18 months into the COVID psy-op, and the fear has started to break people. The mere mention of coronavirus is enough to make some people go crazy. In their craziness, these people are lashing out at their fellows, castigating them for the tiniest of infractions. These rapidly-increasing hysterics are suffering from something known as COVID Derangement Syndrome.
COVID Derangement Syndrome is, fundamentally, a form of mass hysteria. Perhaps the closest analogy to this madness is the War on Drugs, which also involved an invisible enemy that only the authorities could see. Both COVID and the War on Drugs have involved the herd being whipped into a state of intense fear by the ruling class, who have then seized more power by promising to smash those responsible.
The most frightening signs of this hysteria involve the length to which people are willing to go to harm others in order to lower their anxiety. As the images show, people with COVID Derangement Syndrome are more than happy to destroy anyone who they feel is exposing them to the risk of the Coof. Anyone who refuses to wear a mask, or who questions the mainstream narrative, is a threat to be neutralised.
COVID Derangement Syndrome, like all hysterias, is fundamentally physiological. The relentless COVID-related doom porn, and the fear-based emotions that follow with it, has created a degree of physiological arousal that is traumatic. The deep sense of helplessness felt by many in the face of this merciless disease is the kind of helplessness that makes people behave irrationally. Part of that irrationality is a will to destroy those who they feel are causing them to suffer.
This mass hysteria has deliberately been provoked by governments, who, in conjunction with the mainstream media, have fomented a wartime mentality among the populations targeted by their propaganda. Normies in the Western World today feel the threat of death at any moment (or at least becoming terminally ill). This heavy blanket of fear has made the population extremely pliable and submissive.
The simplest and easiest way to dominate a person is to cause them suffering, and then to offer to stop causing them suffering in exchange for submission. The same strategy is used by the entire spectrum of dominators, from Prime Ministers and Presidents all the way down to school bullies and even alpha chimpanzees and gorillas. Cause pain, usually by physical violence but sometimes also by emotional or social violence, and then promise to stop if the victim bends the knee.
Unfortunately for decent people, who will be trampled, the herd is being whipped up into a frenzy for the sake of destruction. As with other herd phenomena, the individuals most vulnerable are the weakest and most compliant. The neurotics, hypochrondriacs, flaming homosexuals and others most concerned with threats to their precious hide are the ones most agitated, and thus the most keen to see their fellows forced to behave.
The reason why COVID Derangement Syndrome is spreading so rapidly today is that most people live in a reality dictated to them by the television and other mass media. Mostly urban-dwellers, with the odd suburbanite, these brainwashing victims know nothing other than what they’re told. They don’t question or examine the narratives they’re fed, let alone try to figure out who’s doing the feeding and what their motivations are.
COVID Derangement Syndrome might be artificially created, but the effects are very real. People with the syndrome are more than happy to destroy those who don’t submit to the instructions of the authorities. This makes it similar to all the other cases of herd mentality wreaking carnage.
Also like other mass hysterias, the solution is to remove oneself from the source of agitation. There are two major ways this can be achieved.
The first is to disconnect from mass media. If you have a television, chuck it out the window. Remove all mainstream media sites from your toolbar or bookmarks. Unfollow all mainstream media channels. If you want to know what’s going on, identify some intelligent, well-informed and independent people who you can rely on for calm truth – because you will never get anything other than hysterical lies from the mainstream media.
The second is to learn to meditate. Let your mind naturally drift to thoughts of things that make you anxious, and then practice the habit of not reacting emotionally to those thoughts. Practice this for long enough, and you’ll eventually be able to encounter hysterical people without becoming agitated yourself.
COVID Derangement Syndrome, like COVID itself, will eventually burn itself out. Unplugging from the mainstream media and learning to meditate are the best ways to keep yourself safe until it does.
The greatest controversy in psychological science today – perhaps in all science – is that regarding the heritability of intelligence. Although the science itself is reasonably clear, the topic is so heavily politicised that certain positions have become entrenched.
The anti-hereditarian side can be dubbed the Jewish Position. This is for two reasons. One – the foremost supporters of the position are all Jews, and two – almost all Jews adhere to this position. Both of these assertions become clear if one examines the history of the debate around the heredity of intelligence.
Franz Boas was the earliest major opponent of the hereditarian position. Born in Germany to Jewish parents, Wikipedia says of him that “Boas’s main project was to distinguish between biological and cultural heredity, and to focus on the cultural processes that he believed had the greatest influence over social life”.
This belief – that cultural influences have the greater influence on human behaviour and biological ones the lesser, or none at all – is the Jewish Position in a nutshell.
Boas introduced the concept of cultural relativism to the psychological sciences. Before him, it was assumed that the more civilised a culture was, the superior. After him, it was claimed that no-one could say that any culture was superior to any other. This attitude, which is essentially that of slave morality, is political and not scientific in nature. It’s the attitude of someone who promotes tolerance for the sake of tolerance and not for the sake of alleviating suffering.
When Boas’s supposed finding that American and European whites have significantly different skull sizes was proven to have been made up, Jewish professor Jonathan Marks defended his co-ethnic, claiming that those who had debunked Boas had themselves “been quickly rebutted by more mainstream biological anthropology.”
According to Marks’s Wikipedia page, he is “skeptical of genetic explanations of human behavior” and “of ‘race’ as a biological category.” These two attitudes are core components of the Jewish Position, the intent of which is to encourage out-group favouritism and to discourage in-group favouritism. As such, it strenuously denies any scientific evidence that suggests an out-group might be genetically inclined to behave violently or criminally.
Marks once wrote, citing fellow Jew Richard Lewontin (see below) that “…the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin’s analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species…” The Jewish Position denies that race is an valid concept.
Boas heavily influenced co-ethnic Elliot Aronson, born in 1932. Aronson’s ‘Nobody Left to Hate‘ continued the established Jewish trope that exclusion is to blame for pathological behaviour. The book suggested that the reason for the Columbine High School shooting may have been that Klebold and Harris had been excluded by the other students, and therefore the solution to violence is to reduce out-group antipathy.
Central to the Jewish Position is the idea that all exclusion on the basis of genetic or biological grounds is inherently immoral. Further, any in-group preference exercised on genetic or biological grounds is immoral. Proponents of the Jewish Position draw a connection between border control and concentration camps. For them, all lines between folk groups – whether lines of inclusion or exclusion – are evil.
Also born in the 1930s was Richard Lewontin. Lewontin pushed the Jewish Position so hard, a fallacy was named after him. A stubborn opponent of genetic determinism, Lewontin’s approach was typical of the Marxist that he proudly claimed to be. As is often the case with both Jews and Marxists, he opposed genetic determinism in part because it downplays the value of social activism.
Lewontin was one of the harshest critics of Edward O. Wilson’s landmark work Sociobiology. As is typical of those pushing the Jewish Position, his criticism of the work equated genetic determinism with fascism. He went on to co-write, with two other Jewish authors, a book called ‘Not In Our Genes‘, a groundbreaking work of biology denial.
One of the co-authors, Steven Rose, was from Britain, whereas the other two were from America. This reveals the degree to which the Jewish Position is supranational: Jews everywhere believe it, no matter which country they’re living in. In Australia, South Africa, Brazil, just as in America and Europe – everywhere there are Jews, the Jewish Position is asserted.
Lewontin collaborated closely with Stephen Jay Gould, another co-ethnic who prominently supported the Jewish Position. Gould had no shame about equating genetic determinism with Nazism, going as far as to blame people who believe in IQ science for the Holocaust. Gould took issue with anyone who believed in border control at all, also equating this to Nazism.
Gould was criticised for his 1981 propaganda masterpiece, The Mismeasure of Man, in which he smeared intelligence researchers as racists. It has been observed that “Gould’s Marxist political beliefs made him attack intelligence research because he saw it as a threat to his egalitarian social goals.” Ironically, Gould was aware that a person’s social goals affected what that person considered to be accurate science. He just didn’t apply this criticism to himself.
Robert Wright wrote in a letter to the New York Review of Books that “many evolutionary biologists consider Gould’s writings a serious impediment to popular understanding of Darwinian thought.” This is of true of everyone who takes the Jewish Position, which in its essence prioritises political expedience over truth and knowledge. It is a form of science denial, in particular biology denial.
The most prominent Jewish anti-hereditarian in popular culture today is Jared Diamond. Diamond’s most famous work, Guns, Germs and Steel, sought to show that the European dominace of recent centuries was a geographical fluke and not due to any inherent genetic superiority. According to Diamond, if Africans had had more plants suitable for domestication and a more pronounced East-West axis, they would have dominated the world instead.
In Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond describes as “loathsome” the use of biological differences to explain economic outcomes. Yet, as a critique of Diamond’s points out, Diamond’s environmental determinism cannot account for why natural resource-poor Japan is wealthy, or why natural resource-wealthy Nigeria is poor. A biological determinist, aware that the most valuable human capital is the IQ of the people, can easily account for both.
The most prominent Jewish anti-hereditarian in academia today is Robert Sternberg. Sternberg is foremost in pushing nonsense like stereotype threat, the laughable idea that the low academic performance of blacks is because they’ve internalised white supremacist ideas about blacks being dumb.
Stereotype threat has been cited by Jewish researchers such as Joshua Aronson (the son of Elliot menioned above) as the reason for black academic underachievement. The reality is that, like all the other excuses made by people holding the Jewish Position, stereotype threat is a political concept and not a scientific one.
The political conclusion that Sternberg is desperately trying to avoid is that schools ought to be resegregated. To that end, he promotes the narrative that white people are to blame for black underachievement. Sternberg and his stereotype threat narrative claim that blacks only underachieve because white people expect them to, and thus black underachievement is due to white moral failure.
In summary, the Jewish Position is biology denial applied to the subject of human behaviour.
It’s fair to call it the Jewish Position because almost all of the people promoting it are Jews (as mentioned above) and because almost all of the people opposing it (Francis Galton, Ronald Fisher, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, James Watson, Hans Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, Satoshi Kanazawa, Linda Gottfredson et al.) are non-Jews. Jewish hereditarians, like Richard Herrnstein, are rare.
It’s worth noting that cultures without a heavy Jewish academic and media presence, such as China, India, Japan and Korea, near uniformly reject the Jewish Position. It’s only in the West, which does have a heavy Jewish academic and media presence, where the Jewish Position is taken seriously. Everywhere else, the genetic influence on intelligence is treated much the same as the genetic influence on height, i.e. as an obvious truth.
It’s also worth noting that the Jewish Position is never taken with regards to Israel. Where Israel is concerned, not only are borders and exclusion considered perfectly legitimate, but biological science (in the form of DNA analysis) can even be used to tell if someone is Jewish or not. In Israel, people can have a marriage licence denied if they can’t prove Jewish ancestry by DNA test.
Such policies would result in howls of outrage from all of the Jewish intellectuals mentioned above if any Western country introduced them – yet Israel may do so without a peep of protest.
The reasons why Jews almost uniformly hold the Jewish Position are probably best explained by Kevin MacDonald in his Culture of Critique. It’s enough for this essay to establish the trend that Jews who hold academic positions in the life sciences almost always reject hereditarianism, whereas non-Jews in similar positions in the life sciences almost always accept it.
The sum total of all of these facts is that no-one should ever trust a Jew or anyone pro-Jewish (such as a universalist Abrahamist) when it comes to discussions about heredity and the effect of genetics on human behaviour. They cannot be trusted to be honest on such issues any more than Nazis can, because they have a vested political interest in misrepresenting the truth (an example of what this column has previously called the Palestinian Paradox).
As a previous essay here has discussed, demography is destiny. The future belongs to those who show up for it. Unfortunately for us, it looks like the future will belong to the stupid. Dan McGlashan, demographer and author of Understanding New Zealand 3, explains the grim details.
The terrifying reality revealed within the correlation matrix above is that dumb people are massively outbreeding smart ones.
There is a very strong positive correlation between having any of the university degrees and having no children – at least 0.69. This means that the best-educated segment of the population and the childless segment of the population overlap to a major extent.
By contrast, the correlation between being in any of the three least-educated groups and having no children was -0.72 or even more strongly negative. This means that it’s very rare for someone with little education to abstain from reproduction. And when people with little education breed, they tend to do so without restraint.
Having no qualifications at all is significantly positively correlated with having three or more children. The strongest correlation in this table is between having no qualifications and having four children – this was a whopping 0.94. The correlations between having no qualifications and having five children (0.87) and between having no qualifications and having six children (0.72) were also very strong.
Having university qualifications is significantly negatively correlated with having three or more children. The strongest correlation in this regard was the -0.92 between having a Bachelor’s degree and having four children. The correlations between having an Honours or a Master’s degree and having four children were almost as strongly negative. Smart people simply aren’t breeding in New Zealand today.
Over the course of two or three generations, these trends will lead to significantly fewer people capable of completing higher education, and significantly more people incapable of doing so. On current demographic trends, therefore, it looks like New Zealand will become dumber and dumber. As it does, it will become poorer and poorer, and consequently more shitty and violent in most aspects.
The reasons why this is happening can be understood if one considers the schedule of social incentives that exist in the various classes.
In upper-class families, females are considered children until they are old enough to handle small responsibilities, at which point they’re given increasingly adult responsibilities, until such a point when they’re responsible enough to parent. Someone raised to think like this will have fewer children and will invest heavily into each one.
Females in lower-class families are considered children until they themselves have children, at which point they are accorded the respect due to an adult. It doesn’t matter if a female is 25 years old with a degree and a full-time job – they are children until they breed. Females without children get no respect, because they don’t know anything about anything important.
Mothers, on the other hand, are part of the inner circle. As soon as you’ve given birth, you’re on equal terms with every other woman who has. This encourages women to aspire to becoming mothers, and very little else. Someone raised to think like this will have more children, and sooner, and will invest less heavily into each one.
This distinction reflects the great division in the human species: between groups whose breeding strategy is to prepare the environment for the success of their offspring before reproducing, and groups whose breeding strategy is to shit out as many offspring as they can as quickly as possible and worry about the details later. These two strategies are known as the K-selected strategy and the r-selected strategy, respectively.
In a natural environment, the greater trust and solidarity of the K-selected allows their families and communities to survive and thrive. The co-operative networks that farsighted people build are more resilient than the “every man for himself” communities of the r-selected. As such, in a state of Nature, the populations of the K-selected tend to increase over time.
Unfortunately for the K-selected, today’s industrial society is one where farsighted hard workers are taxed into the ground to buy off the r-selected before they turn to crime. Anyone with the industriousness to become properly educated will then get taxed so heavily that they only have enough spare resources for a few children.
Meanwhile, the parents who don’t care about the poverty their children are forced to endure just keep shitting them out, knowing that the productive will pay for their survival.
A society with these demographic trends cannot escape going down the toilet. The inevitable long-term consequence of dumb people outbreeding smart ones is a reduction in overall intelligence. The inevitable consequence of that is more stupidity, violence, recklessness and crime.
Society has gone through times like these before. There is a point in every economic cycle when the productive are taxed to the maximum in order to provide bread and circuses for the hordes of unproductive. These productive are much like the character Boxer the horse in Animal Farm. Once they collapse from exhaustion from providing the labour needed to keep the whole system running, that system begins to fall apart.
The next step is for the K-selected to withdraw to easily-defendable fortresses, such as gated communities or island nations. From there it will be easier to weather the storm caused by the collapse of r-selected society, which will be a deluge of chaos that heralds a new age of the world.
All this might sound drastic, but it’s inevitable given the demographic trends outlined in this article.
The “structural racism” conspiracy theory is everywhere nowadays. Most media consumers take it for granted that white people are to blame for black and brown economic and academic underachievement. But people trained in psychological science, who understand the real causes of behavioural phenomena, know this theory is crap. This essay explains how they know.
Any quality scientist will tell you that the value of a scientific theory is a function of its predictive power.
This has always been the case. Back in the day, when learned people discussed astronomical phenomena, the greatest among those scholars were able to accurately predict solar and lunar eclipses. The theories that correctly predicted eclipse seasons were praised and committed to memory or written down; the theories that incorrectly predicted eclipse seasons, or failed to predict them, were denounced and forgotten.
This ongoing process of refining theories, based on which ones best predicted the outcomes of experiments, evolved into the scientific method. Today, the scientific method involves taking multiple different theories and subjecting them to experiments with various conditions. Then the scientist compares the theories to see which best fits the resulting data.
When the Western World opened its borders to mass immigration from Far East Asia in the 1990s, there were two major theories about how successful it would be.
The structural racism theory predicted that these immigrants would do poorly. This theory held that the low economic and academic achievement of blacks and browns was the result of white prejudice, and, since those whites had no reason to be less prejudiced against Asians, those Asians would also have low economic and academic achievement.
The biological realism theory predicted that these immigrants would do well. It had been known since shortly after World War II that Japanese, Korean and Chinese populations scored as highly as European ones on psychometric measures of intelligence. Because economic and academic achievement is primarily a function of intelligence, biological realists predicted that Asian immigrants would have high economic and academic achievement.
In fact, the majority of Far East Asian immigrants did very well upon immigrating to the West. They all faced some degree of prejudice from the native populations, but few of them were impacted heavily enough by this to remain poor; Asian Americans have the highest net wealth and highest average income of any American racial group.
This outcome repudiated the structural racism theory, and supported the biological realism theory. But this is not the only case where the latter showed itself to have more predictive power than the former.
Another test of theories involved the relative developmental prospects of China, India and Africa. After World War II, China, India and most of Africa were at a similar level of poverty, i.e. undeveloped. But the Western plan was to develop all of these territories to the maximum extent possible, as quickly as possible.
The structural racism theory predicted that all of these territories would develop at a similar rate. Absent the white oppression that had held them back during the Colonial Era, and absent the white oppression that held back blacks, browns and natives in colonial countries, there was no reason to assume anything other than uniform progression to Western levels of wealth.
The biological realism theory, by contrast, predicted that China would develop faster than India, which would develop faster than Africa. This prediction was based on the fact that psychologists knew the IQ scores of these groups were different.
The Chinese scored at a similar level to white people, or even higher. India was about one standard deviation below that. Africa was about one standard deviation below India. So the biological realists predicted that China would develop the fastest, Africa the slowest, and India in between.
By 2021, the GDP per capita (PPP) of China was $18,931, that of India $7,333, and most African countries between $5,000 and $1,000. These differences were just as predicted by the biological realists. The structural racism theories are left floundering for an explanation as to why high-IQ China has outstripped medium-IQ India and low-IQ Africa, when none of the three are controlled by whites. They are left spouting nonsense about “white adjacency”.
In summary, the biological realism theory of explaining group differences in economic and academic achievement has proven itself to have far greater predictive power than the structural racism theory. In fact, the structural racism theory has no predictive power, and can be rightly considered a conspiracy theory pushed for political reasons, and not a scientific one.
