Commenter Tvrtko writes:
P.P. what would be Marx’s IQ? I’d like to know what you estimate is the intelligence of the Left’s main deity.
On Michael Hart’s list of the 100 most influential people of all time, Marx is the second highest ranked Ashkenazi Jewish academic behind only Albert Einstein.
How exceptional does that make him? To answer that question, we need to know how many Ashkenazi Jews have ever lived. If you believe Greg Cochran et al (and some of you don’t), biological Ashkenazi Jews as we know them today did not full emerge until about 1700.
About 20 billion people have lived since 1650. If we conservatively assume based on current demographics, that Ashkenazim are only 0.14% of all humans in this era, then 28 million Ashkenazi Jews have ever lived, and Marx being the second only to Einstein, would be at the one in 14 million level in scholarly success.
If there were a perfect correlation between IQ and scholarly success, this would put Marx’s IQ about 79 points above the average Ashkenazim, but since the correlation was about 0.7 in national samples (though it’s shrunk in recent decades), and assuming roughly the same correlation and variance in Ashkenazim, this implies an IQ that is 0.7(79) = 55 points higher than the average Ashkenazim, and since Ashkenazim average about 110 (when the white mean is set at 100) an IQ of 165 is implied (95% confidence interval 144 to 186).
However because Ashkenazim come from an intellectual culture, they likely over-perform their true ability on IQ tests to some degree, so I’d round Marx down to 160; which is still absurdly high (only one in 30,000 whites score this high).
Tvrtko correctly describes Marx as a deity of the left which is ironic because he was arguably alt-right. Unlike the right who hate the poor (including blacks) and the left who hate the rich (including Jews), Marx like many alt-righters has been accused of hating both.
Even though Marx is considered the poster body for political correctness (cultural Marxism), he was anything but, and while like most leftists, regarded the rich as parasitic, he also viewed many members of the underclass this way too, referring to them as the lumpenproletariat though it’s unclear if this was an attack on their class, or their lack of class consciousness. If it’s the former, it’s a right-wing view, but if Marx was merely calling certain members of the underclass “class traitors”, he’s a typical leftist.
Pumpkin Person 
Interesting. The exact same reasoning would give Einstein a 165 with a 95% confidence he’d be above 150 when you said he were probable around 135. It’s always better when you mitigate your objective method with personal biography stuff, as you do sometimes, and maybe with an evaluation of how professionals in the field value the person contribution (for Marx, there is no doubt he gets the higest evaluation from most economists, even the austrian-chicago school).
Chomsky and Marx are so different. Chomsky is a touche-à-tout who has writting about every subjects. Marx was very specialized. But at the same time, Marx thought he had to read about so many stuff before writting. He was know to read 12 hours a day during 25 years after his phd (he got at 24 yo in 1841) while preparing Das Kapital. He was really a huge procrastinator while accomplishing so much. He was also extremelly ill : hepatitis, alcolism, tubercolosis and chronic depression. He was a gluton. He had “grandeur” delirium, bragging about his importance all the time. He was called the “Maure” because of it’s dark traits (unlike many askenazim).
He got the money mostly from Engels (son of industrialist) and Wife’s connections (Jenny von Westphalen, daughter of a secretary of state of prussia). It’s extraordinary that he was so well financed by the elite (Jesus like). When he impregnated his maid, Engels took the paternity, while paying for all of the family life. Even more than Einstein, he had a very interesting life full of fire and fury.
for Marx, there is no doubt he gets the higest evaluation from most economists, even the austrian-chicago school
Most economist today don’t read Marx’s economics works, foremost because they’re so far out there from mainstream economics They’re not in the standard curriculum. Not one single economic idea of his has been absorbed by economics. And if they did, they’d judge it as irrelevant, unsophisticated, poorly argued, and obsolete. If not for Marx’s huge political influence, he’d be categorized as a minor Ricardian and mentioned in a passing footnote in a book devoted to history of economics. And even that’s unlikely, as during his lifetime he was an obscure person whose books were read by a tiny minority of political and social radicals.
And there is no such thing as the “austrian-chicago school”. There is the Austrian school and the Chicago school of economics. Two distinct schools of macroeconomics, not one, and neither of them thinks highly of Marx.
Wow. You sound like an expert in economics.
and this is supposed to make me think less of marx?
economics = ideological pseudo-science
slave
peasant
proletariat
excluded
that’s the historical order.
marx didn’t live to see much of the excluded class, lumpenproletariat. it has grown enormously since his death.
but it doesn’t matter.
marx’s wasn’t an economist. he was a philosopher. but naturally no one’s ever heard of marx the philosopher.
read The German Ideology, understand it.
then you will see how it can be said that no educated person can think little of marx.
did he have some great insight? sort of.
his insight was great in the sense that it was obvious but somehow had never been made before.
like engels i came to the same conclusions never having read marx.
reading marx was like reading my own blog comments.
marx was an IDEALIST, like fichte, schelling, and hegel…and plato.
yet he is known as a materialist.
read it and GROK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_German_Ideology
Since its first publication, Marxist scholars have found the work particularly valuable since it is perhaps the most comprehensive statement of Marx’s theory of history stated at such length and detail.
the soviet and chiner experiment were very un-marxist.
at the time of the russian revolution the proletariat was less than 2% of russians.
similarly in chiner.
what did happen/has happened in western europe and the white dominions of the british empire is an enormous expansion of government spending.
even in the US…its very poor are better off than they were in 1918.
and there’s no reversing this victory for marx.
why does the US spend such an absurd amount on its military?
because this is a socially acceptable way of government spending.
even W knew this when he advised kirchner to go to war.
it DISTRACTS from the FAILURE of free market capitalism.
work = force x distance
power = work times distance
Intelligence = Memory Modification at Speed
I = MS
Of course, the collective intelligence will find ways to gain power by means of technology eventually. Why need workers when Intelligent computers can have IQs above 185. The new philosophy is existential because it is well known that man needs a purpose. If not work then education or enhancement. Do we fall prey to meaninglessness and despair? What is life worth living? For all not just the few. Will the 185 IQ computers lead the way?
GOML (Get on my level)
…
marx
’s</strike) wasn’t an economist.…
maybe i do have GSS. the world’s rarest disease. AWESOME!
…marx
’swasn’t an economist…Marx was truly a great thinker. I don’t want to speculate on his IQ, because that seems a bit silly and the criteria a bit artificial.
Nonetheless, Marx was wrong about a number of things. For example, Marx believed in the inevitability of the social revolution, brought about by the working class. At this point in history, it is clear that no social revolution is coming. (Not that it is absolutely excluded from the realm of possibility, but simply that it is so unlikely at this point that we might as well consider it to be impossible.) More than Marx’s other, more trivial errors, his socialist eschatology was a fundamental error. It is actually more likely that capitalist societies will collapse into fascist dictatorships than anything else. The working class is too weak and divided–and a minority of the population of most Western countries. Maybe change will come in Western Europe, but it didn’t happen in 1968, so how is it likely to happen now?
I won’t go on about Marx’s other errors. He was a great thinker, as I said. In passing, I’ll simply mention that impact on society is a poor criterion for assessing intelligence. By that criterion, Ptolemy was about the greatest thinker of all times. And what about Archimedes? More recently, what about Grothendieck? Never heard of him? I’m not surprised. He only revolutionized 20th century mathematics. OK. Not enough impact. Not so smart, that Grothendieck. How silly.
Indian American: $101,390
Jewish American: $97,500
Taiwanese American: $85,566
Filipino American: $82,389
Australian American: $81,452
Israeli American: $79,736
European American: $77,440
Russian American: $77,349
Greek American: $77,342
Lebanese American: $74,757
Average White-American income: $59,698
Immigrants perform better than average, so let’s use the European-American average income at $77,440 for Whites.
I doubt Greeks have a genetic IQ of 92.
I doubt Lebanese have a genetic IQ of 82.
All these groups appear to perform similarly.
“The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.” Karl Marx
“All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary” Friedrich Engels (Marx’s intellectual partner)
He’s a very clever man and honestly, I agree with him. Maybe I’m biased given I’m mixed race, but I can only see good in the concept of ‘race’ being annihilated.
“The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the “justification” provided by the existence of racial discrimination.”
Again, I agree with Chomsky.
Am I a dirty half-Jew trying to destroy the White race? Not really, to me the ‘idea’ of race is very bad and must be destroyed.
[redacted by pp feb 19, 2018, all comments about Jimmy take place on RR’s excellent blog, specifically this thread where Jimmy himself has commented:
]
What is ‘genetic IQ’?
“to me the ‘idea’ of race is very bad and must be destroyed.”
Why?
“What is ‘genetic IQ’?”
Why doesn’t a rodent have the capacity to understand language?
“Why?”
Is it a good thing?
“Why doesn’t a rodent have the capacity to understand language?”
It has nothing to do with ‘genetic IQ’.
Id say to have the capacity to truly understand language, then you must learn and have the ability to speak a language.
One reason they can’t speak is because they don’t have the FOXP2 gene. The amino acids in the FOXP2 gene are responsible for human language. It’s needed in the neuromuscular pathway to make sounds. But FOXP2 isn’t really a ‘language gene’.
Do you have any references on why rodents don’t have the capacity to understand language and how it’s linked to ‘generic IQ’?
“Is it a good thing?”
You tell me.
Are you implying then that IQ is independent from language? Can an animals IQ be tested?
“You tell me.”
No, it’s a terrible thing.
I’m implying that they can’t understand because they don’t speak and they don’t speak because they don’t have the FOXP2 gene that codes for a protein which is needed for the neuromuscular pathway to make sounds. I’m implying they don’t understand us because they don’t have the FOXP2 gene.
“Can animals be IQ tested?”
Who cares? It won’t tell us anything informative. IQ tests, by their very nature, are also culture bound.
“No, it’s a terrible thing.”
Why?
genes in a population have a limit or average on how well proteins coordinate to produce a level of intelligence. So one population has such proteins to make the average 105 IQ and another population proteins the average 90 IQ.
genetic IQ is the general IQ produced by to proteins in a population.
proteins coming from the genes.
Which proteins do this? Source?
I do not know. It is my assumption that proteins determine IQ. I believe that the proteins in my brain determined how my brain functioned in my environment regarding IQ and I extrapolated this averages in populations.
You can assume, sure. But you need to prove that genes work additively and that these genes exist. So far neither of those two premises have been shown to be true (genes don’t work in an additive fashion, anyway. The BG model is wrong).
RR
why do you think some populations have higher IQ’s than others and some populations have lower IQ’s than others.
For example. Why does the native American population have an average IQ of 90 and the Japanese Population have an average IQ of 105.
You were questioning the term “genetic IQ” so I guess I do not know what that term means either.
I do think a high IQ brain can better coordinate itself because of proteins. The combination of proteins matters but irrespective of populations the individual can get lucky and have a good combination to have a highly coordinated brain.
“IQ tests, by their very nature, are also culture bound.”
I agree.
“Why?”
For the same reasons as Chomsky, really. It’s utterly irrelevant to the situation of the individual and destroys merit in the same way inherited nobility does. Everyone should have equal opportunity. Race is only relevant in the context of discrimination, treating each person as a representative of their racial group.
genetic IQ is the general IQ produced by to proteins in a population.
proteins coming from the genes.
I don’t understand why you, and most people on this blog, believe that things become true at the moment that you state them.
There is no such thing as genetic eyekew. There is no genetic height or any other genetic developmental trait, because these traits are developmental. In fact, eyekew is not a trait, it’s a score on a test and very little more.
Afrosapiens
If you do not read everything you cannot know if someone changes their mind or not. And it is arrogant of you to think that everyone should at all times have a perfect understanding of a topic because you do not know the level of understanding a person possesses at any given time. It is as if having a misunderstood view on how things work is a moral failing to you. Because I think things work a certain way when they might not, does not mean I am morally defective or that it is because I making reality be that way. I am just sharing my views on how I think things work and that is not wrong. You are the arrogant one who thinks everyone must have the perfect understanding you have.
You’re not sharing your views, you state things as if they were real widely acknowledged facts.
But I changed my mind when RR showed me that I could not show that what I was saying was a fact. Do you not even read past the first post of any conversation Afro?
In fact Afro, you do not understand that RR asked a question.
What is ‘genetic IQ’?
I was giving a standard definition. It was not made up by me but is common among people that define this term in this way. What I said does not make it true as if I coined it, what I said makes it the common definition because of the words used in the sentence structure.
“There is no genetic height or any other genetic developmental trait, because these traits are developmental.”
what
I have a hypothesis on how IQ works. Internal feedback is used to compress memories and coordinate the amount of information that can be manipulated.
This is very simple but can be easily understood I believe with cybernetic principles.
I am not a certified scientist but I am very creative which I think Einstein or some fellow said is proof of genius.
I feel the need to say the obvious: IQ is a number, an assessment, a statistic, intended to quantify intelligence, which can’t really be stated in a number. IQ may be the best metric we have, but that doesn’t mean it is very good. We shouldn’t fetishize IQ, as I think a number of people are doing here. I could be wrong. Let me know.
The brain is three dimensional. IQ is a one-dimensional number. I agree with you. In fact, I once found an article that should how white matter in brain scans when statistical analyzed could predict fluid intelligence. This was a 3d organization of the fibers in the brain and the ability to handle/hold more information in the immediate moment. Measurements are improving and they are not being limited to single numbers.
You’re the most coherent commenter I’ve seen here for a while.
Some do, some don’t. I understand that it’s one of the most accurate measures but I disagree with many HBD theories.
“We shouldn’t fetishize IQ, as I think a number of people are doing here”
No you’re correct.
The jews. Great people.
Pumpkin = jewish.
I just saw the document on RR site about the 109 expulsions of Jewish people. For France, there are 11 expulsions in the document, and there are lot’s of errors. Even if in fact they have been around 15 expulsions, so the number is not false. And then, the reasons of the expulsion vary a lot. Sometimes, it was just bargaining among city or sovereign and the community, who was always welcome somewhere else. So the expulsion stuff is a bit over-simplified (as if Jewish were a plage of indesirable predators). That’s not true.
“as if Jewish were a plage of indesirable predators”
Boy. The French are strange people.
Its funny how RR just *happens* to have all these racist and filthy anti semitic documents on his website for everyone to read. It makes you think.
In 2011 I saw a video lecture that said Marx wrote three volumes.
Capital, Volume I
Capital, Volume II
Capital, Volume III
Each volume is like 800 pages. The teacher got a P.h.D. in economic and is a professor so he had to reread Marx several times. The way Marx writes is to give definitions and context, no explanation of how things work till much later in the second half of the book.
The professor said Marx planned on 8 volumes but only made 3 volumes. If Marx completed all 8 that would be 6400 pages. but it was only 2400 pages (3 volumes).
My cousins are french. I get the impression french people have been sent to a LOT of diversity training.
I think it’s quite ridiculous to speculate on the IQ of someone like Karl Marx, though it may be fun. I mean, a modern person may have a lot of data to speculate about IQ, but it’s hard to figure out the nature versus nurture component (and luck component) with someone who lived over 100 years ago.
RRs blog is the Stormfront to Pumpkins New Yorker.
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/premier-league-stars-help-to-kick-racism-out-of-israeli-football/
Interesting article if you read between the lines.
The guy Tony Bloom who owns Brighton FC is a billionaire from betting on sports in the bookies. I think thats a very impressive achievement considering a lot more people bet on sports than financial markets and the information available is widely available for anyone to bet. What would you estimate his IQ is?
A former employee says: “If a game was 0-0 but the home team had missed a penalty, the best scoreline to go back into a predictive model would be something like 0.8. If a team missed a penalty and had, say, two shots where they hit the woodwork, they probably deserved to win.”
These researchers also make it their business to get as close as possible to the action, speaking to a network of contacts that includes journalists and league experts. Their aim is to get as much information on things like morale, form, team sheets, and training as possible.
A former employee told Business Insider: “Every aspect of football that you could think of was taken into consideration. I guess that’s why they’re so good at what they do. The weather, morale, anyone related to the club, [they] would be analysed under the microscope. It was pretty impressive.”
The data generated by Starlizard’s researchers is plugged into a highly complex statistical computer model, built by another team, the “quants.” These are the computer whizzes you would usually find in investment banks.
These quants are based in a separate office, out in Exeter, and spend their days building and maintaining an algorithm that not only pulls together all of the data points, but also decides the right weighting for each.
Speaking about his gambling philosophy in general, Bloom told The Times in 2011: “A lot of otherwise good gamblers may read too much into injuries. Sometimes the odds can get too skewed because one or two players are out. When I analyse situations, I don’t want to go overboard on one side.”
The computer model is tweaked nearly constantly, according to former employees, and it uses statistical models to predict the likelihood of every possible scoreline. It then churns out what it sees as the most accurate handicap for the match — Leicester at 1.18 against Aston Villa, for example.
The odds generated in Exeter are passed back to the Camden office, where a team of “selectors” reviews them. This smaller team — about 20 people — operates like the traders in a bank. It tries to identify mispriced bets in the retail market, based on the team’s internal odds, and decide just how much to stake on behalf of Bloom and other clients.
These decisions are relayed to bet placers, the fourth team. As well as paying for access to Starlizard’s proprietary odds, clients are paying for access to its black book of contacts in markets like China, Thailand, and Indonesia. Starlizard’s odds are tailored to these markets, but it can be difficult to access Asian bookmakers unless you know the right people.
“Just watched a very insecure Oprah Winfrey, who at one point I knew very well, interview a panel of people on 60 Minutes. The questions were biased and slanted, the facts incorrect. Hope Oprah runs so she can be exposed and defeated just like all of the others!”
Hahaha. If Oprah ran this blog would turn into a great place to banter.
Sad to see Trump lashing out at Oprah like that. He used to like her so much, but maybe he’s just diverting attention from his latest scandals. Either way, i didn’t find her 60 minute piece especially biased:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oprah-follows-up-with-the-partisan-voters-in-michigan/
Get a stopwatch. Time the positive sentiment about trump people vs the negative sentiment that is shown.
Anyways, some interesting info I dug up:
1. The producer Graham Messick’s sister was raped by Weinstein. She worked in Hollywood. I imagine hes jewish like the other producer, Tanya Simon.
2. His twitter feed indicates hes on board with the Russia conspiracy.
3. Possibly psychopathic. The stuff about not believing in ‘fake news trolls’ on his twitter feed is nauseating.
I think Oprah said once that “all racists have to die”. Or something like that. If she was president and she knew say, 25% of trump voters were outwardly racist, what would she do?
She should tell Robert Rubin, Evelyn Rothschild and Carla Hills about her final solutions. I bet they would back her.
This is very interesting. Co Chair of the CFR endorses the Iran deal.
This is very confusing to me as its obvious Netanyahu and his bloc hate the deal.
So this is another piece of evidence that Trumps theory is correct – the CFR jews or ‘transatlantic jews’ and the Likud party jews are different camps,
Iran is the perfect acid test scenario to see it. Im glad they asked her this question.
Ah, it makes sense now. I should have realised Obama did the Iran Deal with some sort of ashkenazi approval. Silly me.
Its interesting what Trump is doing by shouldering the more rabid ashkenazi international community…at least in rhetoric.
You would have to put the neocons closer to Likud, than the CFR people.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/john-mccain-delusional-and-dangerous-iran-nuclear-deal-built-on-hope/
Israel’s senator agrees.
You’re making it more complicated than it is. Trump worships Israel because they both hate Muslims and because all his grandkids are Jews. Obama hated Isreal because his grandparents are Muslim.
Does Trump ‘hate’ muslims. Does he really see Ivanka as a ‘jew’? Do jews see Ivanka as a jew? I doubt all 3 propositions.
His grandkids are all genetically half-Jewish & inheriting all his money. And yet you claim bill gates is the one controlled by “master”
Yes, Gates is completely brainwashed. Trump is not brainwashed. Hes too socially intelligent for that.
Social intelligence is not enough. Trump is easy to brainwash because he doesn’t know anything. Gates might be socially more naive than trump but his overall IQ is dozens of points higher so he doesn’t give all his money to a race more privileged than his own like trump’s doing
Gates has promised to give all his money to barbarians. Trump is giving his money to his sons and daughters (and wives/exwives). I dont see what point youre making.
Gates has promised to give all his money to barbarians. Trump is giving his money to his sons and daughters (and wives/exwives). I dont see what point youre making.
When you’re a billionaire, letting your kids marry non-whites is equivalent to giving all your money to non-whites, because non-white grandkids are going to inherit the billions. You claim Gates is an autistic brainwashed by Jews simply because he’s helping the poorest people on Earth, yet Trump is leaving his fortune directly to Jews who are already the richest people on Earth, and you call him a social genius. You’re completely contradicting your own alt-right thesis.
Gates + Jews = donate to non-Jews, non-whites
Trump + Jews = All money to Jewish kids
Trump = Not brainwashed
Gates = Brainwashed
makes sense
Jewish grandkids, excuse me.
You realise Trump has more than just ivankas half jewish children as progeny right? He has 4 other direct children.
You realize the other progeny are Jewish too right?
Even with a bunch of antipsychotics Im still sharper on foreign policy than 99% of the population. Its great being me. I have the burden of knowing.
Once you know, you can never ‘un-know.’ Once you see, you can’t simply shut your eyes without having to live with the knowledge of what you saw. This is what Coetzee seems to be reminding us of: the burden of responsibility that knowledge brings. The magistrate is well aware of this burden, lamenting how easily he could have lived out the rest of his life in relative peace if he had avoided getting involved with the prisoners, as Coetzee expresses in this passage: “… if I resolved to ride out the bad times, keeping my own counsel, I might cease to feel like a man who, in the grip of the undertow, gives up the fight, stops swimming, and turns his face towards the open sea and death… I know somewhat too much; and from this knowledge, once one has been infected, there seems to be no recovering” (23). His understanding of what is going on, rather than empowering him, makes him feel as though he is being pulled along by a current helplessly. Furthermore, knowledge is depicted as something that he has to give in to rather than something he has to discover, suggesting that he has been vaguely aware for some time that the Empire is corrupt but that he has finally stopped closing his eyes to this knowledge and has surrendered to the acceptance of it. And, now that he has been dragged in, he can only struggle along with the current.
I said that exact line to Afro once. He didn’t get it.
Even with antipsychotics, you still belong in a psychiatric hospital.
Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by abnormal social behavior and failure to understand reality.[2] Common symptoms include false beliefs, unclear or confused thinking, hearing voices that others do not, reduced social engagement and emotional expression, and a lack of motivation.[2][3] People with schizophrenia often have additional mental health problems such as anxiety, depressive, or substance-use disorders.[11] Symptoms typically come on gradually, begin in young adulthood, and last a long time.[3][5]
you belong on a plantation afro.
that is…
if you think of yourself as a well-educated person, you can disagree with marx…
but you can’t dismiss marx.
and you can’t not incorporate marx’s thought into your own.
marxism isn’t scientology.
it is a MOMENT in the WELTGEIST.
wha does peepee deny oprah’s sociopathy?
She might be more sociopathic than the average American but less so than most elites. The manipulation a you cite are nothing burgers.
Its interesting because if she was a psychopath it would explain a lot more about how an obese black woman became a billionaire than her alleged IQ.
I can prove Oprah might be a psychopath.
1:15 in this video she talks about god asking her to run for president.
If Oprah has a 140 IQ as pumpkin keeps saying, would a person honestly believe that?
On the other hand, if a person was a psychopath or at least a charlatan, would she pretend to believe in god that fervently to match her viewers in mid west America?
She believes in god because she’s closer to the schizo end of the neurological spectrum, hence her freakishly high social IQ. But she’s not as spiritual as she pretends to be.
Of course the other possibility is that she neither has a 140 IQ or is a psychopath. Thats the one most people on the street would think.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oprah-follows-up-with-the-partisan-voters-in-michigan/
This video.
Sorry link wont paste. Its the ’60 minutes overtime’ video in the sidebar.
I am far more to the schizo side than her and I don’t think God talks to me. I don’t ‘consult’ him for any important decisions in my life.
But you believe in God too. And she doesn’t mean God literally talks to her, she means God would give her a sign, something she’s talked about often.
Someone on twitter said:
When oprah says she didn’t hear God telling her to run, she’s probably referring to George Soros.
there is no problem which is not solved by more alcohol or more denzel.
this reminds me how all black gangsters model themselves on irish gangsters.
italian gangsters have high IQs after all.
italian gangsters have high IQs after all.
Jon Gotti’s IQ was 110, which is high for a criminal, and helped explain why he got to the top of the mob. Tony Soprano’s IQ was 136 but he’s fictional.
Eric Tolle’s book the power of now was on Oprah’s book list. She says she believes in Christ consciousness. What does that tell you? Do you understand the law of attraction? Philosopher? Pumpkin?
now i think pill is chinese.
the fact that italian criminals are still so much better than any other criminals is…
kinda weird.
from an a-moral pov IQ should be correlated with economic power.
italian gangsters are smart, high IQ.
non-italian gangsters are dumb, low IQ.
yet rome is no longer the power it was.
why?
the answer is…
economic power isn’t everything…
Oprah tried to destroy Seal’s career after he pointed out her friendship with Weinstein (btw- Seal was formerly married to Heidi Klum. Proof a dude can look like a beast and still get great pussy!)
Some ugly plastic surgery-ridden chick accused him of sexual assault. There were rumors she formerly worked for Oprah’ s production company. A few weeks later the sexual assault charges were dropped.
Kinda funny/suspicious….
There were rumors she formerly worked for Oprah’ s production company
Unless the rumour is true, it’s just another schizo conspiracy theory
Are Italian gangsters smarter than Russian ones? Vladimir Putin might be the smartest gangster of all time.
cocktail party conversation…
x: …phaedo…
y: plato was a piece of shit!
that’s fine. but it should also be funny/startling.
marx is so western canon it hurts.
The only way the worker can be liberated is by the 185 IQ computer. Humans are sad when they have nothing to do but alienation is bad for them just as much. The smart computer will find them fun things to do. A big game. In real life or virtual reality.
So something I’ve been weighing up in my mind is how can you tell if someone is ‘in on it’ or someone is a useful idiot as Lenin would say.
For example, in the Bolshevik party the jews were ‘in on it’. And the local undergrad student communist campaigner was a ‘useful idiot’.
Similarly is Messick of CBS ‘in on it’, or does he really believe Russia hacked the election to elect a white nationalist?
Well I don’t think its a question of IQ, more than a question of plausible access. So the undergrad campaigner might have a high IQ, but no access to information about communist party funding, race of lead organisers, etc etc.
Similarily Messick might be the same.
I just find it hard to believe a top media producer could think the Russia conspiracy was legitimate. its a bit like the Iraq War. I find it really hard to believe the NYT editorial board thought the evidence was legit.
And this is why I call jews a psychopathic tribal collective that collude.
Because, jews do have access to the info. They are not information starved to be used as useful idiots by senior jews if you follow.
This is the difference basically between jimmy/me and robert. We can see intention.
did the 6 million have access to information
I mean, picture in your mind a jewish media person getting a story about Russia or Iraq and deciding to report it or publish it in the US/UK.
In my opinion, I think its obvious they are all told what the line is to the public.
But on Iran, the 2 camps do differ.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/16/foreignpolicy.iraq
‘Left wing’ guardian journalist supports Iraq War.
Cohen.
Right.
I am always right.
The burden of knowing.
peepee and i should breed a super race of viking-injuns on baffin island.
I literally think jewish journalists/producers/editors collude across all media – Hollywood, print, tv, radio etc – collude. This is my proposition.
And I think the finance jews are the ringmakers of it.
And I think the neocons are also involved in planning with the media.
I 100% think its a full fledged conspiracy that is planned.
I also suspect Henry Ford is right and there is a shadow jewish world government, or some sort of organisation to help jews internationally collaborate and organise for their cause.
i knew WMD was a fraud at the time. recall there were weapons inspectors who couldn’t find anything and powell’s presentation was a joke. before the invasion joschka fischer said he believed there were no WMD.
this plus the russia stuff does make me more open to conspiracy theories regarding jews. but no such conspiracy is required to be a nazi.
but i think it’s better explained by stupidity. peepee and afro are house negroes, so they believe that people in positions of power are competent and smart and good. sometime they are. sometime they’re not. usually not. especially in the US.
competent and smart are relative. I’ve never believed powerful people are good.
those “sometime”s should’ve been “sometimes“s.
typo or stupo? you decide.
that jew philo is complaining about is legit. he graduated from the same public school as evelyn waugh and took a degree in maths from u manchester. he’s likely not a billionaire.
whereas the very gentile american sports gambler billy walters likely is.
mug of pee contradicts himself. Says WMD was a fraud but it’s better explained by stupidity than conspiracy? So they were so stupid they defrauded themselves?
YES!
if i sell ice to an eskimo, i’m de-fraud-ing the eskimo even if i think he needs ice.
conmen can con themselves too!
The real fraud behind the Iraq war was not whether Saddam was a threat. It was who he was a threat to.
Sadam had a war with Iran and Kuwait. And launched missiles at Israel and bombed the Kurds. He was a wild card. There was no one group to be the be all end all opposition to Sadam America was fighting for as a conspiracy. Many sides hated him. Osama Bin Ladin wanted Sadia Arabia to fight Sadam and cursed the infidels for touching Muslim lands in the Desert Storm war. He won in Afghanistan against the Russians and wanted to do the same against Saddam. The Saudis disappointed him in his plans. More than a million people died in the war between Iran and Iraq in the 80’s. But its complicated since Iran was the enemy of the USA at the time. The Kurds are an infidel religion in regard to Saddam’s sect. He gassed them multiple times. Again the missiles on Isreal is one of many targets of the wildcard Saddam. the generals of Saddam created ISIS. Hezbollah is practicing war in Syria to better fight in Lebanon and Israel. I need to research more.
If someone is convinced to spend all their money and time on barbarians living in the most r selected place in the world? Would you call that person brainwashed?
Why not donate to India or Bangladesh or Yemen or Honduras?
Evil begets evil. Never forget! Evil chooses evil to follow and multiply. Evil will not pick nice people to multiply. This is the aesthetic theory of evil.
>50% of women are raped in Africa.
I’m not saying Honduras and Yemen are that much better towards women. But the people dont walk around in a society where there is a 50% chance your sister, mother, aunt etc were raped. Its not lord of the flies!
>50% of women are raped in Africa.
Source?
just look in your pants afro.
Jane Goodall spent all her time helping chimps who are far more primitive and violent than any human race. Was she brainwashed too or was she just a moral person with compassion for the less fortunate?
Dogs are even more primitive pumpkin. Thats why we dont assign agency to animals. Only other human beings in morality.
Bill Gates’s IQ is so high, that he probably doesn’t think of many humans as having agency either
Bill Gates would never have been able to create an industrial giant if he thought any such thing.
Plus, there is no link between eyekew and rational decision-making.
Does 113 count as high enough for moral agency in Gates’ eyes? because that is above 100 and I do not believe Gates is above Einstine who is above Marx 160.
I am just interested if I make the cut.
Gates is much smarter than Marx who is much smarter than Einstein
Now youre making stuff up.
But pumpkin, you said Einstein was number one in influence and second was Marx.
I does not understand (sad face)
Does Bill see me as a moral agent?
Just for the record, pumpkin said SAT is not an IQ test and Bill’s IQ is based on the SAT.
I think Bills influence was luck (not to insult Bill)
SAT is not IQ test but is more g loaded than many actual IQ tests so it’s close enough.
Einstein was more academically influential but had low brain weight at autopsy & some have accussed him of stealing his theory
Gates would not consider anyone more than 30 IQ points below him as having agency.
That is unfortunate.
my g is 10 points below to cut off for agency.
at least I have my real life friend with an IQ of 170 likes me.
I only know Marsha from pumpkins blog.
The other guy 170 got banned from Kurzweil forum.
“Gates would not consider anyone more than 30 IQ points below him as having agency.”
Source?
Should have made clear that was conjecture on my part based on Gates’s well known interest in IQ
Would you say he’s like Shockley, though not as extreme? That clown had wanted to know people’s IQ before he spoke to them. Hilarious.
Yes that is hilarious since Shockley did not even have a high IQ. He famously failed to qualify for the terman gifted study. But I suspect bill gates was that way too. A lot of nerds can be huge snobs.
RR
30 points is the maximum difference two people can have and cooperates effectively. Imagine you being 120 working with a guy at 90. How effective can you work together?
So Gates has trouble working with people below 140 if you follow the logic. The agency thing I still do not get. It may have to do with self-control and Self-determinacy. If agency is about the inner tendency to direct oneself then more intelligence equals more agency.
I read a book that says the average between two people IQs is the quality of the work two people can accomplish together. If I and pumpkin worked together the average would be 124. That is our average IQ. the difference between me and Bill Gates would be so high it would be impossible to get anything done at all. I am just to dumb compared to Bill.
LOL! I wonder how serious this “book” is, assuming that it really exists.
All of this sounds like total nonsense. What I know is that most people in the so-called high intelligence societies have very humble careers and are hardly outstanding in any domain.
As for what happens in Bill Gates’ head, please give me a break. This man has traveled the world, met many of the world’s most influential leaders and is advised by some of the brightest people of this world. He’s just in an intellectual universe that you can’t even imagine and in which things like eyekew are irrelevant.
Should have made clear that was conjecture on my part based on Gates’s well known interest in IQ
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/bill-gates-iq-isnt-everything-heres-what-you-need-to-succeed.html
He’s become a lot more politically correct since the U.S. government tried to destroy him. Back in the 1990s he was obsessed with IQ. This was documented by the late Daniel Seligman.
No, he did not become more “politically correct”. At his level of wealth and power, he can say whatever crosses his mind. He just matured, experienced things, met people, become fully accomplished.
humans are social animals. No matter how much wealth and power, they still fear rejection from the group.
No. Just look at Trump, he lives on outraging public decency.
I don’t know if you realize how quick the whole eyekew stuff collapses once you get out of your basement.
trump is very abnormal.
I think the opposite, I think Trump is normal, he’s just like an ignorant child who just got rich and famous, and now unfortunately president. I mean, it’s not normal to behave like a prebubescent redneck past 70 but it’s just human thinking in its most unsophisticated state.
he lives on outraging public decency.
like jesus and diogenes before him.
in a society like the US or france merely being honest is outrageous.
goran admason said it best, “there are true statements one is prohibited from making and false statements one is required to make.”
trump is weird. he always has been. but in the best possible way. in an insane society normality is a vice.
People say me saying crime statistics is wrong…why? They are reality. Hollywood movies and tv and To Kill a Mockingbird are literally fictional. The reality is the statistics. People have a rac-ist reaction to blacks because they are dangerous and evil, but in a much less sophisticated way than ^^^^.
Racism=autoimmune response.
Its meta rational.
i am the indo-european god “meta”.
if peepee knew how hard it was to be a white man…
she’d…
feel very guilty.
Mug a pp
four takes on cinema:
1 it’s all shit.
2. it’s almost all shit.
3. it’s all shit but there’s still some gold in the shit.
4. some of it is not shit and gold.
if he were taller, he’d be a hero.
poor tom is short.
People toying with people in movies makes my anxiety go up. I can’t watch law and order.
So many false ideas on this site.
First of all, Ashkenazi Jews do not constitute a race by themselves, and they are indeed white people. They mostly have their origins in Europe, though they also have some non-European origins (as do many Greeks), such as the ancient Anatolians. See Shlomo Sand and Paul Wexler. (Separate works; the two are not coauthors.)
The Philosopher sounds like someone who would typically be labeled “an anti-Semite.” His comment about Pumpkin clearly misses the fact that he/she considers the Ashkenazis a “race,” which most Jews I know would not agree with. I think it is unlikely that Pumpkin is Jewish, though he/she clearly admires what he/she views as the higher Ashkenazi IQ.
Fenoopy clearly has little acquaintance with contemporary linguistics, and his comment about rodents is uninformed. To turn it around, one might ask why humans don’t understand rodent communication, or prairie dog communication, or bee communication, etc. Google “animal communication.”
Pumpkin, it’s true that Cochran gets a lot wrong about history in general, but you’re going to have to give a citation to support your remark that he believes that “biological Ashkenazi Jews as we know them today did not full emerge until about 1700.” What I’ve read of his indicates the opposite. In any case, Cochran is no historian, and much of what he writes about the Ashkenazis is simply wrong. He’s cited less and less these days other than to credit Cochran and Harpending with the IQ study I mentioned in my previous comment.
As for your comments about Marx, they’re mostly ahistorical and fail to take into account the differences in politics between then and now–the type of failure a major strand of 20th century German philosophy known as Hermeneutics, championed especially by Gadamer, attempts to guard against. (Hermeneutics, of course, is also a general term that is applied to more than just the philosophy I’m referring to, which is why I mention Gadamer.)
More significantly, it is incorrect to equate Marx with the contemporary alt-right despite Marx’s apparent dislike of Jews, which was evidently more cultural and intellectual than anything else. Don’t forget that Marx’s parents were actually Christians although his ancestors were Jews. Once again, Jews are really a collection of religious communities, together with their members’ relatives who identify culturally as Jews. They are ethnically and “racially” diverse. European Jews, or “Ashkenazis,” are mostly of European origin, and their origins are not all the same. The Sephardic Jews (strictly speaking, those Jews having their origins in Spain and Portugal) are probably related to North Africans and specifically Berbers.
Who considers Marx the “poster boy for political correctness (cultural Marxism)”? Probably, only someone who doesn’t have the first clue about Marx. The term “political correctness” dates back to the Stalin era, with especial resonance in the American Communist Party of that time. “Cultural Marxism” became current much, much later.
Clearly, you don’t understand the concept of the “lumpenproletariat”–the first use of which, if I’m not mistaken, occurs in the Communist Manifesto. It’s not a right-wing view; your basic problem is that you’re considering Marxism through the prism of American politics, which is basically a confused collection of utter nonsense, mostly concocted to justify a bankrupt power structure that would be seen as naked and completely corrupt otherwise.
Marx saw the working class as the agent of revolutionary change. He saw the “lumpenproletariat,” as he called that group, as, at best, a counterrevolutionary force (though he did not use the word “counterrevolutionary,” to my knowledge).
Also, Pumpkin, “Obama hated Israel because his grandparents are Muslim”? Seriously? Would you like to rethink that and rephrase? Or are you going to claim it was a joke?
To Tvrtko, I would like to say that it really doesn’t matter whether modern economists would consider Marx’s ideas relevant; modern economics is, at least in part, a tremendous amount of dogma that, when challenged by reality, simply asserts that reality is irrelevant because the models used are what we’re considering. Even Paul Krugman and others have admitted the failures of modern macroeconomics, which at this point is largely a contradictory set of diverse ideas (see, for example, the disagreements between Saltwater and Freshwater economists). Doctrinaire economists will tell you that rent control results in higher rent prices and a lower housing stock (see Mankiw). However, that might be true if rent control were applied to open spaces in, say, Iowa or Nebraska–where in fact no one has suggested trying it–as opposed to places such as Manhattan, where the space limitations are obvious. Does anyone doubt that if rent control were eliminated in Manhattan, a lot of people would lose their homes and those apartments would become more expensive immediately, with hardly any change at all in the housing stock–apart from those buildings already planned?
I could go on and on, but this post is already long enough.
“Fenoopy clearly has little acquaintance with contemporary linguistics, and his comment about rodents is uninformed. To turn it around, one might ask why humans don’t understand rodent communication, or prairie dog communication, or bee communication, etc. Google “animal communication.””
Language is a thought process. Even ants can communicate. Language is a requirement for higher thought and animals don’t have it.
If you say so.
A propos of ants, Chomsky has made some interesting comments on ants and artificial intelligence. In fact, you might want to read Chomsky’s more general works on language — as opposed to his more theoretical writings on syntax and generative theory, which might be a little dense.
It’s not possible to manipulate abstract concepts in the mind without language. Language allows for a network of associations between ‘words’ aka nodes. Without words used as nodes between associations, the network can’t be built.
The jews = great people.
Archie is right. The jews are not a race even though people with ashkenazi jewish heritage look completely different to sephardis and have many unique traits that no other white or arab population has. [redacted by pp, feb 20, 2019]
We need more archie dumbeldores in this world and less race ‘realists’.
I have tears in my eyes from my teacher telling me to watch this repeatedly. So powerful. I feel like donating to Africa now.
Archie Dumbledore 2020.
I dont find Oprah that sexually attractive. All things considered.
If she was not so excited all the time giving people new cars to their audience seats. And she wasn’t so freaked out by tom cruise jumping on her couch. I’d say she could be a warm gentle motherly figure. But she is a Hollywood gal so she has to be exciting all the time.
Archie, I believe one gets wiser by not addressing people like a school teacher. I know this statement is self-contradictory and that’s what amuses me. Btw, you sound a bit french educated (or influenced).
Interesting comment.
Archies, here are 10 small comments on your comment. Excuse my english, I’m french.
First of all, Ashkenazi Jews do not constitute a race by themselves, and they are indeed white people. They mostly have their origins in Europe, though they also have some non-European origins (as do many Greeks), such as the ancient Anatolians. See Shlomo Sand and Paul Wexler. (Separate works; the two are not coauthors.)
1. –> in this context, race as the same meaning that ethnia or even population. It’s only a pool of people who share more in common than outsiders.
The Philosopher sounds like someone who would typically be labeled “an anti-Semite.” His comment about Pumpkin clearly misses the fact that he/she considers the Ashkenazis a “race,” which most Jews I know would not agree with. I think it is unlikely that Pumpkin is Jewish, though he/she clearly admires what he/she views as the higher Ashkenazi IQ.
2.–> For philo, he understood the race contextual acception
3 –> being anti-semite, philo-semite, or a semite oneself is not the point. Philo is joking and illustrating his theory that everyone is either manipulated by jews or a jew oneself.
Fenoopy clearly has little acquaintance with contemporary linguistics, and his comment about rodents is uninformed. To turn it around, one might ask why humans don’t understand rodent communication, or prairie dog communication, or bee communication, etc. Google “animal communication.”
4–> Your comments is too vague to be appreciated. Feenopy writes so many stuff 🙂 Then, communication and linguistics are each field of study by itself (like pragmatic between the two, and much more throug philosophy of mind/language and cognitive sciences in general). It doesn’t add anything to the debate.
Pumpkin, it’s true that Cochran gets a lot wrong about history in general, but you’re going to have to give a citation to support your remark that he believes that “biological Ashkenazi Jews as we know them today did not full emerge until about 1700.” What I’ve read of his indicates the opposite. In any case, Cochran is no historian, and much of what he writes about the Ashkenazis is simply wrong. He’s cited less and less these days other than to credit Cochran and Harpending with the IQ study I mentioned in my previous comment.
5 –> Why on earth should you police Pumpkin into being a wikipedia writing style machine.
6 –> You miss the question. The debate wasn’t on Cochran theory in general or his qualities of historial, about his theory about how jewish population became more clever than other white (yes, jewish are european white and MENA mixed-race). It’s a biology/history hypothesis. Very interesting. With some shortcomings and competing hypothesis, but you miss all that.
Marx XYZ (too long to copy).
7–> I don’t see your point in reminding Pumpkin and ommenters about the historial facts you site and the vague, general statements you through around about Marx and Marxism. It’s also too vague to have any meaning.
Also, Pumpkin, “Obama hated Israel because his grandparents are Muslim”? Seriously? Would you like to rethink that and rephrase? Or are you going to claim it was a joke?
8–> This time, you get it the other way around. Generally, Pumpkin writes what he means and means what he writes. First, it’s not at all impossible when you’re middle name are Barack Hussein and you have attended a Madrassa and you’re father is Muslim and left your mother for a jew, to have a certain acquaintance with Islam. And we have now photos of Obama with Louis Farrakhan. So point in patronizing. It was also a reference to a comment when Philo, among many hypothesis, didn’t catch the reason while Obama were pro-muslim (I gave the answer I remember).
To Tvrtko, I would like to say that it really doesn’t matter whether modern economists would consider Marx’s ideas relevant; modern economics is, at least in part, a tremendous amount of dogma that, when challenged by reality, simply asserts that reality is irrelevant because the models used are what we’re considering. Even Paul Krugman and others have admitted the failures of modern macroeconomics, which at this point is largely a contradictory set of diverse ideas (see, for example, the disagreements between Saltwater and Freshwater economists). Doctrinaire economists will tell you that rent control results in higher rent prices and a lower housing stock (see Mankiw). However, that might be true if rent control were applied to open spaces in, say, Iowa or Nebraska–where in fact no one has suggested trying it–as opposed to places such as Manhattan, where the space limitations are obvious. Does anyone doubt that if rent control were eliminated in Manhattan, a lot of people would lose their homes and those apartments would become more expensive immediately, with hardly any change at all in the housing stock–apart from those buildings already planned?
9 –> Maybe you’re read something interesting on Mankiw site about property prices compared to rend and markets limitations (I know a lot about this, really a lot …) but first, what you present is meaningless (if Manhattan control prices on rent would change, the effects on prices wouldn’t be that simple as you say, it depends on the volume of property that would be put on the market, and the property market rotation level, it’s not a consequence of rents to property price as you imply. In facts, NY is one of the few markets were rents (not controlled) are extremely high. You rent a 1 million flat 6K a month whereas in most places in the world, for example Paris, it would be 2K. So there is not a rent price/property price in NY. You miss completely the point.
10—> But above all, you didn’t explicit what this markets questions on Mahattan property, would proof or disproove anything Marx said about economy. I doubt very much it would disproove anything because Marx is a classic economist (like Adam Smith or even more).
My comment is not here to “chastize” but to enhance conviviality ….
Bruno, a number of your comments are beside the point. Still, here are my replies to most of them, following your numbering.
1. Ashkenazi Jews do not even constitute an “ethnos.” They are at least several different groups. If you think otherwise, you might want to do a bit of research.
3. Really? Then I haven’t read enough of his comments. He might want to watch what sarcasm he indulges in. Doesn’t bother me, though.
4. Too tiresome to comment further. I would suggest he do some research.
6. Pumpkin made a comment with a historical context. I thought that comment was inaccurate, but perhaps I just don’t know the work to which he/she is referring. I thought this point was clear in what I wrote.
7. Maybe you need to reread the comments from Pumpkin and then my response. I addressed specific points he/she raised. Maybe you just missed the point.
8. That sounds simply objectionable. But maybe I don’t understand what you mean.
9. You’re not even responding with the correct terminology, let alone the correct standard economic concepts, if indeed you do know “really a lot” about “this.” Do you seriously imagine that rents wouldn’t rise on nice apartments in good locations and people wouldn’t lose their homes? The standard argument in mainstream economics textbooks (in the U.S., at least) is that rent control results in higher rents–across the board. Clearly, in Manhattan, more rents would rise without rent control. None would fall or even stabilize (except perhaps at the very top of the market, which could happen anyway due to lack of demand). Do you actually doubt that?
10. Sorry you didn’t get my point. I consider it hardly important that mainstream economists don’t take Marx seriously. They need to get their own house in order. To give just another example, standard economics 101 (in the U.S.) holds that there is a limit to prices that monopolies can charge (that is, at least, technically true, but more on that below) and that such a price can be found and demonstrated. (That last point is clearly ridiculous.) Obviously, there is a limit to any price, no matter who the seller or what the thing being sold. Prices cannot go to infinity. Nor can they exceed the money available for consumption. That much is obvious. However, it’s irrelevant since prices can go well beyond many or even most consumers’ ability to pay, as has been demonstrated on various occasions, especially with respect to pharmaceuticals. Another example is Enron’s manipulation of the electricity market in California in the late 1990s and into 2001. (People didn’t even believe it was happening, but the proof became public.)
As for Marx, I do think he was a great thinker, but I don’t want to exaggerate the point. I’m not a Marxist (now), but Marx got certain things right and was extremely prescient. As for his importance in the larger sphere of economics, he was really not an economist at all, though he absorbed a tremendous amount of the economic theory of his times. His field was philosophy, and his early writings were on philosophers such as Hegel. (I get that you don’t want the historical background, but it’s relevant to the issue.)
People often used to claim that three of the four greatest thinkers of the last 180 years or so were Jewish: Einstein, Marx, and Freud. Well, I would knock Freud and Marx off that list since I can think of greater thinkers than those two–and impact on society would not be my criterion. By that criterion, incidentally, Hitler was a great thinker. (Clearly, he wasn’t.)
Sorry if all this is too “vague,” but I can only afford so much time to write about this.
I’m making no more comments on those points after this–at least for quite a while.
You’re clearly an older man and clearly stupid.
Archie there is no point for me to « explain » (or read the verb you would like) further . I am happy you didn’t take my comments personnaly and that they didn’t impact you . That’s good 🙂
Bruno, you say, “there is no need for me to ‘explain’ (or read the verb you would like) further . I am happy you didn’t take my comments personnaly and that they didn’t impact you.”
It’s all academic, Bruno. Why would I take anything personally?
Nonetheless, what comes through to me is that you have failed to grasp the points I’ve made almost completely. If you think I haven’t understood what you are saying — and that’s not far from the truth — I have a slight suggestion for you: since your English is riddled with solecisms and various other grammatical infelicities that tend to render your writing completely opaque, you might think of providing a version of what you are trying to say in French (your native language, if I understand correctly). That way, at least some of us would have an idea of what you mean.
Thank you Archie for making me laugh today
Stephen Colbert is awesome.
He is the perfect representation of the face of the cult of the SubGenius.
Too bad he is not that much fun now that Trump is in office.
But he was a true representation of 1950’s manhood.
A time when flying cars Scientology and Cthulhu were in the making.
War propaganda was at its finest. Nuke bomb shelters were home products.
Indiana Jones and the crystal skull showed Rusian psychic women with whips, yes all the good 1950’s stuff. And the comics where Hitler went to Antarctica and the allies fought nazi ufos till 1958. Colbert represents the good times.
I highly dought Obama hates the jews. His backbone is just weak an being a puppet would have done good for the jews if his masters told him to but sorry to say he just did what he was told. Obama was too hip to be cool. Brags about doing cocaine in the 80’s. Obama had not planned to fix the economy, he thought if he gave inspirational speeches people would lift themselves up. People compared him to FDR. But FDR had a works program. Obama had welfare programs. Unemployment was 10% in 2010 now it is 4% in 2018.
The black gay man that painted the portraits of Michiel and Obama likes to paint portraits of white people decapitated held by their hair over silver plates. I make no judgments of the style of Obamas and Michiels portraits but the gay black guy is racists and is sick for painting decapitations of white people.
Some woman held a dummy head by the hair of the president Donald Trump decapitated in fake blood. This is not a nice person.
I remember trump did the ice bucket challenge for rare cancer awareness.
Trump is a good guy.
that was Kathy griffen
Interesting, though I’d disagree with the absurdly high estimate.
Marx’s influence can be chalked down to the residual insights of his predecessor Hegel (and, arguably, David Ricardo) mixed with the frankly obscurantist writing style. It’s easy to be influenced by a work so void of actual content you can insert whatever you wish into it.
If I may make a request, I would love to see you estimate the IQ of Saul Kripke.
I’ll look into Saul
You can summarize Kripke intuition(ism) that way: asserting you’re not unintelligent doesn’t entail you are. That’s a very powerfull math statement ! Sadly, intuitionism has not’produced remarkable results .
If i had to nominate my favourite talk show host of all time it would have to be ricki lake. Because ricki didnt get affirmative action like oprah. Oprah is a jewish high school science project. If you press the button under her moo moo lava comes out the top of her head.
Affirmative action doesn’t get you a talk show & ricki is Jewish so likely got far more jewish help than Oprah
If bill gates was really smart hed understand boosting africas population by 30% is a very very bad thing for the world i dont think he conceptually gets what he is doing most of the time. He probably is ao autistic he cant figure out what to do with money unlike 60 cebt who knows how to enjoy himself.
Zuckerberg is actually more autistic than gates from what i can see. I think zucky could be convinced to reintroduce slavery if you had enough pictures and songs on his tv set
Pumpkin is pro white slavery. Even though he is white. Pumpkin is very smart like that. As he said himself: ” Who cares if jews are parasites on whites? Jews and blacks will have better lives then!”. Indeed.
it’s funny how steve shoe an i agree on trump, we both think ayn rand is a joke, and we agree that American Gigolo is one of the top 20 movies.
there may still be hope for professor shoe.
INGSOC in relation to chess?
communism and nazism in relation to eyebrows? notice brezhnev looks a little bit chinese.
afro is jealous of my eyebrows.
pumpkin = jew
Was watching this dating show again and it reinforces my theory that women go for looks almost as much as men. In fact i would say men are a lot more lenient on looks than women. You can have awkward stone cold dates but if youre good looking a woman will tolerate anything.
Good lookig loser was the firsyt guy to make that point to me. I didnt believe it until i actually became good looking myself.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/lank-thompson-handsome-actor/2868103?snl=1
Mueller indicted people for the russia conspiracy…..its insulting to peoples intelligenvr this whole charade. I feel myself laughing any time i see people talk about it seriously on tv.
….
You can now say that if mueller is willing to do this nonsense, what were the jews telling him to do when he was head of the fbi? Its scary how someone so senior in law enforcement has basically dressed up like a clown and thrown pies at people.
it is scary. maybe he thinks, “but if i quit and said ‘this is all bs’ i’d look even worse.”
I honestly think the jews think american gentiles are really really dumb. Everyone here in europe could see iraq was a joke that didnt even make sense. But because an american cant tell the difference betwee iraq and bosnia the jews can have a good time.
One of the reasons jews like open borders is that it reduces average iq levels allowing them to do crap like this. You cant get away with this in denmark or even autistic heaven germany.
Americans are really dumb abd they have predatory elites as a result.
Natural law. Culling of the dumb. Its SAD.
Of course most europeans are too dumb to figure out why they have racist feelings or why the jews have been so ‘persecuted’ through history. Bruno s comment is like satire. ‘But why do the haters hate so much. Aha! Ive got it. Ecause they are full of hate! Thats it. “
that’s it! the problem isn’t reality. the problem is seeing it. anti-semites are guilty of “able-ism”. they think they’re better than blind people.
Fenoopy, replying to me: “You’re clearly an older man and clearly stupid.”
Whoa, you really nailed me there! I am so, so old, and boy am I stupid! Sometimes I wish I hadn’t been dropped on my head so often when I was a child. But back then, long, long ago, they didn’t know that was bad for kids.
Interesting comment from someone who says, “Why doesn’t a rodent have the capacity to understand language?” Why don’t you just ask why rodents haven’t built nuclear weapons while you’re at it?
And your other comment — “Language is a thought process. Even ants can communicate. Language is a requirement for higher thought and animals don’t have it.” — means what, exactly? Chomsky, among others, does not see language as a “thought process,” and regardless whether “language is a requirement for higher thought,” it does not follow that the lack of higher thought implies the lack of language. (How many humans, now or in the past, would fail to show any evidence of “higher thought”?) Language and animal communication have traditionally been viewed as distinct, but the distinction is increasingly viewed as blurred. For an interesting and easily accessible article, see the following from the New York Times:
Incidentally, are you familiar with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? (No googling before you reply.) And if so, do you agree with it?
Ever heard of Nim Chimpsky? Or Kanzi?
By the way, you wouldn’t have a bit of a complex about your intelligence, would you? Oh, sorry, I’m sure that’s a stupid question. But maybe you’ll humor a poor idiot by answering.
In my opinion, Fenoopy is jealous of Archie Dumbeldore’d big brain.
Hard time choosing between Kanzi and Koko. In the case of Kanzi, Kanzi’s mother was being taught the symbols and Kanzi picked it up. Kanzi has a 13 Oz brain.
Kanzi and lexigrams.
Koko and the kitty gets me every time.
In the suggestions videos, I see Adam Smith And Colonel Sanders. The way Koko acts and the way I act and the two people in the suggestions who I know are more intelligent then I am. I know we are all the same. I can be all emotional and say we all feel emotions but I also know the mechanism of why we have emotions and intelligence. I am sad Koko lost the kitty. I am a kitty. I saw Koko’s face and how she pointed to her face. The brain is a sheet that has fibers connect it. Like tendons in the limbs. point to the face. play piano. paint a person. the fibers connect the sheets. like piano wires. the frontal lobes control the muscle sequences and the eyes recognize sequences. cause and effect. the fibers and sheets do the sequences of the muscles and eyes send feedback and that is why Koko can point to her face. cybernetic control is why Adam Smith and Colonel Sanders have brains smarter brains than me. fibers and sheets. they coordinate, push and pull sequences that allow understanding. to love kitties. to point to the face.
did koko like fried chicken?
The distinction between language and animal communication is grammar. A woman’s scream isn’t a word, nor a language. It’s a signal and animal communication works in very much the same way.
Bloomberg tv is actually not bad. Theres a lot of good guests. I was impressed with that fed board guy tarullo or darullo. The morgan stanley ceo is a class act.
Lloyd blankfein doesnt strike me as a ceo. A very uncharitable take is that he has mild down ayndrome.
Jaime dimon talks a lot of nonsense about dodd frank stopping loans to illegal immigrants with no teeth. Just a constat bullshitter. Hes kind of like a pr guy almost.
Theres a guy jc flowers whos a pe guy specialising in financial firms. Hes smart. Pe is quite jewish so flowers must be a very smart cookie to be a leader in that sector as a gentile.
Larry summers and carl icahn always make sense even though they believe in different eco ideas. Icahn is a bizzarely working class guy whos a finacial genius. He talks like he belongs i a rocky movie. Maybe thats why trump and him are friends.
Bill ackman makes a lot of sense as well. He reminds me of an estate agent i knew in london. Upper class jock. Polished.
The worst finance pundits are probably jim rogers, peter schiff and that swiss guy marc faber.
Roubini says a lot without saying anything.
But the previous 3 are hyperbolic ablut everything. Theres a nuclear war around the corner all the time. If you listebed to rogers 10 years ago abd became a farmer youd be even poorer. Faber is basically an austrian who thinks governments and central banks ‘interfere’ with soething realy natural like fiat money and limited liability corporations. What a moron. If its fake it means it can be changed. Moron.
Wow, I liked Rogers and schiff, though
pill is right. these three guys make their living from pontificating not from actually calling the market. if a guy has a newsletter he’s a fraud. those who know do not speak. those who speak do not know.
Jim chanos is good. But i keep reading shorting in the long run is a losing strat. Its academically proven anyway.
I think hes right that musk ripped off tesla shareholdrrs by buying out his solar energy co with their cash. I think there is a market for electric cars however but chanos is right that the numbers dont add up. Youd also be worried elon is using the shareholders resources for other private things like space x or whatever.
But the concept of a solar powered sports car was daring and makes sense. A lot of rich people are environmwnteally concious. Well..their children and wives anyway.
of course it’s a losing strategy. so are put options. but it doesn’t need to be winning to be part of the ideal portfolio. you know that hedge fund investors invest in many funds, don’t you?