America’s miseducation system: IQ, teacher quality, and egalitarian ideology

/6 Comments/in /by

The United States spends over five percent of its gross domestic product on education, a larger share than most developed nations. Yet, this immense investment yields disappointing results. According to national assessments, roughly 66 percent of American students are not reading at a proficient level. The paradox of high spending and poor outcomes reveals a fundamental flaw in how the country designs and delivers education. America does not suffer from a shortage of funds; it suffers from inefficiency, misplaced priorities, and an unwillingness to confront the biological and cognitive realities that underpin learning.

The prevailing assumption in American education is that more money automatically produces better schools. Policymakers have poured investments into reducing class sizes, building new facilities, and introducing technology. However, the evidence suggests that increasing resources have produced minimal gains in achievement. International comparisons show that public expenditure on education is not a primary predictor of student performance. Countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan spend  even smaller shares of their GDP on schooling yet consistently outperform the United States. The reason is not that they spend more, but that they spend intelligently. These nations invest in recruiting and retaining competent, high-ability teachers, structuring systems that match instruction to ability, and fostering cultures that prize discipline and merit.

American education policy operates under a mistaken egalitarianism that assumes all children can learn the same content at the same pace if only the environment is sufficiently supportive. This notion ignores a mountain of scientific evidence showing that intelligence is heritable and that genetic endowments play a powerful role in shaping educational outcomes. Heritability studies have found that around 40 percent of the variation in years of education is explained by genetic differences among individuals, with the proportion increasing as people age. These findings imply that while schooling matters, the baseline potential for academic success is not equally distributed. Selective schools achieve strong results largely because they attract students with above-average ability, not because of uniquely transformative pedagogy.

Historical research supports this view. In the United Kingdom, studies have revealed that individuals with surnames associated with high social status in past centuries continue to achieve better scores on national examinations such as the GCSEs. This persistence of educational advantage across generations points toward a genetic component underlying social mobility. In other words, success is not solely a product of circumstance or schooling—it reflects enduring cognitive traits passed down through families. Ignoring this reality leads policymakers to waste resources on reforms that cannot overcome biological limits.

Although genetic endowment establishes the baseline for learning potential, it does not render schools or teachers irrelevant. Teacher quality still plays a role in determining how much of that potential is realized. High-IQ teachers not only foster excellence among gifted pupils but also compensate for the cognitive and motivational deficits of genetically disadvantaged students, who have a higher probability of completing college when taught by intellectually capable instructors. Teachers matter only when they are above average in intelligence and competence; those of average or below-average ability exert little meaningful influence on learning outcomes. Despite the benefits of smarter teachers, the reality is that teachers and schools together account for only about 10 percent of the variation in student achievement, while the remaining 90 percent is associated with student characteristics

Comparative studies reveal that American teachers score significantly lower on literacy and numeracy assessments than their counterparts in countries such as Finland, Japan, and Australia. In Finland and Japan, teachers rank among the most cognitively skilled professionals in the labor force. Their average ability exceeds that of adults with master’s or doctoral degrees in Canada. By contrast, the cognitive skills of American teachers barely surpass those of average college graduates. This disparity matters because teacher cognitive skill strongly predicts student performance. A one standard deviation increase in teacher cognitive ability is associated with a 0.10 to 0.15 standard deviation rise in student achievement, enough to close about one quarter of the gap between the United States and Finland.

The roots of America’s teacher-quality problem lie in recruitment and incentives. High-performing nations recruit their teachers from the top third of the academic distribution, ensuring that those who instruct children are among the most intelligent graduates. In Finland, Singapore, and South Korea, teaching is a prestigious career reserved for the intellectually capable and socially respected. These countries recruit 100 percent of their teachers from the top third of the ability cohort. However, in the United States, only 23 percent of new teachers come from the top third of the ability distribution. The remainder are drawn from the academic middle and lower tiers. Predictably, the results mirror the inputs: an average teaching corps produces average students.

Incentives further compound the problem. Teacher salaries in the United States are uncompetitive relative to other professions requiring comparable levels of education and skill. International data show that countries offering higher relative wages attract more capable teachers and, as a result, achieve better educational outcomes . The United States and Sweden, where teachers are paid below market rates, exhibit both low teacher cognitive skills and poor student performance. Meanwhile, nations such as Ireland, which reward teachers generously, boast superior results. The decline in teacher quality over time also reflects changes in the broader labor market. In the mid-twentieth century, limited career opportunities for women meant that many of the brightest female graduates became teachers. As opportunities expanded in law, medicine, and business, teaching lost its monopoly on female talent. The best candidates now pursue higher-paying, higher-status professions, leaving the schools staffed with mediocrity.

Teacher quality not only influences achievement directly but also interacts with students’ genetic endowments. Research using genetic data from American adolescents demonstrates that high-quality teachers can mitigate the effects of low genetic endowment. In schools with better teachers, the association between genetic predisposition and educational attainment weakens. Specifically, a one standard deviation improvement in teacher quality reduces the positive association between a student’s genetic propensity for education and years of schooling by roughly 20 percent.. This means that while intelligence is heritable, good teachers help disadvantaged students reach their potential. However, quantity does not substitute for quality: smaller class sizes and higher teacher-to-student ratios show little correlation with achievement once teacher ability is considered. The implication is clear. America’s problem is not that it has too few teachers but that too many of them are average. Increasing the number of classrooms or hiring more staff will not fix the fundamental issue. What is required is a deliberate strategy to raise the cognitive caliber of the teaching profession.

Beyond improving teacher recruitment, the United States must also confront the inefficiency of its uniform, one-size-fits-all approach to instruction. The system assumes that all students can be taught the same material in the same way, ignoring vast differences in ability and motivation. High-performing countries such as Singapore have long abandoned this egalitarian fiction. At the secondary level, Singaporean students are offered courses at foundational, standard, or higher levels depending on aptitude. Those who perform well advance to more rigorous tracks, while others receive instruction appropriate to their capacity. The system is flexible, allowing movement between levels as students develop. This model recognizes that equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcome and that treating unequal abilities as identical wastes resources and stifles excellence.

By contrast, the American model confuses fairness with sameness. In trying to make everyone equal, it diminishes both the gifted and the struggling. Advanced students grow bored and disengaged, while weaker ones are pushed through content they cannot master. A more rational policy would acknowledge cognitive diversity and tailor education accordingly. Stratification by ability, guided by rigorous assessment, would enable each student to progress at an optimal pace.

Reforming the American education system therefore requires a new philosophy built on three principles. First, the country must recruit smarter teachers by raising entry standards and offering competitive pay. Teaching should be a selective, prestigious profession that attracts the top third of graduates rather than a fallback for those with limited options. Second, schools should adopt differentiated curricula that align with students’ cognitive levels, similar to the Singaporean model. Third, education policy must integrate insights from behavioral genetics and cognitive science, acknowledging that ability is not equally distributed and designing interventions that respect that reality.

America’s education system is trapped in a cycle of good intentions and poor design. It spends lavishly, yet it fails to cultivate excellence. Decades of reform have neglected the simple truth that learning depends on both innate ability and the competence of those who teach. The path forward is not to spend more but to think more intelligently about how education works. Recruiting brighter teachers, structuring instruction around ability, and restoring intellectual merit to the center of policy would yield far greater returns than any budget increase. Only by aligning its educational practices with the realities of human ability can America transform its schools from bureaucratic failures into engines of genuine learning.

 

Mortal Victims

/3 Comments/in /by

Käthe Kollwitz (1867–1945), “The Survivors” (charcoal on toned paper)

Introductory Note:

The article below is adapted from segments of my speech, L’Histoire victimaire comme identité négative (“Victimhood History as Negative Identity”), delivered in October 2007 at the XII Round Table of Terre et Peuple, in Paris-Versailles. Nearly two decades later, I think it is appropriate to translate it into English, as it addresses the detrimental effects of various victimhood narratives.  I have already written extensively in TOO about the pathology of self-imposed White guilt and self-hatred, accompanied by an almost grotesque acceptance of non-European victimhood narratives. These narratives, crafted by the Allies after World War II, have reshaped by now the identity of White nations. This postwar White identity, rooted in often exaggerated or feigned sympathy for the plight of non-European peoples, is a logical psychological and cultural consequence of the catastrophic events of World War II. It raises therefore serious questions about the future cultural and demographic trajectory of White populations worldwide.

It must be noted that the recent proliferation of victimhood narratives among growing non-White populations residing in Europe and the United States mirrors the Jewish victimhood narratives tied to World War II. Why should one ethnic or racial group be permitted to commemorate its losses while other ethnic groups are denied the same prominence for their own stories of suffering? It would be inaccurate however to solely attribute the proliferation of victimhood narratives to Jewish communities. Throughout history, and particularly after World War II, European peoples have often shaped their identities by exaggerating their own historical losses while downplaying or ignoring the suffering of their neighboring former foes. For example, as I have noted here on TOO and elsewhere, and at some point also discussed on an Israeli newscast, the ongoing memory wars between Serbs and Croats, as well as the ongoing military conflict between Ukrainian and Russian nationalists, illustrate this historical but also legal dilemma. It must be also noted that Jewish victimhood narratives—and, by extension, Jewish identity at large—are under significant strain today, particularly due to global condemnation of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The traditional archetype of the perpetually suffering Jew is gradually being overshadowed by the televised image of a mutilated Palestinian child, which has come to symbolize a new victimhood narrative.

**  **  **

In today’s make-believe world, the projected reality must become more real than objective reality itself. Historical accounts have become more historicized than historical events themselves. To make their narratives more persuasive, mainstream historians increasingly turn to elaborate wordings filled with vivid adjectives and exaggerated body counts of their selective dead. This is particularly evident in the victimhood narratives of non-European communities residing in Western Europe and the US. These communities are searching for their victimized identity by boldly projecting themselves not just into their history, but also into their exotic prehistory. It is no coincidence that, as Europeans face a loss of their own identity, they strive to make commemorative gestures for non-Europeans. Monuments are raised for previously unknown peoples and tribes, and buildings are erected with elegant plaques to signify places of real or purported White guilt. Public holidays, or at the very least, commemorative days for non-European victims, are increasingly piling up on the calendar.

The memory of White Europeans and Americans is increasingly forced to shift toward exotic antipodes in order to pay homage to peoples whose identity has nothing to do with that of  Europeans. European peoples are compelled to enter the post-historical phase of global commemoration. On one hand, the media and opinion makers assure us that History is coming to an end; on the other hand, we are witnessing a growing claim by non-European peoples to be part of their victimized history. It is as if, to have an identity, one must resurrect the dead of foreign people. As usual, external non-European victimology requires the obligatory contrition of Europeans before the Third World accompanied by the culture of remorse. The old sense of the tragic, which until recently was a fundamental pillar of European identity, is giving way to proxy lamentations for Asian and African victims. It seems that the culture of death has been replaced by a culture of necrophilia. What a horror to be unable to flaunt the dead and the victims of Others! Thus, victimology has become an important branch in the study of postmodern historiography.

We must, however, draw a clear distinction between the culture of death and the victimhood mentality, as Alain and Benoist and Pierre Vial noted in their book La Mort more than forty years ago. The victimhood mindset has entirely stripped away the meaning of death precisely because it has reduced victims to mere mathematical figures, devoid of any transcendental meaning. Where does this appetite for the dead—often for the dead of others—come from? In the hit parade of various victimhood narratives, or what’s called the “battle of memories,” not all victims are equal. Some must inevitably overshadow others. So, how do we rank the dead? In the victimhood-saturated atmosphere of today’s multicultural West, every people, every community, is led to believe its own victimhood is unique. That’s the troubling issue, given that one group’s victimology inevitably clashes with another’s.

The Ideology of Human Rights: A Discriminatory Ideology

The victimhood mentality stems directly from the ideology of human rights. Human rights, along with its offshoot, multiculturalism, are the main drivers behind the resurgence of the victimhood mindset. Once all people are declared equal, each one must be entitled to his own victimhood narrative. By their very nature, multicultural Western countries are expected to allow every community to parade its victimhood—a phenomenon we witness on a daily basis. Every ethnic group, every racial community, and even every political faction or tribe needs its own martyrology to legitimize its identity. To illustrate, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of an “Other” living in Paris, London, or New York—a Congolese, a Laotian, or someone else. Don’t they ask themselves: Why do others, like the Jews, get to have their high visibility and widely recognized victimhood narrative, but not me, why not us?

In fact, it’s in the name of human rights—and by extension, the right to victimhood—that some of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century were committed. It’s in the name of human rights that entire peoples and dissenting intellectuals are being branded as outside the bounds of humanity. The logical fallout of this victimhood mentality is the search for identity through the negation of the identity of the Other, who then becomes the primary enemy. This is the serious problem facing multicultural societies in the West. How to find a supra-ethnic, consensual discourse without excluding another community? The competition of victim narratives makes multicultural societies extremely fragile since by its very nature the victimhood mentality is conflictual and discriminatory. The language of victimhood is far more primal than the old communist doublespeak. Yet it has become the universal, global norm, inevitably leading to a global civil war.

Conclusion

Instead of reducing conflicts, the language of victimhood amplifies them; instead of fostering dialogue about identity, it destroys it; instead of honoring the dead, it reduces them to perishable objects. The image and discourse that various European nationalisms project about one another have so far relied on negative legitimacy, that is, the establishment of a negative identity. However, any victim-based narrative about European peoples invariably stirs primal emotions. The tragic Serbo-Croatian conflict is just one consequence of the antifascist victimhood discourse that dates back to the end of World War II. The causes of this World War II victimhood narrative are rarely openly debated by court historians or today’s self-righteous elites. If they do, they risk falling afoul of the penal code. Here lies a bizarre historiographic phenomenon: on one hand, we are inundated with anticolonial, antifascist, and philosemitic victimhood narratives; on the other, the colossal crimes committed by communists and their liberal allies during WWII against European peoples are rarely discussed. Who still remembers the victims of communism, who lack any recognized victimhood narrative? If there is a victimhood in Europe that truly deserves its name and merits solemn reflection, it is the tragic fate of the millions upon millions of Germans during and after World War I and World War II.

The Treatment of Prince Andrew Proves We Live in a World Run by Bullying Schoolgirls

/6 Comments/in , /by

Like the previously posted article on Helen Andrews’ “The Great Feminization,” Ed Dutton’s article also deals with the feminization of culture, also citing Joyce Benenson’s Warriors and Worriers.

Things have moved fast in the Royal Family since I reviewed the book Entitled for this publication; the book proving beyond reasonable doubt that Prince Andrew is a liar, happily associates with and takes money from a convicted paedophile, is a statutory rapist and is a supreme Narcissist. Despite his maintaining that he “vigorously denies” the allegations against him, Prince Andrew paid off his accuser, Virginia Roberts, and has now gone even further. Now an email to Jeffrey Epstein has come to light in which Prince Andrew wrote to sex offender, “We’re in this together.” The King has swiftly reacted. The way he has done so, however, is a fascinating reflection of just how feminized the West has become.

As American psychologist Joyce Benenson has explored in her book Warriors and Worriers, males and females punish transgressions in markedly different ways, and this also extends over into the way in which they bully each other. Men are evolved to create large coalitions to fight for the interests of the group; in effect, to create armies. If you seriously break the rules, then you will be punished, often physically as seen in the floggings that were common in the British Army until the twentieth century. Once you are punished, then it is over and the group moves on, almost as though the transgression and the punishment never happened. If your crime is especially egregious – such as cowardice – then you were executed, usually with a priest present, as English journalist Tim Stanley has pointed out in the Daily Telegraph “We don’t know how to handle Prince Andrew because we no longer understand sin.” The Church, which is intimately connected to the Army, forgives you and we move on.

Stanley further observes that, “In place of retribution, which we’ve decided is cruel, we isolate and ostracise the accused,” and that punishment has been replaced by the far crueller system of “cancellation.” However, he fails to mention the obvious reason for this shift, which is the rise in the influence of females. As Benenson observes, women do not “punish” in the conventional, male sense; they exclude. Women are evolved to be part of part of a system centred around dominant males. They create closely bonded cliques of a small number of “alloparents” to help raise their children; the Alpha male often gradually neglects them in favour of the newest and most nubile wife. In that their children are involved, these cliques must be based around complete trust and equality, so they bond by sharing intimate information; by being “vulnerable” with each other.

Women are physically weaker and a fight is dangerous because if they are killed, then their child may die from neglect. Women therefore seek safety. Moreover, the entire system of punishment is different. It involves being “cancelled,” excluded from the parties with the popular girls, shamed, whispered about and, generally, excluded. This is a far more vicious way of punishing because it is, potentially, without end: there is no forgiveness, there is no moving on, it is never “over with” and the process – of being excluded – is the punishment.

Of course, some people don’t care about being excluded by the Leftist elite, something the left, being feminine, find incomprehensible. They have no “shame” and they find a new clique of which to be part; the growing right-wing counter-elite which has welcomed ex-Leftists such as the comedy writer Graham Linehan, who criticised the Trans insanity. This is what you must do in the world of girls; you must find a new “clique” to protect you.

Prince Andrew has been treated in exactly this “female” way by his brother, the King. Rather than being punished by being stripped of his military honours and the titles of “His Royal Highness” and the Duke of York, he has voluntarily renounced his military honours and agreed not to use the prenominal “His Royal Highness” and, as of October 2025, not to use his title of Duke of York. In other words, despite what some newspaper commentators are wrongly saying, Prince Andrew has not been “stripped of his titles.” He has agreed not to use them but, legally, he is still “His Royal Highness,” because he is the son of the Queen, and he is still “the Duke of York” and he will remain so unless the King formally strips him of this title, which would require an Act of Parliament.

Put simply, Prince Andrew hasn’t been punished – nothing has been taken from him. He has been pressured to relinquish things or stop being open about things he still possesses, such as the Dukedom of York. This may be seen as a benevolent compromise for Prince Andrew; his royalty is very important to him and this process means that his ego is not too badly hurt. He gets to be in control and can say to himself, “I am His Royal Highness, the Duke of York, but I merely choose not be publically styled as such.”

However, this also means that he hasn’t really been punished at all and that there can be no “moving on.” He will spend his life in this limbo where can attend some royal events but not others, where he is royal but not fully. I suspect this, itself, reflects the female focus on “harm avoidance.” To really punish Prince Andrew would be to overtly harm him, which might make the punisher look “mean;” the ultimate sin the world of women — an egregious sign of lack of empathy. Much better to covertly harm him; harm him, but with plausible deniability.

If Prince Andrew could simply be punished, by being stripped of his dukedom for example, then society could move on and perhaps Prince Andrew could live out his days doing charity in order to atone for his behaviour. But, it seems, the UK is too feminized for this happen. In a world run by women, he is to be excluded from the party run by the “glossy posy.” It will be Purgatory. Forever.

Helen Andrews: The Great Feminization

/5 Comments/in , /by
The basic facts of the Summers case were familiar to me. On January 14, 2005, at a conference on “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,” Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record. In it, he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well as taste differences between men and women “not attributable to socialization.” Some female professors in attendance were offended and sent his remarks to a reporter, in defiance of the off-the-record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no-confidence vote by the Harvard faculty and, eventually, Summers’s resignation.The essay argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT. Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another, and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria.
This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.

The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently. How did I not see it before?

Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981).

A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.

The same trajectory can be seen in many professions: a pioneering generation of women in the 1960s and ’70s; increasing female representation through the 1980s and ’90s; and gender parity finally arriving, at least in the younger cohorts, in the 2010s or 2020s. In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018 and today the female share is 55 percent.

Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.

The substance fits, too. Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.

The most relevant differences are not about individuals but about groups. In my experience, individuals are unique and you come across outliers who defy stereotypes every day, but groups of men and women display consistent differences. Which makes sense, if you think about it statistically. A random woman might be taller than a random man, but a group of ten random women is very unlikely to have an average height greater than that of a group of ten men. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.

Bari Weiss, in her letter of resignation from The New York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal Slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot and—this is the most feminine part—“colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.” Weiss once asked a colleague at the Times opinion desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This was a failure to meet the standards of basic professionalism, obviously. It was also very feminine.

Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political issues of the day but he would regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues from gay rights to Gaza. They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue in violation of Covid lockdowns because racism was a public health emergency.

One book that helped me put the pieces together was Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes by psychology professor Joyce Benenson. She theorizes that men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring. These habits, formed in the mists of prehistory, explain why experimenters in a modern psychology lab, in a study that Benenson cites, observed that a group of men given a task will “jockey for talking time, disagree loudly,” and then “cheerfully relay a solution to the experimenter.” A group of women given the same task will “politely inquire about one another’s personal backgrounds and relationships … accompanied by much eye contact, smiling, and turn-taking,” and pay “little attention to the task that the experimenter presented.”

The point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes, but it works only if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men therefore developed methods for reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females, even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males. That is because women’s conflicts were traditionally within the tribe over scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict but by covert competition with rivals, with no clear terminus.

Continues …

 

Turn Around The Mayflower—We Forgot The Cannibals

/2 Comments/in /by

NYTimes: Pilgrims Sought Diverse, Inclusive Space Where Everyone Feels Validated

Having given up on the notion that diversity is a strength under the crushing weight of the evidence, The New York Times is now pushing the idea that America has always been a diverse nation that loved diversity, and practically made diversity a founding principle, and they would even have added “diversity” to Mount Rushmore if only they could find someone, ideally a lesbian woman of color, with that surname.

For example, the preamble to the Constitution states that its purpose is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” — obviously meaning their own descendants, as well as the descendants of Congolese, Bangladeshis and Cameroonians.

To prove that America was teeming with diversity from its very beginning, a Times op-ed by documentary producer Leighton Woodhouse describes the bitter enmity in Colonial Pennsylvania among the Quakers (from north-central England), the English Anglicans (from all over England) and the Scots-Irish (from Scottish Lowlands and Northern England).

Not only were the original Americans from an area of the world smaller than Kansas, but as DNA tests now prove, the Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh have nearly identical genes — as noted by Times science reporter Nicholas Wade in 2007. (And by the way, everybody hated the Quakers.)

But suppose we didn’t notice something fishy about Woodhouse trying to pass off blinding homogeneity as “diversity.”

Neighbors and families feud. Heard of the Hatfields and McCoys?

The last two Jews in Afghanistan hated one another’s guts. Their animosity subsided only when one died of old age. Therefore, by Woodhouse’s lights, there’s no such thing as “Jewish.” It’s a polyglot ethnicity, encompassing Papua New Guineans, Djibutians, Uighurs — anybody.

Unsafe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Similarly, the fact that Iranians in Los Angeles have been holding competing demonstrations almost weekly since both sides of the 1979 Iranian revolution relocated there means “Iranian” is an unidentifiable ink blot. Mexican drug cartels, Korean boy bands, the North Pole’s Eskimos — they’re all part of the beautiful mosaic that makes up an Iranian

America’s wild diversity is reflected in its founding document. Every signatory to the Declaration of Independence was British or Dutch. So were the vast majority of American presidents, every single one of whom was at least part English. All but one declaration signer and two presidents have been Protestant.

So Woodhouse almost had us fooled with his We’ve Always Had Cannibals and Child Rapists op-ed.

While it’s totally believable that Times readers have no concept of American history from 1620 to 1970, it’s hard to believe they also have no idea what’s happening right now. Only someone who willfully stuck his head up his butt could fail to notice that recent immigrants aren’t exactly blending.

News you would not encounter during America’s first 350 years:

“Maryland Man [Kenyan immigrant] Arrested After Admitting to Killing, Eating Roommate” — U.S. News and World Report. (It was the “eating” that disqualified the suspect for cashless bail.)

“ICE arrests illegal immigrant accused of child rape in Framingham, Massachusetts” — WCVB Channel 5, Boston. (This story has become so common it’s on Page 27 of the paper, next to the horoscopes.)

“Undocumented migrant accused of molesting 5-year-old in her own home” — WPTV News, Florida. (Sorry, but this is what happens when you give 5-year-olds their own homes.)

“Trial [of Iraqi immigrant Faleh Hassan Almaleki] Begins in Arizona ‘Honor Killing’ Case” — Associated Press. (After being arrested, the suspect surrendered his firearm and his “World’s Greatest Dad” hoodie.)

“Texas dad Yaser Said found guilty of fatally shooting teen daughters in ‘honor killings’” — Associated Press. (Defendant said to be the quintessential “Texas dad.”)

“Attempted ‘Honor Killing’ Trial: Ihsan Ali Learns His Fate”  — COURT TV. (Besides getting the silent treatment from his daughter.)

“Santeria Ritual Sacrificial Practices in Miami” — Florida International University. (Suspects said to be not particularly devout, more like Christmas and Easter santeros.)

“Animal cruelty investigation underway after bag with 3 mutilated birds found in Putnam County …” — ABC7, New York. (No word yet on how the suspects got to Putnam County from Springfield, Ohio.)

“A ring of beheaded chicken carcasses was found in a Southwest Miami-Dade intersection” — CBS Miami. (Fed up with chicken carcasses in public spaces, Hispanic neighbors are demanding more severed heads.)

“Animal sacrifices on the rise in Queens with chickens, pigs being tortured in ‘twisted’ rituals” — New York Post. (Bodies were transported to nearby veterinary clinic, then pronounced “delicious on arrival.”)

“ICE, federal partners arrest more than 1,400 illegal aliens in Massachusetts … including murderers, rapists, drug traffickers, child sex predators and members of violent transnational criminal gangs” — DHS Press Release. (After the arrests, witnesses say several Harvard dorms were all but deserted.)

“ICE Arrests the Worst of the Worst Including Pedophiles, Child Abusers, and Sexual Predators” — DHS Press Release. (Meanwhile, local elementary schools brace for a shortage of “drag queen story hour” readers.)

“Bombshell DHS sweep in Minneapolis-St. Paul finds 50% of immigrants had committed immigration fraud, with credit card fraud and burglaries … chief among [their other] crimes” — New York Post. (Also, 12% of arrestees claimed to be married to U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar.)

“[Moldovan national] wanted on international warrant facing fraud charges, caught with 131 bogus credit cards in Indiana” — CBS Chicago. (Ironically, the suspect used his one phone call to contact customer support in Bangladesh.)

“Somali market owners charged with [$10 million] food stamp fraud” — Columbus Dispatch. (Police said their first clue that something wasn’t right was the words “Somali market owners.”)

“Five Men from Somalia Arrested on Charges of Forgery, Credit Card Fraud, Drugs in Ohio” — Hiiraan Online. (Somali market owner agrees to testify against them in exchange for a lighter sentence.)

Even the “good” Ellis Island immigrants brought us anarchism, communism, organized crime, bootlegging and worship of a foreign pope, among other nonindigenous American customs — i.e., not those of the foundational Dutch and British.

It took us 100 years to assimilate them, and they were Europeans, not drastically different from the people who founded and created our country. Now liberals want us to import entire nations of cannibals, child molesters, thieves and voodoo practitioners.

Perhaps those attributes could be added to the poem scribbled in crayon onto Statue of Liberty by Emma Lazarus, one of those Ellis Island immigrants.

COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER

James Edwards interviews Thomas Rousseau, founder of Patriot Front.

/4 Comments/in /by

What follows is an interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards with Thomas Rousseau, founder of Patriot Front.

* * *

James Edwards: When and for what purpose was Patriot Front founded?

Thomas Rousseau: I founded Patriot Front back in 2017 to solve what I saw to be a potentially mortal flaw in the nationalist movement, that being a lack of discipline, direction, and professionalism in its activist organizations. Since then, PF has become the largest such organization, expanding in both scope and size. The organization’s aim is to organize, align, and encompass the full spectrum of life. It is a nation within a nation. Just as our nation ought to be composed of athletes, entrepreneurs, scholars, tradesmen, and so on, our organization is as well. It’s not about the utilization of one or even several tactics; it’s about the overall alignment of all productive efforts to synchronize them in service to the ultimate goal. That goal is the service to our nation, our people, and the adherence to what we believe to be essential civic virtues.

Edwards: Could you please further explain the issues that drive your organization into action?

Rousseau: The list is despairingly long. The men of our nation are weak, our system of government is corrupt, our economy is exploitative, our culture is diluted, and our very existence is threatened. The nation is being strangled to death by both the inability of a young family to purchase a home and the foreign immigrants who roam our streets and kill with impunity. Just as our organization’s focus is definitely broad, it is decisively simple; nation and virtue. So we oppose that which assails the nation and infringes upon virtue, from the smallest substance addiction to the greatest political catastrophes. We’re tackling the arrayed armies of America’s opponents in every way we can, starting with the lives, minds, and bodies of the nation’s most essential resource, its men.

Edwards: In your opinion, what is a patriot, and what is the historic and authentic American identity?

Rousseau: Patriotism predates politics. Patriotism is merely a name ascribed to a natural impulse extant within all men. Patriotism existed when the ancient Greek hoplite raised a shield in defense of his city, when Briton fought Saxon on the shores of the North Sea, and that same impulse motivates our actions today. Patriotism is defined within the Greek as loyalty to the patrios, or the land of one’s fathers. It is more primordial than a political ideology – more fundamental. Patriotism is a patrilineal devotion to one’s home and kin. Insofar as this is true, the men of PF are more deserving of the name than any spineless conservative or delusional liberal who may paw impotently at the title.

The American identity is that of the people who created America. We are the heirs, the torchbearers, of those who settled these shores and created a nation. During colonial times, our people were merely a branch of the British nation, but through geographical distance, legislative self-rule, and sociopolitical adaptations to the New World, we underwent the process of ethnogenesis and became a nation truly unique in the world. We contest harshly the notion that our identity as Americans is something that can be granted to any border-hopping foreigner, or even those foreign to us who have inhabited this continent beside us for centuries. So-called “Native Americans” may well be native to this land, but they are not American, as America is a creation of the European race. The descendants of African slaves may have inhabited the continent as long as Europeans, but the races and their respective social organisms have been distinct ever since. We alone may claim the title of American. This is no small part of what our slogan means: reclaiming America not merely as a homeland, but as an identity, a title to be proud of.

Edwards: How have you managed to maintain discipline and build a membership of so many mentally and physically fit individuals?

Rousseau: By creating spaces, systems of engagement, and codes of conduct that create those kinds of men or attract those who are already of that quality of mental and physical discipline. Membership within our organization is structurally repellent to those of weak character. This is by design. It has been an incredibly long process of refinement and organic growth, which continues to this day.

Edwards: How important is combining effective messaging with good optics for success?

Rousseau: It is incredibly important, but we reject the notion of optics. I find too easily the adherents of that phrase, making no present accusations of course, can become disillusioned with the practice of integrity, and mold or manipulate their image too much to appeal to their audience. We aim to be, rather than to seem. If our message is good, that is because we are good. If our uniforms are clean and striking, that is because we are. If our marching is disciplined and orderly, then so are we. Everything we uphold in language, symbolism, and expression is meant to extract and display the fundamental qualities we have to the world. The men are tasked with being socially upright, healthy and orderly, educated and disciplined, not because it’s good optics, but simply because it is good.

Edwards: You are constantly being targeted by the press. Why has Patriot Front been such a magnet for media attention?

Rousseau: We are enemies of the press because we have struck at both the sacred cow and golden calf of liberal democracy, that being racial ignorance and anti-national insanity. For this, more than our stances on the family, more than our stances about the economy, more than our stances about the structure of government, have we been attacked. To me, this is a vindication that we must hold dear the principles of our nativity, of our racial inheritance. That, and our marches are spectacular displays that journalists and critics find impossible to ignore. This is by design.

Edwards: Many people may be unaware of Patriot Front’s relief efforts and community outreach projects. Could you please tell us a little about how Patriot Front has worked to assist American citizens?

Rousseau: The organization endeavors greatly to build community, and I mean build in the literal sense. Not through mere socialization can we hope to establish robust communities among our people, but through hard work. We most prominently engage in disaster relief missions in the aftermath of floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. We seek out Americans and help them restore their lives. We do it because it’s the right thing to do, and we show the nation our efforts to incite men to stand alongside us, so that each successive disaster finds us better prepared. We don’t wait for disaster to strike; however, when it comes to serving our people, day to day and week to week, members help one another and their families with constructive projects. Any kind of work an unorganized man may have paid foreign scab labor for, within the organization, we aim to do within the men of the community.

Edwards: Do you believe cultural trends and political action are finally shifting in our favor? If so, how can Patriot Front continue to affect positive change?

Rousseau: The reason I believe so firmly in the necessity of an organization is so that we are not awash in the current of cultural or political trends, so that we have a vehicle to both make and navigate our own currents. Things may decline and deteriorate in the country, yet those within our ranks will be spared the experience and hold hands outstretched to our countrymen. Things may improve in one way or another, and we will find ourselves moving forward into every opportunity to expand our reach and influence. I will say that, yes, the general sentiment of nationalism seems to be growing in the country; once-fringe subjects like mass deportations have become commonplace, some ground has been made legislatively, but by no means whatsoever am I content in these acts of appeasement to lay down my efforts and entrust the fate of the nation to the hands of conservatives. We will fight for change regardless, for the same virtues, for the same people, and via all existing means and any we may devise, improvise, or invent.

Edwards: Patriot Front’s website is one of the sharpest on the Internet. Where can readers go to see it for themselves, and what information will they find upon arrival?

Rousseau: PatriotFront.us is a great resource for learning about or applying to our organization. We implore those interested and supportive to visit, watch our videos, follow our social media pages, and listen to our interviews. If they think they have what it takes, we invite them to stand with us as we reclaim our country. There’s no better place to be, and there’s no better time than now to get there.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.

Two feminists fight for the Irish presidency

/2 Comments/in /by

Both are very bád, but one is slightly less bád.

Both have facilitated the mass immigration and both have kept totally schtumm every single time that some foreign man did something terrible to the women and children of Ireland. To illustrate this point, there was a good old fashioned Black-on-White fatal stabbing in the middle of the campaign. Apparently, a Somalian teenage refugee stabbed a Ukrainian teenage refugee in a government-run hostel for teenage refugees. A dispute arose over food.

Neither candidate made a big deal of this. They certainly didn’t call for the teenage Somali to be deported back to England. They kept quiet. Whoever gets elected will stay quiet when foreigners do bad things to our people.

The campaign seems stage-managed. Great efforts were made to ensure candidates dropped out or were just short of numbers to get nominated. Obviously contrived incidents are given massive publicity. This seems part distraction and part encouraging people to have contempt for voting and democracy.

It seems the deep state have anointed independent socialist Catriona Connelly as their preferred candidate.

The only man in the race has dropped out, although his name will still be on the ballot. Jim Gavin, an alleged Gaelic football hero, ladies man, Army officer and currently with the Irish Aviation Authority. The reason for him dropping out is farcical and obvious nonsense. He owed a tenant 3,300 euros from years ago. All he had to do was pay your man his money, throw in ten percent late payment and a bottle of whiskey. No-one would have thought the less of him. Some speculate that this is training us to be aware: Even the most trivial misdemeanour from years ago can be dragged up and be used to force people to resign.

The other candidate is Heather Humphreys. She retired from politics only last year but is suddenly eager to become president. She has been in government for fourteen years, so every sin is on her conscience. She is a proven liar with contempt for the Irish language. When appointed Minister for Culture and Irish, she promised she would learn the language. She didn’t. When asked now about her Irish, she laughed, smirked and smoothly promised to learn the language if she was elected.

She is accused of protecting at least one foreign murderer in her own constituency of Monaghan. A cyclist named Shane O’Farrell was murdered by a Lithuanian chap in a car – he did not stop after the collision. He was a notorious criminal who kept getting released on bail because – surprise, surprise – he was also working as a snitch for our dearly beloved Boys-in-Blue, An Garda Siochana. This is a very common theme here, as elsewhere. Humphreys did nothing to help the family, even during her stint as Minister for Justice. Mrs O’Farrell says Humphreys is unfit to be President. There are many more omissions on her record, but why waste time piling proof upon proof? She is a farcically bad candidate, and can only have been selected to lose the election.

Catherine Connolly was once a psychiatrist – a profession notorious for the high percentage of madmen. Then she became a barrister – a profession notorious for liars. She distinguished herself by representing banks seeking to get Irish people evicted from their homes. She is, of course, a socialist. Some call her a vulture.

She may be treacherous, but even traitors often have some slightly redeeming qualities. Ms Connolly has two. She speaks the sweet old Gaelic, having put in the effort to learn as an adult. She may betray us to the multi-cultural invaders, but at least she will do it as Gaeilge.…

Her other good quality is that she is full of first rate pro-Palestinian rhetoric, passionate yet measured, emotional but also logical. She is very careful to avoid certain aspects of the problem. She talks about Hamas being part of the fabric of Palestinian society. But she does not mention that Nethanyahu funded Hamas, and the Israelis were repeatedly warned by neighbouring states that the Hamas attack was coming, but they mysteriously chose to do nothing. She never mentions that Ireland is Israel’s second biggest trading partner, nor that we export vast amounts of blood to Israel.

She will squawk loudly about Palestine, and this is indeed good. However, if a bunch of kebab shop Pakistanis decide to run rape gangs in Irish towns, she will stay totally quiet, except possibly to condemn the women for being racist. She has criticised people who wave Irish flags, made the obviously untrue statement that only a tiny amount of people want Remigration and said that phrases like “Ireland is full” were abhorrent.

But if the Israelis were to rape some Palestinian women, Connolly would condemn it strongly. (Or possibly not. Her parliamentary colleague, Barry Heneghan, was on a Gaza flotilla last week. The Israelis hit them in the back of the head with rifle butts and called them Irish dogs, amongst other racial insults. Heneghan made the obvious point that if this is what the Israelis are doing to elected European politicians, what are they doing to the unfortunate Palestinians? Even though the guy is a colleague, she has not said much about it.)

She may be evil and treacherous towards her fellow ethnic Irish, but she will at least make a show of solidarity with the Palestinians.

There is a move to actively spoil the vote, by writing some insulting or amusing slogan on the paper ballot. In polls 6% say they will spoil their vote, which is much higher than usual.

It’s possible that huge numbers, maybe even a majority, may choose to spoil. This will make no practical difference to the result, but it will be humiliating for the politicians. In a 2024 referendum two-thirds voted against a constitutional amendment promoted by almost all politicians, media, etc. It was aimed at changing the definition of family and removing the reference to a mother’s duties in the home. Ireland’s election results don’t show it, but the referendum result does: There are lots of us who totally disagree with the madness of multi-culti politicians. If it looks like huge numbers of spoiled votes, they might well rig the election, by underreporting the amount of spoiled ballots. Too many spoiled votes are a humiliation for the politicians.

Politicians and pundits sneer at the vote enhancers. A charming homosexual Senator says that “nobody will see” the insulting remark you write on your ballot paper. But the Senator is mistaken. Every vote is seen by a human counter, and he is obliged to display the vote so that vote observers can see it. A half dozen people will see the insulting remark you put on your ballot. A feminist Sinn Fein Teachta Dála (a member of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas, the parliament of Ireland) sneers that the spoiled votes will only be news for ten minutes. If, when the ballots are counted, the majority of people have spoiled their votes by insulting reference to traitors, this will cast a shadow on the seven years of the Presidency. In the 2024 referendum, people put rosary beads, sacred medallions and other symbols of their Pagano-Christian identity into the ballot box along with their vote.

Spoiling your vote by writing some Remigration slogan on it will make very little short-term difference. But it will show the elected president how hated she is. The public humiliation, the jeers in the streets, the catty remarks about her dress style and useless family members will drive Mrs President into a total nervous breakdown within a year of taking the job. They will have to have another election.

Possible slogans to spoil or enhance your vote: Get Them Out! Enough is enough! Slán abhaile (Safe home). Or the simple, brave words of one of the few women in Irish public life prepared to stand up for the Irish: The Palestinian Ambassador to Ireland said “Palestine for the Palestinians, Ireland for the Irish.”

As well as spoiling your vote, it is worthwhile also voting. As long as your preferences are clear, the people counting the votes have the discretion to count your vote. If Jim Gavin is elected, he has promised to resign. This will mean another election, and a chance to get a remigration candidate on the ballot. A number two vote for Connolly, evil and treacherous though she is, is a slap in the face for the Israelis.

Voting is wonderful. But we don’t get a chance to vote for the next five years. If you’re one of the many Irish people who never vote because they have contempt for politicians, why not use this vote as a chance to humiliate the politicians?

Beir Bua!