A few years ago I came up with the theory that East Asians, despite being arguably the smartest and most evolved of the macro-races, are also arguably the most autistic.  Thus you might expect them to be easily manipulated by the U.S. media into increasing immigration, as so many European countries have been.

My fellow celeb Steve Sailer (Hi Steve!) has an article about the pressure Japan is coming under to accept more immigrants,  however so far I doubt they’re falling for it.

It seems big brained East Asians really are highly evolved, in that they not only have the book smarts to ace the SAT, but street smarts to not fall for the immigration con.  It seems you need a big brain to make room for both book smarts and street smarts.  Or maybe it’s not cognitive superiority that allows East Asians to eschew immigration, but moral inferiority ( a lack of emotional empathy?).

But sadly, I worry that their superior intelligence will cause North Korea to become a nuclear threat to the Western North America since I have family on the West Coast.

In his controversial book Race, Evolution and Behavior, J.P. Rushton cites neoconservative Bernard Lewis, arguably the most influential person of the early 21st century, when describing black-Arab historical relations:

Lewis (1990) examined Arabic relations to blacks with whom the Muslims had dealt as slave traders for over 1,000 years.  Although the Koran stated there were no superior or inferior races, and therefore no bar to interracial marriage, in practice this pious doctrine was disregarded.  Arabs did not want their daughters to marry even hybridized blacks.  The Ethiopians were the most respected, the “Zanj” (Bantu and other Negroid tribes from East and West Africa south of the Sahara) the least respected, with Nubians occupying an intermediate position.

It makes sense that East/Horn Africans would be the most respected because they are the most Caucasoid looking, as well as very gracile.  Because of race mixing, about 40% of Ethiopian ancestry comes not from black Africa, but from West Asia, but I have to wonder, what came first: the Caucasoid admixture or the Caucasoid appearance which caused Caucasoids to respect them enough to mix?

This group of Ethiopian boys, despite having black skin and Negroid hair, are extremely Caucasoid in their facial skeletal traits:

Is this because they have 40% Caucasoid ancestry from the Middle East, or is it possible these boys are pure black, and incipient Caucasoid traits are actually indigenous to East Africa?   Could unmixed Ethiopians be the “missing link” as proto-Negroids evolved into proto-Caucasoids?

If these boys are mixed, why is their skin so dark?  Normally hybrids are not 100% Negroid in skin colour and 100% Caucasoid in facial traits, they’re in between Caucasoids and Negroids on both traits.

An alternative theory is that they are mixed and that they are descended from hybrids, but the hybrids were then selected for skin as dark as other Africans’ to survive the sub-Saharan sun.

I think it’s absolutely fascinating that the World’s first black decabillionaire, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Ali Al–Amoudi,  was not technically black at all, but a Semitic looking man with an Ethiopian mother and Arab father.

In addition the first black to become the most powerful person on Earth, was the son of an East African father and white mother.

It seems even in modern times, blacks from East Africa achieve the most wealth, power and status, especially if they’re hybridized.

Three years ago when I started HBD blogging I was nobody, a mere celebrity gossiping oddball, with a geeky interest in statistics.

Today I am a celebrity myself.

As of this moment in time, I am almost certainly the #1 blogger in the HBD-o-spere as readership spiked nearly 1000% in one night:

It seems marvellously symbolic that the new king of the HBD-o-sphere has an absolutely breathtaking IQ.  After adjusting for old norms, my childhood score on the WISC-R is a dizzying 135, making almost certainly the smartest blogger in the HBD-o-sphere, with the possible exception of Robert Lindsay, Hsu, the Lion, and of course the man who paved the way for us all: Steve Sailer.

To quote my late hero, Forbes magazine journalist Daniel Seligman:

The connection between IQ and achievement has one positive implication.  People who are at the top in American life, are probably there because they’re more intelligent than the rest of us, which is doubtless the way most of us think it should be.

Sadly GondwanaMan  might be right about an impending race war.  David Duke was one the scene claiming Trump needs to keep his promise to take America back.  Wouldn’t it be ironic if Trump was challenged from the right in a 2020 Republican primary?

JayMan’s hero HBD Chick claims that Northwest Europeans are uniquely immune to tribal behavior because of a lack of cousin marriage, which is a clever theory, but it’s important to note that political correctness and racial diversity have only been Western values for the last several decades and already we see things reverting backwards.

Meanwhile Trump took a lot of heat for not denouncing Duke’s endorsement:

And judging from Duke’s rare appearnaces in the MSM, he’s a very aggressive debater:

Having conquered the fields of television (#1 talk show for virtually 25 straight years), movies (Oscar nomination plus hit films like The Butler), politics (played the decisive role in electing the first black president), and literature (dictated the New York Times bestseller list for over a decade), the richest black and most worshipped woman in American history, has now used her estimated 2,029 cm³ brain to figure out how to adapt to the Wall Street.  Is there no environment she can’t adapt to?

Tomi Kilgore of Marketwatch writes:

Meet the new queen of Wall Street—Oprah Winfrey could make eight times her original investment, and lost some weight, in less than two years since buying shares in Weight Watchers International Inc.

Shares of the weight management company WTW, +0.82%  rocketed 25.1% in active trade to $41.39, the highest close since Aug. 1, 2013, after the company reported better-than-expected second-quarter profit and sales, and raised its earnings outlook for the year. Trading volume exceeded 9.9 million shares, compared with the full-day average of about 1.2 million shares.

The stock has now nearly quadrupled this year, and has rocketed 510% since Oprah took about a 10% stake in the company 22 months ago. In comparison, shares of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. BRK.B, -0.58%  have climbed 34.5% in 22 months, while the S&P 500 index SPX, +0.13%  has gained 21.8%.

All this success has people talking President Oprah in 2020, especially with polls showing she would crush her fan Donald Trump in a head to head match.

“She’s popular, she’s brilliant. She’s someone very special”, Trump told Larry King back in 1999, when he floated the idea of running for President as an Independent with Oprah as his running mate.

Although Oprah has consistently stated that she will NEVER run for public office, that hasn’t stopped people like Michael Moore from trying desperately to draft her as recently as last week:

Worshipped by the Michael Moore left for triumphing over racism, sexism,  classism, weightism, poverty, and sexual abuse, without sacrificing her integrity, and by the Ayn Rand right for being the greatest example of a self-made rags to riches capatilist superhero to actually exist, Oprah occupies a deep place in the American psyche.

However billionaire David Rubenstein wisely asks “Why be President when you can be Oprah?” stating:

Oprah is higher than being president of the United States. … I mean she can do anything she wants. Nobody criticizes her and she is a terrific person.

Billionaire David Rubenstein

Reminds me of the time when Oprah asked Sting: “Is there anything better than being a rock star?”

His reply: “Being Oprah”

The audience roared with cheers:

The DSM-V definition of autism is as follows:

A. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive, see text):

1. Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.
2. Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication.
3. Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships, ranging, for example, from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative paly or in making friends; to absence of interest in peers.

B. Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities, as manifested by at least two of the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):

1. Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or speech (e.g., simple motor stereotypies, lining up toys or flipping objects, echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases).
2. Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns or verbal nonverbal behavior (e.g., extreme distress at small changes, difficulties with transitions, rigid thinking patterns, greeting rituals, need to take same route or eat food every day).
3. Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g, strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interest).
4. Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interests in sensory aspects of the environment (e.g., apparent indifference to pain/temperature, adverse response to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, visual fascination with lights or movement).

C. Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities, or may be masked by learned strategies in later life).

D. Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.

E. These disturbances are not better explained by intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) or global developmental delay. Intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder frequently co-occur; to make comorbid diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability, social communication should be below that expected for general developmental level.

NOTE: Individuals with a well-established DSM-IV diagnosis of autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified should be given the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Individuals who have marked deficits in social communication, but whose symptoms do not otherwise meet criteria for autism spectrum disorder, should be evaluated for social (pragmatic) communication disorder.

So to try to simplify this, autism is basically the combination of poor social skills and repetitive behavior.  But why are these two core conditions lumped together instead of treated as two separate disorders?  Is this just reification or is there a scientific explanation?  I heard one professor suggest it’s because for reasons that are not understood,  they occur together far more often than would be expected by chance, but they need to figure out why.  Is one causing the other or is there a third variable causing both?  And are these two traits correlated in the general population, or just in the clinical population?

Are autistics qualitatively different from neurotypicals or are they just the extreme end of normal variation?  If it’s the latter, what’s the opposite of autism?  Some scientists say it’s schizophrenia, but that’s not a perfect fit.  In theory, the opposite of autistics should be extremely socially skilled people whose behavior is extremely non-repetitive.

For as long as I remember, Einstein has been the poster boy for Genius.  “It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure that out” was a common expression, and Time magazine named Einstein the most influential person of the 20th century, calling him the preeminent scientist in a century dominated by science, and largely crediting him with all the scientific developments that followed his ground-breaking theories.

Not being a hardcore intellectual (my interests are psychometrics and evolution, not super brainy stuff like physics) I never quite understood what the big deal about Einstein was because it was so abstract, but most people above 150 IQ seem to worship him, while the pseudo-intellectual crowd (IQ 120-150) all worshipped Marx and Chomsky (every student at the university I attended would start their sentences with “from a Marxist perspective”).

One thing I did find odd about Einstein though is despite his reputation as the greatest Genius to ever live,  he was anything but a precocious todler (he learned to talk late) and his brain size at autopsy was somewhat small.

The two most Darwinian correlates of intelligence are brain size and income so I tend to admire people who symbolize these correlation (i.e. Bill Gates using his 170 IQ to become the World’s richest man, or Chris Langan’s stratospheric brain size making him “America’s smartest man”).  Einstein was always a thorn in my side because every time I mentioned my beloved brain-size IQ correlation, someone would cite Einstein’s smallish brain as evidence against it.  Of course a single individual proves little, but symbolically, Einstein’s lack of brain mass was devastating.

Thus I was intrigued to hear about a video claiming Einstein plagerized his theory and was not the super genius the media built him up to be.  Of course the person trashing Einstein might have an extremist political agenda for discrediting Einstein,  so keep that in mind when listening to the interview: