The Low IQ Horseshoe

You won’t like what I have to say today, but I need to get it off my chest anyway. There’s an issue you run into if you have an obscure blog. At some point you always tend to attract people who complain that you don’t blame everything bad that happened since the evolution of opposable thumbs on Jews/Zionists (a euphemism for Jews).

What the populist fringes of the political spectrum can agree on is that Jews are bad. You can be an angry brown Pakistani Muslim taxi driver or a schizophrenic low status white male, it doesn’t matter, you can find common ground in your dislike of Jews.

It’s a kind of topic that successfully unifies low IQ individuals, despite their differences. Another issue both low IQ populist fringes tend to hate is globalization. The leftist fringe and the right-wing fringe can both agree that “the globalists” are the enemy.

The reality of course is that the modern world with its high standard of living is only possible because of globalization. Imagine if every country had to mine its own uranium. This would not be very efficient. Globalization allows every region of the world to focus on delivering those goods and services they’re best at offering. The same is true for laws by the way. It’s efficient for every European country to have the same laws in regards to which pesticides can be used for our crops.

I think it’s useful to ask yourself what distinguishes the beliefs of low IQ individuals from those of people with a high IQ. Then when you find yourself agreeing with low IQ individuals, you should ask yourself whether low IQ individuals just happen to be right for once, or whether you might have found yourself falling into some delusional rabbit hole. Asking yourself this question can literally save your life. You wouldn’t believe how many people needlessly die because they think amygdalin or ivermectin will cure their cancer.

This is true for example, in regard to the Epstein scandal. Low IQ individuals have very strong opinions about what happened on Epstein’s island. The Iranian government insists it’s on the side of the victims of Epstein, just as low IQ low status white males are obsessed with the idea that Epstein and his ilk were cannibals. Again, you can put a Pakistani taxi driver and a low IQ low status white male in the same room and they’re going to bond over their hatred of that evil man Epstein and the various conspiracy theories they’ve heard about him and his ilk.

Another thing I tend to notice that unifies low IQ individuals is their hatred of American interventionist foreign policy. American politicians tend to be more supportive of interventionism, even Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war. Low IQ low status white males on the other hand, tend to be opposed. Admittedly, at least in part this correlation can be explained by the fact that the politicians tend to send the low IQ low status white males off to die in their foreign policy adventures.

But I also think there’s more going on. You don’t want governments like Libya’s or Iran’s to develop the sort of chemical and nuclear arsenal that North Korea has. The current war between Iran and Israel was effectively inevitable. The Houthi’s are one of Iran’s proxy forces and their slogan is literally: “God is great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam.” You’re just not going to establish lasting peace with such folks.

So if you agree the war was inevitable, then the question becomes, when do you want a war between Israel and Iran? Do you want it when Iran has nuclear weapons and tens of thousands of rockets, or do you want that war before they reach that point? It seems to me we’re better off with this war now than ten more years from now. You could even say it already came too late, considering the peaceful protestors in Iran who died.

This is what goes through the minds of politicians who have to decide on these types of problems. On the other hand, low IQ low status white males tend to have simple answers. A favorite is to insist that everything is a conspiracy. Hamas was set up by Israel, Al Qaeda by the United States, even the Soviet Union was bankrolled by the Rothschilds. If you search long enough, you’ll find some news article to support your claims.

I think you have to consider however, that when everything seems to have a simple answer to you, that people much smarter than you are somehow missing (or actively hiding), you might just be wrong. I think the world looks exactly like what you would expect, if there was not a shadowy cabal that happens to effectively run things behind the scenes.

The normies tend to have a psychological immune system that prohibits them from stepping into delusional rabbit holes. They hear “chemtrails” or “9/11 was an inside job” and they think of their low status racist uncle Bob. The facts are irrelevant for them, they judge ideas by the status of their adherents. They generally don’t even realize they’re doing it, that’s how automatically it functions for them.

But as an autist, you don’t really have this immune system. You naturally judge ideas on their own basis. I think you’re generally better off manually using a cognitive shortcut that the normies already use intuitively: If some high status guy with a six figure job as a “consultant” never professes that the Rothschild family bankrolled the Russian revolution, then it’s probably just an idea not worth thinking about.

I’m not saying the normies are always right. What I’m saying is that I think we all have a bias towards the normies being wrong more often than they are. The mechanics of a liberal democratic society tend to result in people occupying positions of power who have a relatively accurate view of reality and they broadcast their views to the normies, who subsequently assimilate their ideas.

There have of course been exceptions, times when your racist uncle Bob was right and high status people were wrong. The most obvious example is Bitcoin. Low status white males were convinced this cryptocurrency thing was going to be big. Every fringe weirdo was convinced of this back in 2013. It’s the normies and high status people, who were disputing the idea.

You can still argue of course that “it’s a bubble that’s going to pop one day”, but in that case, what tends to happen is that the people who bought it in 2013 pat you on the shoulder, say “sure thing pal” and step into their Lamborghini. If it doesn’t matter that you’re right, are you really right?

You can ask yourself the same thing about the collapse of civilization. This seems to be a kind of fantasy that unifies the fringes of the left and the right, but not something that seriously worries your average high status white male six-figure salary consultant.

Let’s go over the basics once more. Here we have the total calories produced per person in the world:

We’re producing more food than we know what to do with. People around the world, are dying of obesity. This is not about to change. What about Africa? They’re not even using fertilizer in most of Africa for their crops. When their population doubles, they’ll have to start using fertilizer, but it’s doubtful they will just die of hunger.

But what about climate change? Again, let’s just look at what the studies say. Every degree Celsius of warming it’s claimed, will reduce calories by 120 per person. So let’s say we have 3 degree Celsius of warming. That’s 360 calories. You know what that means? We move back from the level of food we have today, to what the world had in 1990. Hardly the end of the world. And realistically speaking, it will take at least until 2100 until we have 3 degree Celsius of warming, as we’re just not on track for the worst case scenario anymore:

It’s still possible that climate sensitivity turns out to be much higher than we anticipated, as I have argued before, but it’s also possible that it isn’t. It is just not easy to judge.

What I’m saying is that it’s just pretty hard, to come up with a scenario where people in developed countries will die of hunger, which I would consider a basic requirement for a “collapse”. You have to consider the possibility that low status people are convinced of collapse because of psychological factors that make them yearn for collapse.

Whenever I browse the collapse subreddit, I see the same rants about billionaire child-eating pedophiles that I see on conspiracy forums. For me that was a wake up call. I realized: There’s some psychological factor going on that draws people to this negative worldview.

I’m more concerned about a kind of demographic collapse: European and East Asian nations seeing their populations replaced by sub-Saharan Africans and Muslims. That comes with real issues, that are not really being talked about because it’s simply taboo.

But anyway, my point is that people tend to think of themselves as real critical thinkers, because they adhere to some kind of angry white male dissident version of reality. But I would suggest: Try the inverse for once. If you’re really a critical thinker, you can also argue in defense of Pete Buttigieg’s view of the world. Try to defend the most boring milquetoast neoliberal view of things, if only as an intellectual exercise for yourself.

And obviously, I don’t just mean it as an intellectual exercise, I’m actually serious. We had a situation where the fringes and weirdos united around a guy named Donald Trump. It got us essentially nothing. It made the world a worse place. In the real world, we would all have been at least slightly better off with Jeb Bush as president than Donald Trump. Nobody likes admitting this, but it is the truth.

I think you have to at least make yourself consciously aware of the fact that we want to hear exciting tales about the nature of reality: Hollow Earth, Biblical flooding, ancient aliens, 13 Satanic Illuminati Bloodlines, Vatican Black Nobility pulling the strings, etcetera.

But what if the real world is depressingly boring? I still think that you’re better off interacting with reality, even if reality is depressingly boring. What if the dollar doesn’t collapse, if everyone’s not going to use Bitcoin, if aliens are not about to land on Earth, if the methane clathrates are not about to explode?

It means you can arrange your life around nothing ever happening. As humans we’re drawn to entering alternative realities with our mind. Some do it in elaborate fantasy worlds in video games and TV series. Others do it with the real world, yet others take mind-bending drugs to inhabit an alternative reality.

But imagine for a moment, just really blatantly engaging with the unsatisfying boring status quo like a turbonormie. Not this-maxxing or that-maxxing, just really being normal. Trying to genuinely blend in. Maybe you can do it. I think it makes your life ultimately easier and more rewarding.