Investigating Claims Of Superior Ashkenazi IQ

Sometimes on X, as in real life, a discussion arises about Ashkenazi Jewish IQ. Such discussions usually involve claims (such as the one made by Grok above) that Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is superior to that of whites, which explains their observed over-representation in positions of power such as academia and politics. These claims are hotly disputed. As a psychological scientist, I thought I’d investigate, so that you don’t have to.

The 2005 Cochran paper referenced by Grok can be found here. In the section titled ‘The Psychometric Evidence about Ashkenazi IQ’, it states: “Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ [of] 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976).”

However, these claims, as well as the other claims from this section, cannot be verified.

Backman’s study can be found here. The most important table from it is reproduced below.

This table suggests that Jewish intelligence is higher than that of whites in verbal knowledge (VKN) and mathematical ability (MAT). If intelligence was limited to these two submeasures (ignoring e.g. English language and visual reasoning abilities), and normalised to a white IQ of 100, Jews would score ((57.1/51.9)*100) = 110 for verbal knowledge and ((58.6/52.1)*100) = 113 for mathematical knowledge, around 112 overall.

This has been taken as hard evidence of superior Jewish IQ by Cochran and by Grok and others.

However, if we look at the ‘Sex’ group, we also see great differences between men and women. Normalised to a female IQ of 100, men score ((53.7/48.3)*100) = 112 in verbal knowledge and an incredible ((63.9/44.6)*100) = 144 for mathematical ability. Taken together, this suggests an IQ of 128 or so for men compared to 100 for women.

Such a suggestion is transparently ridiculous. Yet, it comes from the exact same dataset as the supposed hard evidence of superior Jewish intelligence.

If I would be an academic, and claim that men had superior IQs to women based on this dataset, and that this superior IQ explained male over-representation in academia and politics, I would be fired instantly. I would be cancelled, hounded to oblivion and destroyed. Yet, it’s acceptable to make the exact same claim about a superior Jewish IQ from the exact same dataset. Grok will even it repeat it unquestioningly.

Moreover, it’s apparent from reading the methodology of the study that the sampling is suspect. The initial study of 400,000 students might have been representative, but this particular study only looked at the 2,925 students who responded to a follow-up study five years after graduation. It’s not clear that this subsample is representative of the actual racial populations.

Levinson’s 1959 study from the Journal of Clinical Psychology is not available online and could only be found if I have access to a university library. Romanoff’s study is part of a thesis that can only be found on microfiche at the National University of Israel.

So of the three ancient references given by Cochran, two are unavailable, and the third contains massive methodological flaws.

A 2o04 paper by Richard Lynn is also referenced. It can be found here.

Lynn’s paper mostly examines verbal intelligence. He does not skirt around this point; it is stated openly in the table in the discussion section (reproduced below).

He notes, as per Backman, that Jews score differently on various submeasures of intelligence. Although they might score higher than whites on verbal intelligence, they are known to have significantly lower scores on some other measures. This can be seen in Table 2 from Backman’s study, where whites scored 51.8 on a measure of visual reasoning and Jews only 46.0.

Taking one submeasure on which Jews do well, and generalising it to assume that Jews do well on all submeasures, is a classic composition fallacy. If I would say that Jews have lower IQs than whites because they scored only ((46.0/51.8)*100) = 89 on a submeasure of visual reasoning, which I had generalised to Jewish IQ in general, I would get laughed out of academia, if not cancelled for life on anti-semitism accusations. Yet people who do make this exact same composition fallacy, only in favour of Jews, are quoted by Grok as world psychology experts.

Moreover, Lynn’s paper states “These figures are well below previous estimates of Jewish verbal ability.” This tells us that, even by the one of the few measures Jews do excel at, a normalised score of 107-115 is an exaggeration. He notes that this Backman study is the only one with a proper national representational sample, meaning that it has the highest quality data of all the studies on this subject. The other studies showing Jewish superiority do not have enough representation or a big enough sample size to be valid.

Lynn concludes that “Probably all that can be concluded with a fair degree of confidence at present is that Jews have high crystallized intelligence (verbal ability) of which the vocabulary test used in the present study is a good measure and that on this ability their IQ in relation to gentile whites is approximately 107.5.” Crystallised intelligence is another way of saying ‘learned intelligence’ and is primarily a matter of education, which Jews are well-known for taking seriously, and is something very different to natural intelligence.

The Cochran paper then goes on to cite The Jew In London, a study from 1900, as evidence for this supposed superior IQ (not accessible).

Also linked here is a 1928 paper from the Eugenics Review. This paper is also cited by Cochran as evidence of Jewish mental superiority. But the same paper states that Jews are between 100% and 300% more likely than whites to suffer mental disease. As with the Backman study, some extremely selective reporting of the results has taken place, such that pro-Jewish results are emphasised, and anti-Jewish results are de-emphasised. Moreover, this study was funded by the Jewish Health Organisation, an obvious conflict of interest.

The Eugenics Review study is methodologically flawed on a number of counts. For one, the intelligence test questions are obviously loaded in favour of learned intelligence and not natural intelligence. For another, we know from the Wilson Effect that the heritability of intelligence increases with age, from 0.2 at age five to 0.8 at age 20. It follows from this that intelligence tests given to younger children, such as the eight to thirteen-year olds in the Eugenics Review study, reflect the environment the child was raised in more than their natural, biological intelligence. Indeed, the paper alludes to this, stating “It is often alleged that, though Jewish children are precocious, they do not fulfil their early promise.”

Perhaps most damningly, the paper concludes that the evidence within is too flimsy to draw any conclusions outside of its sample of Jewish emigre children in London. A 21st Century observer would point out that immigrants to the West from e.g. India and Nigeria are known to be much smarter than the racial averages of their home nations, owing to a powerful selective process, and that the same process would likely have selected for higher intelligence among Jewish immigrants to London 100 years ago, making the Eugenics Review study unreliable.

That is all the evidence presented in the paper linked by Grok for supposedly superior Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. It’s extremely weak.

There seems to have been a high degree of conflation, deliberate or otherwise, between verbal and mathematical intelligence on the one hand, and general intelligence on the other. This conflation is not made for visual reasoning intelligence, in which Jews do poorly. So high levels of Jewish success in literature and mathematics are taken as evidence of high Jewish IQ, but low levels of Jewish success in engineering and architecture are not taken as evidence of low Jewish IQ. This selective reasoning seems to reflect a massive pro-Jewish bias on the part of intelligence researchers. This bias appears to have influenced Grok.

Ashkenazi Jews have been selected over time for aptitude in specifically urban occupations, hence why (in comparison to whites) they are great at reading and talking, and poor at visual reasoning. They have not been selected for all-round intellectual superiority. Great Jewish engineers and architects are extremely rare: one would expect the exact opposite if Jews were all-round intellectually superior to whites.

Thus, Ashkenazi Jews cannot be said to be smarter than whites in general. Certain subfacets of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence might be higher than those of whites, but certain other subfacets are lower, so claims of overall Ashkenazi Jewish IQs of 108-115 are complete rubbish.

The conclusion of this author is that Ashkenazi Jewish over-representation in positions of power is because of Christians. Christians believe that God blesses those who bless Israel (Genesis 12:3), where ‘Israel’ is taken to mean Jewish interests in general, and that “if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings” (Romans 15:27). As a result, they work to promote Jews into high positions of power in academia, politics, business and other areas, reasoning that by serving the Jews in this manner, God will bless them.

Support for this assertion comes from the words of Charles Murray, a Christian researcher, who claims that the reason for supposed higher Jewish IQ is “The Jews are God’s chosen people”. This statement summarises the pitiful state of research into the subject of race and IQ in 2025. James Watson can have his reputation destroyed for suggesting that whites are smarter than blacks for biological reasons, but researchers who make the exact same claim about Jews being smarter than whites, only on far, far, far weaker evidence than Watson has, are cited as authorities.

I argue that the perception of Jews as intellectually superior comes from their central role in the Abrahamic religions, and not from any actual advantage in biological intelligence. Because of this central religious role, they are worshipped by Christians looking to curry favour with the God of Abraham. This worship leads to them being promoted by Christians into positions of power, influence and wealth. This promotion by Christians, and not superior IQ, explains massive Jewish over-representation in such positions. The reason why the Ashkenazis are the prime beneficiaries of this process, and not other subpopulations of Jews, is because the Ashkenazis live around the most credulous and gullible Christians, i.e. American ones.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2023
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2022
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2021
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017

The NZ Loyal Party in the 2023 New Zealand General Election: An Analysis of Voting Correlations and Political Context

The 2023 New Zealand General Election, held on October 14, marked a significant shift in the country’s political landscape, with the centre-right National Party, led by Christopher Luxon, forming a coalition government alongside ACT and New Zealand First, displacing the incumbent Labour Party. Amidst this contest of major parties, smaller parties like NZ Loyal emerged, seeking to carve out a niche in an increasingly fragmented electorate. NZ Loyal positioned itself as an anti-establishment, populist party with a focus on sovereignty, individual freedoms, and skepticism toward mainstream institutions. This essay examines NZ Loyal’s role in the 2023 election, analysing its voter base through voting correlations with other parties and situating its performance within the broader political and social context of New Zealand at the time.

Background and Ideology of NZ Loyal

NZ Loyal was founded in June 2023. The party’s platform was rooted in a rejection of overreach by the globalist elite and a call for New Zealand to reclaim its independence from international organizations like the United Nations. Key policy positions included opposition to water fluoridation, the use of 1080 poison, tax increases, and “gender programming,” alongside advocacy for reduced government spending and greater individual autonomy. The messaging resonated with a segment of the population disillusioned with traditional politics, particularly in the wake of pandemic-related disruptions.

In the 2023 election, NZ Loyal secured 1.2% of the party vote, translating to approximately 34,000 votes. While this fell well short of the 5% threshold required under New Zealand’s Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system to gain parliamentary representation without an electorate seat, it nonetheless reflected a notable presence among minor parties. To understand NZ Loyal’s voter base and ideological alignment, this essay analyses its voting correlations with ten other parties: ALCP (Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party), Labour, National, Greens, ACT, New Zealand First, Māori Party, TOP (The Opportunities Party), NewZeal, and Freedoms NZ.

Voting Correlations: Insights into NZ Loyal’s Electorate

The provided correlation coefficients offer a statistical lens through which to examine the overlap or divergence between NZ Loyal voters and those of other parties in the 2023 election. These coefficients range from -1 (perfect negative correlation) to 1 (perfect positive correlation), with 0 indicating no relationship. Below, we explore the implications of these correlations.

Strong Positive Correlations

New Zealand First (0.82)
The strongest correlation exists between NZ Loyal and New Zealand First, a nationalist and socially conservative party led by Winston Peters. This high positive correlation suggests significant overlap in voter priorities, likely driven by shared skepticism of government overreach, emphasis on national sovereignty, and appeal to voters disillusioned with the major parties. New Zealand First’s return to Parliament with 6.08% of the vote after being ousted in 2020 indicates a resurgence of populist sentiment, which NZ Loyal also tapped into, albeit on a smaller scale. Both parties’ messaging around “putting New Zealanders first” likely resonated with similar demographics, such as older, rural, or working-class voters.
ACT (0.60)
A moderately strong positive correlation with ACT, a libertarian-leaning party that secured 8.64% of the vote, highlights a shared emphasis on individual freedoms and reduced government intervention. While ACT’s policy focus—free markets, law and order, and welfare reform—differs from NZ Loyal’s broader anti-establishment stance, their mutual appeal to voters frustrated with bureaucratic overreach likely explains this overlap. ACT’s urban, affluent voter base contrasts with NZ Loyal’s likely rural and grassroots support, suggesting the correlation reflects ideological alignment rather than identical demographics.

Moderate Positive Correlations

ALCP (0.36)
The moderate positive correlation with the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party points to a shared anti-authoritarian streak. ALCP’s single-issue focus on cannabis legalisation aligns with NZ Loyal’s broader advocacy for personal choice, including medical freedom. This overlap may reflect a protest vote against mainstream parties perceived as overly controlling, particularly among younger or fringe voters.
NewZeal (0.34)
Led by former National MP Alfred Ngaro, NewZeal’s socially conservative platform, rooted in Christian values, shows a moderate correlation with NZ Loyal. While NewZeal’s focus on family values and opposition to progressive social policies differs from NZ Loyal’s sovereignty-driven agenda, both parties likely attracted voters seeking alternatives to the secular, centrist establishment. NewZeal’s modest 0.29% vote share suggests a smaller but ideologically adjacent constituency.
National (0.31)
The correlation with National, the election’s winner with 38.1% of the vote, is intriguing. National’s centre-right, pro-business stance contrasts with NZ Loyal’s anti-elite rhetoric, yet the positive correlation may indicate some crossover among conservative voters dissatisfied with National’s perceived moderation under Luxon. Rural voters, a traditional National stronghold, may have split their support with NZ Loyal over issues like farming taxes or environmental regulations.

Weak Positive Correlation

Freedoms NZ (0.06)
The near-zero correlation with Freedoms NZ, an umbrella coalition including parties like Vision NZ and NZ Outdoors & Freedom, is surprising given their shared anti-mandate and freedom-focused platforms. This weak relationship suggests NZ Loyal carved out a distinct niche. Freedoms NZ’s fragmented structure may have diluted its appeal compared to NZ Loyal’s unified messaging.

Negative Correlations

Greens (-0.27)
The negative correlation with the Green Party, which achieved a record 11.6% vote share, reflects stark ideological opposition. The Greens’ progressive, environmentalist agenda—emphasizing sustainability, indigenous rights, and social justice—clashes with NZ Loyal’s rejection of “woke” policies and international climate commitments. This divergence underscores NZ Loyal’s appeal to voters hostile to left-wing priorities.
Labour (-0.26)
Labour, the incumbent party that saw its vote share plummet from 50% in 2020 to 26.91% in 2023, shows a negative correlation with NZ Loyal. Labour’s pandemic-era policies, including lockdowns and vaccine mandates, were lightning rods for NZ Loyal’s critique, driving its voters toward anti-establishment alternatives. This antipathy likely intensified amid economic challenges like inflation, which eroded Labour’s support.
TOP (-0.24)
The Opportunities Party, with its evidence-based, centrist policies, exhibits a negative correlation with NZ Loyal. TOP’s focus on pragmatic solutions—like tax reform and housing—contrasts with NZ Loyal’s emotive, populist approach, highlighting a divide between technocratic and anti-system voters.
Maori Party (-0.17)
The weaker negative correlation with The Maori Party, which won six electorate seats, reflects differing priorities. The Maori Party’s indigenous rights focus and left-leaning social policies diverge from NZ Loyal’s universalist, sovereignty-driven platform, though the weaker correlation suggests less direct antagonism than with Labour or the Greens.

Contextualising NZ Loyal’s Performance

NZ Loyal’s 1.2% vote share placed it among the more successful minor parties in 2023, outperforming NewZeal (0.29%) and Freedoms NZ (0.46%) but trailing TOP (2.1%) and several parliamentary parties. Its emergence late in the campaign—registered just months before the election—limited its organisational capacity, yet its grassroots momentum enabled it to outpace other fringe contenders. The party’s billboards became a visible symbol of its presence.

The 2023 election occurred against a backdrop of economic strain, with high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis dominating voter concerns. Labour’s sharp decline reflected fatigue with its six-year tenure, while National capitalized on a desire for change. NZ Loyal, like New Zealand First and ACT, benefited from this discontent, offering an outlet for voters frustrated with both Labour’s progressive governance and National’s perceived establishment status. Its strongest correlations with New Zealand First and ACT suggest it drew from a pool of right-leaning, populist, and libertarian-leaning voters, a bloc that collectively bolstered the centre-right coalition’s victory.

Broader Implications

NZ Loyal’s correlations reveal a polarised electorate, with its voter base aligning more closely with right-wing and populist parties while rejecting left-wing and progressive ones. The high correlation with New Zealand First (0.82) underscores the potency of nationalist, anti-elite sentiment in 2023, a trend mirrored globally in movements like Brexit or Trumpism. However, its failure to reach the 5% threshold highlights the challenges minor parties face under MMP without an electorate seat or broader coalition support.

The party’s appeal was likely amplified by lingering pandemic-era grievances, as evidenced by its overlap with ALCP and ACT—parties championing personal freedoms. Yet its weak link with Freedoms NZ (0.06) rejects the concept of a unified “freedom movement.”

Conclusion

In the 2023 New Zealand General Election, NZ Loyal emerged as a minor but notable player, channeling anti-establishment sentiment into a 1.2% vote share. Its voting correlations—strongest with New Zealand First (0.82) and ACT (0.60), moderate with ALCP (0.36), NewZeal (0.34), and National (0.31), and negative with Greens (-0.27), Labour (-0.26), TOP (-0.24), and Māori Party (-0.17)—paint a picture of a party appealing to right-leaning, sovereignty-focused voters disillusioned with the mainstream. While it fell short of parliamentary representation, NZ Loyal’s performance reflects a broader undercurrent of populist discontent, offering insights into the evolving dynamics of New Zealand’s political landscape as of March 17, 2025.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

The Harvester Judgement And How Much Has Been Stolen From Us

Mainstream media propaganda would have us all believe that the West has never been wealthier. Our glorious leaders have led us into an unparalleled age of prosperity. Never before have the lives of everyday Westerners overflowed with such abundance. Apparently, even the lowliest Westerner has easy access to luxuries that kings could not have dreamed of in ages past.

If you don’t agree, the media tells us, you’re a terrorist. A filthy, ungrateful reprobate whose resentment endangers the entire project of civilisation itself. How could a person not be grateful for the beneficence shown by our ruling classes? Just how?

As it turns out, anyone with a solid knowledge of history has reason to feel ripped off at their current treatment.

In 1907, the idea of a minimum wage was introduced in Australia. In a case relating to the Sunshine Harvester Company of Victoria, Justice Henry Higgins determined that a “fair and reasonable” wage for a manual labourer was that which could support a family of five. A skilled worker should receive even more. This was later known as the “Harvester Judgement“.

Because people higher up the social ladder would make more money than manual labourers, the Harvester Judgement created a floor underneath which no full-time worker could fall. It therefore ensured a decent quality of life for everyone in Australian society, not just the rich. This judgement became a core principle of Australian employment law and is one of the main reasons why the Australian worker’s standard of living has been so high until recently, and why Australia is known as “The Lucky Country”.

According to Grok, a family of five living in Auckland requires some $7,000 per month to meet housing, food, utilities, transportation and other costs. This means some $84,000 per year – after tax. Before tax, it’s $112,963 per year. Less than that means a family of five has to start going without some things.

This is the income necessary to have a similar quality of life to a labouring family in 1907. This means nothing extravagant – just basic housing, decent food, the lights on, the ability to get to work and visit some people etc. It doesn’t include luxury travel or building an investment portfolio.

Also according to Grok, fewer than 8% of New Zealand workers earn $112,000 or more. Because some 10% of the population has an honours degree or higher, this means the top 8% of the workforce will be mostly professionals and managers, i.e. highly qualified, highly experienced people. Those few in the top 8% without an honours degree or higher will mostly be top managers.

$112,000 is about 70% higher than the median New Zealand wage of $66,000. What’s more, that median wage figure itself includes those highly-paid professional and managerial jobs, which means that the median manual labourer’s wage is even lower still. The minimum wage in New Zealand is currently $23.15 per hour, which works out to $46,300 per annum if one works 50 weeks of 40 hours, and many manual labourers will be close to this.

In practice, therefore, almost none of the people working in manual labour positions in New Zealand are paid enough for their wage to be considered “fair and reasonable” under the Harvester Judgement. The entire idea that a wage ought to pay enough to raise a family has been abandoned, seemingly by the employees as well as the employers.

Our wages are now less than half of what is needed to support a family of five. But the quality of life promised by the Harvester Judgement has not simply been lost, it has been stolen from us.

It has been stolen from us in a number of ways, but the mass importation of cheap labour is the foremost of these. The explanation for how full-time manual labourer wages were decoupled from the requirement that they could support a family of five is simple: employers have undercut local workers by importing cheaper ones from overseas.

The Neoliberal Era normalised this practice, so that it become ideologically impossible to even object to the imports. Anyone who did so was smeared as a racist acting out of pure hate. Several decades of this allowed the employer class to drive wages down so far that they’re now about half of what they need to be, as per the Harvester Judgement.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

The Deep Implications Of The Recent Thuringen Election

The Free State of Thuringia is one of the sixteen states in the German federal republic, with a population just over 2.1 million. Normally, little of importance would come from Thuringen – but the state elections earlier this month have upset that. The much-feared Alternative fuer Deutschland party – regularly dismissed as neo-Nazis by the opinion-shapers in the mainstream media – won 33% of the total vote, taking first place.

Mainstream commentators were aghast at the AfD’s success, labelling it a return of Nazism. But in the hysteria over the AfD result, other results with deep implications have been missed.

One of the most striking of these was the Buendnis Sahra Wagenknecht winning 15.7%.

The BSW is also nationalist and also opposes Germany getting sucked into the war in Ukraine. Hence, they are as anti-Establishment as the AfD. But, unlike the AfD, they are a leftist movement that wants to empower the negotiating position of workers, and which has no interest in the Christian dogma so common to alternative right movements (the BSW also lists ‘reason’ as one of its two core values).

Sahra Wagenknecht is a former top-ranking Die Linke (The Left) candidate, which means that she’s coming from a very leftist perspective. If the AfD had done well and the BSW not, it might be possible to blame everything on TikTok. But because the BSW also did so well, it’s impossible to speak of a “right-wing wave”. The BSW winning over 15% shows that support for nationalism, not just support for the AfD, is what’s rising.

Perhaps the most striking change from the previous election was the collapse of Die Linke. They were the biggest party in 2019, with 31% of the total vote. Their 2024 vote was a much humbler 13%. The vast bulk of this fall can be attributed to the rise of the BSW, which didn’t exist in 2019.

In total, the nationalist bloc of AfD and BSW won 48.7% of the Thuringen vote, more than the 47% for the globalist bloc of CDU (23.6%), Die Linke (13%), SPD (6.1%), Gruene (3.2%) and FDP (1.1%). Nationalists outpolling globalists in a Western European region the size of Thuringen is something unprecedented since World War II. Since that war, nationalists have been reduced to small minorities. For them to become the majority again, anywhere, came as a shock to many.

Even more shocking was the voting breakdown.

The first result of note here was that some 49% of working-class voters in Thuringen voted AfD, and a further 16% voted BSW. This means that 65% of working-class voters went for a nationalist party, as opposed to a mere 30% for the five major globalists.

This is a remarkable result because it speaks to the extent to which working-class people feel themselves betrayed by the globalist establishment, in particular the leftist globalist establishment.

One of the issues that forced Sahra Wagenknecht out of Die Linke (along with COVID-19 measures and Ukraine/Russia policy) was German refugee policy. Die Linke supported the globalist approach of constantly and permanently increasing the refugee quota. Wagenknecht abandoned Die Linke in the belief that many left-wing voters would prefer a nationalist option to a globalist one, and she has been vindicated by this month’s polling.

Of even more import is the fact that this process has just begun. The AfD has been around for a while but the BSW is new. If they can already poll this high in a regional election, they can dream of doing so at a federal level. Then the possibility arises of an AfD-BSW coalition ruling Germany.

The second result of note here relates to age. If one looks only at voters aged 18-24, who are traditionally globalist left voters, we can see a radical seachange towards nationalism. 55% of men and 46% of women in this age group voted for one of the two nationalist parties.

The only real supporters of the establishment now are the Boomers whose rental property portfolios and stock portfolios are the prime beneficiaries of mass immigration. The Western ruling classes have denied for 80 years that mass immigration leads to higher rents and lower wages, but the people of West widely understand now, and the working-class understands well. Many of those people are now desperate for an anti-establishment alternative.

As the Boomers continue to die off over the next decade, globalist sentiments in the West will continue to weaken further. Those who believe that nationalists are only rising because of social media may succeed in banning that social media to a major extent. But they won’t stop what’s coming, because it’s not a social media phenomenon. It’s the inevitable end consequence of many tens of millions of unpleasant encounters with the diversity that the globalists have imported.

These results of note, taken together, suggest that the vast majority of young, working-class men in Thuringen are now nationalist. Perhaps then, a smaller majority of young, working-class men in the West in general might be nationalist. This means that the nationalist forces now control the loyalties of the precise demographics needed to control the streets – or overthrow the government.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!