grasp. Nobody has trouble recognising the reality of dog breeds, for example. If Deep Left Analysis were informed that Wolves and Coyotes, or Chimpanzees and Bonobos, or Russian and American (Grizzly) Brown Bears differ in their physical and psychological/behavioural attributes (including intelligence), then he would not bat a hooded eyelid.

But the Left-wing symbol structures deeply rooted in his brain sadly prevent him from grasping these fundamental ideas. He doesn’t like them; he doesn’t want them to be true—and so they must be false, and he will generate lengthy arguments to ‘prove’ they are wrong.

Let us turn to these proofs (bearing in mind the actual principles of Race Realism).

He first allows for some exceptions, calling those capable of making said exceptions ‘race essentialists’:

‘For example, a racial essentialist would claim:

If a population deviates from the median “racial IQ,” that is due to racial mixing. For example, Albanians are mixed with Turks, which lowers their IQ.’

This is still a strawman—although in this case, rather than being rotten to its core, the straw is at least freshly bundled into a convincing scarecrow. It is true that populations within a given race may have below-average IQs owing to admixture from other races (and this may well be true of Albanians)—however, there can be many other reasons. If we were to sample, for example, the population of Fife (a suburb north of Edinburgh), we might find a remarkably reduced intellect. But this would not be due to racial admixture (I assume), but rather selection bias, owing to migration within the UK over the last century. There are a litany of factors involved in the selection and adaptation of a given ethnic group. For example, having visited Armenia, I can confirm that (while recognisably Caucasoid—Caucasian, even) its population are of a thuggish, gruggish sort. But this reflects only the sustained outmigration of talent—firstly within the Soviet Union, as intelligent, high-achieving Armenians sought status in the power centres of the Motherland, and later, following the collapse of the Workers’ Utopia, to the promised land of the United States (where they joined an earlier diaspora of high-value emigres). If the populations of the diaspora and the home country remain separated over the next century, we might see the emergence of two distinct ethnic groups, with dramatically different IQs (regardless of admixture).

This is the kind of ‘deep analysis’ required to make sense of demography. Our hero lacks the facility or patience for this kind of work. The spiel is simply spewed, sans sentience.

The ‘racial essentialist’ does not exist. He is a mere character in the Jewish Imaginarium.

He then demolishes the strawman thus:

‘Actually, Turkish IQs are higher than Albanian IQs, so Turkish admixture can’t explain Albanian IQ.’

Ackshually, even if the average IQ of the Republic of Turkey is higher than the average IQ of Albania, it could still be the case that the Albanian IQ is lower than the average European IQ in part because of Turkish admixture. What type of Turk bred with the Albanians? What was their social class and religious background? Did they represent a more Grecian, or Slavic type of Turk, or were they drawn from the typically Turkic stratum? What changes have taken place in Albania and Turkey over the centuries since the Ottomans took the Balkans? What revolutions, social changes, political movements, religious reforms, and wars? In what direction did which selection pressures operate? Have their respective national IQs been lowered or raised by emigration/immigration?

In short, this question is complicated. That is what makes it interesting. If Deep Left Analysis was an interesting person, concerned with Truth, he might investigate it for himself. But he can’t, because he doesn’t know how—and it wouldn’t suit his purposes. The Talmudist does not care what is true, but only what benefits him.

He continues:

“Conservative whites in rural areas are less intelligent than liberal whites in urban areas.” When confronted with this fact, a race essentialist will respond,

“Impossible! All whites regress to the basal white IQ. Any differences are just due to lack of opportunity / outsourcing / anti-white discrimination / globalists / Jewish conspiracies to divide and conquer the white race.”

Again, the Jew has painted the portrait of an imaginary gentile dullard, all red-faced and spittle-flecked. He grinds his teeth and pounds his fists upon the synagogue gates.

Let us consult an actually-existing (and suitably Ashkenazic) Race Realist (me): obviously selection pressures are present within racial groups, nationalities, and localities. If you sample a given population for any trait (psychological or physical), and plot that against some relevant independent variable (such as the urban/rural divide), then you will discover a significant difference in the sample means for that trait. These differences can be both environmental and genetic (there are, in fact, likely to be genetic differences between urban and rural white Americans, because both intelligence and personality (which mediate urban/rural in/outmigration) are highly heritable)).

Whether or not those outcomes (and the kind of socioeconomic structures that give rise to nation-scale urban/rural IQ stratification among the heritage American population) have anything to do with Jewish political influence and ‘globalism’ is another question entirely (the answer is yes, by the way). Are vaccine schedules, fluoride, pesticides, outsourcing, and anti-white discrimination depressing rural White American IQs? Possibly—but what does this have to do with the reality of racial IQ differences?

I must post the next section in full:

‘On the other hand, if you say, “there exists a black nation which outscores an Asian nation,” a race essentialist will respond,

“That’s a trick, that’s only because those blacks are being given an unfair advantage by affirmative action. If it wasn’t for whites they would still be living in huts. Blacks are the dumbest race and can never outscore Asians in the same environment.”

This isn’t a useful way to look at the world, and it has increasingly poor predictive power as non-white countries advance economically and escape the suppressant effects of pollution,² malnutrition, and inbreeding, and illiteracy:

• The national IQ of Filipinos is 78; of Tibetans is 81; of North Koreans is 88;

• of Kosovans is 78;³ of Moldovans is 88; of Serbians is 91; of Ukrainians is 92;

• of Bolivians is 81; of Mexicans is 86;

• of Moroccans is 76;

• of Gabonese is 79.

The idea that “Asians are always the smartest” and “Africans are always the dumbest” doesn’t fit the data.’

I wish to find this man, and cause him pain, and then I might have peace.

Nobody thinks ‘Asians are always the smartest.’ Nobody thinks ‘Africans are always the dumbest.’ ‘Serbs are stupid’ is not some groundbreaking, worldshifting, intellectually overwhelming revelation. No Race Realist will abandon his position on discovering that Mexicans are dumb.

Again, we see the sleight of hand I term category mixing: ‘Blacks are the dumbest race and can never outscore Asians in the same environment.’

This is the kind of illogic one frequently encounters in Talmudic tracts. While Blacks (that is, sub-saharan Africans) are indeed ‘the dumbest race’ (that is, they have the lowest average IQ), and, all things being equal, Asians (that is, North-East Asians) would outscore them—that doesn’t mean that all Blacks, or all populations of Blacks (that is, populations on the African continent), would outscore all Asians, or all populations of Asians (populations on the Asian continent)—and the examples cited are obviously not from the same environments. The strawman is erected, the categories confidently constructed, and then the counter-evidence (of entirely different categories) referenced. Verbcel word-printer go brrrr.

Just as within a population, individuals display a range of IQ scores, so too will ethnic groups within a race display a range of average IQs. This is nothing new. There are clever ‘Africans’, and there are clever(ish) African nations (although I’m struggling to find the source for Gabon having a score of 79—a score, by the way, only one point higher than that of Kosovans (and therefore within the margin of error (does DLA know what a margin of error is? Does he care?))). Similarly, there are stupid Caucasoids, and stupid(ish) Caucasoid nations. North Koreans are severely malnourished, and this affects their intellectual development. Tibetans were violent nomad pastoralists for whom a high IQ did not grant the kind of reproductive advantage it afforded their agrarian Confucian conquerors. Environmental factors mediate IQ. That doesn’t mean population genetics do not affect IQ, or that differences in average IQs between racial and ethnic groups do not have a broadly genetic basis. Cognitive traits are grounded in both nature and nurture. In a shared environment, the probabilistic effect of a polygenic cause collapses into a determinative difference when we move from the individual to the group level. This isn’t 1970. The debate is over. Give up.

When I was twelve years old I was suspended from school for smashing someone’s face into a door handle, and despite having never done anything similar since I would quite like to repeat the experiment with Deep Left Analysis.

He goes on to say a bunch of bullshit but I am getting bored. For some reason, he titles the next section ‘Putting the blood on the door’. I don’t know why the weird passover reference needs to be shoehorned in like so much schlechmetzim (that isn’t a real thing, by the way—we shouldn’t have to be literate in the culture of these awful people)—but the conclusion seems to be that population differences in IQ are real (although they have nothing to do with race), and hard-nosed, nuanced, sophisticated Leftists like himself should take that into account when vomiting whatever half-baked policy prescriptions they have spontaneously germinated this week into the discourse:

Ethnonationalism is bad, for some reason. Dog breeds do exist, actually, because dog-breeders think they do, and therefore so do ethnicities, ‘regardless of genetics’ (???). Jews (who exist, and are good) need to be preserved as an independent ethnic group, and more Jewish babies are good. Again, he really does make the argument that dog breeds exist because they are meaningful for dog breeders, and therefore the Jewish ethnic group exists because this is meaningful to Jews, regardless of genetics (that is, regardless of objective reality, or Truth, or anything measurable, verifiable, falsifiable—for the eternal solipsist, the collective sociopath, the toxically feminine, what matters most is how things seem to me). The world is conceived from a primitive, first-person perspective, and described thus. Miscegenation (subtext: between Jews and non-Jews) is bad (in this case, the genetic arguments are suddenly valid). National IQ, it turns out, is a useful concept, when making decisions regarding immigration policy.

We are living through an interesting time, when many of the shibboleths that dominated 20th century Jewish thought are being overturned, in the face of widespread and growing antisemitism. Anti-IQ discourse (along with trannyism, and perhaps the excesses of Antifa) is now unfashionable: Elite Human Capital and Judeochristianity are in. The real purpose of this piece, it seems to me, is to militate against Islamic immigration into the United States. Muslims are a pro-Palestinian, organised, anti-Jewish voting bloc, with a rapidly growing influence. Their population must therefore be suppressed—and hijacking the IQ discourse, while sloughing off its less desirable elements (‘White people deserve to exist’) is one way this new generation of enlightened intellectuals can pursue their goals.

I don’t think any of this is conscious, by the way. That is something Gentiles often fail to understand about members of the Jewish hivemind. He feels instinctively that muslim immigration needs to be reduced, because it is a threat, and has creatively applied his symbol system to generate a (self)convincing essay meant to appeal to both liberal Jewish and Gentile audiences.

To sum up: IQ differences are real, but it’s presumably all environmental, and if it does have a genetic element, that doesn’t mean racial groupings are real, because some white people are stupid, while some black people are not so stupid (although actually still pretty stupid)—and the whites who want the white race to continue to exist are stupidest of all—and ethnic groups do actually exist, but not for genetic reasons, but because we want them to, like dog breeds, which even though they change, and are all descended from the same dogs, are meaningful, because dog breeders like them, and so are Jews, whose claims to be descended from Abraham should be taken seriously, because they say they should be, and outbreeding is bad, because the genetic evidence tells us so, although we can’t follow that evidence to look into Jewish origins, obviously, and we should reduce immigration from populations with low national IQs, and with incompatible cultures—and the fact that these cultures and populations are those with the strongest anti-Jewish sentiments is, of course, like everything else in this article, coincidental, and has nothing to do with its actual purpose.

I summarise his essay with such inelegance because I am trying to impress upon the reader the true nature of Jewish thought. It really is this monumentally stupid. Dressed up in the confident polysyllables and elegant, sensible syllogisms of a good writer, it appears erudite, sophisticated, and thoroughly researched. But stripped down to its essence, we find only the asinine, manipulative, self-serving screed of the Pharisee.

Into the trash it goes.