Atheists are the runts

You couldn’t tell by bone structure? The men are almost pigeon-chested with women’s shoulders an Austen character would be proud of.

http://www.unz.com/article/are-atheists-genetic-mutants-a-product-of-recent-evolution/

New mutations crop up all the time and the genes don’t survive.

It’s kinda like the SJW claim that sexes don’t exist because hermaphrodites do.

Er, mutants exist. They are aberrations. Ironically, they’re seeking meaning like Jesus in toast.

But they would also have had mutant genes affecting the mind.

Really?

Really?

This is because the brain, home to 84% of the genome, is extraordinarily sensitive to mutation, so mental and physical mutation robustly correlate. If these children had grown up, they might have had autism, schizophrenia, depression… but they had poor immune systems, so they never had the chance.

Why would nature waste resources better spent on the children likeliest to breed?

This is literally Darwin.

Among these, the authors argue, was a very specific kind of religiosity which developed in all complex societies: the collective worship of gods concerned with morality.

It’s no coincidence many atheists are psychopathically broken enough to reject the concept of objective morality, moral absolutes (unless it applies to their opponent, to weaken them). In a small tribe, they’d have been kicked out by the elders at the first sign of criminality and deception to starve. The anti-weasel reflex is still present in us, it makes us get off a bus early when an unstable person gets on or avoid the creepily attentive boy who offers to buy us a drink to spike.

Your instincts keep you alive better than a lazy police force.
Antisocial people hate instincts because it thwarts their lies.

Ask yourself, why did men in all great societies have to leave the home, live alone,  prove themselves and follow the law to be worthy of respect? We coddle teenagers and hence we have a society of weak men. They complain about this yet never volunteer to do what needs to be done, a sign of their weakness, it begins with the moral.

If you’re so different from women, ya gotta act like it.

Sitting around complaining among the women is what the gay guys do. Not attractive. How many mistake this vanity for intellect?

Mixed schools were a sign of the mistake. When little girls exercise like little boys, their brains are masculinized. How many pro-Patriarchy guys would prefer a male-only school? Vanishingly few. They’re full of shit. They want all the imagined rewards with none of the effort. But sex-exclusive schools get better grades, with less distraction, as do religion-specific and race-specific ones.

Without morality, there is no reputation. Without reputation, there is no honour and no culture.

Hypocrites who refuse to lead by example because *valley girl voice* It’s HAAAARD.

This very specific kind of religiousness was selected for and, indeed, it correlates with positive and negative ethnocentrism even today.

Genophilia is evolutionally fit, no shit.

The authors demonstrate that this kind of religiousness has clearly been selected for in itself. It is about 40% genetic according to twin studies, it is associated with strongly elevated fertility, it can be traced to activity in specific regions of the brain, and it is associated with elevated health: all the key markers that something has been selected for.

Ask an atheist if he has asthma. That one condition.

They’re lazy moral Marxists. “I can take what I want because I can find an excuse”. It’s a child’s mindset begging their parents for a toy or to “let them get away” with eating a cookie before dinner. They feel the world (and any God) owes them personally, entitlement is the mindset of weakness.

They earn nothing. They get nothing. That is just.

Their failure is a sign the system works. It’s like the “incels” who refuse to develop an adult personality but demand AA for orgasms. Redistribution of hotties and thotties. They’re just fucking marxists. Literally.
“Rejection should be illegal” people. Utterly brittle personalities, sheltered.

There is no right to another person’s body, and this coming from self-proclaimed libertarians? How many hands do they have? Take matters into your own hands.

They think women don’t suffer (aren’t fully human) or that suffering is rare, new and some personal outrage. You can’t argue with reality.
Who wants to sleep with a kid in a grown man’s body?

And it is from here that the authors make the leap that has made SJW blood boil. Drawing on research by Michael Woodley of Menie and his team (see here and here)they argue that conditions of Darwinian selection have now massively weakened, leading to a huge rise in people with damaging mutations. This is evidenced in increasing rates of autism, schizophrenia, homosexuality, sex-dysmorphia, left-handedness, asymmetrical bodies and much else. These are all indicators of mutant genes.

dysgenic, the word you need to use

Pollutants in food, water, air, clothing, medications (neurotoxic) and unprecedented interactions with foreign microbiomes throwing the native ones off cause a hefty amount too. Then there are easily remedied things like non-Indians eating a diet they didn’t evolve for and wondering why gastro issues are through the roof.

I think the antacid people own stock in curry suppliers. White people are dumb.

Peasant food is not good for you. Foreign peasant food is worst for you.

Malthus shall prevail.

All except the handedness is true. Natural variations exist in eye colour, hair, nails, handedness. It doesn’t mean as much as psychologists claim it does, it’s just easy and cheap to study. They’re lazy. You have a dominant foot too but nobody gives a shit.

It’s fucking palmistry.

Most people are slightly ambi.

Mutants are not necessarily dysgenic though, advantageous ones are simply a lot rarer and normally come from better bloodline stock with reduced genetic load (in fact, that might be the deciding factor in whether a trait presents as useful or thanatos).

Look at the HBD studies about SES (class) over multiple generations. Social mobility is a false condition of fiat debt spirals, it will correct too. Champagne socialists will be the elderly people in manual labouring jobs.

Little mentioned but autism is a “low empathy” condition. Like psychopathy. They cannot cooperate properly and lack the emotional intelligence to be leaders. The idea some super-academic smartypants in the white house would solve all problems is symbolic of their deficits. They can’t run their own life in an orderly way.

Low empathy = antisocial, in practice.

They deny this from egocentrism but it’s pathognomonic of the pathological medical condition.

They deny it’s any of the last three things too. It’s part of the condition.

Why deny they lack empathy? They’re shrewd enough to know it’s socially undesirable but if you ask around the idea, they’ll freely admit they hate all people, raging bigots. They’re full of self-pity, self-loathing, refusal to change (like a sociopath) or learn from moral errors and highly reactive to others but in an angry closed-off way.

They think reactivity (over sensitive) and lashing out at people (intermittent explosive) is empathy.

Utterly incapable of humility. That requires the self-awareness of social intelligence but they don’t really see other people. They are not perceptive on the human level. They even crowd out other mental illnesses for more air time.

Super competent and smart, they claim…. until you hold them to that standard.
It’s like how the ADHD guys claim to be slow but also geniuses (logically exclusive). Their own subjective experience of their mind when it sputters like an old car biases them with feeling. They claim they don’t have feelings because they’re constantly over-run with them. Overwhelmed. It’s like Victorian hysteria in men.

A nerve study would be interesting.

They’ll abandon their parents on their deathbed once they hear their name’s on the will, totally callous. Instead of admitting they’re selfish, they’ll go Ayn Rand and claim (intellectualization is their favourite defensiveness) they aren’t bad people (just do bad things, repeatedly, by choice??!!) but society, unwilling to coddle, is dragging them down.

Antisocial people feel the need to destroy and punish all the good of society and spare the bad. It does vary.

In some instances, heartless. Look up stories of women who’ve been married to Asperger’s men, they sound almost exactly like sociopaths. For example, denial of the condition to gaslight then blaming the condition at other times.

So Dutton and his team argue that, this being the case, deviation from this very specific form of religiousness—the collective worship of moral gods in which almost everyone engaged in 1800—should be associated with these markers of mutation.

oh look, a real psychologist and none of the JP fans like him

maybe he should tell them to wash their hands

In other words, both atheists and those interested in spirituality with no moral gods (such as the paranormal) should be disproportionately mutants.

There has never been a pilot country of atheists. They refuse to found so much as a village. When a group doesn’t want to live among itself, it implicitly admits it is damaged.

They can’t play the Poor Me card if they aren’t surrounded by normal empaths who’ll assume the best.

And this is precisely what they show. Poor physical and mental health are both significantly genetic and imply high mutational load. Dutton and his team demonstrate that this specific form of religiousness, when controlling for key factors such as SES, predicts much better objective mental and physical health, recovery from illness, and longevity than atheism.

Longevity?

Can someone film Aubrey when told this?

That’s literally the best Darwinian metric.

I wonder if he could study atheist researchers of the psychology of religion. Would they rig the test? Yes, they’d try. Aren’t atheist researchers of religion a little biased? Nobody brings this up.

It’s generally believed that religiousness makes you healthier because it makes you worry less and elevates your mood,

look at the Wiccans, it’s a connection to the natural world (disconnection from the fake world of urban, neon and shiny atheist crap)

but they turn this view on its head, showing that religious worshippers are more likely to carry gene forms associated with being low in anxiety. Schizophrenia, they show, is associated with extreme and anti-social religiosity, rather than collective worship. Similarly, belief in the paranormal is predicted by schizophrenia, and this is a marker of genetic mutation.

Aliens, bigfoot, Slenderman. Atheists believe in lots of things, diffuse. Next they’ll break out the healing crystals.

Next, they test autism, another widely accepted marker of mutation, as evidenced by the fact that it’s more common among the children of older men, whose fathers are prone to mutant sperm. Autism predicts atheism.

Old men babies are damaged. Huh. If only I had a tag on paternal age.

Genetic disease leads to genetic suicide?

Of course, rather than blaming men for marrying and breeding to late, I’m sure they’ll blame wider society like men didn’t make a series of choices over years that materially harmed their children.

The problem people have with atheistkult isn’t that they don’t believe. It’s that they’re obsessive about how EVIL (but evil doesn’t exist?) this meme is and wish to harm and destroy and crush people who are “dumb” enough to fall for it and be happy and healthy.

Yeah, we aren’t falling for it.

You choose what to believe, you choose to look for it or not. They shut their eyes and cry “why don’t I see?”

Mala fides. If they were women in the olden days, they’d have been killed as witches. It’s amazing given how many claim to be super competent, how their life fails to play this out. We have mewling men who can’t take care of themselves but attempt to guilt trip the rest of us into respecting them and playing into the delusion.

throw on a dress and legally, we’d have to

Karma: The kingdom of Hell is within you

https://lonerwolf.com/karma-kingdom-of-hell/

Modern men:

But what about the Kingdom of Hell and the Devil?   Are they inside of us as well?

My experience is that Hell is not a flaming hole under the earth.  Hell is actually a spiritual place of torment that we carry around everyday.

The clean slate is a Boomer lie. You carry round a knapsack of sin and that’s your life. I don’t blame people for believing this falsehood without thinking about it – the Papacy was destroyed the moment they took bribes to ‘forgive’ sins. In the Bible, nobody can forgive but God and you won’t know until you die and it’s never, ever certain. It takes great pains to point this out. Many people who seem good are going to Hell, it’s all about the heart.

The pure of heart go to Heaven.

Don’t blame science for your atheism

The atheistkult is trying to replace the dogma of a God with the doctrines of scientism and faith in your fellow man like Saints of Truth. Don’t do that. If you change your beliefs, that’s on you, don’t shrink in agency, externalize your locus of control and shift the ‘blame’ onto someone else. You don’t get to blame life (the fates) or society (elders) or the internet (you don’t have to trust what you see online).
Your brain is your business, you are not being influenced by external forces (demons, in ancient terms).
Own your choices, you scoundrels.
A minor point but many men have a magical conversion from faith when their sex hormones start surging, and happen to magically remember like an 80s movie amnesia patient once those settle down in the 30s/40s and beyond. No. That isn’t how it works. There is no Christian of convenience, you were never Christian. A God-fearing person cannot un-know that intuition about the spiritual world. You cannot un-see the colour blue. You cannot un-understand the structure of a peeled orange.
You are in denial, more clouded in judgement than ever. Look up the psychiatry of Freudian denial, it is just the same. A denial of motives, base instincts and a solution to what we now call cognitive dissonance. By consciously lying to yourself. Otherwise, why feel the need to convert people to atheism, if you are so certain of your position? Why does there need to be a term for not thinking something? Where does the obligation to save them come from? Francis Bacon? Shall we make him a Saint on par with George?
Wait, he was Christian, never mind. Christophobia fits far better than other religions, because the fear demonstrated of Christians, not the Church or state power but everyday happy people minding their own, is astounding. The self-styled atheists posture themselves as anti-Christian. They are some of the most pro-Christian people alive. Why do I say this? They believe Christian culture is the norm, Christian principles and rights (WASP, classic liberalism) are greatest thing ever, undeniable and should apply to the whole world, like missionaries. They want to spread the WEIRD culture, the Western attitudes. Raising awareness and education? Set up an atheist church and stop kidding yourself. Hold meetings every Sunday over a copy of God Delusion.

What will they do when Dawkins snuffs it?

Does he get a funerary rite?

There is no study of Christians and atheists in a hospice or dying at home (that I have seen), but I can bet what it would say. Atheists hate their life (observation), blame God (blame game again) and become bitter with each birthday (since this is all there is and deep down, they know they waste their potential). Wouldn’t such a study prove once and for all which mode of life is superior?

The humble pie would choke such prideful people.

We are not fooled by Churchians or CHINOs. There is no such thing as born-again (American horse-shit) and still, when someone does repent, they don’t arrogantly boast or pridefully boss around others,assuming they are forgiven. You can never presume forgiveness (pride, knowing God’s mind) but must act to prove yourself the rest of your life (yes, commitment!). The former sinner does not have moral authority over people who always did the right thing, what could they possibly have to teach that isn’t obvious?

Most men (mankind) are too weak and selfish to handle the requirements of religion (even fasting) and too caring of materialism or fleeting, false popularity to believe in anything deep (any-thing). They simply aren’t good enough for religion, they know they would fail and so oppose anyone who does embrace it (envy, wrath).

To see someone successful at it enrages them (they seek out Christians for this reason, to troll because they know they have no argument), like an SJW witnessing an attractive, feminine woman, her blood boils.
To tear someone down, they must be above you. It must work. They are dishonest about this.

Religion isn’t the false consciousness (post-Reformation Christianity at least), it’s acting like you have a religion but denying to yourself that you need it psychologically.

You do, humans do (read more studies) but you are bad at it.
If you believe in religious freedom so much, leave the Christians alone. Don’t try to make it political. Go after every other religion, too? All hundreds of them? Apply your Crusaderism to the world, equally and logically.

I keep seeing men getting all craven and become weaklings on the topic of cutting off their spiritual life like it was a tumour. What, like a God figure isn’t going to see into your heart and know it’s full of shit?
They try to make out like piety and the pious are damaged. No, it’s a virtue. You keep it quiet but it’s there. In modernity we call it a conscience and people who mock those are the damaged ones.
At the very least, the protectionism, lies and funding scams on the taxpayer should infuriate these (mostly small government) men but that would require consistency. The Reproducability Crisis barely made a drop in the ocean, such is their pursuit of truth.

You don’t get to define the truth, that is a lie.
The truth exists beyond you, it isn’t relative, it won’t be something you’ll like.

The Boomer switch into postmodernism is rooted in one philosophy that many so-called smart people miss: moral relativism. For something to be good, there must be evil. The world is an absolute down to magnetic spins. You cannot deny this duality, polarity and opposition.  You try. Squirm all you like, you know I’m right.

You can’t embrace truth without punishing liars.

OR

hate what is evil, cling to what is good

If you want to be atomic and selfish, don’t inflict it on other people. Cruelty is never a morality. The amoral are united by their cruelty.

Before some troll goes there:

Do I think churches should be taxed? Yes. Fully. If it’s part of society, it should be taxed. Do I think religious schools should be funded on the taxpayer? No, none. Real Christians don’t need a fistful of cash to teach. Schools need huge funding cuts overall and to slice away the Ivy League style donations funds that leeches feed off. These debates are nonsense. There are standards and if Christians cannot meet them, we should all throw a Kool Aid party like war-time Berlin.

We’ll have to when national debt crunches us anyway. (Seriously, a lot of Gen X/Y will kill themselves when the circuses stop, they’re completely maladapted to a real economy).

If they’re going to keep shooting at you, make a smaller target. (Galt, basically).

Listen, if you want to be a conceited prick and lord it over people who deny themselves various things, fine, but you also need to get off your smug high horse to do it. You cannot be both. You cannot think yourself a good person while doing evil (or antisocial) things. If you’re destructive, you don’t get to bask in a halo-like glow of the creative.
You don’t get to pretend you’re deep when your understanding of religion (any) is so facile it was shaken by rhetoric (which is all emotional, you children) and so fragile your lifestyle and mindset can be ‘debunked’ by Youtube videos.
I have seen this claimed and they acted like the internet posters were peerless holders of knowledge. No, that’s a cult. No human knows everything.
Someone who is completely cynical believes in nothing, betrays themselves as incapable of belief and fulfilling that vital side of life (look at the studies into life expectancy and happiness!) and cannot be trusted on a subject they are incompetent at. I do not ask to play netball with a person who has no hand-eye coordination.
These people are not intellectuals and certainly never philosophers.
All they have are buzzwords, memes and smug mockery of people happier than them – narcissists.
Parental issues to one side, they need to look at themselves before judging something they can never see.
Virtue signalling doesn’t work for people who don’t believe in virtue. They grow increasingly desperate and we see that with the mutation of SJW talking points. Dawkins was swallowed by it! Where was the solid security of his principles then? The man is weak, he has the principles of quicksand.
Christianity hasn’t been a ‘threat’ to him in decades. He still spends most of his time grinding away at the Church with a personal grudge, now an angry, bitter old man taking speech shekels. He won’t dare be brave enough to handle the Muslim problems. He won’t admit demographics anymore, such is his love of money…

Typical Boomer logic: I’ll be dead so LOL, that isn’t my problem!

Science is not an opinion, it has never had one unchanging position on anything. Many scientists are religious (there are studies) and it seems the most important the scientist, the more religiosity they have/had. As for ‘stupid’ beliefs, that isn’t how belief (subjective) works. I bet these same guys believe in UFOs instead of angels, Zion or ghosts instead of demons. Demonic AI is like a HIV among atheistkult. Stop.

Powerful thing you can’t see or resist controlling the world? Not Satan, nope!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

Could we be living in an evil simulation?  is an old idea. Can only rely on a Higher Power.

Demons do not mean what you think they do. Patriarchy and other ‘evils’ could be classified as demonic in ancient societies (Bacchus?).

Silicon Valley comes up with nothing new, it’s full of drug-addicted Ivy League morons raised on Daddy’s cash.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-other-tech-bubble/ You have to be rich to move there.

If you don’t believe in any fate, how can there be any luck? Basic questions never occurred to these supposed intellectuals.
To reiterate my original point, do not blame anyone or anything but especially science. You sound retarded. Science is a tool used by humans, you can no more blame it than a hammer on a bench. There is no divine authority to science because it creates nothing, it reports on somethings that humans note that may/not exist in the way they perceive. Science is a witness, it isn’t the cause of an event.

Accept your impotence.
There is no appeal to sacred science on matters of philosophy because science is a philosophy, a narrow one called empiricism. The Scientific Method is all the science there is and ever will be. It dictates nothing and often slaughters your holy cows e.g. Global Warming predictions, fail.

How could the climate deity betray you? You divined all the omens! Must appease!

Science is permanently changing and the fundamentals of the world do not. It is a logical error to apply it, it does not follow.
The method is a tool used by humans, who can be inept or corrupt or bribed or plain wrong. You have the typical polyanna leftist view of humanity, which all the findings have shown to be mistaken. Only philosophy can compete with philosophy (it is not self-correcting any more than a book is self-reading and whole theories are rarely disproven and discarded) but science is really a practice. You might as well be rain-dancing against the ozone.

Shake your stick, atheists, it’ll make no difference.

Muh Butterfly effect, O.K.

Science isn’t a magical force to replace the magical force you feel you lack control over. There is more in common between scientific reasoning (pattern finding) and folk magic (sympathetic magic) than you will ever know.
You can’t be bothered to properly research it and no, Youtube or Google do not fucking count. Specialist websites and e-celebs do not count, they are biased. You must do the work yourself and read some very old books e.g. Kant’s Pure Reason, any Descartes, some Newton. Do not stick to 20th century ramblings by glorified degenerates like Einstein, there’s a reason the major discoveries occurred before this time, the method has become weak as the people using it. If you dare bring up the sell-out engineer Nye like he’s a scientist, I will find you and fucking cut you on the astral plane. He’s like the mascot Barney the Dinosaur for scientism. A kid’s TV show presenter, look at your claimed authorities and begin to see why everyone ignores you. Society is structured a certain way because people are and people don’t change thanks to propaganda – you’ll know on your death bed.
Popper is a philosopher, not a scientist. There is no experiment to prove or disprove God, Pascal’s Wager is the closest we have and a sound, pragmatic view, but still – do not blame science for your personal flaws/sins. Science doesn’t work that way.

What you are trying to do has been named by psychiatry – like learned helplessness (related), it’s absolution of responsibility. It doesn’t exist.

Your body, your brain, your belief, YOU.

There is no method without experimentation and findings. No, talking does not count.
We were warned – Father of Lies, going all the way back to Loki.
Are you going to deny the frequency of human deception too?

There are plenty of studies, don’t be anti-science!

(Questioning findings is not questioning the approach. like hating one claimed work of art doesn’t mean you hate all art). It reminds me of the vain people who are too stupid to understand that they are disliked for good reasons so they call everyone jealous (clubber types) when you can’t be jealous of a vapid person whose entire life is meaningless crap. Nobody is jealous of shit.

Atheists insult things like white identity because you didn’t build that but hey, you didn’t discover anything past your navel so get off Newton’s dick! You aren’t allowed to be proud of that, it’s really sad.

Atheists fear the deadly sins being a societal standard again. Sloth in particular. Show me an atheist who has Protestant work ethic…. they don’t exist.

Gluttony is a great way to spot a loser group. Which religion has the most obese people? What if we include atheism? Surely the ‘logical’ people would be able to carb-count? If you lack the mental rigour to put down the junk food, why should anyone listen to you?

It’s like the findings on the socialists and communists being weaker and more likely to cheat for money in studies. You choose your belief to fit your personality and your desires, what you wanted to justify doing anyway. This isn’t noble, it’s low. SJWs don’t want to put effort into their appearance, so they claim it’s wrong to. Boom, you get what you want and a lush new moral high ground to boot! PUAs don’t want to admit premarital sex (PC term, actually fornication) would be counted as rape in a Patriarchy, the marriage license is the only valid consent, so they claim it means something else and rewrite history (fail to) – boom, everyone is giving them attention they want for being wrong on multiple levels. None of them want to change anything, like roll back the Sexual Revolution that let them work long careers in a rape culture or be club rats without the pressure to marry and become a Patriarch, it’s a rationalization and most people are like that, they don’t actually think. That’s the norm, the average.

Fine, be an animal. Don’t pretend to be anything else.

Crazy people don’t know they are crazy. Moral insanity used to be a common term. They don’t have it, know it, perceive it, recognize it, value it and scoff at practicing it. They are not free, they are evil. There is only a perversion of what is good for the world, psychiatry abides by this idea. Look at the wages of sin, all the cancers being caused by STDs. Almost like a punishment, isn’t it? In scientific terms, cause and effect? What you reap you sow, later and bigger? Asylums were commonly populated with this type of person, we now have studies proving neurological deficits e.g. hypofrontality. They are literally broken human beings and the behaviour is an outcome, the beliefs are excuses. They don’t have beliefs, they don’t have a moral compass beyond instinct.

A surgeon must cut to correct. A farmer must weed to seed. Wood rot must be exposed to be cleaned. It is the same with immorality.

NOTE: Agnosticism is assisted by science. The not-knowing. The moment you claim to know, that is not science, it is an article of faith.

In pure terms, an absence of faith is not more reasonable. Men are suffering new depression rates more akin to the female rate as their belief systems break down. (No, you’re not special boys, female rates are still higher because you refuse to marry. Little girls don’t fantasize about heading an HR department for fifty years). Remember, God is the ultimate man to believe in. You lose faith, you naturally begin to self-hate. Neither is your father the model of all mankind’s potential, he could be a write-off, you are not trapped by his patterns. Unless you choose to be.

Denial is unhealthy, it leads to physical stress that builds up and causes many chronic, fatal conditions on the rise (cancer, heart disease, MS, drug addictions, promiscuity, things demonstrably bad for you and your body and future). The escapism of substances or habits is particular to the male psyche, society used to protect you from it but you insisted you had the right to slowly kill yourself, waving your credit card in the air and begging to be enslaved.

OKAY, said the politicians, moving around their investments to the alcohol companies.

[Clooney owns one, FFS. Ain’t that a sign of collapse? Saint Jolie, also an alkie. She could be growing food for her little brown slave babies in the colours of Benetton (all brown), snatched from their parents and country into her silicon* claws. You know she bribed some people, you know. I guess slavery is okay if they’re brown and babies.]

It’s phrased like a religious conversion (I was in the darkness of religion but then I saw the light of reason). Reason is not the enemy of belief, reason comes after belief to understand it better.

You don’t doubt your existence, your name, your reality (AI excepting), that’s psychotic, to terminally (neurotic) doubt your faith means you never actually had it. I can’t lose a command of numbers because a few equations came out wrong. Still, the fault would be with me, not reality? Some days it looks cloudy, I don’t start saying the Sun might not really exist because I don’t see it today.

Constantly changing your mind is a sign of a feeble one. If you’re too open-minded…

Enlightenment is a religious concept of this gained knowledge. The first atheistkult tried to steal it as something objective. Nah, man. Not gonna happen. You tell me what an atom is without a continuum paradox and we can talk.

Your epistemology sucks Donkey Kong’s balls.
You know NOTHING.

At least we name the unknown and try to appreciate it (humility). You deny it exists so you can strut around like the Universe belongs to you. You’ll still be worm food, dude. You’ll be sorry. Nobody is impressed by brats.

*Her pick-up line used to be “Guess what’s real”.

He isn’t a golden calf, he’s a very naughty boy

As aspirant machines, they want to worship their own sili-dick.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/28/artificial-intelligence-god-anthony-levandowski

I am surprised.

comment

“Atheists (and I mean philosophical atheists, not the ones who declare themselves atheists to free themselves of moral guilt)….

The problem with theists is that you think that without religion to tell people what is wrong and right, there would be no morality. I don’t think so. People might be stupid about a lot of things, but they’re not that stupid.”

I wonder how much this AI god, completely created by Jewish men, would value white women.

Religion covers many sins, doesn’t it?

I don’t think the god of the Talmud was especially kind to anyone, but especially women.

A Critical Review of Genius Famine’s Review

Because it’s been years since I read the book, (it actually came out in 2014-2015, moron) I’m going to ‘review’ (rip to shreds cruelly) this review. [tldr: Y’ALL NEED HBD, JESUS.]

5,000-ish words. Putting the shit into shitposting.

Because I can.

I feel I’ve lost YEARS off my life doing this, like the machine in Princess Bitchin’ Bride.

That’s its name now.

They’re bigging up Charlton because so many others (including yours truly) did first. Happy little lemmings of the online trend.
I’m happy for him and his co, Genius Famine is a solid 4-star book. It’s actually K-selection, that missing puzzle piece, a norm of religiosity is a part of it, not the other way around. Also, excess religion kills everyone. Massive hypothetical problems right there. MOVING TAYLOR SWIFTLY ON.

I need another yacht party, preserve me in Russian Standard.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-genius-famine-the-death-of-religion-will-lead-to-the-death-of-genius-and-the-death-of-civilization

WE NEED HARDER SCIENCES. It’s a little like porn, the soft stuff is never enough.
“intelligence is negatively correlated with genetic signs of high mutational load–such as an ‘asymmetrical’ (ugly) face”
I linked to that the other day lately, and I’m basically the ONLY person round these parts who calls it mutation load when the correct scientific nomenclature is ‘genetic load’. I thought mutation/al was more descriptive. I am one literary bitch. WHO is stealing my shit?
Naturally, the only solution to an unnatural, manmade boom is artificial eugenics. I digress. There isn’t even a bar cart in sight. It’s my inner alcoholic.
Charlton tries so sincerely to answer an HBD question with philosophy, applying religion to (a problem of) evobiology is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard. My linking to his blog was intended as a supplement, not the substantive meal. For that, look up key HBD authors. If God himself came down on a fluffy cloud and zapped people with lightning bolts like a rock star Zeus, it still wouldn’t change the fact DNA exists and evolutionary genus have undergone speciation. If God created everything, why is any of his creation a bad thing to you? Where is your faith? Why wouldn’t He want us to understand all the incredible detail He threw into this video game? He’s got the whole world in his hands. So technically, God is cupping your balls. Respect Him.
The Industrial Revolution is fingered in A Troublesome Inheritance (uncited) but the evidence to support it is limited. Sharing the technology seems to have been the problem, the profit motive. Releasing certain technologies puts them in the hands of the low-IQ by default. This doesn’t end well, see the concepts of game theory and the arms race for further details.


There were actually two sexual revolutions before the one we know of the 1960s. Boomers are not the pivotal generation of history. The 60’s finale is the nail in the Western coffin with the Long March Through the Institutions, as the brilliant minds of the prior century finally died off.
1 – The Romantic Movement of the early 1800s. You’ve heard of it, Byron? Suddenly feelings were more important than facts and everyone realized what a special snowflake they were.
2 – The Belle Epoque and a little beforehand. The lifetime of Oscar Wilde fits it neatly. Again, the postwar generosity of K-types to struggling unfit societies in the name of God is the problem. Yes, I posit that Missions from God are demonic. When you consider everything they spawned to the outgroup is suffering – from the continued spread of leprosy, booming and starving populations, the rise of HIV, NGO child rape scandals and various tribal wars over scarce resources, the do-gooders of the 19th century killed it for the whole world of the 20th onward, who have had a dependent child in the guilt over the Third World it created ever since. Prove me wrong, internet. I know you can’t.

There’s an academic book, about 500 pages, called Pathological Altruism if you wanna know the mindset behind dumb white people who selfishly think the whole world should aspire to be Just Like Them. As if that’s possible or desirable. It’s written by a woman though, so I don’t expect it to make the same splash in this part of the internet, that constantly complains there aren’t enough women (while insulting and ignoring our contributions, bc thinking tits are terrifying).

HBD answers the concerns about inter-class fertility/fecundity, because class is rather constant based on your genome down the centuries. As in, social mobility has its limits. You can look all this stuff up in your own sweet time, you are literally online to be reading this, you’ve got no excuse.
This is forbidden science because it is predictive. The current paradigm of equalism is not.
The factors mentioned in this article precisely fit into other topics.

e.g.
Family size – time preference, present and historical age at marriage, cultural expectations, national wealth and debt. Therefore, you’d expect Western(er) fertility will NEVER rise until national debt is removed as a dysgenic pressure. Not one of you wankers boo-hooing over the future has mentioned this. Clarey got close.

Not as random as it sounds.
I say Westerner because Magic Dirt isn’t real and we don’t want to bring up fertility in the West using non-Westerners, who have their own homeland to despoil. People are not interchangeable cogs, personality is genetically heritable too! You can’t build high-trust healthy societies with people who prefer to marry their child cousins and rig elections.
DNA PROVIDES.
Luther, while based AF, not so much, on these topics.

The word dysgenic isn’t used in these conversations either. Atheism may be dyscivic but agnosticism is a human right. The Pope hates this.
Personality metrics are as important as IQ. Plenty of the world’s leaders are above-average IQ, they know what they are doing. These are the Fifth Column.
By chance alone, they couldn’t keep doing exactly the wrong thing for the People.
There are many myths about Christian fertility. If you breed beyond your ability to provide, another tenet of the religion, then all the children and the entire family die. This happens quickly or slowly, with reduced prosperity and poor marital prospects in times of K-selection, that either cause no marriage to occur, sub-standard fertility in the non-assortative pair match, excess labour and no creative production (bad for epigenetics) and/or mutation accumulation. Time preference correlates to industriousness and what we now call grit but is essentially prudence.
It’s tempting to claim Idiocracy! because listing pop culture in place of papers is part of the dumbing down you so despise but first you must understand what an Idiocracy is = r-selection.
The K-shift we are undergoing is a prelude to the Malthusian contraction of population better known as the Malthusian trap. Think the big toothy metal things in cartoons.
You cannot describe demographic patterns without the Malthusian trap.

Nobody cites the meme “demographics is destiny” when that’s obviously the topic too. If you’re trying to make the complex easy to remember for simple readers. I just use GIFs to break up the text. Evidence of too much thinking intimidates them, y’see.

Get with the clickbait times, grandpa

The best argument I have seen on the spread of upper-class genes by the death of the lower orders was the spread of Black Death. This happened in bursts that appear to correspond to social and cultural leaps. It also targeted the urban leeches.
It is not a coincidence.
The strangest regressive trend is the spread of STDs, which are not purely r-selected, since the species must reproduce in K-types too and spouses do cheat. In the era of premarital sex, they may have brought the infertility or birth-defect causing pathogens (by mutating development) into the marriage itself. Religion happens to prevent these problems e.g. no prostitution, keep celibate, it doesn’t answer them. The strongest candidate for a shift after Black Death is the probable damage caused by Syphilis. I noticed this but I haven’t found anyone to explicitly study it.
There is also the matter of atheist scientist superhero. It’s a myth of scientism. There is social pressure. Anonymously, plenty of scientists identify as non-atheist, something else. The atheism probability exists on a bell curve of one to two standard deviations; beyond this, belief in the supernatural and faith in bizarre, paranoid delusions also increases greatly.
That’s why they tend to go a bit ..loopy at the end. Especially the mathlete Olympiads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck

There’s a shocking lack of historical (OLD, dusty-ass) case studies (Freud did this! If Freud can do this!…) and historical or cultural asterisks on the (largely but hardly acknowledged personality) theories of Genius Famine, but the bare bones is correct.

Here’s where I go off on one.

“The emancipation of women only worsened this fall in IQ, argue Dutton and Charlton.”

There is no evidence and quite the opposite, as child IQ conforms highly to maternal IQ and there is growing evidence about the benefits of delaying motherhood, at least until after the teenage years, once the body has stabilized and ceased to grow. Men traditionally delayed fatherhood too but don’t expect parity in discussion because questioning your priors is so sissy apparently.
The suffrage was universal, as the most cursory reading of history will confirm. Women could actually vote in many places before it anyway. ‘Women’s suffrage’ is a feminist myth.
I’ve covered this and so have others, in extensive detail. Modern young woman is more conservative than the average young man and in Charlton’s own country, women now vote more conservatively than men. This is a mathematical trend you can take to the sperm bank. Calm down.

Fridge horror. Did nobody bother to look this all up?
Where is the intellectual curiosity in intellectuals these days?
You don’t just get to proclaim an opinion because of your name or its letters, or else we’d take Lena Dunham’s advice on the biology of abortion. This is called an appeal to authority, emotional children.

 

It’s also another reason I go anon. I don’t want to get attacked IRL for stating basic truths any asshole could point out with five minutes and an internet connection. You are already in the place you need to be, I’m crudely drawing a map.

“They have far fewer children than less intelligent women, who are more likely to become pregnant young and by accident”

That is a failing of the Sexual Revolution, availability and attitudes to contraception, the abandonment of fathers and all those things combined that caused the monolithic rise of the modern welfare state. These are the true culprits of the issue, not voting. Most socialists are men, for example. Cthulhu swims Left. The voting is splintered far more by race than it ever could be by sex, and not one of them has the stones to finger ‘race’ as an issue. Try studying Voting Behaviour 101. See the recent election of Trump, where white women mostly voted for him and hardly any non-white. It’s a racial composition matter.
On a finer note, I’ve yet to see a modern civilization that isn’t white in root or base. I don’t see civilization as a bad thing either, it depends what you consider Peak, a question the NRx keep bitch-slapping over, especially in the Catholic blogs, that I feel Brucey would enjoy.
It is also strange to note that they deny intelligent women exist – until it’s tempting to criticize us for our responsible breeding habits.[But if we’re irresponsible, we’re also evil single mothers? Because all conception is intentional, right? And the father will definitely marry them, huh? And finding a spouse is so easy for anyone, m/f, not-dumb? And they have magical solutions for all these conflicts of the postmodern with the biological? Without actually going into the biology of it? ] Intelligent women breed far more often than intelligent men, if you look historically. They do not. There is no comparison of the sexes upon which to make these snide remarks. They fixate on one half of a whole problem. Blame Women! as your standby is literally sexist (and stupid, these are societal issues). As would be Blame Men! be sexist, and stupid for similar, anti-natal reasons. I proffer Blame R-types, since they are exactly the problem here. It doesn’t stroke the ego but it settles the mind.

Women discuss family problems far more than men, you just don’t look for us.
Family politics is literally our domain, the home.
You don’t get to pretend this is your area. It shows. Low EQ and SQ.
Men crowd around a table and discuss money, women discuss socially.
Maybe ask mumsnet how easy raising babies is today?
IF so, why no more stay-at-home dads and let her do the ‘hard work’?

The looming factor post-IR isn’t mentioned once. The world wars were incredibly dysgenic.
The healthy and young and brave died. The cowards and feeble and corrupt remained safe and plump and sexed at home, to later provide for their children (Parental Investment Theory) and give them an advantage over war widows (the reason for our welfare state).
Draft limitations are a problem not one man has the courage to mention.

You spared the genetic detritus. Darwin is laughing at you.
Might I impose that this selective blindness is an arrogant bias, on part of a sex who wishes fully to blame the Other?
Where geniuses do breed, they do not mention the potential for dead-end mutations e.g. Goethe’s children.
I suppose they mustn’t know? That’s encouraging.

Not to mention the female germline is more stable. The male is prone to mutations, because it’s constantly regenerating. So any problems with homosexuality, for instance… yeah, that isn’t on women. Infertility in men is literally measured by their mutations. Little X-men swimmers. The superpower is schizophrenia.

The American Model of collegiate academia killed the Medieval University of Europe. Chief among the concerns is tenure. There is no sound reason for tenure, a form of academic welfare. Naturally, I expect too much for academics still in the Matrix-like system to admit this. Universities have too much money and hence waste their time. It’s affluenza on the level of an organisation. I do not expect that idea to be popular, but it is the truth. If Harvard couldn’t be left money in donations and wills, would it be so arrogant? Would the conceit spread to its founders? Why is the state teat extended to these people? They have become like the modern church, with the same problems e.g. tax exemption. The Bible says ya gotta pay taxes. The Vatican gets around this by being the State. Again, I don’t expect these problems to magically wax into focus given the bias of the writers, I have to mention it.

And someone’s going to act like it can afford to go unsaid.

“Academics contribute to this by getting funding, publishing frequently, and attending conferences.”
The social scene is poison. There, I said it. It’s populated by the midwits Vox Day complains about. They think they’re clever because they all mutually agree. Aren’t they lovely? Good in front of a camera, bad thinkers.

It is a little sexist to call the model of fault Head Girl when her role is often second to Head Boy and anyone British knows what a massive kiss-up the Head Boys are. Most of the leading academia they complain of is still generally male, so I wonder how they can square that circle…

The obedience of school is the Prussian model. It’s based on the male military complex. Before that, the rote form to teach monks. ..Were they girly too?
Boys’ schools do not magically produce geniuses on par with Tesla. Women and femininity are not the problem and assuredly not a weakness. This is a cheap, trivial argument. The problem is sub-par management, which, if you look at politics too, is decidedly male. Is the masculinity a problem? No. Gender has nothing to do with it. The people running the show are simply incompetent, due to generations of suck-ups getting promoted, largely thanks to credentialism.
I fear they may be a little intimidated by the findings that girls’ scores have exceeded boys’. Well, if we stopped grading on a curve, used a mixture of testing metrics (papers and exam because there are problems with both), in an anonymous exam condition it’s the same paper, either you know your stuff or you don’t. If we stopped grading on a curve, male grades would slip further down because they don’t care, they’re kept in education beyond vocation age (13-14). Girls are more receptive to any instruction, including education. Blame the white matter, learning is a social experience. Maybe in one-on-one tutor setups boys would do better, but good luck getting state funding for that!
Also, why do grades need to be an intersex competition? Curriculums have always been crap, you’re meant to go beyond it.
“This person will be excellent at playing the academic game and will make a great colleague. But they won’t innovate; won’t rock the boat.”
The problem there is a culture called collectivism, it is the opposite of Western individualism and dampens creativity. Snuffs it, kills it dead. It’s prevalent in Asia, not female-only spaces. You also cite a personality trait called agreeableness and another, conscientiousness. Personality types are not wrong per se, they have a place. Bad academics were hired there by other bad academics who slipped through the old net and now academia is bad. Where is the XX in this, specifically? There were all-good female colleges and still are, same with boys’. Don’t grasp for simplistic bullshit.
If you knew as many stories about Catholic boarding schools as I do, you’d know godly obedience is not the norm. Have you heard of St Trinians? If anything, the veil of religion is an excuse to misbehave, because you can just go out on Saturday and confess to a priest on Sunday and it’s all fine with The Big G by Monday.
Naturally, I don’t expect two men to know this. However, it’s their job to check.
Part of the rationale of mixed sex schools was to reduce rebellion caused by sexual frustration, by channeling it socially. It has been moderately successful, except class sizes present a new issue.
The above incompetent management issue applies to religious schools for boys as well, that also have rampant abuse (fagging), pedophilia and homosexual problems... don’t ask the ‘hard’ questions though, guys. Very manly.

“Once upon a time, they note, a ‘country vicar’ had lots of free time to research” –botany, no
You can’t build a quantum tunnel in the average English garden. Stop it. Citizen science is dead barring medical trial subjects.
Ironically, those botanical studies led to the theory of evolution. It is strange to read a man who clearly doesn’t believe in evolution, make references to biology that stands on it.
There were also scientific nuns. They do not get a look-in (ever) although they meet the criteria of being both heavily religious and scientific….
Moreover, the search for Adam and Eve led to fossil studies. It’s almost like you can’t suppress epistemic truth and this upsets idiots.

“The genius has no institution to nurture him and his potential will not be fulfilled.”
He has never needed one, he needs a shed.
Scholarly pursuits didn’t begin in the Middle Ages!

Let’s wrap this up a little.

The problems are thrice:
1. if everyone is equal, nobody is special and there’s no such thing as genius. We don’t need to worry about it or nurture it because we must deal with the dullards and dunces, who need us the most, say the low-IQ themselves, who want to feel superior to someone.
2. if geniuses can’t get credit and funding, they can’t do anything. Duh. Science has a price tag.
3. if geniuses somehow happen to succeed, society looks for any way to tear them down out of envy, from claims about mental illness (currently, autism) to political reasons or simply Tall Poppy Syndrome.

Obviously.

“But we have reached a point where our lives are so secure, and where death is so remote, that we no longer believe that our lives, or our society, has eternal significance.”
All Cultures Are Equal lies. PC censorship, yes, we know about.
Punishment of in-group preference.
I mean, these concepts aren’t hard to research.
Most exist on wikipedia, for beginners.
“Western society is selfish; the human race is damaging the Earth.”
Those are two separate points. Europe is the only continent below replacement level.
We are the only sustainable continent. No conversation on sustainability can be had until we address population. The Left thinks it owns the environment as a topic, but they’re really retaining ground so we cannot discuss this in the mainstream, public spheres (denying a platform?)…
“In addition, our high level of comfort means that the problems with which a genius may now grapple are either too theoretical to care about or too long-term to think about now.”
Lie.
“He will cause offence and question the dogmas which give us the comfort of certainty all for the sake of a problem so distant that most of us can postpone thinking about it.”
Lie. I’m sick of these sweeping statements that pretend to be scientific. You get some jumped-up upper-middle class white prick who thinks he’s the next Hitchens because he ‘cares’ about XYZ topic (right-wing virtue signalling). Hitchens read books before mouthing off. For many years. Go back to reddit if you want delusions of grandeur.
“In this context, of life not being serious, we would expect the genius to be pilloried.”
How is life less serious now for anyone paying attention? Literally how? Where is my surfboard to coast?
It’s more serious and seriously depressing than ever!
Sweeping statements!
Geniuses are not insulted, they are denied. They are disqualified so as to be ignored! The findings may as well not have happened!
The cultural message is Noblesse Oblige is dead. We don’t need you, we haz iPhones.
Unmentioned goes the fact that most illustrious scientists were members of the aristocracy. I guess Neoreaction slices a little too close to the nerves!

Academia just replicates the environment of aristocracy – badly.
Look up the story of ‘snob’.

“And geniuses are more sensitive than most.”
In themselves, yes. Externally? Have you read the stories about Newton? He was a Grade A pillock socially, a total misanthrope who neither cared about nor sought approval. It was awesome.
He was worse than House. #herogoals
But I suppose the author wants to self-identify (Hello, Millennial) with Illustrious Status Group by the convenient emotions of existence. Why? If what you’ve written in that very paragraph is true, you’d be signalling anything you could that you were anything BUT a genius, if they’re so openly reviled!
Common sense, there is not.

“Life will become harsher and simpler and, eventually, more religious.”
This is already happening with economics and I linked to Jaymans exemplary coverage of liberal fertility being a feature, not a bug.
They tend to assume all religion is good for science though, when clearly it’s just the one (Protestantism) that allows it.
Not one big Mormon scientist, is there? Catholicism literally killed people for doing maths during the Renaissance. We could be living on other planets and piloting flying cars by now if the Pope weren’t a thing (and nothing in scripture says we need one). The Bible actually says to beware of false prophets who try to replace scripture and that God wants his followers to be happy and prosperous. That would be an easier sell, huh? Human rights aren’t really negotiable if you want someone’s labour so persuasion is the trick.
“At the moment, it seems that there’s nothing we can do to stop this short of a horrendous reversion to pre-Industrial levels of child mortality.”
We won’t stop magically knowing how child-rearing has evolved, this kind of knowledge isn’t academic. It’s preserved in the matrilineal line. This is obvious.
No blackpills unless they’re real.

“But if we could better nurture genius then somebody might come up with a solution before it is too late.”
Almost sounds like the entire point of eugenics. And do you want historical reversion or progress? Biblical living standards or First World ones? Decide. Pick one.
Also, way to pass the fucking buck. You want it? You do it, prick.

These people say they’re So Smart (complete with IQ claims) …but not smart enough to get off their arse and actually do something.

Sure thing, kid. And they call us damsels.

Your armchair philosophy is gonna Save Da World.

Adults in the room, inwardly:

Why should a Feynman work for you?… There is no sane answer to this question. Rand’s stake of a point in the heart of greedy vampire societies that don’t appreciate the people who make it so good. Marx said who do you work for? Rand says WHY.
God-damn the entitlement of normies to the hard-earned property of the intellectual.
Fruits of one’s labour, a human right. Read your philosophy, child. Sowing, reaping…

It justifies the homesteading and other stuff you advocate when civilization ‘dies?’ If tribes in the middle of nowhere can acknowledge this, the higher IQ should be able to wrap our heads around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property#Exclusive_ownership_and_creation
Anything less is slavery. It’s a theft of one’s LIFE-TIME.

It is evil. Bible says a man who will not work, should not eat.

Aaron Clarey has actually covered this, there is no greed, there is only theft. It’s well-known in economics that anything less than a choice is force. That’s left-wing, isn’t it? All working [no leisure, no robots] … according to his abilities…[like you can work above them?] in a kind of commune [rejects family]… that contains everyone [supranationalism, no borders, open borders]… for universalism, a value. [we call this multiculturalism, still]
A little on the theft and self-ownership angle. This isn’t egalitarianism in the modern variation that doesn’t work, it’s from humanism, originally.

Click to access ib-p7-plt-handout-1.pdf

At most, they the producer get to choose to limit it to potential consumers as they see fit – exclusive to themselves, genetic kin…not everyone. This is Polyanna stupidity, Bill Gates has kept most of his fortune and he’s meant to be the nice one. As stated above, taking things from geniuses is part of the Problem TM. No regulation, no oversight, no Nanny State. Control is part of the ownership conditions. I don’t get to decide to sell your house. They got to that point, you didn’t – they earned the right to tell you to fuck off and build your own spaceship.

Pearls of wisdom are not for the herd of swine. Nope.

“The genius will combine this very narrow intelligence with very narrow interests.”
Hahahahahaha, you’ve never met one, have you?
They take time to decide on topics and between those, they rove. See von Neumann.
Don’t believe the Hollywood trope of a man in slacks sitting in front of a blackboard screaming WHYYYYYY? at the air (or God?) and throwing balled-up pieces of paper at his coworkers who JUST. DON’T. UNDERSTAND. Like that’s *their* problem. The tortured genius is trite and over-used as a metaphor for teenage angst.

STAHP.


“He’ll also be socially awkward and eccentric.”
Define this. Everyone is a weirdo once you get to know them for a few years.
Do you mean autism?
Rain Man wasn’t autistic.
Stop.
Being.
Stupid.
Question.
Your.
Assumptions.

Priors. Whatever fancy fucking name you want. If it makes you feel clever, delta/gamma-tier.

I proceed, insulting nobody in particular.

“They tend to be useless at everyday things”
I knew. I just kneeeew the digs would come in eventually. Point three.
Do you mean all of these people are savants?
No.
And you don’t technically need to be autistic to have savant or splinter skills.

Do they look this up?

*whispers* NO.

INTELLIGENCE IS NOT A DISEASE.
DO NOT PATHOLOGISE IT.

WHY AM I YELLING.
BECAUSE IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THIS CRITIQUE AND I LIKE YELLING, IT’S 5AM HERE.

If you actually want a society led by people better than you (some kind of aristocracy cmon), to care and take care of you, then don’t play into the enemy’s mind games.

“they are very fragile people and they are not usually interested in money”
Are they children? Can they not develop? Well, if you’re basing that last on the tenured….
“They need long-term security so that they do not have to worry about ordinary things, which they not interested in and are no good at.”
I feel basing this on mathematical niche SWPL men of the 20th century America is a method flaw.
Einstein is not the prototypic genius. Read more.
He became famous as a meme. The tongue meme. You know the one.

“If we can make these changes, insist Dutton and Charlton, then in spite of declining intelligence, it is possible that a genius may be produced who can develop a solution to this problem”

And I must scream.
What problem.
Define the problem.
HOW.
Use your four operational brain cells.
IF no geniuses = problem, how can we sprout one like a magic beanstalk of N-IQ?
IF intelligence is declining, surely plug the leak in the boat before you begin to bail?
IF there are geniuses, give them the media platform. Give them power. The media platform is the biggest problem because it encourages the stupid. Stop the comedies and MTV reality shit, even the ones you like you must give up America. It’s like taking a dummy from a baby, for much the same reasons.
IF academia is the problem, it isn’t geniuses then, is it? It’s the Cultural Marxist structure that is hostile to anyone that tells the truth.
IF someone had a solution, none of you would listen. That’s your own point, by the way!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Being lectured about degeneracy from a resident of New York.
The irony is five miles deep into Chomsky’s rectal cavity.

I quit this topic, for like… five months, until I’ve forgotten why I hate it again.

I already know the default reaction to this post, for example.

How shitposty do I have to be for you to listen to me? This is proof of what I mean, you complain everything spoonfeeds but then throw the rattle when someone dares break it down because it wasn’t how you’d do it. That’s the purpose of teaching, dumbass. You can’t yet. It wouldn’t work.

It isn’t personal, it’s societal. Not everything is about you.

Get new rhetorical strikes, please. Buy some. Get a GF pillow and a sense of humour too.
Next there’ll be a series of E-books on How to Save Western Civ and step one is grab the testes’ cream…
None of this will be glib, for we are truly the damned. How can you fix people who brag about being broken? How can you save what you can’t find? How can you cooperate with people who turn everything into a WWF match?

Video: The psychological idea of God

Convert an atheist to hierarchical norms today!

See: Why mockery?

Signalling is Freudian signifiers.
>Checkmate, atheists.

People who claim Freud was wrong about sexuality still get the most ripe interpretations of inkblots despite sleeping around. Stop flirting with Wicca and commit to Christ.

egocentrism is fine, a weak superego is terrible

A lot of supposed nihilists are just Freudians with no clue how to interpret.

Speaking of impossible memes (because you find nihilism to have meaning) – cognitively.

How is a meme qualitatively different from an idea?

Meme is such a pretentious way to discredit any faith by coaching it in pseudo-Darwinian paradigms. Thoughts do not guide behaviour, it is values and those arise from cultural principles. Religion shows the shifts in paradigm of cultural dominance over time.

Today my pill is so red it shifts into the UV spectra.

Iconography is not the territory.
Virtue signalling is the modern Pietism. These basic bitch Pharisees.
Remember to self-flagellate with your Father’s disappointment today!

The power of prayer proven by science

This is why we bless things.

Click to access Shiah2013.pdf

Positive vibes – positive outcomes.
They used monks, not priests. Should’ve studied many faiths, that would’ve been funny.

Some would’ve succeeded, others would’ve failed.

He did another couple of studies about emotional discharge and ice crystal formation.
TLDR: Ugly thoughts, crappy crystals.
Maybe that explains why leftists are so ugly, all that hating stuff. Can’t be good for the complexion.

The genius of Swami Vivekananda

I am not averse to admitting foreign genius, in fact, I wish I had a surplus to talk about. This man has long been overlooked by traditionalists online.
If the name seems familiar, he was friends with Mr Tesla.


I do like some of the Eastern mystics but it’s trying to source pure translations, untainted by modern bias.

Many of his works can be found for free online though, if you want a go.


I made Diogenes big again by telling everyone that story about the chicken. The Tesla connection should be enough for Swami. We need to get more good quotes out there, more civic ideas, to drown out the celebrities.

These uplifting quotes are merely positive memes.

If we could find the canon of philosophy that makes Asians so based, Whites would be more competitive.

It is difficult to quibble with someone who believes in you.

Much like Tesla and all other men who don’t feel threatened by ability, he praised women too, and our ability to make society good.

“The natural ambition of woman is through marriage to climb up , leaning upon a man but those days are gone . You shall be great without the help of any man , just as you are .”

That is a role model.