The Sigma Enigma: Semitic Subversion and the Greatest Donald in History

Super-Man, Star-Man or Son of God? That’s the trilemma, the three possible ways to explain the greatest Donald in history. So which one was Don? I’m talking about Donald Bradman (1908-2001), the Australian über-batsman who dominated a major sport like no other athlete in history. His statistics are astonishing: in first-class cricket, he had a runs-average of 95.14, with 117 centuries in 338 innings and a highest score of 452. In international cricket, he had an even higher average of 99.94. “Wow” is not the word. Performances like those would have given him a .392 career batting average in baseball. Or a 1.5 goals-per-game average in soccer. Or made him between nine and twelve feet tall (2.7 to 3.7 meters) if his stats were represented as height.

Don the One: the Australian über-batsman Donald Bradman (image from Wikipedia)

Accordingly, Donald Bradman was most certainly not one in a million. No, he was one in billions, one in thousands of millions. And there aren’t billions of men who have played cricket at the highest level. One good way to understand how unique he was is through the bell curve, the famous bell-shaped graph in statistics that captures how the majority are middling and the maxxers – the best and the worst – are more and more infrequent. That’s in a normal distribution, which applies to runs in cricket just as it does to inches in height or scores in an IQ test. The bell curve has what’s called a standard deviation, a measure of how far an individual’s runs-average or height or IQ falls from the average or mean. The symbol for “standard deviation” is σ, the Greek letter sigma (in lower-case). In height or IQ, about 68% of people fall within one sigma of the mean; about 95% fall within two sigmas; and about 99.85% within three sigmas. So if you’re three sigmas above the mean, you’re taller or more intelligent than about 99.85% of people.

Bradman breaks the Bell Curve: Don Bradman doesn’t fit on the same graph as all other humans

Donald Bradman was up to six sigmas above the cricketing mean. That makes him, statistically speaking, a better run-scorer than 99.9999+% of other first-class cricketers. Factually speaking, it makes him better than all other first-class cricketers who have ever lived and possibly ever will live.[1] His closest-but-distant rival was the Indian maestro Vijay Merchant (1911–87), with a runs-average of nearly 72, followed by the Black Jamaican George Headley (1909–83), with nearly 70 and the Indian Ajay Sharma (born 1964) with nearly 68. Merchant, Headley and Sharma are all cricketing giants, but Bradman towers above them. They sit in the bell-curve; Bradman seems to sit out of the bell-curve, far, far to the right.[2] That makes him a sigma enigma, someone whose statistical deviation from the average defies rational explanation. And that’s where the trilemma comes in. Was Don Bradman simply a Super-Man, a unique and vastly superior member of the human race? Or was he a Star-Man, a visiting alien who, as a joke or secret signal, decided to astound Earthlings with his sporting prowess? Or was he the Son of God re-born, Christ as a cricketer performing miracles on grass as He once performed miracles on water or with loaves and fishes?

Master from the Multiverse?

Those are the three options I see. And in some ways, the first option is the least easy to accept. If Don Bradman was in fact human, how did he leap so far to the right of the bell-curve? Well, maybe Don the One proves the existence of the Multiverse. Or that cricket is the most popular game in the galaxy. Or that we do in fact live inside a giant simulation, not a real universe. If there are an infinite number of parallel universes and all possibilities are realized somewhere among them, cricketers like Bradman are inevitable, not anomalous. We just happen to inhabit the right universe in the multiverse. Or if there are billions of beings playing cricket in our galaxy, then again cricketers like Bradman would be inevitable. But they would appear anomalous on any planet that happened to host one of them. Or, finally, if we do indeed live inside a giant simulation, perhaps one of the programmers of the simulation inserted Bradman, again as a joke or secret signal.

Whatever the truth about Don Bradman, I think his skill with a cricket bat deserves much more investigation. He really was a sigma enigma, someone who should be much more famous than he already is. And maybe one day a billionaire cricket-fan will fund a Don-athon, a sustained program of research into the greatest Donald in history. What were Bradman’s genetics? Did some mutation or set of mutations give him superior eyesight or reflexes or ability to read the game? Did he hit upon a uniquely powerful form of training? And so on. But we can already know two of the things that certainly contributed to Bradman’s astonishing performances with a bat. First and most obviously, he was male. Men dominate sport for good physiological and evolutionary reasons. Second and most blasphemously, he was White. And Whites are the great all-rounders of the human race (all-rounder is a term from cricket referring to someone who’s good at both batting and bowling). Whites are masters of all positive fields of human endeavour. Yes, from sport to mathematics, from exploration to invention, from art to philosophy, Whites have produced giants like no other race. No other race can match that range of skills and supremacies. Blacks have produced lots of great athletes, but not lots of great thinkers. Jews have produced lots of great thinkers, but not lots of great athletes. And so on.

All other races cannot match White Michelangelo and White Beethoven (images from Wikipedia)

So although every race is good at something or even several things, no race is exceptional at everything except Whites. What other race has produced both a Donald Bradman and a Karl Friedrich Gauss, supreme sportsman and master mathematician? What other race has produced both a Beethoven and a Michelangelo? Both a Shakespeare and a Lindbergh? What other race has produced world-beating mountaineers and world-beating engineers, chefs, mixed martial-artists, gardeners, jugglers, hunters, submariners, clothes-designers and much, much more? And Whites aren’t just exceptional at aesthetics, Whites are exceptional as aesthetics. What other race has such a variety of hair-colors and eye-colors? (For more on the colors of Whiteness, see the work of the Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost). Whites are best both at creating beauty and at being beautiful. But that’s enough blasphemy, any leftist readers of my knuckle-dragging nonsense will be saying to zermselves by now. Yes, I’ve certainly just committed blasphemy by the standards of the modern West. I’ve adulated the White race rather than abominating it. Unlike the great Jewish thinker Susan Sontag, I haven’t surveyed the world and concluded that “the white race is the cancer of human history” (see “Susan Sontag’s Jewish World” at TOO).

Wrecking nations, slaughtering goyim

I don’t agree with Sontag, of course. But I don’t return the condemnation either. I don’t think Jews are the cancer of human history.[3] No, I think they’re the cuckoos of human history. They excel not at creation but at manipulation and subversion, at laying Semitic eggs in goyish nests. Or in goyish minds. Marxism was a Semitic egg laid in goyish minds. What hatched out was the horror of communism, which slaughtered goyim by the millions everywhere from Ukraine to China. In disguised form, Marxism is still slaughtering goyim in Ukraine, because the war in Ukraine represents the hatching of more Semitic eggs. They were laid by Jewish neo-conservatives like Robert Kagan and his ghoulish wife Victoria Nuland. As Kevin MacDonald has described, neo-conservatism is a mutation of Trotskyism just as Trotskyism is a mutation of Marxism. All three are heavily Jewish ideologies. Neo-conservatism and communism have wrecked nations and slaughtered goyim all over the world. Trotskyism would have done the same if its fanatical adherents had ever come to power as overt Trotskyists. Accordingly, in the positive field of nation-building, it’s Whites who reign supreme. But in the negative field of nation-wrecking, it’s Jews who reign supreme. And Jews like Benjamin Netanyahu have just about succeeded in wrecking what was once the great White nation of America.

“Have I Got Jews for You!” The unfunny Jews Zoe Lyons, Andy Zaltzman, Hugo Rifkind and Mark Steel (clockwise from top left)

That’s partly because Jews reign supreme in ethnocentrism too. And Jewish ethnocentrism was recently brought home to me in another startling statistical anomaly. By chance, I happened to hear the start of the News Quiz on BBC Radio 4. This comedy show used to be a favorite of mine, but I gave up on it long ago as the number of female and non-White participants rose ever higher and the standards of humor fell ever lower. This time, I decided to listen briefly to hear how many women and non-Whites were on the show. I then experienced a startling statistical anomaly. It wasn’t that there were two women among the five performers. No, it was that there were four Jews and one Algerian Muslim. In a still-majority White country, not a single White appeared on that episode of the News Quiz on a broadcaster founded by Whites and made famous by Whites. Instead, there was the unfunny Jew Andy Zaltzman as host overseeing the unfunny Jews Mark Steel, Zoe Lyons and Hugo Rifkind as panellists, with the unfunny Algerian Muslim Celya AB as makeweight. At least, I assume Celya AB is unfunny, because I switched the radio off as soon as I’d heard the line-up. I know Zaltzman, Steel, Lyons and Rifkind are unfunny, because they’re more or less Jew-biquitous in the British media and I’d seen or heard their dire attempts at comedy before.

Four Jews, One Ideology

But the statistical anomaly is even greater than it might appear. Zaltzman, Steel, Lyons and Rifkind aren’t simply Jewish but leftist Jews who are all firmly in favor of the Mud Flood, mass migration from the Third World.[4] In fact, Mark Steel is literally a Trotskyist and once a member of the rape-friendly Socialist Workers Party (SWP). So what are the odds that, chosen at random from those currently resident in Britain, the host and panellists of an episode of the BBC’s News Quiz would consist of four leftist Jews and a leftist Algerian Muslim? If people were chosen at random for the News Quiz, such a line-up would vanishingly unlikely. But they aren’t chosen at random, of course. Jewish ethnocentrism and Jewish networking are obviously at work. So is Jewish chutzpah. The four Jews in question are well aware that they’re beneficiaries of Jewish ethnocentrism in a way that they would condemn as utterly evil if Whites were ethnocentric in the same way. As I described at the Occidental Observer in 2014, a Jewish BBC commissar called Danny Cohen announced back then that “We’re not going to have panel shows on any more with no women on them. You can’t do that. It’s not acceptable.”

Kruddy Jewish Komedian David Baddiel (image from Wikipedia)

As I commented at the time, what Cohen really wanted was “fewer White men, though his diktat will not affect Jews like the repulsive David Baddiel.” Surely enough, the very unfunny David Baddiel is as Jew-biquitous in 2026 as he was in 2014. More women has meant fewer White men but not fewer Jews. Indeed, it’s sometimes meant even more Jews than Jews-ual, as on that episode of the News Quiz, with its four definitely unfunny Jews and one probably unfunny Algerian Muslim. Yes, I think comedy is another field where Whites have produced giants and Jews have produced dwarves-on-stilts, that is, grossly over-rated and over-promoted performers like Woody Allen.

To be fair, the Jewish comedienne Joan Rivers could be very funny and I thought Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 was a comedy classic when I last read it. But who are the Jewish equivalents of P.G. Wodehouse and Evelyn Waugh, whose writing was both hilarious and beautiful? I don’t think there are any Jewish equivalents. I also think both Wodehouse and Waugh were wicked in what they wrote about Jews. But that, as the White literary genius Rudyard Kipling famously said, “is another story.”[5]

1]  I can’t see Bradman’s stats being beaten unless cricketers become genetically enhanced.

[2]  Bradman is still in the bell-curve, but the right-hand tail has become invisible except at a ridiculously high resolution.

[3]  Well, maybe I do think that a bit. But only a bit.

[4]  Rifkind’s leftism has been no obstacle to his membership of the so-called Conservative party. His father is the surveillance-state maven and former Tory minister Malcolm Rifkin, whose Scottish first name belies his Semitic supremacism.

[5] After waxing lyrical about Don Bradman, I’m maybe wise to make this confession as a footnote: I enjoy the sport of cricket about as much as I enjoy the comedy of David Baddiel. But I still think Bradman was the greatest Donald in history, a sigma enigma who should be much more famous than he already is.