Alt Left: “Child Molester” and “Pedophile” Are Not Synonyms

~75% of child molesters are non-pedophilic molesters. They’re no more pedophiles than any other man. This shows again that there is a difference between the terms pedophile and child molester. Most of this molesting tends to be in the family whereas pedophilic molesters tend to molest outside the family, in part because they often have no children of their own.

There is nothing wrong with these non-pedophilic molesters sexually and probably even psychologically – their sexual interests are quite ordinary. They are “normal” in the way that most criminals are “normal” – that is, they are not the slightest bit crazy. The fact that criminals in general are not crazy and in fact are often remarkably sane is in part what makes them so dangerous. If they were crazy we could protect ourselves from them better. The fact that they are so sane is what enables them to get away with their crimes and also makes them hard to catch.

Rather these are simply bad men who are opportunistic and will have sex with females in general – women, children, no matter. A female relative or child is also a very easy target for these very manipulative men. In some cases it is an alternative if the wife has cut off the sex. The best description of these men is that they are simply criminals. They are users and their behavior is part of a pattern of control and abuse, often combined with verbal and physical abuse.

It is hard to say how girls how girls are effected, for it is mostly girls who are effected by intrafamilial child molesting in part because most gay men do not have children nor do they have access to them. Most molesting of boys does not occur in the family, and in fact such molesting is not very common.

Instead most boys are molested by homosexual pedophiles. And of course there are homosexual pedophiles  – the woke crowd claims that homosexuals and pedophiles cannot be one and the same and yet they can.

They tell this lie because sadly gay men do have a pretty high rate of child molesting, mostly probably of the pedophilic variety.

A logical explanation for this is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are probably developmental disorders, as is biological transsexualism. Something goes wrong developmentally with the fetus in the womb, hormonally in the case of male homosexuality and biological transsexualism but due to unknown factors in the case of pedophilia. It would stand to reason that developmental disorders might tend to overlap due to a common cause.

Pedophilia may be caused by subtle brain damage. Neurological soft signs – typically evidence of subtle brain damage – are very common in pedophiles. Furthermore, pedophiles tend to have lower IQ’s than non-pedophiles, once again suggestive of mild brain damage. 

In some ways it is worse if your own father is doing it to you. Nevertheless, most seem to get over it with time. The behavior of non-pedophilic molesters is outside the purview of mental health because we just talk about whether behavior or persons are crazy or not. And these men are not crazy. They’re just bad. We are talking about matters of morality and law, not matters of psychology and psychiatry.

There is often significant Cluster B Axis 2 Personality Disorder pathology as is the case with most men who use and abuse others. These men are fairly easy to rehabilitate absent significant psychopathy because significant guilt is not uncommon, and they are not pedophilic, so they can easily fulfill their sexual needs without resorting to children. Probably in India, Morocco and most of the Third World, most molesting is by non-pedophilic molesters because pedophilia proper is not well known in these places, and most men, even gay men, tend to marry and have children due to societal pressure.

Alt Left: Repost: An Easy Way to Raise the IQ’s of 100’s of Millions

Repost from the old site.

Get rid of iodine deficiency.

Amazingly, even moderate iodine deficiency causes IQ declines of 10-15 points if it’s in a pregnant woman or an infant. It looks like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, India, Ethiopia, Sudan, Guinea, Senegal and Sierra Leone all have moderate to severe deficiency.

It would be interesting to see a better rundown of the severity of the deficiency in each place so we could figure out how much collective IQ could go up with iodine supplementation. In India, 500 million (50% of the population) get too little iodine, 54 million have goiter (severe deficiency) and 2 million are cretins due to extreme deficiency.

Yet another failure of Indian capitalism to provide for the very basics in human needs in India, and one more reason I support the Maoist revolutionaries in that country.

Many other nations have mild deficiencies. I don’t know what a mild deficiency does to your IQ, if anything. 16% of the world’s population has goiters, which are apparently caused only by iodine deficiency. That’s ridiculous. 1/6 of the world’s population.

Alt Left: Repost: Flynn Effect in North Africans/Turks Migrated To West Europe

From an article by Philippe Rushton, hereditarian, a revelation about yet another instance of skyrocketing IQ increases in the second generation born in the West after migrating from the less developed areas.

Previously, we noted that the children Jamaican immigrants to the UK (IQ = 71) have IQ’s of 85-86, typically within a single generation. That is a gain of 14.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. Hereditarians have offered many rationales for this. The usual is that the Jamaican immigrants were already very bright anyway (as we will see with Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands, this is not true).

Another is that Jamaicans in the UK are very heavily bred in with Whites to the point where they may be only 1/2 White. This is not true – UK Jamaicans are only 12% White (Jamaicans in Jamaica are 9% White).

The children of Indian and Pakistani immigrants to the UK (IQ = 81.5) have IQ’s ranging from 92 (Rushton) to 96 (a figure I prefer). Call it 94. This is a gain of 12.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. The counter-argument here once again is that this group is self-selected.

Taken together, the children of Jamaican and East Indian immigrants see rises of 13.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. It is true that beyond the initial jump, we are not seeing more rises.

However, a strong initial jump is perfectly consonant with a hyperinjection of massive intellectual stimulation, good health care, proper diet, etc. This is probably all related to a higher standard of living. Higher standards of living seem to be somehow translating into long-term rises in IQ. The mechanisms can be debated, and we have done so on this blog.

Education, a massively-stimulating environment (computers, cell phones, TV, movies), proper nutrition, good health care, and myriad other things have been suggested, but the mechanisms for the rises are still somewhat mysterious.

Now, via Rushton, we have yet more evidence of a Flynn Effect in immigrants to the West. First generation Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands had IQ’s of 81. This is low. The Moroccan norm IQ is 84 and the Turkish norm IQ is 90. So, contrary to the argument that only the very brightest immigrants are going to the West, it seems instead that the less bright immigrants are arriving instead.

The second generation has IQ’s of 89. 89 is around the Turkish average, but it is 5 points above the Moroccan average. At any rate, it shows a Flynn gain of 8 points simply by migrating to the West. Rushton tries to explain this away somehow, but he doesn’t do a good job of it.

The evidence for massive IQ gains in second generation immigrants to the West is now becoming overwhelming and it is going to be harder and harder for hereditarians to explain this stuff away.

Comparison of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants to the West and the resulting Flynn Effect gains, apparently solely by being born and raised in the West. The common factor behind rising IQ’s in the West may be related to rising standards of living.

                   1st     2nd     Gain
UK Jamaicans       71      85.5    14.5
UK East Indians    81.5    94      12.5
ND Moroccans/Turks 81      88      7
Average            78      89      11.5

Repost: Alt Left: Black Males and Testosterone: Evolution and Perspectives

Black Males and Testosterone: Evolution and Perspectives

Repost from the old blog. Interesting stuff.

Development of agriculture in modern Blacks also seems to have led to high testosterone levels. Groups with the highest testosterone in the world today are primitive agriculturalists.

Hunter-gatherers tend to have lower testosterone. This is because in hunter-gatherer society, women need men to survive. So they  grab one pretty quickly and get married.

In primitive agricultural societies, women do not need men, since they can farm on their own. So they can afford to be choosy. These societies have tended to develop in a polygynous way, where a few high-ranking males monopolize most of the females, and the rest of the guys get none. It’s kind of like high school, except it keeps going for your whole life.

Sub-Saharan Blacks are highly polygynous, and this resulted in intense competition for fewer women and selection for very robust male body types. SS Blacks are more robust than Whites on all variables. In Namibia, the polygynous Kavango have much higher testosterone than the much less polygynous !Kung.

Young Black males have higher levels of active testosterone than European and Asian males. Asian levels are intermediate to Blacks and Whites, but Asians have lower levels of a chemical needed to convert testosterone to its active agent, so effectively they have lower levels. Androgen receptor sensitivity is highest in Black men, intermediate in Whites and lowest in Asians.

US Blacks have the highest rate of prostate cancer on Earth, and the levels in African Blacks may be just as high.

Blacks do not retain high testosterone throughout life.

Blacks have much higher testosterone levels than Whites from age 7-24. After 24, the difference starts shrinking, and by the early 30′s, it is gone. In later years, White men have higher testosterone than Black men. This makes it very difficult if not impossible to explain differing behavioral variables, including higher rates of crime and aggression, in Black males over the age of 33 on the basis of elevated testosterone levels.

Higher testosterone levels are linked to violent behavior. High testosterone results in lower IQ in males but better fighting and mating skills. Interestingly, the black male IQ is 83 and black female IQ is 87.

By the same token, Black females earn 99% of what White females earn when they are employed, implying either than White racism is minor in the US against Black females, or whatever racism exists is being effectively countered by diversity goals, affirmative action and whatnot.

Testosterone is an interesting hormone. A little extra testosterone makes a man – good visuospatial skills, etc. Lots of extra testosterone is too much of a good thing – it lowers IQ.

In the UK, young Black females have higher IQ’s than young Black males. However, Black females also have higher testosterone than White females.

Black boys’ exposure to high testosterone begins in the womb. Black mothers’ wombs have higher testosterone, and this feeds to the fetus.

Assuming that higher Black testosterone levels are a causative agent in Black crime, aggression and lowered IQ, experimental interventions could be tried: two pills – first one pill to lower testosterone to Black fetus’s brains by 20%, and possibly another pill to lower Black infant testosterone by 20% – could be beneficial. Such an intervention could possibly raise Black male IQ and decrease Black male crime.

Of course, in our insane PC anti-racist society, such interventions are banned now and forevermore as “racist.”

Repost: Get Small Or Die

Repost from the old site. Discusses why people in very hot climates evolve to be short and dark-skinned. It’s that or die, real simple.

Get Small Or Die

Why are Pygmies (a tiny Negroid people living in Central Africa) so small?

Same reason folks living in tropical rainforests all over the world tend to be small. In that environment, it’s get small or die. Real simple. Understand, pilgrim?

A tropical rainforest is an unusual place. It’s not 115 in the shade like the deserts of the Middle East. It’s more like 80-90 all year round. While it’s not extremely hot, it does have very high humidity – close to 100%. That creates a serious problem with cooling off.

At lesser humidity, you sweat like a pig and the lesser humidity allows the sweat to evaporate. As it evaporates, the sweat cools. That’s how you cool off. A similar cooling by evaporation mechanism is used to cool off your refrigerator.

When the humidity gets near 100%, your sweat stops evaporating. You can sweat all day and nite and it doesn’t do much good. Our body temperature of 98.6 runs the risk of rising, even past the survival point of 107-108.

It’s true that Pygmies sweat a lot, but not enough to save their hides.

As the website explains better than I can:

First, the surface area of a small body is greater in relation to its volume.

It is a mathematical fact: if cube A in Fig. 1.4 is 1 centimeter along each side and cube B is 2 centimeters, then A’s surface area is one-quarter that of B, but its volume is eight times smaller.

Heat is produced in the mass of the body, particularly in the liver and muscles, and is lost through the surface; if the latter is larger relative to body mass because a person is small, heat loss is easier and cooling more efficient. In a warm and humid environment, it is best to be small.

Next, Pygmies extend less effort because they are smaller. If you need to use have lots of energy, it’s better to be smaller, because you need to utilize less energy to keep moving if you are smaller. Marathoners tend to be short. It takes less effort to move a smaller body around than it takes to move a big body around, which is why smaller cars get better mileage than bigger ones.

If you are transporting small loads, a pony is a better way to do it. You need a horse for a large load, just like you need an 18 wheeler for big hauls. The fact that a pony is better for the small stuff is why it was used in the Pony Express. They produce more energy per food unit consumed, the same way a Honda gets more energy miles per unit of food gas than a Hummer does.

Pygmies are excellent at dissipating heat and expertly adapted to living in the jungle where there is low carbohydrate and protein reserve. They’re sort of the human Priuses of the jungle.

No one knows how long Pygmies have been evolving. Some say that tropical rainforests have only been around for 5,000 years or less. I disagree. Some gene studies show that Pygmies and other Africans may have split as far back as 70,000 years before present (YBP).

The main problem here is a lack of fossils in the rainforest. Things decay so fast there that we hardly find the bones of anything there. However, there have been skulls found around Central African Republic and north into the Sahel. Here Negroids (modern Blacks) evolved over the past 6-12,000 years. Prior to that, Africans looked like either Khoisan types or Pygmy types.

Pygmies are very athletic and graceful. A Pygmy can shimmy up a tree 100 feet with striking agility.

Pygmies are not necessarily stupid, though some IQ researchers think that their IQ’s are quite low; there has been only one study, done in 1910. Richard Lynn, a racist but generally a good researcher, feels that the Pygmy IQ may be lower even than the African Black average of 67.

Although Pygmy heads are small, their heads are about as big as ours. Nevertheless, the relationship between head size and IQ is weak. Vietnamese have some of the smallest heads on Earth, and their IQ is 99.5.

Pygmies have the widest noses in the world. A small nose is only useful in cold weather. With a small nose, the air inhaled has time to heat up before it reaches the lungs. Air is already warm in the rainforest, so there is no need to heat it up with a nose filter, so a wider nose is better. The wide noses of other Africans may have a similar evolutionary explanation.

Racist idiots like to dog on people for being short. There are short people everywhere there are tropical forests. Examples are the peoples of southern India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Central American and Amazonian Indians. But the Pygmies are the smallest of all.

Alt Left: A Look at the IQ’s of Three Famous Black Rappers

Bernarobert Lindsanders:

What do you estimate the IQ of this guy is? His name is Lil Pump, and he makes the most vapid, trashy music there is. Oh, and he’s a Trump supporter.

https://youtu.be/4LfJnj66HVQ

Lil Pump recently took a Mensa test in college and it showed he has an IQ of 142! Jesus Christ! He’s almost as smart as Robert Lindsay. And that’s pretty smart!

He’s goddamned genius! I told ya.

If I were administering the test though, I would have subtracted at least 10 from his score for supporting Trump. I believe that’s standard best practice when administering these tests nowadays.

Bernarobert Lindsanders:

What about this obvious intellectual giant, Daniel Hernandez, aka “6ix9ine”?

https://youtu.be/VDa5iGiPgGs

Actually, 6ix9ine has a very low IQ of 63. He’s been diagnosed with mild mental retardation. I have to doubt that figure though. It seems way off. Mostly it just sees too high, don’t you think?

That proves what I’ve always thought – that most rapper and their fans are pretty near-retarded. I’m not sure if the music actually makes you retarded de novo or if it’s self-selection whereby the dumber you are, the more attracted you to this fucktarded music. It’s a chicken of the egg problem, and I’m not sure what the answer is. But I’m inclined towards the de novo because I swear to God, I could literally feel by IQ drop a point or two after watching these videos.

He’s in prison where he belongs now.

Bernarobert Lindsanders:

Finally, these big-brained queens:

https://youtu.be/hsm4poTWjMs

This ratchet named Cardi B is smarter than you think. She took AP classes in high school. How many Blacks do that? Not too many. She was also on the honor roll.

“The Inner Landscape of the Psychopath,” by Hervey Cleckley

This is one of the finest descriptions I have ever read of the psychopath. I’ve been studying them for decades now, and I still don’t understand them. They simply don’t make sense. I can’t see how they can do what they do without feeling guilt or caring what others think. With this article though, I am at least starting to get a picture of the inner dynamics of the psychopath.

The work below is a classic, of course, and it is the first major work in psychiatry that attempted to describe psychopathy. It is still just as relevant today as it was 80 years ago. This is a chapter from Cleckley’s book.

It’s intense reading. It’s not so much hard to understand as it is dense. There are some many concepts packed into even one paragraph that it gets slow-going. This is especially true for me as, with an article below, I have to form a “picture” in my mind to truly understand a lot of the prose. When I write I also think in pictures. I get a picture, try to figure out what’s in it and what it’s about, and then set about describing the picture in words the best I can. Most art forms are similar. We writers make paintings and movies in our head, the raw material of our prose.

The section below is 31 pages including my mad scribbling. If there’s anything you can’t understand or follow in this piece, feel free to bring it up in the comments and I will try to explain it as I pretty much understood everything written below. It took me a while, but I did get it.

That said, this piece is a serious “brain fry.” I call brain fries any prose that pushes your mind to its absolute limits, like going to the gym and pushing your body to its limits. You have to go slow because there are so many concepts being pushed so quickly, but if you concentrate hard enough, you can figure out most brain fry prose. A lot of people who like simplistic writing or don’t want to work their brains at Autobahn speed probably think texts like this are a nightmare or a pain in the ass. They’re not having a good time when they’re reading it. It’s one frustration after another.

And just because I understood everything below doesn’t mean everyone else can. Keep in mind I have a genius IQ of 147. So a person with a 147 IQ can muddle through everything below and figure it all out. 99.9% of the population is below 147, and I don’t have the faintest notion how well they can get through stuff like this or how much they can understand of it at different IQ levels. If you understand everything below and know your IQ, you might want to comment to tell us that you got it all, give us your number, and tell us what sort of a ride it was machete slashing through this word tangle.

The Inner Landscape of the Psychopath

From: The Mask of Sanity, by Hervey Cleckley, 1941, 5th edition

The surface of the psychopath, however, that is, all of him that can be reached by verbal exploration and direct examination, shows up as equal to or better than normal and gives no hint at all of a disorder within.

Nothing about him suggests oddness, inadequacy, or moral frailty. His mask is that of robust mental health. Yet he has a disorder that often manifests itself in conduct far more seriously abnormal than that of the schizophrenic.

Inwardly, too, there appears to be a significant difference.

Deep in the masked schizophrenic we often sense a cold, weird indifference to many of life’s most urgent issues and sometimes also bizarre, inexplicable, and unpredictable but intense emotional reactions to what seems almost irrelevant.

Behind the exquisitely deceptive mask of the psychopath the emotional alteration we feel appears to be primarily one of degree, a consistent leveling of response to petty ranges and an incapacity to react with sufficient seriousness to achieve much more than pseudoexperience or quasi-experience. Nowhere within do we find a real cause or a sincere commitment, reasonable or unreasonable. There is nowhere the loyalty to produce real and lasting allegiance even to a negative or fanatic cause.

Just as meaning and the adequate sense of things as a whole are lost with semantic aphasia in the circumscribed field of speech although the technical mimicry of language remains intact, so in most psychopaths the purposiveness and the significance of all life-striving and of all subjective experience are affected without obvious damage to the outer appearance or superficial reactions of the personality. Nor is there any loss of technical or measurable intelligence.

With such a biologic change the human being becomes more reflex, more machinelike. It has been said that a monkey endowed with sufficient longevity would, if he continuously pounded the keys of a typewriter, finally strike by pure chance the very succession of keys to reproduce all the plays of Shakespeare.

These papers so composed in the complete absence of purpose and human awareness would look just as good to any scholar as the actual works of the Bard. Yet we cannot deny that there is a difference. Meaning and life at a prodigiously high level of human values went into one and merely the rule of permutations and combinations would go into the other.

The patient semantically defective by lack of meaningful purpose and realization at deep levels does not, of course, strike sane and normal attitudes merely by chance. His rational power enables him to mimic directly the complex play of human living. Yet what looks like sane realization and normal experience remains, in a sense and to some degree, like the plays of our simian typist.

In Henry Head’s interpretation of semantic aphasia we find, however, concepts of neural function and of its integration and impairment that help to convey a hypothesis of grave personality disorder thoroughly screened by the intact peripheral operation of all ordinary abilities.

In relatively abstract or circumscribed situations, such as the psychiatric examination or the trial in court, these abilities do not show impairment but more or less automatically demonstrate an outer sanity unquestionable in all its aspects and at all levels accessible to the observer. That this technical sanity is little more than a mimicry of true sanity cannot be proved at such levels.

Only when the subject sets out to conduct his life can we get evidence of how little his good theoretical understanding means to him, of how inadequate and insubstantial are the apparently normal basic emotional reactions and motivations convincingly portrayed and enunciated but existing in little more than two dimensions.

What we take as evidence of his sanity will not significantly or consistently influence his behavior. Nor does it represent real intention within, the degree of his emotional response, or the quality of his personal experience much more reliably than some grammatically well-formed, clear, and perhaps verbally sensible statement produced vocally by the autonomous neural apparatus of a patient with semantic aphasia can be said to represent such a patient’s thought or carry a meaningful communication of it.

Let us assume tentatively that the psychopath is, in this sense, semantically disordered. We have said that his outer functional aspect masks or disguises something quite different within, concealing behind a perfect mimicry of normal emotion, fine intelligence, and social responsibility a grossly disabled and irresponsible personality. Must we conclude that this disguise is a mere pretense voluntarily assumed and that the psychopath’s essential dysfunction should be classed as mere hypocrisy instead of psychiatric defect or deformity?

Let us remember that his typical behavior defeats what appear to be his own aims.

Is it not he himself who is most deeply deceived by his apparent normality?

Although he deliberately cheats others and is quite conscious of his lies, he appears unable to distinguish adequately between his own pseudointentions, pseudoremorse, pseudolove, and the genuine responses of a normal person.

His monumental lack of insight indicates how little he appreciates the nature of his disorder.

When others fail to accept immediately his “word of honor as a gentleman,” his amazement, I believe, is often genuine. The term genuine is used here not to qualify the psychopath’s intentions but to qualify his amazement. His subjective experience is so bleached of deep emotion that he is invincibly ignorant of what life means to others.

His awareness of hypocrisy’s opposite is so insubstantially theoretical that it becomes questionable if what we chiefly mean by hypocrisy should be attributed to him.

Having no major values himself, can he be said to realize adequately the nature and quality of the outrages his conduct inflicts upon others?

A young child who has no impressive memory of severe pain may have been told by his mother it is wrong to cut off the dog’s tail. Knowing it is wrong he may proceed with the operation. We need not totally absolve him of responsibility if we say he realized less what he did than an adult who, in full appreciation of physical agony, so uses a knife.

Can a person experience the deeper levels of sorrow without considerable knowledge of happiness? Can he achieve evil intention in the full sense without real awareness of evil’s opposite? I have no final answer to these questions.

Attempts to interpret the psychopath’s disorder do not, of course, furnish evidence that he has a disorder or that it is serious. For reliable evidence of this we must examine his behavior. Only here, not in psychopathologic formulations, can we apply our judgment to what is objective and demonstrable.

Functionally and structurally all is intact on the outside. Good function (healthy reactivity) will be demonstrated in all theoretical trials. Sound judgment as well as good reasoning are likely to appear at verbal levels. Ethical as well as practical considerations will be recognized in the abstract. A brilliant mimicry of sound, social reactions will occur in every test except the test of life itself.

In the psychopath we confront a personality neither broken nor outwardly distorted but of a substance that lacks ingredients without which normal function in major life issues is impossible.

Simon, Holzberg, and Unger, impressed by the paradox of the psychopath’s poor performance despite intact reasoning, devised an objective test specifically to appraise judgment as it would function in real situations, as contrasted with theoretical judgment in abstract situations.

These workers are aware that the more complex synthesis of influences constituting what is often called judgment or understanding (as compared to a more theoretical “reasoning”) may be simulated in test situations in which emotional participation is minimal, that rational factors alone by an accurate aping or stereotyping can produce in vitro, so to speak, what they cannot produce in vivo.

Items for a multiple choice test were selected with an aim of providing maximal possibilities for emotional factors to influence decision and particularly for relatively trivial immediate gratification impulses to clash with major, long-range objectives. The same items were also utilized in the form of a completion test. The results of this test on a group of psychopaths tend to support the hypothetical interpretation attempted in this book.

If such a disorder does indeed exist in the so-called psychopath, it is not remarkable that its recognition as a major and disabling impairment has been long delayed.

Pathological changes visible on the surface of the body (laceration, compound fractures) were already being handled regularly by medical men when the exorcism of indwelling demons retained popular favor in many illnesses now treated by the internist. So, too, it has been with personality disorders. Those characterized by gross outward manifestations have been accepted as psychiatric problems long before others in which a superficial appearance of sanity is preserved.

Despite the psychopath’s lack of academic symptoms characteristic of those disorders traditionally classed as psychosis, he often seems, in some important respects, but not in all, to belong more with that group than with any other. Certainly his problems cannot be dealt with, medically or by any other means, unless similar legal instrumentalities for controlling his situation are set up and regularly applied.

I believe that if such a patient shows himself grossly incompetent in his behavior, he should be so appraised. It is necessary to change some of our legal criteria to make attempts at treatment or urgently needed supervision possible for him, the most serious objections are primarily theoretical. Perhaps our traditional definitions of psychiatric disability can stand alteration better than these grossly defective patients and those about them can stand the present farcical and sometimes tragic methods of handling their problems.

This is not to say that all people showing features of this type should be regarded as totally disabled. It is here maintained that this defect, like other psychiatric disorders, appears in every degree of severity and may constitute anything from a personality trait through handicaps of varying magnitude, including maximum disability and maximum threat to the peace and safety of the community.

In attempting to account for the abnormal behavior observed in the psychopath, we have found useful the hypothesis that he has a serious and subtle abnormality or defect at deep levels disturbing the integration and normal appreciation of experience and resulting in a pathology that might, in analogy with Henry Head’s classifications of the aphasias, be described as semantic.

Presuming that such a patient does fail to experience life adequately in its major issues, can we then better account for his clinical manifestations? The difficulties of proving, or even of demonstrating direct objective evidence, for hypotheses about psychopathology (or about ordinary subjective functioning) are too obvious to need elaborate discussion here.

If the psychopath’s life is devoid of higher order stimuli, of primary or serious goals and values, and of intense and meaningful satisfactions, it may be possible for the observer to better understand the patient who, for the trivial excitement of stealing a dollar (or a candy bar), the small gain of forging a $20.00 check, or halfhearted intercourse with an unappealing partner, sacrifices his job, the respect of his friends, or perhaps his marriage.

Behind much of the psychopath’s behavior we see evidence of relatively mild stimuli common to all mankind. In his panhandling, his pranks, his truancy, his idle boasts, his begging, and his taking another drink, he is acting on motives in themselves not unnatural. In their massive accumulation during his career, these acts are impressive chiefly because of what he sacrifices to carry them out. If, for him, the things sacrificed are also of petty value, his conduct becomes more comprehensible.

Woolley, in an interesting interpretation of these patients, compared them with an otherwise intact automobile having very defective brakes. Such an analogy suggests accurately an important pathological defect which seems to exist.

In contrast with an automobile, however, the braking functions of the human organism are built into the personality by reaction to life experience, to reward and punishment, praise and blame, shame, loss, honor, love, and so on. True as Woolley’s hypothesis may be, it seems likely that more fundamental than inadequate powers to refrain is the inadequate emotional reactivity upon which the learning to refrain must be based.

Even with good brakes on his car, the driver must have not only knowledge of but also feeling for what will happen otherwise if he is to use them correctly and adequately.

Some of the psychopath’s behavior may be fairly well accounted for if we grant a limitation of emotional capacity. Additional factors merit consideration.

The psychopath seems to go out of his way to make trouble for himself and for others.

In carelessly marrying a whore, in more or less inviting detection of a theft (or at least in ignoring the probability of detection), in attempting gross intimacies with a debutante in the poorly sheltered alcove just off a crowded ballroom, in losing his hospital parole or failing to be with his wife in labor just because he did not want to leave the crap game at midnight (or at 3 A.M.), in such actions there seems to be not only a disregard for consequences but an active impulse to show off, to be not discreet but conspicuous in making mischief.

Apparently he likes to flaunt his outlandish or antisocial acts with bravado.

When negative consequences are negligible or slight (both materially and emotionally), who does not like to cut up a little, to make a bit of inconsequential fun, or perhaps playfully take off on the more sober aspects of living? Dignity might otherwise become pompousness; learning, pedantry; goodness, self-righteousness.

The essential difference seems to lie in how much the consequences matter. It is also important to remember that inclination and taste are profoundly shaped by capacity to feel the situation adequately. A normal man’s potential inclination to give the pretty hatcheck girl $100.00 would probably not reach awareness in view of his knowledge that this would result in his three children’s not having shoes or in his having to humiliate himself by wheedling from a friend a loan he will never repay.

If, as we maintain, the big rewards of love, of the hard job well done, of faith kept despite sacrifices, do not enter significantly in the equation, it is not difficult to see that the psychopath is likely to be bored. Being bored, he will seek to cut up more than the ordinary person to relieve the tedium of his unrewarding existence.

If we think of a theater half-filled with ordinary pubertal boys who must sit through a performance of King Lear or of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, we need ask little of either imagination or memory to bring to mind the restless fidgeting, the noisy intercommunication of trivialities, the inappropriate guffaws or catcalls, and perhaps the spitballs or the mischievous application of a pin to the fellow in the next seat.

Apparently blocked from fulfillment at deep levels, the psychopath is not unnaturally pushed toward some sort of divertissement. Even weak impulses, petty and fleeting gratifications, are sufficient to produce in him injudicious, distasteful, and even outlandish misbehavior.

Major positive attractions are not present to compete successfully with whims, and the major negative deterrents (hot, persistent shame, profound regret) do not loom ahead to influence him. If the 12-year-old boys could enjoy King Lear or the Ninth Symphony as much as some people do, they would not be so reckless or unruly.

In a world where tedium demands that the situation be enlivened by pranks that bring censure, nagging, nights in the local jail, and irritating duns about unpaid bills, it can well be imagined that the psychopath finds cause for vexation and impulses toward reprisal. Few, if any, of the scruples that in the ordinary man might oppose and control such impulses seem to influence him. Unable to realize what it meant to his wife when he was discovered in the cellar flagrante delicto with the cook, he is likely to be put out considerably by her reactions to this.

His having used the rent money for a midnight long-distance call to an old acquaintance in California (with whom he bantered for an hour) also brings upon him censure or tearful expostulation. Considering himself harassed beyond measure, he may rise from the dining room table in a petty tantrum, curse his wife violently, slap her, even spit on her, and further annoyed by the sudden weeping of their 6-year-old daughter, throw his salad in the little girl’s face before he strides indignantly from the room.

His father, from the patient’s point of view, lacks humor and does not understand things. The old man could easily take a different attitude about having had to make good those last three little old checks written by the son. Nor was there any sense in raising so much hell because he took that dilapidated old Chevrolet for his trip to Memphis.

What if he did forget to tell the old man he was going to take it? It wouldn’t hurt him to go to the office on the bus for a few days. How was he (the patient) to know the fellows were going to clean him out at stud or that the little bitch of a waitress at the Frolic Spot would get so nasty about money? What else could he do except sell the antiquated buggy? If the old man weren’t so parsimonious he’d want to get a new car anyway!

And why did he (the father) have to act so magnanimous and hurt about settling things last Saturday night down at the barracks? You’d think from his attitude that it was the old man himself who’d had to put up with being cooped in there all those hours with louse-infested riff-raff! Well, he’d thanked his father and told him how sorry he was.

What else could a fellow do? As for that damned old Chevrolet, he was sick of hearing about it. His grudge passing with a turn of thought, he smiles with half-affectionate, playfully cordial feelings toward the old man as he concludes, “I ought to tell him to take his precious old vehicle and stick it up his _____!”

Lacking vital elements in the appreciation of what the family and various bystanders are experiencing, the psychopath finds it hard to understand why they continually criticize, reproach, quarrel with, and interfere with him. His employer, whom he has praised a few hours before, becomes a pettifogging tyrant who needs some telling off.

The policeman to whom he gave tickets for the barbecue last week (because he is such a swell guy) turns out to be a stupid oaf and a meddler who can’t mind his own business but has to go and arrest somebody just because of a little argument with Casey in the Midnight Grill about what happened to a few stinking dollar bills that were lying on the bar.

It is not necessary to assume great cruelty or conscious hatred in him commensurate with the degree of suffering he deals out to others. Not knowing how it hurts or even where it hurts, he often seems to believe that he has made a relatively mild but appropriate reprimand and that he has done it with humor.

What he believes he needs to protest against turns out to be no small group, no particular institution or set of ideologies, but human life itself. In it he seems to find nothing deeply meaningful or persistently stimulating, but only some transient and relatively petty pleasant caprices, a terribly repetitious series of minor frustrations, and ennui.

Like many teenagers, saints, history-making statesmen, and other notable leaders or geniuses, he shows unrest; he wants to do something about the situation. Unlike these others, as Lindner has so well and convincingly stressed, he is a “rebel without a cause.”

Reacting with something that seems not too much like divine discontent or noble indignation, he finds no cause in the ordinary sense to which, he can devote himself with wholeheartedness or with persistent interest. In certain aspects his essential life seems to be a peevish bickering with the inconsequential.

In other aspects he suggests a man hanging from a ledge who knows if he lets go he will fall, is likely to break a leg, may lose his job and his savings (through the disability and hospital expenses), and perhaps may injure his baby in the carriage just below. He suggests a man in this position who, furthermore, is not very tired and who knows help will arrive in a few minutes, but who, nevertheless, with a charming smile and a wisecrack, releases his hold to light a cigarette, to snatch at a butterfly, or just to thumb his nose at a fellow passing in the street below.

A world not by any means identical but with some vivid features of both these underlying situations can be found in Huysmans’ Against the Grain and in Jean-Paul Sartre’s Nausea. In the satirical novels of Evelyn Waugh, also, an atmosphere difficult to describe sometimes develops – an atmosphere that may give the reader awareness of attitudes and evaluations genuinely illustrative of deeply distorted or inadequate reactions to life.

The leading characters depicted therein show a peculiar cynicism which is more conscious and directed and purposive than the behavior of the psychopath. But none of the characters presented show even an approximate awareness of what is most valid and meaningful and natural in human beings. A negative response to life itself, an aversion at levels more basic than ordinary morals or the infraconscious foundations of taste and incentive, is conveyed subtly and impressively.

It is difficult to illustrate by incident, by the expressed attitude of the characters depicted, or by any clearly implied evaluation of the authors the specific quality of what is evoked in these novels as the essence of an unhappy, mutilated, and trivial universe in which all the characters exist. The sense of pathology pervades to levels so deep that rational scrutiny cannot reach and meet the fundamental implications; nor can inquiry satisfactorily demonstrate its precise source.

If the actual world and man’s biologic scope were only that conveyed in these interesting works, it would perhaps be less difficult to account for obsessive illness and for the psychopath’s career as reasonable reactions to a situation where no course is possible except one profoundly pathological in one way or another.

Thoughtful contemplation of what is depicted in these works of fiction suggests a world as fundamentally altered as what Straus presents as the world of the obsessive patient. In the effective and terse implication of general emotional incapacity in these characters, the authors succeed in evoking awareness of a sort of quasi-life restricted within a range of staggering superficiality.

This, rather than those aspects of the works that apparently brought them popularity, may deserve high literary appraisal as concise and valuable communications of something that is by no means easy to convey in direct language. Such a superficiality and lack of major incentive or feeling strongly suggest the apparent emotional limitations of the psychopath.

What Straus and Havelock Ellis have brought out is not discernible in the reactions of the psychopath. It is, as a matter of fact, somewhat veiled in the reactions of most obsessive patients. Observation of the psychopath makes it increasingly plain, however, that he is not reacting normally to the surroundings that are ordinarily assumed to exist. I cannot clearly define the specific milieu which such a patient encounters and to which his reactions are related.

There is much to suggest that it is a less distinctly or consistently apprehended world than what Straus describes as the inner world of the obsessive patient. It is my belief that it may be a world not less abnormal and perhaps more complexly confusing. We should remember, however, that we have no direct evidence to prove that a deficiency or distortion of this sort exists in the unconscious core of the psychopath.

We can only say that his behavior strongly and consistently suggests it. This discussion has been based, of course. on a hypothesis that the psychopath has a basic inadequacy of feeling and realization that prevents him from normally experiencing the major emotions and from reacting adequately to the chief goals of human life.

Beyond the symptomatic acts of the psychopath, we must bear in mind his reaction to his situation, his general experiencing of life. Typical of psychoneurosis are anxiety, recognition that one is in trouble, and efforts to alter the bad situation. These are natural (“normal”) whole personality reactions to localized symptoms.

In contrast, the severe psychopath, like those so long called psychotic, does not show normal responses to the situation. It is offered as an opinion that a less obvious but nonetheless real pathology is general, and that in this respect he is more closely allied with the psychotic than with the psychoneurotic patient. The pathology might be regarded not as gross fragmentation of the personality but as a more subtle alteration. Let us say that instead of macroscopic disintegration our (hypothetical) change might be conceived of as one that seriously curtails function without obliterating form.

Let us think of the personality in the psychopath as differing from the normal in some such way. The form is perfect and the outlines are undistorted. But being subtly and profoundly altered, it can successfully perform only superficial activities or pseudofunctions. It cannot maintain important or meaningful interpersonal relations. It cannot fulfill its purpose of adjusting adequately to social reality. Its performance can only mimic these genuine functions.

The persistent pattern of maladaptation at personality levels and the ostensible purposelessness of many self-damaging acts definitely suggests not only a lack of strong purpose but also a negative purpose or at least a negative drift. This sort of patient, despite all his opportunities, his intelligence, and his plain lessons of experience, seems to go out of his way to woo misfortune. The suggestion has already been made that his typical activities seem less comprehensible in terms, of life-striving or of a pursuit of joy than as an unrecognized blundering toward the negations of nonexistence.

Some of this, it has been suggested, may be interpreted as the tantrum, like reactions of an inadequate personality balked, as behavior similar to that of the spoiled child who bumps his own head against the wall or holds his breath when he is crossed. It might be thought of as not unlike a man’s cutting off his nose to spite not only his face, but also the scheme of life in general, which has turned out to be a game that he cannot play.

Such reactions are, of course, found in nearly all types of personality disorder or inadequacy. It will perhaps be readily granted that they are all regressive. Behavior against the constructive patterns through which the personality finds expression and seeks fulfillment of its destiny is regressive activity although it may not consist in a return, step by step, or in a partial return to the status of childhood and eventually of infancy. Such reactions appear to be, in a sense, against the grain of life or against the general biologic purpose.

Regressive reactions or processes may all be regarded as disintegrative, as reverse steps in the general process of biologic growth through which a living entity becomes more complex, more highly adapted and specialized, better coordinated, and more capable of dealing successfully or happily with objective or subjective experience. This scale of increasing complexity exists at points even below the level of living matter.

A group of electrons functioning together make up the atom which can indeed be split down again to its components. The atoms joining form molecules which, in turn, coming together in definite orderly arrangement, may become structurally coordinating parts of elaborate crystalline materials; or, in even more specialized and complex fashion, they may form a cell of organic matter. Cells of organic matter may unite and integrate to form the living organism we know as a jellyfish. Always the process is reversible; the organic matter can decompose back into inorganic matter.

Without laboriously following out all the steps of this scale, we might mention the increasing scope of activity, the increasing specialization, and the increasing precariousness of existence at various levels up through vertebrates and mammals to man. All along this scale it is evident that failure to function successfully at a certain level necessitates regression or decomposition to a lower or less complicated one.

If the cell membrane of one epithelial unit in a mammalian body becomes imporous and fails to obtain nutriment brought by blood and lymph, it loses its existence as an epithelial cell. If the unwary rabbit fails to perceive the danger of the snare, he soon becomes in rapid succession a dead rabbit, merely a collection of dead organs and supportive structures, protein, fat, and finally, inorganic matter. The fundamental quest for life has been interrupted, and, having been interrupted, the process goes into reverse.

So, too, the criminal discovered and imprisoned ceases to be a free man who comes and goes as he pleases. A curtailment in the scope of his functioning is suffered-a regression in one sense to simpler, more routine, and less varied and vivid activities.

The man who fails in another and more complex way to go on with life, to fulfill his personality growth and function, becomes what we call a schizophrenic. The objective curtailment of his activities by the rules of the psychiatric hospital are almost negligible in comparison with the vast simplification, the loss of self-expression, and the personal disintegration which characterize his regression from the subjective point of view. The old practice of referring to the extremely regressed schizophrenic as leading a vegetative existence implies the significance that is being stressed.

Regression, then, in a broad sense may be taken to mean movement from richer and more full life to levels of scantier or less highly developed life. In other words, it is relative death. It is the cessation of existence or maintenance of function at a given level.

The concept of an active death instinct postulated by Freud has been utilized by some to account for socially self-destructive reactions. I have never been able to discover in the writings of Freud or any of his followers real evidence to confirm this assumption.

In contrast, the familiar tendency to disintegrate, against which life evolves, may be regarded as fundamental and comparable to gravity. The climbing man or animal must use force and purpose to ascend or to maintain himself at a given height. To fall or slide downhill he need only cease his efforts and let go. Without assuming an intrinsic death instinct, it is possible to account for active withdrawal from positions at which adaptation is unsuccessful and stress too extreme.

Whether regression occurs primarily through something like gravity or through impulses more self-contained, the backward movement (or ebbing) is likely to prompt many sorts of secondary reactions, including behavior not adapted for ordinary human purposes but instead, for functioning in the other direction. The modes of such reactivity may vary, may fall into complex patterns, and may seek elaborate expression.

In a movement (or gravitational drift) from levels where life is vigorous and full to those where it is less so, the tactics of withdrawal predominate.

People with all the outer mechanisms of adaptation intact might, one would think, regress more complexly than can those who react more simply. The simplest reaction in reverse might be found in a person who straightway blows out his brains.

As a skillful general who has realized that the objective is unobtainable withdraws by feints and utilizes all sorts of delaying actions, so a patient who has much of the outer mechanisms for living may retire, not in obvious rout but skillfully and elaborately, preserving his lines.

The psychopath as we conceive of him in such an interpretation seems to justify the high estimate of his technical abilities as we see them expressed in reverse movement.

Unlike the general with the retreating army in our analogy, he seems not still devoted to the original contest but to other issues and aims that arise in withdrawal. To force the analogy further we might say that the retiring army is now concerning itself with looting the countryside, seeking mischief and light entertainment. The troops have cast off their original loyalties and given up their former aims but have found no other serious ones to replace them. But the effective organization and all of the technical skills are retained and utilized destructively.

F. L. Wells has expressed things very pertinent to the present discussion. A brief quotation will bring out useful points:

The principle of substitutive reactions, sublimative or regressive in character, has long been known, but Kurt Lewin’s (1933) experimental construction of the latter is especially apt, if not unquestionable mental hygiene. A child, for example, continually impelled to open a gate it is impossible for him to open, may blow up in a tantrum, grovel on the ground, till the emotion subsides sufficiently for him to become substitutively occupied, as with fragments of gravel and other detritus he finds there, by which he forgets his distress about the gate. […]

The human personality has the adaptive property of finding satisfactions at simpler levels when higher ones are taken away, fortunately so if this keeps him out of a psychosis, otherwise if it stabilizes him in contentment at this lower level (“going native”) or if the satisfactions cannot be found short of a psychosis (MacCurdy, 1925, p. 367). All such cases have the common regressive factor of giving up the higher-level adjustment (opening the gate) with regressive relief at a lower level (playing with the gravel).

Another illustration given by Wells emphasizes features of the concept that are valuable to us:

Consider, for example, the group of drives that center about the concept of self-maintenance, the “living standards” of civilization. This means the pursuit of the diverse means to surround oneself with the maximum of material comfort in terms of residence, food, playthings, etc., for the purchase of which one can capitalize his abilities.

That the normal individual will do this to a liberal limit is taken in the local culture as a matter of course, probably more liberally than the facts justify. For this pursuit involves a competitive struggle beset also with inner conflicts (e.g., ethical), which by no means everyone is able to set aside.

Among regressions specific to this category are those undertakings of poverty common to religious orders, but this regression is quite specific, since these orders often involve their members in other “disciplines” from which the normal individual would flee as far (Parkman, 1867, Chap. 16).

It is quite certain, though hard to demonstrate objectively, that many an individual in normal life regresses from these economic conflicts only in less degree. He does not take the vow of poverty like the monastic, nor does he dedicate himself to the simplified life of the “South Sea Island” stereotype, but he prefers salary to commission, city apartment to suburban “bungalow,” clerical work to (outside) sales.

A thought expressed by William James in 1902 and quoted by Wells deserves renewed attention:

Yonder puny fellow however, whom everyone can beat suffers no chagrin about it, for he has long ago abandoned the attempt to “carry that line,” as the merchants say, of Self at all.

With no attempt there can be no failure; with no failure no humiliation.

So our self-feeling in this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do. It is determined by the ratio of our actualities to our supposed potentialities; a fraction of which our pretentions are the denominator and the numerator our success: thus, Self-esteem = Success/Pretensions.

Such a fraction may be increased as well by diminishing the denominator as by increasing the numerator.

To give up pretensions is as blessed a relief as to get them gratified; and where disappointment is incessant and the struggle unending, this is what men will always do.

The history of evangelical theology, with its conviction of sin, its self-despair, and its abandonment of salvation by works, is the deepest of possible examples, but we meet others in every walk of life. .

How pleasant is the day when we give up striving to be young-or slender! Thank God, we say, those illusions are gone. Everything added to the self is a burden as well as a pride.

Something relevant to the points now under consideration may be found also in Sherrington’s comment on reactions (or inlaid precautions) against unbearable pain or stress in the human organism. He says:

Again in life’s final struggle the chemical delicacy of the brain-net can make distress lapse early because with the brain’s disintegration the mind fades early – a rough world’s mercy towards its dearest possession.

There are, it seems, many ways for this to occur without signs of any change which we yet have objective means to detect, chemically or microscopically. Such changes may occur under the stimulus of agents that do not have direct physical contact with the brain or with any part of the body.

Withdrawal, or limitation of one’s quest in living, appears in many forms.

The decision for taking such a step may be consciously voluntary, but it seems likely that many influences less clear and simple may also play a part. In the earliest years of human life a great deal of complicated shaping may occur, with adaptive changes to promote survival by an automatic refusal (inability) to risk one’s feelings (response) in the greatest subjective adventures. In adult life such decisions sometimes emerge in clear deliberation.

The activity of the psychopath may seem in some respects to accomplish a kind of protracted and elaborate social and spiritual suicide. Perhaps the complex, sustained, and spectacular undoing of the self may be cherished by him. He seldom allows physical suicide to interrupt it.

Be it noted that such a person retains high intelligence and nearly all the outer mechanisms for carrying on the complicated activities of positive life. It is to be expected then that his function in the opposite (regressive) emotional direction might be more subtle than those of a less highly developed biologic entity.

The average rooster proceeds at once to leap on the nearest hen and have done with his simple erotic impulse. The complex human lover may pay suit for years to his love object, approaching her through many volumes of poetry, through the building up of financial security in his business, through manifold activities and operations of his personality functions, and with aims and emotions incomparably more complicated and more profound than that of the rooster.

When complexly organized functions are devoted to aimless or inconsistent rebellion against the positive goals of life, perhaps they may enable the patient to woo failure and disintegration with similar elaborateness and subtlety. His conscious or outer functioning may at the same time maintain an imitation of life that is uniquely deceptive.

Perhaps the emptiness or superficiality of life without major goals or deep loyalties, or real love, would leave a person with high intelligence and other superior capacities so bored that he would eventually turn to hazardous, self-damaging, outlandish, antisocial, and even self-destructive exploits in order to find something fresh and stimulating in which to apply his relatively useless and unchallenged energies and talents.

The more experience I have with psychopaths over the years, the less likely it seems to me that any dynamic or psychogenic theory is likely to be established by real evidence as the cause of their grave maladaptation.

Increasingly I have come to believe that some subtle and profound defect in the human organism, probably inborn but not hereditary, plays the chief role in the psychopath’s puzzling and spectacular failure to experience life normally and to carry on a career acceptable to society. This, too, is still a speculative concept and is not supported by demonstrable evidence.

The 90 IQ Person

I know that your average White person attending a Trump rally had an IQ of 90 though. That’s within the normal range of course, but it’s in the Low Normal rather than the High Normal range. But as I note, even people in the Low Normal range can seriously kick ass in life. Check out James Oglivy, IQ 94.

Portrait of a 90 IQ Person – the Mexican-American or Hispanic American

It’s also right hanging on the bear edge of normal. To give you an idea of what a 90 IQ person acts like, your average Hispanic in the US has a 90 IQ. So picture your average Mexican or Mexican-American in the US, and there you have it. That’s 10 points lower than US Whites, and those 10 points are glaringly obvious when you spend a lot of time around them. I often characterize Hispanics as “not stupid at all, but not that smart either.” They’re not “dumb.” Your average Black is actually dumb or appears that way. Your average Hispanic instead seems “not dumb, but not that smart either.”

People did remark on the average 90 IQ of Trump rally goers. Honestly, that 90 IQ is probably absolutely normal for your average working class White person, so it all adds up. They probably have IQ’s around that level.

Limitations of a 90 IQ

A 90 IQ can limit you in life. You are going to have one Hell of a time getting a university degree at that IQ, and indeed, most people in that range do not have a BA. But quite a few have qualified for shorter 1 or 2 year trade degrees and credentials, which are generally easier than a BA. Just forget about a Masters or a Doctorate. Forget about being a physician or attorney, or anything that requires a doctorate (dentist, pharmacist, veterinarian). But many other fields are wide open to someone like that.

Guess What? Criminals Are Stupid! Duh.

On the other hand, your average White American has an IQ of 100.

Incarcerated Whites have IQ’s 10 points below the average at 90. This is mirrored in other races. The average Black IQ is 87, but the average incarcerated Black has an IQ of 77. That’s pretty damn low.

This just goes to show you that not only are criminals basically stupid, the very idea of being a criminal in the first place (and especially a lousy enough one to get caught) is pretty damn stupid.

Even a lot of serial killers are not very smart.

The Pig Farm Killer in Canada has an IQ of 81. The famous duo of Henry Lucas and Otis Toole, who killed far fewer victims than they claimed (Lucas claimed hundreds of victims) were none too smart. This is apparent in any interview with them.

I doubt if the very prolific Black serials just caught have high IQ’s. Samuel Little comes to mind, along with Coral Watts. I think Watts had a 73 IQ.But he killed ~100 women and got away with it for a very long time.

Sure, there are smart crooks, but it’s exaggerated. White collar fraudsters also tend to be intelligent. In general, smarter criminals tend to get away with their crimes a lot longer, and quite a few had long criminal careers uncaught during which they piled up a lot of victims. Ted Bundy, IQ 135, is a good example. Edmund Kemper, the matricide killer in Santa Cruz, has a 145 IQ. There are videos of him on the Net. You can watch them and see how a 145 IQ  person comes across. He seems pretty damn smart and especially, he’s very fast with a rapid brain.

Jason’s IQ

Jason just reported that his IQ is 92, which was about what I thought. I also think he’s gotten smarter since he’s been here because I think this blog pushes his brain past where he normally pushes it. And he’s definitely been able to boil down and wrap up some of the fairly complex ideas we toss around here. A site like is probably very stimulating for someone at an IQ of this level. A fair amount of it will be over their heads, but they’ll understand enough to get some real meat out of it.

That actually sounds just about right. It’s absolutely in the normal range and nations with IQ’s in that range, like the Balkans, Greece, Turkey, Costa Rica, Chile, Argentina, Georgia, and Armenia normally do fairly well. It’s certainly high enough to sustain modern civilization. So you have a normal IQ, an IQ within the normal human range. And what’s wrong with that. Most people are average. Average in humans means most of them.

What you want to worry about it being below average. Obviously, everyone cannot be above average. In fact, only 25% can be strictly, speaking as the 25th to 75th percentile defines the normal range for most things. Above average is 76th percentile up, and below average is 24 and below. Jason is in the 30th percentile, which is absolutely within the normal human range IQ range of 25th to 75th percentiles. I’d be concerned if he was below average, but as he’s perfectly within the average range, I’m fine with him.

You might be interested to know that Oglivy, the most famous ad-man of all time, had an IQ right in that range, 92-94. So you see, people in Jason’s range can rise to great, even ultimate heights in the world, particularly in the world of business, where they can definitely excel. They can also become fabulously wealthy, as Oglivy was a very rich man. And they can be the ultimate social actors, and Oglivy had social skills to die for. All in all, it’s a perfectly adequate IQ to reach the ultimate heights in life in achievement, wealth, and the social world.

Alt Left: A Theory about Race, Personality, and Civilizational Trajectory with Assistance from Spengler, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche

A great new and very long comment from someone who is apparently a new commenter. A fascinating theory about race and personality and how they tie in with civilizational trajectories, be they forward, backward, or flat. He utilizes and owes a debt to Spengler first, then Schopenhauer, and last Nietzsche to help flesh out his theory.

I’d really like to see what you all think of this post. Please feel free to comment if you can make it through and figure out what he’s talking about. It’s a bit dense but it’s not really that complicated and a lot of you ought to be able to understand it pretty well.

Brian: This is a theory that’s been turning around in my head for around a decade, and I won’t go over every detail, just the gist of it, since to think out every caveat would take too long, and it’s not like a primary interest of research for me, but suffice it to say there is Spenglerian influence here, and through him, Nietzschean and Schopenhauerian influence. I’ve often called it the “I think we’re turning Japanese” theory.

The idea here is that Whites are in the middle of a spectrum between Blacks and Asians, where Blacks are the most chaotic, as you say, and Asians are the most orderly and staid, personified by the Spock stereotype.

The Germanic peoples, who pretty much seeded all of Europe during the Migration and Viking period, were, 2000 years ago during Rome’s heyday, barbarians, quite wild, living for the day, warring with each other to the point where, aside from the Battle of Teutoborg Forest, they could not unite with each other to fight a common enemy, which made them easy pickings for Rome.

The Celtic culture never took off into a high civilization due mainly to the Roman conquests of Gaul and Iberia and also of much of Britain, which eliminated the source-lands and most of the territory in which the Celtic culture had grown. So the civilization that arose after the collapse of the western portion of the empire was seminally Germanic: even France is heavily Germanic (land of the Franks), though it lies in between the more fully Germanic Northern Europe and the more Mediterranean Southern Europe.

Through the Dark Ages and High Middle Ages, the tribal polities of Northern Europe gradually coalesced into larger nations with, it must be stated, the help of the stabilizing factor of the Catholic Church. And by the Renaissance, Europe was becoming, artistically and intellectually, the most dynamic place in the world so that by Early Modern times, European art and science had eclipsed anything that had previously existed in the world.

Note how Asians beat Europeans in math and science in terms of raw ability, but Europeans have produced more than the Asians, which led to the core Asian lands (mainly China, Japan, and Korea) being not directly colonized by European empires but certainly feeling colonialism’s effects and even, especially for China, its boot heels. From the wild and more primitive European stock of two millennia ago eventually arose a civilization more advanced than what Asia had produced over thousands of years.

I suggest that the reason for this was that, although primitive, the Germanic peoples were also like a ball of energy that, if properly tamed, which of course means diminishing some of their raw energy, could produce an explosion of civilizational progress, and this taming is exactly what happened over the course of the Medieval Period.

The Church was a great factor, with its universalist vision of all reality being centered on a single thing, i.e. God (basically it’s a rational vision of the cosmos as opposed to a fragmentary and irrational understanding of it).

But another factor in this shift is likely social selection.

Over that 1,500 years of interaction with Rome and then of forging their own kingdoms after the constant interference from Rome had ended with the collapse of the western part of the Empire, European societies were able to grow into nations, become more complex and therefore more demanding about the intellectual demands on their own people and, whether through sexual selection initiated by women or through some other factor, began “weeding out” those who were too dumb or wild from the gene pool.

So by around 1500-1600, there existed a civilization with much of the raw energy of a primitive people but now harnessed and directed to intellectual and artistic ends, ready to make a gigantic mark on the world.

The point is that primitive peoples are like stores of raw energy or pools of potential that can, in the right circumstances, be transformed into a flourishing of civilization that even outdoes what groups with higher (or previously higher) IQ’s have accomplished. The white IQ might have increased during that transition from tribal chieftainships to modern states, with the selection pressures that such a transition brings.

Spengler believed that Western civilization was becoming old and sclerotic, ready either to dissipate or, like East Asia, ossify for a very long time, its main ideas having already mostly been expressed. He saw Russia as the next civilization to rise, since it was in that nether phase of being quite brutal compared to Western Europe and its descendant nations overseas, but nevertheless already being quite tamed.

Perhaps this explains why Europe, for centuries, has had a visceral fear of Russia, from the Great Game in the 19th century to the Nazi invasion and destruction of the country down to the present-day Establishment fear of Russia and Putin. Perhaps there is a sense that if Russia can break free of the West and get its act together, its potential is great, and in time – centuries perhaps – Russia could eclipse the ever-more sclerotic West.

But even more long-term, if this theory is correct, I can see Latin America rising as a major civilization. It would have to go through centuries of real nationbuilding first as Europe did in the Dark Ages and High Medieval Period into the Renaissance, but there is certainly great natural vigor among Latin American peoples, already somewhat tempered by the widespread infusion of Spanish and Portuguese (not to mention some German and other European) genes in those populations.

Perhaps in a millennium, when the raw potential has been converted into actionable works through a combination of genetic selection and cultural controls, Latin America will be a great civilization offering new artistic and scientific insights to the world and perhaps being expansionist, as civilizations born of wild people getting their act together tend to be. There seems to be a golden mean when a people is no longer too primitive but not yet too domesticated when that people makes its mark.

Which brings me to Africa. Africa today is comparable to Germania in Roman times: getting the first inklings of advanced civilization from the West, which had often mistreated it, and struggling to form real nations in the face of their own enormous divisions and external interference. Africans are chaotic but also wildly creative, especially musically – and music is the closest thing to the human Will or Engine of Life, as Schopenhauer teaches.

Africa in the coming centuries and millennia could go through a filtering that eliminates from the gene pool many of the wildest elements, for example through frequent warfare and sexual selection by women who demand more intelligent mates, as it becomes obvious that the trajectory of society is toward greater complexity.

The continued presence of Christianity and Islam are likely also beneficial for taming the most wild spirit of Africa, whose people are truly at present the most primal version of mankind. But in the intervening centuries or millennia some new religion might come along in Africa as shape the minds of the people as Christianity did to the Europeans during Roman times.

I would think that the Africans, in maybe a millennium or two, after the Slavic nations and the Latin American peoples have “come online” so to speak in the procession of great civilizations, could become the culmination of human civilization, since they are starting with the most raw energy that, were it tamed, would entail the greatest outpouring of intellectual and artistic – i.e. civilizational – creativity that humans could produce.

But a great deal of selection pressure and cultural maturation would be required before this could happen.

Later this century, Africans are expected to comprise ~40% of the global population and with demographic decline occurring in many of the advanced countries, the West could be swamped with Africans and could, over time, even dissipate as a distinct culture. This event would be comparable to the barbarians overwhelming the western portion of the Roman Empire and precipitating the Dark Ages.

But this fits not only my thesis but also the Spenglerian model to which it is mostly in debt. The ensuing collapse of the West could be the opening that Slavic nations need in order to truly rise and express themselves fully. The development of Africa into a high civilization is a process I expect to take many centuries amid the vicissitudes of other civilizations rising and falling.

As for current White civilization which is headed by “The West” or those nations descended from or heavily influenced by the Germanic peoples, I think we are turning Japanese. We are past the Golden Middle Period and into a period where much of our primal nature remains but is channeled by genetic and cultural discipline and we are in effect slowly evolving into more staid, quiet, competitive – i.e. more Asian-like – peoples.

You can see it with the younger generations who are subject to far more social controls than even I was when younger, and I am not that old. The younger generations seem socially skittish, often autistic, and very different from kids even thirty years ago. Of course much of this is due to technology, but much is also due to our societies becoming increasingly rule-based and micromanaged.

And it is our culture itself that is insisting on this bureaucratization and rationalization of social life, with technology being merely a tool to push this cultural tendency forward.

As one final note, my theory might not work if indeed the different personality types and intelligence levels of the major races cannot change over a millennium or two in such a way that a wilder and less intelligent race can be pared down through social selection to a more disciplined and intelligent race.

If this is not a long enough span of time for such a transition to unfold, then the rise of the Northern and Western European peoples from tribal barbarians 2,000 years ago to the epitome of civilization just a few centuries ago was not due to a lack of enough intelligence to produce such a civilization.

Instead it occurred because this spark already existed during the Roman Empire, except that its expression was limited by a lack of social development until those cultural constraints needed to mold it into an advanced civilization had taken shape.

If this was true, then difference between the primitive culture and the high civilization it became was sociocultural, not genetic.

But even if this were true, it could mean that Africa could still rise as a high civilization, only that it will take longer, since a lot of not sexual but social selection would have to occur in order for this to happen.

Alt Left: Why I Am Pro-Black

Polar Bear:BLM fever has infected way too many White women. I think relationships where a White man’s lady is 100% pro-Black men is silly. A spiritual cucking has taken place.

Pro-Black White men like Robert are more respectable. I’ve seen thousands of men on Facebook and only one had views like Robert. He also had zero thumbs on his mature comments. Looks like less than 1% of the White population is intelligent, logical, and positive about Blacks though. That’s very little cream.

Thank you for saying I’m pro-Black. I try to be that way. It’s an important value for me in my life to be this way. I get called racist against Blacks all the time, and it gets so tiresome. Not everything I say about Black people is positive, but you can say that about anyone and anyway, I try to be fair.

It’s not easy to be intelligent, logical, and positive about Blacks. It’s like there’s three choices and you can only pick two. Sort of. I try to square the circle.

Sure, there are plenty of intelligent Whites who are pro-Black but they’re not very logical. They don’t make much sense. They supplant their supporting views with a lot of faked up statistics and notions. It’s nice that they’re not racists, but if you’re an antiracist based on a lot of stupid lies, I’m not sure how great that is.

I keep seeing all of these very smart middle class Blacks all the time on TV. It’s a really special thing. This didn’t exist before 1964. Not this many of them. And I am starting to wonder, with rising IQ’s whether they (and we) really are getting smarter and that’s why this middle class is so large. The Black middle class is a legacy the Civil Rights Movement (I call it The Second Liberation- the first Liberation being in 1863), and it’s a beautiful thing.

It’s because of this Black middle class that I am positive about Blacks. If Blacks basically = ghetto Blacks, it would be very hard to be positive about them. I’d almost argue that they’d not be worth saving. I’m not saying we should kill them or expel them, but is they slowly went extinct, it would be no great loss. But even some of those people can be saved. People move from ghetto Black to middle class Black all the time.

I also think that Middle Class Blacks and Ghetto Blacks are for all intents and purposes two different races. The characteristics of ghetto Blacks that are so unpleasant are basically not present in this other group. I’d like to figure out what makes a Black person middle class or ghetto.

I’d like to look at them genetically, anatomically, psychologically, psychometricaly, sociologically, anthropologically, the whole nine yards. Race realism X10 or X100. Let’s go for it all the way. Why are these groups so different. Why do they behave so differently that they almost seem like two different races? What are the reasons for this differential behavior.

One thing I’m looking at is that unfortunately, I don’t think ghetto Blacks are all that smart. So the less intelligent of the Blacks obviously move towards this culture. And as Black IQ rises, obviously there’s a tendency to gravitate more to the Black middle class.

Some Blacks wonder why we even talk about this in the first place. The reason is because 1/2 of Blacks, the ghetto Blacks, are a catastrophic clusterfuck in countless ways such that no other class or race or racial class is. They’re a disaster for themselves and for the rest of us too. And they endanger the Middle Class Blacks because when racist pain comes down on Black people, it’s motivated by these people. So when Middle Class Blacks are treated in a racist manner, it’s Ghetto Blacks that created that harm that is being misdirected at them.

Another Republican Lie: The War on Poverty Failed, Made Blacks Poorer, and Much Worse Behaved

Doug: Jason, the compassion comes after we see facts clearly. I’ve mentioned countless times that we need vocation schools at the high school level to train those kids that are not college-bound in some kind of useful profession.

The Left will never allow it because those schools would be about 1/2 Brown/Black and 1/2 White kids…in other words, too much for them to admit. Instead we keep denying the obvious. Teacher’s unions, a pillar of the Left, would also not allow it either. They literally don’t want any choice for kids–from charter schools to vocational schools.

Another rich example of compassion would be to admit that Johnson’s $21 trillion “War on Poverty” has not only failed but it’s INCREASED poverty amongst Black persons. At least 30% of this $21 Trillion, or $7 trillion was spent on the Black population in a very real attempt at “reparations.” It was also the beginning of “free stuff” for Blacks to keep them voting for Democrats.

There’s TANF, Section 8 housing, Food stamps, Medicaid, AFDC, Head Start, hiring quotas, set-asides, and sharply lowered standards in police and fire departments and colleges and grad schools. “Free money” student loans that will never be repaid. We have free breakfasts for Black children and even free lunches.

Taken together, US Blacks live in a state of “custodial care” by Whites because they can’t take care of themselves.

Nothing has worked. Nothing ever will. This money is paid to the most unworthy people in the world by the most worthy people in the world. Until people take responsibility for themselves, families, and communities, nothing will ever work.

All this because our society cannot admit that Black intelligence is too low, they have a bad attitude, and have too little logic. Black criminality is far too high to support any higher level of civilization.

But what’s worse is that all this money and it’s perverse incentives (to break up marriages) has worsened Black life in America since 1964 and we can’t admit that either!

Since the start of the War on Poverty, black kids are not doing better in school, housing projects built for ghetto blacks are all slums (a complete lack of personal responsibility), drugs, gun violence, incarcerations, STD infections, and abortions remain at epidemic levels. Black high school completion rates are about the same as ever, ie., <50%.

Black culture is actually much worse now. Black culture is in virtual collapse with 72% of Black babies born without a father in the house. Compare this to only 25% when the “war on poverty” was started. I can’t think of a single more devastating statistic to describe a cultural collapse than the 72% figure indicating that the institution of marriage has collapsed. Single parent families are nearly all in a state of poverty. That’s where we are after 56 years of “reparations.”

“Reparations” has help cause a complete and utter Black cultural collapse.

The result of the cultural collapse is evident from appalling crime statistics, 70% of new AIDS cases being Black, gonorrhea infection rates 13-18 times the White average, and black men committing 56% of homicides even though they are 6.5% of the population. Blacks commit crime at 6-7 times the rate of Whites (higher in urban areas) and are incarcerated in that same proportion. Now we have “flash mob robberies” and “knockout assaults” that are overwhelmingly Black crimes.

You can throw all the money in the world at social programs, but laziness, addiction, bad attitudes and decisions, low intelligence, little impulse control, and high levels of violence, they will override any and all social programs. Of course the Left never wants to hear about personal responsibility when they are the most irresponsible. They want to blame our economic system and take more and more of your tax dollars and piss that money away on programs that aren’t working.

Black kids will never be hired when they often can’t speak or dress right and have no self-respect, no discipline and no education. This is the problem today, and it was the problem yesterday and 50 years ago. No amount of money or bureaucracy can fix this. Why don’t we admit that we’ve failed?

Instead, you get 100% denial, 100% of the time, and a punch in the face. A little humility would go a long way with me.

First, the parts where I agree with you.

hiring quotas, set-asides, sharply lowered standards in police and fire departments. Sharply lowered standards for college and grad school admissions. “Free money” student loans that will never be repaid. We have free breakfasts for black children and even free lunches.

There aren’t any hiring quotas or set-asides. They’re mostly illegal. I know Affirmative Action is banned for the federal government. I also know it is banned here in California, the most liberal state in the country. Some private businesses and corporations have their own goals or whatever, but no one is forcing them, and all evidence indicates that this has not caused a lot of problems for US businesses. If it did they would stop doing it.

Standards have not been lowered for much of anything, although they are still being lowered for Blacks and Browns to get into elite universities. Standards have been lowered for the Bar Exam in California, but that applies to everyone. Most tests to get a police or fireman job are still pretty hard.

But I absolutely oppose all mandated affirmative action by the state and and all lowering of standards on testing to let more non-Whites in. I’ve had to take tests all my life. Had to take an SAT test. Had to take tests to graduate college with a BA. Had to take tests to get into grad school. Had to take more tests to get into education grad school. Then I had to take more tests to get a teaching job. Then I went back to grad school. I had take tests to even get through the program. Then I had to take a truly murderous test to get my Master’s Degree.

I don’t think people realize how significant those tests are. I had to pass them. If I didn’t pass them, I flunked. I wasn’t admitted to the program. I didn’t get the degree. There was no coddling, no, oh Bob is disadvanted and part of some dumb race of people so we have to lower standards for him. Hell no. I don’t pass and I’m gone. It’s do or die. Pass or fail. And I passed, without anybody lowering one damned standard to let me through. If I had to go through all that crap, the rest of  you have to go through the exact same thing. I never got a break or a lower barrier to jump over.

Why the Hell should you? Because you’re dumb? Bad answer. Because you’re part of a dumb race of humans? Bad answer. You’re not all dumb. I see smart Blacks, Black attorneys, physicians, Blacks doing every high level job Whites do, every time I turn on my TV. In my recent courtroom adventures, I saw four Black attorneys, two male and two female. They graduated law school. And they passed the damn bar. If they can do it, maybe you can do it. If you don’t do it, don’t cop out and blame racism. Go into some field where you can do well. It’s not that hard.

I’ve mentioned countless times that we need vocation schools at the high school level to train those kids that are not college-bound toward some kind of useful profession.

The Left will never allow it because those schools would be about 1/2 brown/ black and 1/2 white kids…in other words, too much for them to admit.

I definitely agree with you here, but I have no solution to this whatsoever.

Teacher’s unions, a pillar of the Left, would also not allow it either. They literally don’t want any choice for kids–from charter schools to vocational schools.

Charter schools don’t work. That’s now conclusively proven. The idea is that with charter schools, we get rid of the teacher’s unions, and then the kids will perform so much better. In other words, somehow teacher’s unions cause kids to fail in school!

It didn’t work because getting rid of teachers’ unions and presumably cutting their pay and benefits doesn’t make teachers work harder (Shocking!), and getting rid of teachers’ unions doesn’t make students perform better (Duh!). Teachers’ unions could care less about vocational classes. I taught school for many years. I met many vocational teachers. No one cares about them and their classes. Nobody wants to get rid of them.

Since the start of the war on poverty, black kids are not doing better in school…

A lot of falsehoods here. Black achievement has skyrocketed since the War on Poverty. Blacks have closed 1/3 of the achievement gap. Black Computer Science students saw their scores improve every year through the 2010’s. Black IQ’s skyrocketed since the War on Poverty. Their IQ’s are now 16.5 points higher than they were in 1965. Incredible!

Now we have “flash mob robberies” and “knockout assaults” that are overwhelmingly black crimes.

Anti-White flash mobs and the knockout game are not going on much anymore that I know of. That seems to have been a few years ago.

There are two groups of Blacks. One is ghetto culture, maybe 1/2 of Blacks. Obviously this culture is failed in all sorts of ways, but I can’t see any way to improve things. Surely cutting off all their money and making them vastly poorer won’t help a thing.

The other group is middle class Blacks, which may be up to 50%. This group, well in evidence on this site, doesn’t act a whole lot different from White people. And this group exploded since 1965. Before there was the Talented Tenth. Now 50% of Blacks function at a decent enough level. The number of Blacks who function at a pretty good level has risen by 5X or 400% since 1965.

Black culture is actually much worse now. Black culture is in virtual collapse, with 72% of black babies born without a father in the house. Compare this to only 25% when the “War on Poverty” was started. I can’t think of a single more devastating statistic to describe a cultural collapse than the 72% figure; indicating that the institution of marriage has collapsed. Single parent families are nearly all in a state of poverty. That’s where we are after 56 years of “reparations.”

Why did the single parenthood rate skyrocket? Because this is how Black people act in a free society. You want them to act better? Ok, put them in chains again like under Jim Crow. That’s literally how you do it. The single parenthood rate supposedly rocketed up due to “welfare,” but Blacks already had welfare since 1935. The Great Society didn’t increase welfare payments one nickel.

There were food stamps, Section 8, and Medicaid in the Great Society. So Black parenthood collapsed because now Black mothers could afford enough food to eat, to rent an apartment and to go to the doctor? Well, that’s just terrible! How dare they get all those things necessary for them to survive!

Black crime has collapsed. Sex crimes are 63% down from even the early 90’s. Everyone else’s crime rates have collapsed too. Crime in general and violent crime in particular were far higher among Blacks in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s to my knowledge. If anyone has better data, let’s see it.

Section 8 housing

Section 8 rentals are not slums. They’re tearing down the housing projects. Now Section 8 is just a voucher that you take around to any renter who will take it. In this complex, a certain number of apartments are Section 8. I don’t know which they are or who rents them, but there are not many Blacks in this complex (thank God). It’s mostly Hispanics, a very few Whites, and yes, there are a few Blacks here and there and they’re at least a bit Ghetto too.

This is a beautiful complex, looks brand new, very well kept up. And there are Section 8 people here. The landlord does not tolerate any crap from anyone, and any tenants who act bad are quickly tossed.

The result of the cultural collapse is evident from appalling crime statistics, the fact that 70% of new AIDS cases are Black, gonorrhea infection rates are 13-18 times the white average,

AIDS cases are mostly Black? Well, those are mostly Black gay men I assume. Please tell me how the War on Poverty made Black gay men catch way more AIDS than non-Black men. By letting them survive? So if you let Black homosexuals survive, then they turn suicidal, go get fucked up the ass by a hundred guys, and get AIDS. Right? Just checking on your logic here.

STD rates are high among Blacks everywhere on Earth. A lot of Black people screw anything that moves, and they probably don’t take many precautions to keep from getting an STD. They also don’t go to the doctor like they ought to. This behavior is typical amongst the Ghetto Blacks. I’m not sure middle class Blacks are sexually any different from the rest of we White sluts and manwhores.

STD rates are extremely high in the Caribbean. They’re off the charts in Africa, where no Black gets a dime of social spending.

Fine. Take all the money away from social programs for Blacks and yell at them to take responsibility for themselves. Like millions of Bill Cosby’s like me haven’t been yelling at Black people every day for years to get their shit together? Is it working? I don’t think so. So your project to pull all that evil survival money away from Blacks so they have no money, no food, no place to live, and no way to go to the doctor.

And this will make them act better.

Yeah right.

And then you will holler at them, “We took all your free money away, now you’re on your own, and you have to get your shit together!” And Black people are suddenly going to act way better and get their shit together.

This is the Republican fantasy about Blacks, and it’s about as insane as the Left’s fantasies about Blacks seen via Critical Race Theory.

The Great Society was never intended to turn Black people into White people. All it was intended to do was to allow people of all races to survive at a basic subsistence level. Do you know what it is like to live on one of those programs? Or even be to poor enough to qualify for them. You never have any money. Life blows, every day, forever. You are living in a world of shit in a sense. Why the most pathetic people on Earth are the subject of all this vitriol is something I will never understand.

Head Start

Head Start is preschool. That’s all it is. It’s preschool for poor people. I know a guy who drove a bus in Eastern Pennsylvania. Part of his route was taking the kids to and from Head Start. 100% of the kids he was transporting were White. Although a conservative, he was dead set against getting rid of Head Start. What’s wrong with giving poor people preschool? You got a problem with that? Or you got a problem with niggers getting preschool? Preschool is only for Whites. Niggers just don’t deserve it. Well, I don’t agree.

Also, if Head Start doesn’t work (false), then preschool doesn’t work. Then why on Earth are all these White parents so insistent on preschool for their kids? Are they are all stupid? What about all the studies showing how preschool benefits kids? They’re bad science? If preschool doesn’t work, a lot of Whites are wasting their money.

And it’s not true that Head Start doesn’t work. The intention was never to turn Black people into Norwegians and Japanese. That’s not going to happen (though my co-blogger is about as deferential and polite as a Japanese woman). You can’t turn Blacks into Whites, not with our present tools. The only thing we can do is try to turn Black people into the best versions of themselves that we can.

Let’s try another one. Head Start works great for White people, but it doesn’t work for niggers for “whatever X reasons.” Why doesn’t it work for them? And they are different species? Are they all born with an anti-preschool gene? Come on. What works for Whites works for Blacks too because Blacks are humans. What works for one group of humans works for another group of humans.

Head start works. Not only that but it’s cost effective. Blacks who go through Head Start are less likely to drop out of high school, be incarcerated, go on welfare, or have an IQ below 70 (so it even lifts IQ’s at the low end). It seems like what Head Start does is lift up the group of Blacks that fall on the tail end intellectually and behaviorally. It lifts up the bottom. And as I said, it even pays for itself.

TANF

Welfare (TANF) pays $300/month. You trying to tell me that women actually don’t keep men around because it’s so easy to live on $300/month? You’re crazy. Tell you what. You Republicans say it’s easy to live on $300/month. Cool. So you do it. Live on $300/month for a while and then get back to us and let us know how it went, ok?

A lot of White people use all these programs. The lie is that this is White people’s tax money going to a bunch of no-good niggers and beaners. However, lots of Whites are on all of these programs. 39% of the women on straight up welfare are White! I live in a poor city, and there are many Whites around here who use Medicaid and food stamps. I see them all the time. It’s sort of normal around here to be on Medicaid or food stamps, and there’s no shame at all in doing so. No one is going to look at you like you’re a derelict leech for doing so. There are too many people doing it, so it became normalized.

The biggest lie of all is that the War on Poverty failed. I’m sure people on food stamps are eating a lot better than they were. I am sure that people on Medicaid are getting more and better medical care than they were. I am sure that people on Section 8 are happy to be able to rent a place rather than being homeless. I am sure that women’s little kids on WIC are eating a lot better than they would.

None of these programs were intended to solve any basic problem with Black people or with any race of people. We weren’t throwing money at any problem. The programs were intended to give some very poor people a basic, very low, no-fun level of existence so they could survive.

There were some problems that got solved.

Food stamps was because a lot of people didn’t have enough money for food. Now they do. Problem solved.

Section 8 was for people too poor to even rent an apartment. Now they have a roof over their heads. Problem solved.

Welfare (which was started in 1935, not by the Great Society but anyway) was based on the idea that all children must be supported. By taking welfare away you are saying that kids have no right to be supported and they should just die if their mother is poor. It’s not about the mother at all. It’s all about the kids. Problem solved, basically.

Welfare didn’t cause single parenthood. We’ve had welfare since 1935 and there were no problems. It’s not some new thing that the Great Society started.

Medicaid was for people who could not afford to go to the doctor at all. Now they can. Problem solved.

WIC was initiated because a lot of women were so poor that their kids were not eating right. So it enabled them to buy food to feed their little kids. Problem solved.

All you people who object to WIC, I’ve got a question for you. You got a problem with little kids getting enough food to eat?

Not one nickel has been thrown at the education system to try to lift up Blacks and turn them into White people. All schools get the same amount of federal dollars. They are funded by local property taxes. If any money was spent it was simply to support schools in Black and Brown areas at a level similar to that of White areas , in other words, to provide Blacks and Browns with a basic low level education. What’s wrong with that?

“Welfare” hasn’t caused any of those problems you described. Let’s look at welfare, now TANF. We got rid of it. Yay! That was cool, man! Why didn’t I think of that! The idea was just like above, take the free money away from those damned niggers and yell at them that now they’re on their own and they have to get their shit together or else. That’ll show em! That’ll make em get their shit together!

Guess what? It didn’t work. At all.

It didn’t improve any social pathology factors, not even one. There were no societal benefits at all. The only thing that happened was that those women (and their kids!) got even more poor. A lot of them went homeless along with their kids. It was a huge failure.

Tell you what. Let’s try an experiment! Let’s look at places like the Caribbean and Africa where there are none of these evil social programs at all. There’s nothing, no social programs, zero. No money, you don’t eat, and then you die.

Ok, Blacks should be free of pathology right? Nope! They act way worse! The fewer social programs they get, the worse they act.

Let’s look at Blacks in Brazil. Few social programs. They act far worse than they do here.

Let’s look at Blacks in Europe. Especially those from Africa act at least as bad as our Blacks and probably even worse.

Fact: Black people have these pathologies you describe everywhere they exist on this planet.

Now why that is is up for grabs. Maybe it’s genes, maybe it’s environment, maybe it’s something in the air. I don’t know. That’s for the social scientists, if there are any honest ones left, to untangle. Not my job.

I figure these social programs are sort of “buy off” programs to buy off Black people who would ordinarily act pretty bad. The more we support them at basic levels, the less poor they are, and they happier they are. If you take away these programs, they would probably act far, far worse and they might even riot so much that they wreck the country. We are buying them off, giving them money with the caveat that they need to act better now, and it seems to work.

Alt Left: Socialism, Communism and Neoliberalism in High and Low-IQ Societies

Clavdius Americanvs: I don’t believe socialism is necessarily better for low-IQ societies, but it definitely helps redistribute the misery so things are more bearable for the general populace.

Socialism and even Communism is always better for low-IQ countries. There’s not even any debate about it. I suppose you can say that neoliberalism functions somewhat in the West, but it doesn’t work at all in low-IQ countries. It’s just fails spectacularly, however, the top 20% of the population does make out well.

Clavdius Americanvs: I really don’t think socialism at the moment is a great idea for low-IQ countries. But it can arise if the ruling capitalist class is entrenched old money and not very permeable. Latin America used to have a race-based CASTE system for Christ’s sake! Entrenched old money isn’t really capitalist at all – it’s feudalism masquerading as a free market. I don’t believe Latin America is capable of anything else.

Well this is all neoliberal capitalism ever turns into – something that looks a lot like feudalism. Libertarians can’t figure out this law of capitalism and keep pining for this just and proper pure capitalism that never exists. Take the non-aggression principle. They can’t figure out that aggression is at the very heart of capitalism. No aggression, no capitalism.

Will capitalist countries ever allow socialist or communist countries to exist? Of course not. They try to overthrow them, often with violence, as soon as they show up. In the US, overthrowing socialist and even social democratic countries is a bipartisan affair, with even left Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders joining in with glee. Ocasio-Cortez is right. The Democratic Party is a center-right party and we don’t have a left party in the US. When was the last time? Henry Wallace? How did that work out? A party coup that put Truman in instead.

Clavdius Americanvs: I foresee any regime, even a socialist one, to eventually become feudal simply with a new ruling class not descended from the old one.

Probably not and it never happened in any Communist countries that I can think of. Many social democratic countries simply went corrupt and put the old ruling class in and continued calling themselves socialists. This happened in Venezuela, Peru, and Mexico.

Down in Latin America even the rightwing parties often call themselves socialists or have leftwing words like Labor, Liberal, Progressive, People’s, Popular, Workers, Revolutionary, etc. in their names because that’s often the only way to get elected. Rightwing parties down there even campaign on leftwing themes. All rightwing parties down there, even the death squad parties, campaign on helping the poor and alleviating poverty. Of course they never do it, but they have to say it or they won’t have a chance.

Clavdius Americanvs: The only hope is a secular rise in IQ for the countries so they can all produce more under capitalism.

I don’t think that will work either. The highest IQ countries are either Communist or “National Socialist” as in South Korea and Japan. I’m not sure what Taiwan is. Hong Kong is about ready to go Communist. Vietnam is Communist. All of Europe is nominally socialist or social democratic. It doesn’t look like even high-IQ countries want neoliberalism. Now if you talk about a market instead of “capitalism,” we can talk. After all, I am a socialist and I support a market myself.

Clavdius Americanvs: Afterwards, they can go the European route and turn into social democracies when they can afford it.

No one goes this route anymore – capitalism -> social democracy. Obviously the US is headed that way and Europe formerly did, as did Indonesia, with the Philippines heading that way slowly. And almost all poor countries nowadays are socialist or social democracies in name if not in form. No poor country wants to start out capitalist anymore. Neoliberalism is a luxury good, only affordable by the rich.

Clavdius Americanvs: Only with higher average IQ’s can entrenched ruling classes be otherthrown.

What happened in Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada, Laos, Cambodia, Eritrea, South Yemen, and Cuba?

Clavdius Americanvs: A population needs to be smart enough to produce and become aware of its social contract with the government. I doubt most leftwing participants in Latin America or any low IQ country really understand what they are signing up for in terms of a social contract.

Of course they do. Why do you think they all vote for the Left. Even at this late date, 70% of Venezuelans say they are Chavistas. They can see with their very own eyes what they got with Chavismo. They’re not dumb. Same thing in Nicaragua. The Sandinistas have 70-80% support. Lavalas in Haiti won with 92% of the vote.

Clavdius Americanvs: Low-IQ peasants just don’t want to starve or be beaten by armed thugs of their aristocratic overlords. They are somewhat aware of what they can get, but have no clue as to what they are giving up.

What they are giving up never worked for them anyway and probably never will.

Alt Left: Does Neoliberalism Even Work In High-IQ Societies?

Clavdius Americanvs: As for why right-wing Alpha societies turn feudal? IQ must be factored in. Low-IQ countries that go the right-wing capitalist way simply don’t have enough high-IQ types to make it in the free market. So the bulk of the population Alpha or not ends up starving, or a serf, or both. The few high-IQ Alpha males and their relatives are the victors in the winner-take-all game of capitalism.

Well they did this the world over in Latin America, Southeast Asia including the Philippines and Indonesia, Taiwan, and South Korea. They did it in some African countries like Rhodesia and South Africa, and Morocco. It doesn’t work. You have to impose it by a rightwing dictatorship because otherwise no one votes for it. Neoliberalism has never even been imposed on most of Africa or the Arab World because literally nobody wants it. It’s hardly even been tried in Europe either.

If it works so great in high-IQ countries, why do the Europeans,  Russians, and Chinese all reject it?

Even the Japanese and South Koreans don’t have neoliberalism. The Socialist Party has literally been in power for much of the time in postwar Japan, and the Communist Party is surprisingly large.

Even in South Korea, South Korea was only created after 300,000 armed Communists were exterminated in that country from 1945-1950. When North Korea conquered almost all of South Korea during the Korean War, armed South Korean communist guerrillas sprung up immediately in every conquered zone. They were already there and waiting for the North Koreans.

After the South Korean government took back all this territory, they rampaged around the country, seeking out and killing many of the people who had taken up arms and their supporters. Again over 300,000 were killed. There was also a Communist uprising on Jeju Island around this time that was put down viciously. Obviously Communism was quite popular in South Korea from 1945-53.

Alt Left: The Black Race and Impulsiveness and Ability to Delay Gratification

RL: “Poor impulse control. It’s been documented and it’s genetic.. 6 year old children. Pure genetics.”

TJF: At age 6, environment could very easily guide one’s behavior. In reference to Alpha’s comment I’d like to see a study with children who have an engaged paternal figure versus those who do not. I’ve seen people dismiss the out of wedlock birthrates among Black Americans comparing the similar out of wedlock birth rates in Iceland and Sweden, but those societies are substantially different (markedly more socialist), and the birth fathers may be heavily engaged, but the parents are not married.

With that said I get the impression that clear consistent guidance is probably even more required / beneficial in Black Americans than Whites (albeit any child would benefit).

It’s been replicated over and over. The first tests were done in the South. They were worried it was environmental, so they took it to the Caribbean. Same result. They didn’t believe the results, so they kept doing the tests over and over. Eventually they had done the tests so many times that they got sick of trying to replicate them and they quit doing them.

You now have to argue that Caribbean Black and US Southern Black culture are the same in producing this odd effect. If it’s cultural, that means they have the same culture. But is that true? Caribbean Black culture is the same as US Black culture? Why would that be? And why doesn’t that play into the “niggers are the same everywhere” argument used by the racists? Also and more importantly, if they’re the same everywhere due to biology or due to culture, what difference does it make? Who cares! You still have a group of people who have problems with delaying gratification, and that’s a problem in a modern society.

Also let us look at this from another POV. One idea is the tests are simply wrong. Does the Black race on average seem to have a harder time delaying gratification than other races? Just look around you at how Black children and adults act. I taught Black kids for years. Of course it’s true, but by the time they are 16-18, most of that behavior is gone because the ones who could not delay gratification are all dropped out, on the streets, in jail or juvey, or probation or parole, or dead.

Look at the behavior of ghetto type Blacks. So much of the pathology seems to be so directly related to this inability to delay gratification. It’s as clear as air.

I’m not some racist out to hate Blacks and write them off as some failed race. At this point in history, I’m not sure how much it matters how they act. We are now in the era of genetic splicing and CRISPr technology. Genetically designed humans may not be too far away. Do we really need to be so concerned about what various races bring to the table genetically?

How about something else? How about a pill? I don’t like the idea of mandating meds for people who are not mentally ill and most pathological Blacks are not disordered at all. They’re not crazy. They’re just bad. We obviously don’t have a morality pill yet (but one can dream!) but suppose we found a pill that let you delay gratification? That enabled you to be less impulsive, which in my opinion is another terrible problem with the Black race.

I don’t see how we can force people to take it, but we could always offer it on a voluntary basis. A lot of Blacks are probably sick and tired of their impulsiveness and inability to delay gratification screwing up their lives. This might be especially true in Black men over 30-35. Maybe they’re angry because they can’t seem to control themselves, and this keeps ruining their lives. Suppose we say, “Here’s a pill to help you be less impulsive so you don’t get into trouble so much.” I think there would be some Blacks, especially Black men, who would gladly take it.

This goes beyond race. Obviously impulsiveness and inability to display gratification are human qualities, not Black qualities. Blacks simply display these all too human qualities in greater percentages. Speaking of pills, we could offer such a pill to anyone of any race who had problems with delayed gratification and impulsiveness. I’m  quite sure there are Whites who  have these problems. And I know there are Hispanics with these problems. IQ does seem to be an attenuating factor. As IQ rises, impulsiveness and inability to delay gratification seem to go down and vice versa.

I had a neighbor Hispanic, a young man who was gang affiliated, who used to hang out over here all the time. Mostly we just smoked pot. He literally could not think beyond one or two days in the future. He would get some money and it would melt in his hands in a day or two, no matter how much. Then he would be standing there dumbfounded, acting like,”Whoa! Where did all the money go? Duhhhh.”

I kept talking to him but he literally could not think beyond 24-48 hours into the future, so it was worthless. I had no idea what his IQ was. Surely in the 80’s.

He sure could rap though. I heard him rap a few times and  the guy was a flat out genius. With an IQ of 85. I’m not sure you need a real high IQ to master verbal memory, which is the skill being utilized in rap.

So these sort of interventions would go beyond being “Black things” into being “human things.”

Being Dumb Isn’t the Problem; Being Dangerous Dumb or Dangerously Ignorant Is

I don’t hate lower IQ people. A lot of the people I hate have high IQ’s too. I hate stupid people. Stupid people who don’t think properly. It’s more like ignorance and what I call a “dangerously stupid” attitude. By ignorant I mean it is completely opposed to science and driven more my mass hysteria and emotional societal panics.

Being stupid is one thing. If you are just stupid but you are not dangerously stupid so you might harm me, I don’t hate you 1%. You could have an 85 IQ but if you are smart enough to not get taken in by societal bullshit and intelligent enough to think for yourself and come up with your own answers instead of being a sheep, I love you to death.

An 85 IQ  person need not be an ignorant moron with repulsive and dangerous views. He’s a lot more likely to but that’s not guaranteed. On the other hand, it’s perfectly possible for someone to be high or very high IQ and be dangerously ignorant to where they have attitudes that are dangerous to me and others. A lot of these types are wrapped up in fanatical movements like feminism and SJWism that tend towards wild irrationality or no rationality at all, and contempt for science and logic in favor of emotional reasoning.

It might be hard to connect with you, but IQ’s no reason to hate a man. I guess I should say that what I hate is dangerous ignorance, but ignorance and dangerous, emotion-driven ignorance does tend to be more common as you go down the IQ scale. As you go up the scale, people can shut off their emotions more and see issues in the clear light of pure logic, in which case, they usually arrive at an answer that’s compatible with science and reasonable policy-wise.

Would You Like to Have 20 IQ Points Fewer or More?

Do you sometimes wish you had 20 fewer Iq points? So you can relate to people better. Or 20 points higher? But you may think 95% of people are dumb and end up like Ted Kaczynski.

20 points higher would be very interesting. I love my brain, I love thinking. I’m in love with my brain. We’ve been carrying on a love affair for a long time now. It’s like the most wonderful toy you ever got to play with. 20 points more seems like a total blast, but no doubt it would alienate me from everyone even more.

At 147, I have a hard time (statistically, anyway) with everyone under 117 IQ, which is 85% of the population. So I’m already alienated from 8-9 out of every time people I deal with on some fundamental level. At 167 I would have a hard time with everyone under 137 IQ (statistically, anyway), which is 99% of the population.

What’s important here is the meaning of alienation. If you asked me if I were alienated from everyone with an IQ below 117, I would say of course not! Don’t be ridiculous.

But maybe that’s not what’s important. Maybe what’s important is that everyone with an IQ below 117 is alienated from me! I just now thought of it that way. Of course there’s no way to test that out without doing a very uncomfortable study that is very hard to do, but if you are asking me intuitively, yes, it does seem to be correct.

People just seem to be weirded out and disconnected from me on a fundamental level. That’s been much more the case as I got older, but maybe it was always the case on some level. It’s hard to describe but it’s like there’s some sort of a massive disconnect on some fundamental level. Like there’s a wall up between other people and me and can’t be breached no matter what. I have no idea what the wall or why it is there or anything about it or or whether it has anything to do with IQ.

Perhaps I’m just a freak, but I think it’s deeper than that. For instance, the smarter the person is, the more fascinated they are by me, the less they think I’m a freak and the more they think I’m an especially desirable and valuable person. They’re not alienated from me at all usually. The smarter someone is, the less of a wall or disconnect there is with them.

This is all boiled down to my intelligence because that’s what smarter people find fascinating. But I probably have other pleasant aspects to my personality too. I’ll never fight with you. I’m the least irritable person you will ever meet. I’m funny and I can be quite warm and loving if you ask me. I am actually very kind and  considerate. I’m the stereotypical nice guy.

I guess there’s more to that list even. The funny thing is most people just see that exterior and they say, “Damn, he’s weird,” and they never look under the hood to see what’s there. They’re just as capable as seeing how smart I am as anyone else is, and I probably ought to blow them away more than people near my level.

But it seems like the more you blow someone away mentally, instead of being fascinated by you, they’re either bored or repelled. The boredom and repulsion increases as IQ goes down. And people at my level who should be less impressed by my brain (because it’s near their level so it’s nothing special) are actually the most fascinated by it.

I have no solution to this conundrum. A theory suggests, however. Perhaps the only people who can appreciate the wonder of people with very high IQ’s – the most intelligent people of all – are other smart or very smart people.

Maybe I could have gone somewhere in life, but more probably I would have ended up like those people in The Outsiders – living alone at 40, no friends, celibate or incel, extremely introverted, job paying minimum wage. That’s the typical endpoint for a man with an IQ over 160.

20 points less would give me 127. I say now that I don’t want that but if I had been that way my whole life, maybe it would have been just fine. Most people I know at that level are happy, and people with 127 IQ statistically do much better than people with 147 IQ.

I Admit I’m a Misanthrope and It’s One of my Worst Flaws

I’m pretty disgusted by humans. I don’t even really like them. Actually, I hate to admit it but I am a misanthrope. And I hate to say it even more, but the majority at least here in the US deserve every bit of my hatred. I hate them because they are stupid, and stupidity itself is a little bit dangerous by its very nature, so they frighten me.

They’re idiots. I hate idiots. Actually they’re worse than idiots. They’re dangerous idiots, and that’s the worst kind of idiot of all.  So, yeah, I hate most Americans because they are goddamned dangerous idiots who threaten my peace of mind, well-being, reputation, and maybe even ability to earn a living.

If you study people with very high IQ’s around my range and up, you will see that they almost all feel this way.  Worse, as IQ rises, misanthropy seems to rise in tandem just like clockwork.

Above IQ 160, it’s not to find a complete misanthrope. They hate people because they think people are stupid. And to them, most people are stupid.

When you are up here in the stratosphere, every people with average intelligence almost seem literally retarded. It’s disgusting but you feel bad about it for hating them and keep beating yourself up and trying to be nice to them and turn off the misanthropy. Which can  be done.

But when it comes to close friendships or meaningful relationships, about 30 IQ points is the limit. If someone is 30 IQ points above or below you, you will have a very hard time communicating. Some say that meaningful communication is either very difficult or even impossible. Yes, you can become friends, but it will be quite difficult. Leaders who have IQ’s30+ IQ points above those below them are poor leaders. Their underlings don’t listen to them, and rebellions are common.

The best leaders are not geniuses. The best leaders for White people would have an IQ below 130. Above that and you will not be able to connect with  your followers.

Alt Left: Prospects for Existing Human Races into the Foreseeable Future

I’m not worried about the ability of Amerindians,  Inuit, Island SE Asians, South Indians, Arabs, Central Asians, Melanesians, Micronesians,  Polynesians, and Mestizos, Mulattos, North Africans to cut it in the modern world. They’ll all do all right. A lot of them will have some issues,  but they will muddle through.

I don’t know about Sub-Saharan Africans. They’re not doomed at all, and I do think  they will survive. The Blacks are one of those races that just seem to survive no matter what. Their IQ is low, but I am always impressed by the adaptability of Blacks either here or in Africa.

The fact that US Blacks are hardly genetically different from African Blacks bodes well for the future of Africans. Their IQ’s could be boosted ~10 points by a better environment. An 80 IQ versus 70 IQ would do wonders for Africans.

Caribbeans are low IQ but I think they will muddle through anyway. Like I said, Black people just seem to survive no matter what sort of crap you throw at them. They get knocked down, pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and recover. Blacks are a resilient race and this is one  thing I like about them.

On the other hand, I am afraid that Aborigines, Papuans, Bushmen, and Pygmies do seem to be inferior stocks at least intellectually. Papuans were not inferior at all living there all alone on Papua with their pigs and yams. But they don’t seem cut out for the natural world at all. One possibility is that there are Melanesians living along the coast (IQ 87) and if the Papuans bred in with these folks, they’d better better off.

Aborigines don’t even seem like that are capable of being adapted to modernity. It’s sort of a race that got left behind or started way too late. There not inferior when they lived in Australia for 60,000 years, but they’re just too primitive and outdated to cut it in modern society.

On the other hand, your average Aborigine now is half White and has an 85 IQ. This could well help them quite a bit. On the other hand, everything I hear about them is that they are really fucked up. You think US Blacks are fucked up? Hell, you think African Blacks are fucked up? Man, you ain’t seen nothing til you check out Aborigines.

Bushmen and Pygmies were not inferior when they lived alone in their native lands. But I’m really not sure if they can make in the modern world. There are schools for Bushmen like the Hadza in Kenya, but they almost all drop out. On the other hand, they do have some talents. A Hadza will go out and sit under a tree for maybe 1-3 days. Just sitting there. No idea what they are doing. But they are perfectly happy. None of us could do that.

And people who visit the Bushmen swear to God that they are psychic and have telepathy and clairvoyance. Would not surprise me one bit. Higher mammals are definitely psychic. I think primitive man was also psychic as a leftover from out mammalian heritage. This is clearly the most ancient human line currently existing (53,000 years old), so it would follow that they are still psychic.

As you get more and more civilized, psychic abilities are less useful, so I think we selected them out. But obviously some people still have psychic abilities, including clairvoyance, telepathy and even communication with the dead. She has seen and communicated with ghosts and I believe her. And she’s not the only one. Noted psychics simply have retained more of this ability than the rest of us.

I am very worried about the Pygmies. They were not inferior at all living in the rainforests by themselves. But they don’t seem to be able to cut it in the modern world. They are interesting people. They are very passive and goodnatured, almost angelic. And they are Black!

The Bushmen  are quite similar, and their testosterone levels are low. They are happy, passive, and avoid conflict. They’re Black too!

When we talk about Blacks as some criminal-prone or violent race, we need to be careful who we are talking about.

Negroids, like all human races, are a new race. No existing race is older than 15,000 years old. Negroids were created from 6-12,000 YBP when they evolved from more primitive stocks, possibly something like Pygmies or Bushmen.

During the creation of this race, sub-Saharan Negroids seem to have gone through recent selection pressure with the advent of organized agricultural village chief and clan based societies for heavily muscled, athletic, very strong, and quite aggressive males. These were the males who rose to the top of village society and lorded it over the others, typically in a sociopathic fashion. They also monopolized the women.

And Negroid women may well have evolved a preference for these huge, intimidating, frightening and dangerous men.

So Negroids selected for well-built, strong, athletic, aggressive and even violent psychopathic males for thousands of years.

And perhaps this outdated legacy lives among us yet.

Alt Left: Statement on White Supremacy and the Superiority/Inferiority of Different Races

Just for the record, I don’t think Whites are superior to all other races. I’m not a White Supremacist. I don’t care how many objective scientific arguments you can string together  showing how Whites are better than all the others. I simply don’t buy it. Anyway, you will never prove scientifically that Whites are superior to everyone else. Science is not going to buy it, folks.

Because at the end of the day, superiority and inferiority is subjective, like beauty and a million other things. If you think you’re better, then you are in a way. If you think you’re worse, then you are too in a sense. At least you will act superior or inferior if you feel this way.

Don’t get me wrong. I love White people, White culture, White everything, you name it. After all, I am the Great White Man!

But that’s just a personal preference for my own kind and what I was raised around. I’ve met Blacks and South Asians who also preferred to be around their own kind for similar reasons. That’s not racist at all and it’s your choice as a human with free agency.

On the other hand, I do think that Asians are the superior race. But I still don’t want to be an Asian. I like being White!

I also think that the new NE Asian/White hybrid race we are creating now may truly be a superior race, better than either race alone. I have hopes for this race. I also high good hopes for a lot of these odd new hybrid races coming out these days. I think the human future in a genetic and racial sense is promising.

Beyond that, I’m not going to discuss superiority or inferiority with regard to Whites and South Indians, Arabs, Blacks, Pacific Islanders, Amerindians, and Inuit, or even any of the latter groups with each other.

I’m willing to admit that within races there are superior and inferior stocks.

On various levels, I think that US/UK Blacks are a superior breed than African and even Caribbean Blacks. Along the same lines, Gypsies are inferior to other South Indians. Obviously, Jews are superior to the rest of the Whites in certain ways.

I’m sorry if I make anybody mad with these arguments, but I’m afraid that’s just how it’s going to be.

All of the SJW’s in the world are now invited to bombard with me with racism accusations for the  millionth time into the near future. I’m sure they will whether I invite them or not.

US Blacks should be proud. They are part of the probably the best stock of Blacks the world has ever produced. That’s something to feel good about.

Alt Left: How Do Liberal Whites Talk about Blacks Behind Closed Doors?

Tamerlane: Curious about what Whites truly think about Blacks (and other races) behind closed doors…

…besides the usual:

1) Blacks are stupid (have low IQ’s)
2) Blacks have low emotional self-control
3) Blacks have a criminal disposition
4) Blacks are lazy (low conscientiousness)

That’s about it. You won’t hear much beyond that from liberal Whites anyway.

1. The low intelligence is not regarded with contempt but instead as a simple fact. My mother in particular has been fascinated by this subject and has been studying it for many years,  probably 50 years. She thinks there is something  to it and it’s genetic. She’s heard of Arthur Jensen and William Shockley.

Some will argue against the race-IQ facts out of ignorance. I had one guy like that. His response was,
“No way…” but he had a funny little smile on his face when he said it. Then I argued that IQ tests did indeed show that Blacks on average were less intelligent. He argued against it for a while but then he caved. He had the same odd little smile on his face, sort of a curious smile. Then he said, “Well, of course. Of course they’re not as smart.”

On the other hand, I had a very racist friend 35 years ago, and we were discussing this subject. He said, “You mean niggers ain’t got no brains, right?” and he chuckled. I said yeah. And he said, “Well, yeah, obviously, of course.”

2. The low self-control is not discussed. It’s a rather sophisticated subject and most folks are just not intellectual enough to take it on.

However, perhaps along those lines, I did tell my mother about the candy bar experiments in the Caribbean and the US South where the Black children could not seem to delay gratification whereas almost all the White children choose to delay their pleasure.

She nodded her head with a tired expression that was somewhat cynical and said, “Well, of course.” She has also noted that Blacks mature earlier than other races, and she thinks this is  genetic. She noted that Blacks mature earliest and are least intelligent, and Asians mature latest and are most intelligent. She acted like this was genetic. She had that same sort of tired, cynical tone when she said that.

3. They would not say that Blacks have a criminal disposition. Instead they would say that Blacks commit a lot of crime for whatever reason and this is the main rationale behind anti-Black racism. I will talk about anti-Black racism, and they will say in an exasperated tone, “It’s the crime!”

There was a guy where I live, a psychopath and a gang member, part Black and part Hispanic Cuban-American, a criminal who later ripped me off for a $175 knife. I told him about the Black-crime thing, and he acted surprised at first and disbelieving or maybe just shocked. Then he nodded his head gravely and said, “They’re savages.” And this guy was part Black!

I forget what I did, maybe nodded my head or something crappy like that. I don’t like to be disagreeable. I don’t agree that Black people are savages, but I like my conversations to go smoothly. Then he said, “Well no wonder. They come from Africa. They’re savages over there in Africa.” I probably nodded my head to this one too, and sadly it’s a lot more true than the previous statement.

But born criminals? Nope, people don’t really say that. Sometimes it is implied but not stated, though. I remember my mother telling me about friends of hers who adopted a Black boy, and as he grew into an adolescent, he became a complete psychopath.

She said her friends were the nicest people, and he probably had the best upbringing. In other words, environment had nothing to do with it. The implication was that he had a genetic tendency and that this tendency was heightened due to his race.

4.You don’t hear much about Blacks being lazy, and a lot of people will argue against it and say they sure worked hard as slaves, etc. That was my line forever and I would probably still whip it out just to be a liberal ha ha.

However, my 87 year old mother, a liberal Democrat, thinks there is something to it. Not that there aren’t hard-working Blacks.

And by the way, one of her best friends started dating a Black man from Mississippi in her 80’s. I met the guy and he’s the coolest dude you ever met. My Mom was 100% supportive of this relationship. And she probably would not have been earlier in life. So even in that generation, things are changing. Dramatically.

I have these conversations most often with liberal Whites, and they generally police their speech pretty well. All of this talk is a bit taboo, and it’s not talked about much because it seems like it makes them uncomfortable. It’s as if they’d rather not discuss it, like these are uncomfortable or unpleasant truths.

But beyond that, no. No liberal ever discusses Black appearance in a negative way. That’s considered to be very gross racist thinking.

I’m not sure if there are other legitimate criticisms you can make of Black people. I think most liberals would say that the four above are a handful, if not too much to stomach right there. The last thing they want to do is hear any more negative stuff about Black people. They don’t want these things to be true and they think the fewer arguments like this, the better.

Racist jokes about Blacks are also frowned upon.  They’re considered to be somewhat gross and disgusting, rather uncouth. Maybe a bit vicious too. It’s sort of, “Hey, we don’t talk like that around here.”

There is a hint of exasperation about these conversations at times, if not cynicism. At least in my Mom’s case.

With liberals like my sister or my late father, you could not even bring up any of this without them blowing up and starting a huge fight. My sister hates the race-IQ argument  and noticeably squirms in her seat if you bring it up.

My father especially hated the race-IQ question. It was false, he said, because if it were true, “that means there’s no hope (for Blacks)!” Well, perhaps that is so, but it certainly doesn’t make the statement false. As you can see, a truthful statement for my father meant something he wanted to be true. If he didn’t want it to be true, it was simply a falsehood. I honestly believe the  vast majority of people think exactly like this.

Alt Left: Blacks Are Survivors, Have Common Sense, and Look Out for Their Own Self-Interest, Unlike Whites

Polar Bear: Blacks are big on their own survival. Look at Black African leaders living like rap stars while their people suffer/starve. The same mentality exists with a lot of Blacks abroad. If you watch prank shows, Blacks will often run away. Even the muscle-bound Jimmys will run if it gets too out of the ordinary. They will look out for #1 and survive.

Yes, they are survivors. They survived in Africa over 200,000 years and before that as relict hominids.

I think after a nuclear war, the only things left alive will be cockroaches, Keith Richards, and a maybe more than a few Black people.

Whites strike me as suicidal. It’s like the Suicide Race. Look at how many Whites keep blindly pursuing an ideology that isn’t working, isn’t in their best interests, or is even harming or killing them. Lots! Look at how many are supporting this Trump rolling clown car. This epidemic response has been a huge clusterfuck, the laughingstock of the world, but the White guy keeps supporting it because muh ideology even though it just killed Grandpa and his own damn wife.

See, Blacks don’t do that stuff! Look at Black people’s politics. Say what you want about it, but Black politics clearly serve the best interests of Blacks. Blacks don’t care about ideology. They say, “Screw ideology. I want to know what’s best for me and mine. That’s called ‘the ideology that I support’.”

Blacks know who their enemies are and who their friends are. That’s why ~90% of them vote Democrat. Democrats are pro-Black. Republicans? LOL don’t think so.

That’s smarter than White people. White people can’t even figure out who their friends and enemies are. They oppose their friends and support their enemies, and they’re so stupid, they think they are pursuing their self-interest by doing so. And they vote on stupid stuff like racism. “I’m voting Republican because I hate niggers even though that is bad for me and mine!”

Blacks aren’t that dumb. If you had a politician promoting Black racism against Whites who was at the same time opposed to the interests of most Black people, Blacks would see right through him. They’d chuckle, “I ain’t falling for that!”

The Republicans tried to pitch Colon Bowel or whatever his name was to the Blacks. “Look! Vote Republican! Vote for Colon!” Black people gave that a sidelong glance, thought about it, and said, “I don’t think so!” He never had more than 30% support among Blacks. They knew that Bowel was not good for Blacks.

They didn’t care if he was Black. If you said to a Black person, “But he’s Black like you! You should support him!” a Black person would look at you like, “Yeah right! What do I care if that silly Tom- house Negro is Black! Lots of idiots are Black. I ain’t supporting someone just because he’s the same race as me!” They’re too smart to fall for that.

The Ghetto

You could argue that Black people have gotten themselves into self-defeating situations via behaviors that they continue to perpetuate. Fair enough. But Whites revel in their self-defeating behavior and think Lose means Win somehow.

Blacks aren’t that dumb. Blacks look at that that ghetto mess and aren’t deluded into supporting it! That’s what a White person would do. Support the very thing that’s dragging him down and jump up and cheer about it.

Black people look at that ghetto mess, and a lot of them, if they can put aside their useless pride BS for a while, say, “Well, yeah, that’s a total clusterfuck. I don’t care if it’s our fault or not, all I know is it’s a mess, and I don’t want any part of that. That’s definitely against my self-interest. I’m moving out, sorry. I ain’t stupid!”

Furthermore, they can see that it’s obviously a Fail and not a Win. And a lot of Blacks do blame their own kind or at least a certain type of their own kind for that mess. They are smart enough to figure out that, “We (our race) are fucking up in those ghettos,” doesn’t necessarily mean “I (myself, a member of our race) am fucking up in those ghettos.”

That’s right smart, basic, low level practical thinking. A 5th grader could probably figure that the members of her group misbehaving is not synonymous with her own self misbehaving.

The Burning House

A house is on fire. A Black guy and a White guy are inside. The White yells, “Hell yeah! This is what I voted for! Win win win! Muh ideology! Muh emotions! Muh racism!”

The Black guy looks at him and says, “Fuck this, man. I don’t care about muh emotions right now. My only emotion right now is called, ‘Get the fuck outa here!’ Last thing I need is muh racism right now. And I don’t even know what muh ideology even is, but I know it ain’t gonna do me no good right now! Hey White man, you can have all that muh stuff. Let me know if it helps you get out of the fire, ok?”

Then the Black guy thinks, “This damn house is on fire. The only thing I am thinking right now is how I am gonna get the Hell out of here. Ain’t nothing else matters now. Take your book smarts and keep em on the shelf right now. I’ma get the Hell out of this burning building and save my ass, and I don’t care about one other thing.”

He desperately runs for safety, dodging some flaming boards crashing down and trying not to get overwhelmed by the smoke. Pretty soon he’s out and barely singed. He says, “Whew! Close call! Time for a beer!”

As he walks away he looks back at the house, now collapsing even further in flaming timber. Last thing he hears before it all comes down for good is the White guy, “Win win win win! This is what I voted for! Much ideology! Muh emotions! And especially muh racism!” With that last sentence the building comes down once and for all with a deafening crash, and the White man is heard no more. The Black guy walks away shaking his head, “Damn fool White man,” he says.

Lost in the Jungle!

I’ve got this fancy gold medal White brain, but a lot of good it would do me if I were stranded in the middle of the jungle in Africa! I’d be dead awful quick. My souped up brain would be absolutely worthless.

Anyway, I’m lost in the jungle like a fool, about ready to keel over, and I spot a Black African dude over there in the jungle. “Hey man! Come rescue me!”

Lucky for me he speaks English.

“Hey man, I’m lost in this jungle, and I’m about ready to die. Help me!”

The African comes over and says, “Yeah, I’m lost too but I can show us how to survive out here a while, and in the meantime, I’ma try to find my way out of here because I know how to get to safety when I’m lost.”

Now this guy isn’t real smart. God knows what his IQ is. 75? That’s borderline or low IQ. Won’t help him much in New York City, but it doesn’t matter out here. That 75 IQ Black brain knows how to survive in the jungle and get us to safety, while this genius IQ White brain is effectively “retarded” out here because it can’t figure out how to survive or get back to civilization.

The Black dude helps us survive a few days living off the jungle, eating fruits and roots, and even catching a few animals somehow, don’t ask me how, which he cooks over a homemade caveman fire he made somehow or other, don’t ask me how he did that either.

He had no idea where in the Hell he was, but he knows how to find his way out of being lost. In several days, we’re back to civilization stuffing our faces, getting drunk on palm wine, and having the doctor look us over.

The White Supremacists yell, “Black  people! Low IQ! Low IQ! Low IQ! Inferior! Fail fail fail fail!” Then they rant on about their high IQ and about how much superior it is. Well, in this case the high Win IQ did fuck all for me would have left me to die because it doesn’t know how to survive in the wilderness. But that Low Fail IQ got both of us out of a life-threatening situation.

So in terms of sheer survival and adaptiveness, that 75 IQ might as well be Genius IQ on the “Surviving in the Jungle” scale. And that’s all that matters  here. Numbers don’t matter. Even science doesn’t matter. Facile definitions of superior and inferior don’t matter. All that matters at the end of the day is what works. If it works, it works, and numbers be damned.

What’s Wrong With a 115 IQ?

JBS: Scored a 115 FSIQ on the WAIS-IV. I said I was pissed because the psychologist administering the test said I had learning disabilities or whatever. Not true – just a bad day lol. If I recall accurately, you were kind to me and said not to worry about my score lol. Plenty of above average folk getting on fine.

Oh yes, of course! I remember you now!

Exactly. 115 IQ is just fine. Now if you want to be a physician, attorney, any doctoral profession, or a PhD, it will definitely be a cold, hard slog, but there are definitely physicians with 115 IQ’s. That’s about as low as they go though, and those people had to work their asses off to get that degree.

First of all, what’s wrong with being average? I mean most folks are average. Average is your typical, everyday person. I don’t understand why anyone is ashamed to be a typical ordinary person. I mean I get that they don’t want to be below average, but saying you are average is just saying that you are like everybody else or your average human.

America is very weird. Americans are never satisfied unless they are above average. It’s like Garrison Keillor’s (from Polar Bear’s native Minnesota) Lake Wobegon, the all-White community where everyone is above average. Of course that’s not possible. 90% of Americans say they are above average drivers. 25% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% income bracket (the rich). 50% of Americans say that they are going to be millionaires at some point in their lives.

About the commenter, at 115 IQ, he is in the top 20% of human intelligence. He is in the 80th percentile in terms of IQ. He is smarter than 80% of his fellow human beings. And in terms of Blacks,  he an even higher percentage, but I don’t have good data on that.

He might be in the top 4% of Blacks, but I wonder if that is true. He may be smarter than 96% of Blacks. That’s pretty amazing. A lot of corporations are looking to fill diversity goals. They’re not quotas and it’s not affirmative action. They just want to seek out as many qualified members of minority groups or genders as they can.

So he is basically a gold mine to a lot of corporations. And he may just go to the top of the government line too. Government loves to hire very smart Blacks.

Why this is something to worry about, I have no idea.

The Ronettes, “Be My Baby”

The night we met, I knew I needed you so
And if I had the chance, I’d never let you go
So won’t you say you love me
I’ll make you so proud of me
We’ll make ’em turn their heads every place we go

So won’t you please be my, be my baby
Be my little baby, my one and only baby
Say you’ll be my darlin’, be my, be my baby
Be my baby now, my one and only baby
Wha oh oh oh

I’ll make you happy baby, just wait and see
For every kiss you give me, I’ll give you three
Oh since the day I saw you
I have been waiting for you
You know I will adore you ’til eternity

So won’t you please be my, be my baby
Be my little baby, my one and only baby
Say you’ll be my darlin’, be my, be my baby
Be my baby now, my one and only baby
Wha oh oh oh oh

So come on and please be my, be my baby
Be my little baby, my one and only baby
Say you’ll be my darlin’, be my, be my baby
Be my baby now, my one and only baby
Wha oh oh oh

Be my, be my baby, be my little baby
My one and only baby, oh oh
Be my, be my baby, oh
My one and only baby, wha oh oh oh oh

Be my, be my baby, oh
My one and only baby, oh
Be my, be my baby, oh
Be my baby now

From 1963! Sometimes I think this song is better than either of the previous two. I had no idea they were making such great music in 1963 for Chrissake.

From the complete psycho but legendary genius Phil Spector. He was always nuts. He was even nuts back in the 60’s. People hated working for him because he was so crazy and unstable. And he’d been into guns for a long time before his bizarre murder conviction in 2009.

He treated Ronnie Spector like complete crap and almost ruined her life. He did weird sexual things with his sons like forcing them to simulate sex acts on his girlfriend. They’re probably screwed up by this idiot too.

In 2009 he shot a woman dead in his mansion for no apparent reason. But he’d had a habit of pulling guns on women for some time. I hate to say it, but I really think that men like Phil Spector hate women. If you love women, why would you pull guns on them all the time?

How many times have I told you that artists are crazy? And the real geniuses are often the craziest of them all.

Alt Left: Geniuses, Male/Female and White/Black

Geniuses, in addition to being brilliant, are often either weird (Einstein) or nuts (Sam Peckinpah, Hemingway, Phil Spector).

Because in order to take the creative process to its ultimate heights, you really have to leave this earthly world and ascend up beyond that to the world of Gods, as the Greeks used to say.

And when you truly leave the Earth, you enter the world of the sky, Gods and spiritual beings good and bad, madness, strangeness, and otherworldly-ness. In a sense, you sort of have to go nuts to produce truly great art. If you’re not nuts enough, you’re just to normie to ascend like that.

Sanity, in addition to all the great things it is, is, after all, also mediocrity, the quotidian world or work, home, strict social rules, and complete suppression of dreams, feelings, and really anything wild. The 9-5 world of rush hour and cubicles doesn’t tolerate wildness very well. One reason I usually get fired after a year or so, I suppose.

Check out Otto Weininger on genius and Nietzsche on the ubermensch.

Traditionally from the Greeks on it was thought that only men could access this sort of perfect Platonic concept of genius because men were of the sky, beyond the earth to the airy world of pure ideas which most women, even those with genius IQ’s hate like the plague.

The world of the woman is the world of people, babies, children, friends, lovers, husbands, sons, daughters, and parents. In order words, the world of the earth.

The Greeks said that women were “of the earth” and that men were “of the sky” or at least could try to be. Which one is closer to God? Get it?

This is often thought to be a misogynistic attitude, but I think it’s just true. Of course there are many brilliant women, including geniuses, but have you ever noticed how many of the female pure geniuses in the above sense (the airy world of pure ideas) are rather mannish, masculine, or even full-blown lesbians? Start with genius Laurie Anderson, and she’s not even a dyke. Female philosophers? Try Anita Rondell. Lesbian.

Weininger actually said that women were simply incapable of genius. He thought that if there ever to were to be a female genius, she would probably be a lesbian. Bang on.

Now I am not saying that being of the sky is better than being of the Earth or any of that. Women surely don’t feel that way. They think the world of the sky is the world of men. They also think it is unsufferably boring and find it incomprehensible how and why men would even endeavor to live in such a world. I’ve had brilliant women ask me this?

Why would you even do something like that?

About my crazy herculean projects like cataloguing all of the German and Chinese dialects or languages? To her it was incomprehensible. Why would anyone waste their time doing such a stupid and boring thing. Makes no sense.

This is why most women, even those with IQ’s over 140, are not pure intellectuals in the male sense of the world meaning the airy world of ideas and pure concepts torn loose from all of their Earthly moorings.

But who cares about geniuses anyway? What’s a genius?

There are plenty of brilliant women out there, and the female genius tends to a performer of pure emotion. I listed Marianne Faithful as a teenager and then in her 40’s as an example of “the female genius.” So it’s not that female geniuses do not exist, but it’s more that they take a different form of “pure emotional (feelings)” genius rather than “pure intellectual (thought) genius.”

I also think that Black people have a certain type of genius that I call “the Black genius.” It’s also quite different from the “White male genius.” It’s not inferior, it’s just different, and there are few if any male geniuses who seem to think and behave like the Black male genius.

A shocking number of brilliant Blacks, usually men, embody this rather strange type of genius. Few if any Black women do so this is really the Black male genius.” But to search for the “Black female genius,” perhaps once again we have to look into the world of pure emotion, like Ronnie Spector above, Billie Holiday, Tina Turner, or Pam Grier, the actress.

Catch my drift?

Alt Left: Women Are Not Stupid At All – They Just Seem That Way to Us Men and Vice Versa

SHI:

Girl: “Where you’re from?”

Me: “You know, girl, Detroit?’”

Girl: “No need to swag. You’re not Black, you must be Pakistani or something.”

That’s one smart chick. Women are actually way smarter than we give them credit for. They’re also funny as Hell, especially young women. College girls can be hilarious. Junior high girls are experts at pranks and role-playing games.

Women are just as smart as we are at the moment. They used to be four points behind us, but even then, I met so many smart women it was ridiculous. I’ve known several women with IQ’s of 140+, including one with  156 IQ and another with a 160 IQ.

The 156 IQ woman was literally the fastest thinking human being I have ever met. Also she picked up on new concepts very fast. I would mention something she had never heard of, and she would ask me what that was. I would explain it to her, and it only took her a few minutes to digest the whole concept and get it.

I had 140 IQ girlfriend who was lightning fast too. She would get my jokes instantly, almost as soon as they left my mouth and would almost immediately make some comment on them, often to tell me how absurd the joke was. She was just BAM BAM BAM BAM! Jackhammer smart.

We think women have these little tiny pea brains because of the way they think. To us, female thinking and communication styles seem utterly insipid. Think of women sitting around gabbing about clothes, makeup, hot guys, or gossip and you’ll know what I mean. They seem like birdbrains – literally human songbirds idiotically chirping away and flitting around like birds at a feeder.

Young women seem especially ridiculous to us. But really, as I noted, that is simply because their thinking styles seem idiotic to us men. And that “ridiculous” nature of the female thinking style – exemplified in the giggly, idiotic high school girl – is particularly prominent among teenage girls and young women. They’re silly as Hell. They’re also a blast if you are young enough to enjoy them.

And let’s be fair now – I once told a female best friend that we women think women are idiots, and she laughed and said

That’s ok. We women all think men are idiots too.

I’ve been told that women think we are pinheads because of the way we think. Think of a bunch of men together partying.

The beer starts flowing and pretty soon they are acting like fools, joking or talking in a frivolous or juvenile way about sports and arguing about politics for no good reason other than because we men love a fight.  Pretty soon the room full of grown men degenerates into a room full of 13 year old boys. The fart jokes and falling on the floor laughing and clowning soon begins.

To women this looks exactly like what it is – men devolving into 13 year old boys, and retarded 13 year old boys at that. But we men are not stupid. We just seem that way to women because of the way we think that it is so different from the way that they think.

Long Term Serious Mental Illness Seems to Freeze Personal Development at Whatever Age the Illness Hit

Polar Bear: I work a humble job myself and my father was a postal worker. I’m no genius, it’s an attribute but possibly also a double edge sword. I grew up with a genius next door neighbor and met a few others along the way.

They’re odd ducks for sure. The outsider thing rings especially true. I don’t see many with families. I was the king of the neighborhood in a sense, and my genius neighbor struggled at many things in life.

I’m not sure if you want to be a genius, speaking from the point of view of one. Four of the five geniuses in my family never made much money at all in life.

Two are on disability due to long term (35-40 years) mental illness (mood disorders – bipolar disorder). They both got ill early in life, one at 17 and the other at 19, and I hate to say it, but they never really grew up enough as they should have. I think that when these illnesses hit very early in life and they never go away, it seems like personal development ends up arrested at whenever the illness struck.

In some ways, it’s like at least one of them is stuck at 17. This person in their 50’s (mostly mania) is a permanent teenager. They moved back home at age 39 and lived there until age 55. They just got out of jail and at one time, they were homeless for a few months. They have a modest criminal record (~10 arrests?) for mostly minor stuff, usually during an episode.

During a  manic episode this person will lose everything they have. If they have a car, they will lose the car. If they have an apartment, they will lose the apartment. If they have a job, they will lose the job and not be able to get another one that lasts more than a few days.

They burn through whatever money they have and pawn their valuable possessions. When it ends, their life is in wreckage. They’ve lost just about everything they had.

They never admitted they were ill so they always denied being ill or having an episode and just blamed other people for everything. In the last year, they have started to admit they are ill, but they won’t admit it to me and I can’t bring it up because they will get angry. They’re on meds for the first time but the meds don’t completely control the illness.

The other one is also in their 50’s (mostly depression) and has been quite immature most of their life. They have been hospitalized several times and they seem to like being in the hospital. They have been on meds for 35 years and got bad side effects, including diabetes and weight gain, from the meds, neither of which went away.

Every time they had a crisis, they would collapse and fall apart and call my Mom screaming to come deal with it because they can’t cope with any crisis on their own. I’m not sure if they can cope with crises now.

You still have to watch every single thing you say to them because they have a list of subjects that will make them blow up and throw a mini shitfit 300,000 lines long.

I have to think about everything I say to them to make sure I don’t mention any of the banned subjects. With some banned subjects, you can’t even say the word. For instance, rape and child molestation cannot be mentioned at all, ever, for any reason. They are always shutting down conversations because half the stuff in the world upsets them and makes them throw a mini shitfit.

They spend a very good part of their time at my Mom’s house nowadays although they have their own apartment. They’re both females so it’s no big deal. My Mom is going to move soon, and they will go live with my Mom. They have been on their own since age 35 though, I will give them that. They do like to be on their own.

None of the people mentioned her read this site since I moved, so I’m not so worried about talking about them here. No one who reads this will ever figure out who they really are, their real names, where they live, anything at all about them. Even people who know me won’t be able to connect me to them.

The Myth of Illegal Drugs Frying Your Brain and Permafried People

In response to Jason’s post here about drug use frying your brain, I have written this response. In general, the notion that the use of illegal drugs will fry your brain or make you permafried even after you quit is nonsense. In general, once you quit you go back to the intelligence and sanity level you were at before you started. Few people get permanently lowered intelligence or permanent mental illness from former drug use.

Most illegal drugs do not cause any permanent damage to your brain that would affect you permanently after you quit.

In all of my years using drugs, I have met 10,000’s of drug users and I never met one person who had used so much drugs that they were “fried” in the sense that they were permanently stupid or crazy after they quit using.

Cocaine

There may be some consequences far down the road – say, with Parkinson’s.

Jason’s article discusses an increased risk of Parkinson’s in former cocaine users. But it’s not really due to brain damages so much as changes in a certain receptor that make someone more vulnerable to a toxin. That’s not the same thing as having a fried brain.

I knew a heavy cocaine user who appeared to have neurological problems from the drug. But I am not sure if it persisted after he quit, if he ever did quit. But he’s the only person I’ve ever met like that, and even he wasn’t fried at all. He was still very intelligent and completely sane. However, he did appear to have some sort of brain damage. Whether it was permanent or not is not known.

LSD

I have known people who took LSD up to 700 times, and I know a number who took LSD 300 times. LSD doesn’t damage your brain anyway. It can cause some changes in the visual system due to permanent changes in serotonin receptors, but that just causes some perceptual problems, and this is mostly in people who have taken it 50+ times. It doesn’t change effect you in any way that changes the way you think or feel, in other words, it doesn’t make you stupid or nuts.

There are some very heavy former LSD users who seem to have permanent hallucinations, but those people took a lot of acid over a short period of time – like way, way too much acid. It’s not known what’s going on with them, but I suppose they are permafried in a sense.

LSD is a dangerous drug.

Cannabis

I know many people who have been smoking pot for 10, 20, or even 30 years, and there’s nothing wrong with any of them. You wouldn’t think there was anything wrong with them if you met them. They’re not damaged at all.

The pot lowering IQ discussed in Jason’s piece is only for use before you are 18. If you start using at age 18 or after, there’s no effect on IQ. People under 18 need to be very careful about pot because it can indeed lower their IQ’s a bit.

Pot doesn’t give you schizophrenia, period. The most it can do is trigger it if you are already vulnerable, but even then, most of those people would have gotten it anyway. But it can definitely bring it on sooner than it would have otherwise.

The rate of schizophrenia has been flat for 60 years, all through the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, 2000’s and 2010’s, and all sorts of drug use rates for different drugs skyrocketed at various times in that period. In other words, neither cannabis nor any other drug is going to give you schizophrenia with one exception discussed below.

MDMA

MDMA is a very dangerous drug and it can definitely cause physical damage to your brain. It permanently lowers scores on a few aspects of intelligence tests such as vocabulary, but you mostly can’t notice any changes and there do not appear to be any changes in mental stability. In general, it doesn’t make you stupid or nuts.

However, there are some people called e-tards out there who took a lot of MDMA very frequently over relatively short of periods of time, and these people appear to be permafried. Mostly they seem a bit stupid.

However, I have heard that even these effects of MDMA go away after ~7-8 years if you stay away from the drug.

 

Speed is another matter but even that tends to clear up after you quit. There are some very heavy methamphetamine users, especially people who shot the drug, who have developed an illness that looks a lot like or possibly is paranoid schizophrenia.

There are some recorded cases out of Japan, and a friend told me about another case here in California. This is not a common outcome and even with all the heavy meth abuse that is going on nowadays, you don’t hear much about people being permafried in the sense that they become permanently mentally ill with paranoid schizophrenia.

Heavy Polydrug and Alcohol Abuse for Decades (30 years)

I have heard of one person who used huge amounts of drugs and drank very heavily over many years, starting as an adolescent. They are now off of everything, and they have a rather poor short-term memory and forget stuff a lot, but other than that, they are still extremely intelligent.

They are also a bit suspicious and paranoid, but not at the level of a paranoid psychosis. I suppose this man is permafried in a sense, but if you met him, you would not appear stupid or crazy.

Conclusion

Bottom line is a lot of that stuff can mess you up pretty bad while you are on it so you seem stupid, crazy, or even brain damaged. But most if not all of that tends to clear up when you quit. Permafried people who are permanently stupid or nuts from heavy drug use must be awfully rare because I haven’t met one in my entire life. The fried brains and permafried nonsense is mostly mythology.

A Lot of Average IQ Type People Are a Lot Smarter Than They Seem To Be

It’s no surprise that a lot of very intelligent people, especially with IQ’s in the gifted range – over 132 – think the world is full of idiots. Because when you are that smart, that is precisely the way the world seems to be, and it is quite hard to disabuse yourself of that notion. Instead of getting angry at geniuses for feeling that way, we should just shrug our shoulders and say, “Well, of course. They’re supposed to be that way.”

On the other hand, a lot of people with not particularly high IQ’s are definitely “smart enough,” and you meet these people all day long too. They’re smart enough to do their jobs and do them well. And they’re smart enough for me to be able to deal with them. They don’t necessarily seem like idiots, but a lot of others do.

In particular, it’s interesting that a lot of people seem to very quickly “speed up the pace” of their brains when they are dealing with me. I think most people of rather average IQ’s operate more or less on “slow mode” most of the time, maybe because it’s easier, and all humans are lazy.

Anyway, a lot of these people are capable of speeding up their brains a lot faster than they normally run them. Somehow when they deal with me, they perceive they are dealing with a very fast brain, and it’s often interesting how quickly people speed up their minds when they talk to me. And they often seem far more intelligent to me when they do that than how they seem on slow mode or normal mode.

That’s why I say that a lot of average type IQ people are “smarter than you think.” They’re a lot smarter than I think they are when I first meet them. People are always pleasantly surprising me that way.

It’s Actually Possible to Be Too Smart To Succeed in Life

Polar Bear: I’ve seen genius dentists, accountants, etc. have a nervous breakdowns and quit their professional job. A monotonous white-collar job is hard on freakishly intelligent minds. After the breakdown they tended towards simple blue-collar jobs, perhaps where they can entertain themselves.

Musicians are the same way – a demanding job can stifle their creativity. There’s also a theory about great minds being passed for promotion in favor of more humble conforming minds. So in a way the professionals are just average – the real diamonds are in the rough.

Yeah, I’m a genius, if you mean genius IQ, which is the only definition that makes sense. Everyone gets mad when I say that, but so what! If I were 6’6, I’m not allowed to talk about that? Give it up. I’m gifted with a superior natural attribute, and regardless of what use I put it to, that is interesting right there. People who are gifted in any way are interesting whether they put their gifts to much use or not.

It’s dumb to attack me on that because five out of six members of my family are geniuses too. And only one out of those five have made any money at all in life, although we all have degrees, and two of us have advanced degrees and one dropped out of a doctoral program in which they were a star student to get married. And those three are among the four unsuccessful ones!

And amongst US Whites in general, one in a hundred people are geniuses. So geniuses are about as common as weeds. So someone’s a genius? So fucking what! Why are you so uptight and weird about it? If I tell you I’m 6’6, are you going to flip out and attack me for saying that?

And yeah, I have not done well in work or life at all, really. And I have taken a bunch of stupid-ass jobs – dishwasher, security guard, janitor, construction, taxi driver, inventory, bartender, factory worker –  often just because I could spend all my time thinking.

Among people with over 160 IQ, most are men, and many are living in poverty or just above poverty. Many to most are living alone and single. They are often celibate and rarely if ever date. They hardly have any friends. They are serious hardcore loners.

They are typically excruciatingly or even painfully shy, and maybe this drives people away. Most have also become quite misanthropic over the years too, in part because they think the world is full of idiots.

One thing that was nice about the SJW Queera, I mean Quora, site was that they had these discussions about IQ with a lot of questions specifically directed at people at various high levels+. All sorts of very high IQ people answered in the questions, and no one ever shamed anyone for talking about their scores or stating the obvious fact that they were geniuses. Duh.

One thing you saw over and over and over, with a direct linear curve as IQ increased, getting to very high levels over 140 and especially over 160, was that they were all somewhat misanthropic. Over and over, you heard these people saying that the world frustrated or disgusted them because it seemed like most everyone they met was a moron.

That sounds like they are terrible people, but it’s simply a statement of fact. When you have a stratospheric IQ like that, a lot of the people you meet do seem to idiots! It sometimes seems like you have to walk through this minefield of morons just to go about your business.

I had a friend named Bill Arroyo in school. He’s now dead, heart attack at age 48. Alcoholic for decades. I met him in high school. He had an IQ of 135 but he seemed just as smart as I am though I am nearly a full standard deviation higher.  The differences seem to completely wash out at high enough levels.

Anyway, the one thing he kept talking about over and over, was idiots, fools, stupid people, and dumb, stupid, or idiotic concepts, ideas and attitudes. And he always talked about idiocy with a mixture of humor, mockery and ill-disguised contempt.

Lots of those guys are working at the post office at best. They’re too weird to work at a regular job. They wouldn’t last ten minutes at a corporation. The problem is that as IQ rises to very high levels, people tend to get unstable and crazy in a way. Not really in a serious way. It’s more that they become flat out weird rather than actually mentally ill.

Many can’t abide people at all. Silicon Valley and places like that are starting to see the value of some of these types and they are starting to hire some of them, but they can’t work with others at all and they often need special accommodations like working from home a lot, coming in after hours, having their own office away from everyone else, etc.

Everyone knows they are weird as Hell, but they are respected in those environments because most people who work there are smart and smart people respect other smart people, even the weird ones.

The recent historical record of extremely high IQ people is very interesting. The records are from all over the world. One man in Italy with a ~180 IQ actually worked as a janitor or something along those lines his whole life. They asked him why he did that, and he said he took stupid jobs like that so he could think all day.

The world’s smartest man, Christopher Lagan – IQ 200 – dropped out of college because he thought the professors were idiots and has worked only a number of working class jobs in his life. Lumberjack, construction worker, and most recently a nightclub bouncer. Those are the only jobs he wants to work at. Most recently he finally married late in life and now raises horses on a ranch in Missouri with his wife.

But you get the picture.