Category Archives: society

Too stupid to function

Posted on by
30

Recently I watched something shocking:

This fact, that US military won’t recruit people with IQ 83 or under, is both shocking and intuitively clear to me, because I do understand that in the modern world, there’s a decreasing pool of opportunities for stupid people. In a world that is mostly high-tech and sophisticated, marginally retarded people just can’t find anything useful to do, and if they can’t find anything useful to do, it’s either attempt to create a world more to their image, so to speak, basically retarding the modern world by a few centuries, or separate the world into high-IQ one and low-IQ one, basically having a space-age star trek society and a medieval shithole next door, or extinction of low-IQ people because high-IQ people will need the resources and will be able to just take them, or, most likely, extinction of the high-IQ people because the low-IQ ones are more determined, they never have any self-doubt, they are completely certain of their course, God is always on their side, they reproduce at an exponential rate, and the West is unable to defend itself against this threat in any way, due to its current philosophical constraints.

In any case, take a look at this: https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

Guess why some countries are poor, and will always stay poor, without any chance of improvement.

Their average IQ is below the threshold of admittance for the US army, and if you’re too fucking dumb to be trained to be a soldier, well, no comment. Maybe they can find some niche in the sexual industry, to put it nicely. Sure, the average IQ doesn’t tell the whole story, Croatian average IQ is 90, which I have no difficulty believing because most people I meet here are stupid as rocks, but if you come to the university the average IQ would be around the MENSA admittance threshold, so you can obviously have a significant number of very smart people in a society in which majority is borderline retarded. However, having in mind that the average IQ in some societies is near or below completely unemployable, don’t get me started about unequal income levels and social differences. If someone with IQ 83 is below subsistence, and someone with IQ 150 is wealthy, that’s not an unexpected outcome in a society that uses computers, Internet, complex tools and international markets to function. The problem is, what will happen when a huge majority of people falls below a threshold of being able to find a normal job that pays well enough to make a living on the market? I’ll tell you what will happen. They will embrace socialism, because it will be the last straw. They can’t make it in capitalism, they’re too fucking stupid to program computers, make web apps or order cheaper things from Alibaba or Amazon. However, they can still vote, and this will be exploited by people whose IQ is much higher than 83, I guarantee you that, but they will manipulate the stupid disenfranchised masses into voting them into power.

There’s another problem, of course. Our civilization is increasingly demanding. It’s easy to dismiss the IQ 83 people, because I would expect that to be close to the higher-end of the Homo Erectus level of cognition. Heck, Bonobo chimps are quoted as having IQ of over 40 (yes, I know the IQ scale is normalized to 100 relative to a population, and not absolute, so read with this in mind). However, in a simple society such a person can function. He or she can pick berries or cocoa beans. In a modern society, the threshold of dropping out is higher. Projecting this trend into the future, it’s conceivable that at a certain point anyone below MENSA admittance threshold won’t be able to successfully function. Projecting it further, you get to the point where only a few thousand super-smart individuals in a few tech companies will be able to function at a level necessary to make good money, while the rest will be akin to chimps living in a world ruled by men. What happens when having a PhD and IQ of 148 isn’t enough to get a subsistence wage job, because there’s only a few jobs that aren’t automated, and they are basically for astronaut-level qualifications, with multiple science degrees and IQ of over 180? Sure, it’s easy to dismiss stupid people who favor socialism because they can’t make it on the market, but what happens when there’s 8 billion people and only 8000 are qualified to actually do anything worth paying them for?

I’ll tell you what happens. Civilizational collapse, and not in the hypothetical aforedescribed future, but fucking now. That’s the reason why everything is falling apart and socialism became popular. It’s because if you’re not a genius, you’re getting increasingly fucked, and even if you’re a genius your life is unbearably difficult, to the point where you don’t have a life beside work. The whole thing is a nightmare for almost everybody, which is why everybody is sending all those smiling selfies, posturing how wonderful their life is. It’s because their life sucks so much they are afraid all hell is going to break loose if anyone finds out, so they posture online and eat antidepressants like candy in private.

 

About hurricanes and global warming

Posted on by
1

Are the hurricanes caused by global warming? Julian Assange apparently thinks so.

Yes. The globe is warming during the summer, and in the beginning of autumn the oceans are cooling off in a chaotic thermodynamic process called hurricane. This removes the excess of heat accumulated into the oceans; the more heat, and the greater the thermal difference between oceans and atmosphere, the more violent the hurricane.

The funniest thing is, the CO2 model of anthropogenic global warming would actually require the hurricanes to be less violent, because less solar energy accumulated during the summer would be released into space due to the glasshouse effect; this energy would stay here, and cause milder winters, which would in turn cause less growth of the polar ice during the winter, and increased melting during the summer. This would quickly cause the polar caps to melt and the sea levels to rise. The violent hurricanes mean that the energy that would cause this was safely released into space.

Also, the fact that a hurricane is more devastating doesn’t make it stronger. What makes it devastating is when it hits areas with expensive real estate and wealthy people. When it pulverizes Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti or Philippines, and a huge number of poor people lose their cheap homes, everybody shrugs. When it hits St. Bart’s where rich people have their fancy vacations, it’s suddenly the most devastating tragedy ever. The hurricanes didn’t become better or worse – they simply wreck things in their path, and if you’re in their path, you’re fucked. They aren’t the creatures of anthropogenic global warming, they are the creatures of seasonal global cooling. The most devastating one in US history happened 1900 in Galveston. It killed between 6000 and 12000 people, not because it was that huge (it was category 4), but because it hit a densely populated area just right, creating a storm surge of 4.6m. Essentially, it’s the flooding that’s the problem, and when it hits low-lying towns, you can get massive destruction.

According to measurements, global warming between the 1980s and 2017, anthropogenic or otherwise, is in the order of magnitude of a tenth of one degree Celsius (0.1 ºC). This is well within any conceivable margin of error in measurement; essentially, it means no global warming was recorded. It could be argued that any measurements between 1900 and now, that show warming, are due to uncertainty in measurement and local statistic variance, than anything else. Basically, the whole thing is a storm in a teapot. Those minuscule differences amount to exactly jack shit regarding global climate change. In fact, in the 1970s people thought they observed a global cooling trend, and what’s interesting is that the proposed “cure” was the same: it’s the evil capitalist industrial society that’s to blame, and we need more state power to regulate things and wind down the rampant capitalist development, or we’ll end up in an early ice age. Now, it’s we need more state power to regulate things and wind down the rampant capitalist development, or we’ll end up in an glasshouse jungle, the polar caps will melt and the hurricanes will get us all.

It’s all communist bullshit. When the communist bloc fell apart (in fact, when the extent of Stalin’s crimes was revealed), all the university-educated leftist fucktards in the West lost their main hope for communism to rule the world so they switched their world-saving efforts from class warfare to environmentalism. Now they are adding cultural warfare for transgender bathrooms and language policing to the list of their world-saving efforts.

The leftists are not saving the world. They are fucking it up, from French revolution onwards. The only thing those “progressives” are good at is inventing bullshit theories based on which they kill millions and destroy everybody’s lives. The only ones I know of who were actually saving anything and making actual progress are the likes of Jesus and Buddha. The guys publishing “scientific” articles about anthropogenic global warming are just milking the state funding for what it’s worth.

The evil of antifascism

Posted on by
3

What does the extreme-left madness of Antifa and similar groups tell us?

First, that we live in a society which has a very messed up moral compass, because apparently evil is defined as the “extreme right”, as “Nazi” or some other label; and when you look into it, it’s just crazy people hysterically yelling at other people and trying to provoke violence, and if you want to kill people, you need to first make killing them socially acceptable, so you find a group that’s killable (Nazis, right?) and label the people you want to kill as members of that group. You don’t really need evidence if you yell hard enough and pretend to be a victim of something, because victims have the right to be violent “in self-defense”.

Second, we live in a society which is defined by moral standards set by the winners of the second world war, who of course were good and whose vanquished enemies were evil. It’s interesting, however, how throughout history the good guys always happen to win. The Neanderthals lost because there was something wrong with them, Christianity won over the old European religions because it was superior, Islam spread over the Middle East because it was superior, and in both world wars the good guys happened to win. Communism, unfortunately, never did lose a major war, so today there are people who proudly declare themselves Marxists, from the position of moral high ground, as if communism wasn’t the only economic system that’s scientifically proven not to work, and in the process of providing evidence killed hundreds of millions of people.

Instead of defining good vs. evil through winners and losers of the last big war, I have a different idea: how about defining good as most resembling God, and evil as least resembling God? How about defining good as that which is of reality, consciousness, bliss, beauty and wonder, and evil as that which lacks all those things – which is of delusion, stupidity, suffering, ugliness and baseness? Oh shit, that requires thinking, and that’s difficult for bat-wielding communist idiots.

And finally, fuck antifascism and fascism both. Both are evil ideas of the 20th century, that produced only suffering, ignorance and destruction, and if there was anyone truly good in that entire affair, he must be sought among the countless victims of the flag-waving hysterical idiots and murderers who all thought they are the seedlings of a new and better world.

Guess what, assholes: if you want to improve the world, start by being a worthwhile person. Invent something useful, achieve greatness of all kinds and help others achieve it. Meditate on God and shine His light so that others find God by thinking of you. That’s how you fight evil. Being an “antifascist” is how you become evil and do evil.

Arguments in favour of the state

Posted on by
12

The socialists with their push for more taxation and state power went so far, it recently became popular to advocate for complete anarchy and removal of the state. Let me explain why I think it’s a bad idea.

First, you can’t have a professional standing army with expensive weaponry without the state. This means that you would be defenseless against any state actor that adheres to the Roman type of state that collects taxes in order to finance a professional army. I call it “Roman” because it was Rome who did it first, and it’s the reason why it was so successful militarily. You see, everybody else could obey the call to arms and fight an enemy, but after a while they had to return to their harvests and other work or they would have starved. Rome, however, could simply wait for that to happen and then run them over, because its legions had no such constraints on them. They were paid from tax money. They didn’t have fields to plough. They could do war all year, every day. So, basically, the idea that you can have a weak state where independent humans will answer the call to arms in times of war was put to rest about the time of Caesar’s Gallic wars, if not earlier. The idea that you can have a free citizen with a gun as a basis for a militia that will defend the country was put to rest in WW1, with the advent of industrialized warfare and expensive, specialized, sophisticated weaponry. You can have an AR-15 at home as a multi-purpose weapon that would serve you well in times of war, but what about tanks, ships, planes and rockets? You can’t really own those as a citizen “just in case”, and they don’t have a legitimate civilian purpose. However, you must take it as a fact that in any modern war, your enemy will be armed with those, because he will have a modern state that collects taxes and funds military industry and a professional standing army.

So, war is the main reason why you need a state. The problem arises once the state is formed, and various assholes start thinking of places where tax money could be “better spent”, and then you end up with socialism. The irony is, the socialist disasters such as Britain eventually end up with so many social programs and such an expensive state, they run out of money for the military. Croatia is an even worse example – the state apparatus is so expensive, there’s no money left for either the social programs or the military, and this state is so inherently hostile to private entrepreneurship, the entire private sector is in ruins. The example of Greece demonstrates that not even the tourism can save such a state from collapse indefinitely, but it can limp along for quite a long time, as a parasite that grew so large, the host can no longer imagine existing without it.

In the end, I’m ambivalent regarding the state, because I fully understand and accept all the arguments that show its inherent corruption and evil, however I also cannot see some problems being solved without it, and I don’t think the alternative to the centralized state is some idealized libertarian paradise. The most obvious alternative to the centralized state is some form of oligarchy with multiple centers of power, and I don’t really see how multinational corporations would be better than the states. For an average person, the difference would hardly be perceivable. Instead of a professional army you would have private contractors, and the degree of influence of the individual upon the system would be as minimal as it is in “democracy”, where the corporate media tells you what to think and then you cast a vote for one of the pre-selected candidates. The way the system went crazy when Trump was elected contrary to its will, as probably the first actually democratically elected president in modern American history, shows what a sham this system normally is.

How to improve things? Well, you can’t do it with weak individuals. Weak individuals will always need to aggregate in greater social groups, and if you follow this far enough you eventually get a modern state. In order for that to stop making sense, an individual would need to have such a degree of power that would make social aggregation a matter of preference and not existential need.

Posturing oneself into bankruptcy

Posted on by
2

I apologize for not writing any articles in quite a while; work, among other things, had to be prioritized.

I’ve been listening to Dave Ramsey’s YouTube channel; from what I gathered, he’s a personal finance adviser who helps people get out of debt. His recurring advice is to reduce spending, pay off all debt, pay all necessary things with cash and not credit, don’t finance depreciating assets like cars, basically all the standard common-sense stuff. However, what piqued my interest is that people seem to get into debt for similar reasons regardless of their income level – it’s not that they go into debt because they can’t make ends meet, they can’t make ends meet because they spend above their income level. To an outside observer this looks irrational, but I think I get it.

There seems to be strong peer pressure involved, real or imaginary, to send outward signals of being in a higher income bracket than you in fact are, because of both positive and negative expected social attention. The positive attention is “neighbors” assuming you’re doing well and feeling envy, which boosts your ego. The negative attention is inviting scrutiny and competition if you send signals at or below your actual income level. Essentially, it’s like a cat puffing up to appear bigger than it actually is, when facing a potentially threatening situation. If you appear bigger, others will think twice before confronting you. If you appear normal or smaller than you actually are, potentially dangerous challengers might feel encouraged to encroach upon your territory. In such a challenge, you might actually lose, but any challenge is fraught with inherent dangers and if you can avoid it altogether by posturing, the better.

The problem is, posturing might be causing you other problems and might prove to be even more expensive in the long run, so on one hand it’s more dangerous than it appears and is definitely not free, and on the other hand its benefits might be overstated. Sure, you may argue that having an expensive suit, watch and car can give you an advantage in the business world and might land you a deal you would have otherwise missed on, but it is my experience that those kinds of posturing almost never work, and if they appear to, it’s usually an illusion because you landed the deal because of your other merits, and due to low self-confidence you ascribed the result to your paraphernalia. Sure, people will check out your clothes, your watch, your car, your house and other things, both consciously and unconsciously, because that’s what people do, but your competence, knowledge and actual confidence will play a much bigger role than your trinkets. Sure, there are social circles where nothing but posturing matters, but it’s my experience that those are not where the actual money is being made. For each YouTube channel where the author makes videos about his Lamborghini, there’s another channel with more subs where the author simply talks in an interesting way.

So, I conclude that expensive trinkets primarily serve the purpose of alleviating one’s anxiety, insecurity and discomfort in an uncontrolled environment. The more threatened and weak you feel, the greater the need for investing in a protective outward pose. Sure, when you’re trying to make the best possible first impression, it’s useful to check all the expected boxes, basically if people expect you to be wealthy you are expected to drive an expensive car, and if you don’t, they’ll start questioning what’s wrong, and that’s never good. However, your idea of an expensive car might actually be much more expensive than what would suffice for checking the right boxes.  A several years old nice car will do just fine. A brand new car of the same class will not improve the impression. A brand new car from a lower class, that costs more than the older high-end car, will actually be likely to start the gossip. An expensive, but not super-expensive watch might start more questions than a Casio. If you wear a Casio, the assumption is that you don’t care about watches and nobody will give a second thought about it. However, a Frederique Constant will raise the question why you didn’t buy a Jaeger-LeCoultre or a Patek. Too much posturing raises red flags – what is this guy trying to hide? What kind of incompetence, weakness or bullshit is he hiding or trying to sell? I am always suspicious of perfect façade, and trust me, I’m not alone in that. If someone looks wealthier than Bill Gates, I am almost certain he’s some kind of a con artist. If I’m trying to hire a subcontractor for some job, it’s not the guy with the most expensive gadgets who’ll get the contract, but the guy who demonstrates the most straightforward competence in the subject matter. You do, however, need to check the right boxes, or people will instinctively assume there’s something not quite right. You need to dress appropriately for your job, you need to behave appropriately for your expected social role, you need to demonstrate that you generate expected levels of income and own property. The problem starts when people are insecure and assume they need more posturing than would actually do, and in doing so, they kill themselves financially.

Sure, it’s easy for the financial advisers to tell you not to buy a car you can’t really afford, but if you’re socially threatened, if you feel insecure, those fears are strong enough to make you sick or even kill you if you don’t deal with them in some manner, and for most people the most straightforward way requires the least amount of thinking – you just buy expensive shit and live a lifestyle above your income until you’re ruined, and then your self-confidence really collapses and it’s difficult to find your way out of that tunnel. The proper way out of the trap is to gradually build your confidence by realizing people hire and appreciate you for your skills, abilities and character, and not for the things you own. Then you can buy things because you like them, not because they are a shield you desperately cling to, fearing immediate attack on the first sign of weakness.

Don’t get me wrong: you do need to send social signals, and you occasionally do need a shield. Just be careful not to overestimate the amount of shielding you need, lest you spend your way into an early grave. For instance, the price difference between a brand new Mercedes E350 CDI and a two years old Mercedes E220 CDI is a factor of 2. There’s no difference in the strength of a social signal sent by either car in a business environment. There’s no difference in the strength of a social signal sent with a 5000 USD Rolex Explorer and a 20000 USD Jaeger-LeCoultre. They all check the same boxes. The main difference is, if you’re not sure of yourself and you overspend in order to increase your perceived shielding, you will end up bankrupt. Also, your insecurities will cost you dearly in other places, so you’d do well to sort yourself out first.