Leonardo Orlando rose to prominence when — at the height of leftist cancel culture — two courses he taught at Sciences Po on political psychology, biology, evolution, and gender were canceled. Ironically, it was at that Parisian university that he earned his Ph.D. in Political Science and International Relations.

The decision reportedly stemmed from pressure exerted by those who, driven by gender ideology, opposed Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Orlando’s curiosity led him to complete a postdoctoral fellowship in Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology at the École Normale Supérieure in France, where he has lived since the age of 18. His expertise and critical thinking eventually brought him to the Mathias Corvinus Collegium in Budapest, a hub of counter-cultural thought in the face of the “woke” West.

Opposed to extreme political correctness and to a school of thought that views reality through the prism of race and gender, Orlando has closely monitored the violence in Ceuta following the migration surge that allowed tens of thousands of Africans to cross over from Morocco in a matter of hours last July.

We discussed his views on contemporary Europe and the tensions arising from migration in this interview.

The incursion into Ceuta in late July resulted in scenes of businesses and homes being looted and residents pleading with Pedro Sánchez’s socialist government for aid. Has Ceuta become a microcosm of what Europe might experience on a massive scale?

Regarding Ceuta, I wouldn’t say it represents something we are going to see in Europe; rather, it is something we have already been observing for some time. The difference is that in Ceuta, the phenomenon is concentrated within a very small area, whereas elsewhere in Europe it is more dispersed. The consequences are concentrated as well.

We are seeing instances of sexual assault against minors and elderly women, as well as security and public health issues. This is present in every corner of Europe experiencing a massive influx of immigrants — particularly, as in the case of Ceuta, involving men of military age and low social status, which serves as a primary indicator from an evolutionary psychology perspective.

These men will attempt to climb the social ladder using whatever means are at their disposal — the most immediate means available to them are those involving the use of violence.

We also know that, generally speaking, they arrive from countries where the average IQ is significantly lower than that of the native population. A lower IQ correlates with a greater propensity for violence and a reduced capacity for impulse control. Fundamentally, this is the demographic profile arriving on the continent.

Beyond these factors, there is also the cultural dimension. They come from cultures that are intensely chauvinistic and anti-Semitic, where a woman who exposes her skin is deemed a prostitute and, consequently, deserving of any mistreatment or abuse inflicted upon her.

Right now in Ceuta — concentrated within a few square meters — we are witnessing a sort of microcosm of the European catastrophe.

For political scientist Agustín Laje, multiculturalism is not merely the “presence of many cultures.” Rather, it is a policy that elevates cultural “diversity” to a principle requiring political protection and recognition, while ignoring the fact that it fosters fragmented societies where distinct groups live according to divergent values, norms, frames of reference, and practices. Is the alleged functionality of multiculturalism a dangerous lie?

Multiculturalism is — much like the vast majority of approaches propagated by the media — anchored in the “common sense” (for lack of a better term) of officials, national governments, elites, and the European Commission. They adopted it during their university education — the very place where this lie, this denial of human nature, is taught.

Multiculturalism never truly existed. In the few historical instances where a coexistence of people did perhaps occur, it had to be maintained by the sword — and by denying the fact that some cultures are inherently incompatible.

In the specific case of Islam, it is an all-encompassing religion that recognizes no distinction between the religious and the secular, and which harbors a project of political conquest. By definition, it is a religion that seeks to impose its own legal system (Sharia) upon the republican systems enjoyed by European nations.

Therefore, it is utterly deranged — a denial of reality — to claim that peaceful coexistence could exist between individuals belonging to such vastly different cultures. It is also a denial of historical dynamics.

Are you referring to the successive attempts by the Islamic world to conquer Christendom? The sieges of Vienna, the conquests of Greece and the Iberian Peninsula, and so on?

Yes.

Failing to see that, in the case of the forced coexistence Europe is experiencing today, it is inevitably the more violent culture that will ultimately prevail.

Migration has existed as a phenomenon throughout human history, but what characterizes the current wave directed at the West?

Immigration has always existed, but that does not mean it has always worked well.

People often argue that if there were immigrants in this country back then, there shouldn’t be any problems now. That is actually nonsense.

Let’s take this example: water boils at a specific temperature at sea level. That is an absolute formula. But there are many variables; that is, the time required for water to boil differs depending on whether I am at sea level or in the mountains, and it also depends on whether I use a gas or electric stove, or the amount of water I put in the pot.

I mention all this to point out that there are countless factors that can make immigration either devastating or beneficial for the host country.

Do you have a paradigmatic case in mind?

A successful example of migration — one worth contrasting with the current European situation — is that of my home country, Argentina, which received numerous waves of immigrants, primarily in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We can analyze three factors in that case.

One is cultural compatibility: the immigrants who arrived — mainly Italians and Spaniards — came from a Catholic culture that was entirely analogous to Argentina’s. Secondly, there were the immigrants’ cognitive abilities. Regarding the European immigrant who arrived in Argentina in the 19th and early 20th centuries — based on data such as literacy rates — we can establish that, on one hand, this immigrant possessed cognitive abilities not only superior to the average Argentine of that era but also superior to the average Italian or Spanish person. And that gap was even wider in the case of other countries, such as the Nordic nations or Germany.

And the third point?

The third point — also crucial — is that Argentina pursued a policy of strong assimilation. It essentially involved constructing a national narrative and imposing it, to the extent that immigrants would not speak their native language to their children. The premise was that Argentina’s language is Spanish, so one must speak Spanish. The same applied to national symbols and other cultural elements — an approach diametrically opposed to what we currently observe in Europe.

Which actors are driving the mass migration agendas, and why?

It is undeniable that European elites are the ones driving them, and they have imposed these policies without consulting the public. There is a complete disconnect from what the average European citizen wants.

The interesting thing here is that the elites imposing this mass, incompatible immigration do not share the same neighborhoods or schools; instead, they increasingly isolate themselves from areas with high immigrant populations because their financial means allow them to do so. Furthermore, they benefit from lower wages, a well-documented effect of immigration, and more.

Which elites are you referring to, specifically?

The university-educated elites — some of them academics — and the media elites.

The imposition of immigration is a reality because these elites can afford to remain isolated — meaning they do not have to pay the price for their own proposals. This creates a convergence between those driving the agenda, the stupidity of those who allow it to be imposed, and the cowardice of those who see the consequences but dare not speak out, intimidated by accusations of racism or xenophobia. I must add that, in some cases, a degree of “suicidal empathy” may also be at play.

They all deny the reality of what current immigration to Europe has brought about.

There is a contradiction within the LGBT and feminist movements regarding their support for these unchecked migration policies. Why do you think this dissonance exists?

The great paradox — or irony — we are witnessing is that women are the ones most harmed in Europe by the current waves of migration, yet they are also the ones who, in large numbers, vote for parties that support these policies. In other words, women are voting to be hunted down like prey.

As for your question, I do not know why this happens. LGBT movements defend this as well.

What is interesting is that we are seeing a shift in the gay vote toward right-wing, anti-immigration parties. This ultimately reinforces what is already known about LGBT movements: they do not truly represent the individuals themselves but are political movements championing specific causes to gain power, while having no real connection to the very base they claim to defend.

In every instance, there is a denial of reality — a denial of the facts. Few people change their minds. We saw this, for example, with a PSOE deputy regarding the situation in Ceuta. Initially, he labeled those criticizing the surge of migrants as racists, yet it didn’t take long for him to change his tune, admitting it was a disaster and that help was needed.

But for the most part, people do not change their minds, because these types of beliefs are not reached rationally — that is, based on data or evidence.

What drives them then?

People have moral intuitions and arrive at these conclusions for various reasons. We are consistently seeing cases — such as people who take migrants into their homes only to end up fleeing for their lives after being assaulted.

What we are witnessing here is a disconnect from reality — something also seen in related movements, like “LGBTs for Palestine.” This persists even though it is well known that they could not actually set foot in that territory; they would be executed immediately the moment their appearance and mannerisms were revealed.

What impact does this disconnect from reality and the many contradictions you mention have on the social fabric of nations?

This is problematic from several standpoints.

One wants to believe that in a democracy, all voices are valid because everyone has a vote. But that does not mean that all arguments are valid. Put it this way: if you and I are discussing what to do on a rainy day, and someone else present claims it isn't raining — that the sun is out — even though the rest of us know it is raining, that person ceases to be a valid interlocutor.

And, indeed, those who deny the tragic consequences of immigration that we see in Europe today have ceased to be valid interlocutors. They are simply people denying the evidence right before their eyes.