On Mandatory Voting

Let the Infernal Columns run rampant, I'd prefer a fair fight. I'm looking forward to watching as the American Left takes off its mask once & for all. The sooner people realize we are subjects of the state & not citizens of a country the better. The progressives need voters to keep up the sham that we are a free people. As Rousseau said "we will force you to be free." Free means obedience to the "General Will", it means being bound to a "Social Contract" designed by the graduates of Harvard Law & Wharton Business schools for the benefit of the Kochs, Adelsons, Soroses, Bushes, & Clintons. Voting maintains the illusion of legitimacy. Without this "legitimacy" the apparatchiks might develop a conscience. I have little doubt the forces of progress are willing to commit any atrocity for their failed god and therefore will likely smash the (insignificant) right in this country. At least it will be the first honest thing they've done in 150 years. It's their country not ours. It's high time they finally took responsibility for it.

How will American Jews deal with white privilege?

American Jews will have to deal with the fact that to the vast herds of vibrants they are the wealthiest & most privileged whites of all. It changes nothing that they see themselves as non-white or even that most white nationalists & ethno-nationalists see them as non-white too. It does not change the essential paleness of their skin & their incredible wealth & privilege.

American Jews will have to adjust to this & they will have three possible reactions.

First they may double down on their identity as victims. stressing their history as an oppressed people and using the Holocaust narrative as a shield & as a bludgeon against the various ethnicities. This tactic works so well against whites and especially against the fly-over country evangelicals that they are tempted to see it as a perfect defense against all accusations of privilege. However the Asians, Blacks, and mestizos do not see themselves as guilty of anything and can rightly point out that they had no part of any American bigotry against the Jews. The fact that the American south was wholly accepting of jews never acted as a defense in the eyes of left wing Jews. So I think they are going to be in the same boat as the Irish who use mythical tales of discrimination as an attempt to deflect criticism for their openly chauvinistic racial attitudes. To the current anti-racist whether one is Catholic Irish or Jewish American doesn't matter what matters is their privilege.

Second American Jews may try to minimize their demonization through contempt & deflection the whole while holding on to victim status. The use of laughter as a weapon against their detractors is a useful & powerful weapon. The American comedy scene is as dominated by Jews as any other part of the entertainment industry. Through dominance of the information industries they will be able to hold the line against the racial animus caused by multiculturalism. Jewish domination on American Universities is beginning to slip & if the Gramascians & Cultural Marxists are right this will topple Jewish cultural dominance.

Third the American Jews might surrender their place in the atrocity Olympics and embrace their place as the gatekeepers of American culture & begin to defend American culture against postmodernity and come to see American whites as their natural allies just as many Zionists have.

What are Jewish institutions doing now? Well they seem to be trying to simultaneously follow the first & second strategies.

Here is a sample of a general attack on Multiculturalism by an avowedly Jewish publication. 

One might well add, Why stop with Ovid? Has anyone taken a look at the Old Testament recently? Lot’s two daughters slept with him in order to continue his line (Genesis 19). Joshua slaughtered 12,000 Canaanites in one day (Joshua 8) and soon thereafter “smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: He left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded” (Joshua 10:40). In the Holy Book, no one is judged harshly for war crimes. Is the Bible a manual for righteous massacres? Should trigger warnings be mandated? Should the Columbia Core print up a new edition of the Bible with a frontispiece warning the tender reader against the gruesome stories to be found therein?

 This is exactly the sort of defense against Political Correctness put up by authors decades ago at the National Review & American Spectator.But this is not a Neocon, but a man of the left.

Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology and chair of the Ph.D. program in Communications at Columbia University, is the author of The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage; Occupy Nation: The Roots, the Spirit, and the Promise of Occupy Wall Street; and, with Liel Leibovitz, The Chosen Peoples: America, Israel, and the Ordeals of Divine Election.

This is not the oeuvre of a committed rightist, but a mainstream leftist. Yet something has changed for him the radicals in academia are a threat if not yet an outright foe. Perhaps there is a reason for this.

At the end of last year, the American Studies Association earned more press attention than it has in its entire history by voting to boycott Israeli academic institutions. The effect of the boycott has been devastating—not to Israel, where apparently its sole effect has been to interfere with the dissertation work of one Arab graduate student, but to the ASA itself. Immediately after the vote, hundreds of college presidents and faculty leaders blasted the organization, with several schools withdrawing their membership. This fall, the ASA embarrassed itself by threatening to bar representatives of Israeli universities from its annual convention, only to reverse the decision under the threat of discrimination lawsuits. Its leadership managed to make things even worse by banning Jewish media organizations from the conference, under a press policy one commentator derided as being “as complicated, arbitrary and daunting as getting a press pass for the North Korean Politburo meeting, except that the ASA professes to be a progressive organization devoted to the exchange and dissemination of ideas.”

Strange to criticize a  left wing group for "being 'as complicated, arbitrary and daunting as getting a press pass for the North Korean Politburo meeting'". This is how all leftist organizations always act those of us who have been watching them metastasize into the malignancy that now dominates campus life can't help, but wonder where this concern has been for the last 50 years. a movement led, guided, and fed by Jews for decades is now turning on them as the demographics of both the US & the American Campus have altered. This alteration has been championed by the Jewish academics, bankers, & journalists from the beginning. It seems a little late for buyers remorse.

Here's Professor Gitlin on boycotts:

Boycotts and divestments appeal to ideals of citizenship. Vote with your money. Make perpetrators of injustice pay a price. Raise the stakes so that, when they get their calculating minds around a cost-benefit analysis, they decide the cost is too steep. Often such campaigns are constructive.

They can be constructive, but not always. I wonder why? 

Presently, I’m involved in the alumni wing of Divest Harvard, a student-run campaign to press the university to sell holdings in fossil fuel corporations whose business model is to make civilization untenable by burning carbon and dumping the by-products into the atmosphere. (So, I want to add, is Robert K. Massie.) There are several hundred other university campaigns of this sort, with some colleges, churches, cities, and foundations following suit. The objective is to stigmatize those corporations and to further the development of energy sources that the earth can sustain.

All these movements have been tied to practical objectives, some more radical than others. Their justifications lay in a sheer disproportion of rights. The rights of the Negro passengers and the grape pickers and the Stevens workers and the South African majority were not comparable to the rights of the segregationists or the growers or the South African white minority. In a sense, the fossil fuel movement has more radical ends, since the present movement, if it had divine powers, would put fossil fuel companies out of business altogether. But in none of these cases was or is there a clash of right against right.

So attacking American Companies there is no clash of "right against right." That is no one was being unduly harmed, except greedy white oil drillers (and the families they keep in a middle class lifestyle)  & their corporate masters. However if there are innocent Jews being harmed by the boycott it's time for some analysis of the motives.

Still and all, many supporters of BDS do not understand, or have not thought through, just what they are subscribing to. Consider the 2005 BDS call by Palestinian organizations, which can be read on the official BDS website. It favors “broad boycotts” and “divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era.” These measures, the call goes on, “should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by (with my italics):
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in U.N. resolution 194.”
Leave aside, for now, that the BDS organizers are highly selective about the international obligations they wish to enforce at the cost of academic freedom. (They have a point when they say that all campaigns are partial and selective, though one might well marvel at their insouciance when it comes to slaughter perpetrated next door by Bashar al-Assad.) Leave aside the sleight of hand with which they claim that their boycott (actually blacklist) targets only Israeli institutions, not individuals.
But consider the slipperiness of the BDS goals. The first statement I have italicized is deliberately vague. Which “Arab lands”? According to Hamas, they include the entirety of Israel. Moreover, the phrase is coded to imply that the very existence of the state of Israel, as recognized in 1948, is what constitutes “colonization.” (If that were not so, it would suffice to say “end the occupation”—meaning the occupation that took place, and continues to take place, as a result of the 1967 war and the Jewish-Israeli settlements that continue, illegally, to expand on the West Bank.) To BDS, the original sin would seem to be the founding of the Israeli state. The language masks (however thinly) the desire of one of the parties to the horrendous Israel-Palestinian conflict that the other one disappear.

Seems that maybe divesting & boycotting has a whole constellation of details that perhaps should be carefully examined before jumping in with both feet. Perhaps BDS is not always the unalloyed good that Professor Gitlin's other examples were. After weighing the good & the bad what is the professor's conclusion.

 But history is always surprising and sometimes pleasantly so. So let me close with some more bad news and then a touch of good news. The bad news is that, in a time of severe fiscal pressures on higher education, of plutocratically enforced inequality, and of relentless, potentially catastrophic climate change, the Doctoral Student Council of the City University of New York took time to consider not a proposal to divest from fossil fuel corporations or a campaign to boost funding but a BDS resolution against… Israel. The good news is that, this past Friday, Oct. 24, the BDS resolution failed.

Well that certainly is good news. It seems that American Jews are going for option four keeping their privilege & their place at the head of the anti-white grievance committee. The only word for that is chutzpah.

Conspiracy Theories are not New

"Conspiracy theories of history are not fashionable. But European history has never known a shortage of conspiratorial societies, conspiracies, or conspirators." Norman Davies Europe a History

The example Mr. Davies uses primarily to prove his point is the League of the Holy Court (Heilige Fehme) set up after the imperial ban placed on Henry the Lion chief of the Guelph party (i.e. pro-pope).

"The Femgerichte (forest courts) followed exact procedures , hearing witnesses for prosecution & defence. But death was their only sentence. The condemned  person was left hanging from a tree into which was stuck a knife bearing the mystical letters SSGG (standing for Stein, Strick, Gras, 'Grun - 'Stone', 'Rope', 'Grass', 'Green')" Norman Davies

The Guelphs officially banned,  this secret court rose to fill the vacuum left by their absence. In time and in certain areas these secret tribunals rose to become recognized. The society eventually recruited the emperor Sigismund into its ranks.

Throughout history from century to century secret societies have had remarkable and decisive influence on the destinies of the people of the west. Secret societies such as the Freemasons and the Sons of Liberty forged a new nation in America. While the IRA formed the backbone of the military struggle for the Irish Republic. The history of the 20th century reveals conspiracy after conspiracy. What would the modern world look like without the Fabians, Haganah, Irgun, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Bolsheviks, the Fascists, the Black Legion, & of course the Frankfurt School.

History is a creation of men and men must conspire to cooperate so in what way is a conspiracy theory loony on its face. I'm certain that a laughable idea such as the rise of a new Caliphate in 21st century Syria & Iraq would have been ridiculed in the early '90's. We live in a pulp fiction age. An age of world wide conspiracies and counter conspiracies.

Tell me your politics and I'll tell you what conspiracy theories you believe in. All human endeavors are the result of conspiracies.

The Curious Opinions of one C. Darwin

Deogolwulf in his typically (typical for him anyway) perceptive way addresses the curious inability of the left to condemn their "saint" Charles of blessed memory. Here below is one of "saint" Charles's opinions that, if I am to believe certain voices connected to the neoreactionary movement, are far too extreme for "their" nascent movement.

Very odd those accounts in India of the little hairy men! It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races. In 500 years how the Anglo-saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank. Man is clearly an old-world, not an American, species; & if ever intermediate forms between him & unknown Quadrumana are found, I should expect they would be found in Tropical countries, probably islands. But what a chance if ever they are discovered: look at the French beds with the celts, & no fragment of a human bone.— It is indeed, as you say absurd to expect a history of the early stages of man in prehistoric times.—
I hope that I have not wearied you with my scribbling & with many thanks for your letter, I remain with much respect— | Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin

I personally find this rhetoric shocking, but in this time of advancing barbarism where the Anglo-Saxons are already fading from existence even in their own homeland what could more aptly catch the spirit of the coming age than the sentiments expressed by Mr. Darwin.

It is not so awful & difficult to me, as it seems to be most, partly from familiarity & partly, I think, from having seen a good many Barbarians. I declare the thought, when I first saw in T. del Fuego a naked painted, shivering hideous savage, that my ancestors must have been somewhat similar beings, was at that time as revolting to me, nay more revolting than my present belief that an incomparably more remote ancestor was a hairy beast.f7 Monkeys have downright good hearts, at least sometimes, as I could show, if I had space. I have long attended to this subject, & have materials for a curious essay on Human expression, & a little on the relation in mind of man to the lower animal

I could make further remarks on this, but I would be parroting Deogolwulf, but why would someone listen to a Caruso's parrot when one could listen to the master himself. These quotes, as well as Darwin's other correspondence can be found here.

Another Day Another Atrocity. Ho-Hum.

Modern rationalist receives a lesson in atavistic terror. 

Witnesses said they were on a rickshaw returning from the Amar Ekushey Book Fair when two attackers stopped it, dragged them onto the footpath and started hacking them.
They were rushed to the Dhaka Medical College and Hospital (DMCH) where doctors declared Avijit dead during an emergency surgery, its police outpost Inspector Mozzamel Haque told bdnews24.com.
DMCH casualty department’s Residential Surgeon Riaz Morshed also confirmed bdnews24.com about Avijit Roy’s death.

I was only dimly aware of Avijit Roy so I don't know too much about him, but he was an advocate of atheism according to Wikipedia. The setting of his death (dragged from a rickshaw while  returning from a Book Fair) couldn't be more picturesque like a scene from a Movie meant to bludgeon you with its symbolism. A message so ham-handed & unsubtle it would take someone with decades of training at our finest Universities to miss it.

Reading Deogolwulf brings me down.

When I read Moldbug I want to post quotes from him on facebook, but when I read Deogolwulf I want to just copy & paste his entries on here and pretend that his words are mine. So I'll do the next best thing & post quotes & links that I find insightful or wise. I'll just sit back and bask in the reflected light & pretend I was just about to say the same thing.

Here are a few epigrams:

The Marcher-Lords of Mediocrity. — Mediocrity bestows the title of excellence upon those who secure its far-flung borders.
Why shouldn’t novels have in them badly-drawn caricatures of real persons? The world is full of them.In the fostering of culture and the forming of good taste and character, liberal democratism has been so great a failure that it is believed by most to have been a great success.Religion is the rule-governed search for that which one lacks. Reason, therefore, stands as the religion of the moderns.Sub Specie Modernitatis. — All that which our forebears thought to note as degeneracy: well, they must have been mistaken, for it led to us

This one is a particular favorite of mine:

 Whenever men of the West gather to ask why it has fallen, one is sure to get another glimpse of the answer.

Here's a taste of his logic:

 I. If you vote in an election, then you must endorse the legitimacy of the process including its result, or else be guilty of bad faith. (You agree in participation of the process to be bound by the rules thereof, which include the acceptance of the legitimacy of the result.) II. You voted in the election. Therefore,
III. You must endorse the legitimacy of the result, or else be guilty of bad faith. But (you complain):
IV. The result is a disaster. Therefore,
V. You must endorse the legitimacy of a disaster about which you complain, or else be guilty of bad faith.

Hero sees his demise approach and he takes one last moment to display his contempt for death and says: "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlaþ"

More Blue Tribe Signaling via Facebook

This is the text of an argument between a libertarian friend & a leftwit. Names have been changed. The discussion, such that it was involved, Anthropogenic Global Warming specifically this article from the Telegraph.

Libertarian friend: But... but... scientists are never wrong!

Friend #1: Climate change MUST exist, because the Dems say it does. The media caters to them, and therefore subscribes to their crackpot theories. Since it's on TV, it MUST be true, right? 
I mean... just because they changed the name from 'Global Warming' to Global Climate Change' because their warming theories were disproved doesn't mean they're still wrong, does it?

Leftwit: The trollForce is strong in you Jack. No body that knows anything about science has ever said that scientists are never wrong. In fact they are more wrong than right and that is the marvelous thing about science. Leftwit: btw, does NASA fiddle with temperature data? 

Why is he asking this question? Has he not at this point read the above article? I didn't know so I thought I'd illuminate the poor boy by linking to Google. 

Leftwit: The conversation of climate change as a fact and the conversation of how much mankind is influencing it are different conversations. However if you Lol you poor misguided fools. Again with your lack of understanding the gradient scale. Just because someone says "climate change is real", your self imposed limitations make you lump everyone that says that in the same boat. 

Again insulting language almost as if he's not interested in conversation, but displaying loyalty to his tribe. I'm reminded that Orwell thought advertising was generally more honest than propaganda. Propaganda  unlike advertising intends to build solidarity within the group while advertising is about gaining new customers. That is propaganda pretends to persuade, but actually often sets up barriers to persuasion by use of insult. It's mostly because its primary focus is keeping the tribe from exiting the reservation. Propaganda shames the subject into avoiding bad think. Exclusion & disqualification hammer the pegs into place. Thus they are perfectly suited to maintain the status quo within r selected tribes. The Leftwits rage is his first indication of his defective amygdala. His persistence in the face of an attempt at rational discourse is confirmation. Here is the Libertarian's response:

Libertarian Friend: I'll ignore the derogatory comments and address the issue at hand:
Of course climate change is a fact. I don't know anyone who disputes that. The climate is constantly changing and has been since the formation of the planet. For millions of years that change has been driven by natural forces. What we skeptics are disputing is whether or not human activity is responsible at the present time and, if so, to what degree.

We also think it's wise to ask whether we can do anything about it, whether we should, and what the consequences will be if we do or do not. These are questions that need to be discussed and answered before we make drastic changes to human existence that involve granting massive powers of control through taxation and regulation to governments and trans-governmental bodies.

There are some scientists who can point to evidence showing that human activity is directly responsible for climate change and that the consequences will be catastrophic. There are other scientists, equally as knowledgeable and credible, who believe that human activity has a miniscule impact and they have evidence to back up their conclusions.

When you add in the incorrect data, misinterpreted data, and falsified data, and the fact that our data represents at best very small fraction of 1% of the Earth's geological history, it seems wise to do more research and collect more data before we are able to draw any reasonable conclusions about what actions we should take.

If a doctor told me that I had a terminal illness and the only treatment available was going to cost me a million dollars, of course I'd be concerned. But if I found out that the doctor had used faulty equipment and had misinterpreted the test results, AND that he was going to get a sizeable kickback from the cost of my treatment, I would definitely want to get a second opinion.

In many ways, the anthropogenic climate change alarmists sound a lot like the tribal shamans of ancient times. We have angered the gods with our misbehavior, and the only way to prevent catastrophe is to appease the gods with a massive sacrifice which, coincidentally, will enrich the shaman and elevate his status within the tribe.

Forgive me for being skeptical, but when I look at all of the information the only conclusion I can come to is that it is inconclusive.

I may just be a poor misguided fool, a dumb backwoods rube from Fort Myers who moved to Tennessee, an idiot who only listens to my idiot friends, and a Christian conservative who letss my preacher tell me what to think, but that sounds like a pretty open minded point of view to me.
We also think it's wise to ask whether we can do anything about it, whether we should, and what the consequences will be if we do or do not. These are questions that need to be discussed and answered before we make drastic changes to human existence that involve granting massive powers of control through taxation and regulation to governments and trans-governmental bodies.
There are some scientists who can point to evidence showing that human activity is directly responsible for climate change and that the consequences will be catastrophic. There are other scientists, equally as knowledgeable and credible, who believe that human activity has a miniscule impact and they have evidence to back up their conclusions.
When you add in the incorrect data, misinterpreted data, and falsified data, and the fact that our data represents at best very small fraction of 1% of the Earth's geological history, it seems wise to do more research and collect more data before we are able to draw any reasonable conclusions about what actions we should take.
If a doctor told me that I had a terminal illness and the only treatment available was going to cost me a million dollars, of course I'd be concerned. But if I found out that the doctor had used faulty equipment and had misinterpreted the test results, AND that he was going to get a sizeable kickback from the cost of my treatment, I would definitely want to get a second opinion.
In many ways, the anthropogenic climate change alarmists sound a lot like the tribal shamans of ancient times. We have angered the gods with our misbehavior, and the only way to prevent catastrophe is to appease the gods with a massive sacrifice which, coincidentally, will enrich the shaman and elevate his status within the tribe.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but when I look at all of the information the only conclusion I can come to is that it is inconclusive.
I may just be a poor misguided fool, a dumb backwoods rube from Fort Myers who moved to Tennessee, an idiot who only listens to my idiot friends, and a Christian conservative who letss my preacher tell me what to think, but that sounds like a pretty open minded point of view to me.

My friend's obvious error is in thinking that his opponent has any regard for reason or logic this is simple tribal signaling. He is asserting dominance through soft disingenuousness. Goalpost shifting follows:

Leftwit: In the quest to shift mankinds dependency from fossil by promoting and endorsing the use of renewable energy sources....who is being hurt and who is being helped. The only people being negatively impacted by this drive to "clean up our act" so to speak, are those that currently profit off of the existing system.
Why the hell is it acceptable for the American public to heft some of the burden to line the pockets of those currently in charge, and not accept able for the American public to heft some of the burden on a new system that can, will, and is already making life better.
This idea that you, as an individual, will have your rights trampled on or taken away if the world accepts the idea of man driven climate change, is absolutely absurd.
If you really sat done and did a pros and cons list of at least the 3 main possible realities here (no change to renewables, some change to renewables, full change to renewables), you will see an increasing number of pros with the increase in change to renewables

Unable to persist in denigrating Libertarian Friend's intellegence he simply changes the subject by making bald assertions without engaging Libertarian Friend's argument. A conservative friend retorts:

Conservative Friend: Even google gave up on renewables. By the time you figure the energy we need, the energy and resources to make the solar panels, wind turbines and so on, and what what we will actually get from said renewables, they found it impractical. In fact their conclusions were that the best way forward was nuclear power. I still like solar, hydro and wind. I actually plan on implementing the use of all 3 in time once I get my land in the mountains. The point is that in the bigger picture, it's not practical, at least for now and on a large scale. There are several articles about it out there. This doesn't mean give up on it. It just means were not there yet, unless we go to nuclear.

His new argument going nowhere he retreats until provoked by me to see if he adheres to the r/K selection theory, specifically to the notion that leftism often results from narcissism/malfunctioning amygdala:

Kyussopeth: " btw, does NASA fiddle with temperature data? " the lulz, top keks bro, here I'll do the work for you try a web site called google before saying something stupid in the future. https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp... / It all makes sense once you get through the leftist rabbit thinking. Gun Control means "Help I'm afraid of blacks! Won't someone disarm them!" Global Warming/Climate Change means "I got mine so the rest of you negroes can starve." Comprehensive Immigration Reform means "Blacks are too scary lets bring in Mexicans to keep white southerners out of power." Trolling means "Silence that man for pointing out that progressivism is built on a series of convenient lies." Progressivism is a symptom of a low functioning amygdala.

My intention was to provoke a response that exemplified the malfunctioning amygdala theory the results were pyrotechnic unfocused rage & a complete abandonment of logic.

Leftwit:  this fool here is a real troll. Too this fool doesn't know what an amygdala does
And he was born in Fort Myers and lives in Montana. Omg that's rich. From dumb to dumber. I wonder if he's got any religious rhetoric to throw out to help complete the picture of an imbecile
I can see now what is happening to you ####. You are surrounded by idiots and they are influencing you unknowinglyI don't expect you to understand at all ****, you've already proven your limitations.
Stupid people congregate
**** here is one of those fools that judges his friends and colleagues by a different scale than those that aren't. Pretty sure the Bible mentions how dumb that is a couple of times.
Exactly my point ####. These aren't rebuttals and if you weren't so heavily influenced by morons you'd see that. I'm just trolling the low hanging fruit. (ed- yeah he's the one trolling now he can't be the weak victim his amygdala demands he reassert his place in the group)
Assumptions? So show me were you call out Montana man (ed- i. e. me) for his attack, weak as it may be.
So just because YOU want to now have a reasonable debate, I'm supposed to stop everything and conform to your desire? Who said I was trying to debate (ed- No shit you weren't debating)? With every comment you prove how authoritarian you are ####. You freedom hating backwoods baffoon. (ed- I'm the victim protect me! protect me!)

 Leftwit: I'm going to leave you fools to wallow in your stupidity. Just know that I don't blame you for not understanding me and being dumb. You only know what you know and it's clear you're not really interested in expanding. Go take a few science classes, maybe demonstrate your ability to juggle large and complex datasets, and maybe you will be worth listening to. Until then, enjoy the peanut gallery.

How well does he conform to the r/K selection model? Is he a narcissist? I'll leave it with Anonymous Conservative's assessment:

Narcissists operate by different rules – to the point that they are, on one level, baffled by your humanity, and on another, amused by its illogical nature – but it is more than that. They are damaged, in a way that they become panicked if they do not do certain things – regardless of whether those things are logical. So they are driven to hurt others by an envy which will destroy them if they do not yield to its whim. Then they see normal people, not so driven, and tell themselves that they are not damaged, but rather the other people are stupid to not try to advance their own position by screwing others.