Political Communication for Dissidents

/4 Comments/in , /by

Stregoneria Politica: Comunicazione politica non convenzionale
[Political Witchcraft: Unconventional Political Communication]
Guido Taietti
Rome: Altaforte Edizione, 2021

Guido Taietti, MA in political science, is an Italian patriot active in CasaPound. In addition to the book under review, he is the author of a Trattato sul sovranismo [Treatise on Sovereignism] (2019) and many articles in Italian periodicals. In May, 2023, he addressed the Scandza Forum in Tallinn, Estonia, but none of his writing has yet been translated into English.

Taietti is a specialist in political communication whose latest book offers a set of tactics for fighting back against the well-financed public communication system wielded by mainstream parties and “progressive” social media companies. Since many Americans are unaware of the nature and extent of this new system, I shall begin with a brief sketch of its explosive growth over the last generation.

The rise of the internet has benefited the world in all sorts of ways, but also subjected us to an unprecedented form of surveillance. From its beginnings in the 1990s, e.g., and simply as a byproduct of the search function it provides, Google collected a lot of data on its users. At first, this extra data was referred to as “digital exhaust” and ignored. But during the first decade of this century, the company learned how to mine it for clues to users’ likely future behavior. Amid the strictest secrecy, it developed a quasi-science of surveillance and manipulation combining aspects of artificial intelligence, statistics, machine learning, data science, and predictive analytics.

The first application of the new techniques was to advertising. As Harvard-trained social psychologist Shoshana Zuboff explains in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, the ad business had previously been something of a guessing game: “The idea of being able to deliver a particular message to a particular person at just the right moment when it might have a high probability of actually influencing his behavior was the holy grail of advertising.” Google figured out how to do this, and its profits soared.

It did not take long for the company to see that the same techniques could be applied to electoral politics. CEO Eric Schmidt took a special interest in the presidential ambitions of Barack Obama, helping his 2008 campaign compile data on 250 million Americans, including (in Zuboff’s words) “a vast array of online behavioral and relational data collected from use of the campaign’s web site and third-party social media sites such as Facebook.” One consultant claimed: “We knew who…people were going to vote for before they did.”

Google’s role in Obama’s 2012 reelection was even more prominent:

The campaign knew “every single wavering voter in the country that it needed to persuade to vote for Obama by name, address, race, sex, and income” and had figured out how to target television ads to these individuals. One breakthrough was the “persuasion score” that identified how easily each undecided voter could be persuaded to vote for the Democratic candidate.

By now, the new science of mass surveillance and manipulation has long ceased to be a Google monopoly, with Facebook, Microsoft, Verizon, Comcast, and other companies appropriating the techniques and contributing to their further development. The same methods are routinely applied to electoral politics in Europe and elsewhere: a true revolution in political communication.

In his Scandza Forum address, Taietti provided a simple example of how the new system allows political messages to be tailored to different kinds of voters. Persons high in neuroticism tend to become more conformist under conditions of stress, whereas those on the autism spectrum or low in empathy react to stress in the opposite way, by becoming less conformist. So a political party trying to influence its target audience to “get with the program” might send stressful news items to the first type of voter and reassuring stories to the latter—in order to influence both in a similar direction.

This is a merely crude illustration of a system of algorithms capable of weighing dozens of variables such as sex, age, location, income level, tastes and hobbies, web-surfing and purchasing habits. And the use of recursive machine learning means that the system is constantly honing itself to higher levels of accuracy and effectiveness.

Especially for the younger generation, web-based social networks have largely displaced newspapers and television as the locus where political and cultural ideas are spread. With people now spending as much time on the internet as their parents did watching television, we are witnessing what Taietti calls “an inversion between real and virtual life” in which social media have displaced families, schools, the church, and even face-to-face peer groups as agents for socializing the young.

Taietti has had personal experience of the power wielded by social media. At one time he was the manager of CasaPound’s Facebook page, which by 2018 had twice as many followers as Forza Italia, the country’s ruling party. Then Facebook decided to take the page down and block any user who so much as mentioned the organization. Italian judges have ruled against such interventions in Italian politics by foreign companies, but Facebook ignores them: national sovereignty means little on the internet. As a result, the generation now coming of age barely knows of CasaPound’s existence, despite the organization having offices in over one hundred Italian cities, its own newspaper and radio station, and a long list of cultural organizations. For the young, if it is not on social media, it is not real.

On the other hand, the same social media companies have been hard at work convincing young Italians of the “coolness” of various forms of sexual deviancy, and they have succeeded to the extent that fully ten percent of those under twenty-four now “identify as gender fluid.” This in a country where the Communist Party had an anti-homosexual plank in its program until the 1980s!

As the reader can see, the whole phenomenon has totalitarian overtones, and no doubt many of the system’s developers hope and expect it to make them into our permanent masters. But it would be well to remember Sam Francis’s observation that scientism—the notion that the same techniques which have worked in the physical sciences can be applied to man and human society—is an integral component of managerial ideology. Although internet surveillance and manipulation are new, the mindset that accompanies them is hardly different from that of Frederick Taylor’s “scientific management” from the early twentieth century. And as has often been pointed out, scientism itself is a utopian rather than a scientific idea. There are likely to be intrinsic limits to the perfectibility of internet manipulation.

Our task as opponents of the regime and its ideology is to take cognizance of the new reality and develop ways of countering it. This is what makes Guido Taietti’s manual of unconventional political communication so significant: it is among the first conscious responses to the weaponization of the internet by the powerful. His goal is to help dissidents punch above our weight.

The first point to understand is that we cannot simply copy the capital-intensive methods of our opponents on a smaller scale. A general faced with a much larger army cannot afford a direct frontal assault, since when two similarly equipped forces meet in this manner casualties tend to cancel each other out and overall numbers determine the outcome. Instead, the outnumbered side must seek a weak spot in the opposing army and concentrate its limited resources there. Often gaining mastery of even a small part of the field can lead to victory in the battle as a whole.

To the would-be science of our opponents, we must oppose an art, one that substitutes willpower for resources, and discipline for algorithms. We can embarrass the big actors, interfere with their plans for us, and gradually cultivate a loyal following that escapes their control. We must seek to win over not the majority of the population—at least not yet—but to change the terms of the debate over particular themes important to us. As Taietti puts it:

A community of one thousand members (an entirely plausible number for a small political party today), or even merely of sympathizers, intelligently directed, can influence a political system with regard to a single theme more than ten thousand voters waiting for the election to mark their ballot and hope things will go a certain way.

Most often, the tactics of a small activist organization will be the opposite of what the big boys do. Parties running candidates for national office do their most important communication in the six-to-eight weeks leading up to elections, when public attention is heavily focused on them; activists are better advised “rest when everyone else is fighting, and fight when everyone else wants to rest.” Major parties seek to appeal to as many as possible, since anyone can vote; activists should seek instead to attract a small core of reliable sympathizers who trust them. Major parties seek good relations with mainstream journalism; activists should force a hostile media to report on them instead.

A good example of how a small activist group should deal with the media is provided by CasaPound’s pioneering use of a political flash mob technique in Italy. Wanting to promote home ownership and protest the difficulty first-time home buyers’ experience in obtaining loans, they put up effigies of hanged men in dozens of Italian cities with labels referencing “social loans” (their own proposal to solve the problem). The old media had little choice but to mention the action, which quickly became publicly notorious in any case, and then had to explain who was responsible and what it was all about.

A small organization of dedicated activists can influence the terms of public debate, propose alternatives, delegitimize the professional political class, mock and discourage opponents, establish its own sources of politically relevant information, selectively report items from the mainstream news that support its own contentions, or even highlight opposing commentary that is conspicuously idiotic or fanatical (think: Libs of TikTok). Taietti calls such techniques “political witchcraft” because they can achieve results in the real world by acting exclusively on the virtual level, seemingly defying the laws of material force.

The various degrees of political participation can be pictured as forming a pyramid, with most people at the bottom and ever smaller numbers as one rise to the top. Taietti distinguishes four levels.

The bottom layer is formed of voters, passive consumers of political communication. They may like to talk about politics, but merely as a kind of self-expression. They vote by “feel,” often identifying personally with a candidate: liking Obama because he seems “cool,” or appreciating Trump’s combativeness, but without any clear idea of what they hope their man will achieve.

Sympathizers represent the lowest grade of active political participation. They have some ability to defend the positions they take, and may influence the passive voters in their social circle. These are the sort of people who cause a certain meme or video to “go viral.”

Activists represent the highest grade of active participation mobilized for ideal incentives. They not only defend their positions, but adapt them to the expectations of their public. They are the fundamental component of small political groupings.

At the top are professionals, viz., party members and candidates. These people are personally ambitious: rather than seeking election in order to carry out a program, they often chose a program simply to help themselves or their party get elected. In other words, they tend to be opportunists, specialists in getting the general public to vote for them, and can follow a changing party line in order to do so.

Mass politics is largely an affair of the lowest and highest levels of participation, i.e., political professionals who are experts at extracting the all-important 50%+1 of the vote from the mostly passive masses with the goal of getting into and retaining office. Smaller dissident groups tend to be formed of activists catering to sympathizers, as well as aiming for those members of the general public who can be raised at least to sympathizer status. For such activists, elections are merely an instrument, with the goal being a specific form of political change.

Taietti’s own organization, Casa Pound, once tried to make inroads into electoral politics without much success. The organization has now renounced this strategy and no longer nominates candidates for office. That does not mean, of course, that they are without crucial influence on Italian politics through the pressure they are able to exert on those actually in office. How they do so is well-illustrated by their role in thwarting the left’s campaign to introduce citizenship by Ius soli into Italian law.

Like most of the world’s countries, Italy determines citizenship by Ius sanguinis, meaning that a child of Italian parents is automatically Italian, wherever in the world it happens to be born. Under the Ius soli principle, anyone born on Italian territory would be considered Italian. America is currently saddled with an especially pernicious form of Ius soli under which even the offspring of illegal entrants are automatically treated as Americans: a situation which has given rise to such mockeries of American citizenship as anchor babies, birth tourism, and heavily pregnant Mexican women sneaking through the underbrush along the border in order to give birth in American emergency rooms.

For obvious reasons, Italian advocates of demographic replacement have been keen to get such a system adopted in their country. In early 2018, they thought they saw their chance. Italy was governed by an unpopular left-wing coalition that was generally expected to lose the next election.  Under these circumstances the ruling parties calculated that they might as well sacrifice a little of their remaining popularity by enshrining Ius soli in Italian law while they had the chance. This would not change the outcome of the coming election, but it would provide them with an endless source of non-European clients for the future.

The opposition center-right party, Matteo Salvini’s Lega, knew Ius soli was unpopular and promised to fight it in parliament. Still being in the minority, however, they saw little chance of winning such a fight. Yet this did not disturb Salvini overmuch, since he figured such a loss would give him a popular issue to campaign on in the coming elections. So Lega opposition was half-hearted at best.

Casa Pound knew differently: there was no use winning elections if the very concept of citizenship got hollowed out. Losing a parliamentary contest over Ius soli would make protecting national sovereignty much more difficult and provide a permanent incentive to immigration—all so that Salvini’s party could gain a few extra votes in the coming election. So they raised hell: hundreds of angry comments by party activists appeared under every newspaper article on the subject; they demonstrated in front of the Italian parliament building in Rome, and their clashes with police were seen by millions of Italians on the evening news. Despite years of media demonization, Casa Pound succeeded in generating a lot of popular sympathy in connection with this issue, even among Italians who would never have considered supporting the party in general.

The Lega realized it could no longer maintain a relaxed attitude toward an issue rousing such passions, so they tacitly adopted Casa Pound’s line as their own and brought the issue into the spotlight. The more moderate elements of the still-ruling left-wing coalition started backing off, afraid any support for Ius soli would brand them for life and ruin all their future electoral prospects.

In effect, Casa Pound had forced the Lega to fight for their position regarding an issue that would not have been electorally decisive for the Lega itself.

This is how small activist organizations can have a crucial influence on politics even without being able to obtain anything like majority support from the electorate, and it is an especially important model for countries with first-past-the-post voting systems that favor mass parties and prevent smaller electoral parties from gaining much of a direct voice in government. If members of such an activist organization do see opportunities to run in local elections, they can always do so as candidates of one of the major parties. Here again, Taietti cites an Italian example: the Radical Party never had more than a thousand members, but they allowed and even encouraged their members to join other parties as well, thus exercising significant influence on Italian politics in the 1970s and 80s.

It is more important for small activist organizations, however, to construct a social environment that makes its sympathizers feel they are a part of something, that gives meaning to the time they donate to the cause even in the absence of immediate political gains. The Casa Pound centers in Italian cities are not just party headquarters but also pubs, bookshops, and often gyms. Some provide supplementary classes for students and martial arts training. Young people make friends there, finding an escape from the anomie and social atomization outside. They are drawn into a community of shared values, becoming disposed to dedicate time and resource for their vision of the world.

Even the history of the Italian Social Movement (MSI), founded in 1946 by former fascists, holds some useful lessons for today’s dissident groups. Although it regularly received millions of votes, sometimes rising to more than 8% of the total, MSI was shunned by all the other political parties as the embodiment of evil. As Taietti stresses, such shunning was largely opportunistic political theater meant to increase the relative weight of the other parties and their value as coalition partners—much like the cordon sanitaire against anti-immigration parties today—but everyone pretended to believe it was a matter of moral principle. And the strategy was effective: when a Christian Democratic government showed signs of softening toward MSI in 1960, the communists responded by sponsoring deadly riots, and the experiment was never repeated.

Supporting MSI in those years made little sense. You risked being beaten up at school, fired or ostracized at work—even killed, if you had any important role in the organization. There was no way to make a career by joining such a party. Yet MSI survived. It built a parallel world to defend its own people, who simply ignored the entire mainstream press. Instead of renting meeting halls, they purchased their own from member contributions so that no landlord could evict them after the fifth Molotov cocktail attack. Party members sent their children to special private schools with the children of other party members; in the summer, the young went to countries like Spain and Portugal to listen to the war stories of old fascist fighters finishing out their days in exile from their homeland.

Over the years, the younger generation came to accept that any restoration of fascism was impossible and undesirable. The party reformed and split, with one of its successor organizations providing the environment in which Italy’s current Prime Minister Georgia Meloni got her start in politics. Upon her election last October, of course, the mainstream press clutched its pearls and affected to believe Mussolini was rising from the dead.

It is an example with much to teach today’s dissidents, whatever opinion they may hold of Italian fascism.

 

Emil Kirkegaard: Eulogy for Richard Lynn (1930-2023)

/5 Comments/in /by

Editor’s note: This eulogy is from Emil Kirkegaard’s Substack. Richard Lynn was truly a pillar of the hereditarian thrust in psychology which is under assault or ignored by most academics now. I have cited him extensively in my writing. The good news is that researchers like Emil Kirkegaard are carrying on this tradition.

The last man of the old hereditarian triumvirate

EMIL O. W. KIRKEGAARD
JUL 21, 2023
Richard Lynn passed away a few days ago in his sleep. His health had been in decline for some time, so his passing was expected. Still, it offers us a moment reflect upon the man and his work. As I knew him personally, it falls on me to provide some contrast to the usual hate mongering from SPLC and their friends.

For those interested in his personal history, you should read his 2020 autobiography Memoirs of a Dissident Psychologist (477 pages). It is one of the funniest nonfiction books I’ve read. For those looking for something shorter, there is his 2019 summary Reflections on Sixty-Eight Years of Research on Race and Intelligence. It’s worth quoting the introduction for his background for getting into the field:

I first encountered the question of race and intelligence sixty-eight years ago. This was in 1951 when I was a student reading psychology at Cambridge and attended Alice Heim’s lectures on intelligence. She told us that Blacks in the United States had a lower IQ than Whites and this was attributable to discrimination, which she subsequently asserted in her book (Heim, 1954) [1]. She also told us of the UNESCO (1951) [2] statement that “Available scientific knowledge provides no basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development.” She did not tell us that this assertion was disputed by Sir Ronald Fisher (1951) [3], the Professor of Genetics at Cambridge, who wrote a dissent stating that evidence and everyday experience showed that human groups differ profoundly “in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development” and that “this problem is being obscured by entirely well-intentioned efforts to minimize the real differences that exist.”

Nor did Alice Heim tell us that Henry Garrett, the Professor of Psychology at Columbia University, had argued that genetic factors are largely responsible for the lower IQ of Blacks than of Whites (Garrett, 1945) [4] so I and my fellow students at Cambridge were not well-informed about the issue of race differences in intelligence and its causes. Alice Heim was giving us the mainstream position among social scientists in the 1950s and this remained largely unchallenged in the 1960s. I believe the only person who challenged it was Henry Garrett (1961) [5], who designated it “the equalitarian dogma”, but I did not know of him until much later. At this time I did not question the mainstream position among social scientists that Blacks and Whites have equal ability as my interest during these years was in personality and I was not thinking about intelligence.

It was in 1967 that I became interested in this issue. This came about when I moved to Ireland to take up a position as research professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESIR) in Dublin. The purpose of the ESIR was to carry out research on the economic and social problems of Ireland and find policies that would help solve them. Foremost among these was that, at that time, Ireland was quite economically backward compared with Britain and I researched the literature to see what contribution I could make to this problem. It was not long before I discovered a study by John Macnamara (1966) [6] that reported that the IQ of Irish 12 year olds was 90, compared with 100 in Britain. It appeared that the low IQ was likely a significant cause of the Irish economic backwardness. I knew that intelligence was a determinant of earnings among individuals and that this was also true for groups. I knew of Cyril Burt’s (1937) [7] book The Backward Child, in which he showed that children in the boroughs of London had different IQs and that these were highly correlated across the boroughs with the earnings of adults. I knew that this had also been shown by Maller (1933) [8] in the boroughs of New York city. It seemed likely that the same would hold for nations and, in particular, for the economic backwardness of Ireland. This was how I came to formulate the theory that differences in intelligence are an important determinant of national per capita incomes that I was to publish later, in collaboration with Tatu Vanhanen, in IQ and the Wealth of Nations (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002) [9].

As I thought about this in 1968, I decided it would be wise to check Macnamara’s study reporting the low Irish IQ. I asked two of my assistants, Ian Hart and Bernadette O’Sullivan, to carry out a further study and they did this by administering Cattell’s Culture Fair test to a sample in Dublin. They found their sample had an IQ of 88 compared with 100 in Britain (Hart and O’Sullivan, 1970) [10] and therefore closely similar to the IQ of 90 that Macnamara had reported.

Although this confirmed Macnamara’s study, it was a disconcerting result. I wondered whether it would be wise to publish my conclusion that the low IQ was a significant factor responsible for the economic backwardness of Ireland. I doubted whether this conclusion would be well received, particularly coming from an Englishman telling the Irish that they had a low IQ problem. Furthermore, it would raise the question of what policies could be adopted to solve the problem. These would be a set of eugenic policies that would raise the Irish IQ, such as the sterilization of the mentally retarded and incentives for graduates to have more children. Eugenic policies of this kind had been regarded as sensible by most informed people in the first half of the twentieth century but in the late 1960s they had begun to be repudiated. In many countries, eugenics societies closed themselves down or changed their names and that of their journals. In 1968, the British Eugenics Society ended the publication of its journal The Eugenics Review and replaced it with Journal of Biosocial Science and in 1969 the American Eugenics Society ended the publication of its journal Eugenics Quarterly and replaced it with Social Biology. Neither of these new journals published papers on eugenics. In addition, although eugenics societies had been founded in virtually all economically developed countries in the first half of the twentieth century, Ireland was an exception. Ireland at that time was a deeply Catholic country and the Catholics had been the only group, articulated by G. K. Chesterton, that had opposed eugenics in the first half of the twentieth century. By 1970, eugenics had become almost universally rejected. Virtually no-one supported eugenic programs anymore and anyone who proposed doing so would be accused of being a Nazi. For all these reasons, I did not think I could publish the low Irish IQ while I was in Dublin and I decided that, in order to do so, I would have to move.

In 1969, the consensus that there are no race differences in intelligence was challenged by Art Jensen in his paper How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? [11] In this he argued that the 15 IQ point difference between Blacks and Whites in the United States was likely to have some genetic basis. To quote his words, “it is not an unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are implicated in the average Negro–White intelligence difference”. This paper generated a storm of protest. I read Jensen’s paper and concluded that he was right. I discussed it with Hans Eysenck who said he agreed and in 1971 [12], he published his book Race, Intelligence and Education, in which he summarised the evidence for this. About the same time, William Shockley began lecturing and publishing papers arguing that the Black IQ deficit is largely genetic (Shockley, 1971) [13] and this also generated a lot of publicity on account of his being a Nobel prize-winner for the invention of the transistor.

Lynn’s father was Sydney Harland, a British geneticist. He had an affair with Lynn’s mother at some point, but did not join the family. As such, Lynn was raised by a single mother in the 1930-1940s England. Lynn certainly inherited behavior from his father, in that Lynn’s career is essentially that of a collector of biological specimens — except that Lynn chose to collect human intelligence data instead of plants! And he sure did a lot of collecting. Lynn remained active in publishing almost up to his death at the age of 93, spanning over 50 years. Here’s a list of his most famous books, many of which will be familiar to the reader:

  • 1997. Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations.
  • 2001. The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund.
  • 2001. Eugenics: A Reassessment.
  • 2002. IQ and the Wealth of Nations. With Tatu Vanhanen.
  • 2006. IQ and Global Inequality. With Tatu Vanhanen.
  • 2006. Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. (Second edition 2015, currently being revised.)
  • 2008. The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide.
  • 2011. The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement.
  • 2012. Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences. With Tatu Vanhanen.
  • 2015. Evolution and Racial Differences in Sporting Ability. With Edward Dutton.
  • 2019. The Intelligence of Nations. With David Becker.
  • 2019. Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality: An Evolutionary Analysis. With Edward Dutton.
  • 2020. Memoirs of a Dissident Psychologist.
  • 2021. Sex Differences in Intelligence: The Developmental Theory.

We attempted to compile a list of his compilations. We found 445 academic papers, 22 books, 20 magazine/newspaper articles, and 6 book chapters, so in total 493 works. We probably missed some, so the true count is probably slightly north of 500 publications. Here’s a timeline of his extraordinary productivity:

Unusually, Lynn accelerated his speed of publication in his older age, the opposite of the usual pattern seen for academics and creative workers in general. I can think of several reasons for this. First, it got easier to publish with better technology. Second, after he was pensioned, he no longer had to fear social sanctions for his work, as he did when he was a professor. Third, as he got more famous, it was much easier to find coauthors to work with, and one can publish more work when one has more coauthors. Still, managing to put out 20+ papers a year while being over 80 years old is almost unheard of.

The Flynn-Lynn effect

Many people mistakenly think that James Flynn discovered the Flynn effect, which is named after him. Secular increases in intelligence test scores had been noted already in the 1930s. Lynn published a review of this work in 2013 (Who discovered the Flynn effect? A review of early studies of the secular increase of intelligence):

The term “the Flynn effect” was coined by Herrnstein and Murray (1994, p.307) to designate the increases in IQs during the twentieth century that were documented for the United States and for a number of other countries by Flynn (1984, 1987). This designation has led many to believe that it was Flynn who discovered the phenomenon. Thus, the rise of IQs “has been called the Flynn effect after its discoverer” (Newcombe, 2007, p. 74); “Flynn’s discovery” (Zhu & Tulsky, 1999, p.1,255); “Flynn, a New Zealand psychologist who discovered that IQ scores are inflating over time” (Syed, 2007, p.17); and “the insight that made him famous…intelligence scores are rising, James R. Flynn has discovered” (Holloway, 1999, p.3).

These attributions are misplaced. There were numerous reports of secular increases in intelligence during the half century before they were rediscovered by Flynn in 1984. The first objective of this paper is to summarize these early and largely forgotten studies. Who knows today of the work of Runquist (1936), who first discovered the effect? Or of Roesell (1937), Johnson (1937), Wheeler (1942) or Smith (1942) who published early reports on this phenomenon? None of these names appear in textbooks on intelligence such as those of Brody (1992), Sternberg (2000), Hunt (2011), Mackintosh (2011) and Sternberg and Kaufman (2011), or even in books wholly devoted to the Flynn effect by Neisser (1998) and Flynn (2007). The second objective of this paper is to discuss the implications that can be drawn from these early studies.

James Flynn had a piece in the same issue of the journal and his commentary began thus: “Richard is correct.”. For this reason, some authors refer to the effect as the Flynn-Lynn effect, or FLynn effect, to show the double honor. True to his lack of self-promotion, Lynn himself suggested naming it after the first author who noted it, the Runquist effect. Still, it is true that Flynn’s work was pivotal in sparking renewed interest in the score gains, an interest that remains to this day. In terms of causes, Lynn thinks he basically got it right initially:

Fifth, these results tell against most of the explanations advanced for the Flynn effect, namely that it is attributable to increased test sophistication and education (Tuddenham, 1948), “improvements in education reflecting more effective teaching” (Meadows, Herrick, Feiler, & the ALSPAC Study Team, 2007, p.58), the greater complexity of more recent environments providing greater cognitive stimulation (Williams, 1998), greater cognitive stimulation from television and media (Greenfield, 1998) and from computer games (Wolf, 2005), improvements in child rearing (Elley, 1969), more confident test taking attitudes (Brand, Freshwater, & Dockrell, 1989), the “individual multiplier” and the “social multiplier” (Dickens & Flynn, 2001) and “an enhanced real-world capacity to see the world through scientific spectacles” (Flynn, 2007, p.42). All these hypotheses predict that the effect should be absent or minimal among infants and should increase progressively through childhood and adolescence as these environmental inputs have cumulatively IQ boosting impacts, and most of them predict that that the Flynn effect should be greater for verbal abilities that are taught in schools than in non-verbal abilities. The early evidence falsifies these predictions and arguably leaves the nutrition theory impacting on infants as the most plausible explanation of the secular increase of IQs, although this has also been criticized (Flynn, 2008).

It would be historically amusing if Lynn will be chiefly remembered for correctly identifying an environmental effect on intelligence scores.

Group differences, group differences everywhere

Richard Lynn is of course most famous for his work on group differences, whether these are national and subnational differences, sex differences, or race differences. To say that he worked in areas somewhat prone to political attacks would be an understatement. Essentially all his work since 2000 concerned group differences as well as eugenics/dysgenics. Lynn was the first person to seriously study national intelligence differences, and the only prior researcher of note to have studied this previously was Raymond Cattell (1905-1998) whose 1983 edited book Intelligence and National Achievement probably inspired Lynn’s work on national differences.

His works on group differences had a large impact on my own research interests. In fact, after I emailed with Lynn in 2011 and told him I was a philosophy student, he suggested:

Have you thought about changing to psychology?

Philosophy is about words, psychology is about facts & is more satisfying.

How right he was! One year later, I changed my major to linguistics (having an extreme antipathy to the continental philosophy that is the focus of the philosophy degree at Aarhus University), but of course, I never really did much work in linguistics. While taking the degree, I spent most of my time studying psychology, statistics, genetics, programming etc. The result was my first published paper in 2013 about Danish immigration and IQ. Lynn helped me find it a place to publish it too — in Mankind Quarterly of course — and the year after he invited me to come to the first London Conference on Intelligence. The rest is history.

Lynn’s work on national intelligence differences started, as he mentioned above, back with his studies of Irish intelligence and economic underperformance relative to the United Kingdom. Ironically, Ireland is now one of the wealthiest countries in the world on paper, owing to their tax haven status for large multinational companies, while the United Kingdom is falling behind in international rankings. His work on national differences in intelligence show them to be very reliable over time. Here’s a table of Lynn’s original 1978 estimates versus Becker’s 2019 estimates:

The correlation is .81, excellent considering the small number of studies available at the time. Replication is a key tenet of science, something it has taken the mainstream psychologists decades to appreciate.

Lynn’s research on the causality of national intelligence differences was very limited in methodology. Essentially, he noted the evidence that intelligence is causal for income, education etc. at the level of persons as supporting evidence, but did not try to use econometric methods to establish causality at the national level, just publishing the correlations. Later Jones & Schneider (2006) showed that intelligence is a great predictor using Bayesian model averaging, and certainly better than most other factors that have been advocated by popular authors. We replicated and extended this result in 2022:

Since Lynn and Vanhanen’s book IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002), many publications have evidenced a relationship between national IQ and national prosperity. The strongest statistical case for this lies in Jones and Schneider’s (2006) use of Bayesian model averaging to run thousands of regressions on GDP growth (1960-1996), using different combinations of explanatory variables. This generated a weighted average over many regressions to create estimates robust to the problem of model uncertainty. We replicate and extend Jones and Schneider’s work with many new robustness tests, including new variables, different time periods, different priors and different estimates of average national intelligence. We find national IQ to be the “best predictor” of economic growth, with a higher average coefficient and average posterior inclusion probability than all other tested variables (over 67) in every test run. Our best estimates find a one point increase in IQ is associated with a 7.8% increase in GDP per capita, above Jones and Schneider’s estimate of 6.1%. We tested the causality of national IQs using three different instrumental variables: cranial capacity, ancestry-adjusted UV radiation, and 19th-century numeracy scores. We found little evidence for reverse causation, with only ancestry-adjusted UV radiation passing the Wu-Hausman test (p < .05) when the logarithm of GDP per capita in 1960 was used as the only control variable.

Sex differences in intelligence

Lynn delights in quoting authorities in a field confidently claiming something, and then proving them wrong. Here’s the opening of his 2017 summary on sex differences in intelligence:

The equal intelligence of males and females has been almost invariably asserted from the early twentieth century up to the present. Two of the first to advance this conclusion were Burt and Moore (1912) and Terman (1916). In the second half of the century it was frequently restated. Typical conclusions by leading authorities are those of Cattell (1971, p. 131): “it is now demonstrated by countless and large samples that on the two main general cognitive abilities – fluid and crystallized intelligence – men and women, boys and girls, show no significant differences”; Brody (1992, p. 323): “gender differences in general intelligence are small and virtually non-existent”; Eysenck (1981, p. 40): “men and women average pretty much the same IQ”; Herrnstein and Murray (1994, p. 275): “the consistent story has been that men and women have nearly identical IQs”; Mackintosh (1996): “there is no sex difference in general intelligence worth speaking of ”; and Hutt (1972, p. 88): “there is little evidence that men and women differ in average intelligence”. Others who stated the same conclusion include Maccoby and Jacklin (1974, p. 65) and Geary (1998, p. 310).

The assertions that males and females have the same average IQ continued to be made in the twenty-first century. Lubinski (2000): “most investigators concur on the conclusion that the sexes manifest comparable means on general intelligence ”; Colom et al. (2000): “we can conclude that there is no sex difference in general intelligence”; Loehlin (2000, p. 177): “there are no consistent and dependable male-female differences in general intelligence”; Lippa (2002): “there are no meaningful sex differences in general intelligence”; Jorm et al. (2004): “there are negligible differences in general intelligence”; Anderson (2004, p. 829): “the evidence that there is no sex difference in general ability is overwhelming”; Spelke and Grace (2007, p. 65): “men and women have equal cognitive capacity”; Hines (2007, p. 103): “there appears to be no sex difference in general intelligence; claims that men are more intelligent than women are not supported by existing data”; Haier (2007): “general intelligence does not differ between men and women”; Pinker (2008, p. 13): “the two sexes are well matched in most areas, including intelligence”; Halpern (2007, p. 123): “there is no difference in intelligence between males and females…overall, the sexes are equally smart”; Mackintosh (2011, p. 380): “the two sexes do not differ consistently in average IQ”; Halpern (2012, p. 233): “females and males score identically on IQ tests.”

But it isn’t really so. The error these authors have been making is to neglect the effect of age. Sex differences in cognitive abilities are very small for children, it is true, but they start showing up with age. Here’s a study by Nyborg (2015):

There is a large amount of research on such post-pubescence differences, which I reviewed in 2021. That is not to say the data are perfectly consistent, but it is certainly more consistent in the direction of favoring men than showing no differences. Almost no research show a female advantage.

Dysgenic problems and eugenic solutions

Lynn’s two books on dysgenics and eugenics likewise got me to think more seriously about the problem and the potential solutions. True to his style, Lynn was ahead of the time in recommending technological solutions:

There’s no sub-chapter on surrogacy but otherwise it’s pretty much a list of currently trending technologies. The book might also contain one of the first discussions of predicted East Asian supremacy in the 2100s, as the west declines from dysgenics and political correctness. The jury is still out on that front as East Asia has even larger fertility issues than the west, and do China is moving back towards communist authoritarianism from their capitalist liberation.

Richard Lynn as a man

When I learned of his work, I read the usual online sources about him. These gave me the expectation that he has a hard nosed, perhaps mean spirited, political conservative. My actual experience with him over the years taught me exactly the opposite. Richard was a gentle, polite, scientific autist, who did not often talk about politics. In this aspect, he was similar to his long time friend Arthur Jensen. The various political extremisms attributed to him can best be described as projection by the ones writing them. Rest in peace, Richard.

Casting an Irishman as Oppenheimer

/4 Comments/in /by

Surprising to see this bit of Jewish paranoia in Newsweek. The usual line is that it’s just a religion or culture open to everyone. However, it’s quite possible that more and more Jews will insist on an ethnic identity and Middle East ancestry rather than being grouped in with the hated White people.

And don’t get me started on what Hollywood does with roles depicting real-life Jewish villains. Ask Edmund Connelly.

When it comes to casting, should it matter that Oppenheimer was a non-observant Jew, a Jew who essentially denounced his Jewish identity? It should not. Judaism is an ethnoreligion. We are a religion, we are a people, we are an ethnicity. Jews originated in the Levant. There are varying degrees of religious observance. But when it comes to one’s ethnic identity, there is no litmus test for how Jewish one is. …

If Hollywood continues its robust commitment to diversity—and it absolutely should—then it needs to acknowledge Jewish people are an ethnicity. We are a people, we are a nationality, with a lineage that can be traced back to a very specific geographic location in the world. And, as is the case with every other ethnic minority portrayed in TV and film, Jews deserve real, nuanced, accurate representation. Otherwise, Hollywood’s myriad endeavors in the diversity equity and inclusion space is a mere exercise in hypocrisy.

Meloni’s failure

/3 Comments/in /by

From Google translate:

Italy’s right-wing government cannot limit mass immigration

Even with some tightening of the law, Italy’s right-wing government under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has not succeeded in reducing the influx of illegal migrants. Instead, she obviously stabs her voters in the back. Not only is the number of illegal migrants increasing: she also works with Brussels.

Already during the election campaign in Italy, Giorgia Meloni became the focus of attentive observers, who pointed out her membership in the globalist “Aspen Institute” (supported by the Rockefellers and Gates, as well as the WEF ) . A Trojan horse, so to speak – or a “submarine” of the globalists, so some suspected. And as is usual in politics, politicians and parties should not be judged by their promises but by their actions. The actions and the facts in Italy speak for themselves, as a recent report makes clear.

For despite the harsh attitude towards illegal migration to Italy and the invaders from predominantly Muslim immigrants, reality does not live up to expectations . The voters, who wanted stricter restrictions on migration movements to Italy, will be mercilessly disappointed. This is shown by current figures from the southern European country. Indeed, from January 1st to July 17th, the Italian Interior Ministry registered a total of 78,182 arrivals compared to 33,187 in the same period last year. These were predominantly economic migrants, as shown by the most common countries of origin, which in descending order were Ivory Coast, Guinea, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Tunisia, Burkina Faso, Syria, Cameroon, Mali and others.

Italiens Rechtsregierung kann die Massenzuwanderung nicht begrenzen

Nick’s Pics: The Amazing Atheistic Adventures of Sleazy Semitic Sex-Pest Nick Cohen

/2 Comments/in /by

Nick Cohen is a Jewish journalist who loves atheism, neo-con wars, and non-White migration. Naturally enough, he also hates Russia, Brexit, and White nationalism. While pursuing his loves and hates at the staunchly feminist Observer, sister-paper of the Guardian, he became notorious as a serial groper and sex-pest. For decades, the newspaper’s management did nothing to help his female victims or stop his sexual predation. When the scandal finally got too big to hide any more, they bade farewell to Cohen with lavish praise for his journalism and a “big cash payment.” Can you believe it?

Sleazy Semitic sex-pest Nick Cohen finds a new home

If you can believe it, you won’t be surprised to learn which other newspaper gave him a new home after he left his happy hunting ground at the Observer. Sex-pest Cohen is now nursing regular columns to life at the Jewish Chronicle. Maybe the Chronicle is nostalgic for the good old days:

Dodging the pests at the JC [Jewish Chronicle]

Gloria Tessler recalls life at the JC in the 70s when “so many editors were lunging, touching and smooching”. … Girls had to manipulate, charm and edge their way out of sexual harassment at the JC. Yes, the JC! When I started here in my 20s, back in the 1970s, I was the only woman reporter and I could not imagine lasting out the week, so many senior editors were lunging, touching and smooching. If you were not agile enough to manage a pre-emptive escape, life would be a true battlefield.

… the way to stave off these men’s unwelcome advances was to keep talking about other things, reminding them of their wives and children, praising their brilliant articles, charming them, until they slowly — very slowly, if ever — began to see you as a human being and not a sexual plaything. …

But worst of all, was the day when I walked into one senior executive’s office. His door bore a red light, so I politely knocked. Once inside, I turned to face him — to find he had exposed himself. Shocked and disbelieving, I offered some gibbering excuse about the editor needing to see me, and made a quick getaway. This was something you read about in the papers; half-dressed blokes leaping out of bushes in the park, not something you expect in a newspaper office. …

Working freelance in Fleet Street proved easier, apart from a publication where I tried offering stories to a scarily lascivious, Czech-Jewish editor with a mordant wit. He suggested lunch and the harassment began in the taxi and ended in a restaurant where he had booked a private room. With his hands groping everywhere except the salmon en croute, I managed to free myself and flee in time, lamenting later that I hadn’t sold a single story. (Dodging the pests at the JC, The Jewish Chronicle, 9th November 2017)

Why did “working freelance” elsewhere in the British media prove easier for the Jewish woman? I’d suggest it’s because she encountered fewer Jewish men. Of course, some Jewish men behave with complete propriety towards women and some White gentile men don’t. But the pattern is clear: there is a much stronger tendency towards sexual predation among Jewish men. It’s not a coincidence that prolific sex-criminals like Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein are Jewish. Nor is a coincidence that prolific fraudsters like Bernie Madoff and Robert Maxwell are Jewish. Fraudster and Mossad agent Maxwell, who was born Hyman Binyamin Hoch in Czechoslovakia in 1923, was also a sexual predator. He was very likely the “scarily lascivious, Czech-Jewish editor” mentioned in the article above.

Jewish women support Jewish sex-criminals

Maxwell should have gone to jail for stealing huge sums from the pension funds of goyim who had worked for his media empire. But he escaped justice. His daughter Ghislaine hasn’t been so lucky. She was jailed in 2022 for working with the Jewish sex-criminal Jeffrey Epstein to exploit under-aged shiksas. The Jewish sex-criminal Harvey Weinstein also had the support of Jewish women. His Jewish lawyer, Lisa Bloom, worked with the Israeli company Black Cube to spy on the shiksas who were trying to bring Weinstein to justice. Now Jewish women have rallied to the defense of Nick Cohen. Tanya Gold tweeted that his alcoholism explained his bad behavior and made him just as much of a victim (if not more so). Hadley Freeman tweeted that he “has apologised,” so it was unfair of the New York Times to report that he had repeatedly groped junior female colleagues, had “pressed his erection” without invitation against one woman’s thigh, and had “repeatedly offered to send … explicit photographs” to another woman.

I wonder how Tanya Gold and Hadley Freeman would have reacted if Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump or Nigel Farage were proven to have pressed unsolicited erections against unsuspecting women and offered to flood the ether with mega-pixel dick-pics? I’m sure that Tanya and Hadley wouldn’t have been so forgiving. But Vlad and company are right-wing goyim. Nick is a fellow leftist Jew. And a very powerful leftist Jew too. The mainstream British media have barely covered the Nick Cohen scandal and even in the fringe media no-one has discussed obvious patterns of Jewish ethnocentrism and Jewish power. One example of that power appears in the fact that Nick Cohen, champion of free speech and doughty defender of the powerless, used his wealth to issue legal threats against his victims:

“Literally everyone knows about it, but nothing ever happens,” a sympathetic coworker reportedly told one of the women abused by Cohen.

They may have been intimidated when they learned that another person encouraging them to go public received a legal threat from a high-priced law firm acting on Cohen’s behalf. The lawyers warned that individual of “inevitable bankruptcy” unless they issued a full retraction, made a public apology, paid Cohen’s legal costs, gave a £1,000 donation to charity, and ominously, disclosed the identities of his accusers. In one particularly twisted passage, the legal threat asserted The Observer columnist was “a long established advocate of free speech.” (British media protected pro-war serial sex pest Nick Cohen for decades, The Grayzone, 8th June, 2023)

But Cohen has had support before from “high-priced” lawyers. When he wrote a book on free speech, he received a glowing review from his fellow Jew Anthony Julius, deputy chairman of the shekel-seeking law firm Mishcon de Reya. Back in 2013, Andrew Joyce discussed Julius’s extreme ethnocentrism and ability to find anti-Semitism in the most surprising places. I too have discussed him at the Occidental Observer. In “High-Voltage Hate” I described how he had lavished praise on Cohen’s anti-censorship polemic You Can’t Read This Book (2012), which he said “stands alongside” libertarian classics like “Milton’s Areopagitica (1644) and Mill’s On Liberty (1859).” But it’s clear that Julius has no genuine belief in free speech. Particularly not when Jewish interests are threatened. He was the lawyer for Ronnie Fraser, a Jewish academic who made a pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian claim against the University and College Union in 2013. The claim was dismissed by a panel of judges as “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” The judges condemned Fraser and his supporters for betraying “a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.”

The chutzpah of Anthony Julius

As I described in “Gas-Chamber Blues Re-Visited,” that attack on free speech by no means exhausted the appetite of Anthony Julius and Mishcon de Reya for censorship. In the 2010s, the firm acted against a female Maltese journalist called Caruana Galizia, who was trying to expose the activities of corrupt businessmen and politicians on Malta. Her campaign ended when she was blown up by a car-bomb. After trying to silence that brave journalist in Malta, Anthony Julius then had the chutzpah to join the board of trustees at the “writers’ campaign group English PEN,” whose “mission is to defend writers and freedom of speech.” Caruana Galizia’s sons complained to English PEN about Julius’s appointment, saying that his firm Mishcon de Reya “sought to cripple her financially with libel action in UK courts. … Had our mother not been murdered, they would have succeeded.” Nick Cohen condemned Julius by name and denounced the “unsavoury alliance between oligarchs and London’s top lawyers,” then had the chutzpah to use the same tactics against his own victims.

Anthony Julius loves money, not free speech

The law firm acting for sex-pest Nick Cohen also threatened to “cripple” one of his accusers financially, even as it boasted of his credentials as “a long established advocate of free speech.” It’s clear that Jews like Nick Cohen and Anthony Julius have no real belief in free speech. It’s also clear that leftists like Nick Cohen and the Guardian News and Media group have no principle but the pursuit of power. Even as the Observer and Guardian were publishing endless articles about #MeToo and the horrors of patriarchal oppression, senior management were ignoring Cohen’s sexual predation.

Solidarity with sexual predators

But Nick and his dick-pics won’t be high on the list of indictments when managers, editors, and journalists at the Observer and Guardian are put on trial in a future White nationalist Britain. What will be high on the list is the way they have ignored the much worse and much longer-lasting sexual predation of non-White men in Rotherham and many other British towns and cities. Nick Cohen himself should face a charge of collaboration with sexual war-crimes, because he was damned by his own words in a pro-migrant article he wrote in 2015. Describing the so-called Jungle, a refugee-camp in Calais, he noted that “women sleep in a separate enclosure because they fear being raped.”

Cohen knows very well that male illegal migrants are far more likely to be sexual predators. But he still condemns all attempts to keep them out of Britain. Perhaps he feels solidarity with them, as a fellow predator. He certainly feels solidarity with them as a Jew. They don’t belong in Britain any more than he does.

Trump’s Endorsement Got DeSantis Nothing

/1 Comment/in /by

Trump’s Endorsement Got DeSantis Nothing

Donald Trump is indignant that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis would dare run for president when he KNOWS Trump is running. According to the former president and big baby, this is a betrayal of epic proportions because Trump endorsed DeSantis during his first gubernatorial run. (Whereas winning the presidency by promising to build a wall, and then reneging, is a trifle, hardly worth mentioning.)

      DeSantis, he says, would be “working at a Pizza Hut” if not for Trump’s endorsement. [Counter-argument: DeSantis is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale, and didn’t pay someone to take his SATs for him, as Trump did.]

But since Trump won’t shut up about his splendiferous endorsement of DeSantis, let’s see how valuable it really was.

Answer: It was utterly irrelevant.

Trump endorsed DeSantis on Dec. 22, 2017, shortly before he officially announced his candidacy, tweeting, “Congressman Ron DeSantis is a brilliant young leader, Yale and then Harvard Law, who would make a GREAT Governor of Florida. He loves our Country and is a true FIGHTER!”

The response was Earth-shattering!!! Actually, it had absolutely no effect. Not the slightest little bump in the polls. Weeks later — thanks to Trump’s back-breaking work typing out a tweet — DeSantis’ primary opponent, Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Adam Putnam, led DeSantis 23% to 18%, according to a Florida Chamber of Commerce poll.

Although DeSantis wasn’t shy about touting Trump’s endorsement, by early June 2018, Putnam had a double-digit lead over him. A Fox News poll, for example, showed Putnam ahead 32% to 17%, and an NBC poll had Putnam leading DeSantis 38% to 21%. Not only that, but Putnam had outraised DeSantis $30 million to $10.8 million.

That’s the old Trump magic!

It wasn’t until the first primary debate at the end of June 2018 that DeSantis soared in the polls and never went back down. As Floridapolitics.com reported, numerous surveys showed “a dramatic leap to the top for DeSantis since the two [primary candidates] squared off in the nationally televised debate in Orlando on June 28.”

It’s not that DeSantis is an amazing debater — he’s not — but two months before the election, voters started paying attention.

By the time of the second and final debate on Aug. 8, 2018, DeSantis was leading Putnam by 20 points, and went on to win the primary 57% to 37%. Trump had nothing to do with it: DeSantis was underwater from Trump’s December 2017 endorsement right up until the voters got a look at DeSantis for themselves.

True, Trump reminded voters of his DeSantis endorsement just before that first debate, and there were no polls between Trump’s re-endorsement and the debate a week later, so maybe the second time’s the charm!

Were Florida voters especially enamored of Trump in June 2018? Hardly. A Marist/NBC poll, taken between June 17 and June 22, had Trump down 20 points on the “deserves to be reelected” question.

Indeed, Trump’s endorsements only seem to “work” by random chance — or when his aides tell him who’s going to win, and then, at the last minute, he endorses that guy. (See J.D. Vance.)

Remember Alabama? Even in the Trumpiest of Trump states, his endorsed candidates in 2017 lost in both the primary and the general election. This was during Trump’s first year as president, when he was at the height of his powers — before we knew he was going to betray us. (Some of us had an inkling.) Trump’s endorsements did the impossible, producing a Democratic senator from a deep red state.

His endorsement of Herschel Walker in 2022 cost Republicans a Senate seat in Georgia. His endorsement of Doug Mastriano (for claiming the 2020 election was stolen) cost Republicans the entire state of Pennsylvania. Also: Kari Lake in Arizona, Tudor Dixon in Michigan, Don Bolduc in New Hampshire and so on.

How about the race that obsessed Trump more than any other? Far more than a couple of tweets, Trump waged a jihad against Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in 2022, practically turning himself into David Perdue’s campaign manager.

He even used half a million dollars from his PAC to defeat Kemp — marking the first time Trump spent his donors’ money on something other than his own properties and family members.

Result: Kemp slaughtered Perdue in the primary, 74% to 22%, and then increased his margin of victory in the general election from four years earlier.

And never forget that in the weeks before DeSantis’ reelection in 2022, Trump repeatedly attacked him at rallies, calling him the oh-so-witty “Ron DeSanctimonious.” The day before the election, Trump hinted at an imaginary DeSantis scandal, telling The Wall Street Journal, “I will tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering. I know more about him than anybody other than perhaps his wife, who is really running his campaign.”

As we all now know, DeSantis went on to win reelection by 20 points, the largest margin in 40 years, in an otherwise rotten year for Republicans (thanks to Trump).

Moral of the story: A Trump endorsement is electoral poison.

Aside from the insanely narcissistic rank stupidity of Trump thinking he has the right to demand that no other Republican run against him, DeSantis owes him absolutely nothing. Next year, when the “justice-involved” former president is angling for a presidential pardon and decides to endorse DeSantis, the governor should refuse it. That will bring the country together.

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER

Tuberville’s Tormentors: Sens. McConnell (R-PRC) and Schumer (D-Israel) Veto American Whites Protecting Their Interests

/1 Comment/in /by
As James Fulford noted in Tommy Tuberville Vs. Chuck Schumer on ”White Nationalism”—Or Americanism, we were all very surprised to see this objectively weak Con Inc. replacement for Alabama’s great Senator Sessions taking an interest in white Americans:

…the reporter asked Tuberville, “Do you believe they should allow white nationalists in the military?” Tuberville said, “Well, they call them that. I call them Americans.”

Inevitably Tuberville was immediately bullied into cucking: Tommy Tuberville now says ‘White nationalists are racists’ after refusing to denounce them, by Manu Raju, Rashard Rose and Lauren Fox, CNN, July 11, 2023.

Leaders of the Political Police were Chuck Schumer (D-Israel) and Mitch McConnell (R-PRC).

Part of the problem here is a malicious confusion of terms. White Supremacy in the sense of whites keeping political control over other races, which was a conscious strategy in the post-Reconstruction South for obvious reasons, was broken by federal power in the Civil Rights Era, with largely unreported results (see here, here). I think that simple White Supremacism, in the sense of the belief that whites are superior, which was at least plausible in the 19th century, is now extinct. Apart from the huge Asian economic renaissance, everyone who looks into the matter is aware of the racial IQ distribution and its implications. This science was not available until the 20th century.

What remains viable is white particularism, or ethnocentrism: the notion that whites can and should take action to protect the interests of their own group. (This is the definition long favored by VDARE.com.) For whites, this is crucial at a time when other groups are already practicing it in an ethnically diverse society.

This legitimacy of white interests is what I am trying to get over to the GOP Smithsonian Regents: Black Conquers Asian at Smithsonian. ASK GOP Regents Why Not a WHITE Women’s Museum Director?

As Senator Tuberville has apparently sensed, white interests desperately need protecting in the military. This week the Senate is moving to confirm what John Derbyshire describes as a White-Hating Black General to Head Our Anti-White Military. I tweeted:

Greenfield’s underlying article, Next Joint Chiefs Chairman Wants White Male Officers to Be a Minority [frontpagemag.com, May 11, 2023], notes:

…quotas had been issued by political appointees in a Politically Correct military, but they had focused on slowly boosting minority officers rather than calling for a purge of white men.

The 2014 quotas had looked for an 80 percent white, 10 percent black and 8 percent Asian officer corps … this fell short of Brown’s proposed racist purge.

Brown’s quotas limit the number of white officers to 67% and cut white men down to 43% … getting it down to 67%, a reduction of 10%, would require serious effort to purge white officers and bar the doors to any new ones.

As Paul Craig Roberts commented:

The real reason for recruitment failure is the recruitment message to the white heterosexual males, essentially from the “racist” South who have always been the backbone of the military services:

Join the military and be discriminated against… You will not be promoted.  The US military has too many white officers.  Your officers will be blacks, feminists, homosexuals, and transgendered freaks who have been taught to hate heterosexual white males… In fact, you and your despicable kind in the civilian population are the main enemy as seen by US Armed Forces. 

[Why the US Armed Services Cannot Recruit, July 11, 2023]

Judging by his mumbles in the CNN article cited above, Mitch McConnell has no idea of what White Nationalism vs. White Supremacism means. He just knows he wants to do what his donors demand. That does not include protecting white Americans.

My comment:

Q: What Military would benefit the most from a collapse in U.S. military technical competence as unsuitable browns and women waste training capabilities?

A: Obviously, China.

This is why the issue I raised in Gatestone Says ”Hundreds” of U.S. Politicians Purchased. How Can Mitch McConnell NOT Be One? is so desperately important.

Chuck Schumer is a different matter entirely.

There are many gradations of Nationalism. At the mildest, it is not much more than an affection for language, literature, dress and cuisine. Most do not aspire to actually eliminating other nations.

As a major beneficiary of “Coalition of the Fringes“ politics, Schumer has always been determined to blur the differences between White Nationalism and White Supremacism. As he was quoted lying in the CNN article above:

“The definition of white nationalism is not a matter of opinion. White nationalism, the ideology that one race is inherently superior to others, that people of color should be segregated, subjected to second-class citizenship, is racist down to its rotten core.” [My emphasis]

Schumer lives in dread that the GOP might reformulate along the lines of the Generic American Party (GAP) and wreck his plans for this country.

To save our Palestinian readers writing in: It has to be said that Schumer’s definition of White Nationalism sounds a lot like Zionism as practiced in Israel.

Here’s what Schumer recently said about his Zionism:

[as] the highest-ranking Jewish American elected official in history, I stand here today in the shadow of my ancestors who perished in the Holocaust to promise that as long as Hashem breathes air into my lungs, the United States Senate will stand behind Israel with our fullest support.

[Chuck Schumer declares “fullest support” for Israel, by Michael F. Brown, The Electronic Intifada, February 27, 2023]

This scathing article continues:

As for Schumer, his views on Israel have not changed. His religious language and support for Israel is not far removed from the remarks he made at an AIPAC conference in 2018 when he intoned in bigoted and exclusivist terms against Palestinians: “We say it’s our land. The Torah says it. But they [Palestinians] don’t believe in the Torah. So, that’s the reason there is not peace.”

Shades of Sheldon Adelson!

To get the true measure of this dishonest and extremely dangerous man, I strongly recommend Did Schumer Shill for Madoff?, by John Graham, Occidental Observer, January 16, 2011.

In brief, Schumer had fundraisers in Ponzi scheme operator Bernard Madoff’s offices, and intervened to chill the last and most serious SEC investigation into Madoff 2006-8. Then he commandeered the afternoon session of the Senate banking committee investigating the scandal and spent all the time abusing the SEC.

God save the Republic.

Email Patrick Cleburne.

Reposted from VDare.com with permission.