Black Squawks and Random Walks: Taking an Inebriated Excursion in Bullshit Space

Randomness is racist. And sexist too. How do we know this? Because the study of randomness in statistics and probability theory has been utterly dominated by White men. It was White men like the Italian Girolamo Cardano and the Frenchman Blaise Pascal who founded these fields when they studied the mathematics of dice and gambling in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was White men like the Englishman Thomas Bayes and the German Carl Friedrich Gauss who built on those foundations in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. And it was White men like the Englishman Karl Pearson and the Russian Andrey Kolmogorov who introduced sky-scraping new ideas and techniques in the twentieth century. From beginning to end, the study of randomness is rancid, rotten and reeking with stale pale maleness.

The Beautiful and the Bestial: the Bell Curve and the hate-book named after it (image from Wikipedia)

This is another example of what I’ve called the “Pale Male Paradox,” of “How White Men Achieve Most And Are Vilified Worst.” And one of great achievements of those stale pale probabilists was to show that randomness can produce regularity. And beauty too. Take the bell curve, the famous bell-shaped graph that captures the distribution of biological variables like height and intelligence. The bell curve is both regular and beautiful. And yet it grows out of randomness — out of the rolling of both real and genetic dice, for example. Imagine repeatedly rolling ten dice and counting how often you get a particular score. It’s obvious that there’s only one way to roll a score of 10 or 60 — all ten dice must roll 1 or 6 — but how many ways are there to roll scores of 30, 35 and 40? It’s 2930455, 4395456 and 2930455, respectively. You’re much more likely to get a middling score than an extreme score like 10 or 60. And there’s the same chance of getting a score of 30 or 40 (2930455 in 60466176 = 2930455 in 6¹⁰), just as there’s the same chance of getting a score of 10 or 60 (1 in 60466176). There’s symmetry in the scores and so there’s symmetry in the bell curve that you get by plotting the count of scores on a graph.

Races roll with different dice: the exceptional Jewish math-genius Grigori Perelman and the exceptional Black killer-athlete O.J. Simpson (images from Wikipedia)

The symmetrical bell curve applies to biological gambling too. Reproduction is like rolling genetic dice: a middling score on some trait like height or intelligence is much more likely that a very high score or very low score. Giants and dwarves, geniuses and morons, are much rarer than people of middling height or intelligence. But human beings don’t all roll with the same genetic dice, particularly when it comes to intelligence. In a sense, you could say that Blacks roll with octahedral gene-dice (eight sides), Whites roll with dodecahedral gene-dice (twelve sides) and Ashkenazi Jews roll with icosahedral gene-dice (twenty sides). With ten octahedral dice, the best possible score is 80; with ten dodecahedral dice, the best possible score is 120; and with ten icosahedral dice, the best possible score is 200. That metaphor helps us to understand a huge statistical anomaly: that single Jewish individuals like Grigori Perelman (born 1966) and Emmy Noether (1882-1935) have contributed more to mathematics than all Blacks who have ever lived. How can this be so when Blacks have always far outnumbered Jews? Well, it’s because the genetic dice have been loaded by evolution. One person rolling ten icosahedral dice will almost always get a better score that any of a million people each rolling ten octahedral dice (about 98% of the time, the one person will beat the million).

“Go ahead and drown, best buddy!”

These differences in racial gene-dice explain why, in theory, a child born to two Ashkenazi Jewish parents is far, far likelier to end up as a professor at Cambridge University on merit than a child born to two Ghanaian parents. And reality has confirmed theory: the Ashkenazi Jew Simon Baron-Cohen got to Cambridge on merit; the Ghanaian Jason Arday got to Cambridge on a mixture of DEI and fraud. The scandal of Arday’s fraud was broken by Nathan Cofnas, another Ashkenazi Jew who got to Cambridge on merit and was then thrown out for blasphemy (that is, for “racism”). During the scandal, Baron-Cohen has been one of Arday’s staunchest supporters. He claims to have been a friend of Arday, but I strongly disagree with that claim. Imagine that a friend of yours came to you and said that he was planning to swim the English Channel or the Catalina Channel. But you know that your friend can’t swim. Would you clap him on the shoulder and tell him to go ahead with his crazy plan?

Of course you wouldn’t. You’d know that your friend would be literally out of his depth and would drown. So you’d do your best to make him recognize his limitations and abandon his wildly over-ambitious swim. Simon Baron-Cohen knew that Jason Arday was metaphorically out of his depth at Cambridge. Arday’s low intelligence and lack of academic rigor were surely obvious to Baron-Cohen, because Baron-Cohen is both genuinely intelligent and a genuine scholar. He must have known that Arday was a pseudo-scholar even by the standards of a pseudo-subject like “the sociology of education.” And so Baron-Cohen knew that, sooner or later, there would be a storm about Arday’s pseudo-scholarship and Arday would drown. If Baron-Cohen had genuinely been a friend of Jason Arday and had genuinely cared about Arday’s welfare, he would have set about removing Arday from his post as discreetly and kindly as possible. Baron-Cohen knew that Arday wasn’t at Cambridge on merit and that the longer Arday stayed there, the worse the outcome would be for both Arday and Cambridge.

“Jews 4 Jason!”: highly intelligent Jolyon Maugham (left) and Simon Baron Cohen (right) were firm supporters of stupid Jason Arday (middle)

But maybe Simon Baron-Cohen wanted the worst possible outcome. The problems caused by Black criminality and incompetence have been a potent way for Jews to undermine White societies, because Jews have blamed Whites for Black failure. Whatever his real motives, Simon Baron-Cohen was certainly one of the truth-trashing leftists responsible for Jason Arday’s suicide. Baron-Cohen signed the ludicrous letter in support of Arday at the Good Law Project (GLP), a self-righteous and self-aggrandizing leftist organization run by the truth-trashing leftist Jolyon Maugham, who’s at least half-Jewish by ancestry, identifies as Jewish, and has a Jewish wife. The GLP letter said that “[e]ntirely false allegations of plagiarism” had been made against Arday and that its signatories stood “in unwavering solidarity with Professor Arday” against “persistent attempts to discredit exceptional Black academics.” When Simon Baron-Cohen and other academics signed that letter, Nathan Cofnas had already proved that Arday was guilty of extensive plagiarism and that Arday was an exceptional Blackademic bullshitter, not an “exceptional Black academic.” In short, the signatories had leapt before they’d looked. When the more sensible ones did look, they realized they’d made fools of themselves. That’s why the “unwavering solidarity” began to waver and the more sensible signatories began to quietly remove their names from the letter. In the end, Simon Baron-Cohen did that too.

Let’s Squawk

But Baron-Cohen has joined the synthetic squawks of outrage since Arday’s suicide. The mostly Black squawkers are trying to blame Arday’s death on a “racist witch-hunt.” There was a “vigil” in Arday’s honor in London on 17th August 2026, at which members of Britain’s Black elite addressed a mostly Black crowd of 15,000 people. But as you’d expect, it wasn’t truly a vigil. No, it was a hate-rally, with most of the hate directed at Nathan Cofnas, who rightly commented: “There is an anti-Cofnas hate rally in Trafalgar Square with ~15,000 attendees. If I were in London there is a real possibility that I would be murdered. 1000s of academics & journalists knew the truth about Jason Arday for more than a year. Now you know why no one said anything.” In fact, the White journalist Jack Grove had tried to expose Arday for Times Higher Education, but his newspaper was silenced by the threat of ruinous legal costs.

Arday also reported Grove to the police. If Arday and Cambridge University hadn’t tried to maintain a cover-up like that, Arday’s misbehavior would have been exposed in the specialist education media, not in the general media during the “silly season,” when journalists are eager for stories, especially absurd and amusing ones. It’s yet another example of how Arday engineered his own downfall. But the Black elite speakers and Black attendees at that hate-rally were not interested in the inconvenient reality of Arday’s self-defeating stupidity. Instead, they wanted to pursue narcissistic Black fantasy. That’s why they were so intent on honoring the Black fraudster Arday and condemning the Jewish truth-teller Cofnas. In short, the rally was more proof that Blacks do not belong in Western nations. As a group, Blacks are incapable of understanding concepts like objective truth, academic rigor and statistical proof, let alone of applying those concepts in politics and academe. Blacks at the rally were still insisting that Arday got to Cambridge entirely on merit and was outrageously deprived of his wholly deserved professorship by nothing but the malevolent forces of “white racism” and “white supremacy.”

Elite Black intellectual Weyman Bennett, who called Arday’s downfall a “racist witch-hunt” (image from Socialist Worker)

Well, the highly ethnocentric Jew Nathan Cofnas makes a very poor White supremacist. But the Black speakers at the rally make an excellent case-study for Cofnas’s claims about Black intellectual mediocrity. It was the Black elite in Britain saying those risible things about Arday — the intellectual and ethical crème de la crème of the Community! But that wasn’t surprising. As anyone who’s debated with Blacks online will know, they often fail to understand mathematical concepts as simple as per capita. Do you think a dunderhead like Diane Abbott, the veteran Black Member of Parliament, has any grasp of the bell curve and of how even small differences in means can have big effects at the extremes? That is, a small difference between group A and group B on the average of some trait like height or intelligence may mean that group A contains far more very tall or very intelligent people (while group B contains far more very short or very stupid people).

Blacks can’t understand “per capita,” let alone the bell curve (images from KnowYourMeme and IFunny (the second image jokes about Blacks failing to replace batteries in fire-alarms too))

But the average intelligence of Whites and Blacks differs by a lot, not by a little. That’s why the Black squawks about the “under-representation” of Blacks in academe are so wrong and so ignorant. As the Jason Arday scandal has helped demonstrate yet again, Blacks are over-represented in academe, not under-represented. For example, I don’t believe that merit explains the honors showered on the Black academics Simon Woolley, Ijeoma Uchegbu, and Sonita Alleyne. They all hold prestigious posts at Cambridge and they all stood “in unwavering solidarity” with Jason Arday via the letter at the Good Law Project. Two of them, Uchegbu and Alleyne, then silently removed their names. Uchegbu was first to do that, perhaps because she’s by far the most intelligent of the three. She’s a “nano-scientist” and the President of Wolfson College at Cambridge. Far more White men had greater claim to the presidency than she did, but she had the trump hand of being B.F.U.: Black and Female.

The mediocre Blackademic Ijeoma Uchegbu, who holds the highly prestigious Presidency of Wolfson College (image from Wikipedia)

As part of their war on biological reality and objective merit, leftists favor Blacks over Whites, women over men, and the ugly over the attractive. But it’s ugliness and abnormality that most attract leftists, which is why they favor the ugly male perverts known as “transwomen” over real women. The Black woman Ijeoma Uchegbu would have appealed to them even more as a Black transwoman. Uchegbu is a genuine scientist so I’m sure she can understand one of the most famous concepts in probability, that of the random walk through n-dimensional space. It’s also known as a drunkard’s walk, after the way a drunkard lurches, spins and totters to and fro, seemingly at random. But Uchegbu would hate to see the concept of a random or drunkard’s walk applied as a metaphor to the pseudo-scholarship of Jason Arday. Nevertheless, it applies very neatly.

The puddle is the paradigm

Or rather, it doesn’t apply, because Arday’s stupidity and laziness meant that he didn’t take the random walk that he should have done. In Uchegbu’s field of nano-technology, researchers aren’t taking random walks through three-dimensional space. No, they’re taking walks that are constrained by physics, chemistry, empiricism and applied mathematics. But in Jason Arday’s field of sociology, you could say that “researchers” are taking drunkard’s walks through bullshit space. As long as they arrive at the right conclusions — that Whites are evil, Blacks are oppressed — it doesn’t matter how they get there. They just take a drunkard’s walk through the bullshit space of sociological jargon and Critical Race Theory, clutching wildly at lamp-posts, falling over bins and street furniture, rolling down stairs, bouncing off walls, then finally collapsing in a puddle of their own vomit and urine. The puddle is the paradigm: Whites are evil, Blacks are oppressed.

I looked at Critical Race Theory or CRT when I discussed “Rollock’s Bollocks,” that is, the nonsense talked by Nicola Rollock, another Blackademic pseudo-scholar or BPS. But the difference between the BPS Nicola Rollock and the BPS Jason Arday is that Nicola hasn’t been lazy in her pseudo-scholarship. Whenever she has recorded a drunkard’s walk through bullshit space, she has actually undertaken the walk for herself. Here’s a small sample of how she undertook such a walk in a paper called “The Invisibility of race: Intersectional reflections on the liminal space of alterity” (brace yourself, folx):

I make use of the Critical Race Theory tool of chronicling (counter-narrative) to help demonstrate the complex, multifaceted and often contradictory ways in which ambitions for race equality often represent lofty organisational ideals within which genuine understanding of racism is lacking. […] Drawing on Wynter’s (1992) theorisation of the concept of marginality, Ladson-Billings and Donnor 2008, 373) posit that racialised others occupy a ‘liminal space of alterity’ that is, a position at the edges of society from which their identities and experiences are constructed. They remain at the margins through acts and frequent reminders from dominant groups that regardless of achievement, qualification or status they are locked in ‘the power dynamic and hierarchical racial structures’ that serve to maintain unequal order in society (Ladson-Billings and Donnor 2008, 372).

Yet Wynter (1992) insists that rather than regarding this space as a site of dismal subjugation, those excluded from the centre can experience a certain profound analytical insight that is ‘beyond the normative boundary of the conception of Self/Other’ (Ladson-Billings and Donnor 2008, 373). In other words, it is precisely from this position in the margins that racialised others are able to acquire not simply an ‘oppositional world-view’ (hooks 1990, 149) but what might be understood as a unique surround vision that is able to recognise and deconstruct the multifaceted contours of Whiteness and therefore advance the broader objectives of the racial justice project. Such an all-encompassing analytic perspective is particularly important to challenge and move beyond the not seeing nature of Whiteness that works to perpetuate a racially inequitable status quo: “One of the most powerful and dangerous aspects of whiteness is that many (possibly the majority) of white people have no awareness of whiteness as a construction, let alone their own role in sustaining and playing out the inequities at the heart of whiteness.” (Gillborn 2005, 9) [etc, etc, ad nauseam nigrolatriae] (“The Invisibility of race: Intersectional reflections on the liminal space of alterity,” as published in the “Special issue: Critical race theory in England” of Race, Ethnicity & Education, 15 [1], pp 65-84)

That is a drunkard’s walk through bullshit space. And Rollock and her fellow Blackademic pseudo-scholars are indeed drunk. They’re drunk on CRT, self-righteousness, Black grievance, and self-worshiping Afrocentric fantasy. But note that whenever Nicola Rollock has spun around a lamp-post or fallen over a bin, she’s been careful to note its location by citing the previous pseudo-scholar who put it there. Accordingly, that record of her drunkard’s walk is trustworthy as a record: it really was her feets, and nobody else’s, that did the walking. You could say that Rollock is a genuine pseudo-scholar. Her academic work is worthless, but it is her own work and it carefully mimics real scholarship in its citations and so on.

Arday’s exposure was inevitable

But Jason Arday was fake even in his pseudo-scholarship. Rather than chug a gallon of CRT and record his own drunkard’s walk through bullshit space, he copied someone else’s drunkard’s walk through bullshit space. And that was fatal. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, it’s almost certain that no-one, including Arday himself, actually read Arday’s PhD thesis after he’d completed it and put it forward for examination. After all, there’s a rogue apostrophe even in the title of that thesis: “An exploration of peer-mentoring among student teachers’ to inform reflective practice within the context of action research.” In the cargo-cults of sociology and CRT, the point is to mimic genuine scholarship, not to perform it. But Arday was too stupid and lazy even to mimic genuine scholarship. If he’d performed and recorded a drunkard’s walk through bullshit space entirely for himself, no-one could have challenged his thesis for plagiarism. But he didn’t: he tried to claim for himself someone else’s drunkard’s walk through bullshit space.

So he was always doomed to fall when a genuine scholar with moral courage came along and ran his thesis through plagiarism software. The Ashkenazi Jew Simon Baron-Cohen must have known that, sooner or later, Arday would be exposed as a fraud. But he did nothing to prepare Arday for the inevitable and persuade Arday out of academe for Arday’s own good. The irony is that it was another Ashkenazi Jew, Nathan Cofnas, who proved to be Arday’s nemesis as a genuine, albeit ethnocentric, scholar with moral courage. The Ashkenazi Jew Simon Baron-Cohen, on the other hand, is a genuine scholar without moral courage. Or rather, Baron-Cohen’s morality tells him that Blackademic bullshitters like Jason Arday are good for Jews, whereas Cofnas’s morality tells him that they’re bad for Jews. That’s why Baron-Cohen supported Arday and Cofnas exposed him. This might look like two Jews with two opposing opinions. In fact, it’s two Jews with one opinion: “We must do what’s best for Jews.” Baron-Cohen and Cofnas disagree only about how to achieve that all-important end. Like a debate in the Knesset.