Vulgar “net brutes” are the norm – they even want to tell us how to behave!

There are so many imbeciles online, I have to force myself to pause and take a break; it’s a waste of time.

I reject transhumanist imbeciles like Steve Hsu, another crude brute who doesn’t understand that his defence of “picking up girls”, which Feynman—his hero …—-apparently introduced him to, is part of the downfall of the West. (He doesn’t even understand that Feynman was not an outlier, despite his accomplishments; he had an IQ of 125, and this is documented. Apart from his profession, he was an average bloke.)

On Gregory Cochran’s blog—I will not link to it—some made fun of high IQ individuals like Rick Rosner or Chris Langan and their biographies. Though in the case of Langan, there really is not much that is not what one would expect, given his high IQ. See Nils M. Holm’s writings about this.

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard—another annoying degenerate who even defends pornography, yet gets classed as “Rightist”! showing what a Clown World this is God forces me to live in!—also displayed his lack of knowledge concerning this topic by requiring a representative sample – which can hardly exist, since people with such high IQs as Rosner and Langan are so rare, there will only be a handful.

To quote Nils M. Holm from his book Bridging the Gap:

[…]

An IQ of 1.5σ is already quite rare. Only about seven percent of the population score that high (or higher), but abstract communication with the average person is still possible.

[…]

A 3σ or higher IQ is simply too rare and this is why there is little literature on the topic and there are few (if any) experts.

[…]

The problems at school will increase the alienation felt at home. The parents of one person I know let their young adult child do an IQ test in order to find out if the child was ‘‘lazy’’ or ‘‘stupid’’. To their big surprise the child scored far into the 3σ range, but the conslusion they drew was that the child must then be lazy, and they withdrew their emotional support even fur ther, because they were ashamed of having a child with such a serious flaw in their personality. The child, of course, registered the shift in perception and lost all confidence that had remained in the relationship with their parents. It is a sad society, indeed, in which the only explanations for trouble with the educational system are laziness and stupidity. At this point the life of the highly intelligent person has taken so many turns that it is impossible to give an account of all the possible outcomes, so here follow some anecdotal snippets gathered from communcation with highly intelligent persons,

(Holm also wrote about highly sensitive people and how they suffer in today’s society – a problem and topic such brutes would only laugh at, of course …)

Further, ragging on peoples’ behaviour, calling them autists and quoting nonsense by Cochran—paraphrased—that stupid people are usually wrong, smart ones correct and really smart ones wrong (or so, it’s from memory) just shows their arrogance.

Another idiot and know-it-all calling himself “gwern”—I came across him earlier, which is why I have had his domain blocked already—knew full well what kind of traits to increase, of course! Traits like agreeableness so that they would “succeed in life”, whatever this means.

It most likely means, given that this is another typically American phrase, to copulate a lot with different women, i. e. to fornicate, make money money money and be a generally greedy and obnoxious person. What if you are born with illnesses and cannot “succeed” in “life”? They are atheists, though, so what do we expect. In the past, parents wanted their children to be well-behaved and faithful in Christ.

To quote Nils M. Holm again:

As most human beings high-IQ people share their thoughts and discoveries, but while most people receive mixed or even predominantly favorable feedback, highly intelligent people often run into a wall of misunderstandings, alienation, and even hostility towards them. There are different ways to cope with this experince. At one extreme, you can be very conscious about everything that goes on inside of yourself and limit the things you say to a subset that you figure out to be safe. At the other extreme, you can turn the problem into a ‘‘virtue’’ and become as arrogant and obtrusive as the people perceive you anyway.

Both of these solutions are unsatisfactory. Withdrawing from interaction with people, either externally, by not meeting many people, or internally, by censoring yourself, means that you will never form a close connection to other people and it also means that those people will never benefit from all the insight you would have to share. Both parties lose. If you become arrogant and maybe even a little pushy, people will avoid forming close connections with you and they may reject things you say, because they do not like you. Both parties lose again. Unfortunately, in our current culture, the second alternative is perceived as more desirable, because at least you will be perceived as intelligent by other people and may become ‘‘successful’’ in a superficial way. The word successful is in quotes here, because having one’s talents exploited for some commercial means, even for good pay, is not something that creates a fulfilled life in the long run. So while the second alternative is perceived as more successful by most, the first one can lead to inner peace and contentment, which is a different (and maybe more desirable) form of success, even if perceived as a ‘‘losing strategy’’ by society at large.

Kant was denigrated as a “shut-in”, which is typical for their level of discourse. Apparently, they are above such “autist losers” like Kant: they are smart and womanizers and successful and so on.

No, they are losers writing comments on another loser’s blog. That is all. You are losers yourself; you are far removed from geniuses like Kant. They don’t read much, I guess, because then they would know that most geniuses—those who really had something to show for, intellectually—were mostly loners. In Goethe’s “Torquato Tasso”, this theme is even taken on, since it’s so common: intelligent people not flocking to the herd but choosing to remain alone, apart from mass events and the like to occupy themselves with their thoughts and ideas.

The commenters on the internet don’t have any ideas and thoughts, they also hardly read books, because this is a rather solitary activity anyway. Most of them are badly-read, uneducated, they are intellectual losers.

Further, most great men of intellectual prowess either led rather quiet lives of the mind, were outright loners or even ended in the gutter. It cannot be any other way in this world, where intellecualt pursuits are not the norm. You are most likely jealous because you want to be important in intellectual matters, but aren’t and never will. I won’t ever either, though I accept this and force myself to live through this awful life that I’m sentenced to live. Did I not fear Christ and His eternal damnation, I’d commit suicide immediately and be done with this circus of a world.

In the end, I think the problem is that most of them are either Americans or influenced by an American way of thinking. Hans Freyer rejected the know-it-all and “go-getter” attitude of the American, just as Gómez Dávila did.

It’s a crude way of looking at the world. It’s also pretty frivolous and cheesy to denigrate others because of perceiving them as autists.

Also interesting to note that I wouldn’t even have read many of such blogs without my passing interest in physical anthropology and IQ research. They appear rather deranged themselves and do not even notice; yet they look down on others like, for example, Terence Tao for apparently being an autist. Who cares? Not only did Tao not come across overly autistic to me—I find Steve Hsu’s grin alone off-putting, not to speak of his crude views—but at least one other commenter dismissed this. Showing how subjective this all is. Similar to this trashy “she’s a ten” nonsense

Do they not notice? Since psychology is the softest science, as Vox Day wrote in response to evolutionary biologists, whose science is only mildly harder, why on earth ought we to take such armchair psychologising by intellectual losers online serious?

Read Shakespeare and shut up, idiots!

Despite what Nils M. Holm writes above, in my case, nothing actually would change my suffering. It is innate, you idiots! I cannot even imagine being as shallow as you guys. You are awful, intellectual vulgar people with nothing to show for. Jealous of those who are of a higher calibre. As if Goethe, Schopenhauer, Montaigne, Pascal, Nietzsche, and a host of other thinkers all were imbeciles, too dumb to be “happy” …!

Says Kierkegaard (in his journals):

ABOUT MYSELF

From very early on my life has been tormented in a way that must be hard to match; this is how I have differed from the common run. But I have differed from the common run of sufferers in turn by its never having occurred to me that there might be help to seek or to find among men; no, suffering was my distinction.

Not only does no one choose being an autist, you are certainly not an objective standard in terms of how one ought to behave. In the past, when good breeding was still existing, the way people are behaving now would be unthinkable. To quote Don Colacho:

The majority of new customs are old behaviors that western civilization had shamefacedly confined to its lower-class neighborhoods.

As Gómez Dávila, a married “shut-in” with two sons and a daughter, who mostly preferred to read, knew:

If the Europeans renounce their particularities in order to generate the “good European,” we fear they will only beget another American.

The majority of men have no right to give their opinion, but only to listen.

The social sciences abound in problems that are unintelligible by their very nature to both the American professor and the Marxist intellectual.

In no previous age did the arts and letters enjoy greater popularity than in ours. Arts and letters have invaded the school, the press, and the almanacs.
No other age, however, has produced such ugly objects, nor dreamed such coarse dreams, nor adopted such sordid ideas.
It is said that the public is better educated. But one does not notice.

The American is not intolerable because he believes he is important individually, but because he possesses, insofar as he is an American, the solution to every problem.

An American historian cannot write history without lamenting that providence did not consult him beforehand.