Tags
James Watson, most influential, person of the century, person of the year, Time 100, Time magazine
To make this list I looked at all the living people who had ever been Time’s person of the year, person of the decade, person of the century, or included on Time’s list of the 100 most influential people of the year, the century, or all time. Points were allotted as follows:
One of the 100 most influential of the year = 0.01 points
Person of the year: 1 point
One of the 100 most influential of the century = 1 point
Person of the decade = 10 points
Person of the half-century = 50 points
Person of the century = 100 points
One of the hundred most influential people of all time = 50 points (since recorded history is 5000 years and there are 100 people)
If they shared any of these honors with someone else, the points got divided by the number of people. So for example James Watson got 1 point for being one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century and got 50 points for being one of the 100 most influential people of all time, but since both honors were shared with Francis Crick, his total was 25.5 points making him the most influential living person ever (according to the collective wisdom of the World’s most prestigious magazine).
Number 1: James Watson 25.5 points
Number 2: Mikhail Gorbachev 13 points
Number 3.5: Paul McCartney 12.75 points
Number 3.5: Ringo Starr 12.75 points
Number 5: Barack Obama 2.11 points
Number 6 George W. Bush 2.04 points
Number 7: Lech Walesa 2 points
Number 8: Bill Clinton 1.535
Number 9: Bill Gates 1.36 points
Number 10: Oprah 1.1 points
Number 11: Angela Merkel 1.08 points
Number 12.5: Vladimir Putin 1.06
Number 12.5: Pope Francis 1.06 points
Number 14: Jeff Bezos 1.05 points
Number 15: Mark Zuckerberg 1.04 points
Number 16: Donald Trump 1.04
Number 17: Ben Bernanke 1.01 points
Number 18: Stephen Spielberg 1.01 points
Number 19: Bob Dylan 1.01
Number 20: Greta Thunberg 1.01 points
Number 25: Jimmy Carter 1 point
Number 25: Queen Elizabeth 1 point
Number 25: David Ho 1 point
Number 25: Newt Gingrich 1 point
Number 25: Rudy 1 point
Number 25: Tim Berners-Lee 1 point
Number 25: Pele 1 point
Number 25: Ted Turner 1 point
Number 25: Peter Ueberroth 1 point
Number 30.5: Henry Kissinger 0.5 points
Number 30.5: Ken Starr 0.5 points
Number 32: Bono 0.34 points
Number 33: Melinda Gates 0.33 points
Number 34: Hillary Clinton 0.1 points
Number 35: Hu Jintao 0.1 points
Number 36: Kim Jong-un 0.08 points
Update june 23, 2020: an earlier version of this article incorrectly ranked Gates too low
Updated July 5, 2020: earlier versions of this article accidentally omitted Newt Gingrich
Pumpkin Person 
this list is retarded.
1. it should have ZERO entertainers.
2. it should have more businessmen, technologists, and scientists.
3. it should have fewer politicians. it should have only putin, xi, trump, walesa. most politicians are just puppets, place holders, with no real power, let alone power to change the world.
trump’s influence may not last, but if it does he’s more influential than any recent president as he will have destroyed the old GOP.
Even though entertainment is much less important than science, one could argue that entertainers are extremely influential in that they are unique. If Einstein hadn’t discovered relativity it’s likely that someone else would have done so soon enough, but would someone else have made music like the Beatles?
and gorbachev obviously.
peepee is even more autistic than rr if she doesn’t know that oprah’s only on the list to appease [redacted by pp, june 23, 2020]
Regardless of their motive for putting her on the list she belongs there. Even her worst critics would agree she’s had a huge impact on the culture, they would just argue the influence was negative. Any incredibly popular person discussing groundbreaking cultural issues (sexual abuse, gays) on a TV show watched by 9 million Americans a day for 25 years is going to have a huge impact on society & then on top of that, she’s credited with helping elect Obama. And the fact that she was a fat black woman in a field dominated by thin white males made her all the more significant.
“Oprah was the first host to look and sound like a member of the audience” said Geraldo.
Biographer Kitty Kelley built her career trying to destroy icons as great as Frank Sinatra, Jackie O, the royal family, Nancy Reagan & the Bush family, but none of them compared to Oprah. “I can’t think of anyone in the World more fascinating than Oprah,” she said.
afaik only one entertainer can claim to have been influential outside entertainment per se.
can you guess which one?
do you need a hint?
The answer you’re looking for is Trump, but the answer you should be looking for is Trump & Oprah since Oprah played a key role in Obama’s election. Some would argue Sinatra helped elect Reagan.
Oprah was Trump’s first pick for VP:
notice knee on neck, the number of officers required, and why they were trying to restrain him.
one might ask if restraint is necessary, what do the EMTs do? answer is they are tranquilized by the EMTs such that restraints like a straitjacker can be put on.
James Watson sold in protest his Nobel prize medal . A Russian billionnaire baught it 4 million and gave him back.
Probably Watson would be very rich if he had hidden his beliefs in HBD. His English wiki is ok but the French version is really horrible. As they don’t want to recognize the IQ difference among black and white they write :
James Watson is credibly accused of racism as he believes there are difference in intelligence and they are due to genetics.
(Almost nobody) ignorant of those subjects could understand that it means (1) difference in IQ tests score among black and whites are a fact (2) attributing all or even most of this difference to generic reasons can be considered as racism because it would mean differences in intelligence are stable and ones in the most important factor distinguishing the human species from animals.
People understand that the first claim is racist and the second claim is an obnoxious justification of the first one. And both statements should be prohibited. Wich is the press presentation.
It’s interesting how France can be so politically correct yet claim not to practice affirmative action in their universities. Do none of these anti-racists care about the absence of minorities at their elite universities or are they well represented despite no affirmative action & if so, how does that square with hbd being true? Do grande écoles not select for high IQ or is the racial IQ gap small in France because of selective immigration?
France probably gets much lower IQ immigrants than the UK. Most of the French ones are from north africa and western africa. Not as many asians.
In France the elite Universities are specialized public service schools (ENA, ENS Ulm) , Engineering Schools and Management Schools.
They recruit by competition based on knowledge. You get a program with specific exercices and during x year, you prepare for it. There is always a written part wich is anonymous and generally select twice the number of position available, and then oral examinations, mostly based on the same program, that rank students. There is no room for positive discrimination in this process.
There have been creation of well funded prep school with the best teachers selecting disadvantaged well doing candidates but without giving them any special treatment. And they have been a failure.
Only a selective university – Sciences Po – has specific program based on zip codes. But Sciences po has a 1200 students intake and for example their prestigious ENA preparation takes around 30 to 40 people each year ….And none of the 150 zip codes have never made it .
And it’s forbidden to discriminate based on race. The Prohibition was constitutional but now the word race have been suppressed because the official position is that race is a social construct and doesn’t exist.
So for now, ethnic people have absolutely no advantage here except Sciences Po and it’s only 150 people a year .
but during oral exams they must see the race of the candidates
As for people selected this way, it’s mostly a crystallized intelligence thing. So you get very ambitious and industrious people who are quite conforming. I would say that 110 IQ is a minimum. You get a huge advantage if you have been in the best schools preparing for the kind of problems you will encounter.
If you have a huge IQ (say>145), then it’s a piece of cake for you. The problem is that when you don’t belong to the top 5% French, you have not been in the good schools, and most Good prep schools won’t take you. Plus if your prole, you won’t even know that going to University instead than prep school doesn’t give you a anything except if you study a technical field like architecture, law and médecine. But businesses don’t recruit those people. They recruit only Engineering (n1) and Management schools (n2) people.
That’s why Financial times rank French management programs 2,3 and 5 best internationally despite salaries being lower in France. Because it’s our elite system.
http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/masters-in-management-2019
And in the city of London, HEC people are better paid than Oxbridge and LSE graduates on average. In Silicon valey, Ecole Polytechnique graduates are the best paid just in par with best Indian schools of engineering and above Caltech/MIT/Berkeley/Canergie etc ….
I would say average IQ in core Ecole Polytechnique is +135. And in HEC is +125. Those schools develop masters degree who don’t get the same selection nor prestige and don’t give you access to the Grande Ecole aluminium status even if many people play the confusion. But among French, it’s very clear who has done what.
Even if you retire at 70yo, people you meet at a party will ask from wich school you are and that will determine their opinion of where you stand above everything else except if you have stellar achievements.
Someone who is a total failure and has never worked will still look good at 70 if he or she is from on of the most selective schools. It’s like being a Duke or a Marquess.
Yeah I heard about the French system from a french guy that went to business school with me. At that point it wouldn’t be much different to selecting people by IQ score which is what people here claim to want.
YeH a French student I studied with described the grand Eccles system. Pretty deterministic for a culture that pretends there’s no such thing as race.
Why don’t you say “psychological hereditarianism” or a similar term? Why use the “HBD” term—as if people are trying to refute the claim that… Humans are biologically diverse? It’s the psychological/physiologic (eg testosterone) claims that people take issue with—not “human biological diversity.” This kind of weasel phrasing was used, for example, by some idiot reddit account who said that even if Rushton and Templer’s hypothesis is wrong (it is) that it “doesn’t invalidate HBD.”
What does that even mean? Why not separate the specific claims?
Because HBD is shorter and everyone knows it means Jensenism. Forget about what it stands for. I suppose a more precise term would be BG (Behavioral Genetics or Behavioral Genomics) but no one would know what i meant if i used that acronym.
Or maybe just J for Jensenism. Example: “RR used to be a huge proponent of J before he became an anti-J extremist”
That’s what I was saying in an earlier post.
That redditor used it literally so he could save face when Rushton’s thesis was refuted. Pumpkin decided the literal meaning was incorrect that way he could argue that I wasn’t an HBDer.
They change meanings when it’s convenient for them, it’s an equivocation fallacy.
It honestly never occurred to me that people were taking it literally. I thought everyone understood it to means J.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/1/12/1178414/-Racism-has-a-new-name-HBD
Then you’re more gullible than I thought. The name was chosen specifically so racists could hide behind it and pretend they weren’t racist.
I knew it was a euphemism, I just assumed we were defining it the same way. I understand your objection to Jensenists hijacking a neutral term for their own agenda. We don’t need to call Jensenism “HBD”. Let’s just call it Jensenism, or J.
“Do none of these anti-racists care about the absence of minorities at their elite universities”
Can’t have under-represented races if you don’t keep statistics on the racial make-up of the country. *taps head meme*
Even blank slatists will expect recent migrants from undeveloped countries to under-perform though, it’s only with long-standing minorities like blacks in the US that the explanation for under-performance has to be discrimination if you don’t believe in HBD. Therefore I expect affirmative action to be more of a thing in the new world.
PP thanks, I can accept that. I doubt most of the others (i.e., racists) would say that.
I doubt most of the others (i.e., i’m a little baby girl) would say that.
So you went back over the past 50 years of Times Lists of influential people and compiled this list? That must have taken you hours.
with the help of Wikipedia I was able to do it between phone calls at work
Are yo some sort of call centre employee?
no but most of my work involves talking to clients but because of covid can no longer meet in person so use phone or video conferencing
Pumpkin could have a public sector management job like helping minorities and under-privileged poor and minorities develop their businesses by allowing them to access a wide area of public services and some funds. Success rate being defined by % increase of resource access and and % users becoming financially indépendants by growing a sustainable business
You could also develop other offices in the area and coach people to do the same as you under your guidelines.
Your HBD awareness would help you help them by being clairvoyant
You are some sort of cognitive psychologist I bet. You might be tasked with discovery g peoples disabilities maybe.
No but I’d love to do that. Unfortunately it doesn’t pay as well.
I like how Ringo is more influential than Obama. Journalists speaking truth to power there.
> “the World’s most prestigious magazine”
Maybe 20 years ago. Now Time and Newsweek are bought and sold every few years by anonymous companies who want to buy a bit of legacy prestige on the cheap.
I guess the world’s most prestigious magazine now is either the New Yorker or the Economist.
Imagine unironically reading the New Yorker or the Atlantic. You’d have to be completely pozzed.
Lol @ ringo starr.
They actually just listed the beatles but since i wanted an individual list, I assigned ringo a quarter of the influence.
Bart simpson also made one of their most exclusive influence lists but i excluded him since he’s fictional
No hes not
“Person of the year: 1 point
One of the 100 most influential of the century = 1 point”
Logically the second category should be worth more points, because that is a summary of people’s entire influence rather than a one-year snapshot. And also, some years will have lulls with no one doing anything too impactful, meaning competition in the second list will be fiercer.
“One of the hundred most influential people of all time” should be worth more than “Person of the half-century” for the same reasons.
And being “person of the decade” should be worth a bit more than 10 times the points of being “person of the year”, etc.
Also, Bill Gates score and rank don’t match up.
Thanks for pointing out the Gates error. Corrected. Your other point is valid but there’s no way to quantify it & I don’t think it would improve the list.
His other point was drastically alter the list. Ringo Starr would be nowhere like Oprah.
This only proves one thing, Time magazine is…..shit.
Paul McCartney 3rd?
Ringo Star 4th?
Obama is 5th?
Bush is 6th?
This is ridiculous propagandist nonsense.
If Time magazine knew they might object slightly to me turning the honors they give into a ranking system.
They might not like it but I appreciate your effort, I always suspected that Time and most media in the US was/is full of shit, now I know for sure.
You guys had one really good high profile magazine, just one, scientific american, and now that has taken a turn for the worse too.
in the year 2100 oprah will not have an encyclopedia entry or new biographies coming out and no one will remember her.
same with all the entertainers. zuckerburg, uberoth, and starr will have been forgotten. guiliani may have an airport named after him but won’t be remembered except by historians of NYC.
thunberg is a joke just like oprah.
all the others will be remembered. gates and bezos will be remembered just like rockefeller and carnegie are today. new biographies of clinton, w, obama, and trump will be coming out. etc.
to be remembered as an entertainer you have to be at bogart or sinatra level. oprah is much lower as people will never watch old oprah shows, but people will continue to watch bogart movies and listen to sinatra forever.
There is an audience for her old shows. Even Judge Judy was asking $200 million for rights to her library.
she’s still arguably the most influential LIVING woman.
of talk show hosts who will be remembered in 2100 there’s only letterman maybe and that’s it. and letterman will be remembered for his 12:30 show, not for his 11:30 show.
who is remembered is not determined democratically but by elite consensus. oprah is despised by the cultural elite and taste makers just as much as jerry springer or judge judy.
she can’t be too despised by the cultural elite if she got an honorary degree from Harvard. That’s something many billionaires and some U.S. presidents can’t get.
because she’s a [redacted by pp, June 24, 2020]
Obama’s far more “magical”. What’s your point?
tv guide gets the order wrong. the late show sucked.
Seinfeld (NBC, July 5, 1989 – May 14, 1998)
I Love Lucy (CBS, October 15, 1951 – May 6, 1957)
The Honeymooners (Dumont, October 1, 1955 – September 22, 1956)
All in the Family (CBS, January 12, 1971 – April 8, 1979)
The Sopranos (HBO, January 10, 1999 – June 10, 2007)
60 Minutes (CBS, September 24, 1968 – present)
Late Show with David Letterman (CBS, August 30, 1993 – May 20, 2015)
The Simpsons (Fox, December 17, 1989 – present)
The Andy Griffith Show (CBS, October 3, 1960 – April 1, 1968)
Saturday Night Live (NBC, October 11, 1975 – present)
if oprah were influential she wouldn’t’ve be stuck in daytime.
OBVIOUSLY!!!
daytime is where all the money was. Plus it’s where you reach soccer moms who are one of the most important demographics.
it’s NOT where all the money is, because oprah shows have no rebroadcast/syndication value. seinfeld will be collecting royalty checks on Seinfeld forever.
Seinfeld earned $400 million in his first 23 years of syndication.
Multiply by 1.09 because Oprah was in syndication for 25 years.
Multiply by 2 because Seinfeld shared the money with Larry David while Oprah was solo.
Multiply by 2 to 4 because Oprah negotiated syndication rights long before they knew she’d be a huge hits, while Seinfeld did so after so the network kept most of the syndication profits.
Multiply by 2 because Oprah’s show was an hour while Seinfeld’s was half an hour.
Multiply by 1.25 because Oprah’s syndication ratings were about 25% higher than Seinfeld’s.
Subtract 1 billion because Oprah had production costs, while Seinfeld’s were already covered before syndication.
So just from her talk show she would have already earned way over $3 billion before taxes. This doesn’t include money she’s earned from spin-off syndication shows like Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, Rachael Ray, or her cable network, magazine.
I should add Oprah had an advisor who got 10% until she fired him for ego or affair; perhaps Seinfeld did too.
douglas murray is a great example of gay privilege and how upper class brits are NOT impressive. murray is an old etonian iirc.
the bbc accent is still used to sell in the US. but if what people with bbc accents say is transcribed it’s MOSTLY DUMB.
As Mike Enoch has noted, if idpol-ites weren’t retarded, they’d understand that they could become rich and famous by spouting boomer-tier conservative talking points.
Candace Owens and Douglas Murray are among the few who figured it out.
“douglas murray is a great example of gay privilege and how upper class brits are NOT impressive. murray is an old etonian iirc.
the bbc accent is still used to sell in the US. but if what people with bbc accents say is transcribed it’s MOSTLY DUMB.”
What does his accent and background have to do with his ideas? Bigot much?
THE CULTURAL ELITE HAS ALREADY AGREED WITH MUGABE TWICE…
AT #13 IS Late Night With David Letterman
oprah isn’t even on the list.
https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-lists/100-greatest-tv-shows-of-all-time-105998/the-tonight-show-with-johnny-carson-101504/
reality is walesa, grobachev, trump, gates, bezos, watson, the internet guy, etc.
are like hippos.
and entertainers and almost all politicians are like egrets.
people hate trump because he’s prole, lies, vain, ridiculous, etc.
but when trump lies everyone knows he’s lying. and trump knows that everyone knows he’s lying.
i find mitt romney MUCH more execrable, hateful, disgusting, despicable…
MUCH!!!
than trump.
No not everyone knows he’s lying. A sizable minority view him as an almost religious figure & trust him over all other elites, no matter how qualified. He’s completely de-legitimized the MSM in the eyes of millions which would be good if he gave them somewhere better to get their news but instead the vacuum has been filled with psychotic QAnon conspiracy theories and other disinformation. I fear things could get very violent.
Of course Trump lies but if we were to do an analysis of his lies based on frequency and insidiousness we would find that he would rank far far lower than Obama, Bush and Clinton on the lie meter. Trump’s lies generally revolve around his megalomania, he tells little lies(and fools no one btw, except perhaps those <90 iQ, ie no more than 15% of the population) that are designed to prop up his larger than life self image. That is harmless and pales in comparison to Bush's lies or Clinton's or even Obama's. He's done a great service to the US and the world at large for calling out the media, they are duplicitous propagandist self serving halfwits that are probably collectively responsible for the greatest danger/harm brought on humanity in the last 20 years and no one should pay any attention to them(save for nuclear war, though that has thankfully yet to materialize, but the damage the media has cause is very real and will have long lasting catastrophic effects).
This HAS left a void but most of it has been filled by pretty decent you tube channels on the left the right and the center. A really small part of it has gone to nutty conspiracy theorists but keep in mind the type of people that would buy into that stuff would buy into some other kooky theory were it not for QAnon, it's not like the world is in short supply of conspiracy theories. The net benefit far outweighs the cost and I believe that if Trump will be remembered for anything it would be his takedown of legacy media(possibly the greatest political achievement of the last two decades).
So while Trump is very very far from perfect(I personally find him distasteful), he is nowhere near the bottom of the presidential pile and I would argue is so far among the top 3 of the last 50 years in general(and the best of the bunch in terms of lies) not because he is particularly special but because his competition were mostly trash. Compared across all metrics I would only place Reagan and possibly Clinton above him but his presidency is not over yet, it could still go either way.
As for the violence(possibly civil war) that is materializing, the blame falls squarely on the media, NOT Trump.
The real problem is media consolidation which actually started with Reagan and continued under Clinton. 20 years ago the MSM was owned by maybe 70 companies; today it’s only 6. I’d prefer Trump make legislative efforts against monopolies instead of getting into twitter wars with journalists who criticize him.
The legacy media is losing the game and they know it which is why they are trying delay the inevitable via hard censorship(in large part thanks to social media) but this will backfire and will also result in seriously adverse consequences for social media too via guilt by association. The level of censorship is unheard of in the 21st century and in 100 years they will discuss the tech/media censorship and human rights violations of the 10s and 20s in the same way we are discussing the Jim Crow era today.
The issue is that it’s not an odd journalist criticizing him here and there, it’s that the media has declared all out war on Trump the likes of which has never been seen in US history(the Dems/establishment tried to impeach him for crying out loud, with zero justification and fabricated “evidence” with the full blessing of the media). This is having the opposite effect of what they desire, because it is forcing decent fair minded individuals to come to Trump’s defense(myself included). If the media/Dems/establishment hadn’t behaved the way they did there is a strong chance a lot of people would not be supporting Trump right now(myself included) and would have taken the position any sane person would naturally take given Trump’s personality. But what they have done is despicable and right now weighing the options rational minded people have a choice between corrupt, criminal, biased, authoritarian, ideologically possessed(in some cases insane) often times stupid people on the left and Trump. The media has forced their hand in choosing the lesser of two evils and right now it is Trump by a huge margin.
So it’s sad that the media has been consolidated to just 6 companies and surely that is a problem but the media has long been incompetent biased and a propaganda machine(mind you this is a world wide phenomenon not just the US), the difference is that before it used to do the bidding of the government with a more nationalistic bent but now it is doing the bidding of large corporations first and secondly the party that is in bed with them(right now it’s the Dems by far). This can prove to be very destabilizing and catastrophic in the long run as nations start to lose sovereignty and control of their populations and for what so that a few filthy rich people can go from deca-billionaires to centi-billionaires.
As for Trump, he may be a bit of a fibber at times but he is refreshingly honest with a lot of the more important things. In some ways he might not be the brightest tool in the shed but he wants what’s best for his country and he has the media’s number, that’s for sure. This is what people find appealing in him and if you ask me, given the alternative they are right.
PS They failed to impeach him, they have been caught lying time and time again, their ruthless bias is hard to ignore and now they are resorting to sparking race wars in order to get what they want. These people are not level headed fair minded rational people, they are greedy, vicious, opportunists that are drunk on power and who would rather see their country destroyed than give up control. Though i have a complementary theory with regard to what is behind the riots and mayhem but I’ll leave that for another time.
no. best presidents of last 50 years are trump, bush 1, and nixon. reagan is satan.
but obama was great for the sole reason that he actually succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured. none of those three accomplished anything as big, even though nixon tried.
nixon signed the EPA into existence, took the US off the gold standard, and befriended china. trump has no legislative accomplishments, but this is congress’s fault too. bush 1 raised taxes because deficit and won a legitimate war against iraq. he wasn’t fake. despite having been CIA head, he was a lot like mr rogers irl.
stupid people and millennials (redundant) think the GOP of nixon is the GOP of mitt romney because same name “GOP”.
in fact there has been a slow inversion of the parties in terms of red and blue counties.
and in terms who funds them. the GOP pre-trump was much less controlled by [redacted by pp, june 25, 2020] than the dem party. the clinton dem party is the party of rich [redacted by pp, june 25, 2020].
everything that’s evil about the GOP is reagan’s fault, just like everything that’s evil about the labour party is blair’s fault, and everything that’s evil about the democrat party is clinton’s fault.
chomsky has alzheimer’s.
Because the GOP doesn’t need to be controlled by money. They can just be brainwashed by neocon propaganda.
the GOP pre-trump was much less controlled by [redacted by pp, june 25, 2020] than the dem party
This is very true. There was a strong socially conservative wing led by evangelicals. Media propaganda and court decisions moved the overton windon starting around election 2012.
The bottom line is that whether with the GOP or the Dems there is corruption at the root of it. This corruption is cultivated by corporate interests which have now become transnational. Borders mean nothing to them sovereignty means nothing to them, culture means nothing to them, national interests means nothing to them, racial tensions is just a tool, demographic shifts another tool, human right violations is just another day at the office and this applies to the established population of a country and the immigrants, they are both pawns and the only thing that matters to them, their bottom line.
In Greek we have a saying when things in a particular space get pretty dire, which roughly translates to this:
“These people are so useless you can grab any one of them and use him to smash all the others”
This is the current situation in US politics at the moment. The GOP via Trump by default remains the only saving grace as they are the only thing standing in the way of the ideologically possessed authoritarian left that seems to be hell bent on social cultural and economic destruction unless they get their way. Of course the ideological infatuation is just a distraction, propped up and given a wide birth in order to divert attention from the machinations of the corporate elites.
If you want to get clued up a little more about what is going on I would suggest you take a look at the following sources:
– TUCKER CARLSON (hands down the best host in MSM)
– THE HILL (left leaning news outlet but by far the best of the lot, rational, fair minded
and honest, or at least they try to be)
– DAVE RUBIN (Rubin Report, former leftie from TYT, now a brilliant voice of reason
on the center/classical liberal/libertarian space)
– TIM POOL/TIMCAST (sometimes veers off into conspiracy land but nothing too wild
and is definitely a smart fair and decent minded political commentator with a lot of
incredible insights)
– COLEMAN HUGHES (possibly the brightest young black political commentator right
now, very impressive young man)
– STEVEN CROWDER (a little OTT sometimes with some iffy personality quirks but
actually very smart and incredibly quick witted, calls it as it is and thoroughly does
his research and is the most reasonable voice on the right)
– GAD SAAD (evolutionary psychologist of Jewish Lebanese descent and possibly the
bravest person on youtube. Speaks truth to power and is remarkably on point time
after time)
– CARL BENJAMIN aka SARGON OF AKKAD (Brilliant fella from the UK, a classical
liberal with tremendous integrity and fair mindedness)
– DOUGLAS MURRAY (classical liberal and within the top 5 political intellectuals at the
moment, incredibly smart brave and honest though the fact that he is gay seems to
give him a pass for saying things that any other white person wouldn’t be caught
dead saying).
– JORDAN PETERSON (another brave insightful and smart person who would have
been considered center left 20 years ago but in today’s la la land is pegged as alt
right, sadly is facing some health issues lately)
These are the voice IMO that are fighting the hardest to re-inject rationality and sanity in the political discourse though it may well be too late.
Honorable mentions:
JOE ROGAN: Not an intellectual by any stretch of the imagination but an incredibly grounded person and for someone who is more of a celebrity interviewer than a thinker, he’s quite rational(despite entertaining some semi-conspiratorial stuff though that may be more of a result of some of the nuttier people he has on his podcast from time to time). His greatest value is in his willingness to give a platform to a wide array of high quality thinkers which makes his podcast the best in the world right now.
STEFAN MOLYNEUX: There is something about this guy that scares me if i were honest, he gets quite passionate about things in a creepy way however he has one quality that most other political thinkers lack, he’s a free thinker. I like his criticism of socialism and communism but i’m uncomfortable with his flirting with some right wingers but at the end of the day i think he is overall an honest interlocutor and so much of a free thinker that he really doesn’t care if people brand him alt-right. He is incredibly smart and possibly the most eloquent and fluid speaker on tube at the moment. I don’t agree with all his positions but he pretty much nails the IQ stuff on the nose.
NAVAL RAVIKANT: Indian American who i can say with a high likelihood matches my style of thinking/personality more than any public thinker at the moment. Incredibly insightful smart and inspirational person. However i’ve only recently been introduced to him so I need more time to formulate a definitive opinion though i suspect he may jump to my top 3 favorite intellectuals in time.
ERIC WEINSTEIN: Definitely the smarter of the Weinstein brothers(Bret is alright though) and possibly the smartest of the people I have so far mentioned(obviously people like Sean Carroll and Lawrence Krauss are smarter but they mostly deal with Physics in their public appearances, not politics). A little too much of a leftie for my liking but i think recently he has woken up to the dangers these pseudo-progressives are posing to the world and has likely moved more to the center, realizing the imperative.
SAM HARRIS: Let me start of by saying i’m decidedly NOT a fan. I probably disagree with him on most of his main positions however i still think he is a rational thinker and does get it right from time to time which is why on the net(once we narrow this down to just politics) he is a positive right now. Regardless he is a powerful voice of reason right now that is sorely needed to get people to start thinking more rationally, even though i disagree with him on a lot.
You know pumpkinhead I read your essay like comments and never see the j word anywhere and I conclude you wasted my time and your time writing all that.
all of those people suck except for the south asian half of the hill.
i much prefer c j hopkins, a few other unz people, and TRS.
jimmy dore has lost his way after the floyd thing. he saw through russiagate but can’t see through blm.
it’s darkest just before dawn. the bernie wing hasn’t got any power. the dem party has just doubled down on id pol and the distraction of orange man bad, because they don’t actually have anything to offer. it’s gotten to be so laughable, so much of a self-parody, it can’t go on much longer. if the recession lasts, global capital will lose power, and not just in the US.
Jimmy Dore is a moron that means well. Alright i might have been a little harsh on him, he does surprise me from time to time and yes he did see through the russia gate stuff but he still remains a lefty halfwit.
The Dems are on a downhill trajectory and IMO will not elect another president till 2028 possibly 2032 if they don’t drop the regressive lefty identity politics stuff soon.
You’re right i don’t like Krystal Ball much tbh, the Asian guy is better but their content is leagues better than CNN/MSNBC.
The j word? As in the J’s are the world’s puppet masters?
Unz is proof that being Jevvish gives you a free pass to be alt-right. A white gentile could’ve never punished his ivy league admissions article.
[redacted by pp, june 26, 2020] is the only no-no.
eric weinstein is way more interesting than any of his guests.
cucker is the best of the MSM by far, but that’s not saying much. i hated the way he treated rutger bregman.
rogan has full blown AIDS, but sometimes his guests don’t.
Are the J’s the world’s puppet masters? No i don’t buy into that very much. I’m not a believer in secret societies running the world. What I do believe in are mutual interests of certain random small groups within(sometimes across) industries, big pharma, big tech, big oil, etc I also subscribe to the idea of collective subconscious, I think as the social animals that we are we tend to rally behind certain ideas and certain common interests and much like it seems incomprehensible how a colony of ants can act in such a synchronized way we too can act in unison towards a common goal with little to no prior communication. This collective subconscious is stratified in many ways across society, class, race, occupation, creed, political party, religion etc to produce remarkable and often times seemingly conspiratorial results but in reality it’s people instinctively and unconsciously clocking on to the right play for their particular in group(s)(not just race) they are subscribing to and are looking to gain the most from in that moment.
What part do J’s have to play in this, well here’s what i think. I think Js are very smart but not as smart as they are made out to be. They are somewhat of an anomaly in the US(but not as much elsewhere) due to selective immigration and other events in the 20th century which pretty much meant that only the brightest made it to the US. They wield a lot of power but I don’t think they are conspiring to bring about any particularly insidious outcome at least not directly or consciously. However they too much like everyone else are subject to the collective subconscious and coupled with their high IQ can create the illusion of something quite cabal-like powerful and insidious. It’s probably not though, it’s just people being people, greedy, tribal, biased, corrupt, stupid, prone to ideological possession etc no different to any other group.
Of course elites of any ethnic group are going to be tribal, corrupt & greedy, but if the tribes of the elite largely differs from the tribes of the country, then elite tribalism can sometimes be seen as conflicting with the tribal interests of much of the country. So for example, when Obama proposed the Iran nuclear deal, many felt he was just being tribal to his Muslim interests (since he has a Muslim grandfather). When Trump ripped up the Iran nuclear deal, many people suspected he was pandering to pro-Israel extremists like Sheldon Adelson who helped fund his and many other Republican campaigns.
if you woke up tomorrow and every jew had been replaced by a [epithet for Chinese redacted by pp, June 27, 2020] this would still be a yuge problem. there’d be endless movies about japan’s war crimes in china. the news media would praise the PRC every day. “sinophobia” would be heard more often than “antisemitism”. etc. etc. etc.
what is called “anti-semitism” has little to do with with jews qua jews. but jews are more tribal than anyone except south asians.
any small minority with monstrously disproportionate power is inherently anti-democratic, but especially when that small minority has interests at odds with the majority.
such a tiny minority includes the rich. thus “capitalist democracy” is an oxymoron unless the interests of workers and owners are forced to coincide by government. instead in the US there’s an enormous amount of propaganda that this contradiction is only apparent or just distraction from this contradiction.
“Of course elites of any ethnic group are going to be tribal, corrupt & greedy, but if the tribes of the elite largely differs from the tribes of the country, then elite tribalism can sometimes be seen as conflicting with the tribal interests of much of the country.”
This is the point i was trying to make earlier. A very good example of this type of collective unconscious(or tribal behavior if you prefer) is Hollywood. pre 90s domestic box office receipts constituted no less than 70% of the total. Today the script has flipped and the international box office takes 70% of the share and domestic only 30%. Guess what else tracks perfectly in line with the profit shift? Multi culti, looney leftie internationalism promoted by hollywood elites. I remember that even up until the mid 2000s most American hollywood stars were quite nationalistic and so were Hollywood movies, there was zero pandering to China or the International Market and there was a very pro American message in most movies(though this too had its problems). Today it is almost the exact opposite and most stars either consciously or unconsciously are falling in line and pandering to who is responsible for the majority of their income. Some actually believe the crap they preach and this is informed by instinct and the collective unconscious of their industry while others simply follow the money yet a select few were looney lefties long before it was fashionable.
“this contradiction” means…
what is good for the 99% vs what is good for the 1% of 0.1% or 0.01%…
what is good for workers vs what is good for owners…
is in CONFLICT, is CONTRADICTORY…
…
hierarchy may be necessary to an efficient economy, BUT…
ideally hierarchy makes everyone better off…
especially the worst off.
this is NOT the current system in the US…it may be in scandi…especially iceland.
poor people don’t resent rich people when they unnuhstan that they’d be a lot poorer in a black lesbian statue toppling run society.
“any small minority with monstrously disproportionate power is inherently anti-democratic, but especially when that small minority has interests at odds with the majority.
such a tiny minority includes the rich. thus “capitalist democracy” is an oxymoron unless the interests of workers and owners are forced to coincide by government. instead in the US there’s an enormous amount of propaganda that this contradiction is only apparent or just distraction from this contradiction.”
Overly capitalistic societies tend towards exploitation of the poor by the rich and competent. Overly socialistic societies tend towards the exploitation of the rich and competent by the poor. Communist societies are just like socialist societies but invariably devolve into a small ruling class which enjoys all the spoils while the rest live in misery(competent and incompetent smart and stupid alike).
Democracy is far from perfect, Plato famously hated democracy and i can’t say I’m a fan of it either but guess what, without democracy the poor and lower classes are fucked, back to the middle ages levels of fucked. Democracy is the only thing giving poor people a chance to vote in people that will look out for them. The problem with democracy however is perfectly encapsulated in this quote by Benjamin Franklin, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”. What that reveals about democracy is that it can devolve into mob rule if a society loses it’s moral bearings and sense of purpose and once the mob realizes how powerful it is the first people it will come for will be the rich and the competent. Which is why democracy needs a strong counterbalance, enter capitalism. Capitalism allows for competent hard working people to gain enough collateral in order to prevent the mob from coming after them(as well as be adequately rewarded for their talents and hard work). They can use their wealth to buy protection and influence politicians enough so that they don’t start voting them into oblivion(via extremely high taxes and laws that makes their viability nearly impossible which would be the case if the mob was given absolute free reign over society).
So if you ask me Democracy is all we got, while capitalism is the only check we have against democracy leading to self destruction. Striking the right balance of democracy and capitalism is our best chance of creating a fair and just society. Of course we are very far from achieving this, today there are huge problems with capitalism(IMO decentralization is the way to go) and democracy is flirting with authoritarianism and mob rule(probably in part due to problems with capitalism) but we better not fuck this up otherwise we’re headed for another big one.
Where’s My Roy Cohn
Bully. Coward. Victim.
in the second doc epstein pal dershowitz said that cohn told him he’d framed the rosenbergs.
why?
because the prosecution had evidence which proved guilt but which could not be presented at trial because CIA.
He might’ve been blackmailed. Was Cohn a known home of sexual in 1953?
these clips will be seen 1,000 years from now.
no oprah clip will be seen 20 years from now.
Casablanca. Brings back memories of university film class.
A few Oprah clips will likely be remembered:
Theyll probably do a Casablanca remake with black people before the year 2100.
Dont believe me just watch.
and OBVIOUSLY…
IN THE YEAR 2100 MONK WILL BE GREATER THAN EVER…
fauci.
he was the AIDS pointman too.
why is peepee so afraid to post the FACT that wagner is the basically the ONLY entertainer who had an effect of historic(al) proportions?
wagner was basically the founder of the nazi party.
this is NOT an exaggeration.
that is rr you dumbass…
q: what FACT is supposed?
a: descent with modification, children (collectively) differ from parents (collectively) or at least sometimes do.
principle of sufficient reason: everything has a cause.
q: so what shall the cause (however mysterious) of intergenerational change be called?
a: “natural selection”
but if rr were not ridiculous he might claim that “genetic drift” is much underappreciated as a source of variation; that is, intergenerational change which has nothing to do with selection.
he might be right within species, as even gould said the fossil record is very NOT supportive of darwinism…that is, what paleontologists actually see is single species lasting so long and then suddenly vanishing.
attacking darwinism with semantics is liberace level gay.
why not attack it on how it explains differences in genomes very well but not differences in fossils hardly at all.
Gould was disputing evolutionary gradualism, not Darwinism per se iirc
darwin died long before DNA was discovered to be the means of inheritance.
that is, the means of inheritance for most creatures.
rr has the same DNA as a gold fish but because non-DNA inheritance he looks like an albanian calabrian.
Also, Darwin referred to the selection of organisms not individual traits, and never used the term “selection for” in his original book.
and OBVIOUSLY the proof that mere drift is NOT the cause of all variation is that genomes differ one genration to the next in NON-random ways.
You should do a post about your most influential commenters…I’d for sure come out on top!
You aren’t even influential to people that know you irl.
No you retard im highly influential to the people I know irl. Many people can verify this you schizo shithead.
Idiot. People who are influential don’t need to say they are influential in public fora.
Loaded is probably a loser irl. People probably laugh about him when they go out for drinks.
Are you illiterate? You just accused me of being uninfluential…what am I supposed to do just nod my head and agree?
Your hero Donald Trump goes on and on about his influence…you think he’s an idiot too? Fucking baseless moron.
As the days go by I realize more and more Pill is a psychopath with control issues.
And I have plenty of social clout brotha. If I died tomorrow more people would remember me than the amount of people who’ve helped you wipe your own ass. Dibshit.
Hey Pumpkin. Do you still think that the post-2016 SAT correlates with IQ? Charles Murray didn’t seem to think so.
I doubt the correlation has changed significantly, at least not among people who take the test normally. There are a lot of rich kids now taking it without time limit because they can afford to get an ADD diagnosis.
So do you still uphold your previous tables (post-1995) to be accurate or would you change them?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8461209/Face-Stone-Age-man-head-mounted-stake-revealed-facial-reconstruction.html
Potentially the most influential person in history! Shout out to the scientists who discovered it.
RR you should write a book. You could call it ‘Fundamentalist Sociology: An Introduction’ or ‘The Middle Class Household Inequality Gap’
I think Trump is without doubt the funniest president of all time to listen to. I’m always chuckling away listening to him talk. He makes me laugh more than any stand up comedian.
Could Lynn’s “national IQs” be next to get a retraction—or at least a nice note to show that they’re unreliable? I still hold that if Clark et al got retracted due to shoddy data then ALL papers that have used Lynn’s data to generate certain conclusions should be retracted, or at least note it in EVERY paper that Lynn’s shoddy data is to not be trusted/to be taken seriously.
https://lynndataproject.weebly.com/
again. rr is autistic if he thinks retractions have any meaning.
Especially now when everyone’s panicking to look woke
I think Lynn’s data is mostly garbage too, but retracting it really doesn’t mean shit.
RR is too bias.
If it’s garbage and there are so many problems with them then why should it continued to be used and have people draw conclusions from the data?
Nobody said that though.
is his data garbage or his interpretation of his data garbage?
autistic people and filipinos don’t know the difference.
sad.
Both are garbage.
I said that.
How does it relate to Pumpkin and Mugabe’s response?
I don’t care about “looking woke” and retractions send messages.
[redacted by pp, june 30, 2020], you posting that makes it seem like you care about being woke.
I don’t care and cool, I saw the redaction in the WordPress app but it was redacted when I clicked on it.
Yo what the fuck pumpkin. [redacted by pp, june 30, 2020]
Why the hell are you censoring it? There is literally no good reason. Get with the times old man.
Not everyone will know the difference, nor care
The only people who would care are the type of people who wouldn’t be on your blog and if they were, it’d be to criticize your blog and call it racist. And this begs the question as to why you even care that much about other people’s feelings when your blog is about one of the most controversial and offensive topics of the 21st century. You’ll say East Asians are genetically superior but I can’t say [redacted by pp, june 30, 2020].
At least try not to be so hypocritical in your moderation.
And literally everyone knows the difference Pumpkin. Surprise surprise though you only take words literally when it’s convenient for you.
I hear what you’re saying, but I have to move on.
Ya can’t wait to hear Pumpkin’s retarded ass reason for this.
I kinda get censoring calling RL and DT pedos or Philo calling someone a [redacted by pp, june 30, 2020]. But “[redacted by pp, june 30, 2020]”? Cmon how white can you be??
RR are you actually a woman academic from Berkeley or a NAACP lawyer or something?
Pumpkin, what’s Lex Fridman’s IQ? Although I don’t think you can tell one’s verbal IQ from articulation, I think something that relates to it for him is (relatively) low. He talks slow, and has expressed feeling labored by his diffuse thoughts and trying to contract them to something precisely communicable; on the other hand, his perceptual IQ may be so high that even a high verbal IQ does not suffice – the laboring comes from the difference.
i’ll look into it
my guess would be 130
Hey pumpkin what would most psychologists say is the most accurate IQ test?
never seen a poll, but anecdotally it seems most would say the wechsler, just because it’s individually administered, very widely used, extremely carefully normed and quite diverse in the cognitive domains it samples.
Ok thank you.
I’ll have a blog post done it a few days. I’m putting some finishing touches on it now, do you care if I post it here? If not, do I send it to you through email or just post it as a comment? Will the formatting stay the same? It’s about 4000 words
you can post it in the comment section. If you write “Guest Post” i’ll know it’s an article not a comment. I’ll decide how to format it.
If I post it in the comments will it keep the embedded links, italicization, and bolded words?
You might be better off emailing me. That’s what RR does and I simply cope and paste the email and all the italics and links are preserved.
Ok cool I appreciate it
Whats it about Melo?
The clarification of psychological concepts and the biological explanations behind some of them.
Care to give me a little preview?
Be patient RR it’s done I’m just waiting a couple days to post it. Sometimes when I write things I’ll think “damn I should’ve added X or Y” and it’ll be too late. So I’m giving my a brain a couple days to see if there’s anything extra I thinks of before I send it in to Pumpkin.
I’ll probably leave a few comments but I’m done for a while on psychology. Going to focus more on race/physiology/public health. I know I can expect a good read from you though, can’t wait to read it.
LOL You don’t even know what psychology is. Hahaha good old RR. Unsung genius.
i have to stop commenting because peepee only posts comments which support her racist black lesbian agenda.
Thank god.
Puppy what IQ test is the least racist?
whatever one you did best on