Source: Original Site Post

  • Responding to Chomsky

    Questions

    1. The issues raised by identity politics are real and significant?  His distinction between “tactical choices” and “general positions”?
    2. That climate change is an existential threat?
    3. His assertion that the right is devoted to the destruction of units of organized society as evidenced by withdrawal from the Paris Agreement?
    4. How about his take on the extreme anti-war left of the 60’s?
    5. Public vs. private media? The Founders believing that the government should have an active role in the promotion of the free press?
    6. American libertarianism being the ultra right advocacy of private tyrannies?

    —A follower

      [A]ll political conflict in the west was made possible only by the inclusion of women into the franchise without providing them with a separate house, thereby preserving the ability of the classes to negotiate for their interests in honest public discourse, while adding the participation women who have opposing genetic interests and intuitions to that of men, as another class with yet another set of intersets. So, all political conflict consists of the unstated and political unpleasant: it’s just the eugenic masculine european right against dysgenic feminine and anti-european left and in the postwar period the suppression of eugenics has created the crisis of the age, and threatened to reverse all human civlization to another semitic dark age.

    Q: His distinction between “tactical choices” and “general positions”? (Context, Activism)

    [T]here is always room for new solutions consisting of trades between the classes, to compensate for vast almost unimaginable differences in ability between the classes, and the vast differences in productivity and value to mankind between the classes. There is never room for shaming, ridiculing, moralizing, psychologizing, gossiping, rallying, undermining, and reputation destruction for the vast genetic differences, vast productive differences, and vast value differences between the classes. Either an individual or group is engage in falsehood, irreciprocity, and particularly institutional irreciprocity we call ‘rent seeking’, or political rent seeking we call ‘corruption’, regardless of the proportionality of their returns on ability and effort, wherein we can take that individual or group to court for fraud and theft, or theft by rent seeking or corruption – or we can offer an exchange of trade by political negotiation for what we want, as long as we have something to offer. But without the other parties engaging in fraud, theft, rent seeking or corruption, the only reason a people have ‘wants’ is because they have failed to produce eugenically enough, and have failed to invest in their offspring enough, and failed to engaging in manners, norms, ethics, morals and commons enough, that they cannot themselves engage in fraud, theft(reallocation), or redistribution (rent seeking, corruption). You have less than others in a market economy because you and your family have chosen poorly. So how can you choose less poorly? Well you can demand rule of law instead of socialism. You can not seek redistribution, rent-seeking, or corruption. You can not engage in lying, fraud, theft, conspiracy. And you can ‘clean your room, clean your house, clean your hard, clean your neighborhood, and clean your city, clean your nation, and clean your government of human parasitic filth. Or you can do what islam does, and christianity encourages, which is reduce everyone in every civilization possible to the same low genetic, cultural, ethical, moral standard – and remain equal in superstition, ignorance, poverty and disease, and blame others for your condition.

    2. Q: That climate change is an existential threat?

    [T]here is no threat from climate change, per say, it a byproduct of a threat to the planet due to over population of the underclasses outside of the first world, now invading the first world, and reversing genetic evolution, reversing institutional, cultural and knowledge evolution, and engaging in hyper-consmption to do so. In fact there is nothin dangerous to this planet and the ecosystem which extensive sterilization and universal one child policies will not solve in a few generations. There are no environmental problems that are not the result non-western people failing to repeat the western miracle of soft eugenic reduction of the underclasses through manorialism, requirement for property and income before marriage and reproduction, and the redistribution of reproduction from the underclasses that are genetic cultural informational, institutional, and genetic dead weight on man and planet.

    3. Re: That the right is devoted to the destruction of units of organized society

    [T]he right is devoted to the expansion of market economies and with it the eugenics that occur from the exchange of the value of reproduction to consumption. The right was stopped from the american eugenic program because of Hitler (even if he was right), and because the Nazi movement came after increases in underclass voting, and therefore it was impossible to restore institutional eugenics to compensate for new rates of reproduction. Instead, europe has gone from IQ parity with the Ashkenazi, and IQ superiority to asia, to rapidly approaching second if not third world intelligence levels – thus declining american productivity, financialization of the economy, and rapid underclass immigration to compensate for taxing the middle class out of reproductivity, all to maintain economic velocity, and as a consequence the generation of demand for redistribution and authoritarian state – ending western miracle of rule of law and markets in everything made possible by developing a ratio of talent to market productivity, because the underclasses are not competitive in the world economy given the present much higher standard of living in the western world.

    4. Re: How about his take on the extreme anti-war left of the 60’s?

    [T]he war against communism is largely the cause of the crisis of western civilization, largely because the jewish intellectuals could obtain a foothold in overthrowing Russia that they could not obtain in other western countries. Then the could use Russia as the economic and military asset with which to destroy western civilization’s invention of Aristotelian reason, roman banking, templar banking, the Hanseatic League, the european age of sail, the empirical revolution, the scientific revolution, and the restoration of western civilization after the jewish, christian and islamic destruction and reduction to ignorance superstition poverty and dysgenia of every great civilization of the the ancient world by false promise of equality to women, slaves, underclasses and the dim and ignorant. The anti-war left was an intentional migration of the left wing from fomenting class warfare between the working and the middle classes, due to the worldwide failure of marxism and communism evident by 1960. The communists under the Frankfurt school had early recognized the impossibility of undermining the rule of law, and open economy of western civilization because it was raising humanity out of poverty so rapidly. The first use of undermining America in the Russian model was labor, then Frankfurt against art values history, and culture, then the Postmodern revolution by french jews under Derrida, which was used by Alinsky and others to transform the anti-war movement’s effort to undermine western defeat of communism and underclass reversal of eugenic and market civilization, to generation of identitarian conflict between races, regions, and to open the American doors via the immigration act to underclasses to help in undermining western civlization as they had undermined Slavic civlization and set them back two hundred years – and cost humanity 100M deaths. although we should note that the left would have failed in every single lie and false promise if not for radical immigration and the taxation of the middle classes out of reproduction. Now, within the past few years we have: (a) ended the pseudoscientific lie of the blank slate showing yes our differences are genetic not environmental (reversing boazianism); (b) ended the pseudoscientific lie of uniformity of cognition or other than rationality of human action (reversing freudianism); (c) ended the pseudoscientific lie that the genders are not profoundly different(reversing feminism); (d) ended the indifference of intelligence and character (postmodern, and feminist denialism); (e) and this year we are ending the indifference between the races and subraces. (e) And I”m in the process of ending the entire Abrahamic program of false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from hazard, plausible deniability of blame due to the victim’s volition (instead of european warranty of due diligence, and your involuntary liability for those statements), using the abrahamic methods of pilpul (sophism) and critique (straw manning and undermining) – rather than providing a reciprocally beneficial alternative, and engaging in trades for mutual benefit, without tempting humans into hazard, causing their hazard, and profiting from the harm you did to them. ie: alcohol dealing, drug dealing, prostitution, pornography, usury, the pseudosciences (marxism, boazianism, fruedianism, frankfurtian critique), sophism (postmodernism) and denialisms (feminism) … … And the very big one: the myth that people are oppressed rather than converted from semi domesticated animals into fully domesticated animals the same way we domesticated every plant and animal: by controlling reproduction thru limiting reproduction to those that created value rather than loss, and culling from the herd those that created loss: shrills(women), gossips (women), liars(both), prostitutes (women), thieves(both), the risky, lazy, violent and disruptive (men), brigands(men), through aggressive use of punishment, public punishment, hanging everyone possible, asylums(mostly women), prisons(mostly men), men in war, winter starvation of the lazy, and a many people through endless recursive plagues.

    5. Public vs. private media? The Founders believing that the government should have an active role in the promotion of the free press?

    [T]he government had no interests in a free press, and while the second amendment had no debate whatsoever, because it was so obvious, the freedom of the press was the subject of hottest debate, and their inability to separate truthful from untruthful, speech because of the lingering presence of theology, and because they wanted to preserve the various protestant sects and their liberty in faith, they felt it necessary. The post office like the postwar highway system had nothing to do with freedom of speech it had everything to do with politics, war, holding new territory, and commerce, because time delays on this huge continent were a serious problem not satisfied until the telegraph. (My contribution is to repair this deficiency in our law by incorporating the criteria for reciprocal and truthful speech in public to the public on matters public.).

    6. RE: American libertarianism being the ultra right advocacy of private tyrannies?

    [T]he dominance and defensive position of corporations exists because of the excesses of labor as the industrial revolution kicked in, and the alliance of excess labor immigrated after the revolution kicked in, particularly after 1890 and up until the depression, with the communists, that put labor and industry at odds in politics. This is why businesses left the country. Instead of asking for defense against loss, the unions asked for premiums on labor that destroyed depression, postwar industrial international competitiveness, and forced companies to exit the USA labor market. It is one thing to not lose your job because your supervisor is a scumbag, or your business is trying to save nickel for shareholders, and another to extract pensions, high salaries, and benefits not available to the middle classes who are logarithmically more productive and valuable to the rest of the polity. But again labor was sold a false promise by communists using the abrahamic method of deceit to play upon their ignorance by casting genetic differences and economic realities as if they were family morality tales. The problem today has nothing to do with corporations which overpay everyone in very role because of the economic affects of concentration of markets in cities. It has everything to do cheap immigrant labor driving down unskilled and semi-skilled wages, and the financial system which again, takes advantage of false promise, baiting into hazard, justification using pilpul, and critique to distract you by calling it a business problem. There is absolutely no reason you pay interest on a house, a car, education, appliances, even clothes and furniture. Entertainment and food if you pay for with interest you deserve the hell you put yourself into – because your bad (defective, undomesticated) animal genes are showing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeWWz4y1coU

  • “Curt, What Do You Mean by ‘Serialization’?”

    “CURT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘SERIALIZATION’?” (important) (core)

    —“What is serialization?”—Duke Newcomb

    (From the P-Method of “Disambiguation, Serialization, and Operationalization”) [B]efore using a term, define the term, by researching the etymology of the term (history), then collecting all synonyms and antonyms (and etymology) and organizing them into one or more series by common properties. We use serialization to force disambiguation between terms that appear similar but are not equal for use in naming(referencing) or deduction. This is how we converted common language into a fully commensurable system of measurement, and expose our errors, and our ignorance, and most sophisms whether a deceit-fallacy, ideal-verbal, pseudoscientific-magical, or supernatural-occult Examples using ‘True’: DUE DILIGENCE AS CONSTANT RELATIONtautologically true, idealistically true, testimonially(really) true, honestly true, impulsively true. and: DECIDABILITY AS CONSTANT RELATIONincomprehensible, comprehensible(understandable), agreement(on understanding), preferential(for me), good(mutually preferential), testimonially true (decidable); ideally true(logically), or tautologically true(identical). Some Other Examples on our site, particularly after item seven: https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/the-cheat-sheet/ It’s sort of like (exactly like) creating a number line, or a series of points on a line. The number line creates a system of measurement by some underlying constant relation (in the case of numbers, position), and then points on a line which test conformity to the constant relation (constant positional relation between n-dimensional positions. Operationalism is a bit harder: writing complete sentences as transactions with a consistent point of view, in ePrime. Testimonial Operationalism is a bit harder: writing those same complete sentences as promissory observations, Operationalism into Acquisition, Property-in-toto, and Reciprocity is a bit harder. This requires you start using economics of human behavior. But once you get there by combining serialization, operationalism, and acquisitionism, you have the formal logic of all human language – a universal commensurable system of measurement for human speech. “The Grammars” just provide a sort of (precise) equivalent to the table of fundamental particles, the periodic table of the elements, the dimensions of geometry, except, for all human language from the logics on one end to lying on the other, and with the Grammars you can learn rather easily to quickly recognize what techniques others are using to justify their ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, or deceit. This is why I usually refer to the P-Method as the ‘Geometry of Thought”. Because just as Descartes restored mathematics to geometry, The british empiricists restored testimony to geometry (empiricism, I’m restoring all language to geometry. By geometry I mean real (aristotle) constant relations(engineering), instead of ideal (platonic) constant relations(literary association), or supernatural(semitic) constant relations (astrology, making-stuff-up (ie: lying)). However this big picture of the differences caused by the civilizational origins of their thought and it’s incorporation into the their rationalizations and language, and metaphysics, and habits, is invisible to almost everyone. I just write it here so the few who might want to see that pattern can discover it. -Curt

  • “Curt, What Do You Mean by ‘Serialization’?”

    “CURT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘SERIALIZATION’?” (important) (core)

    —“What is serialization?”—Duke Newcomb

    (From the P-Method of “Disambiguation, Serialization, and Operationalization”) [B]efore using a term, define the term, by researching the etymology of the term (history), then collecting all synonyms and antonyms (and etymology) and organizing them into one or more series by common properties. We use serialization to force disambiguation between terms that appear similar but are not equal for use in naming(referencing) or deduction. This is how we converted common language into a fully commensurable system of measurement, and expose our errors, and our ignorance, and most sophisms whether a deceit-fallacy, ideal-verbal, pseudoscientific-magical, or supernatural-occult Examples using ‘True’: DUE DILIGENCE AS CONSTANT RELATIONtautologically true, idealistically true, testimonially(really) true, honestly true, impulsively true. and: DECIDABILITY AS CONSTANT RELATIONincomprehensible, comprehensible(understandable), agreement(on understanding), preferential(for me), good(mutually preferential), testimonially true (decidable); ideally true(logically), or tautologically true(identical). Some Other Examples on our site, particularly after item seven: https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/the-cheat-sheet/ It’s sort of like (exactly like) creating a number line, or a series of points on a line. The number line creates a system of measurement by some underlying constant relation (in the case of numbers, position), and then points on a line which test conformity to the constant relation (constant positional relation between n-dimensional positions. Operationalism is a bit harder: writing complete sentences as transactions with a consistent point of view, in ePrime. Testimonial Operationalism is a bit harder: writing those same complete sentences as promissory observations, Operationalism into Acquisition, Property-in-toto, and Reciprocity is a bit harder. This requires you start using economics of human behavior. But once you get there by combining serialization, operationalism, and acquisitionism, you have the formal logic of all human language – a universal commensurable system of measurement for human speech. “The Grammars” just provide a sort of (precise) equivalent to the table of fundamental particles, the periodic table of the elements, the dimensions of geometry, except, for all human language from the logics on one end to lying on the other, and with the Grammars you can learn rather easily to quickly recognize what techniques others are using to justify their ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, or deceit. This is why I usually refer to the P-Method as the ‘Geometry of Thought”. Because just as Descartes restored mathematics to geometry, The british empiricists restored testimony to geometry (empiricism, I’m restoring all language to geometry. By geometry I mean real (aristotle) constant relations(engineering), instead of ideal (platonic) constant relations(literary association), or supernatural(semitic) constant relations (astrology, making-stuff-up (ie: lying)). However this big picture of the differences caused by the civilizational origins of their thought and it’s incorporation into the their rationalizations and language, and metaphysics, and habits, is invisible to almost everyone. I just write it here so the few who might want to see that pattern can discover it. -Curt

  • @rasterman Not really. You can follow along, or I wait until the video comes out

    @rasterman
    Not really. You can follow along, or I wait until the video comes out. It’s written but I haven’t recorded it. but it’s not that hard: take an idea, look up the synonyms and antonyms, organize them by something they have in common,, then define them in operational language (beginning with eprime). learning how to do that takes practice. But if you see the examples I create regularly it will make sense.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 02:38:36 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/103020699075544089

  • Masculine and Feminine Anti-Social Behavior

    Now, for men, you know, we get stressed trying to preserve an edifice, but we’ll eventually adapt to one if it means membership in a Team – because we have quite a bit of agency. Men tend to physically demonstrate anti social behavior. But ‘Crazy Chicks’ have a much harder time: they demonstrate anti-social behavior interpersonally and socially and they have lower agency – greater impulse – on average in the first place. Men are also more likely to live in physical and abstract reality where women more likely to live in (spend cognitive prediction in) emotional, interpersonal and social reality – all of us spend time in different distributions of sensory, physical, emotional, social, and abstract thought, which only reinforces the same emphasis over time. This means that while men and women have similar difficulties suppressing anti-social behavior, that (a) men’s are less tolerable but harder to mask (b) women’s are less visible and easier to mask. And the principle problem with ‘crazy chicks’ is that they can preserve the mask until they can’t, and when they can’t they hyper-react interpersonally and socially and never stop, whereas men hyper-react physically but eventually stop. All identified categories of human action are of necessity hyperbolic – maximizing our ability to disambiguate causality, and search and identify causes of instances – and all individual instances consist of multiple competing influences each of which we categorize hyperbolically out of necessity. This is the scientific method applied to high causal density. The opposite technique – again favored by women who engage largely in empathy(experiential, specific, and inter-personal) rather than largely systematizing(material, general, and political) – is to conflate and not disambiguate and instead empathize for the purpose of education or compromise. Where men disambiguate and aggregate, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining or defending LIMITS. so women are much more bottom up in their social intuition (opportunities) and men much more top down (limits). So crazy chicks are far higher a population problem than ‘crazy men’ at present principally because they are not regulated as are crazy men, and they are not regulated as are crazy men because the range of their damage is interpersonal and rather than material and political. As such we must spend time either regulating crazy chick behavior as we have crazy men behavior, or we must reverse the influence of crazy chicks in politics. I know we can accept defeat and remove crazy chicks from politics. But I’m exploring how we can regulate and retrain crazy chicks like we do crazy men. Although it appears nearly impossible, there is some evidence that the use of psychedelics and training may help. Mental illness cannot be cured – and even rarely improved. But aberrant behavior might be curable. Trauma certainly is, and much of that behavior appears to be caused by trauma – even though many of those traumas are cumulative grains of sands rather than distinct catastrophic events.

  • Masculine and Feminine Anti-Social Behavior

    Now, for men, you know, we get stressed trying to preserve an edifice, but we’ll eventually adapt to one if it means membership in a Team – because we have quite a bit of agency. Men tend to physically demonstrate anti social behavior. But ‘Crazy Chicks’ have a much harder time: they demonstrate anti-social behavior interpersonally and socially and they have lower agency – greater impulse – on average in the first place. Men are also more likely to live in physical and abstract reality where women more likely to live in (spend cognitive prediction in) emotional, interpersonal and social reality – all of us spend time in different distributions of sensory, physical, emotional, social, and abstract thought, which only reinforces the same emphasis over time. This means that while men and women have similar difficulties suppressing anti-social behavior, that (a) men’s are less tolerable but harder to mask (b) women’s are less visible and easier to mask. And the principle problem with ‘crazy chicks’ is that they can preserve the mask until they can’t, and when they can’t they hyper-react interpersonally and socially and never stop, whereas men hyper-react physically but eventually stop. All identified categories of human action are of necessity hyperbolic – maximizing our ability to disambiguate causality, and search and identify causes of instances – and all individual instances consist of multiple competing influences each of which we categorize hyperbolically out of necessity. This is the scientific method applied to high causal density. The opposite technique – again favored by women who engage largely in empathy(experiential, specific, and inter-personal) rather than largely systematizing(material, general, and political) – is to conflate and not disambiguate and instead empathize for the purpose of education or compromise. Where men disambiguate and aggregate, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining or defending LIMITS. so women are much more bottom up in their social intuition (opportunities) and men much more top down (limits). So crazy chicks are far higher a population problem than ‘crazy men’ at present principally because they are not regulated as are crazy men, and they are not regulated as are crazy men because the range of their damage is interpersonal and rather than material and political. As such we must spend time either regulating crazy chick behavior as we have crazy men behavior, or we must reverse the influence of crazy chicks in politics. I know we can accept defeat and remove crazy chicks from politics. But I’m exploring how we can regulate and retrain crazy chicks like we do crazy men. Although it appears nearly impossible, there is some evidence that the use of psychedelics and training may help. Mental illness cannot be cured – and even rarely improved. But aberrant behavior might be curable. Trauma certainly is, and much of that behavior appears to be caused by trauma – even though many of those traumas are cumulative grains of sands rather than distinct catastrophic events.

  • @rasterman Not some wars, ALL WARS

    @rasterman
    Not some wars, ALL WARS.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 17:00:44 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102967466023143529

  • @rasterman I don’t know enough from what I can gather there, but islam is not go

    @rasterman I don’t know enough from what I can gather there, but islam is not good for people at all either. So while he’s practicing bias, and error, he’s not using GSRRM or baiting into hazard, or sophism or any other abrahamic technique.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 22:46:24 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102963162946021975

  • No The Problem Isn’t Race. It’s Demographics (Class) (In Arabic)

    1. هل يمكن لذوي الذكاء المنخفض مثل العرب أن يتفوقوا على الأوروبيين معنويا وعسكريا ودبلوماسيا وقانونيا واقتصاديا؟ من الخطأ دائمًا قول هذا. الذكاء البشري يختلف عن القوة. بعض قوي بعض أضعف ، وبعض ذكي ، وبعض غير ذكي. بغض النظر عن عدد الرجال ، رجل واحد سيكون دائما أكثر ذكاء ، وذكاء رجل واحد أكثر ميزة من قوة رجل واحد. إن المشكلة بالنسبة للعرب ، مثل إفريقيا ، مثل الهند ، مثل أمريكا الجنوبية ، هي أكبر من عدد الأشخاص الموجودين في القاع ، وهي أكبر بكثير من أعداد الأشخاص الموجودين في القمة. هذا هو كل شيء يعني الذكاء. يجب أن يكون الرقم أعلى حتى تكون الحقيقة وسيادة القانون ممكنة بدون فساد. ويجب أن يكون أعلى بالنسبة للناس لإنتاج السلع التي يمكن بيعها في الأسواق العالمية. ويجب أن يكون أعلى لتنظيم الناس عن طريق الحوافز التجارية بدلا من القواعد والأوامر. أي شخص يستخدم قانون P لدينا ، ويبطئ تكاثر الأشخاص السفليين ، سيصبح مثل الأوروبيين في 100 – 150 عامًا. هذا هو وقت قصير جدا لتغيير الحضارة. الديمقراطية لا تستطيع أن تفعل هذا. يمكن للملوك أو الجنرالات فقط القيام بذلك. لأن الفقراء يريدون الترفيه عن طريق الجسم (بسيط) والأثرياء يريدون الترفيه للعقل (معقد). هذه هي المشكلة. المساواة ، على امتداد فترات زمنية طويلة ، مدمرة. هذا هو الدرس المؤلم للمسيحية والإسلام ، والهندوستان ، والصين. ما نريده ليس جيدًا بالنسبة لنا. نريد المخدرات والكحول والدعارة والقتل والسرقة والغش والكذب ، لذلك نعتقد أننا متوسطون وليس القاع. بدلاً من ذلك ، يجب أن نختار الطريق الوسط بين ما نريد ، وما هو جيد بالنسبة لنا ، والسماح لنا بالوقت للقيام بذلك. آمل أن يكون هذا مفيدا.

    ENGLISH QUESTION: Can low-IQ people like Arabs be able to outperform Europeans morally, militarily, diplomatically, legally and economically?ANSWER: It is always a mistake to say this. Human intelligence is more different than strength. Some strong some weaker, Some smart, Some not smart. No matter how many men, one man will always be smarter, and one man’s intelligence more an advantage than one man’s strength. The problem for Arabs, like Africa, like India, like South America, is than the number of people in the bottom, are too many for the number of the people at the top. This is all IQ means. The number must be higher for truth and rule of law to be possible without corruption. And it must be higher for people to produce goods that can be sold on world markets. And it must be higher to organize the people by commercial incentives instead of rules and commands. Any people that uses our P-law, and slows the reproduction of the bottom people, will become like europeans in 100 – 150 years. This is a very short time to change a civilization. Democracy cannot do this. Only kings or generals can do this. Because the poor want entertainment by the body (simple) and the wealthy want entertainment of the mind (complicated). This is the problem. Equality, over long time spans, is destructive. This is the painful lesson of christianity and islam, and Hindustan, and China. What we want is not good for us. We want drugs, alcohol, prostitution, to murder, to steal, to cheat, to lie, so believe we are average rather than the bottom. Instead, we must choose the middle road between what we want, and what is good for us, and let time do it’s work on us. I hope this is helpful.

  • No The Problem Isn’t Race. It’s Demographics (Class) (In Arabic)

    1. هل يمكن لذوي الذكاء المنخفض مثل العرب أن يتفوقوا على الأوروبيين معنويا وعسكريا ودبلوماسيا وقانونيا واقتصاديا؟ من الخطأ دائمًا قول هذا. الذكاء البشري يختلف عن القوة. بعض قوي بعض أضعف ، وبعض ذكي ، وبعض غير ذكي. بغض النظر عن عدد الرجال ، رجل واحد سيكون دائما أكثر ذكاء ، وذكاء رجل واحد أكثر ميزة من قوة رجل واحد. إن المشكلة بالنسبة للعرب ، مثل إفريقيا ، مثل الهند ، مثل أمريكا الجنوبية ، هي أكبر من عدد الأشخاص الموجودين في القاع ، وهي أكبر بكثير من أعداد الأشخاص الموجودين في القمة. هذا هو كل شيء يعني الذكاء. يجب أن يكون الرقم أعلى حتى تكون الحقيقة وسيادة القانون ممكنة بدون فساد. ويجب أن يكون أعلى بالنسبة للناس لإنتاج السلع التي يمكن بيعها في الأسواق العالمية. ويجب أن يكون أعلى لتنظيم الناس عن طريق الحوافز التجارية بدلا من القواعد والأوامر. أي شخص يستخدم قانون P لدينا ، ويبطئ تكاثر الأشخاص السفليين ، سيصبح مثل الأوروبيين في 100 – 150 عامًا. هذا هو وقت قصير جدا لتغيير الحضارة. الديمقراطية لا تستطيع أن تفعل هذا. يمكن للملوك أو الجنرالات فقط القيام بذلك. لأن الفقراء يريدون الترفيه عن طريق الجسم (بسيط) والأثرياء يريدون الترفيه للعقل (معقد). هذه هي المشكلة. المساواة ، على امتداد فترات زمنية طويلة ، مدمرة. هذا هو الدرس المؤلم للمسيحية والإسلام ، والهندوستان ، والصين. ما نريده ليس جيدًا بالنسبة لنا. نريد المخدرات والكحول والدعارة والقتل والسرقة والغش والكذب ، لذلك نعتقد أننا متوسطون وليس القاع. بدلاً من ذلك ، يجب أن نختار الطريق الوسط بين ما نريد ، وما هو جيد بالنسبة لنا ، والسماح لنا بالوقت للقيام بذلك. آمل أن يكون هذا مفيدا.

    ENGLISH QUESTION: Can low-IQ people like Arabs be able to outperform Europeans morally, militarily, diplomatically, legally and economically?ANSWER: It is always a mistake to say this. Human intelligence is more different than strength. Some strong some weaker, Some smart, Some not smart. No matter how many men, one man will always be smarter, and one man’s intelligence more an advantage than one man’s strength. The problem for Arabs, like Africa, like India, like South America, is than the number of people in the bottom, are too many for the number of the people at the top. This is all IQ means. The number must be higher for truth and rule of law to be possible without corruption. And it must be higher for people to produce goods that can be sold on world markets. And it must be higher to organize the people by commercial incentives instead of rules and commands. Any people that uses our P-law, and slows the reproduction of the bottom people, will become like europeans in 100 – 150 years. This is a very short time to change a civilization. Democracy cannot do this. Only kings or generals can do this. Because the poor want entertainment by the body (simple) and the wealthy want entertainment of the mind (complicated). This is the problem. Equality, over long time spans, is destructive. This is the painful lesson of christianity and islam, and Hindustan, and China. What we want is not good for us. We want drugs, alcohol, prostitution, to murder, to steal, to cheat, to lie, so believe we are average rather than the bottom. Instead, we must choose the middle road between what we want, and what is good for us, and let time do it’s work on us. I hope this is helpful.