Morality and Intelligence

For the TL;DR crowd, AC’s regular commenter farcesensitive provided a succinct summary in response to the comment I made which this post is adapted from:

Stupid people are Amoral to some extent.
Intelligent people are either moral or IMmoral.
Cabal finds people who are amoral enough to be just as useful as the immoral and they are easier to identify.

Anonymous Conservative gave a shout-out to my book in his brief yesterday:

My suspicion is somebody wants to cull our population of greatness. I think females are targeted for a couple of reasons. First, I think Atavisionary’s work on the importance of the X chromosome is probably key. I think they are culling the X chromosomes. Women get two, and if one is a standout, the other will blunt it’s effects. Men only get one, but if it is a standout, it will emerge in all its force….

They target our girls more because they will be blunted versions of their X-chromosome, and weaker to roll over. They will also be more obvious. When a female is a standout, her X-chromosome will be amazing, to have overpowered its peer. That, or she will have two amazing X’s, and produce dangerous children left and right.

Read the whole thing. You can also download the book for free from the link below:

I didn’t really think of the implications sex-linked inheritance of intelligence would have for, well, “intelligence” when writing the book. However, AC is correct in asserting that knowing how inheritance works, especially with respect to intelligence and psychological characteristics, could be expected to be a very powerful tool for controlling society for an organized conspiracy playing the long-game. The kind of organized conspiracy intelligence agencies could be expected to utilize (or vice versa). Artificial selection in animals and plants is a proven field. Its only logical the same would be attempted on humans as well, so long as there was enough organization to try. It also shines a new light on a possible reason why this information, despite being discussed semi-openly for the better part of a century, is very conspicuous by its absence in formal educational settings. That absence is discussed at some length in the book itself. AC reports a similar absence of his formulation of r/k theory, despite that having a very similar history and presence in the relevant fields. It makes one wonder what other important concepts are strategically ignored in this manner.

When I first started working on the subreddit and this blog, I took the stance that mass conspiracies weren’t very likely. It is more parsimonious (and naively comforting) to attribute what we see about the corruption and insanity of our country to mass action and stupidity rather than intentional conspiracy. I even included it as a major point in my description of the darkenlightenment subreddit. As a result of pizzagate primarily, and later the national campaign that stole the 2020 election, I have had no choice but to re-evaluate that position. They directly admitted that this happened in the later case, even if its schizophrenically denied at other times. I am not the only one who has gone through this transformation of perspective. AC has also detailed his transformation from a card carrying, Bush supporting republican to acknowledging that most everything we see is a lie and everything and everyone is under a lot more surveillance than anyone outside of the conspiracy would expect. This state of affairs being vastly helped along by computer automation. The specific conspiracy which seems to be controlling a variety of things today is generally named “the cabal” in the many different circles. How and when this particular usage was coined, I am not sure. But that usage is fairly ubiquitous now among anyone who discusses it.

The relationship between morality and intelligence is a bit of a tangent from the topic AC discussed yesterday, but its an important point I would like to highlight more. AC often talks about the idea that DIE (diversity) and feminism hiring practices aren’t really what we think they are, or are supposed to think they are. Specifically, its a cover story to explain away why absolute imbeciles seem to be put into positions of power and responsibility at such a high frequency and with little effort on their part. Massive fraud operations are used to make sure it happens with politicians specifically. The FTX theft/money laundering operation seems to be connected to this. Its why you, dear reader, weren’t given good jobs or promotions despite being a much better candidate. Its reverse-racism anon, not a conspiracy making sure every position with the least amount of power is manned by stooges. And when these imbeciles enact universally hated and and illogical policies, its because they are low-IQ diversity hires, not because they are following orders. That a hated policy which clearly harms the community seems to always get enacted at every level of every institution, no matter how unrelated they are said to be, all at the same exact time is something we aren’t supposed to notice. For a specific example, the sudden uptick in the notoriety of trannies and their placement in censorship positions, everywhere, almost overnight a few years ago when before they were rarely discussed outside of a joke is purely an organic change in the political landscape. Obviously, I don’t believe such things arise naturally anymore.

The reality is that these people are put there because they are loyal to the conspiracy. Besides probably being blackmailed in a Jeffrey Epstein fashion, they are probably just smart enough to know they would never be able to get positions like that without Cabal help. A real meritocracy would most likely see them cleaning toilets. That kind of self-interest can generate a lot of loyalty.

I want to consider these stooges in terms of their morality (or lack thereof) in greater detail. Intelligence isn’t directly linked to morality AFAIK, although it can be expected to play the role of minimum pre-requisite which I will discuss. I didn’t really dig into morality too much when I wrote the book. It is a lot harder to pin that tail on the donkey since you can’t just run the numbers on “morality” and there is a lot of pilpul on the topic to sort through. Moreover, the focus of the book was sex-differences and in many or most cases morality is probably closer to gender neutral than not. Aside from relationship dynamics, of course, which was discussed in the book.

My general feeling is dumbass stooges have a very useful place in the cabal since they are more likely to follow orders without question and also realize at some level they wouldn’t make it without the benefits of the conspiracy. That may lend itself to the idea that dumbass=immoral. There is some truth to that. Someone who is dumb enough hasn’t developed self-consciousness/awareness and will do immoral things from the perspective of others. However, at that low a level, they are basically animals, not humans, in terms of mental ability. Their concerns begin and end at the immediate consequences to themselves alone. Something that happens a year out wouldn’t even enter their thought. It is probable that lack of intellectual ability actually prevents them from having the self-reflection necessary to understand exactly what it is they are doing in order for them to attempt to be more moral. They simple don’t have the mental hardware necessary to imagine the experience of others, an important pre-requisite for forming moral beliefs. As an example, my dog insists on killing every cat he sees and I have to take steps to prevent him from being able to do it. I don’t consider this fact to be a question of morality since he is just an animal doing animal things. Dogs and other animals have no self-awareness and can’t reflect on their actions, which makes the concept of a moral animal an oxymoron. Were a human to act in the exact same way, there would be a substantial difference in judgement because humans are supposed to have self-awareness and thus can be judged on the basis of morality. I might note that the symbolism of the Adam and Eve story is about this graduation from ignorance based innocence. The takeaway here is that some “humans” are closer to my dog, morally and mentally speaking, than to actual humanity. In that sense, they are actually AMORAL, not Immoral. What they do is not an intentional choice in the same sense it is for us. Forgive them father, they know not what they do.

This pattern is most noticeable among blacks, but should be true of a person of any race with a low enough IQ. It is only more noticeable in that group because the average IQ for African Americans is 85, with half of the population lower than that. In Africa proper, its supposed to be even worse since there was no admixture with Europeans. That means at least 50% of the black population runs into this problem that they can’t conceptualize morality properly because of mental limitations. It is essentially a physical impossibility for them. An old favorite in our circles is an article by Gediliah Braun, which I believe was adapted from his book. The whole article is a must-read, but the following is most relevant here.

Africans, I believe, may generally lack the concepts of subjunctivity and counterfactuality. Subjunctivity is conveyed in such statements as, “What would you have done if I hadn’t showed up?” This is contrary to fact because I did show up, and it is now impossible for me not to have shown up. We are asking someone to imagine what he would have done if something that didn’t happen (and now couldn’t happen) had happened. This requires self-consciousness, and I have already described blacks’ possible deficiency in this respect. It is obvious that animals, for example, cannot think counterfactually, because of their complete lack of self-awareness.

When someone I know tried to persuade his African workers to contribute to a health insurance policy, they asked “What’s it for?” “Well, if you have an accident, it would pay for the hospital.” Their response was immediate: “But boss, we didn’t have an accident!” “Yes, but what if you did?” Reply? “We didn’t have an accident!” End of story…

One of the pivotal ideas underpinning morality is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. “How would you feel if someone stole everything you owned? Well, that’s how he would feel if you robbed him.” The subjunctivity here is obvious. But if Africans may generally lack this concept, they will have difficulty in understanding the Golden Rule and, to that extent, in understanding morality.

If this is true we might also expect their capacity for human empathy to be diminished, and this is suggested in the examples cited above. After all, how do we empathize? When we hear about things like “necklacing” we instinctively — and unconsciously — think: “How would I feel if I were that person?” Of course I am not and cannot be that person, but to imagine being that person gives us valuable moral “information:” that we wouldn’t want this to happen to us and so we shouldn’t want it to happen to others. To the extent people are deficient in such abstract thinking, they will be deficient in moral understanding and hence in human empathy — which is what we tend to find in Africans.

Below are some meme images, which repeat the above in a more succinct and sharable format. Sharable in terms of ease of posting around, not politically correct acceptability.

Gedaliah also discusses this lack of temporal understanding in his article.

This post isn’t focused on what should be done with such people. But to be clear, I think moral people should not have to be around this regardless of how “at-fault” or not dumbasses are for their actions. However that may be accomplished. No bleeding heart here. If they are little better than animals, let them starve in the wilderness like the animals they are. Racial segregation could be considered a short-hand for accomplishing the separation of the low-IQ amoral from the moral. Pursued without direct consideration of race, segregating the moral from the amoral would largely look the same as pure racial segregation. At least when blacks specifically are considered.

This type of immorality, technically amorality, is fundamentally different from that of people who are fully self-aware and make immoral decisions anyway. This later type, by necessity, must be in control of the manipulations of the dumbass actors put in front of us. It simply couldn’t be organized this well if only dumbasses were doing anything. In other words, there is a class of people who are very smart, but also very immoral. Intelligence and immorality are not mutually exclusive. However, a minimum intelligence is necessary to understand morality enough to start making moral decisions one way or the other. Being able to understand the consequences of immoral actions and doing them anyway is kind of a big deal, spiritually speaking. Much more so than the same actions would be coming from something that basically amounts to an animal in the shape of a human.

This brings us back to the big push to use DIE hiring practices. The lack of subtlety in the acronym is rather palpable and lends itself to a cabal being the ones pushing it. They love advertising what they do in deniable ways. It takes on a whole new meaning when considered as a cover story. Cabal leaders (intelligently immoral) create the story to explain why hiring occurs how it does, and get to put their ignorantly amoral pets in positions they want controlled while deflecting attention from how improbable this pattern is without the presence of a conspiracy. The pets, being too stupid to really understand morality, offer little resistance to the immoral policies the cabal wants put in place. There is also a lot more of them to work with than there are those who are consciously immoral; especially in the black population. In part its a logistical issue with hiring for a large number of positions that need to be controlled. I’d expect they would prefer to use the consciously immoral exclusively if there were enough available to staff everything. However, it isn’t that common to develop enough self-awareness to understand morality and then consciously choose to do the opposite. It happens, but not enough to staff a large shadow dictatorship.

Meanwhile, white males can attribute why they weren’t hired due to DIE. Everyone else are fed BS about structural racism or patriarchy to explain why they personally weren’t put there. Meanwhile most members of both groups never had a chance for a completely different reason to the public perceptions they have. Better yet, they focus on fighting each other rather than try to uncover exactly how this stuff is actually working. Most clever of all, if they want the white males back they can MKUltra them into trannies and suddenly they can use the DIE cover story for them as well. The advent of the Trannies may have been a response to the growing generalized incompetence of low-level cabal, now that I think about it.

To sum up, being intelligent does not guarantee morality, honesty, integrity, or anything else along those lines. These attributes shouldn’t be confused, nor should the very real pattern of the amoral dumbass bias you away from realizing the other category of immorality exists. “Trust the science” is an example of propaganda encouraging this type of confusion. Being smart in no way prevents a person from lying and/or screwing you over.

It is interesting how this discussion seems to be what many religions were trying to tell us historically, like in the Adam and Eve story. According to someone I know, the poet William Blake alluded to this process in his songs of innocence and experience, which I believe was meant for children. Not being all that familiar with it myself I will just take his word for it, but I can discuss the summary I was given since it applies to this discussion. If this is an incorrect understanding of this work, do let me know. I need to go through this work in detail, but I would prefer to get this article out now.

In short, according to my friend talking about Blake’s metaphysics, spiritual development at the human level goes from innocence –> experience –> to greater innocence. In short, the first innocence is that of the non-self aware being. My dog and other animals can’t understand the consequences of what they do and are therefore karmically innocent of those actions. Once self-awareness develops (which requires a minimum intelligence), the exact same actions are no longer innocent since the being has the capability to understand the consequences from a moral perspective. When this capacity is combined with the experiences of living life, it becomes more and more possible to consistently or always make the moral decision. Eventually, with enough experience, the being would graduate into greater innocence. In other words, all this work would culminate in the achievement of a greater innocence in which awareness is to such an extent that all immoral action is avoided. It is probably true that this process would make more sense in a cosmology including reincarnation where beings evolve through levels of awareness over many lifetimes (animals–>humans–>Devas or whatever the greater innocence would be in those cosmologies.)

Anyway, its an interesting thing to ponder. Especially since modern data collection and logical analysis yields essentially, in the important details, the same perspective as the wisdom of the ancients.

Brett Stevens and I collaborated on an article which discusses this a little bit a few years ago.

Find other great dissident right content with the two Atavisionary RSS feeds: Atavisions and Prolific Atavisions. In addition, download the free ebook Smart and Sexy to learn what, how and why there are biologically based cognitive differences between the sexes

One Reply to “Morality and Intelligence”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *