Genocide of the European Nations By Mass Immigration

Warning of the treasonous intent of European elites,  Brendan O'Neill writes:

It is becoming increasingly clear why immigration is so important to the EU elites: because they see the mass movement of people essentially as a weapon against national sovereignty. Their mass-migration project of recent years hasn’t been a humane endeavour to improve the lives of foreign peoples; it has been about further erasing borders, using migrant flows effectively as a tool to push the EU oligarchy’s post-nation agenda."

Um, yes, that's been obvious for years, as years ago we pointed out. If you destroy the fertility of a nation with a compulsory sex-ed program that teaches that the only sexual vice is reproduction, and then you bring in a lot of folks from elsewhere, you will inevitably destroy the sovereign democratic nation state. because you will have destroyed the people who made up the nation.

Until Trump, national genocide was the policy of just about every European-majority "nation," with the exception of Russia, which continues a desperate struggle to prevent a national population implosion.

Who is driving the destruction of the Western nations?

The Money Power, obviously, which is to say the global corporations that off-shored as many jobs as they could from the Western nations to the sweatshops and plantations of Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle-East, while at the same time promoting mass immigration to the West, thereby driving down wages and hence the cost of providing the goods and services that could not be off-shored.

The result?

A massive increase in wealth disparity between rich and poor throughout the West.

Who is fighting with such ruthless determination to destroy Trump?

The globalist money power, obviously: the people who reap the massive windfall profits that have been won by exporting vast chunks of Western economies to tyrannies such as those of China, Vietnam, while importing scab immigrant labor to destroy the living standards of the working people of the West.

Who allowed this genocidal crime?

The political puppets of the West, such as the trust-fund kid, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, who rules what he calls the World's first post-national state.

How is the war on the Western nations and against Trump being waged?

As all genocides are waged: with racist hate speech.

In London, England, now a non-English majority city (like Birmingham, Britain's second city) a Muslim mayor of Pakistani origin approves a public insult to the visiting US President in the form of a Trump-like blimp clad in a diaper flying from London's Parliament Square.

Meantime the Guardian, which with the BBC is Britain's leading advocate of white genocide, smears those opposed to national self-destruction as far-right-wing racist, extremists.

How is it that the Western governments have been taken over by self-hating destroyers of their own people, leaders such as the former Communist Angela Merkel, the former Trotskyite, Tony Blair, the advocate of French "metissage," President Sarkozy, or England's silliest Prime Minister, Theresa May, who as Home Secretary advocated for Shariah courts in Britain?

Simple. Bribery.

Note to J.K. Rowling and the others for a diversity enriched Europe

Elected officials do not rule the Western democracies. The Money Power, the global corporations, the megabanks, a handful of plutocrats rule through the politicians they fund and to whom they provide after-office rewards (multi-million-dollar royalty payments for crap books no sane person would buy, corporate directorship, whatever, really, the scumbag politicians want)*.

Such payoffs are made with absolute reliability, not because the plutocratic elite are trustworthy or honorable, but to reassure the puppets in power now that they will get theirs: provided that they follow the script.

That's the reason for the particular hatred of Trump. He's always had whatever he wanted, women, planes, palaces, and he's still got a billion or two in hand, so the globalists have no handle on him.

———
* It's the same method that big Pharma uses to payoff corrupt scientists who approve their dodgy drugs.


Related: 
Patrick Buchanan: The Never Trumpers Are Never Coming Back
CanSpeccy: Europe's New Genocide
CanSpeccy: Are you a far-right-wing extremist, racist, anti-Semite against genocide?

More Skripal Tripal

The poisoning of a middle-aged couple at Amesbury, a small town in the vicinity of Britain's biological and chemical weapons research establishment at Porton Down, has been declared by local police a "Major Incident."

Since the poisoning of former Russian spy and traitor, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, occurred in nearby Salisbury, the search is on for a link between the two "incidents." Craig Murray provides a useful synopsis of the story so far, and suggests that the latest poisonings could be a synthetic event designed to maintain the hate-Russia frenzy that was generated by the politicians and media as a consequence of the Skripal poisonings.

In that connection, there is the following comment on Murray's post, by the cryptically named "Bob," which provides good reason to believe that evidence of the poisoning of the Skripals was entirely fake:

@ Bob: If it weren’t for Freya Church, an eyewitness of the couple on the bench, saying the people in this video were “100% Definitely” the people she saw on the bench, you might assume the pair in the video were prime suspects. The red bag (carried by the person in the video), [which was later] witnessed at the scene [of the poisoning] is the clue. But the official narrative is that this pair were not the Skripals, so we have to consider two things 1) What actually happened to the Skripals? And why no further police interest in this pair? Only two eyewitness reports have been made public of the physical characteristics of the female on the bench: 1) Freya Church, “100% Definitely” the same couple [as seen in the video], and 2) Olly Field, who described the woman as a “blonde bird”. No witness described the female on the bench as having reddish brown hair. The Russian speaking female witnessed in Zizzis (police have said this was Yulia) was described by a witness as having reddish-brown hair. Yulia was caught on CCTV in a Moscow airport the day before, and she can clearly be seen as having reddish brown hair. It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to work out that the couple on the bench were not the Skripals. And the police know this. Why else would they only show interest in the CCTV capture above from the dozens of other individuals caught by the Snap Fitness camera (and Jenny’s Restaurant camera next door)? Because no one else was of interest, no one that could have been the Skripals, and no one that could have poisoned them. Yet 4 months on in this fast moving probe, the police pretend to be looking for suspects and still come up with ludicrous fantasy theories. Don’t get me wrong I feel a bit sorry for these dimwits trying to sell this horses bottom of a conspiracy, but they don’t have to, they could say no I’m not playing this stupid game any more and resign, but they don’t and [so] the police become more ridiculous each day. To recap: The couple on the bench were not the Skripals. The couple on the bench were not poisoned by a Novichok Nerve Agent. The Skripals were in [the restaurant] Zizzis c 3:30pm (Sergei in an emotional state) but didn’t make it as far as the bench.

This is consistent with our own conclusion that the Skripals were not poisoned and that Yulia Skripal's statement following her supposed release from hospital was fake, based on an old video of a younger and slimmer Yulia, over which a contrived statement was lip-synched, while the apparent tracheotomy scar was added by photo-manipulation. 

What this seems to show is that the British intelligence services are so dumb they cannot fake in a convincing way even a simple poisoning, a fact consistent with the finding that the IQ of the Western nations is now in rapid decline, a decline that will surely be accelerated as the public are exposed to increasing quantities of horse manure such as the Skripal poisonings and the Sandy Hook School Massacre. 

Related: 
RT: Amesbury poisoning is a terrorist attack, secondary contamination impossible – expert to RT
ICH: The Skripal Incident Big Lie Won’t Die
Craig Murray: The Amesbury Mystery
CanSpeccy: The Skripal File
Daily Caller: KREMLIN SHOCKED THAT CITIZENS IN THE UK ARE BEING STRUCK DOWN BY A SOVIET NERVE AGENT
RT: 'New legal high?' Twitter awash with mockery & conspiracy after Novichok hits UK again

Sandy Hook: A Fake School Massacre to Justify the Constitutional Right of the American People to keep and Bear Arms? New Evidence

The Fellowship of the Minds, June 18, 2018: We are told that on December 14, 2012, a lone gunman, Adam Lanza, went to Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES) in Newtown, Connecticut, where in the space of 11 minutes, shot and killed 20 first-graders and 6 adults.

We are also told that after the massacre, SHES relocated to an empty school in neighboring Monroe, CT — Chalk Hill Middle School at 375 Fan Hill Rd. — until a new swanky SHES was rebuilt with the $50 million from the state of Connecticut as a result of the shooting massacre.

It turns out that SHES had moved to Chalk Hill months before the alleged massacre, which leads to this question:

Since SHES had moved to Monroe, who, then, were the students and teachers whom Lanza shot to death at SHES on December 14, 2012?

The evidence of SHES’s move to Chalk Hill comes from Wolfgang W. Halbig, a humble straight-talking 71-year-old man with an impressive professional record as a law enforcement officer (U.S. Customs inspector and Florida state trooper), an educator (public school coach, teacher, assistant principal and principal), and a nationally-recognized school safety consultant who was an expert witness in the Columbine and other school shootings.

Read more

Related:
CanSpeccy: Bing Cache Shows Local Paper Reported Sandy Hook Shooting Before it Happened
CanSpeccy: The Sandy Hook Nuns had a purple getaway van
CanSpeccy: State crimes against democracy

Open Borders, Population Replacement, and Globalization

Vox Popoli has a couple of instructive quotes on open borders that tell you what mass uncontrolled migration means for the European peoples. From the financial analyst and author N.N. Taleb:

What intellectuals don't get about MIGRATION is the ethical notion of SYMMETRY: OPEN BORDERS work if and only if the number of people who want to go from EU/US to Africa/LatinAmerica equals Africans/Latin Americans who want to move to EU/US.

That makes sense supposing that your idea of what will "work" is for the ethnicities of the world to be homogenized in the way that former French President Sarkozy demanded of the French, saying: "Métissage" [racial mixing] - It's An Obligation!

For some people racial mixing may be desirable. But that is a far from a universally shared ideal. Consider, for example, the South African, Julius Malema*, leader of the Marxist-Revolutionary Economic Freedom Party, speaking about the state seizure of all land owned by South African whites: "we are" he declared "cutting the throat of whiteness." No call there for "Métissage," rather a call for extermination. 

Hateful though such racist speech may be to some, it actually reflects the feeling of the great majority of the people of all races, states and nations. It is perfectly natural to prefer your own kind, and if you are foolish enough to admit to your domain large numbers of people of a different kind, then naturally they will displace you kind, first as the majority, as has already happened in many great European cities including London, Birmingham, Paris, and Franfurt, and then even as a large minority, as happened to the Amerindians, the Australian aborigines, the New Zealand Maori, and in South Africa, the San people, or Bushmen, following settlement of their country first by Europeans from the Netherlands and them by Africans from the North.

Open borders is thus not an invitation to a chosen few to come in and share our wonderful culture and make your small contribution to our gene pool. It is national suicide.

This is the point that Patrick Buchanan makes, in explaining how the current wave of immigrants is pushing former waves of immigrants out of power in the Democratic Party. 

Just as Crowley’s congressional district had changed, so, too, has his party in Congress. Columnist Dana Milbank, who sees it as progress, writes, “A majority of House Democrats are … women, people of color or gay.” These rising forces in the Democratic coalition are looking to bury the Democratic Party of yesterday, where white males and older ethnic groups — Irish, Italians, Poles and Jews — were dominant.

So, if you love human diversity, and in particular if you feel any loyalty to your own family, race and nation, keep the nations of the world apart, each to its own country, its own homeland, its own religion and its own mode of government, for the object of globalization is death to the nations of the world.

———
* Julius Malema is author of the book: "Kill the Boer."

BBC Complicity in Cover Up of UK Government Complicity in Torture

As follow up to a piece on the UK's use of intelligence obtained by the torture of terrorism suspects, Craig Murray draws attention to this video showing one of the BBC's purveyors of propaganda in panic mode as a BBC reporter blithely explains the direct involvement of Britain's foreign intel. agency, MI6, in the kidnapping of suspects for torture.

Very funny in a macabre way. And for the Brits, particularly humiliating, since not only are they being subject to propaganda, but if they own a TV set, then they have to pay a BBC license fee to cover the cost of their own indoctrination.

UK Government Complicit In Use of Torture: Parliamentary Committee

On his blog, today, Craig Murray, who in 2004 was removed from his post as UK ambassador to Uzbekistan during a dispute with his political masters over Britain's receipt of information obtained by the most brutal torture in Uzbekistan, writes:

Even I was taken aback by the sheer scale of British active involvement in extraordinary rendition revealed by yesterday’s report of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. Dominic Grieve and the committee deserve congratulations for their honesty, integrity and above all persistence. It is plain from the report that 10 Downing Street did everything possible to handicap the work of the committee. Most crucially they were allowed only to interview extremely senior civil servants and not allowed to interview those actively engaged in the torture and rendition programme. Theresa May specifically and deliberately ruled out the Committee from questioning any official who might be placed at risk of criminal proceedings – see para 11 of the report. The determination of the government to protect those who were complicit in torture tells us much more about their future intentions than any fake apology. In fact it is impossible to read paras 9 to 14 without being astonished at the sheer audacity of Theresa May’s attempts to obstruct the inquiry. They were allowed to interview only 4 out of 23 requested witnesses, and those were not allowed “to talk about the specifics of the operations in which they were involved nor fill in any gaps in the timeline”....

No one can disagree with Craig Murrays view that torture is a vile business. Yet when bullets are flying and there is a chance the prisoner in your hands could tell you where to hit the enemy's ammo dump, or fuel supply lines, whatever, you're gonna slap that prisoner around for information, even if he ends up dead. I think that the historical record would prove that to be a universal truth: War is a cruel business and banning torture won't prevent it or take the cruelty out of it.

It is doubtful, however, that anyone can make a compelling justification for torture as a routine bureaucratic function. Hence the lies, prevarication, and obfuscation over Britain's role in organized torture. Moreover, the lies, prevarication and obfuscation are an altogether different matter from the brutality they are intended to conceal. As Murray has with bloody-minded stubbornness revealed, Straw, Blair, and others on both sides of the house lied extensively to Parliament about torture.

As Murray writes of Jack Straw, his own political boss at the time:

I strongly recommend you to read the whole Hansard transcript, from Q21 to Q51, in which Jack Straw carries out the most sustained bravura performance of lying to parliament in modern history. The ISC report makes plain he was repeatedly involved in direct authorisations of rendition operations, while denying to parliament the very existence of such operations.

And the cover-up continues under Theresa May. Such scoundrels should be immediately and permanently barred from Parliament and any further role in government.

Related:
RT: Prosecute Blair govt officials at ICC after torture report – ex-diplomat Craig Murray (which will never happen.).

How the Soviets Read the Message of the Kennedy Assassination

President John F. Kennedy was killed by a bullet to the head received while traveling in a open car through Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, on November 11, 1963. The Commission of inquiry into the assassination, which was headed by US Chief Justice Earl Warren, concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone nut, fired the fatal shot from the Texas School Book Depository Building, which was located directly behind the President at the moment he was struck.

However, the evidence we have reviewed establishes that Kennedy was fatally wounded by a bullet to the head, not from behind, but from in front of the car in which he was riding. The critical evidence was suppressed at the time of the assassination, although it would have been readily available to the Warren Commission had they desired to have it. Therefore it can be concluded with confidence that the Warren Commission Report was a cover up.

If Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, it follows that the Kennedy assassination was the result of a conspiracy, and apparently a rather elaborate one at that.

Oswald was not just a patsy, as he claimed before being himself assassinated. He was a patsy with Soviet connections, who'd defected to Russia, then returned to the United States, where he had agitated on behalf of a shadowy organization, the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee," which sought to promote grassroots support in America for Cuba's Communist government.

Thus any inclination that the Soviets may have had to challenge the findings of the Warren Commission Report for propaganda purposes would have been negated by the fact that this would inevitably bring upon the Soviets the charge of complicity in the killing.

Consistent with this view,  FBI Director,  J. Edgar Hoover, wrote in a memorandum to the office of the President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, that according to "[a] source who has furnished reliable information in the past and who was in Russia on the date of the assassination. ..." news of the assassination was:

...greeted [in Moscow] by great shock and consternation and church bells were tolled in the memory of President Kennedy.... According to our source, officials of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union believed there was some well-organized conspiracy on the part of the 'ultraright' in the United States to effect a 'coup.' They seemed convinced that the assassination was not the deed of one man but that it arose out of a carefully planned campaign in which several people played a part."

So the Commies, who were no dopes, concluded that Kennedy was killed because he was soft on Communism. That the Soviets came to that conclusion means that the objective of the conspirators, which was, in part, to send the Soviets a message, had been achieved: Kennedy may have failed the test of leadership, but American leadership consisted in more than one man and, the poor judgement of of a weak president would not be allowed to prevail.

Related:
CanSpeccy: Why the US Government Killed John F. Kennedy
CanSpeccy: Did Gerald Ford Blackmail US President Richard Nixon into Resigning Over Complicity in the JFK Assassination?

Why the US Government Killed John F. Kennedy

Yesterday I noted that publicly available evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President J. F. Kennedy was a cover up.

Specifically, there is the Zapruder film of the shooting which shows the President's head thrown violently backward as it explodes, the ejecta travelling to the rear of the vehicle. Thus, the photographic evidence proves, contrary to the Warren Commission Report, that the President was killed not by a bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from a sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building directly behind the President's car, but by a bullet to the head from somewhere in front of the motorcade. Moreover, there is explicit confirmation of the video evidence concerning the direction of the fatal bullet in the testimony of doctors and surgeons (and here) attending on the President at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas, where he died.

But as we noted yesterday, if the Warren Commission Report was a cover up, then it almost certainly covered up government complicity in the assassination of the President.

So who in the Government was responsible? Surely, it would have been that branch of government specializing in the assassination of heads of state; namely, the CIA. But as we argued, yesterday, the CIA would not have assassinated the President  of the United States without bi-partisan approval. Lyndon Baines Johnson, Kennedy's VP, a man said to have had a maniacal desire to be President, would surely have been the go-to Democrat, and his consent would surely not have been withheld.

But who on the Republican side? Who but Richard Nixon? Nixon, as the Republican presidential candidate defeated by Kennedy in 1960, was in effect the head of the Republican Party, and a man with no great affection for Kennedy.*

But even politicians, or indeed especially politicians, must rationalize their actions, particularly their most questionable actions. What then was the rationale shared by both Democrats and Republicans that would have justified the unconstitutional removal of a president by means of assassination?

Wanted for Treason A handbill circulated 

on November 21, 1963 in Dallas, Texas, 

one day before John F. Kennedy visited

the city and  was assassinated.

To anyone familiar with the political climate of the time, the answer must be apparent. Kennedy was, as the British might say,  unsound on Communism. In the context of the times, this was of huge importance.

Tens of millions had died in the great European civil war, at the end of which the United States stood almost alone as the bulwark of Western freedom against the Communist tyranny of the Soviet Union and Red China.

It was under those circumstances that Kennedy's posture in relations with the Soviet Union was judged. And it was in this that he was judged to have shown weakness, not once, but again and again.

During the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy failed to force a Soviet stand down. Instead, he opened a back channel with the oafish Khrushchev and agreed to remove American nuclear-capable Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the abandonment of the Soviet missile base in Cuba.

During the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, Kennedy refused to authorize US Air Force cover to the invading anti-Castro rebels when they became pinned down on the beach where they were soon destroyed by Cuban forces.

Then, as the Presidential election of 1964 approached, Kennedy revealed his intention, after the election, to pull US forces from Vietnam, abandoning the pro-Western, i.e., nominally democratic, South Vietnam regime to its fate at the hands of the Chinese- and Soviet-backed Communists of North Vietnam.

 Under the prevailing circumstances, Kennedy's reluctance to play hardball with the Commie bastards was more than a weakness, it was treason. And for those convicted of treason, it is universally agreed that the penalty is death.

———
* Nixon's involvement in the decision, if he was indeed involved, would would tie together the CIA, events in Dealey Plaza on November 11, 1963, and the Watergate Hotel burglary on June 17, 1972, the link being E. Howard Hunt. Hunt was  (a) the CIA station chief in Mexico City, where the CIA monitored Oswald’s contacts with the Soviet and Cuban embassies; (b) a self-confessed assassination “bench warmer” and, with Frank Sturgis, possibly one of the tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza the day of the assassination; and (c), with Frank Sturgis, arrested during the Watergate Hotel break-in, checking, perhaps, to see whether the Dems had evidence of Nixonian complicity in the JFK assassination.

Related: 
CanSpeccy: Did Gerald Ford Blackmail US President Richard Nixon into Resignation Over Complicity in the JFK Assassination?
CanSpeccy: How the Soviets Read the Message of the Kennedy Assassination

Did Gerald Ford Blackmail US President Richard Nixon into Resigning Over Complicity in the JFK Assassination?

Who killed US President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

Well for sure it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald as concluded by the report of the Commission headed by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren.

Oswald, so the Warren Commission Report concluded, shot Kennedy from a sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building, which was directly behind the President's car at the moment Kennedy was killed. This, however, is refuted by the famous Zapruder video, which shows that the fatal head-shot drove the President's head violently backwards with a sound described by Texas Governor John Conolly, who was riding in the car with the President, as "like the sound of a pumkin dropped to the pavement from the roof of a five-story building."

Many will place no trust in the video record, video evidence being so obviously susceptible to tampering. However, there is conclusive evidence confirming what the Zapruder film shows; namely, the testimony of the doctors and surgeons who attended on the president at the Parklands Hospital where he died.

Here is the testimony of Dr. McClelland, the first doctor to observe the large exit wound at the back of the President's head from which a lump of brain tissue, part of the cerebellum, had fallen onto the stretcher on which the President had been laid.



And here is the sketch that Dr. McClelland made at the time showing the various wounds to the president`s head and neck:

Signed drawing entitled ''President Kennedy's Wounds," rendered by Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the physicians
who attended to John F. Kennedy at Parkland Hospital  after the President was shot. Source: The New York Post.

And lest you think Dr. McClelland some kind of nut, here`s confirmation from another of the attending physicians, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who explains why he, and others attending on the President remained silent for so long about the contradiction between what the public was told about the cause of the Kennedy`s death and what they knew from direct observation to be the truth:



As for Gerry Ford, appointed by President Lyndon Baines Johnson to the Warren Commission, here is his role as reported by the New York Times 33 years after the assassination:

Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford changed ever so slightly -- the Warren Commission's main sentence on the place where a bullet entered President John F. Kennedy's body when he was killed in Dallas. Mr. Ford's change strengthened the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally, -- a crucial element in the commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.

But if Kennedy was shot from the front, then one can hardly doubt that the Warren Commission Report was a cover up. And if the Warren Commission Report was a cover up, then it almost certainly covered up a conspiracy to murder involving the government.

Who in the Government? Well almost certainly that branch of government specializing in the assassination of heads of state; namely, the CIA.

But it is one thing to say that the CIA killed Kennedy and another thing altogether to say that the CIA had gone rogue. Yes there were people in the CIA who hated Kennedy for failing to send in the USAF in support of the CIA-orchestrated Bay-of-Pigs invasion of Cuba, when the invading force was bogged down on the beaches and being destroyed by the Cuban army and airforce. But it is inconceivable that the CIA would have acted without at least a nod from LBJ, the man who, as a result of the assassination, would be in a position to either destroy the CIA or provide the agency with a roof.

Furthermore, the CIA, a bureaucracy after all, and thus subject to all the Machiavellian calculation of any major bureaucracy, would have wanted more than Johnson's backing: they would have wanted bipartisan political support.

So who on the Republican side gave them a green light? Allen Dulles, the CIA Director that Jack Kennedy fired in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs invasion, was no Democrat, but he was undoubtedly well connected on the Republican side of the aisle, his brother, John Foster Dulles, having served for six years as US Secretary of State under Republican president General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Who then in the Republican political world would have been in a position, through Allen Dulles, to give the assassination a go?

Nixon, the Republican defeated by Kennedy in 1960, was the then top Republican guy. So was it he, who gave the CIA the Republican backing for a contract on JFK? As to that, there is nothing well known in the public domain to indicate the truth.

However, there is a chain of events connecting Nixon with the assassination, albeit remotely. Prior to the assassination, it is known that Lee Harvey Oswald travelled to Mexico City where he applied to both the Cuban and the Soviet embassy for a visitor's visa and where he communicated with Valeriy Kostikov, a Soviet diplomat suspected of attachment to the KGB’s Department 13, responsible for assassinations and sabotage. How do we know that? Because both the Cuban and Soviet diplomatic compounds in Mexico City were:

thoroughly monitored by the CIA, which possessed tape recordings and transcripts of Oswald’s telephone calls, as well as photographs of Oswald as he went in and out. Source

It is known, further, that the head of the CIA office in Mexico City at that time was E. Howard Hunt, who it has been suggested, was present at Dealey Plaza the day of the Kennedy assassination,where he may have been one of three men dressed as tramps who were arrested that day.

But whether or not Howard Hunt was in Dallas the day of the assassination, there seems no question that he made a deathbed confession to involvement in the assassination (serving he said as a "bench warmer"). And there is no question that Hunt was hired by Nixon, with another Dealey Plaza tramp lookalike, Frank Sturgis, to among other things, burglarize the Democratic Party's National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel complex in Washington DC.

Why did Nixon authorize such a reckless undertaking? The stakes must surely have been high, and to find out whether the Democrats had information compromising to Nixon relating to the Kennedy assassination seems a plausible explanation.

The nature of such incriminating information is not obvious. Although Gerald Ford, Nixon's Vice President, and LBJ's appointee to the Warren Commission, is among the few who might have known.

So was Gerry Ford, a man described by LBJ as "too dumb to find his arse with both hands," in fact, smart enough to gain the Presidency by blackmailing Nixon to resign? Why not?

Related: 
CanSpeccy: How the Soviets Read the Message of the Kennedy Assassination
CanSpeccy: Why the US Government Killed John F. Kennedy
The Daily Beast: Watergate Burglar Howard Hunt Was William Buckley’s Deep Throat
RealNeo: JFK Jr. Told The World Who Murdered His Father – But Nobody Was Paying Attention

Real Journalism: John Nolte on How the US Media and Its Foreign Imitators, from the CBC to the Guardian, Have Gone Full CNN

Driven by impotent rage, political extremism, and their own frustration at President Trump’s ongoing foreign and domestic successes, the establishment media had its worst week in years last week surrounding their now-debunked border separation hoax.

The timing of last  week’s disaster (which I will detail in a sec), could not have been worse. It came right on the heels of a Gallup poll full of dreadful news. A clean majority of 62 percent believe the “traditional news media” is biased. A full 44 percent believe the media is inaccurate, and another 39 percent believe the media spread misinformation.

Just like the far-left CNN, all of the media are now operating as a 24/7 Hate Machine

And those were the numbers before last week, a week full of hoaxes, lies, childish trolling, and the condoning of mob justice against Trump officials.

Here is a breakdown…

The Entire Media Narrative About Child Separation Is a Hoax

Last week’s rabid media storyline about the separation of illegal alien adults and children is a hoax, a fabricated outrage; which is not to say that children and adults are not separated into different detention centers. For their own good, for humane reasons, they most certainly are.

Read more

Victor Davies Hanson: The Death of the West

Ben Weingarten: As a classicist, you’ve lamented both the corruption of the academy within your own discipline and on the modern campus more broadly — in particular on its repudiation of the Western canon, its lack of adherence to principles of free inquiry and the overall triumph of progressivism. Is there any way to take back this institution, in the sense of restoring classical liberal arts education and the conditions it needs to flourish?

Victor Davis Hanson: Well, my criticism in the last 30 years of the institution, obviously a lot of us who voiced those concerns, it fell on deaf ears. So progressive thinkers and institutional administrators within the university got their way. And now we’re sort of at the end of that experiment, and the question we have to ask is what did they give us? Well, they gave us $1 trillion in student debt. They created a very bizarre system in which the federal government — subsidized through student loans, constantly increasing tuition beyond the rate of inflation — the result of which is that we’ve had about a 200 percent growth in administrative costs, and administrators and non-teaching staff within the university. We’ve politicized the education.

The Late Charles Krauthammer: Ending Illegal Immigration

Rep Trey Gowdy's Exposition of the Bias, Animus, and Pre-judging of Facts by Senior FBI Agents and Attorneys Responsible for the Clinton e-mail Investigation and the Trump Russia Probe

Seems like the decline in the IQ of Western nations is impacting the performance of the FBI at the highest level.

Trudeau Lied About Trump's Steel Tariff: Canada Transships Chinese Steel to the US

Wilbur Ross, Donald Trump’s commerce secretary speaking before the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday said: The Canadian steel industry is not being accused directly and individually of being a security threat but added that Canada was a problem because along with other countries ...Canada allows Chinese steel to pass through on its the way to the United States. Further Ross stated: And while they’re complaining bitterly about the tariffs, the fact is they’re starting to take the kind of action, which, if they had taken sooner, would have prevented this crisis. Source

So while Trudeau was whimpering about being insulted by Trump's tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum, he was, in fact, toadying to the Chinese, at America's expense. Why, because, Trudeau, the lover of all dictatorships, prefers to curry favor with Communist China headed by President-for-Life Xi, than with the democratic nation state on our border.

Hollywood Scum

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. And apparently they have decided to destroy America by, among other things, having the beautiful people mouth insane obscenities to the delight of their depraved followers.

Robert de Niro wins standing ovation at the Tony Awards by saying "Fuck Trump" Samantha Bee calls Ivanka Trump a "feckless cunt" Kathy Griffin calls Melania Trump "a feckless piece of shit" Peter Fonda tweets "we should rip Barron Trump from his mother's arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles."

A Democrat Salute: In a FaceBook post,
Rep. Brian Sims (D-Philadelphia) 
welcomes VP Pence to his home town.

Is this, one wonders, the cause or the consequence of the widely observed decline in the IQ of Western populations?

Either way, the US is clearly finished as a great nation, and probably it is finished as a nation, period. Rather it has become another globalist disaster zone, where groups of alien race and culture, who are embraced, figuratively, by the elite, fight to wrest control from the former inhabitants, now demoralized, dying prematurely, increasingly drug addicted, and falling in fertility below the replacement rate.

Britain's Law and Order Minister Mugged in London

The Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, has revealed that he was mugged by motor scooter thieves who stole his mobile phone, shortly before he was given his latest cabinet role. Javid, who is now in charge of the nation’s policing and security, said he was targeted by criminals outside Euston station in north London..Source

Sajid Javid, England's colorful
law and order Minister.

So in ethnically cleansed London, the Home Secretary, or law and order minister, in Thereason May's laughable named Conservative government, was mugged.

Good. Let's hope Thereason May, the nerve agent hoaxster, and the war criminal Tony Bliar are next to enjoy the benefits of their having turned the two-thousand-year old English capital into a multi-culti, Afro-Asian and East European shithole, to use the current jargon.

And among today's headlines:

Wild West London: Sixty moped attacks a day, a woman fights for life after mugging and drug crime on the rise as cops hunt for Michael McIntyre gang

Police failure on street robberies in Britain

Teenage boy and woman shot in London amid calls to tackle violent crime wave

Source: London Metropolitan Police

And in Belgium, where 70% of children in the largest cities including Antwerp and Brussels have an immigration background, the cucks are winning also.

 Moreover, whereas the overall fertility rate in Belgium was 1.74 children per woman in 2014, the fertility rate of non-Belgian women living in Belgium (was 2.32). So, good-bye Belgians.

Meantime, Putin says: "Russia Must Support the Family - Survival of Our People Depends on It"PUTIN: Russia Must Support the Family - Survival of Our People Depends on It, but the Brits and Germans prefer to be ruled by childless women who have contributed to the survival of our people neither personally, nor in the exercise of government power.

And lastly, from the Maverick Philosopher: Why leftists consider the death of the nation an inconsequential distraction from the real business of politics.

And in Related News:

New York Times: Fewer Births Than Deaths Among Whites in Majority of U.S. States (Proving that the world is unfolding as it should, or at least as a Liberal wishes to see.

Daily Mail: Bill Clinton's 'love child' slams the former president for showing compassion for the immigrant children separated from their parents at the border but 'abandoning his own son'

Image

The Skripal Poisonings: How? By Whom? With What? And Where Are The Skripals Now?

A post by Rob Slane of the Blogmire Blog offers some significant details concerning the alleged Russian poisoning of the pardoned Russian traitor and British agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, as they sat on a park bench in the quiet English cathedral city of Salisbury on the afternoon of March 4, this year.

Based on video evidence from the scene of the crime, Lane proposes a plausible theory of how, and by whom, the Skripal's were poisoned, a key question intensively obfuscated by the British media.

Lane also explains why the poison could not have been the deadly nerve agent, Novichok, as claimed by UK Prime Minister Theresa May, a claim endlessly repeated by the British media.


Instead, Lane suggests that the poison could have been, as we have also suggested, the widely available and much less deadly nerve agent BZ, which was initially reported to have been found in blood samples from the Skripal's, a fact that was later attributed to it having been added to the blood samples by the analytical laboratory for the purpose, so it was bizarrely claimed, of calibration.

In connection with the question of the identity of the poison,  Lane constructs the following relevant time-line of events:

15:35 – Sergei Skripal and Yulia leave Zizzis. They make their way to The Maltings, presumably along Market Walk (although strangely there is no CCTV footage of this), a walk of about two minutes or so.  15:37 – When they got to The Maltings, they appear not to have gone straight to the bench, but to the Avon Playground (approximately 50 yards from the bench), where they spent some time feeding ducks. They presumably then went over to the bench, a few minutes after this. 15:47 – The mysterious pair, one of whom is carrying a red bag, are seen on CCTV walking through Market Walk in the direction of The Maltings.  16:03 – One of the first witnesses to the scene, Freya Church, who was working in the nearby Snap Fitness, leaves work at 16:00 or thereabouts, and sees the Skripals on the bench at approximately 16:03. According to her account, they were already “out of it”, which suggests that they had been poisoned some minutes previously. She noted that there was a red bag on the floor next to Yulia’s feet.  16:15 – Emergency services are called and the pair are taken to Salisbury District Hospital, Yulia by helicopter and Sergei by ambulance. Upon admittance, the hospital believed that the pair had overdosed on Fentanyl, and treated this as an opioid poisoning for at least 24 hours after the incident. Later that evening – Police remove the red bag, and it has never been heard of or mentioned in connection with the story since.

The last point, that the Skripals were assumed to have overdosed on fentanyl, would explain the letter by Stephen Davies, the Salisbury Hospital Resident in Emergency Medicine, stating that no one was treated at the hospital for nerve agent poisoning.

A question that Lane does not address is the video that was released showing Julia Skripal in an interview with Reuters following her release from hospital. This video is worthy of close examination.


There are at least two remarkable things to note. First, Yulia Skripal appears not only much slimmer, than before her poisoning ordeal, but distinctly younger too, which is an odd consequence of long drawn out struggle for life.

Second, Yulia, wears a dress with a high collar, but open at the front as if intended to focus attention on her deep tracheotomy scar. That seems strange. Would not most women with the misfortune to bear such a disfiguring scar have chosen a garment with a collar that concealed the scar? And if that is conceded, then it seems reasonable to assume that Yulia displayed her scar for a purpose, namely, to leave no doubt in the public mind that she had indeed been close to death and in need of surgical intervention as a result of her alleged Russian poisoning.

But if the video is a piece of theatre to reinforce the British Government narrative on the Skripal poisoning, it would seem wise to consider the possibility that the entire interview is fake. It would surely not be difficult, given the latest methods of film creation and modification, to take an old video of a slightly younger and slimmer Yulia in an unidentifiable location and dub it with a different script. How many British or American viewers would be any the wiser? Surely few indeed: she is after all, speaking Russian, not English. And to such a false presentation, the addition of a tracheotomy scar would surely not have been difficult.

Will we have a chance to learn more from Yulia in the coming months? Unlikely. The story about the Skripals has already caused the British Government enough embarrassment. More than a month ago the CIA offered to "protect" the Skripals by providing them with new identities in America. Presumably, therefore, the Skripals will by now have been taken care of, whether of their own volition or not.

What this story seems to show is that not only is the news fake, but that it is now faked at the direct instigation of the state.

Related Posts:

The Skripal File

The Novichok File (30)

March 18,2018: Skripal Tripal

April 5, 2018: NoviJoke: To Russia With Hate

April 11, 2018: Are the Skripals in Mortal Danger From the British State?
 April12, 2018: Novichok: Russia's Antidote to Seafood Poisoning?

April 13, 2018: Why Yulia Skripal, Released From Hospital, Is Being Held in UK Police Custody

April 15, 2018: 3-Quinuclidinyl Benzilate: The Antidote to Novichok

April 16: The UK's Novichok Poisoning Cover-up

April 21,2018:WMD Attack in Salisbury, England: Nerve Agent, Russian Agent, Double 

April 23, 2018: British Intelligence: An Oxymoron

Agent, Triple Agent, Spiked Blood Sample, Silent Witnesses, and Propaganda

May 15, 2018: UK Academics Demolish Theresa May's Skripal Poisoning Lies

June 15, 2018: The Skripal Poisonings: How? By Whom? With What? And Where Are the Skripals Now?
July 4, 2018: More Skripal Tripal From the Land of Thereason May
July 8, 2018: Theresa May's Tangled Web Of Toxic Nerve Agent Deception

July 9, 2018: UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, Gears Up to Demolish the Lies About  the Amesbury Poisonings From Thereason May's Law 'n Order minister, Savidge Javidge
July 12, 2018: Skripal Tripal, No. 39: Where the Skripals Crossed Paths With the "Amesbury Poisonings" Couple

July 13, 2018: Novichok on a Door Knob: An Official Conspiracy Theory
July 24, 2018: Understanding Theresa May's Novichok Bollocks
July 27, 2018: Britain's Novichok Poisonings: An Opportunistic Anti-Russian Propaganda Operation?
August 28, 2018: The ducks that didn't die
August 29, 2018: Ambassador Craig Murray Examines the British Deep State's Connection with the Skripal Nerve Agent Poisonings
September 6, 2018: Theresa May's New Statement on Russia's Nerve Agent Attack in England's Green and Pleasant Land Drives Intelligence Irregulars to Renewed Effort on the Novichok File
September 13, 2018: Ambassador Craig Murray Probes the Alibi of Petrov and Bashirov, the Alleged (by Theresa May) Skripal/Novichok Poisoners
April 16, 2019: MOON OF ALABAMA CIA Director Used Fake Skripal Incident Photos To Manipulate Trump
April 16, 2019: ROB SLANE: Trump in Dumps as Spook Picks Sick Kids’n’Dead Duck Trick Pics
April 18, 2019: CRAIG MURRAY, The Official Skripal Story is a Dead Duck
July 23, 2019:Were the Skripal Poisonings a British Intelligence Service Hoax?
October 17, 2019: Skripal Tripal Part 2: Well Wadderyerknow — the Conroner's Inquest Into the Death of Dawn Sturgess Has Been Adjourned indefinitely
March 7, 2020: Craig Murray - Pure: Ten Points I Just Can’t Believe About the Official Skripal Narrative
June 17, 2020: Craig Murray - The Miracle of Salisbury: The BBC Enters 'Propaganda Hall Of Fame' With Skripals Story
June 19, 2020: 5 Facts BBC’s “The Salisbury Poisonings” Forgot to Mention
July 30, 2020: Dances With Bears: AUSTRIA CONFIRMS OPCW REPORT ON SKRIPAL FAKING BY THE BRITISH – VIENNA EXPOSES FINANCIAL TIMES LIES AND COVER-UP

Expansion of Higher Education Drives Declining IQs of the Western Nations

As I have previously argued, the near universal access to higher education in Western countries has resulted in an epidemic of nation-destroying stupidity. Proof of that contention is now available in research showing that the mean IQ of the Brits and other Western nations is declining at the rate of three to four points per decade, which will reduce their acuity of mind to that of the sub-Saharan African nations within a generation.

A pair of researchers with the Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research in Norway has found that IQ test scores have been slowly dropping over the past several decades (full text available here).  Prior studies have shown that people grew smarter over the first part of last century, as measured by the intelligence quotient—a trend that was dubbed the Flynn effect. Various theories have been proposed to explain this apparent brightening of the human mind, such as better nutrition, health care, education, etc, all factors that might help people grow into smarter adults than they would have otherwise. But, now, according to the researchers in Norway, that trend has ended. Instead of getting smarter, humans have started getting dumber. The study by the team consisted of analyzing IQ test results from young men entering Norway's national service (compulsory military duty) during the years 1970 to 2009. In all, 730,000 test results were accounted for. In studying the data, the researchers found that scores declined by an average of seven points per generation, a clear reversal of test results going back approximately 70 years. But it was not all bad news. The researchers also found some differences between family groups, suggesting that some of the decline might be due to environmental factors. But they also suggest that lifestyle changes could account for some of the decline, as well, such as changes in the education system and children reading less and playing video games more. Source

And it's not just a Norwegian problem. As the Telegraph reports:

Tests carried out in 1980 and again in 2008 show that the IQ score of an average 14-year-old dropped by more than two points over the period. Among those in the upper half of the intelligence scale, a group that is typically dominated by children from middle class families, performance was even worse, with an average IQ score six points below what it was 28 years ago.

Some people will no doubt say that the decline in Europe's population mean IQ is due to the mass immigration to Europe of people from sub-Saharan Africa, Syria, and other low IQ lands. But obviously the causality runs the other way. It is liberal-elite-directed higher education with its mandatory component of PC indoctrination that is destroying the intelligence of the people thus making them vulnerable to mass replacement immigration. Specifically, the elite-directed destruction of the Western nations in the name of the liberal religion of anti-racism and diversity, the outcome being the genocide of the European peoples through compelled homogenization with immigrants of alien race and culture.

Why Canadians Hate Donald Trump

Canadians so hate Donald Trump that when, following last week's $600-million-dollar G7 meeting in Canada, Trump called Justin Trudeau "Very dishonest  and weak," the Canadian Parliament passed, unanimously, a motion introduced by the opposition New Democrats, deploring “ad hominem statements by U.S. officials which do a disservice to bilateral relations.”

Why did the opposition come to the defense of Justin Trudeau? 

Because Trump is so hated and despised in Canada that the opposition parties cannot allow Trudeau to stand alone against Trump, since that would assure him near universal public support. 

And why is Trump so hated and despised in Canada?

Because the Government of Canada itself, its agent the Canadian state broadcaster, the CBC, and the liberals and leftists who comprise the vast majority of Canada's journalists and the employees of Canada's educational institutions and government bureaucracies despise and deride Trump. 

And why do the liberals and the left and the corporate media despise and deride Trump?

Because he threatens to destroy their racket. 

Here' the difference between Trudeau's Canada and Trump's America: Trudeau is a globalist, Trump is a nationalist. 

Trudeau holds that the Canadian nation does not exist. Canada, so Trudeau has declared, is "the world's first post-national state." What that means for Trudeau is that Canada is a place he is free to rule not in the interests of the native-born, who he considers less worthy than immigrants, but of whomever he pleases — ISIS terrorists, Chinese real estate investors, lobbyists for oil, Cannabis, whatever or whoever.

In his capacity as ruler, he talks with the billionaire class, the Aga Khan, the late billionaire drug manufacturer, Barry Sherman, Chinese RE investors, and then he, maybe, facilitates their plans and they, maybe, donate to the Trudeau Foundation, you know, like Hillary and the Clinton foundation.

Trump, is a nationalist (or so he wishes to be known), who aims to maximize American prosperity. That means retaining capital accumulated in America through the sweat of past generations, and imposing tariffs to insure that Americans mostly make stuff for one another rather than buying the products of off-shore sweatshop labor (and brains). By rebuilding American manufacturing, Trump can generating millions of decent jobs while restoring the incentives for clever students to study hard subjects like math, engineering, computer science, fields in which America once excelled, but is now rapidly being overtaken by the rest of the world.

So the difference between Trump and Trudeau revolves around the question of whether Canada and America are sovereign nation ruled in the interests of the voters, or merely places where a ruling elite arrange matters in their own interest and the Hell with the people. 

Clearly, then, the Trump doctrine has deadly implications for the Trudeau system of post-national governance without reference to the Canadian nation. But fortunately for Trudeau, Canada is a massively bureaucratic country and the institutions of education and government, not to mention the scribes of the corporate-owned and globalist media, can be relied upon to fight relentlessly against those who advocate for anything other than the existing corruptionist regime, after all, their jobs for life and index-linked pensions depend upon it. 

Finally, Brits Have Proof that Putin Poisoned the Skripals

Source: Russia Insider: German Officials Admit 'Still No Evidence' From UK That Russia Poisoned Skripals

Trump's Trouble With Trudeau

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Buchanan.org, June 12, 2018: At the G-7 summit in Canada, President Donald Trump described America as “the piggy bank that everybody is robbing.”

After he left Quebec, his director of Trade and Industrial Policy, Peter Navarro, added a few parting words for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:

“There’s a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. … And that’s … what weak, dishonest Justin Trudeau did. And that comes right from Air Force One.”

In Singapore, Trump tweeted more about that piggy bank.

“Why should I, as President of the United States, allow countries to continue to make Massive Trade Surpluses, as they have for decades … (while) the U.S. pays close to the entire cost of NATO-protecting many of these same countries that rip us off on Trade?”

To understand what drives Trump, and explains his exasperation and anger, these remarks are a good place to begin.

Our elites see America as an “indispensable nation,” the premier world power whose ordained duty it is to defend democracy, stand up to dictators and aggressors, and uphold a liberal world order.

They see U.S. wealth and power as splendid tools that fate has given them to shape the future of the planet.

Trump sees America as a nation being milked by allies who free ride on our defense effort, as they engage in trade practices that prosper their own peoples at America’s expense.

Where our elites live to play masters of the universe, Trump sees a world laughing behind America’s back, while allies exploit our magnanimity and idealism for their own national ends.

The numbers are impossible to refute and hard to explain.

Last year, the EU had a $151 billion trade surplus with the U.S. China ran a $376 billion trade surplus with the U.S., the largest in history. The world sold us $796 billion more in goods than we sold to the world.

A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes, and consumes more of the world’s goods than it produces itself for export, year in and year out, is a nation on the way down.

We are emulating our British cousins of the 19th century.

Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable. His strength is that the people are still with him on putting America first.

Yet he faces some serious obstacles.

What is his strategy for turning a $796 billion trade deficit into a surplus? Is he prepared to impose the tariffs and import restrictions that would be required to turn America from the greatest trade-deficit nation in history to a trade-surplus nation, as we were up until the mid-1970s?

Americans are indeed carrying the lion’s share of the load of the defense of the West, and of fighting the terrorists and radical Islamists of the Middle East, and of protecting South Korea and Japan.

But if our NATO and Asian allies refuse to make the increases in defense he demands, is Trump really willing to cancel our treaty commitments, walk away from our war guarantees, and let these nations face Russia and China on their own? Could he cut that umbilical cord?

Ike’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles spoke of conducting an “agonizing reappraisal” of U.S. commitments to defend NATO allies, if they did not contribute more money and troops.

Dulles died in 1959, and that reappraisal, threatened 60 years ago, never happened. Indeed, when the Cold War ended, out NATO allies cut defense spending again. Yet we are still subsidizing NATO in Europe and have taken on new allies since the Soviet Empire fell.

If Europe refuses to invest the money in defense Trump demands, or accept the tariffs America needs to reduce and erase its trade deficits, what does he do? Is he prepared to shut U.S. bases and pull U.S. troops out of the Baltic republics, Poland and Germany, and let the Europeans face Vladimir Putin and Russia themselves?

This is not an academic question. For the crunch that was inevitable when Trump was elected seems at hand.

He promised to negotiate with Putin and improve relations with Russia. He promised to force our NATO allies to undertake more of their own defense. He pledged to get out and stay out of Mideast wars, and begin to slash the trade deficits that we have run with the world.

And that’s what America voted for.

Now, after 500 days, he faces formidable opposition to these defining goals of his campaign, even within his own party.

Putin remains a pariah on Capitol Hill. Our allies are rejecting the tariffs Trump has imposed and threatening retaliation. Free trade Republicans reject tariffs that might raise the cost of the items U.S. companies makes abroad and then ships back to the United States.

The decisive battles between Trumpian nationalism and globalism remain ahead of us. Trump’s critical tests have yet to come.

And our exasperated president senses this.

Jordan Peterson's hysterical rant about people of low IQ

Jordan Peterson is the University of Toronto psychology professor rightly applauded for his opposition to Canada's recently enacted law "to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code" (Bill C16) in such ways as to compel, among other things, the use of self-selected pronouns demanded by transgender and other minorities from the mundane Zie and Zim to such loony extremes as His Majesty and It's Serene Highness.

 Less well known are Peterson's ideas about intelligence. In the short video below, Peterson reveals his thinking on this topic as he describes what he calls a "horrifying thing", namely what he says is the finding of US Army psychologists who were "motivated to find an accurate predictor [of the competence of recruits], so they used IQ."

One of the most terrifying statistics I ever came across [related to] the rationale of the US armed forces for not inducting anyone with an IQ of less than 83. Lets just take that apart, because it's a horrifying thing. After 100 years, essentially, of careful statistical anaylsis, the armed forces concluded that if you had an IQ of 83 or less there wasn't anything you could be trained to do in the military at any level of the organization that wasn't positively counterproductive. OK, so what, 83, OK, yeah, one in ten, one in ten, that's one in ten people, and what that really means, as far as I can tell, if you imagine that the military is approximately as complex as the broader society, then there is no place in our cognitively complex society for one in ten people. So what are we going to do about that? The answer is, no one knows. It's a vicious problem. At that point, the interviewer interjects: It's hard to train people to become creative, adaptive, problem solvers. To which Peterson responds: It's impossible. You can't do it. It doesn't work. Sorry, it doesn't work.

So here is expressed a basic mistake underlying the IQ-ist creed: it is to assume what has to be demonstrated. Specifically, that IQ test scores are an accurate predictor of competence in the military or, as Peterson clearly implies, every other sphere of human activity.

But cursory examination reveals that everything Peterson is saying is obvious bunk. If, for example, ten percent of the US population is totally incompetent, then one should expect a floor to the unemployment rate of no less than 10%, whereas in fact, US unemployment is currently under four percent, while the unemployment rate for African Americans with an average IQ of 85, or barely above Peterson's threshold for total uselessness, is under 6%.

As for the claim that there is no place in "our cognitively complex society for one in ten people," what exactly is he suggesting? The thinking of those prewar Hitler admirers in the Anglo-American eugenics movement come to mind. That Peterson concludes that the existence of so many incompetent people is a "vicious problem," certainly suggests a willingness to consider extreme solutions.

But in any case, what did he mean by "our cognitively complex society"? Can a society even have cognitive features? Perhaps what he meant was our cognitively demanding society. But is it really? Is it harder to stay alive in a world of 24/7 shopping, homeless shelters, and food stamps than in prehistoric times? And even for those productively employed, how many have cognitively challenging jobs — store clerks? coffee-shop employees? gas station attendants? hospital orderlies? Or the lower ranks of academia, say 90% of college professors?

And what about the Africans? With a mean IQ 84, half the Nigerian population is close to, or below Peterson's competence threshold, yet Nigeria's population is booming. So who's gonna win the evolutionary race: IQ 98 Americans with their below replacement fertility, or Nigerians doubling their population every 30 years? Then there's the Mozambiquans, with a mean IQ of 64 despite a significant Euro-African population component and, like Nigerians, a fertility two and half times the replacement rate.

And, conclusively refuting Peterson's claim that men with an IQ of less than 83 are useless to the US military for anything whatever is the fact that a large proportion of the troops, 354,000 of them, that were sent by the US to fight in Vietnam had IQ's of around 70. To learn more search the Web for Project 100, and MacNamara's Morons.