Oct 26, 2015

Trump Is to Social Media What JFK Was to Television

via TradYouth

It was an iconic moment in American politics, the televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon where Kennedy was charismatic, telegenic, and comfortable in front of the cameras while Nixon was sweaty, frustrated, and wonky. A similarly iconic moment is occurring now between Trump and Jeb. Trump’s social media presence is humorous, natural, and relatable, while Jeb’s is stilted, calculated, and wonky. Donald Trump is more at home on the Internet while Jeb is more at home in yesterday’s politics.

To hear the establishment tell it, Trump’s reality television experience confirms that he’s a joke, a “clown.” Real candidates, to hear them tell it, rely on traditional channels of outreach to potential voters. For them, it’s all about purchasing the most television ads in precisely targeted markets, mastering your Iowa ground game, crafting precisely the positioning and messaging necessary to shore up all the relevant demographic interest groups.

An entire industry exists of technocratic statistical analysts who specialize in political campaigns, and they–more than illegal immigrants–despise Trump because he symbolizes an existential threat to their livelihoods. These quants make the same mistake technical analysis day traders make, which is assuming that sufficiently precise analytics are a substitute for rather than a supplement to genuine abstract strategic thinking and authentic human interaction. Like the maniacal genius in the film Pi, they’re convinced that there’s an “election code” buried in the mountain of electoral and demographic data waiting to be unlocked.

Jeb relies on precisely this language in his explanation of his current failure to his donors, describing Donald Trump as an unforeseen Black Swan event.
“It’s no secret that the contours of this race have changed from what was anticipated at the start. We would be less than forthcoming if we said we predicted in June that a reality television star supporting Canadian-style single-payer health care and partial-birth abortion would be leading the GOP Primary,” the memo reads.
Day traders use the same excuse when their bubbles pop, always describing macro-level phenomena as beyond comprehension. It is for them, as they can’t see the strategic forest for the tactical trees. They take contemporary political realities as inert inputs into their functions, and they lack both the curiosity and the capacity to consider that perhaps the constants in their formulae aren’t all that constant. Anybody paying even a modicum of attention at the strategic level would be able to confirm that a vast sea of disenchanted White working class voters existed who don’t give a damn about “Obamacare” and don’t care to align themselves with Big Pharma.

Generals always begin each new war fighting the last war, and Jeb is running a positively masterful 2012 campaign. His tweets are tupperware tight, consistently aligned with the rest of his campaign. His public statements are robotically precise, and even his flubs are minor missteps compared to Trump’s seemingly horrific gaffes, like mocking McCain’s capture in Vietnam. What Team Jeb fails to realize is that those errors are actually collateral damage in a superior campaign, one which leverages Trump’s reality television experience to construct an intimate relationship of mutual trust between himself and his constituents.

When you speak more frequently and more extemporaneously, you’re bound to misspeak more often. The pundits beholden to the old order will continue picking apart what Trump does wrong when he relies on this strategy, but they can’t grasp how he’s writing the new rulebook for 21st century politics. It’s one in which the voters, jaded as they are to prefabricated campaign machinations, demand that politicians rely on the latest technology to do what it’s meant for, which is bring the candidates’ true selves closer to the voters.

To state that @realDonaldTrump is winning on Twitter would be an egregious understatement. When you follow @realDonaldTrump on Twitter, you receive an experience (fabricated as it may be) that you’ve actually befriended and are riding along on the Trump train with The Donald. When you follow @JebBush on Twitter, you receive an all-too-familiar experience of having coupled yourself to a dehumanized arm of a mechanical campaign apparatus.

Jeb tweets at you. Trump tweets with you.

What would actually assist Jeb would be a complete reboot of his campaign, one where he starts leveraging his social media apparatus to develop a vulnerable and private relationship with his voters. He could even do the unthinkable, which is exclaim his frustration about his faltering campaign and crowdsource solutions from his supporters for turning things around. He can’t actually do this, of course, because Jeb’s congenitally not as sociable or likable as Trump and his campaign team lacks the anti-fragility and humility to tolerate such a break from convention.

All Jeb can do, and all Jeb will do, is engage in a pathetic Baghdad Bob-style farce of insisting that his campaign is still winning, that he’s not endangered in the least by Trump’s invasion, and that Trump’s gaffes are discrediting him. They’re not. In fact, Jeb’s lack of gaffes are discrediting him, confirming to voters that he’s a soulless and mechanical system politician playing by outdated rules.

New Prospects for Eugenics?

via American Renaissance

Eugenics has a bad name. Over the past 70 years, its opponents have linked it to racism and even genocide, and some Christians call it a blasphemous attempt to improve on God’s creation. In its heyday in the 1920s, however, eugenics was developed by leading biologists, including the founders of modern genetics. Their work was promoted and often put into policy by eminent statesmen and intellectuals. Eugenics was supported by a broad coalition, including progressives and socialists. On the Right, the Nazis supported it as well, but it is an absurd caricature to call it “Nazi science.”

The basic principles of heredity on which eugenics was based have not changed. It is our approach to science–and our rejection of it–that have supposedly discredited eugenics. In fact, dramatic advances in genetic engineering are constantly opening up new possibilities for modern eugenics.

People are eugenicists by instinct: They want to mate with healthy partners who show signs of intelligence and other desirable traits. Legal prohibitions against incest, meant to reduce the chance of inbreeding, go back at least as far as the Code of Hammurabi–c. 1750 BC–and the Old Testament. Plato and Aristotle promoted eugenic measures, and every society that domesticated livestock discovered the importance of selective breeding.

Even in today’s harshly anti-scientific atmosphere, parents frequently practice eugenics even though they never use the word. People with certain conditions seek genetic counseling in the hope of avoiding passing on genetic diseases to their children. Amniocentesis, or genetic sampling of the fetus, is a common procedure that has the same goal. When infertile couples go to sperm banks or seek eggs, they look for positive qualities in donors.

Not even the most militant political correctness has been able to root out popular understanding of certain basic truths: Parents pass on their traits to their children, and it is foolish to pretend they don’t.

The science of eugenics

It was Francis Galton who coined the Greek-derived term “eugenics,” meaning well born or good breeding. In Hereditary Genius (1869), he argued that mental abilities, just like physical features, are heritable. Through an analysis of the pedigrees of eminent families in England, he concluded that talent does not occur randomly, but instead runs in the families. Therefore, it would be possible, through arranged marriages, to breed people with desirable traits such as good health, intelligence, and noble character. A society of such individuals would far surpass the average abilities of the original population.

Francis Galton

Until the Industrial Revolution, healthy and eugenic fertility was the rule in Europe, with the most capable people having the most children. In England in the 1620s, for example, the middle classes had 4.4 children per woman compared to 2.1 for the working class. There were no antibiotics or advanced lifesaving medicine, so less healthy people often died before they could reproduce.

Mass production of rubber condoms by Goodyear in 1860 started the era of affordable and efficient birth control. Middle and upper classes quickly adopted this novelty, while lower classes did not, thus ending the age-old correlation between high social class and larger families.

The First World War was a horrific slaughter of some of Europe’s best men. Indeed, IQ testing was introduced in the army in part to decrease the chances of using men of ability as cannon fodder. After the Second World War, eugenics became widely associated with Nazi atrocities, and by the 1960s and ’70s it was almost universally rejected.

However, it is dangerous to reject eugenics. Without it we have dysgenics, or the spread of less desirable traits, and the ability to maintain civilization declines. Here are some of the most sobering trends.

It is generally accepted that for a population to maintain its numbers, every woman must have an average of 2.2 children. The industrialized nations of Asia and Europe, which have the highest-IQ populations, have the lowest birth rates and are not reproducing themselves: 1.4 births per woman in Japan, 1.25 in South Korea, 1.6 in Russia and Canada, 1.44 in Germany and Italy, etc. The highest birth rates are in the most impoverished countries of Africa: Niger–6.76, Mali, Burundi, and Somalia–6, Burkina Faso–5.86, Angola–5.37, Ethiopia–5.15, Zambia–5.72, Uganda–5.98, etc.

At the same time, in industrialized countries modern medicine have greatly relaxed the environmental pressure that winnows out defects, which increases the frequency of heritable diseases. Also, parents are having children at increasingly later ages, which raises the number of spontaneous mutations–especially in sperm but also in eggs–which are then introduced into a child’s genome. Chemicals used in consumer products, radiation, and radio-wave-emitting devices could also contribute to higher mutation rates.

Contraception continues its dysgenic effect, not only because high-IQ groups have fewer children but because they have children at later ages, thus further decreasing their relative contribution to the gene pool. Because IQ is estimated to be 80 percent heritable, this skew lowers the average IQ in each successive generation. Welfare also encourages lower-IQ groups to have more children.

Finally, emigration from poor to rich countries probably lowers the average intelligence of both the sending and receiving countries. African emigrants, for example, are often of above-average ability in their home countries, but still bring down the average in Europe or America.

The combination of all these factors is highly damaging.

Genetic load

One of the key concepts in evolution is genetic load. This is the number of damaging and even potentially lethal alleles (gene variants) in the gene pool. Spontaneous–or de novo–mutations contribute to genetic load. In order to keep the load stable, the rate of such mutations must not exceed the rate at which they are eliminated–which happens when the person carrying them fails to reproduce. De novo mutations are not alleles passed on in the usual manner from parent to child; they are simply genetic copying errors.

Every child usually gets 60 to 80 de novo mutations. The majority are neutral; only two or three can potentially disrupt gene functions. Most of the deleterious variants are recessive, which means that they cause damage only in unusual cases, in which a child inherits the same mutation from both parents. Still, a de novo mutation at the wrong spot can be devastating.

Favorable mutations are exceedingly rare. The human genome has evolved through chance mutation for millions of years; at this point, a copying error is much more likely to upset a carefully evolved structure rather than improve it. These errors come in various types with specialized names–copy number variations, chromosomal deletions, microsatellite expansion or contraction, aberrant methylation, etc.–and their cumulative effect compromises fitness.

The number of de novo mutations a child gets depends largely on the father’s age; each additional year of father’s age contributes an average of two to three more such mutations. Although older mothers are known to contribute chromosomal abnormalities, such as trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), 80 percent of de novo mutations come from the father. These mutations are passed down to succeeding generations. There will be a significant accumulation of genetic load as more and more generations live under conditions of relaxed genetic pressure in which a high percentage of the population succeeds in reproducing.

Medicine is one of the greatest contributors to genetic load, because it blocks purifying selection. The left-hand graph shows how much modern medicine and public health has reduced death rates (in Australia), especially in the first few years of life. Although it may seem harsh to say so, early deaths kept genetic load in balance by removing deleterious alleles from the gene pool. According to one study, if approximately 16 percent of each generation fails to reproduce, that removes enough de novo mutations to maintain balance.

Click the image for a larger version.

However, now that so many more people are surviving to child-bearing age, many unfavorable conditions are increasing. Gene pool deterioration is most obvious in heritable conditions that were once fatal but now are not. For example, before the development of insulin treatment, babies born with Type I diabetes died before reaching maturity, whereas now they can survive and have children. In many countries, Type I diabetes is increasing at roughly 5 percent a year, and in Finland, it increased 338 percent over a 32-year period in children ages one to four. These rates are clearly far more rapid than genetic change in the population, so such increases appear to be the result of a combination of increased genetic load and little-understood environmental factors.

In the distant past, deafness could have been a lethal condition if it meant an inability to hear an approaching predator. More recently, it made it difficult to find a spouse. Now, advanced countries have special schools for deaf people where they meet and marry other deaf people. This further propagates undesirable alleles.

Asthma and allergies do not usually kill people, but before the development of modern treatments, they undoubtedly reduced reproductive success. Now, they need not interfere with reproduction, and their incidence is rising. Asthma has at least tripled over the past 25 years, and now affects more than 22 million Americans. Allergies are also increasing, with such things as peanut allergies–virtually unheard of 50 years ago–appearing in day care centers and schools. Both asthma and allergies are heritable.

A rigorous investigation by the Mayo Clinic found that the incidence of celiac disease (CD) has increased 450 percent in the United States since 1950. CD is highly heritable, and now affects one in 133 Americans (0.75 percent). Its incidence continues to grow, and people with the condition must avoid food with gluten. The Mayo Clinic found that if they were unaware of their condition they were four times more likely than those without it to die over a 45-year period.

Twin studies have shown that autism is highly heritable, and its frequency in the United States has increased 600 percent since mid-’70s. Half of this growth is attributed to better diagnosis and awareness of the condition; the other half remains a mystery. People have proposed various environmental causes but there is strong evidence that accumulated genetic load is partly responsible: One study suggests that 10 percent of cases are due to de novo variants.

Similarly, recent research has found that the number of genes expressed in the brain is compromised by de novo mutations in people with autism, and that older parents are more likely to have autistic children. It may be that autism is increasing more rapidly than the accumulation of genetic load because of the highly interconnected nature of the genes that affect the brain. It may be that the number of mutations above a certain threshold can cause the entire neuronal network to function abnormally, thus leading to autism and possibly other neurological conditions.

The average IQ of autistic individuals is around 70, which means that, in varying degree, half suffer from what is considered intellectual disability (ID). More than 3.5 million Americans have some form of autism spectrum disorder. The average cost of lifelong support for an autistic person with ID is reported to be $2.4 million, and $1.4 million for those with IQs over 70. The annual cost of autism in the US is reported to be $236-262 billion.

Genetic load could build up to the point that medicine cannot cope with the associated health compromises. This is especially likely for neurological conditions, such as autism, for which there is no known treatment. Likewise, the appearance of “superbugs” that have evolved immunity to all common antibiotics is a serious potential threat. If drug-resistant bacteria become common, our immune systems will have to combat these pathogens unaided, which was the rule before the discovery of antibiotics.

Accumulation of genetic load could have similar results. If medicine is unable to keep up with the rising genetic load, the number of people who die before reproductive age will start rising again. This would happen even with the medicine functioning at a very high level. In other words, purifying selection will resume so as to prevent further load accumulation.

If, in the future, there is a failure of the medical system or in the welfare policies that make medicine available to people who cannot afford it, there could be a devastating jump in the number of people of all ages who die.

In China and Russia in the 19th century, as many as half of all babies died before adolescence. Imagine genetic load accumulating to the point that death rates returned to that level (16 to 20 percent would be a theoretical minimum) despite modern medicine. Then imagine a societal collapse that eliminates modern medicine or sharply limits its availability.

This nightmare vision is not new. Nobel Prize winner Hermann J. Muller is his famous 1950 paper “Our Load of Mutations” argued that a steady accumulation of genetic load will lead to immense suffering for future generations. In his view, the only way to eliminate mutations was through “rationally directed guidance of reproduction.” He thought “abstention from reproduction” was far more desirable than the eventual alternative: “failure in a struggle for existence.”

Hermann Muller
Hermann Muller

Muller wrote that ignoring the future consequences of our actions makes us “debtor generations:”
The term ‘debtor’ is appropriate for such generations because, by instituting for their own immediate benefit ameliorative procedures which delay the attainment of equilibrium and raise the equilibrium level of mutant gene frequency, they transfer to their descendants a price of detriment which the latter must eventually pay in full.
Muller feared that if the mutation rate rose above a “critical value” it could even lead to extinction.

In 2009, Michael Lynch of the University of Indiana and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote the following in his inaugural paper for the academy:
Without a reduction in the germline transmission [passing on to succeeding generations] of deleterious mutations, the mean phenotypes of the residents of industrialized nations are likely to be rather different in just two or three centuries, with significant incapacitation at the morphological, physiological, and neurobiological levels.
Even people who think in eugenic terms are often unaware of the threat to our species posed by the accumulation of genetic load.

Declines in intelligence

Ever since the widespread use of the condom, there has unquestionably been dysgenic fertility for intelligence in advanced countries. In one recent study, Michael Woodley argued that Victorians were, on average, 13 IQ points smarter than we are. Such studies appear to conflict with what is known as the Flynn Effect, or the well-documented fact that actual performance on IQ tests has been rising in recent decades. However, Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen have argued that the IQ sub-tests that improved most were measuring mental processes not highly correlated with general intelligence. It is widely assumed that tested IQ has not risen due to wider distribution of alleles associated with high intelligence, but because of better nutrition, greater familiarity with testing procedures, and perhaps the effect of early use of computers and smart devices.

This rise in IQ scores seems to have come to an end and gone into reverse in Finland, Denmark and Sweden. The IQ-boosting effect of improved nutrition and more stimulating environments may have reached the limit of their effectiveness, and deterioration in the genetic makeup of Europeans may have begun to drag down actual IQ test scores. In other words, a rise in phenotypic IQ (actual performance on IQ tests) caused by environmental factors was masking an ongoing decline in genotypic IQ (the distribution of high-IQ-related alleles).

Fertility by race within the United States is certainly dysgenic for intelligence. Hispanic women have the highest lifetime fertility at 2.82, with black women next at 2.02. Whites are clearly at sub-replacement fertility at 1.85. As the percentages of blacks and Hispanics increases, the average IQ will fall (the decline will be slowed by Asians who, though only 5 percent of the population, have a higher average IQ than whites). Eventually, the United States could have the IQ profile of a Third-World nation.

An average decline of just a few points can have a dramatic effect at the tails of the bell curve.

Click the image for a larger version.

Click the image for a larger version.

Assuming an initial average IQ of 100 points and a standard deviation of 15, this graph shows the effects of shifting the average to the left by five and then 15 points. With an initial average of 100 points (shown in red), the number of mentally retarded (IQ less than 70) and highly gifted (IQ over 130) is each about 2.2 percent of the total, as indicated by the shaded areas. Each shift to the left greatly changes the area under the curve at both extremes.

A 15-point decline in the average, to the black American average IQ of 85, reduces the over-130 population to almost zero, while greatly expanding the under-70 population. At that point, only 16 percent of the population is at or above an IQ of 100. Professor Linda Gottfredson of University of Delaware has vividly described the outcomes in daily life of different levels of IQ. Everything about life in the United States will change as the average IQ falls.

There have, in fact, been examples of extremely rapid declines in population IQ. The city of Detroit was founded in 1701 by a party of French colonists led by Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac. By 1900 it was known as Paris of the West for its grand boulevards–and it had a 98.55 percent-white population of 285,704.

These astonishingly detailed photographs capture something of the nature of the city at that time.

“City Hall and Campus Martius.”
“Band concert on Grand Canal, Belle Isle Park.”
“Excursionists on steamer Tashmoo.”
“Gratiot Avenue from Woodward.”

With the growth of the automobile industry, blacks moved to the city from the South, and by the end of the 1960s they accounted for about half the population. After one of America’s worst race riots in 1967, whites and skilled blacks left for the suburbs and the productive capacity of the city was critically compromised.

The result of this dramatic shift in population–and IQ–is the blasted shell of a city we see today. The destruction was speeded by systematic arson, especially the pre-Halloween orgy of fire and destruction known as Devil’s Night. At its worst, 810 fires were set in a three-day span. The destruction of Detroit is comparable to the results of a nuclear strike. Entire blocks of former residential communities have been obliterated, as can be clearly seen here. Detroit is now a popular destination for photographers who record the astonishing ruins of a once-great city that finally went bankrupt in 2013 with $20 billion in debt.

Few commentators see the pillage of Detroit through a prism of diminishing IQ. They would nevertheless be forced to acknowledge that half of all city residents are functionally illiterate, and that National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores are at shocking lows. As Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council on Great City Schools, said of Detroit:
The truth here is that no jurisdiction of any kind in the history of NAEP has ever registered such low numbers. They are just above what one would expect by chance alone–as if the kids simply guessed at the answers. These numbers–to our minds–are shocking, appalling, and outrageous . . . .
Mr. Casserly blamed the public schools, and it is true that half of Detroit schools have closed since 1950. However, the remaining schools have been sufficiently funded, with annual expenditures of $13,825 per child for the 2012-2013 school year. Ninety-five percent of the students in Detroit public schools are black, so the problem is more likely to be the students, not the schools.

Thousands of books were destroyed in the Detroit Public Schools Book Depository.
Thousands of books were destroyed in the Detroit Public Schools Book Depository.

Standardized tests such as NAEP and the SAT are highly correlated with IQ. The correlation between SAT and IQ is so close–in the 0.72 to 0.88 range–that SAT scores are often used to estimate IQ. The following graphs show national SAT scores by race from 1987 to 2013.



It should be clear that what destroyed Detroit was a rapid decline in average IQ–one almost exactly equivalent to the theoretical 15-point decline plotted on the bell-curves above. The consequences of this decline would have been even more devastating if Detroit had not been part of the richest country in the world and surrounded by an infrastructure that greatly cushioned the collapse.

There is a 0.757 correlation between national IQ and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, and with many other desirable outcomes such as low crime rates, rule of law, freedom of the press, etc. We can anticipate a similar–but slower–collapse at the national level if average IQ continues to fall.

Modern eugenics

To return to Hermann Muller’s paper, “Our Load of Mutations,” he argued that if people were properly educated about the importance of heredity and were guided by medical committees, eugenic goals could be achieved by “freely exercised volition of the individuals concerned.” If those least likely to contribute positively voluntarily remained childless it would mimic natural, purifying selection and would keep genetic load in check.

Of all the possible eugenic methods, this would be the least controversial, but its success would require a fundamental change in thinking. Today, it is virtually impossible to base public policy or even public information on the obvious fact that mating choices can damage the gene pool. And even in a radically changed climate, in which it were generally accepted that it was not desirable for poorly endowed people to reproduce, they are not likely to care very much about the common good.
William Shockley, who invented the transistor and who later took a great interest in eugenics, rarely took positions on public policy, but he did propose “thought experiments” about ways to encourage the less fit to refrain from reproduction. The best known was the $1,000 Bonus Proposal. Anyone of childbearing age would be offered $1,000 for every IQ point under 100 if he agreed to be sterilized. Shockley even suggested that “bounty hunters” could be rewarded for finding such people if they were too stupid to learn about the program on their own. Opponents have argued that anyone who would qualify for a substantial payment would not have the capacity to give informed consent to be sterilized. If that is true, it seems hard to argue that they would have the capacity to be competent parents.

At a 1963 Ciba Foundation conference in London called “Man and His Future,” three distinguished biologists and Nobel laureates–Hermann Muller, Joshua Lederberg, and Francis Crick–took a different approach. They discussed many ideas about the future of mankind, specifically Muller’s proposal of establishing a sperm bank to which only the best men would contribute.

Inventor and industrialist Robert Graham later worked with Muller to establish what became the Repository for Germinal Choice–a name chosen by Muller. Graham discusses the project here, here, and here.

The repository operated according to two eugenic principles. The most obvious was raising the average IQ by increasing the number of children fathered by gifted men. However, it also decreased genetic load by storing sperm from earlier decades–and thought to have a lower load–to make it available for later use. The result was the births of 229 children from gifted donors with IQs of at least 140. Unfortunately, shortly after Robert Graham’s death in 1997 the repository was closed and all specimens were destroyed.

The repository’s approach was similar to one suggested by Michael Lynch of Indiana University. He has proposed transgenerational cryogenic storage for future use of gametes and/or embryos. The goal would be to decrease the number of de novo mutations by using germinal material that was harvested generations ago and stored in liquid nitrogen. Using material from the 1950s, for example, would skip decades’ worth of load and probably greatly reduce the chances of transmitting celiac disease, asthma, diabetes, etc.

Another potential approach involves editing out the genetic load from the genome using a technique called CRISPR/Cas9. CRISPR stands for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” and Cas9 is the name of a specialized enzyme used to cut DNA. When it is perfected it could be used to snip out deleterious alleles that add to the load, with the objective of returning genes to their ancestral state. This technology has been tried in China and is still too inaccurate to use in humans but it shows considerable promise.

Richard Lynn–who has unquestionably done more than anyone recently to rehabilitate serious thinking about eugenics–has proposed embryo selection as a eugenic technique. This would involve in vitro fertilization of a large number of a woman’s eggs, letting the embryos develop slightly, and then scanning their genomes and implanting only the most promising ones.

This would not solve the problem of genetic load, and it is likely to remain impractical for a long time. The problem is that it is notoriously difficult to screen for traits that are influenced by more than just a few genes. We can easily screen for known “Mendelian” disorders, such as Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis, Marfan syndrome, Rett syndrome, etc., because a defect in a single gene causes a single disease. We know where to look for the defective genes.

However, consider a seemingly simple trait: physical height. We know that variations in height are approximately 95 percent heritable, so screening embryos for the right genes should make it possible to predict an embryo’s height as an adult. In fact, the best available mathematical model for predicting height uses 1,900 different alleles but achieves a correlation of only 0.41 with actual height.

Intelligence is even harder to predict. A study of more than 100,000 people uncovered three genetic variants for IQ, but their impact was minimal: Each accounted for an average of only 0.3 points on an IQ test. That means that a person with two copies of each of the variants (for a total of six) would score only 1.8 points higher on an intelligence test than a person with none of them.

A study of the genomes of 17 supercentenarians (people who lived past the age of 110) detected no genetic variants associate with longevity, though high intelligence appears to be a strong predictor of good health and longevity.

At present, it is simply not possible to screen an embryo–or a child–to predict polygenic traits (ones caused by many genes), such as height and intelligence, though it is an interesting theoretical possibility. Great efforts have already been made to screen for these traits, and as soon as they succeed, there will probably be tests available on the market.

One exotic method that could be used to promote good health and intelligence is time-separated twinning. It involves collecting and fertilizing human eggs, which can be artificially caused to divide into identical twins. If preimplantation genetic screening showed no detectable disorders, one of the twin embryos could be implanted in the womb and the rest frozen. If the resulting child proved to be healthy and intelligent, the other twins could be implanted with high confidence that they, too, would be intelligent and healthy. Parents would be getting a child who was a perfect genetic copy of someone who was already living.

How long would you have to observe the first twin to be sure the frozen embryos were of high quality? Predictions of mental retardation can be made by age two, with 85 percent accuracy. Reasonably good assessments of intelligence are possible at ages five to seven, but waiting until 11 to 13 gives better results. For late-onset diseases such as diabetes or Alzheimer’s one should wait 50 years or even longer. The predictive power of the frozen embryos would increase over time.

Some people would be disturbed by the idea of bringing into the world the identical twin of someone who was already an adult–or even already dead–but time-separated twinning would be a very accurate way of predicting what a child would be like and would lower rates of complex hereditary disorders. This paper explains how time-separated twinning could prevent complex diseases.

SIRM Las Vegas is a company that is already investigating the use of artificial twinning to improve the odds of helping women get pregnant. When there is only a small number of embryos available for implantation, creating twins increases their number and gives a woman that many more chances to have a child.

The next logical step would be to establish a bank of demi-embryos, that is, frozen embryos that were identical twins of highly capable people who had already been born–some may be adults or even deceased. A childless couple could conceivably meet and directly evaluate the person whose identical twin they were considering for implantation. Most people have a strong desire to be the parents of their own genetic offspring. Choosing to implant a demi-embryo might be more attractive if it were the twin of a particularly capable relative. Implanting identical twins may seem futuristic and disconcerting, but if such options were available, some people would certainly use them.

A certain number of people would be happy to implant the twin of a famous beauty queen, intellectual, or sports star. A fertility clinic would have to make sure that a single desirable person was not copied too many times, with a limit of, say, no more than 20 per generation. This, along with good record-keeping, would limit the chances of someone in the next generation unwittingly marrying someone who was, genetically, a half sibling.

If it is not possible to use such techniques as CRISPR to snip out genetic load, the accumulation of load could be greatly slowed simply by freezing genetic material from the present and using it in the future. It is entirely possible that people 100 years from now will look back at today’s genetic material as healthy and highly desirable. This is by no means an absurd idea for anyone who thinks about the long-term prospects for our species.

At present, low birth rates among the most capable mean there is a tremendous waste of good germinal material. What we take for granted and discard today could become an extremely valuable commodity in the next century. Future generations could benefit greatly from sperm and egg donations from the brightest and fittest, and augment these advantages with artificial twinning and trans-generational cryoconservation. It remains to be seen whether our species has the wisdom and foresight even to think in these terms.

“Migrant” Crisis Insanity Continues in Ireland

via White GeNOcide Project

When it comes to online content that has a White genocide agenda it’s hard to know if some of the things you read are trolling or not. For example, Peter Sutherland’s Twitter page reads just like a parody of an anti-White! The sophistry, platitudes and White genocide justifications on his page are just so OTT you are left thinking it’s either a troll or some anti-White bot algorithm churning the stuff out. But no, it appears that the Twitter account really is legitimate and he seriously thinks we are going to be fooled into thinking that a global capitalist wants to flood half the third world into Europe for humanitarian reasons and there is nothing nefarious about his intentions at all.

Another recent side splitter was a Swedish article we recently reported on that announced Sweden was to receive twice as many “migrants” as initially predicted and that a large number of them would be “unaccompanied children.” Which is just a mealy-mouthed way of saying non-White men who dumped their passports somewhere in the desert and who are now pretending to be 15 years old because they think it gives them a better chance of having their “asylum” claim accepted.

A few days ago WGP came across a piece of anti-White clownishness from Ireland that needs reporting. Have a look at this place below. It is the stunning picturesque area of Wild Atlantic Way.


Well it turns out that several hundred Irish cucks with holiday homes in the area have pledged their holiday homes to random, strange, unknown men from the third world.
They want to turn their villas from this:

villa onlyv2

Into this to increase the “vibrancy” levels to the max:

irish villav3

The article states:
“Over the last month, private citizens, non-commercial organisations and church groups have pledged almost 600 offers of accommodation, services and goods to support those fleeing persecution in the Middle East.The Irish Red Cross (IRC) said around 500 bids are for houses, apartments and single rooms.”
Note the use of the old “fleeing persecution” line. Okay, I’ll play along with that for a minute. Let’s look at the image they use for this story:


Notice anything? I’ll give you a clue. It’s the same thing you’ve probably noticed about all these images and videos of “migrants” fleeing “persecution.” That’s correct, they are all young men, healthy, fit and blatantly on their way to Europe because they can’t get a BMW 5 Series M Sport and an iPhone quickly enough in their own countries. Regardless of what these men want however, they are ultimately breaking international border laws. Furthermore, someone somewhere must have told them to act collectively and pour into Europe.

Let’s be honest, this level of “migration” does not just happen without someone encouraging it. Perhaps someone has been implicitly advocating the dissolution of borders and national homogeneity for a while? And that someone is using the “migrant” crisis to facilitate their goal?

Now lets get to the important point of this article where it states:
“Although the Department of Justice said “no decision has been made on where those granted refugee status will be resettled”, the Sunday Independent understands that counties not previously used will feature high on the list of potential places of settlement.”
So basically if an area is White it’s going to have a few thousand (sometimes million, depends on the size of the place) non-Whites dropped into it by force, coercion or emotional browbeating. The anti-Whites always find a way to justify flooding White countries with non-Whites. If it’s not for “economic” reasons, then it’s because of historical wrongdoing or some fluffy “moral” imperative that is never defined or elucidated.

Either way the anti-Whites always argue a position that puts us in a world where White kids loose their ancestral homelands. That is the anti-White tactic; they want to flood ALL White areas with non-Whites until eventually they are fully “diverse” aka non-White.

The bottom line here is that “diversity” really means chasing down the last White person and that “diversity” is just a code word for White genocide.

British Clampdown on Free Speech Accelerates

via The Occidental Observer

The long anticipated British government Counter-Extremism Strategy document has been unveiled — and it looks to aimed at unprecedented restrictions on freedom of speech, movement and association.  New Orwellian-sounding government organisations are being launched to target speech and behaviour online and off.  There will be the Extremism Analysis Unit which will exchange data on “extremists” with other governments. The Disclosure and Barring Service will be set up to help employers bar “extremists” and this will include not only convictions but civil orders.  The new Extremism Community Trigger will oblige police to take action possibly issuing orders restricting movement. The new National Citizen Service will allow diligent, publicly-minded teenagers to train up in British values — and sniff out extremism.

The Counter Extremism strategy document was nominally inspired by the upsurge of Muslim militancy from the “Trojan Horse” Islamic takeover of state schools to the fear of returning Jihadists, but somewhere along the line it seems to have been decided that it is the threat of White violence that also needs to be talked up.

It hardly needs to be said that there is no equivalence at all.  No Whites have ever carried out suicide bomb attacks on underground railway stations or airports nor have they hacked servicemen to death on the streets, nor do their menfolk engage in ethnically-motivated mass rapes against vulnerable female children.

The authors of this document have only been able to dredge up two examples of “White” violence in the UK.  The only fatal one was in 2013 by a Ukrainian who turns out to have been an immigrant who had been in the country for three days.

Nevertheless it is in the interests of the government, and the organised Jewish community in particular, to pretend that this non-existent threat is real. The Jewish community goes to great lengths to obscure the fact that the overwhelming majority of so-called “antisemitic incidents” are by Muslims. For them, the smearing of Whites as potentially violent, overrides all other considerations.

The hidden ethnic agendas at play in this document are revealed in the first few pages. The first is the re-statement and strengthening of the special protections from free speech that the Jewish community enjoys and the second is the heightened need to demonize the White community as congenitally a source of ethnic hatred in British society.

Helpfully that allows us to pinpoint the first big fat lie of omission that sits there wriggling in clear sight on page 12 when it names the Community Security Trust as a trusted source of anti-Semitism statistics. The CST has already boasted of its behind-the-scenes role in the drawing up of this document.

Readers of TOO have come across this shady vigilante organisation before.  It is chaired by convicted criminal Gerald Ronson and was a favourite cause of the former president of Board of Jewish Deputies, Greville Janner, before he was beset by his current legal difficulties.

The document then lists the TellMama organisation as a source of it’s figures on Islamophobic incidents.  This organisation  — Mama stands for ‘Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks’ — styles itself as Britain’s foremost anti-Muslim hate organisation and has received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the government to “monitor and combat hate crimes” against Muslims.

But what is nowhere revealed here is that the CST effectively took over TellMama in an attempt to corner the ethnic victimhood market. Britain’s foremost Islamophobia organisation is Jewish-run! Indeed the former chief executive of CST took over much the same function with TellMama and at a meeting with government ministers, insisted that anti-Muslim attacks have the same status as anti-Semitic attacks in being logged separately by police.

The Home Secretary has now duly complied. And now anti-Muslim allegations are to join anti-Semitism incidents in being the only hate crime categories nationally recorded on by British police. And are anti-White hate crimes such as the murders of Alan Cartwright and Lee Rigby to be separately logged? Not at all, for in the hierarchy of group interests, Whites in Britain do not exist.

And that is a striking feature of this document. The total absence of the thought that the White, indigenous people of these islands have any right to any legitimate form of group self-expression. The word “neo-Nazi” appears sixteen times as a proxy for White advocacy while the word White appears only in negative connotations.

It is the assault on internet free speech that is the most sinister and serious aspect of the coming clampdown. As an example of unacceptable content the report mentions one YouTube video which features an unidentified “extreme right-wing speaker” who argues that Jews were behind a “a conspiracy to alter the ethnic make-up of Britain. A conspiracy committing genocide against the White people. A conspiracy to exterminate the White people.”

Just as in Germany last month when Angela Merkel demanded that Mark Zuckerburg shut down Facebook protests over Germany’s mass influx of Syrian refugees, so a repeat push is taking place in Britain.

The document reveals that government and internet industry co-operation has increased sharply from 2010. “Removals at the request of the police have increased from around 60 items a month in 2010, when the unit responsible was first established, to over 4,000 a month in 2015, taking the total to 110,000 pieces of propaganda removed.”

The document promises a further clamp down on free speech. It says the government will “work with social media and communications providers to ensure extremists do not have open access to their platforms.”

Money is also going to be pumped into training an army of sock puppets who will patrol the online space, or as the documents puts it, will “empower internet users to report extremist content” and encourage “a wide range of civil society groups to help them build and maintain a compelling online presence,”  So as social entrepreneurs have, no doubt, not been slow to notice, the push against free speech is to be hugely incentivised.

On every front the screw on the internet is being tightened. More effective filtering technology is being developed, industry terms and conditions are being strengthened. “to ensure fewer pieces of extremist material appear online, and that any such material is taken down quickly.”

And there is more to come. As the Prime Minister Cameron said earlier this year
We need to put out of action the key extremist influencers who are careful to operate just inside the law, but who clearly detest British society and everything we stand for. … we are going to introduce new narrowly targeted powers to enable us to deal with these facilitators and cult leaders, and stop them peddling their hatred.
It is not as if the British government have not been busy this year already. In February  the Government introduced the new statutory Prevent duty, so that all local authorities, schools, universities and colleges and other public bodies must inform the police of any ‘extremist’ activity they come across. Item #38 of the document states:
we must go further. We must counter the ideology of non-violent and violent extremists alike. We must continue our efforts to tackle neo-Nazi as well as Islamist extremism and respond better to the growing problems of hate crime in our communities.
Of particular worry, apparently, is the forum Stormfront and its popularity in Britain.
Neo-Nazi and extreme right-wing groups have also proved adept at using the internet and social media to spread their ideology and seek recruits. For example, Stormfront is often described as the first website dedicated to racial hatred, providing an online forum for the discussion of white nationalism and white supremacy. Whilst based in the US, Stormfront’s UK sub-forum is larger than that in any other region, with close to one million posts.
And it looks as though that even before this document was published, the clampdown had started.  Last week Jez Turner, the organiser of the nationalist London Forum reported to a police station where, in the company of his solicitor, he was interviewed over his participation in the anti-Shomrim demonstration of several months ago. The police operation investigating this demonstration is so large it has been given the name of “Operation Saurus” and the police officers openly admitted that it was being carried out at the behest of the Jewish CST group. A report is being submitted to prosecutors before it is decided whether he will be charged or not.

And 22-year-old non-violent nationalist Joshua Bonehill is spending his fifth month behind bars. He was initially detained in June over alleged “racial incitement” Tweets before an anti-Shomrim protest. His trial on racial incitement charges is due to take place on December 14.

The mask of liberal democracy is slipping away. As anger rises over mass immigration to the West, so the authorities will be resorting to ever more desperate methods to stifle dissent. The greatest consciousness-raising resource of the last twenty years may be lost to us.

We need to be thinking hard about an awful possibility —  a future without the internet and without outlets like the Occidental Observer. We desperately need to be looking at other ways of linking up with each other and if this pushes us away from our keyboards and out onto the streets it may be no bad thing.

Unite the Right

via Amerika

A singularity is coming: the mainstream right and the underground right are converging, but they need to do it faster. These groups share a worldview of realism which no other parts of the political spectrum possess. Both realize that Western Civilization is hurtling towards a catastrophe at the hands of the dictatorship of public opinion, and that this same force destroyed the great civilizations of the past. As Walt Kelley wrote long ago, “We have met the enemy and he is us”: public opinion denies common-sense realism because people prefer sugar-coated and flattering illusions. Gossip about the Speakership nomination, or Malia’s college party beer pong antics, dominates the headlines to hide the grim reality that we are literally fighting for our survival as a civilization.

When the Left took over through the French Revolution back in 1789, it separated politics into two groups: those who wanted to follow the “new” ideas, and those who wanted to conserve the fundamental principles and organizing behaviors that have produced the best results throughout human history. These tested precepts assume the mantle of “tradition” and history shows us that anything but this type of truth-based order will quickly devolve and collapse. Like writing code, or designing a house, you either get it right and over-engineer something to last a thousand years under all conditions, or you have created something feeble which will fail whenever Murphy’s Law comes knocking (as it does on a regular basis, that meddler!). Conservatives pursue tradition in two ways: first, they believe in reality-based common-sense engineering; second, they aim for “transcendentals” such as “the good, the beautiful and the true,” which are perpetually unattainable goals that nonetheless improve everything in quality, including life itself.

Currently, mainstream conservatives – the grassroots and the Tea Party, the smaller “conservatism lite” Establishment right-wing, and other Republican voters – define themselves as separate from what we might call the “underground right,” comprised of movements like the alternative right, Neoreaction, and the New Right. Establishment Republicans , who have adopted progressivism to fight progressivism, barely qualify as Right-wing at all, but groups with “anti-Establishment” sensibilities, such as patriot movement groups, “Middle American Radicals,” paleoconservatives, and perhaps “conservatarians” represent a rising niche of the Right. While the alternative right and Neoreaction appear to be totally different from the mainstream right, they share the overarching vision that they should live in a land that represents them. They also share some “idealistic realism”; their state vision is transcendental, but they believe that thinking about what “should” be true, is a worse way of making decisions that looking at what is true and adopting methods that have worked with that truth over time, then slowly improving the quality of results with methods specific to each local area. Both mainstream and underground right groups ally themselves with the idea of common sense: reality-based thinking. They see this as superior to progressive ideology, a vat of untested ideas advanced by conniving political opportunists as a means of seizing control through popular opinion and the chaos created through government meddling.

While important distinctions between mainstream right and underground right exist, similarities outnumber differences. Both groups advance common sense notions that intersect in the following areas:
  1. Freedom of belief. On the right, we recognize that societies are composed of individuals, and that those individuals receive their formative guidance outside of government, through their culture and religion. Individuals of higher moral character and abilities can improve the society around them by raising its standards, as we see from great people in history like George Washington, Socrates or even Ronald Reagan. Society should defend those who have higher standards, not force universal acceptance of all standards, which lowers the standard held in common. While this is inconvenient for commerce, as it means you may have to go to another store to get your gay wedding cake or birth control pills, it defends the right of people to live by their beliefs and to raise up the rest of us with higher moral standards. Moral order flows from the top down. The authors would argue that the classical liberal mandate, “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff,” proscribes too little and has been an easy target for subversion in an effort to destroy the moral fabric of our country.
  2. Freedom of association. Birds of a feather flock together, which means that collaborative groups can establish communities that succeed and inspire us to follow their example. Ideally, this happens at a national level, and obviates the problems posed by a “proposition nation” which praises as a social good, maximum social dysfunction, acrimony and competition. Dysfunction is created when the people in a community don’t want to work or live together; look at the artificially imposed state boundaries at the Middle East, or take divorce, for example. This is like a free market for ideas: people form small corporations called communities, and if their product – the lifestyle they offer – is superior, they thrive while others lag. A lack of freedom of association means that individuals are forced to live near, work with and interact with people with whom they disagree on a fundamental basis. That denies their human right to have a set of values, morals and standards to their community. Our Founding Fathers never intended equality to be more than individuals being treated fairly under the law without regard to their wealth or status. It was not designed to allow small groups to force conformity on the rest through mandatory tolerance of activities, lifestyles and individuals they find objectionable, or to privilege “oppressed” groups to pilfer and yoke “oppressor” groups. That is all tyranny, which the Founders intended to forbid in the Constitution.
  3. Small government. This term means both limiting the economic and personnel size of government, and more importantly, limiting its scope to practical and not ideological goals. When its only role is defense and putting up roads, government does not grow, so it must invent a reason – a rationalization, justification or excuse – to expand its power. This almost always takes the form of “Think of the children!” style ideological agendas based on guilt and pity, explained in public as altruism but like most public altruism, in private a cynical grab for power like the French Revolution itself. In political terms, small government means taking away from government the ability to act for any smaller group than society as a whole. This means an end to any payments to citizens, any socialized services, and any act which benefits a small group through money taken from the whole of the citizenry. Those types of subsidy-based actions, which resemble socialism in effect if not theory, are the hallmark of civilizations which will spend themselves to their own doom by sacrificing their productive citizens to the endless parade of those who are less willing or able to contribute.
Freedom of belief, freedom of association, and the principle of small government have been gradually encroached upon, and the right leaning coalition subsequently alienated. Yet, the American spirit of resistance is stirring. The rise of Donald Trump, whatever one may think of him, may show the future of conservatism: resistance to liberal social engineering, starting by attacking the liberal policy of multiculturalism for what it is – a social engineering program to replace normal Americans, who tend to be conservative, with third world populations which tend to vote liberal as they did in their home countries. The dividing line between mainstream conservatives, who will not mention race at all, and underground conservatives, who see diversity as creating internal division and distrust, is slowly eroding. Conservatives are seeing the liberal Plan for the first time: Politicians cultivate votes by giving away free things to citizens; the media drums up stories around unjust victimhood and horrors of poverty. The voters, prone to manipulation, fear voting against these things lest they be viewed as unsympathetic. These programs grow and can never be repealed because to do so is “political suicide,” or at least, so all the newspapers say. Elites form out of those in media, government and industry who realize they can help each other by reinforcing “The Narrative” which states that popular programs lead toward progress and anything else is primitive, selfish, cruel and ineffectual. This converts society into an echo chamber where people repeat the same views as fact and, by dint of a lack of opposing voices, confirm that bias and intensify adoption of the failed policies. With no way to change direction, society collapses, and this is what all conservatives hope to avoid.

So how does the space probe of the new right interlock with the docking collar of mainstream conservatism? The alliance begins in their common sentiment of anger at being dispossessed and their ideals and dignity made the subject of mockery, and graduates to their philosophical agreements. They two groups share an outlook in common sense, and both recognize that we are no longer in the age of “politics as usual,” but fighting for our very existence against the cancerous spread of liberalism. Both groups feel, and to a large extent, are, disenfranchised. This sense of disenfranchisement can be galvanized from despair to a renewing movement, as is plainly evident with The Make America Great Again campaign.

The underground right is the missing intellectual vanguard of grassroots America – and grassroots America is the missing power base of the underground right. The majority of grassroots America understands implicitly the dangers facing the country through immigration and out of control, criminal urban populations. The underground right doesn’t have to continue to be marginal if it can dialogue with people who are frustrated by their lack of representation, and the loss of their culture and way of life. Salt of the earth, normal American conservatives, that is those in flyover country or in the South who are cynical towards government, are looking for radical political integrity. The underground right, though merely agents of traditionalism, register in today’s political milieu as radical political truth-tellers, based on their frank acknowledgment of what is and is not sustainable. The goal of conservatism is to conserve civilization—and as its parapets crumble in the West, it is in grave need of our common defense.

Jews Torture and Massacre Priests, Nuns, and Choir Boys in Marxist Upheavals in Spain

via White Resister

Josefina Sauleda Paulis, of the Dominican cloistered monastery in Barcelona, has also been commended in Catholic sources. After being captured and interrogated by the Jews and their commie acolytes, and when about to be led away to be executed, she bravely and defiantly said: If you are going to kill me, why don’t you do it right here?

She was martyred and her body was found outside the Hippodrome in Barcelona.

These two martyrs were listed among 731 other Christian martyrs of the Spanish Civil War, beatified by the Roman Catholic Church in 2001 and 2007. In the beatification homily of Bonaventure Garcia Paredes and his companions, Pope Benedict said:

Adding such a great number of martyrs to the list of beatified persons shows that the supreme witness of giving blood is not an exception reserved only to some individuals, but a realistic possibility for all Christian people. It includes men and women of different ages, vocations and social conditions, who pay with their lives in fidelity to Christ and his Church.

Arthur Bryant, in his well-documented “Communist Atrocities in Spain”, tells of one murder squad which went to the Dominican Convent in Barcelona and informed the Mother Superior that “because of possible mob violence” the nuns should accompany the squad to a place of safety. They were then taken to the suburbs and murdered.
Their Jewish leader commented, “We needed the building. We didn’t want to muss it up before we occupied it.”

E.M. Godden, in “Conflict in Spain,” says on p. 72, “During the last week of July, 1936, the bodies of nuns were exhumed from their graves and propped up outside the walls of their convents. Obscene and offensive placards were attached to their bodies.”

In Madrid, it was estimated that one tenth of the population of Spain was murdered by the Communist Jews by 1939. De Fonteriz in “Red Terror in Madrid” tells how Cheka crews organized by Dimitrov and Rosenberg carried out a program of torture and murder so obscene that it cannot be repeated or described.

To further their World Murder Plan, the Jews have occasionally allowed a few of their numbers to be sacrificed. This was brought out at the meeting in Rothschild’s home in 1773, when it was stated, “But it has paid us even though we have sacrificed many of our own people. Each victim on our side is worth a thousand Goyim.”

What the speaker meant was that if one Jew happens to be killed, he will be avenged by the death of one thousand Christians, or “cattle” as the Christians are derisively referred to by the Jewish cult.

The speaker went on to point out to his rapt listeners that “We are interested in just the opposite … in the diminution, the killing out of the Goyim.” The record of this meeting in Rothschild’s house survived how?

Toll on the clergy

In the course of the Jews’ commie Red Terror, 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy, 20% percent of the nation’s clergy, were killed. The figures break down the as follows: Some 283 women religious were killed. Some of them were badly tortured. 13 bishops were killed from the dioceses of Siguenza Lleida, Cuenca, Barbastro, Segorbe, Jaén, Ciudad Real, Almeria, Guadix, Barcelona, Teruel and the auxiliary of Tarragona. Aware of the dangers, they all decided to remain in their cities. I cannot go, only here is my responsibility, whatever may happen, so said the Bishop of Cuenca.

In addition 4,172 diocesan priests, 2,364 monks and friars, among them 259 Claretians, 226 Franciscans, 204 Piarists, 176 Brothers of Mary, 165 Christian Brothers (also called the De La Salle Brothers), 155 Augustinians, 132 Dominicans, and 114 Jesuits were killed. In some dioceses, the number of secular priests killed are overwhelming:

In Barbastro 123 of 140 priests were killed, about 88 percent of the secular clergy were murdered, 66 percent In Lleida, 270 of 410 priests were killed. about 62 percent In Tortosa, 44 percent of the secular priests were killed.

In Toledo 286 of 600 priests were killed. In the dioceses of Málaga, Minorca and Segorbe, about half of the priests were killed”

In 2001 the Catholic Church beatified hundreds of Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War and beatified 498 more on October 28, 2007.

In October 2008, the Spanish newspaper La Razon published an article on the number of people murdered for practicing Catholicism.”

May 1931: 100 church buildings are burned while firefighters refuse to extinguish the flames.

1932: 3000 Jesuits expelled. Church buildings burned with impunity in 7 cities.

1934: 33 priests murdered in the Asturias Revolution.

1936: just a day before July 18, the day the war started, there already have been 17 clergymen murdered.

From July 18 to August 1: 861 clergymen murdered in 2 weeks.

August 1936: 2077 clergymen murdered, more than 70 a day. 10 of them bishops.

September 14: 3400 clergymen murdered during the first stages of the war.

1939: end of the war; a total of 7000 clergymen and 3000 religious people murdered for practicing Catholicism.

Toward the Tipping Point: Making Our Ideas Viral

via Counter-Currents

Author’s Note: The following text is the transcription by V.S. of a talk I gave in Stockholm on September 26th.

I feel a little awkward and nervous today, because I made the mistake of ignoring the warnings about Swedish coffee. I thought that I liked strong coffee and that it would be nothing. I feel like I’ve taken on a little too much caffeine, so you’ll just have to forgive me.

I want to thank you all for being here. I want to thank Frodi. I want to thank Daniel Höglund and Logik Förlag. I feel humbled that there’s a room full of people who are coming out to listen to me speak to them in a foreign language, or a language that is foreign to most of you. It’s something I couldn’t do myself.

The talk I am going to give today is called “Toward the Tipping Point” and it’s the base of a chapter for a book that I’m working on that addresses a need that Matt Tait was discussing, which is a book called The White Nationalist Manifesto. I have an outline of a book of about 30,000 words. Basically ten short chapters, so it would be about 100 pages in length. It’s my attempt to put our ideas in the simplest possible way that could be used as a kind of catechism, if you will, for people who want to come up with a set of basic convincing arguments for racial nationalism.

One of the questions that always gets addressed, whenever I talk to people long enough, is they’ll get a little impatient, and they’ll say, “Well, these foundational ideas are all well and good, but how do we get from an intellectual understanding of the foundations of racialist politics to actually gaining political influence and political power? How does that work? How does that take place?”

The answer is that there are two ways that we can look at being a dissident in society. One way is that we can assume that we are essentially alone. We’re just a small band of people, and our task is to persuade everybody of a whole raft of extremely shocking ideas, ideas that are shocking, ideas that are stigmatized, ideas that they’ve never been exposed to, and if they have been exposed to them they’ve been exposed to them by their enemies. When enemies present our ideas they can put a negative spin on them. When you envision that educational project it becomes very, very daunting. How do we change the way that our whole society thinks?

But there’s another way of looking at dissent, and I think it’s actually more accurate, and I think it’s actually more encouraging. That’s as follows: instead of feeling that all of history is against us and that we have to, like Archimedes, find a lever and a place to stand and shift the whole world to our position, I think we need to recognize that since our views are based on who we are, being authentic to who we are, and responding authentically to objective reality, that pretty much everybody in our societies is capable of believing what we do, and it’s not so much a task of stuffing them full of a lot of information as it’s going to be a task of getting them to own up to certain things that they already know, getting them to be honest about who they are, and honest about reality as it confronts us. Because who we are and the events around us argue for our position, and this little group of dissidents in this room, we should think of ourselves as just the first people to become aware of this.

We’re at the leading edge of a great storm. There’s a historical force that’s building behind us, and we are the ones who have become aware of it first, and that means that there will be many people following along. There are many people who are observing the same things, and deep down inside they are not comfortable with multiculturalism; they’re not comfortable with self-abasement; they’re not comfortable with parasitism. They’re not comfortable with these things. They feel somewhat inarticulate, somewhat intimidated. They don’t know quite how to articulate their feelings, and if they do know how to articulate them they are intimidated because the enemy, who controls our educational system, our political system, the media, and so forth, is working overtime to intimidate people and suppress these ideas.

So, we really need to break out of this box that they’ve put us in. Our thoughts have been boxed in. Our people are basically with us except for, I would say, a small number of people who are basically mentally ill. But they are always a minority in society. The trouble is that the mentally ill are basically controlling our societies now, and large numbers of people are going along with them passively or have been bought and been given incentives to going along with them, and sensible people like us and the people who have the potential to agree with us are basically silenced and intimidated.

The polls indicate in Sweden that 27% of the electorate now favors the Sweden Democrats. I don’t want to argue about the merits or demerits of that party, but it means that more than a quarter of the electorate are sympathetic to the sorts of concerns that we have. They’re not comfortable with being displaced in their own country.

I was sitting in the breakfast room at the hotel today, and there were 70 or 80 people in there at a time, and I was looking around, and I was asking myself, “Which of these people belongs to that 27%? There have to be people like this in every room.” They’re invisible. They’re intimidated. They’re not a visible majority yet. I think that to get to the point where 27% of the electorate is sympathetic to nationalistic ideas has taken decades of work.

Who in this room has been involved in nationalist politics for more than 30 years? How about more than 20 years? There have been people working at this for decades, and 27% of the populace is now somewhat swayed to your opinions. I think it could only be a matter of months before you get to 52% of the populace or 54% of the populace, because it’s possible after very long periods of slow growth for ideas to break out, for things to go viral.

One of the books that I highly recommend to people who are involved in radical politics is a book by an English mulatto, a writer named Malcolm Gladwell. He’s the son of a Jamaican mother and an English mathematician, and he’s quite a bright guy. In 2000, he wrote a book called The Tipping Point and the subtitle is How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. We’re a little thing; we’re a little group of people, right? We’re a small movement, and yet it is possible for small groups of people to make an enormous difference. And how is that the case? Well, he gives examples.

The book is very masterful at synthesizing and popularizing a lot of data in social psychology, sociology, epidemiology, and business and marketing studies. He talks about certain examples, such as: how is it that a certain unfashionable brand of shoes suddenly became fashionable? Or how is it that crime suddenly shot way up in New York City and then how is it that it subsided? The theory about why it subsided is quite blind, I’m afraid, to racial issues.

But he says that what happens frequently in society is things “go viral.” Ideas, products, whatever. One of the stock pieces of boilerplate that our enemies use to describe us is that we are full of “virulent ideas,” and virulent refers to how viruses propagate. It’s meant to be an insult. We’re like rats carrying the plague. But it also expresses what they fear. They fear that our ideas can become viral, and there’s a way that viruses propagate that’s astonishingly powerful and fast.

We’re all familiar with the bell curve and how certain natural phenomena distribute themselves on bell curves: height, intelligence, ethnocentrism, a whole host of healthy and unhealthy psychological traits. When you map them out there’s a bell curve with a large number of people in the middle and small numbers on either extreme.

We need to be as familiar with a model that’s called geometrical, as opposed to arithmetic, change. In nature, geometrical processes of change take place all the time. You find them in the study of diseases. You find them in ecology: suddenly algae will bloom in a pond, and suddenly overnight the pond has turned green, and then all the oxygen is sucked up by the algae, and then the algae dies. These processes take place all the time. And so I want to illustrate the distinction between geometrical and arithmetic forms of change.

Let’s say that you make a pledge today. All of you pledge that in the next year you are going to convert one person to our way of thinking. Now, you probably know 20 people who don’t really think like us, but that if you had a whole year to work on them you might actually be able to wrangle them around to our way of thinking. Now, imagine you do that for 10 years. After the first year there are 2 of you and after the second year there are 3 of you. After 10 years, you will have converted 10 people. Big deal, right?

Now, imagine that you add something else to the message. Imagine that you not only convert them to our way of thinking. Imagine that you convert them to the idea of doing the same thing that you’re doing. So, at the end of the first year there will be two of you, and then both you and your friend will go out and each convert another person. At the end of the second year the number will double. So, at the end of Year 1 there will be 2 of you, at the end of Year 2 there will be 4 of you, at the end of the third year there will be 8. It doesn’t sound like a great degree of increase, but as you multiply this out over the years by the tenth year there would be, instead of 11 who now believe as you believe, there will be 1,024. That’s the distinction between arithmetic and geometric progressions in numbers.

Remember, you would only have actually converted 10 people yourself in 10 years. Your workload wouldn’t increase. The only thing that has changed is that you’ve gotten everybody else to get on board with the same program, and if they do it at the same rate that you do it, at the end of 10 years there will be more than 1,000 of you as opposed to 11 of you. That’s an extraordinary change.

With each additional year the effects become even more remarkable. I have been a White Nationalist for basically 15 years. If I had started this process 15 years ago and it worked, I would have converted 15 people by wining and dining them and hand-holding and talking them through their qualms and fears. I can do that. 15 people in 15 years? I can do that. There would be a lot of dinners, a lot of long phone conversations, but I could do that. And if I had started that process 15 years ago there would be 32,768 of us due to my efforts and the efforts of the people that I talked to. But none of it would have happened without one individual making the first step. Every one of you in this room can be that one individual. At 15 years there would be 32,000. Five more years after that the number would be a million. You’d run out of Swedes very quickly if this were to happen, and that would be a good problem to have.

I was told that the reason why this meeting doesn’t have as many people as the one in April is that there were three nationalist events for Swedes to choose from this weekend. That’s a really good problem to have.

Already more than a quarter of the electorate is on your side. So, the question is how can this break out? How can these ideas move very quickly?

Geometric progressions in algae blooms, in trends, in diseases, have three things in common. First, they are contagious. Second, little changes often have huge effects by being multiplied or amplified geometrically rather than arithmetically. Finally, once these processes are afoot, widespread changes can happen very quickly.

Something contagious moves through person-to-person contacts, from individual contacts. This is very, very important. Why? Because the way that the system controls our minds is impersonally from above. Its messages radiate from the top out to many isolated individuals, and the more isolated we are from one another the better for them. Because it might be the case that more than 27% of Swedish voters actually agree with our ideas, but some of them are intimidated even by an anonymous poll.

There are examples from history. The most recent one and the most spectacular being the collapse of Communism where at the beginning of 1989 all the smart money was that Communism was going to be around for a very, very long time. It looked very, very stable and had an awesome apparatus of intimidation and brain-washing in place. There was very little overt violence anymore, everything was so under control. And yet all the smart people were unaware of the fact that in the privacy of the minds of many, many people in these societies they had seen through it and they were cynical about it. It was empty. The system was hollow and brittle. The only thing that kept it going was the fact that each dissident felt that he was alone. Why? Well, because he was too intimidated to speak out. People were just afraid.

We have a similar situation in the West now. There’s a great deal of soft intimidation that makes people who have dissenting ideas feel like they’re alone and feel like they are taking a terrible risk by expressing these ideas. Even though you know that objectively if you’re in a train car or sitting in the breakfast room of a hotel chances are that 1 in 4 people would be receptive to you if you started talking like we’re talking now. One in 4 people in that room might be receptive. You don’t know who they are, and you’re always afraid in the back of your mind that there’s going to be some horrible scene where some angry person’s going to leap up and wag his finger and call you names, and so you are intimidated and quiet.

So, how do you break out of that? Well, I want to propose something, and this is based on an unlikely source. A couple of years ago, I went to a funeral for a friend, and the person I stayed with put on cable TV, and this movie about Harvey Milk came on. Harvey Milk was a Jewish gay rights activist in the 1970s, and this biopic was made about him that won all kinds of awards, as you might imagine given the subject matter. It was very heart-warming for the PC crowd, right? But I watched it, and it was really a very useful movie about radical politics that had lots of lessons that can be applied to our politics.

The most important lesson was an event that took place in 1978. There was a ballot initiative in California that was sponsored by the religious Right, the evangelicals, to basically fire any homosexual who was a school teacher. We can’t have these people teaching our kids, right? And so this went on the ballot, and there was a campaign for and against it, and the polls looked very, very negative. Two thirds of the public was going to vote for this. So, Milk and other people based in San Francisco decided that they needed to fight this, and one of the things that they came up with was the following. They had the idea that the enemy media had portrayed homosexuals in a very negative way. (I guess that’s because they sent cameras out to gay pride parades and things like that.) They thought, “What we need is to be more visible as a group. We need to stop allowing our enemies to portray us the way they want to portray us, and we need to represent ourselves as a group.”

What they basically said was, “Everybody who is closeted has to come out, and they have to come out at the same time so it’s safer that way.” And so they basically did that on the assumption that it would be harder for the public to pass anti-gay legislation if members of the public, voters, actually knew a gay person, if they actually realized, “Oh my gosh, this person in my fraternity” or “this person who works in my office” or “this neighbor” or whatever “is gay,” then they wouldn’t vote for these anti-gay measures. They did this, and the proposition was defeated fairly soundly, and they attributed the defeat partly to this strategy.

The basic principle there was that if people actually have direct awareness of a marginalized group then the enemies of that group cannot portray them in a way that stigmatizes them and makes them haram, taboo. I think that what nationalists in a country like Sweden or in a country like France need to do is “come out.” You’re already a quarter of the electorate, but you’re an invisible group, and therefore your enemies have the power to control the public’s perception of you.

This is true in France. The average French person believes that supporters of the National Front in France are below average in their income and education, that they tend to be people who live in the rural areas of France rather than the cities. They tend to think of them as bumpkins, basically, and this is completely false. But this is a false message fostered by the French media. If the 20-some-odd-percent of the French electorate that was pro-National Front suddenly started representing itself to the public rather than allowing its enemies to do so, those public perceptions would change rapidly. An abstract, bogeyman image of National Front people would be replaced by concrete instances of admirable and decent people, neighbors, co-workers. Your veterinarian, right? The person you entrust your dog to. You can’t think of this person as a horrible fascist. You just can’t! This is the person who takes care of your dog when it’s sick. He bandages your dog’s paw. How can you hate this person when you know concretely who they are? And you don’t even necessarily need to know a person directly. You just need to know somebody who knows somebody, and if there’s just one or two degrees of separation between any individual in a society and a known “hater,” a known “fascist,” that changes public perceptions dramatically. I think that would be the way that it’d work in Sweden as well. I am proposing this to people I know who are in the National Front.

Certain groundwork needs to be laid for this. For instance, you need to find ways of reducing the risks to individuals if they do this. How would you do it? Well, it would be as easy as on a certain day everybody wears a Sweden Democrats pin. And it’s even more important to have people who are not Sweden Democrats who could stand up and say, “I am not a Sweden Democrat, but I support their right to be who they are. I support their right to be heard.” That is a psychologically very powerful thing. It’s often the case that people who are neutral bystanders, who will stand up for your rights, are just as important as people who are standing up for your party. If you have these people who are not members of your group, but will second your right to exist and legitimize you from the outside, that’s a very powerful thing. In effect, becoming a visible group is creating a large number of people who are willing to say that. “Yeah, I know some of these people, and they’re really nice people.”

Looking around this room, there are a lot of very nice-looking, well-mannered people. I’ve noticed that your table manners were very, very good. You read books. A lot of you probably have higher educational levels and better jobs than average people. But people don’t believe that about you, chances are. They certainly don’t believe that about White Nationalist types in the United States.

If you become more visible, all of a sudden you will change those perceptions, and you will be able to represent yourself. How to do that? Well, just make sure that if there are legal ways to prevent individuals from being discriminated against or harmed that the party has help in place so that it can come to people’s aid if they are discriminated against in the work place and things like that. That would lower the risk and therefore increase the chances that people would publically represent themselves. If there comes a day when you’re walking down the street in central Stockholm and 1 in 4 people is wearing a little party ribbon that indicates allegiance to the Sweden Democrats that is a complete end run around the top-down media control of people’s perceptions.

Again, viral ideas, viral marketing, anything that’s viral takes place through person to person contact. It is a very subversive way of undermining top-down centralized control. Another trait of viral phenomena is that small changes can produce huge effects. The small change of one of you resolving that you will follow the “program” I laid out. I hate talking that way, but let’s say that one of you today vows to follow the program that I laid out of converting somebody and giving them the impetus to do the same once a year. If one of you did that, just one of you, and it worked even half-way, even if you had a 50% success rate in terms of people actually following through and spreading the word, there would still be in 10 years’ time hundreds and hundreds more people that believe what you believe, and it only takes one of you to be really successful at this before things can break out and go viral.

Here’s another consideration that’s very important. I believe the system in the United States and certainly in Western Europe as well is working at almost full capacity to contain the ethnic awareness and ethnocentrism of White people. I used to think years ago that groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center in the United States were absolutely ludicrous paranoids who would come down with enormous pressure on people like a public official who makes an innocent off-handed, perhaps well-meaning, remark about race or Jewish power. Things like that. I used to think, “These people are so paranoid! They have a complete lock on the system. Why do they come at you with elephant guns blazing when some dog catcher in a small town makes an incorrect remark?” And after a while though I came to believe that no, they’re not paranoid. They’re actually quite aware of the situation, and they would be, right? We know that the political establishment in every country is constantly polling the electorate. They don’t release the results of these polls unless it’s useful to them. The polls that make them very, very afraid they bury deep down.

I came to believe that the power of the Jewish establishment in the United States in particular is an ocean wide and maybe a molecule deep, and they are working feverishly at about 99% of their capacity to keep our ethnocentrism, our patriotism, our awareness at about 1% of its capacity. Well, what that means is that we have a great deal of capacity for growth and they don’t. Our capacity for growing awareness is immense, because we are at such a low ebb right now, but their capacity for suppressing and controlling our awareness doesn’t have that much room for growth before they exceed their abilities. They’re basically in the red at all times. They’re basically working at about 99% of their capacity.

This is why they have to fervently jump on anything that seems threatening to them, because they realize that if they don’t, one small person poking their head up and getting the right idea could lead to a viral outbreak of ethnocentrism that they will not be able to contain and therefore they have to nip it in the bud. Basically, that’s the idea.

Forest fires grow geometrically. There’s a small fire in a park and many, many fire trucks converge on it to put it out. Seems like a little bit of overkill until you know how destructive a fire is once if it is not contained. Imagine if fires broke out simultaneously all over town. There aren’t going to be enough fire trucks to go and contain it. That’s the case with ideological control. That’s the case with the establishment’s power to keep us bottled up, to keep our ethnic awareness bottled up and ineffective. Their capacity to grow in containing it is far more limited than our capacity to grow in breaking out. If there is an upsurge that could overwhelm their capacity for containment.

Their containment policies all have this top-down pattern to them as well, and this is why person-to-person contagions between individuals which cannot be controlled is something that frightens them. They would like nothing better than for all of us to stay at home interacting over the internet or, better yet, watching television passively. They’d like nothing better, because that means there’s nobody else interfering with their ability to push their narrative and their message into our heads. They want us isolated. They want us alienated. They want us boxed up watching porn or the television news or anything that keeps us isolated as individuals, because once face-to-face interaction takes place that opens up the possibility of interrupting their top-down power.

I’m just putting this out there. Back in the year 2000, there was an amusing incident that happened to me. I became friends with a Bulgarian scholar who it turns out was an Orthodox monk. I was writing my doctoral dissertation, and he found out about what I was writing on and contacted me. We had this correspondence about philosophy, basically, and then it popped up that he was a monarchist, and he was very interested in the monarchist cause in Bulgaria. So, we got chatting about that, and I shared my thoughts with him about what the Tsar should do in Bulgaria. He wrote back to me and it shocked me. He said, “I have forwarded your comments to the Tsar!” Apparently, he actually knew the guy! But I didn’t know that. I didn’t know that. It turns out I was one person away from the Tsar of Bulgaria.

So, some of you need to forward my suggestions to the Tsar of the Sweden Democrats perhaps. Somebody is going to forward my idea to Marine Le Pen. I don’t know who it is, necessarily, but chances are that if you get these ideas broadcast out there you’re only one or two people away from people who actually make decisions.

One of the things that was most interesting to me about Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point was a discussion of a category of people called Connectors. Connectors are absolutely crucial for ideas to become viral. Why? Because they always propagate through person-to-person contact. That’s what contagion is. It’s something that moves from one person to another. Connectors are people who are connected to more people than average. If you can get your ideas into the heads of people who are Connectors there is a greater chance of getting these things to propagate to more people.

There was a study that was done by Stanley Milgram, who is a Jewish psychologist who is very famous for the so-called Milgram Experiment, which was supposed to demonstrate how authoritarian and passive and prone to evil White people are. I think the experiment is fraudulent. It seems very, very unlikely. But one of Milgram’s studies was he gave people in Nebraska – which, for those of you who don’t know American geography, it’s one of those states right in the middle of the country populated by “those people” that the coastal elites look down upon, bumpkins; it’s very provincial; they call it “fly-over country,” for the people who are flying constantly from New York to Hollywood and back. Everything in the middle is fly-over country, and Nebraska is right in the center of fly-over country ,and so there was probably some kind of agenda behind his choice of Nebraska. But Milgram decided to see how quickly through person-to-person interactions a person in Nebraska could get a piece of information to somebody in Boston. What could be a greater distance than from Boston to Nebraska?

The surprising result was that any given person in the provinces in the United States is on average only six degrees of separation — meaning five individual people who personally know one another — from any other person in the country. There are now 300 million people in the United States, and yet between me and any other person in the country on average there are only five people, but I don’t know who those people are.

Once I read this study I started making a list of all the interesting people, famous people, powerful people that I was one or two people away from. I had a friend who died about exactly a year ago in San Francisco who is a legendary example of what Gladwell would call a Connector, because he was very outgoing and he could relate to all kinds of people in very many fields and so he would just make connections. This guy was a very humble person. He was not a politician or a mover or shaker. I was two degrees of separation through him from Marlene Dietrich whom he had met years ago; Placido Domingo, because he was a musician so he met people in the music world; a whole host of people in the Broadway world that their names escape me. He knew a lot of people like that. I came up with a list when I really put my mind to it. It’s jotted down in the back of my copy of The Tipping Point of more than 70 famous individuals that I was two degrees of separation from through this single individual alone.

Then I started to look at other connections. I was three degrees of separation from Benjamin Netanyahu. Sort of a chilling thought, actually. I’d like to keep him further away, but I knew somebody who knew somebody who worked with him regularly. Kind of scary. It’s a small world, and some parts of the world I’d like to be further away and other parts I’d like to keep close.

But the point is those kinds of interpersonal connections are the key to contagious ideas. The more Connectors you know, with in many ways superficial acquaintances with many people in many different fields of society, the more potential you have for a viral outbreak of ideas. So, if you know people like this you might actually disdain them. We tend to be a little bit sour and introverted, I think, on the far Right. We tend to look down on people who have too many friends. I used to be that way. I used to think, “This person has entirely too many friends. He must have a certain lack of character.” What did Mussolini say? “Many enemies, much honor”? Well, the inverse would be if you’ve got way too many friends there must be something squishy about you. But it turns out that people like this are golden for politics, for political change. If there are Connectors among you, you need to treasure them and take care of them, because they can be very powerful.

So, what am I going to say to wrap this up?

I think that, first of all, somebody needs to get my suggestion to the Tsar about a national coming out day where nationalists in Sweden take control of their own visibility. This group is a very attractive face for marginalized ideas, which is why they want you to be invisible. So, increase your visibility. Perhaps by the means that I have discussed.

Become aware of the people in your midst who are strong Connectors and start using them to get your ideas across.

Try to find people who will second and legitimate your ideas even though they do not profess to believe them. There’s a very good example of this. There was a YouTube video that was commented upon at Counter-Currents by one of our writers, Andrew Hamilton. It’s an article called “Join the Dance,” and I recommend that you look that up at Counter-Currents. Basically, the was taken at a music festival in the state of Washington. There was some probably stoner rock band playing music outdoors, and there were all these people sitting around listening to it. There was some guy off in the grass all alone who started dancing, and people noticed him out there dancing, and a lot of them probably thought he was a fool. You know, “What’s he on?” or something. “What’s he doing?” But then a second person ran up and started dancing with him. And then at that point a whole crowd rushed in and started dancing. So, the key to that change was not the first person dancing. It was the second person. The second person legitimated the first person.

The distinction between a lone nut and a leader is the second person who joins in or the person who stands up and seconds your legitimacy. “This guy isn’t some nut on drugs. He’s out having fun and I’m going to join him.” Once that dancer was seconded by the first follower then he became the leader of a trend rather than just a lone nut. That’s an important consideration to have.

It might be the case that many people here might not want to avow yourself publically as a nationalist. Maybe it’s dangerous for you. Maybe you want to be a secret agent. But you could at least consider taking the role of a seconder. “Well, I don’t really agree with these people, but I think they’re saying something important, and, you know, I’m not comfortable in certain parts of Stockholm now.”

That’s all you need to say. “I’m not comfortable with these changes.” You don’t need to get anymore ideological or strident than that. I have found that by simply saying to people who are to all purposes quite liberal, “I’m sorry. I’m just not comfortable with that.” They’ll open up, and they’ll realize, “OK. Here’s a real person, and lo and behold I’m not comfortable with it either,” and they’ll start talking to you about it.

So, sometimes just being a receptive listener and not having actually to put a message out there is very effective for social change. You don’t even have to be super articulate. You can be the strong, silent type all you want, and actually as long as you make the simple overture of opening yourself up for frank discussion about things that are otherwise very sensitive you can lead change; you can make things possible.

So I would like to just end on that. Again I want to return to this idea that it’s very lonely to think that we have to change the minds of everybody in our societies. It’s very lonely. It’s very intimidating. It’s far less lonely and far less intimidating when you recognize that no, that’s probably not the case.

Our people are already on our side, and events are arguing in our favor. We’re just the first ones to be aware of it. We’re first in our awareness, and we’re first in our courage to face up to the facts. But the rest of our people are not that far behind. If you can get to 27% after decades of work, again, if you take the next step and increase your level of visibility I think that you can get to 54% in 6 or 8 months, because these things change very fast. Wouldn’t it be nice if you ran out of Swedes to convert to your ideas?