Featured Articles

The Fall of Cambridge University’s DEI Professor Confirms Every “Racist Stereotype” His Appointment Tried to Refute

In 2023, to much fanfare and delight, 37-year-old Jason Arday was appointed Professor of the Sociology of Education at Cambridge University. The Woke fanfare occurred because Arday was Black and he seemed to embody disproof of all the evidence of low average IQ and high anti-social personality and mental illness among Blacks. More than merely Black, he was, so he said, diagnosed with autism when he was three, couldn’t speak until he was 11, couldn’t write until he was 18, ran 30 marathons in 35 days while doing his PhD full time, overcame a brain tumour and a stroke while doing so, raised millions of pounds for charity, and did aid work in developing countries.

Arday was exactly what Wokeness needed to provide; a Black man that could be academically brilliant if only the environmental conditions were right . . . except it was all a lie.

If anything, Jason Arday has confirmed every empirically accurate stereotype about Black people and, in so doing, has left Cambridge University and some very high profile academics who leapt to defend him, such as psychologist Prof. Sir Simon Baron-Cohen who insisted people stop interrogating him because Arday is “autistic,” besmirched and humiliated. How can one trust the integrity of Cambridge University which, at the point of writing, continues to defend Arday?

Already, in 2025, there was an investigation by Arday’s alma mater, the Community College-level Liverpool John Moores University, into whether Arday had plagiarised parts of his PhD thesis. He was cleared, but it seems fairly obvious that he was cleared because he was Black and high profile and the academics involved were Woke. In July, “race realist” philosopher Nathan Cofnas, who had been fired by Cambridge University for his “racist” research, proved, using plagiarism detection software, that Arday had stolen over 100 pages in his 2015 thesis from a Brunel University thesis that was passed in 2009 . . . and then the entire “Emperor Has No Clothes” farce, about which the Woke Establishment had been in denial to the extent of covering it up, fell apart at breakneck speed.

Arday’s thesis was nothing more than Woke word salad, with a punctuation error in its title. He had plagiarised quotes from the trainee teachers whom he had supposedly interviewed as part of his thesis. The same fraud had been committed in various papers he had published in academic journals. This future brilliant Cambridge professor had had serious trouble getting articles published in academic journals — via anonymous peer-review, such that his first academic publication was 3 years after he got his PhD. In addition, Arday was a complete Walter Mitty. He had been a high-level footballer aged 10, before he could speak, apparently. Arday had managed to pass GCSEs (school-leaving qualifications) supposedly before he could write. He’d attained a top degree in Sports Education only a few years after he’d learnt to write . . .

Arday employed the services of a notorious libel lawyers to intimidate people and even released the police on a Times journalist, accusing him of harassment, but the dam had broken. There was no evidence that Arday had run the marathons he’d claimed to have run while doing his PhD, which, anyway, meant he wouldn’t have slept, and he claimed to have been seriously injured while running them. Arday’s claim that he was sent a pig’s head as a racist gesture was disputed by the police and the local butcher from whom it was supposedly obtained. Arday claimed to have been part of a TV program called Seven Up, which followed people throughout their lives, but this began in 1964 and Arday was only born in 1985. Various universities where he claimed to be a “Visiting Professor” or “Honorary Professor” — Glasgow, Durham, Ohio State — all chimed in to assert that this was untrue. Arday hadn’t raised millions for charity at all, at least not solo, and he hadn’t done relief work abroad, according to the charity cited.

The Good Law Project set up an open letter in which various Woke types claimed that Arday was being targeted because of his race, held to higher standards than most academics, and that this pile on had to stop. Sir Simon Baron-Cohen intervened to manipulatively state how damaging this media coverage was to a fragile, autistic man. As we all know, leftists, but not conservatives, engage in a competence shift, using simpler language when they talk to Black people, betraying what they truly believe. This avuncular attitude embodies the deceit behind the case of Jason Arday. He confirms key racial stereotypes about Blacks.

Cofnas clearly can’t wrap his head around the possibility that an intelligent liberal-left Jew would support a low-IQ Black plagiarist. Hmmm

Firstly, Arday is not very intelligent, hence obtaining his degree in Education, whose graduates have the lowest IQs according to studies, and only ever attending universities that aren’t very good: St Mary’s, Twickenham, cannot even validate its own degrees; this is done by the University of Surrey and Liverpool John Moores (rather than Liverpool University). The fact that he had to plagiarise others’ writings extensively and had tremendous trouble getting journal articles published only underscores this point. The Woke have leapt upon him as the cleverest of Black men — deserving a Cambridge Professorship — and he likely only has an IQ of about 110, if that. And he’s the best? That is what Woke academics seem to realise deep down. The intelligence stereotype seems to be confirmed.

As for personality, Richard Lynn published a book, shortly before he died, entitled Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality. There are consistent race differences in this regard, with Blacks being more psychopathic than Whites. One of the symptoms of psychopathic personality is lying. Jason Arday is clearly a liar and a fraud. Worse than this, he is a pathological liar. He seems to impulsively tell quite ridiculous lies, such as having been on Seven Up, which began in 1964. Impulsive lying is associated with poor impulse control, another marker of psychopathic personality, but also with dissociation (switching off from reality) and psychosis, the core symptom of schizophrenia. This condition is notoriously elevated among Blacks. Mythomania is also associated with Narcissism — grandiose fantasies of importance, and entitlement — which crosses over with psychopathy as part of the “Dark Triad” of personality disorders.

So, what has actually happened here? A relatively stereotypical Black man — implicitly not very bright and high in psychopathy and possibly traits related to schizophrenia — has, via being a fantasist and a fraud, blagged his way into academia. For all we know, the “autism” diagnosis is nonsense and is a way of victim-signalling, something that Dark Triad people often do in order to elicit sympathy. Arday is then leapt upon by Woke scholars, as he is everything they could possibly want: he’s Black, he’s struggled so much, he’s academic and he researches Woke topics such as the nature of “whiteness.” They are taken in by him, enamoured by him as you would be by a successful conman, so they overlook the obvious problems — implausible stories, appalling scholarship — and make him their King.

And then, when it all falls apart, they realise what has happened, and they descend into denial and insist that he’s somehow both King and a fragile little peasant girl at the same time. It reminds me of the presidency of Joe Biden — he’s both a brilliant president and a forgetful old man, depending on the circumstances. Making the clearly senile Biden president was elder abuse by his backers and it went to Biden’s head, meaning he tried to run for a second term. Making Arday an academic at all was the abuse of a not very bright, slightly Dark Triad Black man, and it went to Arday’s head, as he realised how much he could take at advantage.

Becoming a Cambridge Professor, he flew to close to the sun. He was duly revealed not to confound “harmful, racist stereotypes,” but to be a data point in their favour.

What’s happening in Ireland

Two Irish MSM radio shows mentioned possible Israeli involvement in sending 60k Africans to swarm into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta the other day. (Newstalk and RTE). All but 1.5k have already been remigrated. Maybe a hundred “refugees” dead — drowning and stampedes — but oddly, none of the refugee lovers seem to be very concerned about that.
Conspiracy goes mainstream.
Apparently, the US Congress has recently recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Spanish enclaves. Yair Netanyahu was tweeting in 2019 about encouraging Muslims to take over Spanish enclaves in Morocco.The Spanish left hate Trump, obviously. But the Spanish right won’t be happy that he is winding up the Muslims to take over territory the Spanish have held since the 1600s.
Went to a “Future of Ireland” conference in Roscommon today, organised by migration critical Gript.ie. It was kept very low key — almost zero publicity on the web.
Good crowd, good atmosphere, zero pro-refugee protestors trying to disrupt it — although disruption was threatened. Two national parliament boys were there and a couple of councillors. A couple of professors also. Three priests. Following the no-problem National party conference a few weeks back, it seems Remigration is going mainstream.
Not many digs at the Israelis from the stage. David Quinn, who self describes as one of only 50 well known pro-Zionists in Ireland, managed to drag Gaza into the debate. But at least he refrained from actually praising the Israelis.
There was a comedy show starting as I left. The first song seemed to have a Hitler theme. Are we reaching a free speech singularity? Bitching about immigration and Adolf-themed comedy on the same day and no pushback.
Two people of whom I am somewhat suspicious asked me the exact same question: Did you hear anything new?
Feedback for their handlers…
It’s true that a lot of it was general bitching about the state of the nation and there was some material presented in a demoralising way: One guy made a point of saying “The fighting Irish are gone”. Obvious nonsense: there are thousands of micro aggressions — Irish on foreigner — every day. I had to chastise an Arab for leaving his car engine running and lights on when he went into the shop. I am slighly disappopinted I didn’t insist.
Commentator Aldo showed more detrmination when he and the wife went into trad Dublin chipper Beshoffs.

A few moments later, a young black fellow came up the stairs, sat directly behind us and immediately started roaring into his phone in some incomprehensible tongue.

Not one to shy away, I turned around and told him to shut the fuck up; that he was in a public area and that nobody wanted to listen to his him talking sh1te. He took umbrage at this and started roaring at me, saying I was a racist and that he would call the Gardaí. I told him that I am a racist and that he should go ahead and call the Guards.

At this point, a staff member came bumbling over, pleading with the African man to stop roaring. I explained to the (foreign) staff member that we had paid over €30 for food and didn’t appreciate having to endure listening to some gobshite who doesn’t know how to conduct himself in a public place.

The African became even more aggressive, coming into my personal space. I warned him not to touch me. He left shortly after in a right state. A solid victory for myself I would say.

The lesson I’d like people to learn from this minor altercation is that there is a duty and onus on Irish people to stand up to foreign retards who act in this way. Not only is it a civic duty, but it’s also very enjoyable.

Every second day I find myself admonishing some foreign idiot on public transport for speaking too loudly on the phone or blaring music. I personally very much enjoy barging into them when they’re blocking the footpath on my to work.

These are small acts, but they send a clear message.

Beir Bua

Laura Loomer Flip Flops on Zelensky, Blood Proves Thicker Than Ideology

Jewish provocateur Laura Loomer flew into Kyiv in July 2026 carrying years of public contempt for Ukraine, and she left sounding like a different woman. The MAGA activist had spent years telling nearly two million followers that Ukraine’s army was riddled with Nazis, and she once called Volodymyr Zelensky a self-hating Nazi Jew. After a kosher dinner with Chief Rabbi Moshe Azman, she had a change of heart. “I admit, I fell for Russian propaganda,” she wrote. What startled her was not the war but the antisemitism legislation on the books.

“Upon visiting Ukraine, I learned that Ukraine actually has stronger anti-Semitism laws than the US and it’s illegal in Ukraine to own Nazi relics,” Loomer wrote, noting that a person can be jailed there for promoting Third Reich material. She drew the conclusion in plain language. “That means Ukraine has stronger anti-Semitism laws than the United States!” In a second post she added, “Russian propaganda is real. Nazism is literally illegal in Ukraine. I didn’t know this till I came here.”

Loomer was careful about what she was not saying. Facing Zelensky in a filmed interview, she tempered her own praise of Ukraine’s antisemitism laws. “We don’t have laws in the United States that ban antisemitism, and I’m not advocating for that. We have the First Amendment.” Zelensky pointed her to the record anyway. “It’s illegal, antisemitism. We did it during my presidency,” he told her.

The Ukrainian President was describing two statutes built five years apart. The first moved through parliament in September 2021. The Verkhovna Rada passed Law No. 5109, “On Prevention and Counteraction to Antisemitism in Ukraine,” on September 22, 2021, by 283 votes—comfortably clearing the 226-vote threshold. Zelensky later signed it into law.

The law defines antisemitism as hatred of Jews. It bans Holocaust denial, calls to kill or harm Jews, false and hateful statements about Jews, desecration of Jewish graves and property, and public claims holding Jews collectively responsible for real or imagined offenses. It attached civil and administrative liability to those acts and gave victims a right to sue for material and moral damages. What it did not do was create criminal penalties.

Closing that legislative gap took four years and a war. A companion bill, No. 5110, amended Article 161 of the Criminal Code to attach explicit criminal penalties to antisemitic acts. The Rada approved it on February 15, 2022, and sent it to the president on February 21—three days before Russia launched its full-scale invasion. It sat unsigned for four years until April 14, 2026, when Zelensky signed it on Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day. The law now provides for fines, restriction of liberty for up to 5 years, or imprisonment for up to 3 years for basic antisemitic acts, rising to 2 to 5 years for acts involving violence or committed by officials, and 5 to 8 years for organized groups or cases causing grave consequences. restart

Both bills carry one name above the rest. Servant of the People deputy Maksym Buzhansky—of Jewish extraction—authored them, drew more than 40 fellow deputies from the party as additional supporters, and carried them through on the votes of Zelensky’s own faction. Buzhansky told Interfax Ukraine the criminal amendment was needed because courts had not reliably treated antisemitic conduct as such, and because Brussels was watching. “So, in terms of combating antisemitism, we have everything in place and everything is fine, just like other European countries,” he said, arguing Ukraine already satisfies what EU accession will demand.

Ukraine’s Jewish institutions supplied the push from outside parliament. Jewish Confederation of Ukraine president Boris Lozhkin wrote that the 2021 law “brought Ukraine closer to Europe and the civilized world,” explaining that the JCU had long conducted joint monitoring of antisemitic incidents with the Interior Ministry but that “the legal component was missing”—a real tool for combating the phenomenon.

Israeli officials weighed in publicly. World Zionist Organization chairman Yaakov Hagoel praised the 2021 vote, saying “I commend the Ukrainian parliament on the precedent-setting step. This is an important milestone in the long international struggle” against antisemitism and expressing hope that Zelensky would sign it and make it “a model for parliaments around the world.” Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar welcomed the 2026 criminal amendment as “an important step in the fight against hate crimes, particularly Antisemitism.”

Zelensky’s biography sits underneath all of it. He is Jewish and has spoken of relatives lost during World War II. He timed the 2026 signature to Yom HaShoah—Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day. Chief Rabbi Moshe Azman read the message as intended. “This is an important and timely step. Ukraine is sending a clear message: hatred, discrimination and incitement to violence have no place in Ukrainian society and never will,” he posted on X.

The legislative developments in Ukraine reveal how this Slavic polity is quickly being turned into a sanctuary for international Jewish power networks. As the conflict with Russia grinds on, resulting in a likely pyrrhic victory for Moscow, the stage is set for a massive consolidation of Jewish influence in Ukraine. Jewish oligarchs and international figures like Larry Fink are uniquely positioned to leverage their connections, effectively claiming sectors of the remaining Ukrainian state to ensure their interests are secured at the expense of gentile Ukrainians.

With respect to Loomer, her pivot ultimately serves as a microcosm of a much larger realignment. Her newfound sympathy for Zelensky, despite her previous skepticism toward Ukraine, confirms that blood is indeed thicker than water. It demonstrates the immutable reality that Jewish solidarity transcends individual ideological affiliations, especially when the established Jewish power systems of the Collective West are engaged in an existential struggle against Eurasian powers such as Iran and Russia to preserve the current global order.

In the end, Loomer’s about-face on Ukraine merely makes her a latecomer to a consensus already established by the international Jewish community. Her sudden conversion underscores how individual political posturing inevitably bends when it comes time to fall into step with broader tribal imperatives.

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to his “Substack” newsletter by visiting “José Niño Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

Blatant Blackademic Bullshit: Cofnas on a Cluster-Cuck at Cambridge

The Jewish philosopher Nathan Cofnas has got it badly wrong. Very badly wrong. At his newsletter, he’s made this claim: “There are more than a thousand black people in the UK with IQs over 140 who would be capable of doing serious work in the sociology of education.” That’s woefully, world-historically off-target. C’mon, Cozza, you’ve cocked up big-time. There is no way on earth there are “more than a thousand black people” like that in the UK. IQs over 140? You cannot be serious. It is overwhelmingly probable that there are no Blacks at all “in the UK with IQs over 140 who would be capable” of that.

“We are so lucky to have you!” A White leftist fawns over Blatant Blackademic Bullshitter Jason Arday

The clue’s in the qualification: “IQs over 140.” For heaven’s sake, who with an IQ over 140 could endure working in a field like “sociology of education”? I don’t think any genuinely intelligent person, Black or White, would be capable of putting up with the boredom. It would be like the White master Magnus Carlsen, highest-rated chess-player in history, devoting the rest of his life to playing checkers with six-year-olds. Or it would be like Conan the Barbarian abandoning war, women and wine to grow geraniums and battle greenfly in a sleepy village in deepest Aquilonia.

Jason and the Arday-nauts

If you’ve got an exceptional intellect, you don’t choose to wield it in an exceptionally undemanding subject like sociology of education. And that applies double or triple or quadruple to those very rare Blacks with exceptional intellects, who can have their pick of prize positions in any Western country where they speak the language. As Steve Sailer has often pointed out, the demand for big-brained Blacks far exceeds the supply. That’s why minority-worshiping leftists have found it much easier to manufacture big-brained Blacks than source them from the wild. That’s certainly true of Jason Arday, the superstar Black academic who prompted Cofnas’s rebukable remark about high-IQ Blacks and sociology of education.

Jason and the Arday-nauts: celebrating a sub-Saharan pseudo-scholar and his far-fetched fabulism

Yes, Arday has certainly been a superstar. But only in the eyes of deluded and dishonest leftists in academia and the media. In cold reality, he’s far better described as a lackademic Blackademic. He lacks intelligence and ability, being a black dwarf rather than a cognitive supernova. He owes his dazzling success in academia and his fawning coverage in the media to the color of his skin, not the quality of his research. It’s his Blackness, not his brain, that explains how he’s run up the rungs of the academic ladder like a steeplejack on speed. Cofnas describes how, after a PhD at Liverpool John Moores University, Arday went from being a “senior lecturer at Roehampton (2018) to associate professor at Durham (2019) to professor at Glasgow (2021).” Ivy League universities in America chased him — “the demand for big-brained Blacks far exceeds the supply” — but Arday wanted the ultimate Anglocentric accolade of a post at Oxbridge (as Oxford and Cambridge Universities are jointly known). And he achieved the ultimate: “In 2023, at age 37, he became the youngest black full professor in the history of Cambridge.” So said Nathan Cofnas.

I say this: Arday’s academic ascent has been a cluster-cuck. White leftists have clustered in collaboration and competition to heap Arday with undeserved praise and promote him further and further beyond his merits. In an academic sense, they’ve cuckolded themselves. In a metaphorical sense, they’ve crammed a cuckoo with juicy caterpillars. And in a mythological sense, Arday has soared like an academic Icarus, higher and higher into the sociological sky. But now, thanks to Cofnas, the sun of scrutiny has emerged from behind a cloud and is blazing on his brave Black wings. The wax is melting; the feathers are loosening; Arday will soon plummet to earth. At least, he will plummet if objective academic standards manage to prevail. Cofnas has provided overwhelming evidence that Arday is guilty of serious and prolonged plagiarism. Cofnas very convincingly argues that, absent the plagiarism, “there is little or no real scholarship” in Arday’s work. But Cofnas has declined to pass judgment on Arday’s alleged athletic feats. He doesn’t need to pass judgment: they speak for themselves. And they say: “Bullshit!” Arday claims to have run “30 marathons in 35 days and 300 miles in three days.”

Fear of a Black Pundit

No way, José. It appears that Arday isn’t just an energetic plagiarist but a dedicated fabulist too. It also appears that he’s never bothered to employ cunning or concealment in his plagiarism and fabulism. No, his dishonesty and deceit have always been glaringly obvious. That’s what makes the Arday saga both hugely hilarious and highly damning. It’s hilarious that such a blatant Blackademic bullshitter could fool so many leftists and soar so successfully into the academic empyrean. At the same time, it’s highly damning of leftism and of the way leftists lower standards to promote their pets. For decades, leftists have willfully corrupted academia to promote undeserving non-Whites. Not all leftists were fooled by Arday’s blackademic bullshit, which appears to have long been an open secret at Cambridge. Cofnas points out that there’s a simple explanation of “why the administration has been able to bury the story for three years.” And what does explain it? Simply this: fear. Well-justified fear. Serious academics at Cambridge — and there are some even in a pseudo-subject like sociology — did not want to be accused of racism and have their reputations wrecked and their careers canceled. Harsh words from even a single Black pundit would have been enough. But there would have been a massed chorus of Black pundits, not a single sub-Saharan squawk.

Fist of Fatuity: Jason’s Arday-naut Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, another Black Activist and Blatant Blackademic Bullshitter (image from Twitter)

Those silent academics lacked moral courage but not social insight. They were right to foresee that loud accusations of racism would greet any criticism of Arday, no matter how well-founded and how carefully worded. Now that the dam has burst on Arday’s bullshit, his supporters are, sure enough, accusing Cofnas and company of “racism.” Not to mention “hostility, misrepresentation, and disproportionate scrutiny” against, and “sustained and malicious attacks” on, a “distinguished Black academic.”  Yes, there’s more hilarity in a self-righteous petition at the self-aggrandizing Good Law Project. But the petition isn’t just self-righteous. It’s also self-defeating. Indeed, I’m hoping it will be self-annihilating. As a hostile and malicious racist myself, I am delighted to see so many prominent Blacktivists put their names to a petition that is going to bite them on the bum big-time. “Stand in solidarity with Jason Arday!” they cry. They then proceed, in the finest traditions of both Blacktivism and sociology, to deny obvious reality, peddle arrant nonsense, and reveal their utter lack of objectivity. The ideological bias and ethnocentrism on display are breath-taking:

Stand in solidarity with Jason Arday

Jason is the youngest Black professor in Cambridge’s history. Rightwing newspapers are trying to smear him with fake accusations of plagiarism. We can’t let them. Stand up to their hate and division by adding your name.

We, the undersigned, are appalled by the sustained and malicious attacks on the academic integrity of Professor Jason Arday.

Entirely false allegations of plagiarism were made against Professor Arday and referred to two universities. Investigations have found no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The relevant academic journals also found no basis for the claims.

Yet despite these unequivocal findings, rightwing media have attempted to smear Professor Arday’s reputation and undermine his career. That should concern everyone who believes in academic freedom, fairness and due process.

It is difficult to ignore the question of motivation. When a distinguished Black academic is repeatedly subjected to baseless allegations after being fully exonerated, it signals there is an attempt to undermine Black people who hold positions of influence.

Professor Arday, a working class Black man, became the youngest Black professor in the University of Cambridge’s history. His remarkable journey, scholarship and leadership should be celebrated, not overshadowed by campaigns built on allegations that have been comprehensively rejected.

Professor Arday has contributed to public life for many years, building a distinguished record of charitable and community service. This latest smear campaign and the spread of misinformation are deeply alarming — not only because of the impact on one individual, but because of the message they send to aspiring Black and Brown young people who seek to attain positions of leadership.

The demonisation of Professor Arday, and recently on Misan Harriman [condemned for negative comments about Jewish billionaires and Israel deemed anti-Semitic by Campaign Against Anti-Semitism], risks creating a chilling effect, signalling that success and public service may be met with hostility, misrepresentation, and disproportionate scrutiny.

We stand in unwavering solidarity with Professor Arday. We call on universities not only to defend academic freedom and robust scholarship, but also to confront racism wherever it manifests itself, whether overtly or through persistent attempts to discredit exceptional Black academics.

There can be no place in higher education for campaigns that weaponise baseless accusations to damage reputations and careers. Universities must ensure that excellence is protected and that every scholar is judged on the merit of their work, not the colour of their skin.

The undersigned

Lord Simon Woolley, Principal, Homerton College, University of Cambridge

Professor Dame Ijeoma Uchegbu, President, Wolfson College, University of Cambridge

Sonita Alleyne, Master, Jesus College, University of Cambridge

Professor Kehinde Andrews

Misan Harriman, Entrepreneur and Photographer

Daniel Kebede, General Secretary, NEU union

Professor Sir Patrick Vernon

Rt Hon Lord Paul Boateng

Timi Okuwa, CEO, Black Equity Organisation

Rt Hon John McDonnell, MP

Professor Sir Simon Baron-Cohen, University of Cambridge

Ricardo Sabates Aysa, Professor of Education and International Development, University of Cambridge

Nels Abbey, author and broadcaster

Zack Polanski, Leader, Green Party of England and Wales

Bell Riberio-Addy, MP

Clive Lewis, MP

Professor Robert Beckford

Lord Sir Michael Hastings, Chair, SOAS University

Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu

Kojo Kyerewa, Black Lives Matter UK National Organiser

Michelle Gayle, actor and singer

Nadia Whittome, MP

Mothin Ali, Deputy Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales

Lord Marvin Rees

Professor Matt Houlbrook, Professor of Cultural History, University of Birmingham

Matthew Johnson, CEO, Race on the Agenda

Dr Halima Begum, charity leader

Jacqueline McKenzie, lawyer

Jolyon Maugham, lawyer

Lester Holloway, Columnist, The Voice newspaper

Apsana Begum, MP

Zita Holbourne, Chair, BARAC UK, campaigner

Hamza Egal, Chair; Global Majority Greens

Kimberley McIntosh, author

Dal Babu, OBE Dal Babu, Ex Chief Superintendent Metropolitan Police

Sir Clive Jones, CBE

Colin Salmon, actor (The pro-Arday petition at the Good Law Project, posted late July 2026)

The petition is an excellent example not just of leftist stupidity and self-righteousness, but also of leftist logolatry (Greek logos, “word,” + latreia, “worship”). The petitioners plainly believe that saying a thing makes it so. Indeed, I think the petition is also an excellent example of how leftism is better described as a mental illness than as a political ideology. The petition makes claims that are not only untrue but can be easily shown to be untrue. When King Canute commanded the tide to retreat, he knew he was talking nonsense, because he was demonstrating that fate and the forces of nature are controlled by God, not by mortal kings. But the pro-Arday petitioners are commanding the tide of scrutiny to retreat and genuinely believing that it will do so. Jason Arday is not a “distinguished Black academic” and he is not facing “fake accusations of plagiarism” and “baseless allegations after being fully exonerated.” On the contrary: Arday is a grossly over-promoted Blackademic bullshitter of mediocre intellect who is facing very well-founded accusations that will, if there is any justice and objectivity left in British academia, result not in his “exoneration” but in his exposure as a serial plagiarist and fabulist. And in his expulsion from academic life. No-one who reads Cofnas’s analysis could be in any doubt that Arday has a serious case to answer and that there is overwhelming evidence of his guilt.

Blacks jubilant, Whites downcast: the acquittal of O.J. Simpson in 1995 (image from AtlantaBlackStar)

But the petitioners have blithely yoked their own reputations to Arday’s. If he falls in flames, so will they. And he does indeed seem destined to fall in flames. So how could they be so stupid? In most cases, that question is easy to answer. Most of the “big names” above are Black leftists blinded by Blacktivism. They automatically side with a beleaguered fellow Black, no matter how strong the case against him. Indeed, they don’t care whether Arday is guilty or not: he’s Black like them, therefore they think it’s wrong for Whites to criticize or condemn him for anything he does. It’s an example of what you could call ethnautolatry, or worship of the self through one’s race (Greek ethnos, “people” + autos, “self” + latreia, “worship”). The same Black ethnautolatry explains why Blacks in America celebrated when the obviously guilty O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in 1995 of savagely murdering his blonde White wife Nicole Simpson: “Black Knives Matter — White Lives Don’t.” But ethnautolatry can’t explain the presence of the only big name on the pro-Arday petition who’s worth taking seriously.

Canute and Cohen: King Cnut knew words and will-power do not control reality, Simon Baron-Cohen seems to think they do (images from Tales of the Middle Ages and Wikipedia

That’s Professor Sir Simon Baron-Cohen, cousin of Sacha “Borat” Baron Cohen. Simon Baron-Cohen differs from Jason Arday in some very important ways: Baron-Cohen is Jewish rather than Black, highly intelligent rather than intellectually mediocre, and genuinely a distinguished academic rather than a sub-Saharan pseudo-scholar. So why has Baron-Cohen put his name to a petition making ridiculous claims that will be easily refuted? His signature can’t be explained by ethnautolatry, but it can be explained by ethnocentrism. Baron-Cohen supports Jason Arday not because he thinks over-promoting Black non-entities is good for Blacks but because he thinks it’s good for Jews and, conversely, bad for Whites. However, don’t expect Nathan Cofnas to explore this very important Jewish aspect of the Arday scandal and of wider minority-worship. I’ve said before at the Occidental Observer that I admire Cofnas’s moral courage and his willingness to address the dangerous topic of racial differences. But I don’t admire his intellectual honesty. How could I admire something that disappears whenever Jewish interests are at stake? Baron-Cohen’s backing of the intellectually mediocre Black Jason Arday reminds me irresistibly of how Jews backed the intellectually mediocre Black Barack Obama. To be fair, Obama is more intelligent than Arday and genuinely succeeded in an intellectually respectable field, that of law.[1] But Obama’s intellect and achievements did not merit the praise he received or justify the political heights he scaled. He was an affirmative-action president just as Arday is an affirmative-action academic.

Dacre and the faker

In both cases, Jews liked to see a Black on top not because they love Blacks but because they loathe Whites. Over-promoting Blacks means under-promoting Whites. Every dollar devoted to undeserving Blacks is a dollar diverted from deserving Whites. In their activism on behalf of non-Whites, Jews and the leftists controlled by Jewish ideology are not, at bottom, motivated by the desire to help non-Whites but by the desire to harm Whites. That’s why the highly intelligent Jewish academic Baron-Cohen is supporting Jason Arday in the face of such overwhelming evidence that Arday is guilty of serious academic malfeasance. Baron-Cohen’s antipathy for Whites is more powerful not only than his regard for truth but also than his instinct for self-preservation. Like the distinguished academic Lord Dacre, who authenticated the blatantly faked “Hitler diaries,” Baron-Cohen is going to see his reputation trashed when the truth comes out.

But Baron-Cohen’s reputation is trashed even if the truth doesn’t come out and Arday retains his post at Cambridge. In some ways, that would be even more hilarious. It would certainly be more damning of leftist academia and leftists like Baron-Cohen. If Arday is cleared of wrongdoing and retains his post, it will be proof that leftists love lies and are happy to ignore the truth in the service of badly behaved Blackademic bullshitters. But the truth about Arday will still be obvious. As obvious, in fact, as an infestation by Leucochloridium paradoxum. And what is Leucochloridium paradoxum? It’s a parasitic flatworm that, like many parasites, cycles between very different hosts and has to repeatedly leap a species barrier. I’ve previously written at the Occidental Observer about Toxoplasma gondii, a parasitic protozoan that has to leap the species barrier between rats and cats. It does that by manipulating rats’ brains and reversing their instinctive aversion to cats. The rats are attracted to cats and are more likely to get eaten and allow Toxoplasma to infect a new and distinct host.

The Power of Parasite: the fascinatingly grotesque signals of a snail-subverting parasitic flatworm — see also video at Youtube

Toxoplasma appears to manipulate human behavior too, still trying to get us eaten by the big cats that preyed on us in prehistoric times. The parasitic worm Leucochloridium paradoxum faces an even taller species barrier: that between snails and birds. And crosses the barrier by manipulating snails’ brains, inducing them to spend more time in well-lit places. But more than that, the wily worm turns its snail-hosts into the invertebrate equivalent of a flashing neon sign. The flatworms push and pulsate: they push their way into the snails’ eye-stalks, then pulsate their striped bodies to send out a repeating signal to insectivorous birds. The signal says: “I’m a caterpillar — come and eat me!” So the birds snap up the stalks and Leucochloridium has wiled its way to the next stage of its life-cycle. The sight of the pulsatingly pigmented infected eye-stalks is grotesquely fascinating. It’s also a reminder that parasitism and parasitic manipulation are everywhere in biology. Contra leftist lies, human beings are not a post-biological species and parasitic manipulation is used by some humans against other humans.

I think the Arday scandal is an excellent example of parasitic manipulation among humans. As I noted above, there’s been a cluster-cuck at Cambridge and elsewhere. White leftists have cuckolded themselves and competed to cram a cuckoo of color with resources that should have gone to an intelligent White academic, not a sub-Saharan pseudo-scholar. And calling Arday a cuckoo of color is much more than a metaphor. Parasitology, the biological study of parasites, isn’t applicable only to non-human animals like birds, worms and protozoa. It’s applicable to humans too. But Blacks like Jason Arday aren’t what you might call a primary parasite. Unlike Toxoplasma gondii and Leucochloridium paradoxum, Arday hasn’t infected and exploited his White hosts entirely by his own efforts. No, Blacks like Arday, being less intelligent and less represented in elite institutions, are secondary parasites exploiting the primary parasitism of a much more intelligent and insidious group. And who is that group? It’s Jews like Simon Baron-Cohen.

The nest of the West

But Simon Baron-Cohen is proof that Jewish instincts can over-rule Jewish intelligence. It wasn’t intelligent of Baron-Cohen to sign that petition at the Good Law Project. No, it was instinctive, driven by his loathing of Whites and the West. By signing the petition, Baron-Cohen has tied his own reputation to that of Jason Arday. Whether or not Arday’s reputation is trashed at tribunal, it’s already been trashed in the eyes of all objective observers. Just read Nathan Cofnas on the Cluster-Cuck at Cambridge.

But don’t expect Cofnas to concede the central Jewish role in the minority-worship that elevates non-entities like Jason Arday. Cofnas is courageous, yes, but he’s a courageous cuckoo in the nest of the West. I don’t want Black pseudo-scholars like Jason Arday at Cambridge, but I don’t want Jewish subverso-scholars like Nathan Cofnas there either. Without the Semitic subverso-scholars we wouldn’t have the sub-Saharan pseudo-scholars. Nevertheless, I’d like to salute Cofnas for his courage and commend him for curating one of the funniest academic scandals of all time. “Jason and the Arday-Nauts” is a scintillating saga of sub-Saharan pseudo-scholarship that should be treasured by all who love to see leftist lunacy exposed in all its grotesque glory.


[1]  Yes, law is an intellectually respectable field, in that you do have to reasonably intelligent to succeed there. But law isn’t an intellectually productive field or one that any genuinely creative and adventurous thinker would be attracted to. Lawyers are like sewers: they might be necessary to maintain civilization, but in an ideal life you never have to come into direct contact with them.

The Shadow Government Steering America’s Iran War

While the American public remains deeply divided by electoral theater, a select coalition of Jewish organizations consistently steers the ship of state, ensuring that regardless of who occupies the Oval Office, the underlying geopolitical trajectory remains unchanged. Nowhere has this become more apparent than in the ongoing Iran war.

The Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the World Jewish Congress, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations all put out statements backing the joint U.S. and Israeli military campaign against Iran that began around February 27 and 28, 2026. Information Liberation tweeted, “The Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the World Jewish Congress, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations* have all put out statements backing Trump and Netanyahu’s war on Iran. It’s important to state this for the record, as this places them on the opposite side of the majority of Americans, who oppose said war.”

Information Liberation also tweeted that the ADL, led by CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, and the American Jewish Committee, led by CEO Ted Deutch, backed the Iran war, as did the World Jewish Congress, led by President Ronald Lauder, which explicitly endorsed the war.

 

Daroff, who is CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, issued a joint statement with Board Chair Betsy Berns Korn on February 28, 2026. The statement read in full:

We stand firmly with the United States and Israel as they act decisively against the Iranian regime. We commend President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for their close coordination and clear resolve at this critical moment. Their leadership reflects the strength of the U.S.–Israel security partnership and a shared determination to halt a regime that endangers regional and global stability.

For more than four decades, Tehran armed and directed terror proxies, fueled regional instability, threatened Israel, targeted American interests, expanded its ballistic missile program, pursued nuclear capability, and oppressed its own people. Through Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, it exported violence across the Middle East.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei presided over this campaign of terror, overseeing the arming of proxy networks, the advancement of nuclear and missile threats, and the repression of the Iranian people. His death closes a chapter defined by sustained hostility and regional destabilization.

The United States and Israel now act in coordination to eliminate the regime’s capacity to threaten its neighbors through nuclear advancement, missile proliferation, and proxy warfare. Our opposition targets the regime, not the Iranian people, who deserve dignity and the opportunity to determine their own future.

We express solidarity with the people of Israel sheltering from Iranian missile and drone attacks. We also stand with citizens of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other regional partners who have endured direct Iranian missile strikes and Iranian-backed assaults on their territory.

At home, we remain in close coordination with federal, state, and local law enforcement. We urge continued vigilance across Jewish communities and encourage institutions to review security protocols and maintain heightened awareness.

We pray for the safety of American and Israeli service members and for all innocent civilians in harm’s way. We support efforts that reinforce deterrence, restore stability, and protect the security of our allies.

Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, did not issue a signed press release statement that day, but the ADL published a post on X stating:

 As coordinated U.S. and Israeli strikes target the Iranian regime, ADL stands with the United States, Israel and the Iranian people, who deserve dignity and freedom from a regime that murders its own citizens. 

The ADL added that it would continue to monitor threats “by the Iranian regime and its proxies against Jewish communities in the US and around the world. Similarly, Ted Deutch, CEO of the American Jewish Committee, released a statement that morning praising the joint Israeli-U.S. operation. The statement read:

Today’s military action follows years of Iranian escalation, deception, and refusal to meet its international commitments — including the most recent inconclusive negotiations in Geneva. The responsibility for this crisis lies entirely with the Iranian Regime. For decades, American Jewish Committee (AJC) has warned leaders around the world of the consequences of the Iranian regime’s illicit pursuit of a nuclear weapons program, its systematic human rights abuses, and its constant efforts to destabilize the region, threaten U.S. interests and endanger Israel and our Arab partners. We at AJC are grateful to the brave American and Israeli forces that carried out this action. We stand with the Israeli people as they face Iranian attacks and threats of further escalation. We also stand firmly with the Iranian people in their pursuit for freedom and pray that this development can lead to a better future for them and their country. As the global advocacy organization for the Jewish people, AJC will continue to work with leaders around the world to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its escalating threats to global security. Am Yisrael Chai (The People of Israel Live).

 World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder took a similar tact by issuing a statement that day supporting the strikes and calling on the international community to “stand behind this historic effort and support further measures that end the ability of theocratic tyrants to inflict harm on the Iranian people and the world at large any longer.”

These statements echo near identical language used by AJC, ADL, AIPAC, and Jewish Federations of North America during earlier Iran and Israel escalations in 2024 and June 2025, when Jewish organizations across the ideological spectrum showed what the Times of Israel described as “wall-to-wall support” for strikes on Iran.

The Conference of Presidents is the coordinating body for dozens of American Jewish organizations, and its public statements are typically issued jointly by the Chair and CEO on behalf of the collective membership. This means when the Conference speaks, it is implicitly lending the credibility of AIPAC, the ADL, AJC, B’nai B’rith, the Zionist Organization of America, JINSA, and similarly aligned groups to a single unified message, which showcases a remarkable degree of Jewish solidarity on a geopolitical venture that the broader American populace has no real interest in participating.

The level of unpopularity of the Iran escapade among gentile America is stark. According to Pew Research, 59% of Americans said the United States made the wrong decision in using military force and 61% disapprove of Trump’s handling of the conflict. An AP-NORC poll determined that 59% of Americans believe U.S. military action has gone “too far,” while a Quinnipiac survey documented 74% opposition to sending U.S. ground troops into Iran. Polling from CNN and NPR/PBS/Marist confirmed comparable disapproval levels. The partisan split remains dramatic, with about 90% of Democrats opposing the action while roughly 75% to 85% of Republicans back it.

While the American Jewish Committee, ADL, World Jewish Congress, and Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations are best known for their advocacy on Israel and combatting antisemitism, their institutional histories show a much broader pattern of engagement with conflicts, human rights advocacy, and great power politics.

One of the most consequential campaigns these groups waged had nothing to do with Israel. For decades American Jewish organizations fought for the emigration rights of Soviet Jews, and the effort reshaped relations between Washington and Moscow. Groups including the American Jewish Committee, the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, and the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews built the advocacy machine behind the 1975 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which tied Most Favored Nation trade status to free emigration.

Accepting an AJC human rights award in 2011, Representative Rep. Chris Smith (D-N.J.) credited those groups with supplying the “expertise, well-honed strategies, reliable information, and actionable intelligence” that made the law work, put the number freed at “more than 657,000 Soviet Jews between 1975 and 1991,” and argued that Jackson-Vanik “revolutionized human rights policy for the better on multiple fronts,” seeding the trafficking and religious freedom statutes he went on to author. Broader counts run higher, with roughly a million Soviet Jews reaching Israel over the same span. The campaign pioneered the use of trade and sanctions as a human rights lever, a template these organizations would reach for again in later fights, including over Iran.

The same groups have taken up the cause of Uyghur Muslims—a group notoriously used by foreign intelligences like the CIA to destabilize China. The American Jewish Committee hosted the Uyghur advocate Nury Turkel, a US Commission on International Religious Freedom commissioner and co-founder of the Uyghur Human Rights Project, on its Advocacy Anywhere platform, where he endorsed the State Department’s judgment that China’s mass detention is “the largest incarceration of any ethnic minority since the Holocaust” and called the “purposeful prevention of population growth” a legal marker of genocide. In 2021 the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the main umbrella for American Jewish community relations, passed a resolution condemning China’s policy as “genocide” and urging members to help “create a grassroots atrocity prevention movement.”

Since 2015 these same organizations have worked to block a nuclear accommodation with Iran. When the Obama administration reached the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, i.e., Iran Nuclear Deal, the American Jewish Committee announced that it had concluded “overwhelmingly that we must oppose this deal,” AIPAC poured millions into a campaign to sink it, and a range of establishment bodies, among them the ADL, the Jewish Federations of North America, and the Conference of Presidents, lobbied against it as well. The AJC statement cited “the nature of the Iranian regime and its defining ideology” as disqualifying.

That posture held across a decade. It survived Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the deal, the Biden era attempts to revive it in 2021 and 2022, and the collapse of the accord in 2025, and by the time American and Israeli forces struck Iranian nuclear and military sites in early 2026, the Conference of Presidents was pressing Washington to secure “the durable prevention of a nuclear-armed Iran” and to condition any sanctions relief on verifiable Iranian compliance, in its statement on the 2026 Memorandum of Understanding framework.

The same groups have lined up with Washington on its wider power struggles. After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the ADL condemned the attack “in the strongest terms” as “a blatant violation of international law,” warned that “the ramifications of Russia’s aggression ripple far beyond Ukraine’s borders” and “pose a threat to democracy everywhere,” and steered supporters toward humanitarian aid for Ukrainian refugees. Across these disparate files, one instrument recurs. These organizations press to tie trade and diplomatic benefits to the conduct of adversary states, the logic first proven in the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and carried forward into the sanctions architecture aimed at Iran.

Ultimately, the consistency of these organizations’ influence proves that the American presidency is merely a rotating office, while the true center of sovereign power resides elsewhere. Regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, these entities maintain the structural ability to direct the nation’s security and foreign policy to suit their own strategic interests. Until this shadow government is dismantled or stripped of its institutional control, the United States will remain a blunt instrument of organized Jewry’s will, systematically deployed to sow chaos across the globe at the expense of its own citizens.

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to his “Substack” newsletter by visiting “José Niño Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

 

 

 

Truth Lost, Truth Found: A Review of “Finding Treblinka” by Caroline Sturdy Colls

Long ago, there was a small place in the Polish countryside where, it was said, up to 1 million human beings met their demise over the course of some 10 months. This small place, comprising only around 50 acres of land, was located about 1.5 miles from the small village of Treblinka (population circa 300). At this remote location, a handful of Germans built a facility in 1942—a transit camp, they called it—intended to temporarily house people undesirable to the German state, to disinfest them of dangerous disease-bearing pests, and then to ship them onward to various locations distant from that state; some of these people died in the camp, some would later be put to forced labor, and others would be simply released in far-flung regions. Sadly, due to the tremendous military struggle of that time and to the eventual defeat of the German state, nearly all of these people were lost to the Western world, never to be heard from again.

As a result of these unfortunate events, the Treblinka Durchgangslager became known to the world as the Treblinka “death camp”—a place where as many as 1 million people (nearly all Jews) were said to have been killed by engine exhaust in specially-designed “gas chambers.” This action, it was said, was a direct consequence of an alleged German policy to kill every Jew in Europe. Thus, this small encampment became a central aspect of the (Jewish-designated) “Holocaust” in which, it is said, some 6 million Jews perished at the hands of the evil Germans.

It is a remarkable story. But is it true? On the face of it, the story seems incredible: An average of some 100,000 Jews killed per month—around 3,300 per day—every day, rain or shine, in cold and snow, for 10 solid months. At times, it was worse than this: Fully half of the overall death toll allegedly occurred in just the first three months of operation (July to September 1942), which implies an average of more than 5,500 per day for those first 90 days.

During those three months, the camp supposedly had three gas chambers (three gassing rooms within one building), with each room measuring only 15 feet by 15 feet—the size of a large bedroom. Therefore, each room had to process some 2,000 people per day, every day, for three months. And since each person takes about 1 square foot of area, the gassing rooms could only hold about 225 people each; thus, the Germans would have had to run something like eight or nine batches per room, per day. And this is not to mention the difficulty of herding hundreds of naked and scared people into a tight little room, over and over again. Incredible.

Finding this facility inadequate after only three months, the Germans allegedly built a “new” larger gas chamber building, with 10 rooms, each roughly 22 by 22 feet; this would have increased the gassing capacity by a factor of seven or more. More than enough, surely.

The killing method was, allegedly, poisonous gas—not the cyanide used at Auschwitz, but something simpler: exhaust gas from diesel engines. This sounds plausible until we learn that diesel engines emit very little of the poisonous carbon monoxide that kills people (unlike a gasoline/petrol engine, which produces a lot). And any engine, of any kind, cannot simply pump exhaust gas into an enclosed, “air tight” room; the back-pressure would increase until the engine stalled. Consequently, any alleged “diesel gassing” procedure collapses on its face.

And then, what to do with the bodies? If the Germans somehow managed to kill a million Jews in just 10 months, they then had to dispose of all those bodies. As the story goes, the Germans first buried all the bodies in mass graves, and then, changing their minds, dug them all up and burned them all to ash on open-air pyres. This is unbelievable on several levels: the need for absurdly-huge pits to bury one million bodies; the difficulty of digging up all those decaying, rotting corpses; the difficulty of stacking them up on “railroad rails” to burn them; the outrageous amounts of wood required to burn those rotting bodies to ash; the tremendous amounts of ash produced (wood and human); and the difficulty of getting rid of all that ash. Incredible to the extreme.

And even if, by some miracle, all that happened, we would expect to find extensive physical evidence of such a monumental crime: remains of gas chambers, disturbed earth to hold one million bodies, and, somewhere, millions of pounds of ash. Not to mention finding unburnable human remains, such as large bones and teeth, again numbering in the millions. Yet, in the now 83 years since the camp was abandoned, no one has found more than the smallest fraction of such things. Once again, an incredible situation. And if it is incredible, why should we believe it?

BBC: Holocaust medal of honour awarded to Treblinka archaeologist
Wikipedia: The Dan David Prize, founded in 2000 by Dan David, is an international group of awards that recognize and support outstanding contributions to the study of history and other disciplines that shed light on the human past. Nine prizes of $300,000 are awarded each year to outstanding early- and mid-career scholars and practitioners in the historical disciplines. The Prize has an annual purse of $3 million, making it the largest history award in the world, including $300,000 funding an international postdoctoral fellowship program at Tel Aviv University, where the Prize is headquartered. The Prize is endowed by the Dan David Foundation

A Heroine Arrives

Fear not; into this mirky quagmire rushes a would-be savior: a female British archeologist named Caroline Sturdy Colls. Already in 2010, even before earning her PhD, the then-24-year-old (!) researcher was granted approval for the “first ever forensic and archeological investigation” of Treblinka. She performed further studies in 2012, 2013, 2017, and 2019, using a variety of techniques: Lidar, ground-penetrating radar, differential GPS, laser scanners, and associated technologies. Eventually, limited excavations were performed. All this was done in an attempt to “find Treblinka”—that is, to find the key elements of the story: the gas chambers, the mass graves, and the human remains. Sturdy Colls published a handful of inconsequential papers on her findings between 2012 and 2018, and then—nothing.

Nothing, that is, until now. In July of 2026, fully seven years after completing her on-site investigations, she has finally published, with Cornell University Press, the new book Finding Treblinka: Forensic and Archeological Discoveries. Here she unveils her long-awaited evidence, of finding the gas chambers (both “old” and “new”), finding the mass graves, and finding human remains. It would be a remarkable accomplishment, if it were true. Sadly, and predictably, it fails to achieve its aims. Worse, it calls into serious question her, and others’, motives and intentions regarding Holocaust research.

To put her work here into perspective, let me quickly outline the history of the Treblinka facility. “Treblinka” actually consisted of two distinct areas: a “penal labor camp” known as Treblinka I (T-I) and an “extermination camp” known as Treblinka II (T-II). T-I came first; it was constructed in early 1941 and ready for use by September. It ran until mid-1944, when the advancing Soviets overran the territory. In all, some 20,000 people passed through the labor camp, of whom, we are told, about half died or were killed. Notably, the camp held both Jews and non-Jewish Poles, so it is unclear to this day how many Jews died there; presumably it was in the range of 5,000. Such a figure, however, pales in comparison to the alleged 900,000 or 1 million deaths at T-II, so most Holocaust historians simply by-pass this camp altogether.

But not Sturdy Colls. She spends an inordinate amount of time discussing the labor camp: its history, construction, administration, and various (alleged) heinous killings there. In fact, she dedicates the first five chapters (of 11) to this camp and her findings there, comprising about 40% of her entire book. All this, to address perhaps 0.5% of the alleged “Treblinka” Jewish deaths. This alone is highly revealing; it shows that she is desperate to fluff up her findings, to inflate her data, and to find a “mountain” in this “molehill” of results. Clearly she has so little of substance to say about the main topic—Treblinka II—that she feels the need to offer pages of trivial and inconsequential information that not even conventional Treblinka scholars would bother with.

Indeed, her “findings” in T-I are truly embarrassing. Using her Lidar and other remote sensing, Sturdy Colls’s team identified several areas that “may have been mass graves.” At three of these locations, she conducted “minimally invasive excavations” (p. 133)—Jewish law, it turns out, forbids the desecration of Jewish remains, which also conveniently blocks researchers from learning the full truth. In an area of interest that was 7.4m x 6.5m in size, she dug a shallow trench (EX1). Finding a handful of bones, she “confirmed that a minimum of two individuals were buried there” (p. 134). Not two thousand, or two hundred, but…two. In a second area, of size 9.2m x 6m, she dug trench EX2, again confirming that “human remains of a minimum of two individuals were present (one adult and one child).” A third area, the largest (19m x 17m) revealed bone fragments, partial shoe leather, and a bullet—underwhelming, to say the least.

On to the Extermination Camp

Then finally in Chapter 6, Sturdy Colls gets around to the main target: Treblinka II. Located about a mile from T-I, this alleged extermination camp was begun sometime in spring of 1942, and accepted its first arrivals in July. The claimed numbers are staggering; in July, around 180,000 Jews reached T-II, all immediately gassed. In August, another 140,000. And in September, another 170,000. Sturdy Colls clearly accepts such fantastic figures; she states, without comment, that the “latest research suggests between 800,000 and 1 million people [all Jews] were murdered” there (p. 150).

Chapter 6 then recalls the basics of the early postwar investigations by the Soviets and the Poles. A Soviet report on the camp from August 1944 called it “a huge factory of death,” complete with a cremation trench “200-300m long, 20-25m wide, and 5-6m deep” (p. 152). The Soviets stated with confidence that “about 3 million people were killed” there—an overestimate by at least a factor of three, and more likely a factor of 100.

A year later, an investigation by Polish judge Lukaszkiewicz accepted a gassing time of 15 minutes and asserted that “between 1.3 million and 1.5 million people were murdered at Treblinka II” (p. 166). In November 1945, his team conducted actual excavations at the camp, digging trenches up to 15m long and 2m deep, but finding only “undisturbed soil layers.” (Sturdy Colls adds that, “most likely, the investigators narrowly missed what we now know to be the location of the gas chambers by a few meters” [p. 169]—bad luck!) In sum, the Polish team found “no evidence of mass graves,” and their report observed “there is almost nothing left. … There is no evidence that there was such a large camp here.” This was in 1945; Sturdy Colls thinks she can do better today.

Then in 1947, a survey by the Central Jewish Historical Commission found, incredibly, major items that the Polish team had somehow overlooked, including (says Sturdy Colls) “the 4m long rails used as burning pyres” (p. 174), and more incredibly, “the remains of the gas chambers, including pipes, wires, and ducts.” Sadly, however, there are neither physical remains nor photographic evidence of such things; we must simply take their word.

Chapter 7 takes us through the early conception and construction of T-II, from early 1942 through the first few weeks of operation in July and August of that year—a period Sturdy Colls calls “phase 1” of the camp. Notably, she correctly cites the infamous Wannsee Protocol of January 1942, in which it states that the “final solution” to the Jewish problem will be deportation: “The evacuated Jews will first be taken to so-called transit ghettos, in order to be transported further east from there” (p. 181)—which in fact is precisely what happened. This likely would have been a trigger to establish the T-II transit camp. Her Figure 7.4 (p. 193) provides a sketch of the probable layout of the camp in phase 1, including a walkway (“the tube”) going from the arrival area to the “gassing area,” incorrectly labeled “death camp.” Here we see the “old gas chambers” which allegedly comprised three rooms, each connected to a nearby diesel engine.

Now, we need to be clear about the actual process that would have occurred there, in such a transit camp. Arriving Jews came in dirty, unwashed, and possibly harboring dangerous ticks and lice that could carry the deadly typhus disease—feared by the Germans, not so much for the Jews’ sake, but because they had no interest in allowing a general pandemic to break out. And of course, one cannot use the Jews for labor if they are sick or dying, so there was a double interest in keeping them healthy. So, incoming “dirty” Jews would have been screened, divided into small groups, and routed to a place where they could be washed and disinfested—an area with actual showers and with actual delousing “gas chambers.” Notably, Sturdy Colls admits that there were precisely such delousing chambers in the labor camp T-I (pp. 48-49); so why not here also? The showers were for people, and the “gas chambers” for their clothes, personal items, and linens. Once clean, these Jews would not be allowed to mingle with or contact the “dirty Jews” in the incoming zone; they would have been isolated, detained for a short time, and then sent on to the east, to labor camps there or to other evacuation zones, perhaps even released there. From the perspective of the remaining Jews, such people were gone, vanished, disappeared, “exterminated.”

Obviously, when transiting thousands of people in rough conditions during a major war, there were many problems; plenty of Jews would have died, either in transit to Treblinka or at the camp. They would have died from natural causes (old age, sickness, injury), suicide, communicable diseases; others would have been shot trying to escape or to fight. The camp organizers apparently were expecting some, but not many, such deaths, because they did not build a crematorium to dispose of the dead bodies, as they did at Auschwitz. Apparently they planned to simply dump the bodies into nearby mass graves, cover them over, and leave it at that. This would have sufficed for several thousand such deaths—say, less than 10,000 over the presumed life of the camp—which was apparently all that they anticipated.

Thus, we read in Sturdy Colls’s book that large diggers were brought in to prepare the burial pits. She quotes one source saying that the pits “were several dozen meters long, about 15 meters deep, and about 10 meters wide” (p. 200). She adds that “some were reportedly as large as 50 x 25 x 10m.” But these seem to be gross exaggerations, as we will see.

We can do some quick calculations here. With a mix of corpses large and small, one could likely fit, on average, about eight bodies in a single cubic meter of space. If, say, the Germans anticipated 10,000 deaths, they would have needed (10,000 / 8 =) 1,250 cubic meters of pits to hold these bodies (plus a bit more, to cover them up). This is, frankly, not very large. The Germans could have dug, for example, a single large pit of 12m x 12m, and 10m deep. Or perhaps three shallower ones, each 8m x 10m and just 5m deep. Allowing for sloped sides and space between them, three such mass graves would have only covered around 1/10th of an acre—trivial in a camp of 50 acres. One can see why they never would have bothered building a crematorium.

Reality Sets In

But once the camp began operation in July 1942, all prior calculations fell aside. Deportees immediately began pouring into the camp; that first month alone saw something like 175,000 arrivals, we are told. On Sturdy Colls’s view, all these people were gassed: “5,000 to 7,000 killings per day” at first, “rising to 10,000 to 12,000 per day in the weeks that followed” (pp. 202-203). Above I noted the procedural difficulties with allegedly gassing 6,000 people each day; now double that figure—incredible. On the more rational view, such numbers were of people arriving at the camp, needing to be cleaned, and then shipped out. Of course, more arrivals also meant more deaths, far more than planned. Rather than taking a year to reach 10,000 dead, this figure likely occurred within just two months (assuming a 2% to 3% death rate). Camp commandant Eberl was clearly overwhelmed, as we read from his letters: “the pace is truly breathtaking,” he said. Apparently he was not up to the task; he was removed from his leadership role in September.

The newly-arriving commandant, Franz Stangl, encountered open mass graves and unburied bodies, as the small camp staff struggled to dispose of 200 or 300 corpses per day, along with cleaning and deporting some 5,000 live people per day.

One of Stangl’s first priorities was to increase the disinfestation process, which could no longer keep up with the pace of arrivals. He thus proceeded to build a new delousing facility (“new gas chambers”) with 10 separate rooms; this was active already in October of 1942. Stangl made other improvements to the camp, increasing its overall efficiency and effectiveness. Sturdy Colls provides a modified map of the camp in this new phase (Fig. 8.4, p. 215).

All this was propitious, since, between October and November, nearly 300,000 more Jews passed through the facility, yielding another 6,000 to 9,000 dead bodies.

Into 1943, the pace of arrivals, and burials, declined dramatically from the previous highs. January and February had perhaps 40,000 arrivals each month, which dropped further to around 15,000 in March, 10,000 in April, and 5,000 in May. And then arrivals ceased for good. The reason surely had to do with Soviet advances beginning in early 1943 as the tide was turning and they recaptured eastern territory from the Germans. The front was still far from Treblinka, but the signs were ominous, and Jews could likely no longer be shipped much further to the east. As the ability to deport vanished, so did the need for the camp.

Still, we can agree that perhaps as many as 1 million Jews were sent to Treblinka. If the death rate was, say, 3%, then we can estimate that a total of 30,000 Jews died there. This was likely triple the initial estimate, and required some 3,800 cubic meters of grave space—large, but still manageable.

Contrast this with the requirements to bury a full one million victims, as Sturdy Colls and the orthodox historians would have us believe. Above I showed calculations to bury 10,000 bodies in three modest-sized graves (8 x 10 x 5m). If we must now bury 100 times as many bodies, we need 300 such mass graves. And what, in smaller numbers, consumed only 0.1 acre now will require fully 10 acres—nearly the entire area of the so-called death camp! The total volume would be enormous: some 125,000 cubic meters. If Sturdy Colls wished to find the location of the mass graves, she need only walk around at random, poke a stick into the ground, and the chances are very high that she would have found one. Hundreds of mass graves are very easy to find—if they are there.

But there is a huge twist to this story, as I noted at the outset. According to the conventional account, the Germans decided in April 1943 to dig up those 1 million or so dead bodies and burn them all to ash on railroad rails in the open air. The sheer folly of even attempting such a thing beggars belief and is yet more evidence of the falsity of the standard view. Sturdy Colls wisely defers this whole topic as long as possible; in fact, it is not until some 300 pages into her book that she raises this sticky matter in a serious way.

Diesel Gassing?

But first, she has a more important task: “finding the gas chambers” (Chapter 9). She begins the chapter by again reciting the standard view: that “gas chambers provided the means by which 1.7 million Jews…were exterminated in the Operation Reinhard death camps—Treblinka [ca. 1 million], Belzec [ca. 500,000], and Sobibor [ca. 200,000]” (p. 246). She recounts without dispute some alleged key figures: each of the original three chambers was 5m x 4m (or perhaps 5m x 5m), hermetically sealed, and with a hole in the ceiling. She adds that, into each of these tiny chamber rooms, “estimates vary between seventy-five and eight hundred people” (!) were pushed (p. 253). Above I noted that one average adult requires about 1 square foot of area in which to stand, and these tiny chambers had only, at most, 270 square feet. Thus, it would seem impossible to squeeze more than, say, 300 people into such a room; and yet Sturdy Colls accepts without question the idea that 800 people—about three per square foot—could fit into each room. Incredible.

Sturdy Colls then displays her grasp of technical matters by describing, and implicitly accepting, preposterous claims about the gassing. Asphyxiation, she says, was achieved both by “drawing air out of the chamber and pumping in carbon monoxide” (p. 254). This did the job, she says, in “as little as five to eight minutes.” This idea of drawing air out recalls early claims that a “vacuum” killed the Jews—a claim quickly dropped after the war, along with other equally-preposterous means, such as “steam.” But Ms. Sturdy Colls never once mentions these early, now-abandoned methods; she certainly does not want the reader to begin to doubt those many witnesses whose testimonies are so vital to the whole story.

But the central problem here, as I mentioned, is that the gassing engine is most typically described by witnesses as a diesel, and diesel engines put out very little CO gas. A Google AI summary says this: “Diesel exhaust gas is mostly harmless air components, dominated by nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide. Less than 1% of the gas mixture consists of harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. … [Carbon monoxide is] present in small amounts (typically 10 to 500 ppm) due to slight incomplete combustion.” Diesels, therefore, are utterly unsuited for homicidal gassing. Regarding this question of engine type, Sturdy Colls says:

An abundance of testimonies describe how an “engine” or “motor” was used to generate the [CO] gas; while some survivors and guards suggested this engine belonged to a (Soviet) tank [and thus likely a diesel], others referred to it as a “diesel engine” or “tractor engine” [again, a diesel].

She then quotes from a testimony, given under torture, by a Russian SS man, Nikolay Shalayev, who claimed it was a Russian-made “ordinary four-cylinder engine that ran on petrol,” meaning ordinary gasoline; this indeed produces enough CO to be fatal. But this, of course, conflicts with all the diesel claims of witnesses. Sturdy Colls is clearly aware of this whole issue, since she takes some pains to explain all the ways that it might have actually been a gasoline engine. But it is telling, I think, that the word ‘diesel’ appears only twice in the entire book (pp. 255, 272). Clearly this is a sensitive issue for orthodox researchers; it undermines the alleged gassing deaths of 1.7 million Jews, after all. She clearly does not want the reader to start asking troublesome questions about engine type.

Finally, I have to note the obvious: If indeed the Germans were able to pack 300 or more people into a tiny, air-tight room, then they didn’t need any gas at all. Just close the door, wait an hour, and everyone would be dead from oxygen depletion. The whole engine-gassing scheme collapses under scrutiny.

For all this, the occasional bit of truth slips from her pen. “It is extremely perplexing,” she says at one point, “as to why individuals directly involved in building the camp might offer such different accounts of the gas chambers’ appearance” (p. 257). Actually, not perplexing at all: There were in fact no homicidal gas chambers, and people who felt compelled to describe such things naturally would vary in their remarks. They might recall a small barrack or power station shed, and having seen such real things, could easily incorporate elements of them into imagined “gas chambers.” This, combined with the occasional outright liar, can easily account for the many conflicting descriptions of such chambers.

Striking Paydirt

Where, then, are the remains of the gas chambers? This is the big question and the main reason for Sturdy Colls and her work. So we are gratified when, finally, on page 258, she begins to provide her “archeological findings” on the chambers. The next ten pages are dedicated to her results related to the “old gas chambers” and their alleged engine room. First she located a large subsoil depression in the large grassy field near the present-day obelisk; there she found brick fragments which, to her, are a good sign because “the only buildings constructed from brick were the gas chambers.” Using her GPR, she identified an area 22m x 15m, “consistent with structural remains.” She then dug a small trench, finding “an abundance of personal items”—of the sort that victims might “clandestinely” take to the gas chambers, so she says.

Finding more brick samples, she collected them and sent them off to a chemistry lab for analysis. The lab found that the bricks “had a higher emission rate of carbon monoxide, [which] may indicate the presence of chemically bound CO” (p. 263). In other words, the lab supposedly found that the bricks had been exposed to “artificial” rather than “natural” CO, implying—a gas chamber! On its face, it seems highly dubious that baked-clay bricks can retain signs of their CO exposure after laying in the ground for 80 years. And indeed, Google AI confirms that this is impossible; CO is a volatile gas that does not form lasting chemical bonds with clay minerals. Is she (or her lab) lying to us?

Ironically, both soot and complex hydrocarbons would form a lasting bond with brick, and could be detected decades later; so too would lead from the leaded diesel used at that time. But Sturdy Colls did not look for these! (I wonder why…)

A second trench was dug in the same area, searching for the engine room. She found tile fragments, wire fragments, more personal belongings, teeth, and dentures. Nothing was found, however, to indicate the presence of any gassing engine—or any engine of any sort, for that matter.

On, then, to the “new” enlarged gas chambers. Regarding this most-important of topics and Sturdy Colls’s long-awaited archeological findings, we are sorely disappointed: she offers us only four pages of discussion. Four pages! In a book of nearly 500 pages. Arguably the single most important revelation she has to offer, the primary reason for her years of work—and the alleged cause of the demise of some 500,000 Jews—all reduced to four pages.

In the lead-up to these results, she again recounts witness testimony, including a “curious detail”: that the new chambers apparently took “at least 45 minutes” to kill, versus the “15 to 20 minutes” for the old. Despite this inefficiency, she states that, “on average, it appears that around 10,000 to 12,000 people were killed per day” during the latter part of 1942. Even for a chronic exaggerator, this is impossible; it would imply between 300,000 and 360,000 per month, or between 1.2 and 1.4 million, just for the final four months of that year. Ridiculous—apparently, even basic math skills elude Ms. Sturdy Colls.

As to the results themselves, she begins with a large area of “reflective material” in the ground, measuring 44m x 20m, which was again “consistent with structural remains.” Unfortunately, excavations from 2013 “did not identify any in situ building remnants” (p. 274). Two further trenches were dug there in 2017, yielding “very few objects.” She did, however, find remains of old “post holes,” suggesting that the ground level there was once much lower than today. Exasperated, Sturdy Colls ends this most-vital discussion by noting that “T-II was entirely leveled when the Nazis liquidated the camp,” which is why she found nothing. Trying to put a positive spin on things, she speculates that “some of the masonry and items from the area believed to be the Old Gas Chambers could, in fact, have belonged to the New Gas Chambers” (p. 277). Sadly, “[German] efforts to hide the newer killing facilities appear to have been much more extensive than at their earlier counterpart.” Well! Those nasty but clever Nazis did such a good job at erasing the evidence that this only proves their cleverness and evilness! For Sturdy Colls, the absence of evidence proves, not that such things never existed, but only that they were fiendishly eliminated. Take that, you deniers!

And yet, in the very next paragraph, she has the gall to state: “Historical and archeological research undertaken at T-II … was able to confirm the exact location of the Old and New Gas Chambers for the first time” (p. 277). So the lying, deceptive Ms. Sturdy Colls is hell-bent on giving us exactly what her sponsors paid for: the Treblinka gas chambers.

More Vanished Evidence

The final fiasco in this book of fiascoes comes in Chapter 10: “Hidden Crimes.” Here we arrive at the final stage of the alleged destruction of the Jews. After burying some 1 million bodies between July 1942 and April 1943, the Germans allegedly had a change of heart and decided to dig up and burn all the bodies—and they allegedly did so, in a period of just four months, using only wood fires and open-air incineration, according to orthodoxy. This is ludicrous on several counts, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume this happened. As the story goes, the Germans then dumped the ash of those 1 million corpses back into the empty pits and then filled them with dirt, leveling it all over and planting flowers and vegetables; the end result, after 80 years, is the open green field we see today in Treblinka. (I have been there twice, and walked those fields myself.) Finding these pits is of huge significance to the overall Holocaust story, arguably even more important than finding gas chambers.

If in fact this happened, there would remain today—and easily detectable—disturbed earth corresponding to the many pits that were dug and refilled—a total of some 125,000 cubic meters, as we recall from above. As I noted, these refilled pits would have to exist all over the present-day grassy field, such that one could scarcely avoid finding them, especially with ground-penetrating radar. And any core sample would reveal extensive ash (human and wood), bone fragments, and teeth. This alone could prove the conventional case: just finding anything close to 125,000 cubic meters of disturbed earth refilled with bone fragments and ash. Case closed!

So, what did Sturdy Colls actually find? Chapter 10 opens with more history, followed by discussions of train arrivals, mass shootings, “revenge killings,” “slow death in the gas chambers” (allegedly, some people spent 24 or even 48 hours in the gas chambers, and were still alive!), violence against women, etc. On page 292, she reiterates the burial history and procedure, citing witness claims of large graves of 80m x 20m, or pits that were 30m or 40m across. Again frustrated, Sturdy Colls notes that “the exact number of mass graves that were created … is difficult to discern” (p. 294). (Why? You have a GPR system!) She cites more witnesses, concluding that the likely number was quite small, perhaps only three or four large graves.

Now, if we assume four graves, in order to hold the 1 million bodies, each would have to be over 30,000 cubic meters in size. If we assume a depth of 10m, then the area of each would have to be something like 150m x 20m. This, frankly, is huge: a 60-foot-wide trench, 30 feet deep, and 1.5 times the length of an American football field. And there would be four such monstrosities—all refilled with dirt and ash, and easily detectable. Easy to find, easy to confirm—case closed!

But before revealing her precious archeological evidence, she takes yet more time to explain to the reader the origins of the cremation process. Camp survivor Szmul Rajzman explains that the German SS decided that burying all those bodies was “not such a good idea, because someday those ditches would be dug up” and the evil deed exposed. Sporadic burnings began, she says, in mid-1942, but things did not really heat up until April of 1943, when the Germans allegedly went full-bore on the cremations. Five or six “grates” (or “furnaces,” or “roasts”) were built with railroad rails, each 10m long, and situated just 0.5m above the ground, to allow space for firewood.

Sturdy Colls then asserts, along with witnesses, that between 1,000 and 3,000 bodies were laid on each pyre, meaning that “12,000 bodies could be burned at once” (actually, if 6 pyres held 3,000 bodies, that would be 18,000 at a time—but Ms. Sturdy Colls is unbothered by such arithmetical technicalities). The pyres supposedly burned for just five hours before fully consuming their victims.

Lest we be too gullible here, we need to check her assertions. On such a metal pyre, one can place about four corpses per meter of length; a 10m-long rail grid could therefore hold about 40 bodies on one layer. If we tried to stack 1,000 bodies, we would need (1,000 / 40 =) 25 layers—meaning a stack about 25 feet high (about one foot of height per average body). If the reader thinks this is actually possible, I have a bridge to sell you. In reality, five or six layers of decomposing bodies are all that could possibly be stacked up. If we think that the Germans could have placed 3,000 bodies on a single pyre, they would need 75 layers, which is sheer fantasy. Sturdy Colls is passing along nonsense to us in the guise of truth.

She then imparts more nonsense: the Germans allegedly developed new burning techniques, “such as layering women on the bottom of the piles (because they burned faster)” (p. 296). This is absurd and has no basis in reality; it is mere wartime propaganda. She continues, noting that at first the Germans considered using fuel from the gas chambers to aid the burning, but they discovered that “it was easier to burn exhumed corpses without it.” Under no circumstances do corpses burn themselves; they always need a fuel source, such as wood, oil, or diesel fuel. (The wood requirements, incidentally, would be gargantuan—something like 175,000 tons of wood to consume a million corpses; but I set that whole issue aside.)

Of the millions of unburned bones (and teeth) that would have inevitably resisted open-air incineration, Sturdy Colls has an explanation: an “ash brigade” was tasked with “crushing burnt bones.” The bones were “milled and ground into a flour-like powder,” placed in “special bags,” and reburied in the pits. Really? Of one million bodies? One million skulls, ground to powder? Two million femurs? Thirty-two million teeth, ground to dust? In four months? A reply is scarcely necessary; her credibility is zero.

The Findings…

Finally, on page 299, we arrive at the “forensic archeological evidence” for all this digging, burning, and re-burying—again, arguably the single most decisive bit of proof that she might present. Unsurprisingly, we are again disappointed. Sturdy Colls offers us a mere three pages of text, along with a few diagrams.

She begins this small section with a welcome surprise: an open admission of the many difficulties of mass open-air burning. I quote her at length:

In a conversation described by [Jewish survivor] Glazar, the work-Jews at Treblinka II considered the problems associated with the complete cremation of human bodies: “they are trying to find ways to hide the traces; they are burning the corpses. But they aren’t going to find it so easy—even one corpse doesn’t burn easily, hundreds of thousands of corpses?” Certainly, popular misconceptions exist regarding cremation, in terms of the belief that a body will be totally reduced to ash. As Steven A. Symes et al. note, “during combustion and with increasing damage to soft tissue and bone, a full spectrum of color changes are observed and range from natural beige, to carbonized (black), gray with blue tints, gray, and then to white, with the last representing full calcination.” Numerous studies by forensic scientists have demonstrated that total eradication of bone requires extremely high temperatures and prolonged exposure to fire. For example, single bodies (of an average weight and height) in indoor crematorium settings typically require temperatures of between 1,600 and 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit for a period of at least two to two and a half hours, after which they still need to be pulverized by well-engineered cremulators to reduce them to ash. Hence, multiple bodies require higher temperatures and/or longer exposure to achieve full calcination, after which they too will require further interventions to make them unidentifiable as bone. (p. 299; footnotes deleted)

All this constitutes a remarkable concession; revisionists have been saying exactly this for years. She continues:

Additionally, Christophe Snoek and R. J. Schulting have shown that the temperatures and duration required for full calcination (turning white) of remains are unlikely to be achieved on outdoor pyres due to the influence of wind, rain, the position of the body on the fire, accelerants used, etc. Surgical implants and teeth are also more likely to withstand hotter and more prolonged burning and thus are more likely to survive. Site visits and archaeological surveys have provided evidence that confirms such trends. (ibid.)

So: We have here an explicit admission, backed by technical footnotes, stating that, practically speaking, it is nearly impossible to quickly incinerate masses of human bodies, let alone decomposing bodies. And yet, she implies, it happened all the same—a literal miracle there in the Polish countryside.

But what did she actually find? Areas of “distinctive lichen” covering the ground in the forested parts of the camp (it turns out that her fancy scanning devices are useless in forests); “these areas may well represent ash disposal sites.” Sure.

Out in the open grassy areas, she found “a large pit measuring 26m x 17m” (p. 301). Sadly, the depth could not be determined because it exceeded the four-meter limit of her electrical imager and GPR. But this is more obfuscation. I am not a scanning specialist, but I know that the effective depth of GPR systems depends on their frequency; high-frequency scanners are limited to perhaps 4 or 5 meters, but lower-frequency units can go much deeper, to 30 meters or more. Could Sturdy Colls, with her wealthy sponsors, not afford the appropriate scanner?

Let’s help her out.  If her 26 x 17 pit was 5m deep, it could hold about 17,000 bodies; if 10m deep, about 35,000 bodies. Even at the 10m-depth, the Germans would have needed 29 such pits to accommodate their 1 million corpses. Once again, easy to find, if they are there.

She then found five more pits, with combined surface area of 1,385 square meters (depth again undetermined). If, as before, all five were 10m deep, they could hold about 110,000 bodies altogether—perhaps 10 percent of the required total.

Crucially, however, she inspected none of these, sampled none, and had no depth measurements. Of these alleged sites, she has literally no evidence whatsoever. She is reduced to pleading with the reader to believe her:

Given their location in the area thought to contain most of the mass graves, their size, and their proximity to the memorial, there is a compelling case for arguing that they represent body disposal sites. While it could be argued that they might represent areas of postwar looting activity, their linearity suggests that they likely predated such actions even if they were later affected by them. (p. 301)

This is virtual surrender. She has nothing.

On the next page, she begs forgiveness of the reader: “Without intrusive activity, it is not possible to conclusively determine the nature of these pits.” And “intrusive activity” is prohibited by Jewish law, so it won’t be happening any time soon at Treblinka or any other alleged death camp. How terribly convenient.

She closes the chapter with resignation: “For several reasons, it will never be possible to fully chronicle the violent acts and efforts to hide the corpses of the victims at Treblinka-II” (p. 307). In other words, we will never find the requisite evidence, so we simply must have faith that it is true.

The Death Knell for Treblinka

In the end, despite a large budget and years of effort, Caroline Sturdy Colls was unable to find or present definitive evidence of any of the key features of an extermination camp: the gas chambers, the burial pits, or the ash and bone remains. Finding a “gas chamber” was doomed to failure from the start; even if she found intact remains of a brick building with three (or 10) rooms, its purpose would remain speculative. Her attempt to find traces of “exhaust carbon monoxide” on brick fragments is a bad joke at best.

Her study of burials and human remains fares no better. By my rough assessment, her collective evidence shows that, indeed, many thousand people (presumably Jews, although we are uncertain) died in the camp (due to unknown causes), many were buried, and many were cremated. But the combined evidence points to some tens of thousands, at most. We can accept that perhaps 20,000 or 30,000 Jews died at Treblinka, none of whom were killed in a diesel-exhaust gas chamber. While tragic, these deaths are just 2% or 3% of the claimed figures. If the entire “Holocaust” should turn out comparably, then we might have, say, 100,000 or 200,000 total Jewish deaths, rather than “6 million.” For any rational person, this would be good news. For a guilt- and power-obsessed Jewish Lobby, however, it is a nightmare.

I think we can see now the fatal flaw in Sturdy Colls’s entire project. She never really undertakes to find out what actually happened. Instead, she presumes what she is trying to prove: she unquestioningly accepts the entire conventional Treblinka story, with its diesel chambers and 1 million victims. And she then sets out to prove her assumptions—but fails miserably.

Any good detective or crime-scene investigator would go into such a situation objectively and neutrally. Take the measurements, collect the data, consult with witnesses and experts, and then independently construct a likely chain of events. This is what any competent police department does on a daily basis. It gives credibility and impartiality to the outcome. But here, the outcome is already established: “diesel gas chambers,” “1 million dead,” “buried then burned.” No other conclusion is permissible. Thus, when the actual data makes a mockery of this fiction, the investigator—Ms. Sturdy Colls—is left looking like a fool or a stooge. Or both.

As I suggested in my title to this essay, truth, in the end, was not lost; it was found. Sturdy Colls has failed her Jewish sponsors but done a great service for humanity. She has driven the final nail into the Treblinka coffin. A 16-year-effort to confirm the orthodox story has come to naught; all critical evidence is lacking; the story collapses. Any tales of homicidal gas chambers or of hundreds of thousands of murder victims at Treblinka are nonsense. They lie in the realm of fantasy-fiction. And anyone pushing this fable as the truth—or worse, enforcing it at gunpoint—are contemptible at best and criminal at worst.

We need never accept this fiction as truth, and we need never feel any guilt, or make any amends for it, ever again. Things are looking up—thanks to the intrepid Caroline Sturdy Colls.

David Skrbina, PhD, is a former professor of philosophy from the University of Michigan, Dearborn. He is the author or editor of a dozen books, including The Jesus Hoax (2nd ed., 2024), The Metaphysics of Technology (Routledge, 2015), and Panpsychism in the West (MIT Press, 2017).

 

 

 

 

Three Jews, One Omission: Surveying Some Self-Pitying Semitic Solipsism

“Two Jews, three opinions.” That’s an old Jewish saying meant to capture the contrarianism of Jews. “We can never agree!” Jews chuckle. “We’re always arguing, already!” Yes, it’s an old saying, but it’s also a dishonest one. It deliberately implies that Jews are divided on everything from trivialities to fundamentals. They aren’t. When they disagree, it’s about tactics, not about targets. Jews do disagree, yes, but they disagree about how best to achieve something they agree is of supreme importance: What’s best for Jews.

Three Jews, One Omission: (L-R) Jonathan Freedland, David Davidi-Brown, Franklin Foer (images from Instagram #1, Instagram #2, IMDb

Jews are overwhelmingly united on the importance of that. They’re also united in believing that what’s best for Jews entails what’s worst for Whites. And vice versa. That’s why on some topics there has been remarkable unanimity of opinion among Jews. Is Third-World immigration into the West a good thing? Yes, of course it is. Jews and Third-World folk are natural allies. In particular, Jews and Muslims are natural allies. Jews have been uttering those exact words or variants on them for a long time:

But against whom and what are Jews and Muslims “natural allies”? That part remains unspoken, but the answer is obvious. Jews and Muslims are natural allies against the cruel bigotry and oppression of the White, historically Christian majority. Or so Jews have long thought. Since October 7, 2023, many Jews have had a re-think about that. After the horrifically cruel slaughter, rape and kidnapping inflicted by hateful Hamas on innocent Israelis, Jews in the West expected that their vibrant allies would flood the streets in solidarity. And Jews were half-right. Third-World folk did flood the streets of London, New York and Paris in solidarity, but it was in solidarity with hateful Hamas, not with innocent Israelis.

T.B.G., not W.B.F.J.

Oy veh! Who could have seen that one coming? Well, one highly unusual Jew called Larry Auster did. He was highly unusual because he thought that T.B.G. — Truth, Beauty and Goodness — was more important than W.B.F.J. — “What’s Best For Jews.” This is what Auster wrote more than twenty years ago:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews. (“Why Jews Welcome Muslims,” Front Page Magazine, 22nd June 2004 — note that the article has been removed from FPM)

Auster wrote that in the first decade of the twenty-first century. In the second and third decade of the century, Jews continued to work hard for their dream of “a racially diversified, de-Christianized America.” And a “racially diversified, de-Christianized” Britain, France and Germany too. Oy veh again! After October 7, Jews have begun to realize that their dream has turned into a nightmare. That’s why I can say “Three Jews, One Opinion” of the highly ethnocentric Jews Jonathan Freedland, David Davidi-Brown and Franklin Foer. Freedland and Davidi-Brown are in Britain, Foer is in America, but all three of them are united in dismay at the failure of their “natural allies” to rally to their cause and recognize how hard Jews have worked to undermine Whites and uplift non-Whites:

A faith in immigration — the idea of America as a sanctuary for the refugee, the belief that subsequent groups of arrivals would experience the same up-from-the-shtetl trajectory — was a core tenet of Jewish liberalism. A Jewish poet had written the lines about huddled masses inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty. If America was a nation of immigrants, that made Jews quintessential Americans. […] In the old Jewish theory of American politics, the best defense against the anti-Semitism of the right was a united left: minorities and liberal activists locking arms. When I was young, rabbis and elders reverently told us about the earnest young Jews in chunky glasses who had jumped aboard the Freedom Rides; about Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, in his unmissable kippah, marching right next to Martin Luther King Jr.; and about the martyrdom of Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, two Jews who had been murdered alongside James Chaney, a Black Mississippian, for their work registering Black Americans to vote. A coalition of the tolerant pressed the country to live up to its ideals. (“The Golden Age of American Jews Is Ending,” The Atlantic, 4th March 2024)

Franklin Foer bemoans the decline in Jewish “political and cultural ascendance” on a prominent platform in the mainstream media(image from CNN)

That’s Franklin Foer in the Atlantic, bemoaning the way in which “The Golden Age of American Jews Is Ending.” Yes, what he calls “the political and cultural ascendance” of Jews is fading as dark forces rise on both right and left. His article is full of Semitic self-pity and Semitic solipsism. But one thing it lacks entirely is Semitic self-critique. The same is true of the articles by Jonathan Freedland and David Davidi-Brown. I can also say “Three Jews, One Omission.” Self-pity and solipsism? All present and correct. Self-critique? Absent without leave. Foer, Freedland and Davidi-Brown refuse to admit that Jews are directly responsible for their own misfortune. Jews have used their “political and cultural ascendance” across the West to do what they thought was best for Jews and worst for Whites. Again, they were half-right. What they did was indeed worst for Whites. But it turned out to be worst for Jews too. For decades, Jews have demonized Whites and the West whilst importing non-Whites, privileging non-Whites, and telling non-Whites that Jews are their “natural allies.” Since October 7, they’ve discovered with dismay that non-Whites in general, and Muslims in particular, regard Jews as hyper-White and hyper-Western, not as “natural allies.”

Murder menaces minority

Larry Auster saw that coming. The vast majority of other Jews did not. That’s because Auster was Semitic, but not solipsistic. Unlike the vast majority of Jews, he didn’t think the Universe revolved around Jews and didn’t assume that non-Jews would accept Judeocentrism as an unquestionable axiom of politics and culture. Indeed, he knew they wouldn’t. Jonathan Freedland still doesn’t know that, which is why he cried out like this in the Guardian: “A British minority faces a murderous threat on our streets. Where are the so-called anti-racists?” Jonny the Jew had reasoned that “Anti-racists stand up for minorities under murderous threat and Jews are a minority under murderous threat. Therefore anti-racists will stand up for Jews.” But anti-racists haven’t stood up for Jews. Jonny the Jew is baffled that his logic had failed:

The demonstrations [against Israel’s war on Gaza] would not need to be policed for hate speech [against Jews] if they were genuinely self-policed. Such a move should come naturally. It’s a good bet that every single person on those protests would call themselves a proud anti-racist. Indeed, they would say that’s a big part of why they’re there in the first place. Surely, then, they would want to be free of even the hint of racism. And yet organisers have never once approached mainstream Jewish groups, seeking guidance on how they might tackle this problem. […]

So if the organisers won’t act, perhaps the wider anti-racist movement will. And this gets to the heart of the matter. Governments can’t eradicate racism; only society itself can do that. But where are those who should be leading that effort? Where are those who are usually so vocal in their opposition to racism, now that one of Britain’s oldest minorities is facing a violent, murderous threat on the streets?

Where are the actors and celebrities who ordinarily waste no time in declaring their solidarity with the oppressed, even those many thousands of miles away, now that British Jews are stabbed in London for no reason other than that they are visibly Jewish? The silence of those otherwise so noisy is remarkable — and we Jews hear it loud and clear. (“A British minority faces a murderous threat on our streets. Where are the so-called anti-racists?,” The Guardian, 1st May 2026)

David Davidi-Brown has displayed the same Semitic solipsism in the same newspaper. A standard solipsist believes only in “Me, Me, Me.” A Semitic solipsist believes only in “We, We, We” — “We Jews are the ones that matter and everyone else should put us and our welfare first.” That’s why Davidi-Brown wrote this in the Guardian: “I have seen how afraid Jews in Britain have become. We need our allies now more than ever.” But have those “allies” flocked to the support of fearful Jews? Oy veh, they haven’t:

Jewish people in Britain are feeling afraid, isolated and, too often, ignored. In recent weeks I’ve been part of conversations where people have said they’re looking to leave the UK, or have already left, largely due to the rise in hatred and violence we face as Jews. I have spoken with parents nervous about their children securing a place in a Jewish school, hoping to protect them from the harassment and bullying experienced by too many Jewish pupils in secular schools.

When friends see my Star of David on show, they ask with surprise why I have not joined those choosing to conceal their Jewishness in public. This attitude should be shocking to all in Britain — and even more so to progressives and anti-racists. Some of what we have seen from those we most expect to confront anti-Jewish racism has added pain and a further sense of alienation to recent events. (“I have seen how afraid Jews in Britain have become. We need our allies now more than ever,” The Guardian, 20th April 2026)

You can see Davidi-Brown’s Semitic solipsism very clearly in the bad logic here: “This attitude should be shocking to all in Britain.” He takes for granted that Jewish welfare should be the central concern of “all in Britain.” But if it were, no-one would be “shocked” by “this attitude,” that is, the desire of Jews “to conceal their Jewishness in public” for fear of anti-Semitism. If “all in Britain” were shocked by Jewish fear of anti-Semitism, where would the anti-Semitism be coming from?

Slick trick for gullible goyim

Davidi-Brown is blinded by his Semitic solipsism to the laxity of his logic. So is Franklin Foer. Recall what Foer wrote in the Atlantic: “If America was a nation of immigrants, that made Jews quintessential Americans.” In fact, no, it didn’t. It simply made Jews “Americans,” not “quintessential Americans.” If American is a nation of immigrants, then immigrant Jews are merely Americans like everyone else, not “quintessential Americans” in a way that others aren’t. Without realizing it, Foer was admitting the falsity of the Jewish claim that “America is a nation of immigrants.” The subconscious logic of his claim goes like this:

  1. We Jews know that, in reality, America is a White nation carved from wilderness by White settlers who did so for “ourselves and our Posterity,” that is, for Whites and their descendants, not for Jews and other non-Whites.
  2. We Jews were immigrants into this already established White nation that we did nothing to create and make prosperous. Therefore it is Whites who are quintessential Americans, not Jews, who in fact have no American essence at all.
  3. Therefore we Jews need to deny the truth about the White nationhood of America and promote the lie that “America is a land of immigrants.” In this way, we elevate immigrant Jews to the status of “quintessential Americans” and strip that status from Whites.

“Nation of immigrants” is a slick trick to play on gullible goyim, I have to admit. That’s why Jews have tried to play it in European nations like Britain too, where Whites have lived for ten thousand years and more. That length of time makes Whites undeniably “indigenous” to Europe, but Jews and the leftists shaped by Jewish ideology refuse to allow Whites that obvious status. No, according to Jews “Britain is a nation of immigrants” too, not a nation of indigenes. And again, if Britain is a nation of immigrants, that makes Jews quintessentially British. More than that, it makes opponents of immigration quintessentially un-British. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, in France and Germany and all other European nations where Jews have used their “political and cultural ascendance” to demonize Whites, deny history, and deploy the mud-flood in their war on the West.

The mud-flood is what I call mass immigration by brown and Black outsiders who neither benefit Whites nor belong in the West. On the contrary: those non-White outsiders blight Whites and benight the West. But that’s precisely why Jews organized and adulated the mud-flood. Mass immigration from the Third World was worst for Whites and therefore, Jews reasoned, best for Jews. Since October 7, more and more Jews realized that they reasoned wrong. Jews have not imported natural allies, but created a golem. In Jewish legend, the golem was a monster created to defend Jews from evil gentiles. But the golem turned on its creators just as Muslims and other non-Whites have turned on their importers. Just don’t expect Jews like Freedland and Foer to admit it. Self-pity and solipsism are definitely Jewish values. Self-critique definitely isn’t. Except for rare Jews like Larry Auster, who believed in T.B.G., not in “We, We, We.”