How Swamp Creature Donald Trump Flooded the Swamp: The Rothschild Connection

Donald Trump or (((Donald Trump)))? Obviously it’s (((Donald Trump))). Looks like the Rothschilds own this guy lock stock and barrel. Either that or he’s been in a deep alliance with them and their (((pals))) forever now. It’s comical how all these anti-Semites fall all over themselves jerking off to this guy. He’s practically the biggest Jew on Earth. That he’s a Judaized Gentile makes little difference – he’s still 500 years kosher and that’s deeper dipped than 9 Trump is by far the most fanatical Zionist President we have ever had. He’s so Israel-crazy that you almost wonder if he’s Jewish somehow. It’s so hilarious that all these Alt Right anti-Semites worship this ultra-Zionist Trump, who is virtually an agent of influence of the Israeli government. Alt Righters are suckers! Their hero is a super Jew and an ultra-Zionist! LOL! They’re pathetic! If you’re going to be an anti-Semite, at least have some principles for Chrissake.

Are "Camp" Straight Guys Actually More Straight Than Other Straight Guys?

Answered on Quora: No. The campier the straight man is, the more likely that he is not even straight at all. He’s likely to be either a closeted gay, or he will come out later on. Most completely heterosexual men are not campy. As far as straight men who are so blazingly effeminate that they are just about queens, over on Datalounge, a gay chat site, one man said that he had known several “flaming” straight men who had wives, families and two or more children. Most people shrugged their shoulders, looked at the wife and family and said whatever. You see, back then, there were some effeminate straight men with wives and kids. People would shake their heads and say, “Boy, Joe sure likes to iron his shirts, doesn’t he? But God bless him! Every night he goes home and gives it to Mrs. Jones.” And the community of straight men and women would just except him. Nowadays, this man would be called gay continuously. Back in those days, people were not obsessed with homosexuality. Everyone was straight until proven otherwise. Straight people were not commonly accused of being gay. The sad thing about gays coming out is that we no longer practice “straight until proven otherwise,” which in my opinion was much better, and straight men are much more likely to be called gay than they were back in the day. So while gay liberation has been great for gay men, most good things have a downside, and this was the downside for straight men. Frankly, I can’t see how gay liberation helped straight men. It didn’t help us or improve our lives in any way, and in a few ways, it made our lives worse. It was necessary for equal rights for gays, so we should have supported it (and I did from way back into the 1980’s when it was risky), but there sure wasn’t anything in it for us. As feminists are now talking about how feminism is good for men too, I wonder if any gay men would tell us how gay rights was good for straight men in any way whatsoever. Anyway, this gay man said that he had followed these “flamer” purported straight married men over decades, and after 20–30 years, every single one of them had come out as gay and left their families. A new study showed that 6 There are many “feminine” straight men who are quiet, soft-spoken, sensitive, like to read, write, and cook and are not macho in the traditional sense. But a lot of these men have a sort of soft masculinity about them. I would wager that if a straight man is so effeminate that he is out and out campy, he could be straight, but the odds that he is gay or will come out as gay later on are quite a bit higher than for non-effeminate straight men. In fact, I would wager that most of them are closeted gays or will come out as gay later on. You cannot be effeminate at all in straight male culture. Even being feminine as above is quite frowned upon. A campy straight man would not be well liked and would have to endure a lot of abuse from his peers. This sort of peer pressure keeps most straight men from behaving this way, which I feel is a good thing.

Tony Perkins Is an Anti-Gay Bigot, But a Lot of the Things He Says about Homosexuality Are True

I don’t have a high opinion of this reactionary idiot Tony Perkins. While the label of bigot and hater seems correct about him, unfortunately a number of things he says about homosexuality are flat out true. Others are ugly opinions, exaggerations, silliness, or untruths. The dossier against Perkins can be found here at the site of one of the worst SJW organizations out there, the toxic and cancerous Southern Poverty Law Center. Let’s look at the charges:

contending that gay rights advocates intend to round up Christians in “boxcars.”

False. OK, that’s fanaticism. But sometimes I wonder what sort of SJW dictatorship our SJW commissar overlords would have in store for us if they ever seized power. Looking at how hate-filled, vindictive, and out and out vicious your typical gay rights homosexual is nowadays, it’s not unreasonable to fear all sorts of bad things from these maniacs. To give you an example, these gay activists absolutely hate me although I have supported gay rights since the 1980’s when it was dangerous to do so. That’s a good 35 years. And I work on their political campaigns, though I should probably quit based on how they treat me. In order to be a proper gay rights ally and avoid being a homophobe, the goalposts have now been moved to positions that are so far beyond the endzone that most straight men would qualify as homophobes by default simply for having the normal opinions that straight men have towards male homosexuality (hint: they have a very low opinion of it).

“What most people either don’t realize or willfully ignore is that only 16 percent of Islam is a religion — the rest is a combination of military, judicial, economic, and political system. Christianity, by comparison, isn’t a judicial or economic code — but a faith. So to suggest that we would be imposing some sort of religious test on Muslims is inaccurate. Sharia is not a religion in the context of the First Amendment.” — FRC email, December 2015

True. That’s probably about right, sorry.

“Those who practice Islam in its entirety, it’s not just a religion. It’s an economic system, it’s a judicial system, and it is a military – a military system. And it is – it has Shariah law that you’ve heard about and those things will tear and destroy the fabric of a democracy. So we have to be very clear about our laws and restrain those things that would harm the whole. We are a nation – let me be very clear about this. We are a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, that’s the foundation of our nation, not Islam, but the Judeo-Christian God.” — Washington Watch radio show, September 2014

Mostly true. He’s wrong as usual about the Founding Fathers, who were more deists than anything else, but this is standard fundie nonsense. The rest about Islam is more or less 10

“The videos are titled ‘It Gets Better.’ They are aimed at persuading kids that although they’ll face struggles and perhaps bullying for ‘coming out’ as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. … It’s disgusting. And it’s part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle.” —FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

False. The It Gets Better videos are not part of a project to recruit kids into the gay lifestyle. I doubt if they are trying to tell kids homosexuality is ok either. These videos are aimed at gay teenagers who are distraught, depressed, and have a high attempted suicide rate, showing them that no matter how much they are suffering now, things will get better as they get older. It’s probably not true that gays cannot turn straights gay, but many straight women have chosen a bisexual orientation, and many straight men have chosen to engage in bisexual behavior, with more and more doing this all the time. And while you can’t turn straight people gay, that doesn’t stop gay and bisexual men from trying. I can’t count how many times they have tried to seduce me, and they’ve done it to a lot of my friends too. Actually bisexual men are far worse about this because I don’t have much to do with gay men, and bisexual men are everywhere running about in typical straight society. They can get pretty verbally coercive and cajoling about trying to get you to join in their faggy fun too. You need to stop talking to them because they will never stop trying to cajole you into their faggy fun and games.

“Those who understand the homosexual community – the activists – they’re very aggressive, they’re – everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They’re intolerant, they’re hateful, vile, they’re spiteful. …. To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation.” —Speaking to the Oak Initiative Summit, April 2011

True. This is actually true. Gay activists are out and out ugly. In fact, I am starting hate gay men (though I should not feel that way, I know) due to so many nasty and ugly interactions with them. I will continue to support them politically of course, but the less I deal with them otherwise, the better. Gay men nowadays are the worst SJW’s of them all, like SJW’s on steroids. False. But I really doubt if homosexuality is going to destroy the country. That’s a bit much.

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.” — FRC website, 2010

True. This is a bit vicious, but gay men are vastly overrepresented among pedophiles. 3 False. But saying that pedophilia is a gay problem is just wrong. And it’s vicious.

The marriage debate “is literally about the entire culture: it’s about the rule of law, it’s about the country, it’s about our future, it’s about redefining the curriculum in our schools, it’s about driving a wedge between parent and child, it’s about the loss of religious freedom, it’s about the inability to be who we are as a people.” — The Janet Mefford Show, May 22, 2014

False. None of this is true, but I can see why these Christians are upset about it. They say it goes against their religion. Well, OK. So how do you expect them to act?

Part of the FRC’s strategy is to tout the false claim that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse children. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”

True. Yes, and the APA is flat out wrong and is disregarding all of the evidence of psychological “science” on this issue. You wonder why people say the social science are not sciences. Well, look no further. Actually gay men are 12 times more likely to molest children than straight men are. Nevertheless, most gay men are obviously not pedophiles.

As the show ended, Perkins stated, “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children.

False. I do not think it is fair to say that homosexuals pose a risk to our children. “Keep the faggots away from our kids!” seems like a mean and unnecessary thing to say.

In late 2010, Perkins held a webcast to discuss the dire consequences of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Dubious statistics from a poll commissioned by the FRC and the Center for Security Policy – which was named an anti-Muslim hate group in 2015 – were used during the webcast. The webcast also mentioned the FRC report, Mission Compromised, written by retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, the FRC’s senior fellow for national security. The report contended that allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would undermine morale and discipline and infringe on the religious freedom of military chaplains, who would be forced to accept homosexuality and would no longer be permitted to express their religious beliefs about it. In addition, Maginnis predicted that heterosexual service members would be forced to take “sensitivity classes” that promote the “homosexual lifestyle.” He added: “Homosexual activists seek to force the U.S. military to embrace their radical views and sexual conduct, no matter the consequences for combat effectiveness.”

False. I believe that gays are now serving openly in the US military, and this has not affected combat effectiveness like the howlers predicted.

On Oct. 11, 2010, The Washington Post published a commentary by Perkins in which he repeated his argument that anti-bullying policies are not really intended to protect students. “Homosexual activist groups like GLSEN [Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network] … are exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda of demanding not only tolerance of homosexual individuals, but active affirmation of homosexual conduct and their efforts to redefine the family.”

Half true. Sadly, this is correct. Gay activists are indeed using the anti-bullying push to promote tolerance of homosexuals, to redefine the family, and worse, to promote out and out affirmation of homosexuality. In fact, I would argue that it goes far beyond that, and that presently gay rights activists are promoting the open celebration of homosexuality. As a straight man, I fail to see why I should jump up and down and cheer for homosexuality. What’s so great about it? Who needs it? If it disappeared from the planet tomorrow, would that be a bad thing? It probably would not, as homosexuality offers zero benefits to society while causing a long list of societal problems. However, obviously the anti-bullying movement is also designed to protect gay students.

In 2013, Perkins claimed on CNN that allowing gay people into the Boy Scouts would put children in danger of sexual assault. When pressed by the CNN host, Perkins again resorted to the FRC’s stock claim, as Perkins once put it, that pedophilia “is a homosexual problem.” “They [Boy Scouts] are trying to create an environment that is protective of children,” he said. “This [allowing LGBT Scouts and Scout leaders] doesn’t make it more protective. There is a disproportionate number of male on boy – when we get on pedophilia, male on boy is a higher incident rate of that.”

True. Well, of course letting gay men by scoutmasters puts boys at increased risk of molestation. Isn’t that obvious? There have been plenty of closeted gay men who were scoutmasters in the past, and they molested more than a few boys. Why do you think the Scouts had the ban in the first place? Because this was a well known long-standing problem in scouting! It was hard enough to try to sort out the closet cases among the scoutmasters, and the new policy was going to flood scouts with a lot more gay scoutmasters. Just what the Scouts need.

Despite gains made for LGBT equality, Perkins and the FRC have continued their anti-gay activities, including opposition to the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). According to Perkins, President Obama was working with the “totalitarian homosexual lobby” to sneak ENDA into law and should that happen, freedom of religion will be “destroyed.”

Opinion. Well, you know, this is just wrong. In general, I think that it should be illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in housing, employment, etc. simply for being homosexuals. But we ought to be able to discriminate on other grounds. For instance, suppose a flamboyantly gay man applies at my store to be a customer clerk. My clientele is mostly straight men, a lot of whom are macho rednecks who will not take kindly to a screaming faggot asking, “Can I help you?” In this case, I might be able to hire a gay man if he was straight acting and promised to be quiet about his orientation so as not to scare off my clientele. Suppose you have a restaurant. The hosts are people who greet customers and show them their seats. I have a right to turn down a flamboyant homosexual who wants to work as a host because he will scare off my diners. Instead, I would happy to employ him in a backroom somewhere, but he can’t be out there greeting diners. Other than these minor cases though, I think gays should have the same employment and housing rights as members of racial groups or the two genders.

Perkins also has worked to keep America safe from Betty Crocker. In September 2013, he called for a boycott of the iconic brand because General Mills, which produces it, donated custom cakes to three LGBT couples in Minnesota who were married after the state legalized same-sex marriage a month earlier.

Opinion. Wow. Ugly.

In 2015, as the FRC tilted into anti-Muslim sentiment – especially with the hiring of retired Lt. General William “Jerry” Boykin – Perkins said that Islam is such a danger that Muslim Americans should not have the same religious freedoms as other citizens.

Opinion. Not sure what he means by this, but this is ugly.

After a man with radical Islamic beliefs fatally shot 49 people at an Orlando LGBT nightclub in June 2016, Perkins pointed the finger at the Obama Administration – claiming that the administration marginalized Christians and elevated Islam. “We have to deal with the underlying issue, which is an ideology that’s incompatible with American liberty,” Perkins wrote. “An ideology, tragically, that this administration has empowered through its public policy and private diplomacy.”

False. Yuck. The problem here is that this attack had nothing to with Islam. The attacker himself was a gay man, so he was not killing gay men out of hatred or bigotry. Instead, he had had an affair with a Puerto Rican gay man who he met at that bar, and that man had given him HIV. This was a Puerto Rican gay bar. So he decided to take revenge against Puerto Rican gay men in general by shooting up the bar.

In a 2016 FRC email to followers about the issue, Perkins warned: “If government can force the ‘normalization’ or even the celebration of something as universally unnatural as men using women’s restrooms and vice versa, then it can force the rest of its agenda on the American people very easily,” resulting in “social chaos” and the breakdown of all “sexual inhibition and morality.”

False. I doubt if that’s going to happen, but at 60, I would love to see sexual inhibition and morality break down a lot more. Perhaps I would get more dates.

During 2016, Perkins was part of the Republican committee as a delegate from Louisiana that created the GOP platform. Perkins reportedly proposed a plank that supported conversion therapy for minors, though the wording, apparently revised from the original, does not specifically mention conversion therapy – a pseudoscientific practice that claims to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight, and has been denounced by every major U.S. medical and mental health association. The platform committee ultimately passed a resolution affirming “the right of parents to determine the proper treatment or therapy, for their minor children.”

Opinion. Conversion therapy is a controversial issue, and in general it does not seem to work, although it is proven that sex surrogacy can help some lesbians to enjoy sex with men.

After Trump’s election, the FRC and Perkins were heavily involved in the formation of policy for the new administration. FRC Senior Fellow Kenneth Blackwell was named the head of domestic policy for the transition team. The FRC also took steps to ensure the new administration would undo President Obama’s work advancing LGBT equality – efforts that come after Perkins’ June 2016 claim that a Trump presidency would be better for the LGBT community than a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Opinion. This sounds bad.

A Lot of People on Quora Are Going Around Saying That They Can’t Have Meaningful Conversations with Those Who Have IQ's That Are 2 Standard Deviations below or above Their IQ's. As a Profoundly Gifted Person Do You Think This Is the Case?

Answered on Quora: It isn’t necessarily true. The reason they are saying this is that studies were done that showed that leaders could not have IQ’s 2 SD’s above the average of their followers. It was also suggested that meaningful communication becomes difficult at 2 SD’s difference. They are probably referencing that study. But just because some study said something doesn’t mean it is going to be completely true in your own life. As someone with an IQ over 3 SD’s above average, I don’t agree that that is true. I can have meaningful conversations with those 45–55 IQ points below me (3–3.66 SD’s). It is just that I have to somewhat limit the subject matter to areas I think that person would know about. A lot of people in that range are smarter than you think. You just have to keep the conversation around their level. For many years, my best friends had IQ’s 3 SD’s below me. However, when I was spending a tremendous amount of my time around them, especially after I started university, I did get frustrated at times because the range of communication was somewhat restricted. I didn’t mind spending a lot of time with them, but there reached a point where I was spending too much time with them at which it became frustrating. But it’s pretty fun to interact with people down around the 100 IQ level when you adjust your own IQ to about that level and learn to enjoy life on that simpler level. For instance, we used to smoke weed, listen to music, talk, joke and laugh about women, TV, people, people, dope, gossip, music, etc. You can have a blast down around that level. I remember stoned nights when the whole room could not stop laughing. However, as I have gotten older, it is hard for me to relate very well to women around 3-4 SD IQ below me (90–100). We are not connecting on such a huge level – they are often so ignorant, and they act bored or threatened by my achievements but mostly they think they are utterly uninteresting. People at that IQ level could care less that you just published a paper that got through peer review and was published in an academic book out of a university publishing house. They don’t care that you sit on a review board of a peer reviewed academic journal. They simply do not see that as important, they don’t have a high opinion of it. In other words, they are pretty much indifferent, puzzled or out and out hostile to any sort of intellectual achievement or talk. On top of that, they can sometimes bore the living Hell out of me. I need the women in my life to be more around my intelligence level. Two SD’s difference and below is acceptable. At 2 SD’s below, I can connect very well and have had deep and intense love affairs with women. You end up explaining things a lot, but they can figure things out after you explain them to them, and you can get into professor vs. rapt student roles, which is an ego boost for me and seems to also be a lot of fun for them. It’s also fun to watch an rapt student delighting in new knowledge. And at 2 SD’s below me, people are capable of a lot of interesting observations, especially about people, culture, and even politics. They often have sophisticated, clever, odd and even intellectual senses of humor. They’re smarter than you think they are. It’s not that you cannot have meaningful conversations with people below 2 SD’s, it’s more that at some point you hit this wall that goes up between the two of you, and things get can get a little weird and uncomfortable. There’s a disconnect or a lack of communication taking place. But this is more at 3–4 SD’s below me rather than 2 SD’s. I also run into regular problems with people not having the slightest idea of what I am talking about. I don’t know if they don’t want to talk to me or they just can’t figure out what I am saying, but they say they don’t get what I am saying. I also get misunderstood a lot. People misunderstand my jokes and read mental illness or dangerousness into them. My writing is always misread and misconstrued in a similar manner. This has led to a lot of people hating my guts for something I said or wrote when they are completely misunderstanding what I said. Probably a lot of these folks are above 2 SD’s below me. Lack of intelligence is out and out dangerous. I can’t count how many times people misunderstood what I was saying, doing or writing and used it against me. I thought it was due to lack of intelligence on their part, but I don’t know exactly how intelligent most of these people were as I had little interaction with them. The problem is when you get to 2 SD’s below me, from my POV, a lot of people don’t know how to think. They misconstrue what you say, do or write and see mental disturbance, dangerousness, and severe deviancy into you when it’s not there. However, I have met folks 1 SD below me or even at my level who did the exact same thing and constantly misunderstood or misconstrued me because they don’t know how to think. However, I think the inability to think properly is more common as IQ goes down. I hate to say it but my opinion after decades of life is “Dumb people are dangerous.” They don’t understand others so they commit aggression and harm against the people they don’t understand. In this sense, lower intelligence levels are not innocuous at all, and for me, they carry the potential of a lot of harm. I have found that as people’s IQ’s go higher, they misunderstand me a lot less, start to figure me out, don’t read weird or stupid things into what I say, do, or write, and frankly cause me a lot less harm. It seems to require a fairly high IQ to make the difficult distinctions that are necessary to figure out what I am saying, doing, or writing. I could give you endless examples, but there’s no need to. If people of lesser intelligence were innocuous, they would not bother me in the slightest. But when stupidity becomes harmful as it so often does, I start seeing the world once again as, “Dumb people are dangerous!”

Why Do Some Asexual People Still Want Relationships? Doesn’t This Only Cause Pain?

Answered on Quora: Apparently they still want relationships, but they should have relationships with other asexual types or people who have given up on sex for whatever reason. Asexuals pursuing relationships with sexual persons is very irresponsible and must be condemned. Frankly, I think that gay men marrying women, as happens constantly, is also deeply irresponsible and should be condemned in the harshest terms. In the case of either the asexual with sexual people or gay men with women, the actions of the asexual and gays who do this are quite close to abuse.

Is It Usual for a Man to Try to Turn a Man Gay Unless He Is a Gay Man?

Answered on Quora: No, no straight man would do that. It’s not possible to change men’s sexual orientation past a certain age, but that doesn’t stop gay men from trying to recruit or convert straight men. Actually they are just trying to seduce them into homosexuality, but they use a lot of devious means. In quite a few cases, gay men insist that a straight man is really gay and is lying about being straight. Whether they actually believe this or if this is just some sort of a ruse is not known. Gay men definitely go after straight men all the time. Now whether they know the guy is straight or if they think he’s gay or if they don’t know is not known. Very good-looking straight men are especially plagued by this. I knew a couple of straight men who worked as male models, and they had to fend off gay men all the time. One told me it was like “mosquitoes in Alaska.” The constant approaches and refusal to take no for an answer was making both men quite homophobic. They kept saying they were going to hit the next gay man who came after them. I don’t think they did, but they sure were angry. Also many predominantly straight men are somewhat bisexual in orientation or behavior. It’s not uncommon for basically straight men to try to seduce other straight men into gay sex. It’s happened to me more more times than I want to admit, not that I took them up on it! The thing you have to realize is that not all straight men are 10

Are Most Male Flight Attendants Gay?

Answered on Quora: Absolutely. Anecdotal evidence (see below) shows that at least 5 It’s just one of those jobs that attracts a lot of gay men. And for that same reason, it being a job associated with gay men, it probably scares a lot of straight men away from it. That said, one of my best friends went off to be a flight attendant a few years after high school and he was straight as Hell and quite homophobic too, I might add.

People (Most) Complement on My Intelligence, but I Don't See Myself as Smart as Others Do. Does That Mean I Have a Potential of Intelligence or I'm Just Average?

Answered on Quora:

Of course, it can only mean that you have above average intelligence. I have no idea at what IQ level people start actively and frequently commenting, often in stunned or disbelieving terms, about how smart you are. But I’ve been hearing it forever. I’m at 147. I’m sure people say it to those lower on the scale too, but I’m not sure the level on which people quit remarking on it.

Based on my experiences, I would say that if most people you meet are remarking about how smart you are, you probably have an IQ of at least 120, in the upper 1

Now why you have a high IQ but think you are stupid I have no idea. You don’t give yourself enough credit for your gifts.

 

Why Do Some Countries Lack a Class Conscious Working Class?

John Engelman: Contrary to what Karl Marx said, for most people most of the time loyalties of nation, race and ethnicity are stronger than loyalties of class. The working class in the United States has always been more diverse than the working class in European countries. It is becoming more diverse with the influx of non whites.

To get class consciousness you really need a homogeneous working class. It helps if the working class is ethnically distinct from the upper class. In Scotland the upper class is English, or Anglicized Scottish. That is to say Scottish, but educated in England, and often speaking with English accents. The clear majority of Scots vote for the British Labour Party. English workers are more likely to vote for the British Conservative Party. The argument is circular in a sense because as you look around the world, generally what you see in most cases is an ethnically homogenous working class. Would you describe the working classes of Latin America as homogeneous or diverse? They seem to be a mixture of White, Indian and Black and the mestizo, mulatto and Zambo mixtures, correct? Yet the diverse working classes down there have high working class consciousness despite their diverse nature. Aren’t North African and Gulf countries fairly mixed between Blacks and Arabs? Certainly in Arabia, lands with diverse working classes of Kurds, Arabs and Iranian working classes are all very left. I believe Sri Lanka even with the vicious Tamil versus Sinhalese war, the diverse working class is leftwing. In Burma the working class is very left although there have been wild ethnic wars sputtering on for decades. In Russia and other nations of the former USSR, there are many ethnic minorities, but the workers are still working class. A recent exception is Ukraine where workers have gone radical Right. The former Yugoslavia is still very leftwing even after all of the ethnic conflict and even slaughter of past years. Spain’s working class is very radical despite an armed conflict in the Basque region and separatists in Catalonia. The different religions hate each other in North Ireland, but the Scottish Protestant workers are as class conscious as the Irish Catholic ones. Switzerland is divided between three ethnic groups – French, Germans, and Italians – yet it is a very leftwing country. The extreme tribalism in Africa has not prevented the working classes from being class conscious. Is the working class of England voting Tory yet? Or do you just mean that they are more likely to vote Tory than the Scots are? Most workers in Europe, Arabia, North Africa, Africa, the former USSR, China, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Japan, South Korea, Nepal are the same ethnicity as the ruling classes of those places, yet workers have a high degree of class consciousness in all of those places. The places where working class consciousness has been harder to develop were those that had a Chinese ruling class as in Philippines and Indonesia. I think we need to come up with some better theories about the poor class consciousness of the US working class. If you are looking for examples elsewhere, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, Australia, the Baltics and Colombia are places with quite poor working class consciousness. In Australia it is recent as US style conservatism is imported. A similar trend is underway in Canada and has been since Thatcher in the UK. But the UK is in nearly a revolutionary situation. A lot of the working classes are militant and radicalized, while a lot of the country has at the same time gone Tory. When Thatcher died, there were anti-rich riots in housing estates across the land. Thatcher was burned in effigy in the streets. Can you imagine that happening in the US? The recent riots in the UK also had a class undercurrent. I was dating a British woman at the time, and she told me that local storeowners who treated the community well were spared by rioters. Rioters focused on stores selling upscale goods to the rich. Many corporate outlets were also smashed. She told me that a number of those outlets had a reputation for not paying taxes to the UK by hiding money offshore. She said the rioters knew who those companies were, and they were brutally singled out. Many outlets were burned to the ground. Can you imagine heavily Black rioters in the US having class consciousness like that? The Baltics are a case of entire nations full of complete idiots who hate Communism so much that they went into an extreme overreaction against Communism and turned against anything socialist, left, liberal or mildly progressive. Fascist heroes including many Nazis with a lot of Jewish blood on their hands were celebrated. Communist parties were outlawed, and Russian minorities were viciously maltreated. Radical rightwingers were elected in all of these lands, and Chicago Boys Friedmanite experiments were undertaken. The results were predictable. In the recent economic crash, the most neoliberal European countries were the most devastated of all. Estonia was eviscerated, and Latvia was almost wiped off the map. 1/3 of the Latvian population left the country, including almost all of the educated people. The Philippines and Indonesian cases are up for discussion, but these are Latin American situations of a ruling class of a different ethnicity than the working classes holding forth brutally and anti-democratically over the people. In addition, the workers have little consciousness. Taiwan has a similar legacy where extreme hatred of Communism resulted in being ruled by reactionary fascist anti-Communists for decades. There is a nascent Left now, but it has little power yet. The wealth of the country seems to have gotten in the way of working class consciousness. Probably the extreme anti-Communism helped too, as any working class movement could be quickly portrayed as Communist.

Is Political Correctness Valued More Than Factual Correctness in Quora?

Answered on Quora: Absolutely. Most of the time my answers have been flagged as violations of “Be Nice, Be Respectful,” I was simply reporting things that were 10 Almost all of my warnings have been from posting facts! Inconvenient facts, yes, but facts nonetheless. You see PC is based on the idea that if the truth offends you, it’s not true. So all facts that are offensive to PC people, including a vast range of common knowledge, common sense and even science, are deemed racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic lies. Apparently:

  • The truth is racist.
  • The truth is sexist.
  • The truth is homophobic.
  • The truth is transphobic.

Not only that, but PC people will try to destroy anyone who reports and inconvenient or unpleasant fact that violates the PC Commissars’ version of truth. As far as philosophy goes, PC people’s versions of truth and falsehood are pretty interesting from a philosophical POV. I wonder how many famous philosophers would agree with the PC nation that:

  • Truth: That which does not offend me and is true
  • Falsehood: That which is not true or is true but offends me.

I would think almost all of the world’s most famous philosophers would reject that definition.

What Is Like To Talk with Someone with an IQ of ~90?

Answered on Quora: Tell you what. Go to a town where many Hispanic or Latino Americans live. Walk around a bit and talk to some people. Your average US Hispanic has an IQ of 90. So your average person in that town will have about a 90 IQ, and after you talk to a few of them, you should get a feel for how someone at that IQ score thinks. You can also go find a bunch of White high school dropouts. They also have 89 IQ’s, right around the same. That would be a lot harder to do though. I don’t want to use Hispanics as an example, but since they have an average IQ of 90, once you have talked to hundreds of them, you get a feel for what people at that IQ level are like. I hate to say, but the difference between 100 IQ people and 90 IQ is quite noticeable, even dramatic. My experience is with people who seem to have 90 IQ’s, both Whites and Hispanics. Their ignorance was shocking. They had never heard of labor unions, the Latin language, or artificial respiration. One told me that Mixteco, an family of Indian languages in Mexico with ~40 different languages in it is a dialect of Spanish! Of course it isn’t. It’s an Amerindian language, as far from Spanish as Chinese. When someone is that preposterously and idiotically wrong, I don’t even argue with them. I just nod my head. One told me Salinas is right next to San Diego, and he laughed at me when I insisted it wasn’t. On the contrary, they are 400 miles apart. This guy grew up in Salinas, and he had no idea where it was on a map within hundreds of miles! Starting to get the idea? They simply have no use for what a lot of us would call book knowledge. They exist at a much simpler level, and I imagine they are probably happier than we brooding brainiacs are. However, they are certainly intelligent enough to do their jobs as restaurant clerks or servers, supermarket cashiers, secretaries and whatnot. They do very well at those jobs. They’re in their element. Also their ignorance is not dangerous the way the ignorance of others is. As you move up on the IQ scale towards 100 or 110, you start finding people who are horribly ignorant, can’t think properly, but are just smart enough to get the complete wrong answer and end up reading you the wrong way, interpreting innocent remarks as bizarre, insane, incomprehensible, or dangerous. In other words, they are too stupid to get the right answer (which is fine) but they are just smart enough to completely misread you and get the absolute wrong answer. Some are too suspicious due to ignorance, but they are pretty easily ignored. Simply don’t ever speak to them or deal with them at all. On the other hand, the 90 IQ person just listens to you and either understands you or doesn’t. If you are incomprehensible, they just give you a blank look or ask what you are talking about. They aren’t smart enough to read you the wrong way and get the wrong answer, because they are not coming up with any answer! 90 IQ people are pleasant enough. Most are rather simple people who do not have strong emotions. They breeze through life don’t want to cause a lot of worries, fights or problems. They take life as it is without challenging it, seeing through it, or feeling angry or frustrated with it. They live for simple good times, conversation about basic life issues and especially people, have some understanding of psychology, and like to gossip. Some of the older ones have some understanding of business, law, taxation, duties as a citizen, how to negotiate around government and insurance bureaucracies, and even medicine, believe it or not. They don’t expect much out of life, but they don’t cause many problems either because a lot of problems are caused by people thinking too hard and getting the wrong answer. 90 IQ people don’t ever think too hard, so they end up being rather pleasant, happy and enjoyable people. They like jokes, sex, and food. They love to joke and laugh. There are some who work at stores around here who I joke with, tease, and laugh with all the time. We make fun of each other in the simple, friendly, and non-offensive way of close friends. I don’t want to have a brain like that, but in a way, I envy them. It must be so much easier to breeze through life. Maybe the less you think, the happier you are. So there is your 90 IQ person, a mixture of good and bad. The ignorance is not good from my POV. It won’t fly with me, but these people are almost four SD’s below me. I won’t have close friendships with them, but casual acquaintanceship is pleasant enough if you keep the discussion to the basic commonalities of human existence that we all share. On the other hand, their ignorance could be seen as outset by their many positive qualities in their simple, easy-going, laughing, joking, non-serious, fun-oriented attitude towards life.

Ideological Conservatism Associated with Lower Intelligence

Tulio: You know what, I do think I recall seeing a study that showed that the more ideologically left someone is the more likely they are to be intelligent (think a Noam Chomsky type). Whereas the more ideologically right someone is, the less likely to be intelligent. Many voters are not strongly ideological and may be voting for simple issues like who they think will give a larger tax cut or be toughest on terrorism, since Republican voters tend to make more money than Democratic voters from what I’ve seen. I’m sure you have to really hash out the data so that we aren’t assuming causation. Republicans tend to be older, and older people tend to have higher income because they have longer work experience. It might also be skewed by a small but disproportionate amount of one percenters who vote Republican for purely business reasons but aren’t all that culturally conservative. When you go further and further right into culture/ideological conservatism, the types who want abortion banned, no gun restrictions, super-religious, homophobic, and racist, I think there’s a good chance that they have lower IQ than someone equally far on the other end of the spectrum. If I can find that study I’ll post the link.

I have also seen that study. It did indeed correlate ideological conservatism with ideological liberalism. And it definitely found that as you go further and further left, IQ goes up. I am very happy for the liberalism of my Black and Hispanic brothers, but most of them tend to be rather mild liberals rather than ideological Leftists, which is just fine. I think as you start moving into the real ideological left types, at least here in the US, they tend to be smarter. Even as Blacks and Browns move further left, they tend to get smarter. Black Leftists are not common, but a lot of the ones I meet are a lot smarter than your average Black. Same with Hispanics. In the US, it is very hard to become a Leftist or in many places even a liberal. The entire media is right-wing. Even the “liberal media” is right-wing. The New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Time and Newsweek magazines, all are right-wing publications. There are no liberal newspapers in the US. There are no liberal newsmagazines in the US. I will grant that MSNBC is a liberal station in the Democratic Party tradition, which is not very liberal. However, the rest of the TV newsmedia is right-wing, and even MSNBC follows state propaganda on US foreign policy. There is very little leftwing radio in the US. Other than NPR, which is always going on fund drives to raise money while Congress always threatens to cut their funding, there is there is only Pacifica, which is always under threat of going under from lack of funding. My life would have been so much easier if I would have just gone Republican like everyone else. Even when I worked in Beverly Hills, I was considered to be an excessively ideological left-winger. People weren’t against it. They just thought it was a bit odd to be so ideological, even in Hollywood! Being an ideological Leftist has not made my life easier at all. Part of the difficulty of going this way was seeking out the materials to create and back up my viewpoint in the first place. Even today, almost all news, radio and TV I am exposed to is the usual state propaganda or corporate and rightwing lies. I read and listen to all news with an extremely jaundiced ear, expecting that most of the news I am ingesting is a lie in some form or another. I isolate what appear to be the most outrageous lies, even though I cannot prove them to be lies. I read something and I think, “No way is that true! I need to go look that up!” So I go home and look it up on the Net and sure enough, almost 10 My point is, how many people do this? How many people are able to sift through the barrage of US government, corporate and rightwing lie blizzards and figure what’s true and what isn’t? Even worse, how each lie is actually a real lie and what the truthful point of view is instead? Most people don’t even have the time to partake of the news, much less digest them with a fine intellectual toothcomb like that. I think it is because it requires such mental heavyweight lifting to even figure out how you are being lied to by the Right and what the other view from the Left is, that many of the people you see on the Left will be those intelligent and educated enough to do this sort of high-level and fine-grained ideological sifting. Quite a few more educated Whites will be able to do this, but these will often by the brighter ones with at least some college. And of course the only Blacks and Browns who will even have the brain resources to do the sort of hard and difficult work of making these fine distinctions will only be the brighter ones.

The Myth of the Liberal Looneyland Called California

Even though this state has a reputation for being some liberal-Left Commie nightmare state, I actually live here in California, and almost everyone I meet is some species of conservative. Almost everyone you meet who has an actual ideological political opinion will be a Trumpist ideological conservative. There’s no such thing as a White liberal in this area. There are some White liberal Democrats in the mountains, but they’re not very liberal. I am not sure that is what red-staters think of when they think of liberal loonies, but your typical California liberal Democrat isn’t even very liberal, much less a liberal loony. They’re about as liberal as Obama or Hillary. In other words, they’re practically Republicans. Where I live, those who are liberal tend to be depoliticized Hispanics who vote Democrat out of habit without even knowing what it stands for. If you try to engage them on any type of political conversation, you will soon be lost because they have no knowledge of US politics. The Blacks vote Democrat out of habit and are actually more politically intelligent than Hispanics despite having lower IQ’s, which is interesting. However, even they do not seem to know much about US politics. The only people politically savvy enough to have political conversations with around here are Trumpist Republicans, and there are many of them. Even in this town, I would guess that most Whites are Trumpist Republicans. The Sierra Nevada from the foothills on up is 10 Most of the places I have lived in California over my lifetime have been very White and profoundly conservative. The idea that California is some sort of leftwing loony bin is much mistaken. The Whites here in California have long been extremely conservative. This state birthed the monstrosity called Ronald Reagan after all. And this year, but the very first time in decades, a majority of California Whites voted for a Democratic President. California Whites have been voting for Republicans for President, Congress, Legislature, State Senate and all other offices for decades now. The liberal loony California tends to be mostly in the Bay Area. LA is a lot less liberal, and when I lived there, most people around me were hardcore conservatives, even when I left in 1990. I’m not sure what LA is like now, but political charts show that LA is far more conservative than the Bay Area. Orange County has always been the most conservative part of the state. In fact, it was always one of the most conservative parts of the entire US. It is starting to go over lately, but the process will be slow, and it is still quite conservative here in a lot of the county. The Inland Empire of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties has always been deeply conservative, with a reputation for being made up of violent ultra-patriotic gun-wielding, pickup truck driving, liberal-ass-kicking White working class bikers and rednecks. I have a feeling this might be changing, but I don’t have any good figures. I spent a lot of time in many of these cities in the late 1980’s, and it was still deeply conservative at that time. The High Desert has always been quite conservative. It is starting to go over, but it is still mostly conservative. This has the same violent redneck population as the Inland Empire with an even more government-hating tinge to it. San Diego has been a deeply conservative Navy town forever. In recent years, it has started to go over. However, many of the wealthier and heavily White beach towns to the north are still very conservative. The Central Coast is more conservative than LA and less so than the Bay Area. Even in on the Central Coast, there are many wildly conservative people. The Central Valley is the most rightwing part of California. Most of the Whites here are indistinguishable from Whites you would meet in Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, or Indiana. The North Coast is a mixed bag. The North Bay up to Napa and Santa Rosa is not a lot different from the Bay Area. Sacramento is about the same as the North Coast, but there are many profoundly conservative people in that city. The Sacramento Valley is as conservative as the San Joaquin Valley if not much worse. But nobody much lives there. The North Coast is incredibly conservative mixed with liberal to out and out Leftist. Mostly the conservatives are in power, but the city council of Eureka recently went hard left. But for the most part, nobody really lives there. The mountains of North Central and Northeastern California are the most conservative part of the state. Cowboys, cows, ranchers, rednecks, loggers, 4 wheel drives, extreme Protestantism, guns, and government hatred are everywhere, and you might as well be in Wyoming or Idaho. In fact, a lot of this part of the state actually looks like the Intermountain or Great Basin West, so you could be excused for thinking you were actually in one of those states. This sad tendency is leavened by the fact that hardly anybody lives here.

The Truth is Racist: John Kelly Attacked as a Racist for Telling the Truth

The SJW Culture (face it, SJW’s control our entire culture now) is ripping General John Kelley to pieces for telling the truth about immigrants in an interview with NPR. When asked about Jeff Sessions’ hard-line anti-immigrant policy by NPR, Kelly said:

“Many illegal immigrants are not bad people…but they’re also not people that would easily assimilate into the United States. They’re overwhelmingly rural people. In the countries they come from, fourth-, fifth-, sixth-grade educations are kind of the norm. They don’t speak English, obviously that’s a big thing. They don’t integrate well; they don’t have skills.”

Let’s take this apart one by one here: “Illegal immigrants are not the type of people who would easily assimilate into the US.” That is simply flat out true. At the very least, it is perfectly rational opinion. The other opinion, that they are the type of people who easily integrate into the US, is the one that needs to prove their point as there seems to be little evidence that this is true. I live with these people. They are all around me. They brought Mexico here with them. They never left home. Their children are a lot more Americanized, but the immigrants themselves are not assimilated at all and have no desire to assimilate. They live in communities where everyone speaks Spanish and follows a Mexican culture little different from Mexico’s, so there’s no need to assimilate anyway.

They’re overwhelmingly rural people. In the countries they come from, fourth-, fifth-, sixth-grade educations are kind of the norm.

10 We are importing vast numbers of essentially uneducated peasants from the 3rd World. Why anyone thinks this is a good idea or how these people will be a net benefit to our country to any way is simply beyond me. A 1st World country has no sensible reason to import vast numbers of rural 3rd World peasants with a 5th grade education into their country. Why the vast majority of the media culture in the US think this is a good idea is beyond me.  

Why the US Working Class Is Not Radicalized

Radicalized meaning having any sort of working class or class consciousness at all. Radicalized meaning pro-worker. Yes, believe it or not, the US working class is not even pro-worker. The US working class is actually anti-worker! The problem is that we do not have a tradition of working class radicalism here as in Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina. Working class people in all of those countries are radicalized and pro-worker with a high state of class consciousness and they usually vote for pro-worker political parties. Mexicans, however, are profoundly depoliticized. Nevertheless, you can argue as my mother does when I asked her why the Central American revolutions were not spreading to Mexico, to which she responded that “The Mexicans already had their revolution.” And though the Left neglects to see it this way, the Mexican Revolution was definitely one of the great leftwing revolutions of the 20th Century, at least as good as the Russian Revolution and without many of the problems. Most people don’t realize how horrible feudal life was in Mexico before the Mexican Revolution. If I told you what it was like, you would quit reading and call me a liar. It was that bad. In Latin America, your average proletarian, working class person, who, let’s face it, is not real smart, is often ideologically Leftist, as they have been politicized by powerful leftwing movements. There are no powerful leftwing movements in the US to do this, so the non-White working classes are not radicalized. They are liberalized but not radicalized. The White working classes are actually ideologically Rightist, which makes no sense at all of course. However, I have met many Salvadorans here. I tell them that I used to support the FMLN revolutionaries down there and that I even used to contribute to their weapons fund. It’s actually true. I would meet a guy in a sleazy Salvadoran bar in Lafayette Park and give him a check to some weird cryptic organization. They are hesitant at first but then they break into wide smiles. Even those who did not support the FMLN don’t really care that I did. That movement was radical Left but had huge support across society because Salvadoran society is very unfair.

Mexicans, a Portrait of a Depoliticized People

Mexicans in their own country and in the US are profoundly depoliticized and do not know their ass from a hole in the ground politically, for which I blame that awful fake revolutionary party in power for decades. It is true that the party preserved many good progressive structures, but they didn’t go further from that. It’s hard to call yourselves a revolutionary party in a land where many people complete only 2nd-5th grade education. I meet Mexicans like this all the time aged 20-40. Some told me that their kids never went to school past 5th grade. It costs money to go to school down there, and many people cannot afford it, so their kids only get a few years’ schooling. This is happening to this very day. Many rural schools are defunded and have no money to pay teachers, so many students drop out in the 2nd grade or so to go work out in the fields. Sound like a revolutionary party? Yes, there is free medical care and it is decent enough. You might have to wait in line all day, but you will still get in, and they will treat you. As with everything else, it is horribly defunded. Sound like a revolutionary party? 2 Sound like a revolutionary party? The ejido system brought by the Mexican Revolution is great and has prevented another revolution, but it was never properly funded. Most land in Mexico is owned by the state and divided into ejidos. Anyone who cannot make a living in the cities can always go to some ejido and join as a worker and work the land. At least you will end up with enough food to eat. However, some recent administrations have started to privatize the ejido system, which will be catastrophic for Mexicans. The oil company remains nationalized, a source of pride for most Mexicans. I remember gas was damn cheap down there. There was only one type of gas station, but they sure sold gas cheap. However, there have been recent moves to privatize the oil company, which have run in to a lot of opposition. I believe it was privatized under Benito Juarez.   Because I am a provocateur, I like to mess around with the local Mexicans and tell them I am a radical. I flat out tell them that I am a Communist and a revolutionary. They often look a bit puzzled, but they are not angry. They often seem curious and seem to think that I am on their side. Then I make a fist and say “Revolution! Benito Juarez! Pancho Villa! Emilio Zapata!” Everyone is very happy and cheers me on. These are the heroes of the Mexican Revolution and afterwards and frankly, all of them were out and out Leftists. So the heroes of the Mexican working class for almost a century have been full blown Leftists. I would say there is a lot of underground and unconscious support for Leftism among working class Mexicans and of course Salvadorans. Mexicans simply had their revolutionary spirit co-opted by that fake revolutionary party which started out with great motives but got very corrupted and bureaucratized over time

Why Do Many Geniuses Have a Large Forehead?

You mean people with genius IQ’s over 140? I am not sure about those with 140–160 IQ’s. Their heads are surely larger than average, but whether you would notice it or not is dubious. But quite a few super geniuses with IQ’s of 160–200 have extremely large heads. Christopher Langan had to special order a motorcycle helmet made specifically for him because his head was so big. The manufacturer told him that only 1 out of every 3.3 million people had a head as big as his. He has some videos on Youtube. If you look closely at him, you might notice that one thing that is remarkable about him is that he does indeed have a huge head. This is where the term “egghead” comes from. If you get a chance, look up an old photo of the team that worked at the Manhattan Project to make the nuclear bomb at White Sands, New Mexico. There are 30-40 men in that photo. Look closely at them, and you will see that most of them have pretty big heads. In particular, look at how big their foreheads are. The larger forehead on very bright men gave an egg-shaped appearance to their skulls, which gave rise to the phrase.

How Important is IQ/Natural Intelligence for Getting into Top-Tier Grad Schools?

Answered on Quora. It’s very important, but as the answers below suggest, no school will ask you for that, and you might not even want to volunteer it. Some of the answers below don’t make sense. Some say IQ doesn’t matter, grades do. IQ is very highly correlated with grades. Testing well on GRE’s will be very highly correlated with IQ. Of course the ability to do good research will be well correlated with IQ. And I am sure that recommendation letters and their quality is correlated with IQ also. So most of these answers are circular, tautological. They are saying, “IQ isn’t important. It’s all these other things (that just happen to be highly correlated with IQ) that are important.” So IQ’s important after all. Some quotes are correct though. You will have to work your ass off in grad school no matter what your IQ is, and you may not even graduate out. I almost didn’t get my Masters, and I have a stratospheric IQ. Everyone wants to get the doctorate, but the Masters was such murder that no way am I going for something a lot worse. IQ is natural intelligence. One answer below says they are looking for grad students who can come up with novel methods to solve unsolved problems. What do you think an IQ test looks for almost more than anything else? Just that. Bottom line: If you are thinking of getting into grad school for purposes of getting a PhD, an IQ of 125 is highly recommended: this is the average IQ of PhD holders. I suspect there is a floor of ~115 for PhD degrees. There is a similar floor at that level for physicians. Go ahead and look up your score from school or pay a clinician to administer a good test, or if you are still in school, ask to be tested. Go the Psychology Department and ask if the Counseling Office balks – they often will test you for free. If you do not have at least a 115 IQ, I would seriously reconsider trying to get into a PhD program at a top university. You are setting yourself up for failure. The only exception would be if you have a very lopsided IQ such that say you have great math skills but poor language skills so you end up like the well-known female mathematician with a 98 IQ. 1

As an Exceptionally/Profoundly Gifted Person (IQ 146+), What Are Your Thoughts on Derrida, Foucault, and Lacan?

Answered on Quora. Thanks for the A2A. I am familiar with all three. Lacan is completely full of it. Not only that, he was a fraud who ripped off his clients. He may have ripped off all of us with his nonsense. Derrida is nonsensical too. He simply made no sense whatsoever. Apparently that is the idea. Both men took modern philosophy off into postmodernism where nothing is true, so apparently nothing makes sense either. Most of their work is sheer nonsense or strings of incomprehensible or made-up words that sound important or intelligent but really are simply nonsensical. Foucalt may be a bit more grounded, but I am not sure. I have not studied him enough. But I know some anti-postmodernists hate him and say he is full of crap. I meet your intelligence qualifications, so it can’t be that I am too stupid to understand these charlatans. If I can’t understand them, I doubt if anyone can. We need to get off the postmodernist nonsense train and back into the real world where things are supposed to be comprehensible and make sense.

Are Most Male Flight Attendants Gay?

Answered on Quora. Absolutely. Anecdotal evidence (see other responses) shows that at least 5 It’s just one of those jobs that attracts a lot of gay men. And for that same reason, the fact that it is a job associated with gay men, it probably scares a lot of straight men away from it. That said, one of my best friends went off to be a flight attendant a few years after high school, and he was straight as Hell and quite homophobic too, I might add.

Whites Are Only Decent and Progressive When They Are a Majority

Jason: Anyway, what I meant to say is that SA whites being richer were jerks out of fear of safety, and also the richer behave that way everywhere else regardless of what race they are.

But South African whites, to be honest, got on the bad side of the liberal community – especially because their social system was race-based. In other words, they could have done the same thing by just hiding in rich neighborhoods like California people do now. In other words, California is just as racist as South Africa – in a sense – because the poor are kept out of richer areas “unofficially” via crime laws.

I agree with you that the middle classes and rich act bad and reactionary pretty much everywhere on Earth, but here in California, we do have some decent and progressive middle class and rich people, at least in some areas, particularly on the coast. I am thinking of the Bay Area in particular. Those are probably some of the best-behaved and progressive middle and upper class Whites outside of Europe. And we Whites are a minority here, so this is odd.

Also rich and middle class Whites are progressive and act pretty good in all of Europe (except the UK), Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. But Whites are a majority in all of those places.

The problem is that in most places on Earth where Whites become a minority, they turn into the worst fascists on Earth. A process that is presently unfolding here in the US.

Face facts. White people in general only act decent when they are in the majority. When they are a minority, get ready for fascism, genocide, death squads, etc. Coming soon to the US. The fascism part is already here apparently, as the Republican Party has now gone full fascist.

Show me anywhere on Earth where a White minority acts decently at all, except California and Hawaii.

Honestly though, the Chinese do not act much differently. Chinese in China and Taiwan act pretty good and are quite progressive, but the Chinese minorities in the Philippines and Indonesia are reactionary monsters, especially the ones in the Philippines, where they are openly fascist and genocidal, complete with death squads and the whole nine yards.

Are Whites in California Just as Racist as Whites in South Africa?

Answered on Quora.

Jason: Anyway, what I meant to say is that SA whites being richer were jerks out of fear of safety – and also the richer behave that way everywhere else – regardless of whatever race they’re in. But South African whites, to be honest, got on the bad side of the liberal community – especially, cause their social system was race based. In other words, they could have done the same thing by just hiding into rich neighborhoods, like California people do now. In other words, California is just as racist as South Africa – in a sense – cause the poor are kept out of richer areas “unofficially” via crime laws.

Can you show me how the Whites in California are just as racist as South African Whites? Can you show me how Whites in California keep Blacks and Browns, or poor people in general, out of White areas?

The Truth about Africa, Immigration, and IQ

I have nothing to add here.

Tim Watkins: Immigration patterns are obviously backwards, of what they should be. People should be going from high IQ countries to low IQ countries…from Japan, China, Germany, etc…to Africa…increasing the number of high IQ humans in African countries, to help them solve their problems. The problem in South Africa was not too many whites. It was too few Whites…Whites felt threatened by the large black majority, so they acted like racist assholes. That doesn’t change the fact that high IQ Whites basically provide all the professionals to make a modern economy run in Africa. So in African nations the people who are generally the smartest are the ones that leave to emigrate to high IQ countries. This helps countries like the United States but hurts the African countries who can’t afford to lose high IQ people. An example of this was President Obama’s dad, who was a champion African scholar. Liberals encourage the economic devastation and slow pace of improving the lives of Africans by encouraging Africans to immigrate to America. Liberals do this because they claim, “we are not racist”…but if racism is defined as doing things which hurt other races, then liberals are the most racist people among the White population. If Africa had 2 Sorry liberals…but that’s the truth. Get your head out of the sand. Your so-called “anti-racism” leads to an awful lot of suffering among our fellow humans in Africa.

 

Would Anyone in the US with Normal Intelligence (98 IQ), Ambition, and Absence of Disastrous Life Choices Be Impoverished?

Answered on Quora. Of course. I know people with IQ’s of 140–150, good education (BA to MA), good looks, good social skills, good work history, etc. who are either impoverished or have a low income. Making money is a lot more of a crap shoot than anyone thinks, especially in capitalism because capitalism doesn’t care about utilizing every member of society to their fullest potential. The Communist countries, no matter what you think of them (and I include China here), probably would have tested all of these people early in life, realized that their intelligence at least had to be utilized by society, and set them on some sort of a track towards putting these people’s intelligence at least in positions where they could maximally benefit society and the state. The Communists were not interested in wasting human potential. In fact, they were ideologically opposed to it. Capitalism on the other hand claims to care about human potential but actually is neither in favor of or opposed to utilizing it. It is simply indifferent to whether the human potential of society is utilized or not. Capitalism is about maximizing profits and nothing else. If profits can still be maximized while still wasting the potential of millions, capitalism is indifferent. Furthermore, capitalism, unlike Communism, is indifferent to maximizing human potential to better society and the state. Capitalism is hostile to the state and would just as soon almost do away with it, and capitalism cares not one whit about benefiting society as a whole. As long as high profits are being made, capitalists could care less about what state society, the nation, or the ethnic group are in because they are indifferent to the well-being of all of these things. I am not advocating for Communism or socialism here over capitalism. There are serious benefits and drawbacks to each system. But the Communists obviously did a much better job than the capitalists at getting the maximal benefit to society and the nation out of as many individuals as possible.

Can Your IQ Increase During Adolescence?

Answered on Quora. Yes, oddly enough, IQ does move around somewhat, including gains or losses of up to 10–15 points, during adolescence. It is not quite known why IQ can move around a bit in adolescence, but in that stage of life, you can move around in a lot of ways. Your personality is not fully formed yet, so we cannot diagnose personality disorders in adolescence. In addition, you can intervene with some dangerous adolescents, and if you work hard enough, you can make some good progress with them. I recall a young man who seemed to be headed for a career as a rapist, but they grabbed him as a teenager and threw him into intensive therapy. He’s now 40–50, and he hasn’t raped anyone yet. Some adolescents may be on track to seriously assault, attempt to kill or kill other people. I believe that if grab them early enough as teenagers and work hard on them, we can at least get to where they don’t kill anyone during their lifetimes. I have had some good success with people like this myself. In adulthood, your IQ gets a lot more stuck and it’s hard to raise it. Long ago when I was in high school, a friend told me that a psychologist told him that you could raise your IQ ~15 points even in adulthood if you really put a Herculean effort into it, but it’s so hard to do, that most don’t do it. He also said that you hit a ceiling at 15 IQ points gain, and you can’t gain any more than that. I think you might be able to lose ~15 IQ points if you sit on your butt, never think or open a book, or stay stoned or drunk a lot. But you will probably hit a floor where you can’t drop it anymore no matter how much of a slacker you are. Large IQ declines are sometimes seen in illnesses, particularly illnesses of the brain. There is a woman on Quora who documented I believe a 57 point drop in IQ due to her Multiple Sclerosis. She was at Genius IQ before and she fell down to Low Normal. Other MS sufferers also complain of IQ drops. MS is a disease of the brain, so it makes sense.

What Are Traps, and Are They Gay?

Answered on Quora. A trap is either a pre-op transwoman or possibly a gay transvestite. You will go off with them and try to have sex with them as if you are having sex with a woman. If you are a straight man and you get halfway through and realize it’s really a man you are having sex with, you might flip. I don’t want to justify killing transsexuals, but I think this is probably the reason that some transwomen are murdered. A friend of mine picked up a woman in a taxi. They went back to his place and she started giving him a blowjob. He reached down to her panties and he felt a penis and testicles. He completely flipped out. He was still freaking out when he contacted me later on messenger. “Am I gay, Bob? Do you think I’m gay?” He kept asking me that. It was a pretty traumatizing experience. Yes, traps are all gay. Drag queens are of course gay, and all transwomen looking to have sex with men were previously gay men. A true trap (a true pre-op transwoman who doesn’t tell you her status) is indeed a trap because she trapped you into having sex with a man unawares. As a word for transwomen in general though, I think it is a slur. It would apply to transwomen who try to have sex with straight men unawares though, that’s for sure.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)