Black nationalal merit finalist GondwanaMan wanted me to write about Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson.
While much of America is just discovering this woman for the first time (she was the most googled candidate at the end of June), longtime Oprah fans have known of this woman for decades.
In 1992 she published a book called A Return to Love. Oprah was so inspired by it that she went out and bought 1000 copies, and soon her audience was also buying it in droves, making it a massive bestseller.
In 2001 Williamson appeared on Oprah’s show immediately after 9/11. While the establishment wanted war with Afghanistan, Oprah and Williamson were virtually the only public figures urging restraint.
It was great to see two of the most intelligent and spiritually evolved voices in the subject coming from women.
Had America listened to these two brilliant women, it could have avoided the longest war in the country’s history.
It is interesting to ask what Williamson’s IQ is.
Although her cranial capacity is much smaller than Oprah and Chris Langan ‘s, she was Oprah’s spiritual guru and has a Langian type philosophy, calling the universe self-organizing and self-correcting.
What she lacks in brain size, she may makeup for in high IQ Ashkenazi genes allowing her to punch above her brain weight.
On the other hand, she sounds kind of flaky in the first Democratic debate, talking about how she’s going to defeat Donald Trump with “love”. Rhetoric that works well on a new agey daytime talk show does not always translate to more political forums and Williamson has yet to adapt.
Pumpkin Person 
Whites can’t fight. That’s a a hundred percent true. They’re very scared of physical contact to the face. Anywhere else and it’s fine. But as soon as they see something to the face, they’re long gone.
Wut???
serious question…
how is rr possible?
given what “we” know from the (((media))) about people of Mezzogiornese descent?
answer:
1. rr is NOT actually italian. he’s albanian.
2. even if rr weren’t albanian he would be on the far left side of the Mezzogiorno bell curve.
does serena williams have a bigger “penis” than her armenian husband?
answer: due to decades of steroids serena’s clitoris is in fact bigger than her husband’s penis.
what is it about armenians, kardashians?
answer: rr is an armenian/belushi brother.
Yeah, were you under the impression that whites can get up and physically handle hand-to-hand combat? I’m not. But maybe the small minority of whites who can have such a powerful influence that they start to speak for the white race as a whole.
last night (((npr))) had two shows on carrie buck, a white woman.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/604926914/emma-carrie-vivian-how-a-family-became-a-test-case-for-forced-sterilizations
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/g-unfit
“feeble-minded of the lowest grade, moron class.”
I’m stealing that.
autistic people say…
things suck. i have an explanation. genetically inferior people!
HBD is a form of autism.
what’s your ethnicity peepee?
all i know is that you’re mixed-race and part black, part south asian.
The only reason you think I’m black is cause Oprah fan
The only reason you think I’m south Asian is because I was tested by one
You continue to ignore my 100% german mother
I love the silly little back and forths between you and Pumpkin. Theres something almost adorable about it.
and just ro think you two have been at it for like 4 years now…
I think PP is half white and half east Asian.
On a side note,whites are only good at engineering. Other than that, they’re not very good at any other major science field. And I think autism plays a role in that. They can manipulate objects in their head very easily and approximate size well. In all other STEM fields they fall behind to a host of minorities.
Well, at least with engineering we can make flush toilets.
Oh yeah, that’s true. I forgot about that.
hitler said…
whoever understands wagner, understands national socialism.
mugabe says…
whoever acknowledges that the irish setter is the world’s most beautiful creature understands mugabe-ism.
a yuge thing about china people i have noticed first hand…
i’ve never heard/read anyone else make the same observation…
china people are NOT ambitious…
I’ve argued they’re less ambitious because low testosterone though rr disputes racial differences in T
“rr disputes racial differences in T”
Which is hilariously stupid.
Supposedly what mediates this is education. T only affects social dominance and most outcomes of social dominance are dictated by aggressiveness. Why? Because only humans have such a thing called “education”. We’re the exception not the rule. Testosterone causes aggression. Period.
Im not quite grasping how education explains the connection between social dominance and ambition/agression. Although i agree that at least at the group level, theres probay a strong correlation between testosterone and ambition and agressiona and other masculine behaviors.
“Testosterone causes aggression. Period.”
Oh Melo.
See my quotes from Sapolsky. Testosterone enhances, but doesn’t cause, aggression in chimps.
This quote is from. Behave:
Okay, suppose you note a correlation between levels of aggression and levels of testosterone among these normal males. This could be because (a) testosterone elevates aggression; (b) aggression elevates testosterone secretion; (c) neither causes the other. There’s a huge bias to assume option a while b is the answer. Study after study has shown that when you examine testosterone when males are first placed together in the social group, testosterone levels predict nothing about who is going to be aggressive. The subsequent behavioral differences drive the hormonal changes, not the other way around.
Because of a strong bias among certain scientists, it has taken do forever to convince them of this point.
[…]
As I said, it takes a lot of work to cure people of that physics envy, and to see interindividual differences in testosterone levels don’t predict subsequent differences in aggressive behavior among individuals. Similarly, fluctuations in testosterone within one individual over time do not predict subsequent changes in the levels of aggression in the one individual—get a hiccup in testosterone secretion one afternoon and that’s not when the guy goes postal.
Aggression elevates testosterone. Then go back to the 5-step process on how testosterone is secreted.
G man
“Im not quite grasping how education explains the connection between social dominance and ambition/agression. ”
Because I assume people who are more intelligent also tend to be better at regulating their emotions, but this of course isn’t always the case. What RR doesn’t understand is that T can stifle the ability to regulate one’s emotions, especially anger. There is no real difference between correlation and causation in a systems view of biology. That is once a correlation has been established to actually relate.
On another note what the fuck is “physics envy”? Do people actually think physics is “more scientific” than other sciences?
This doesn’t refute my arguments in my master testosterone article.
“What RR doesn’t understand is that T can stifle the ability to regulate one’s emotions, especially anger.”
Administering supraphysiological doses of T to eugonadal men (men with functioning, healthy gonads) at 200 and 600 mg does not increase aggression or anger levels.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8855834
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12062320
I work with people who get T administered to them. I should ask them if they feel angrier/more aggressive.
In any case Melo, aggression causes T increases, T increases don’t cause aggression. Administering supraphysiologic doses of T doesn’t increase aggression.
“This doesn’t refute my arguments in my master testosterone article.”
Reading comprehension RR. The aim of my comment was not to refute the contentions within your blog post. In fact the point I laid out falls directly in line with them.
Testosterone can negatively impact ones ability to regulate their Emotions:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797619851753
Click to access P.1.e.009.pdf
So for example in the study of Chimps you cite in the article, we would not actually expect the Chimp injected with T to start frothing at the mouth with indiscriminate rage. That’s an over-simplistic view on how testosterone actually causes angry behavior. Him being a total bastard to the monkeys on the lower social scale than him is in fact an expected behavior.
“Him being a total bastard to the monkeys on the lower social scale than him is in fact an expected behavior.”
It’s expected because he was already dominant over the other two. T isn’t *causing* the aggression.
“It’s expected because he was already dominant over the other two. T isn’t *causing* the aggression.”
It’s expected that his behavior worsened to the other beta Chimps because T simply heightens emotional responses that are already ingrained.
T causes aggression. You just have an arbitrarily restricted definition of causation. Hence why you put it in scare quotes.
“T causes aggression”
Aggressive behavior causes T increases.
We have a good natural population to use for this: “trans men”. Administering T to them did not increase aggression:
https://repository.nottinghamshirehealthcare.nhs.uk/handle/123456789/2902
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X18304823
Couple this with my other citations above on administering hyperphysiologic doses of T to eugonadal men and…
Do you believe causation is linear?
Just say “You’re right RR, you’ve proven your point that there is no dose-dependent response regarding testosterone and aggression.” The “trans men” studies are solid evidence, as are the dearth of studies I have cited in my article.
Hahahaha, So you can’t substantiate anything?
Hahaha Melo can’t admit when he’s wrong and state that yes, my citations show that testosterone doesn’t cause aggression and that aggressive behavior increases testosterone?
I can admit when I’m wrong. You just have to prove me wrong first.
How did what I cite not prove your claim (“Testosterone causes aggression”) wrong? I’d say my citations on giving eugonadal men supraphysiologic doses of testosterone with no change in aggression nor aggressive behavior along with the one cite on “trans men” proves your claim wrong. If they don’t, why don’t they?
Because you didn’t understand my claim, what causation is, and how the articles your citing are irrelevant ( besides their obvious limitations) to my point. Answer the fucking questions I ask you, and we can have an actual conversation.
Buddy, you explicitly stated that “Testosterone causes aggressive” and I’ve shown the claim to be false with numerous citations. You know I think causation is multi-level.
“You know I think causation is multi-level.”
I’m not talking about causation being multilevel. I’m talking about whether you think it’s linear or not.
Don’t call me “buddy” friend!
T causes aggression. QED!
Your claim “Testosterone causes aggression” is false. “ReAd mY CiTAtIoNS.”
How does testosterone *cause* aggression, guy?
“Your claim “Testosterone causes aggression” is false.”
It’s not. You just don’t know what causation is.
““ReAd mY CiTAtIoNS.””
Unlike you I read citations that I’m provided.
“How does testosterone *cause* aggression, guy?”
ReAd mY CiTAtIoNS!
Also i’m not your “guy”, pal!
How is your claim not false if I’ve shown at least 3 citations proving it wrong? How do the citations I’ve provided you conflict with what you’ve provided?
Your first cite talks about control in “socially challenging situations.” Which is the point: “socially challenging situations” would, I assume (I need to read the paper, I only skimmed it) increase T levels. I don’t contest T influencing emotions; I contest it *causing* aggression, and in turn crime. (Have you read my piece on testosterone and why it doesn’t cause crime?)
The second cite is good. I don’t dispute that claim with exogenous T. I have, however, provided 2 citations showing that supraphysiologic doses of T (obviously exogenous) doesn’t increase aggression and my cite on “trans men” further buttresses the point.
It seems we’re at an impass here. I’ll give you the last word.
“How is your claim not false if I’ve shown at least 3 citations proving it wrong?”
Because they don’t prove me wrong.
“How do the citations I’ve provided you conflict with what you’ve provided?”
They don’t conflict with them at all.
“I don’t contest T influencing emotions; I contest it *causing* aggression, and in turn crime.”
That’s a distinction without a difference RR. Again, causation is not as restricted as you think it is.
because the reality about penises is…
1. size matters…but…
2. what matters is only that you don’t have a small penis or a skinny penis…or a deformed penis…
3. there is such a thing as too big…really…
4. penis beauty is a thing…most penises are ugly…crooked or dis-colored…
[redacted by pp, July 22, 2019]
looking up into the blue sky of Blue (1993)…
one sees…
that for almost everyone who is in the 1% of innate ability…
even oprah makes no difference…
even oprah will be forgotten…
even plato will be forgotten…
reminds me…
i still love you gwyn.
even when your old and wrinkly and fat…
never forget.
i still love you gwyn.
even when you’re old and wrinkly and fat…
never forget.
and by “love” i don’t mean i want to put myself inside you…
what i mean is…
aesthetics don’t lie…
of course it’s the bbc, but…
the bbc did a thing on the animal rights activist and environmentalist and nazi, savitri devi…
and claimed that the bjp was basically a neo-nazi party.
i’ve been in love with gwyneth paltrow (another half mongolian) since i saw her on oprah and oprah pozzed the interview to say that mandela had died on robben island.
that waws the same day rock hudson died.
i thought, “my God the power of mongolians.”
sorry,
i should have said the same day rock hudson SUPPOSEDLY died…
obviously the story that rock hudson was gay and died from AIDS was made up by the CIA.
I’ve read a lot of rumours Rock Hudson was gay, but the same sources also said Paul Newman was bisexual and James Dean was gay as well. So I’m not sure.
I can believe though that a sizeable proportion of men that go into acting, especially theatre acting might have homosexual tendencies.
Wtf wut does CIA have to do with Rock Hudson?
Puppy did you just confirm that you were once in the army?!!
This opens up a whole new world of comedic potential
Marianne Williamson sounds a bit like a cult leader when she talks. I actually thought she was a cult leader until I read her wiki. Notice the way all cults talk about ‘unconditional love’ or universal love. From the Kool Aid cult to Michael to the Manson one. Women are especially easy to manipulate with those kinds of messages. Which leads to the conclusion of some men that women are too easily (((brainwashed))) to vote.
It’s funny that you claim that blacks are less brainwashable than other races. Oprah loves Marianne Williamson’s bullshit and so do a lot of blacks. Blacks believe all kinds of retarded cult-like bullshit from Jim Jones to Black Israelites to stupid megachurch preachers who teach prosperity gospel.
I agree that blacks are very brainwashable but Oprah never believed half the stuff she sold on her show
You think so? Makes sense big-brained Oprah with her high need-to-succeed would peddle some bullshit along the way. I wonder if she actually believes in the Secret.
One of Oprah’s former producers said she’s a master manipulator who doesn’t believe what she says & her constant references to a higher power are just a way to control the audience.
She was going to expose it all in a book but big brained oprah was smart enough to have made her sign a confidentiality agreement
If Oprah is a “master manipulator” then I guess she’s not different than most of our other elite overlords. Shocking bu unsurprising.
Would restricting the vote to IQ really make a difference. Would we still get Jeb Bush/Hilary Clinton types by default?
I think yes, but maybe some of the fringe candidates wouldn’t sound so dumb. People like Herman Cain wouldn’t be viable.
I think it would be a lot more different if everyone had the same social IQ as Trumpy. Then you might get really interesting options. Salesmen know the schtick too much to be fooled so they probably would vote for the most competent person.
But then you wouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Im going to just say it but I don’t think Plato or Socrates were that good. I’ve read a lot of their stuff and Im just not feelin it. They like using analogies a lot rather than logic.
I think at heart Im an empiricist. All of my arguments always rest on evidence rather than analogies, ideology or some other method.
Oh, you’re just a troll.
Sorry it’s just I’m only realizing now that someone this delusional could not possibly exist.
Thank you, this proves my point.
Philo is not an empiricist in the slightest. He also has a very shitty intuition, which he bases all of his statements on.
Melo my right buttcheek is more empirical than youre entire brain.
Many thanks
Carmen Santiago
He bases this off of intuition as well^
Boris Johnson is PM. Yay…Or Hurrah!
My psychiatrist said Johnson was a clown. He got that slogan from the media coverage (like all of *his* ideas). I said, I’m minded to think he is based on what I’ve seen too. But really I’ve never interacted with him or read his articles (he was a journalist).
All I know is:
1. He did a good job as mayor for london and was relected in a major labour city.
2. He looks huggable. And reminds me of winnie the pooh. Awww.
3. He shares my view on Brexit i.e. “fuck business”.
pp you like horror do a post on ‘midsommar’ and how its a mongolian psyops conditioning gambit
CNN is a mongolian psy ops conditioning gambit. Its so bad that even when you tell dummies like melo of its true bature he still falls for it. Hahah.
Midsommar was really good. Hereditary was better though. How is the movie a conditioning gambit?
Flush toilets were invented in India in 2500 B.C
The special counsel emphasized that Russian election interference remains ongoing. “It wasn’t a single attempt. They’re doing it as we sit here,” Mueller said of Russia’s efforts. “And they expect to do it during the next campaign.” He later expressed fear that foreign election interference was “the new normal.”
What are you doing melo to keep the russians out of our underwear?
Well, i’m one person so I can’t do anything. It doesn’t help that retards like you think this is all some “jewsdidit” conspiracy.
Trump is what we call a “useful idiot.” If you’ve been watching his moves as president it’s clear as day how incompetent he is. Have you actually read the Mueller report? Lemme guess, that’s just another facet of “jewsdidit”?
Watch, his next response is going to be him asking for physical characteristics of my baby sister. Or better yet he’s going to parrot something about CNN despite me not actually watching the news. EVER. You’re a sicko Philo.
Sad.
the world learned today that muller was like bolton, a (((front))). muller i senile. the guy behind the muller investigation was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Weissmann
The world learned today that trump is a liar.
PROVE ME WORNG!
HE CANT!
because he’s stupid.
Sad.
unlike pill, i don’t feel sorry for melo, because melo isn’t only dumb, he’s evil.
i wonder what melo thinks of a scion of the getty family marrying a canadian mutilated man pretending to be a woman and spending millions on the wedding.
the ideal is nothing is spent on a wedding ever. it’s illegal to spend anything on a wedding. dancing is also illegal. BUT there are severe criminal penalties for fornication. polygymy is also illegal. this is how you know islam and mormonism are false religions. but the bride and groom will be allowed to inspect one another’s genitals prior to marriage.
Still waiting.
still waiting for what?
the bottle with a penis shaped nipple filled with mountain dew your mom gives you every night at bedtime?
Still waiting.
C’mon it can’t be that hard Mugabe.
I can prove gravity is a force. I can prove that you’re a retard, because those things are facts. You can’t prove any of the garbage you say though.
polygymy is a mispelling or a typo of polygyny. etymologically speaking…
polygamy means many marriages.
polygyny means many women.
so my new word is polygymy = many wives.
as for many husbands, ask dealwithherpes.
as you can see weissmann is not ethnically german or european.
https://images.app.goo.gl/hgyjTZ8fPH3ozGXj7
So it’s becoming clear as day how corrupt the trump administration is.
He has not only shown that he lacks any sort of verbal and social intelligence, the dude can’t even add properly. “jewsdidiit” or not, he is stupid. Period.
He constantly and consistently lies on national television. His presidency will spark the largest voter turnout of all time. If he gets elected again, it will mark the end of the USA. QED.
If only eugenics was put in place. If it weren’t for moral realism people like Philo and Mugabe would not be allowed to breed. The true conspiracy is that rich people fuck us over far more than poor people on welfare in the fiscal sense. But of course the aforementioned mindsets are too stupid to actually understand this point.
Now watch. they wont have a coherent rebuttal to this. Only ad hominems. PROVE ME WRONG. THEY CANT!
STILL WAITING!
pssst…every US politician is 100% corrupt and lies all the time.
your autism is sad.
He doesn’t get the point as usual.
Still waiting
also obvious is melo has actually never read anything pill or i have posted here.
melo is so dumb he can’t be a real person.
therefore he is peepee.
How exactly will America end if we re-elect a President that doesn’t act presidential? As you seem to hint, he is an establishment politician by certain handlers; one among many who came before him. You’re upset about the new coat, but it settles all the same as the previous. People focus their attentions too much on the superficial and not enough on policies enacted.
I literally cannot put the mental effort to stay up-to-date with the latest whinging of how Trump said this or that people didn’t like, or how he might have exaggerated or embellished this or that. Like who the hell cares? The end result is all the same.
Like how Trump said Muller exonerated him. Yeah, we get it, Muller did not (and could not). He doesn’t even have the authority to indict or exonerate. He is just a glorified investigator. There is a presupposition of guilt clashing with our tenet of presumption of innocence; Trump is presumed innocent, therefore any sort of guilt is expunged when evidence pertaining to the case is lacking. For him to say he was exonerated isn’t to ascribe actual power to do so to Muller, but relating to the fact that his presumption of innocence stands. He is innocent. But that’s just the way he talks – he likes to embellish. Who cares? The end result is still the same.
This issue is that it will not settle the same. It’s very true that corruption has existed since the beginning of our government, the difference now is that it’s far more transparent than it ever has been but nobody cares.
It really is true that he could shoot someone and get away with it. Any other president would have been impeached by now. And yes everyone with a brain realizes that the president is not as important to policy making as the average American would like to believe, but again that is not the point.
Melo just admit you are wrong about Russia. Its getting embarrassing now. I feel bad for you.
Still waiting.
Test
Pumpkin- I sent you an email seeking educational advice. I don’t expect an answer immediately but just wanted to know if you received it.
Did you get a promotion or something and are busier at work? Seems like you used to spend a lot more time on this blog!
Yes I was going to write a brief blog post responding to your comment here (not the email) but after work I wanted to catch up on the news & after that I was just too tired, so it will have to wait
enoch’s parents don’t look mongolian but their names are Billie Gleissner and Michael Peinovich.
https://images.app.goo.gl/NaAKxXamQif7EDjB7
there are reasons to believe enoch is fake other than his appearance.
these english nazis agree with pill and me about china people. just look at the picture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E5LspmI3Zg
The nazi sympathizer is calling me evil.
The stupidity is astounding.
i remembered how when pill first started posting here and said he was agnostic regarding the mongolian question, he also said he admired freud. freud had nothing to say of any interest whatsoever, and he was a degerate, a shanda fur die goyim of the first rank, worse than ruth bader ginsburg.
just more proof pill is mongolian.
the power of christ compels you to stop drinking mountain dew from a baby bottle.
https://images.app.goo.gl/qpvZxHZKnHa5qJ6H7
everyone who isn’t a brainwashed imbecile is sympathetic to many aspects of national socialism melo…unless he’s a mongolian…wait…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsagaan_Khas
if you value beauty, animal rights, the environment, equality, democracy, human improvement, realizing human potential, belonging, being at home, freedom, if you hate global capitalism, if you hate government by the rich for the rich, etc…
then you’re a fellow traveller melo.
deal with it.
You can’t value any of that while also promoting the genocide of an entire race, at least without being a hypocrite.
He doesn’t understand averages. So he’s stupid and evil.
Still waiting.
name redacted by pp, july 26, 2019 ,
“if you value beauty”
This seems to be true, if anything just as a consequence of population growth,but conservative restrictions and wierd fetischism of germanic things is kinda akward. Also the super masculine extreme gender role things are pretty vulgar and ugly.
“animal rights,the environment”
True, animals would be treated better if the germans won.
“belonging, being at home”
The nazis wanted to considerably change culture, throughout the globe. As you have insinuated in the past, to look at the will of any individual highranking nazi officer is flawed beucase the german government was more unorganized/uncentralized than commonly assumed. So it stands to ask, which interests would survive regarding a victory? and obviously it would have been the aristocrazy becuase of their growth in power and size in numbers. Reactionary sentiment backed up by cronyist support for censorship and plundering in foreign lands would keep the populous docile and supportative by becoming an intesified verision of a workers aristocracy nation/culture. Maybe the need for money would make them nicer, but probably not since theyd need to make their racial dogma become a reality. This would be the harshest on slavs, south africans and latinos, whom the nazis had their greatest contempt for, behind the jews of course. You can read the text “Reflections on the Treatment of Peoples of Alien Races in the East” by heinrich himmler to get an idea of how low the germans were willing to go against the slavs, ill lay some quotes from a english translation:
“What I want to say is that we are not only most interested in not unifying the population of the East, but, on the contrary, in splitting them up into as many parts and fragments as possible.”
“We naturally want to use the members of all these ethnic groups, especially of the small ones, in positions of police officials and mayors. Only the mayors and local police authorities will be allowed to head those ethnic groups. As far as the Gorals are concerned the individual chieftains and elders of the tribes, who live in continuous feud with each other anyhow, should fill these positions. There must be no centralization toward the top”
“I hope that the concepts of Jews will be completely extinguished through the possibility of a large emigration of all Jews to Africa or some other colony. Within a somewhat longer period, it should also be possible to make the ethnic concepts of Ukrainians, Gorals and Lemcos disappear in our area. What has been said for those fragments of peoples is also meant on a correspondingly larger scale for the Poles. ”
“For the non-German population of the East there must be no higher school than the four-grade elementary school. The sole goal of this school is to be–
Simply arithmetic up to 500 at the most; writing of one’s name; the doctrine that it is a divine law to obey the Germans and to be honest, industrious, and good. I don’t think that reading is necessary.
Apart from this school there are to be no schools at all in the East. Parents, who from the beginning want to give their children better schooling in the elementary school as well as later on in a higher school, must take an application to the Higher SS and Police Leaders. The first consideration in dealing with this application will be whether the child is racially perfect and conforming to our conditions. If we acknowledge such a child to be as of our blood, the parents will be notified that the child will be sent to a school in Germany and that it will permanently remain in Germany.
The parents of such children of good blood will be given the choice to either give away their child; they will then probably produce no more children so that the danger of this subhuman people of the East [Untermenschenvolk des Ostens] obtaining class of leaders which, since it would be equal to us, would also be dangerous for us, will disappear–or else the parents pledge themselves to go to Germany and to become loyal citizens there. The love toward their child, whose future and education depends on the loyalty of the parents, will be a strong weapon in dealing with them.
Apart from examining the applications made by parents for better schooling of their children, there will be an annual sifting of all children of the Government General between the ages of 6 to 10 years in order to separate the racially valuable and non-valuable ones. The ones considered racially valuable will be treated in the same way as the children who are admitted on the basis of the approved application of their parents.The population of the Government General during the next 10 years, by necessity and after a consistent carrying out of these measures, will be composed of the remaining inferior population supplemented by the population of the eastern provinces deported there, and of all those parts of the German Reich which have the same racial and human qualities for instance, parts of the Sorbs [Sorben] and Wends [Wenden].
This population will, as a people of laborers without leaders, be at our disposal and will furnish Germany annually with migrant workers and with workers for special tasks (roads, quarries, buildings): they themselves will have more to eat and more to live on than under the Polish regime; and, though they have no culture of their own, they will, under the strict, consistent, and just leadership of the German people”
“On Saturday, 25 May 1940, I handed my memorandum on the treatment of peoples of alien race in the East to the Fuehrer.[document No-1880, Prosecution Exhibit 1314, reproduced immediately above.] The Fuehrer read the six pages and considered them very good and correct.”
So they want to fragment and retard the cultures of the USSR while totaly absolving the slavic nature of poland. Who could possibly benefit from this exploatation? well with european population growth from a lack of feminism thered be demand for this kind of treatment to maintain the workers aristocracy i mentioned earlier.
And how many slavs were considered of good stock? i would guess somewhere between 10-25%. But with competition from japan (if their empire survives), there might have been more immigration/assimilation or fairer treatment of slavs for geopolitical purposes.
“Cruel and tragic as every individual case may be, this method is still the mildest and best one if, out of inner conviction, one rejects as un-German and impossible the Bolshevist method of physical extermination of a people.”
Now this is interesting in that Himmler condems genocide. Its also kinda edgy but maybe true, are blacks slavs and latinos treated that well today? if europe had a population of 2,8 billion and north america 750 million people in it, with eugenics programs, better health and less crudeness on the television, would the poor and small population be treated better than what they are today thanks to the material prosperity, and lack of stressors on the germanics population? would innovation be better than today? Sure hitler wanted no good for any non-germanic person (though theres evidence for him getting more liberal with time), but i think his legacy would be limited. Perhaps this is all dependent on how easily mass media spreads, as can be seen by how the vietnam war ended, or by other liberal campains like global warming. But as I said earlier why wouldnt the aristocracy want to keep their populations rich and stupid, kinda like boomers, but with the whole world to plunder.
“if you hate government by the rich for the rich”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freundeskreis_der_Wirtschaft
Nazi germany was mainly powerd by the upper class and royalty. But they were pro-gun, and said bad things about rich people, but on the first hand they did say that rich people were rich from meritocracy and that free markets should be used to weed out the weak, so theres ample ambiguity in how the furhers rhetoric could be used to further anyones goals, the only non ambigous sentiment is that of hierarchy, and thats kinda icky becuase such rhetoric often erodes freedom.
“freedom, if you hate global capitalism”
Again freedom is questionable, they had no incentive to further it and often opposed freedom of speech, were against womens rights, wanted to enforce a culture where collective effort and hierarchy where valued, censored art, etc.
As i said earlier hitler was pro capitalism becuase he wanted “superior people” to get all the money and all the ladies. He would probably give dividents from the colonies to germanic citizens though, so a welfare state would exist for them but maybe not for others. A lack of media and free information would make income inequality easy to maintain.
“democracy”
Thats contingent on everything ive said earlier.
You might ask me “but the axis powers suported the freedom for colonized countries”, and on that i think that people like erik striker are wrong. The germans were opportunists when it came to their foreign policy, they did not regard highly of any non germanic peoples, outside of the latin europeans whom they considered to have some good qualities but still largely worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Ethiopian_War
Notice that the germans would support etheopia simply because of the fact that italy wouldnt follow the german will at world conquest, but then changed their opinion when the material circumstnaces changed. Similar things can be seen in the german relationship to china and japan.
Goering and Adolf were fans of Italian art, but thought that germanics had more potencial.
Oh God, the irony is giving me cancer!
Ian Smith is a vile pig. Hope he gets caught up and [redacted by pp, July 25, 2019]like the gangster he pretends to be. Never met anyone so deluded and narcissistic before. It’s crazy, that guy is a dumbass. Sorry.
What makes him dumb and narcicistic? It is very possible that his self acclaimed personal “gangster life” I partially or wholly false but for me he seems like one of the most considerate and empathetic person on the blog. I find myself agreeing with much of what he says (but not everything of what he says). He sounds cruel alot of the time but after inspection it seems like there’s good intent in his words.
He’s not necessarily dumb, just very close-minded which can be synonymous with stupidity, and he’s very narcissistic in that he believes everything he says is right. So that’s my take on Ian.
Hey Pumpkin. Is it possible for you to construct a formula that equates a post-2016 SAT/PSAT score with an IQ score? The format of the test has changed so a new formula would greatly be appreciated.
Yes PP do it.
I dont know much about the post-2016 SAT but it basically seemed like theh dumbed it sown even more. I hate it. Plus theyre adding some adversity score bullcrap to the SAT.
Pumpkin, is it normal for a 120 IQ student to get Cs in advanced classes if s/he doesn’t work hard?
Yes
Pumpkin, is it also normal for the 120 kid to get Cs on tests if s/he doesn’t work hard?
As in, does the homework, but Bullshits it, just to get the hw grade.
Yes
i once didnt go to class for a whole semester and got 2 Fs, a D, a B and an A (1st semester junior year of college). But no Cs.
Abstract thinking can be uniquely defined as doing something non-intuitive. Essentially, everything in this world is abstract because intuitiveness is limited to only a certain number of things. For instance, take a line for example. Walking in a straight line or even drawing a straight line resembles something intuitive, but as soon as you start drawing or walking in a circle, you get something non-intuitive and abstract. To understand this, one must look at the natural laws of physics and the way intuitiveness is set up. Basically, all intuitive things mirror the way the nature of the Universe is, possibly even the natural world, though there is a lot of abstract capabilities natural world has. Some math is intuitive, like addition, but other math, like multiplication, is more abstract. It is intuitive to add things because that’s how the mind pictures the growth of our Universe, but multiplication and other methods of compounding progression are more abstract.
In coordination with this, abstract intuitiveness does exist, a synergy so powerful that it probably is the functioning cause of quantum activities in our Universe. Abstract intuitiveness can be anything from jumping to throwing a ball to playing hide and seek. The hide and seek example is a perfect example because it serves as something so intuitive; looking for something is intuitive. The abstract part is when you start to look for it and it disappears and reappears again when you cease seeking it out.
Abstract thought is deeply embedded in the quantum world. This counters the intuitive nature of how our mind relates to the Universe. This makes reality seem counter-intuitive to us because we don’t necessarily see what makes sense, but we see greater complexity and a convoluted pattern that occurs that seems to not follow simplicity or the least complex designs.
radiolab just got conned by professor shoe.
that is, professor shoe is smart enough to understand that selling embryo selection for IQ is selling snake oil.
1. the effect is so small and the number of genes putatively affecting IQ are so many that his service taken to its logical conclusion would mean a society with less genetic diversity than a shtetl.
2. the effect goes to zero for truly outside sample populations.
3. the effect is retrospective. societies change over time.
4. when the genetics of the population change the society changes.
so what his “service” really amounts to is:
1. changing people to fit a particular society, rather than the reverse.
2. changing people to fit a particular society which will cease to exist after his “service” is widely adopted and cease to exist as a result of other changes over time.
Whenever mug of pee calls orientals small brained he actually turns then on…
Jokes aside im actually interested in that debate since I barely questioned the east asian cranial capacity prior to it.
I think broadness of the forehead is more of a sexually attractive trait than pure head size. Of course there is a limit, as symmetry is what matters the most. Did you ever see my guest post on sexual selection thinking mouse? You might find it interesting.
meLo,
“I think broadness of the forehead is more of a sexually attractive trait than pure head size.”
Its about head size and smaller face in proportion to the head and smaller head in proportion to the body.
“Of course there is a limit, as symmetry is what matters the most. Did you ever see my guest post on sexual selection thinking mouse? You might find it interesting.”
First of all i need to say that i got zero education in anthropology but here are my thoughts.
I think sexual selection in humans is completely different than other organisms because cultural traits can become attractive. Sure, some animals have plastic sexualities but humans secuality is even more plasitc which i think makes us exponentially different, partly thanks to our ability to change our environment in variable ways.
If sexual selection wasnt culturally shaped i suspect we would be less symmetrical, less homogeneous in colour and more like chimps in appearence. I suspect that prognathism and other chimp skull traits are negatively correlated with bite force and thusly have to be sexually selected in chimps (to supercede the natural selection of more human like skulls), which share our ancestors. For instance i think selection for cheekbones might be entierly cultural as almost all modern (and most related) primates got less of it.
So we have several sexual influencers:
1.Arbitrary symbols/traits. Epithantic folds, the wierd disks in the lips that some cultures have, skull elongation, ore whatever the heck this is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsRR0bTixLU are examples on arbitrary traits. These are random, 100% brainwashed and caused by the other influencers.
What is interesting is that these people (woodabe) are orignially west africans but became more white looking thanks (?) to their culture of valuing physical attractiveness, why that is could maybe be explained by what i mention below, or perhaps its by mere chance. Or perhaps its evidence of europeans being the most sexualy selected group. MAybe ill look into that in the future, but if it were so that europeans are the most sexually selected group, i think it would be in a manner that alligns itself with the conclusions reached below. One way could be that sexuality has a pull towards european traits relative to their cultural baggage, for example some state that: some non-westernised dark skinned people select slightly lighter skinned people than themselves yet found europeans to be scary, and that this pull was more strong amonst men.
But maybe that has to do with what i say bellow.
2. Unarbitrary symbols/traits. THese are traits/symbols that are influences by the need to survive, for instance firm gender roles or muscles, or being
2.Resources/status, resources are a pathway to material security and social security and are in line with our emotions, that get shaped by them, sexual emotions too. Basically forming hierachies as a form of unarbitrary symbol/traits.
3.Familiarity and assingment. You like the things (faces) you are presented with, the avarage of those things, especially that are presented with in tandum with resources/status.
4.Material sorroundings. This one is a little abstract and might only exist in civilized society, but every culture/human period seems to have an aesthetic that follows sentiment on how the society should follow. Today everything should be slim and simple yet virile and acitve, during the 50s it was about conforming into a society where you can prove your ability to brute force your assinged role (whether that is something boring or cool, feeding into the intense focus social relationships, “normal” houses and architecture looked like either dull work offices or disney land, not a lot of real diversity/nuance). Or during the middle ages where everthing was about power, extravanganze (surplus) and fertility, but no waste.
What im intending to say is that some components of aesthetics seem inate and combines itself with unarbitrary simbols/traits to express a general asthetic that might form certain types of familitarity and arbitrary symbols/traits. That perhaps might influence how we view peoples faces.
So i think eurasians look like they do due to natural selection and ancient culture, especially caucasians, especially northern europeans.
Caucasians = Low peramorphic, high testosterone
Negroids = High peramorphic, low testosterone
Black people look like peramorphic women, while white people look like paedomorphic men. Mongoloids are inbetween. But ive seen studies showing that black men look pretty masculine, but most things indicate that they got no individual traits thats associated with testosterone on their faces. For instance white people got strait and low eyebrows while black people tend to have less full, more round and more elevated eyebrows (feminine). Bigger noses seems like one masculine thing black people have, But its very weakly correlated with gender and probably not caused by testosterone. The same can be said of prognathism. Why some see them as more manly is becuase of the arbitrary and unarbitrary fears about them being low class, animals and dark, resembeling the night, forming feedbackloops etc.
East asians dont look like babies, other than having a flat face and square jaw i guess, if thats what you mean. But bushmen dont got flat faces, and they also have less squared jaws, so i dont think capoids are paedomorpic, they look like africans with slanted eyes and lighter skin. Also dont do babies have rounder eyes?
White people dont have the largest diversity in colours, every local population is rather homogenious. Blue eyes might very well have plietropy to a general reduction of melanin (blue eyes are melanin-less eyes).
So you think asians are shorter becuase of higher selection on brain plasticity, following neotic (neotic traits perhaps being selected for because of pleiotropy selecting for paedomorphic traits, or just a correlation between the two) and paedomorphic traits?
I’ve been thinking of doing a part 2 to my sexual selection post. As I think I could research more data on the anatomic variation between races, as I find descriptions of them a little too vacuous. Plus I’ve learned a little more about the subject recently.
“Caucasians = Low peramorphic, high testosterone
Negroids = High peramorphic, low testosterone”
Caucasoids are arguably the most peramorphic, that is if you consider their facial morphology a product of developmental evolution and not simply functional innovations. This is because for their larger brains and size in general. Also I’m pretty sure blacks and whites have near the same levels of testosterone. At least according to RR.
“East asians dont look like babies”
East asians are the most paedomorphic in facial features and pure appearence. But their larger brains are a peramorphic trait. Of course I’m not sure whether their growing periods are longer or not. Hence, why I want to make a second part I want to see if there are developmental differences between races
” But bushmen dont got flat faces, and they also have less squared jaws, so i dont think capoids are paedomorpic, they look like africans with slanted eyes and lighter skin. Also dont do babies have rounder eyes?”
They’re more paedomorphic than other Africans. Babies of all races tend to be born with epicanthic folds.
“So you think asians are shorter becuase of higher selection on brain plasticity, following neotic (neotic traits perhaps being selected for because of pleiotropy selecting for paedomorphic traits, or just a correlation between the two) and paedomorphic traits?”
I think their delicate features a product of cold adaptation and a sexual preference. Which of course Neuralplasticity may also be a product of as well.
What does this make you think The Philosopher?
Women are judged more harshly than men if they cheat, while men are judged more harshly than women… for almost every other kind of mistake.
Good insight
Bold of you to assume that pillosopher thinks.
many genes of small effect works for height but not very well.
the center of the dead sea is at 31.5590° N, 35.4732° E. it’s the lowest point on earth.
so the many genes of small effect crowd would look at the average elevation of all points on 31.5590° N and 35.4732° E and claim that each had a small negative effect if their average elevations were lower than average.
dumb.
reading the radiolab transcript. it’s faster and i can’t stand shoe’s whiny nerd voice. the guy they brought in after shoe was an econ prof at USC and a white gentile.
PAT: And, number two, which might even be more disturbing, Dan says the genetic data all of this is based on came only from white people of European descent. That’s the only data they could get their hands on. And consequently, if you try to use a test like Steve Hsu’s on someone who’s not a white person of European descent, it pretty much doesn’t work. That correlation drops to the floor.
DAN BENJAMIN: Well, if you picked two people randomly in the sample, and you asked, “How likely is it that the one with the higher polygenic score is actually the one who got more years of schooling,” the answer is about 60 percent.
PAT: 60 percent.
DAN BENJAMIN: Yes. There is a 40 percent chance that you’ll get it backwards. And I think more to the point, in the context of embryo selection, the prediction is less likely to be right. It’s gonna be something like reducing it from 60 percent to 55 percent.
PAT: So according to Dan, these predictions can be useful in large groups, but on an individual level, they’re just a little bit better than a coin toss.
DAN BENJAMIN: So I worry that companies that are offering this service, they’re exaggerating the potential gains, and also are not being upfront about what the risks are.
PAT: Two things on that real quick. First, Dan says, because we don’t really know how the genetic variations that predict IQ score really work, if you select against them you might accidentally be selecting for other stuff, like mental illnesses or certain diseases.
DAN BENJAMIN: There are these risks and we don’t even know what all of the risks are.
PAT: And, number two, which might even be more disturbing, Dan says the genetic data all of this is based on came only from white people of European descent. That’s the only data they could get their hands on. And consequently, if you try to use a test like Steve Hsu’s on someone who’s not a white person of European descent, it pretty much doesn’t work. That correlation drops to the floor.
now steve just lies. the author of the biggest study and a fellow chinese american said it’s not going to get any better.
STEVE HSU: Well, it will get better, I guarantee you, as we get more data. The — the predictive power will get much better. And I think it will eventually achieve a kind of capability kind of like what we can do with height where you — you know, the — the error is about an inch, maybe plus or minus 10 points of IQ.
then (because psychopath) steve plays the race card like johnny cockring.
STEVE HSU: And of course there are many ethical things that we have to sort out. And I think different societies will decide different things about how they want to deal with this. And so, you know, if a particular country said, “We do not want you to ever report anything about cognitive risks. We just don’t want you to report that.” I would totally respect that. But then I think you have to respect if the nation of Singapore, if they decide this is an important thing to do, well you better respect them, too.
PAT: Mm-hmm.
STEVE HSU: Otherwise you’re some kind of racist, colonialist guy who says only my ethics count. So I realize — you know, I realize the NPR audience may not like it, but, you know, this is the world that were entering into.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/g-unnatural-selection
and it wasn’t just “white europeans”. it was specifically white british and white americans iirc.
correct me.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/190124v1.full
where’s the supplement?
shoe claims he can predict height to within an inch, but how can a correlation of only .64 do that? explain.
actual heights of most individuals in validation samples are within a few cm of the prediction.
so he’s not talking about 95% confidence intervals just 50%?
The corresponding result for Educational Attainment does not indicate any approach to a limiting value. Using all the data in the sample, we obtain maximum correlation of ~ 0.3, activating about 10k SNPs. Presumably, significantly more or higher quality data will be required to capture most of the SNP heritability of this trait.
all of the data? no out of sample validation?
Our main dataset is the July 2017 release of nearly 500k UK Biobank genotypes and associated phenotypes…
Actual height (cm) versus predicted height (cm) using 2000 randomly selected individuals held back from predictor optimization.
[redacted by pp, July 29, 2019]
Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) [18] individuals (the latter is a US sample)…On ARIC participants the correlation drops further by ~7%, with a maximum correlation of ~0.54…Most ARIC individuals have actual height within 4 cm or less of predicted height.
[redacted by pp, July 29, 2019]
Feminism has significantly led to the increase in race consciousness. Basically, before feminism, women as well as men to a lesser degree, were transitioning from beliefs about superiority and race hierarchy to an all-inclusive type of equality that MLK probably envisioned. With the birth of feminism, women started to stereotype men according to race at a very dangerous and alarming level. Personally, I think feminism is the bane of society. Women were allowed to choose partners, this made a need to categorize men of different backgrounds, thus leading to classist and racist ideology. People are now very insecure about who they are because feminism created a belief that men were somehow the shadows of their background and what not. A man is now judged by his height, weight to a lesser degree, racial background, and how wealthy he is. Before feminism, this was obviously present but luckily, institutions like religion, marriage, etc. kept it from being a ubiquitous problem. Anyhow, I think that women are destroying our species significantly. When women get a chance to choose their mate, it’s usually dysgenic in a number of ways. Females in the human species especially are very insecure, very hypergamous, and have a strong sense of sadism in them. This leads to an overall need for conflict at all times. Remove feminism and we can tame women and give humanity back its integrity.
I like this blog a lot because the people here are very intelligent, but it seems to me that there’s a lot of pandering in this community, especially racial pandering. Everyone is trying to bring racial politics into the mainstream and they want to continue to forcefeed their beliefs about how superior their race is to the public. That’s inane and disturbing, honestly, because it goes to show that race is basically like beliefs in religious superiority, one automatically assumes their race is superior if they’re born into it. So that’s retarded.
There honestly needs to take place a discussion on how to improve the human species. Bettering our society should be the first and foremost goal of intellectual minds such as ourselves. Instead, it’s all just looking at the past and declaring a superiority of one’s background. Kind of counterproductive to the idea of us being an intelligence community.
For example, I want to know how and why consciousness occurs. What makes sense to me is that all conscious creatures should experience the world based on perception using their senses. Any extrasensory behavior is not logical. Think deeply about it. How does a conscious entity begin to think about something that its senses has never experienced? Abstract thought is just like that. My comment on intuition was primarily based on the fact that intuition arises from the senses. That must mean we have a lot more senses than we think we do or a synergy of senses is powerful enough to create the ability to think and act. However, we can’t chalk up everything our mind holds to our senses. Consciousness must be deeply rooted in experiencing things that are extrasensory and thus have little foundation in our perceptions of the world. For example, is a thought a physical manifested in something? Aside from our the chemical and electrical component of the brain, can we harness an idea and use it as a physical object.
Words are probably physical objects in another universe/dimension. They don’t even represent the thing that we associate the word with, they’re just physically manifested in something that has greater significance than just the object it refers to. Jesus allegedly even said that Logos is God, essentially, when referring to the Word. Consciousness must come from a source inside of us, thus annihilating the argument of blank-slatism. I think consciousness and imagination derive from chaos, random sensory perceptions colliding with one another, creating that extrasensory synergy that is needed to build conscious thought or ability.
Consciousness is analogous, if not exactly, like the Big Bang. One sensory perception compresses itself and then explodes, enveloping the entity. Then, another sensory perception collides with the original and create consciousness. From there, it begins to compound, increasing in complexity and beginning to expand.
I dunno, I could elaborate, but I don’t think my IQ is high enough to really put my thoughts into words as well as the ability to allow for the emergence of my intution to come into my conscious framework.
Maybe this will help you.
I want you to try and conceive of something that is completely independent of any influence from anything you have ever experienced. I guarantee you will have a hard time imagining anything that has no reference to the outside reality we observe.
Anything that doesn’t really exist in this Universe is basically our imagination using different things we’ve experienced and building on it to create something new. We always are creating new things. So 2-D objects represent something that does not directly exist in our Universe but can be created by the mind. Everything in this Universe is three dimensional as far as I know. So when we use our mind to create 2-D images in our head, that contradicts the three-dimensional nature of our Universe. That’s one example I think could be used. I think also language refers to things that don’t exist in our Universe. Think nouns and archetypes for example. I’ll go into more detail in the following paragraphs.
I think the advent of language is independent of sensory experience. Essentially, sensory input should only create sensory output. However, with language, we came up with concepts that serve as building blocks for concepts, which serve as building blocks for thoughts. So in this sense, language, especially nouns, are referring to an object, they don’t necessarily represent that thing directly, but an archetype of that thing, meaning they only lead to representations of the perfect forms of what that thing is. So Plato already had this covered.
However, one thing I have a hunch for is that adjectives are things that do not exist in this Universe either. Basically, we need words to adjectives to describe things, making those perfect archetypes imperfect or unique. Adjectives are related to the sensory component of what we’re experiencing directly and are ways to convey the meaning behind our sensory input. Adjectives make everything relative, thus giving every noun uniqueness in this Universe. For example, the phrase “I picked up a ‘shiny’ rock” gives the archetypal rock a purpose and guiding force that allows it to exist in our Universe. Hard to explain and certainly above my intellectual capacity, but that’s all I can say on that.
I’ve definitely envisioned things that didn’t exist in this Universe. I’ve created songs in my dreams that I had never heard of, etc. So this may all be extra sensory phenomenon. I dunno, I need to think more about this and give it more thought. But for certainty, I think two-dimensional objects are the key to understanding how you can create things in this Universe that aren’t a part of it to begin with.
How could you conceive of this archetype without some sort of reference? How do you know what a triangle is, without the experience of a triangle? A^2 +B^2 = C^2 may be be a possible example of a “experienceless” concept. But did you not have to learn math? Is math not a social construct? Something similar applies to language. You learned language through the experience that was given to you by your parents. Could someone who was mute, deaf, blind and unable to feel the sensation of touch be conscious?
I think we’re in agreement that consciousness stems from sensory experience, with my acknowledgement that a synergy of sensations leads to the genesis of conscious behavior in the mind. But a counter-argument to that would be AI, who have none of those sensory experiences and still manage to gain consciousness. How is that possible? Because of phenomenon where things that do not exist in our Universe are conceived by the entity that is conscious.Tapping in to something that doesn’t exist in our physical realm leads to a powerful enough force that unleashes self-awareness and awareness of things in general, whether “real” or archetypal/experienceless in nature. I would say all thought is two-dimensional because they can’t be manifested into physical objects in our Universe.
To answer your question more directly, I would say yes, you learn language from your parents, but the origin of language probably came about by taking objects, labeling them, and saying this object is referred to by this word. In that sense, it becomes an archetype. The first time you experience that word’s association with something else, whether real or not, it will always serve as the backbone for all other usages of that word, unless you “relearn” the word again through a different experience altogether.
I’m not sure how to answer your questions as I don’t know what you’re asking but I hope maybe that cleared up some of the stuff that you may have had issues with.
This conversation reminds me of an advert i saw years ago where 2 babies are talking to each other about getting insurance.
You’re retarded.
me too except the babies were talking about their diapers.
I wasn’t aware that we had successfully made an AI that was truly conscious? Though it still may rely on a different form of sensory information that we are not used to.
the only thing I’m saying is that it’s impossible to conceive of something without outside reference. Even our mythological creatures share shit in common with real organisms.
You’re retarded.
change your diaper.
chomsky has described himself as an anarchist, but he isn’t really. only retarded people are anarchists.
chomsky was asked what he meant by “anarchism”, and he just said he wanted all authority and power to be from the people. non-mongolians call this democracy.
chomsky also said that the Us was the greatest country in the world, but for only one reason: freedom of speech.
What the fuck are you talking about, faggot? When did I mention anarchism, Chomsky, or any of the other bullshit you wrote, you mentally deranged fuck?
Stop using the term faggot. The correct term is nember of the lgbtq+++++++++ community or ‘person of homosexual descent’. thank you
Loaded, If you’re going to engage with dumb and dumber it’s best to just troll them instead. They’re too autistic to respond seriously.
Definitely. Thanks for the advice, meLo.
i heard this claim from an anarchist, so i didn’t believe it. but i looked it up and it’s true. worker owned companies are actually more efficient. this means the only excuse for capitalism is the claim that if entrepreneurs were forced to sell to their employees after a certain point they’d be less motivated to start their businesses. that claim sounds like bullshit. it’s not as if they wouldn’t be fairly compensated. it’s not as if they wouldn’t be rich.
this means that capitalism is nothing more than a yuge plantation: 99% slaves, a few psychopathic masters, and paid liars in the form of econ profs, politicians [redacted by pp, July 30, 2019]
Perverted notions of leadership—and the need for it—perpetuate a lot of top-down structures. “Thought leaders” push it, but it doesn’t originate with them.
Ha joon chang has changed my opinion on shareholder capitalism.. Really it seems companoes simply need long term investors of any type. This is proxied by an enterepreneur at the start and later corproate bank lending. Ergo if some comapanies lost their banker, short term dhreholders alone would destroy the company
I’d love to see a John Sununu IQ estimate at some point:
-Bush 41’s Chief of Staff
-BS, MS, PhD Mechanical Engineering from MIT
-Scored 44/48 on Hoeflin’s Mega test
Also interesting: he was the only U.S. governor who didn’t formally condemn the UN’s 1975 “Zionism is racism” resolution. Changed his position, but probably just to support the GOP in the ’88 election.
Bush 41 is a really deep state guy. So sunnunu is well regarded by tge deep state. Ive heard him in interviews though and he doesnt sound much smarter than say louie gohmert.
I’ve noticed the same thing. Even CNN’s Soledad O’Brien got the best of him when they debated Romney.
Getting into pre-affirmative action MIT is pretty impressive though. Although it was before the elite schools started getting super competitive.
sununu claimed he’d aced the mega fake IQ test.
he’s lebanese. hence not a lover of mongolians.
The Mega is far more of an IQ test than you garbage SATs & GREs.
Arrogant cunt!
Wow puppy using filthy language.
Nah, Cooijman’s Giga/Grail society are where it’s at. Grail is so exclusive there are no members! Others have a few, and one has ONE member. Such exclusive clubs!
Ill leave links later.
especially considering that peepee thinks anything which someone claims is an IQ test is therefore an IQ test.
no professor of psychology takes the mega test, etc. seriously. not one.
Don’t care. I know people with IQs FIFTY POINTS above your level who take it seriously.
Factor analysis decides what’s an IQ test, not labels or marketing.
that’s why the mega isn’t an IQ test and why the people you know have much lower IQs than me.
-believes Climate change is a myth
-believes he has a high IQ
One or the other Mugabe, not both.
Pumpkin
for a test to be considered convergent with an IQ test it only needs to have a high correlation with it. The SAT is a good example of this.
The current most exclusive high IQ societies are the GIGA and GRAIL societies by Paul Cooijmans, but there was a phrase “ The memberless Grail Society claims to accept one in 100 billion people—no one has applied so far “ on Scientific American MIND November 2012.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-high-iqs-hang-out
Currently, the ESOTERIQ society has seven members and the EVANGELIQ has one member.
I can perfectly guarantee that the all members exactly certainly undoubtedly absolutely officially keep authentic the highest IQ score performances.
Especially, the EVANGELIQ is the most exclusive high IQ society which has at least one member.
https://www.iqsociety.org/the-two-exclusive-high-iq-societies/
David Adam writes in his book The Genius Within:
At the top of the tree [of high “IQ” societies] is the self-proclaimed Grail society, which sets its membership criteria so high — one in 76 billion — that it currently has zero members. It’s run by Paul Cooijmans, a guitarist from the Netherlands. About 2,000 people have tried and failed to join, he says. ‘Be assured that no one has ever come close.’
Here’s a list of Cooijman’s ‘high IQ’ societies. Look at all of these clubs.
http://gigasociety.com/iqsocieties/
Have all of these numerous “IQ societies” done anything of note or is it just people who are good at taking tests?
One in a billion people qualify for the Giga society, but it’s not as exclusive of a club as the Grail society. lmao
Having the idea that someone with high intelligence is obligated to do something “important” with it implies no nuance whatsoever with the way said advocate thinks.
My question had nothing to do with any “obligation” to do a anything. It’s a question—what of note have all of these “high IQ” societies done? Or do they test take tests and do nothing?
Relevant:
“Or do they test take tests and do nothing?”
And what if they do “nothing”? What is your point?
Why don’t they do anything of note all of the “greatest minds” in the world can’t? How do members of “high IQ societies” think?
The high IQ people who do something of note tend not to be the ones who join these societies
“Why don’t they do anything of note all of the “greatest minds” in the world can’t? How do members of “high IQ societies” think?”
Again, this goes back you believing they are obligated to do anything at all. The questions become meaningless, once you accept they are not.
As Pumpkin points out most High IQ individuals not in these high societies are usually doing something important. You know like scientists, engineers, art etc.
Again: I don’t think they’re “obligated” to do anything; the point is: why can’t a whole club (that you have to pay to be in) do X, Y, and Z?
How do the members of high “IQ” societies think?
“I don’t think they’re “obligated” to do anything; the point is: why can’t a whole club (that you have to pay to be in) do X, Y, and Z?”
Not being able to do something and not wanting do something are two different things. Nuance RR, nuance.
How do they think?
Not being able to do something and not wanting do something are two different things. Nuance RR, nuance.
😉
there was a slogan of the russian revolution “all power to the soviets”, but once in power the soviets lost all power and the soviet union became what chomsky calls “state capitalism”, top down. the soviets were unionized factories. so “all power to the soviets” meant esops.
Pumpkin, wouldn’t getting a lower score on similarities because of vocab knowledge or verbal expression problems technically be an underestimate of abilities, because the average person knows all of the words, and the average person can express the idea if s/he can formulate it in his/her head.