Category Archives: Essays

The Gene-Culture

The phrase “gene-culture” expresses the idea that there is no such thing as a culture independent from genes, or genes independent from culture. It enables a researcher to think of human evolution in accurate, realistic terms. At a population level, it is not individual humans, or specific genetic backgrounds, that are most relevant to natural selection, it is the gene-culture.

Examples of gene-cultures are WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), Lebanese Christians, the Amish, Malaysian Muslims, and Ashkenazi Jews.

In order for children to grow up, prosper, and reproduce, in addition to requiring healthy and capable genes, they require healthy and capable cultures. They need a culture where there is rule of law, where there is sufficient social support to overcome the fear of the financial risk posed by having children, and where there is sufficient knowledge and health care to feed, clothe and care for these children.

The reproductive prosperity of a population relies on both genes and cultures. The two are inseparable. And when either of them is unfit, reproductive fitness is diminished.

The Japanese are extremely fit genetically. Intellectually they have the capacity to provide sufficient food and care for their offspring. But their culture is unfit. The reproductive fitness of their genes doesn’t make a difference when the culture part is unfit; the gene-culture as a whole becomes unfit and fails to reproduce effectively.

What is unfit about Japanese culture is the fact that they fully embraced the West’s neo-Liberal Usurer Economics, which, through the Risk-Profit Differential, constantly pushes the nation’s wealth into the hands of the super-rich, increasing poverty among the lower classes, and causing stagnation in the middle class.

Any culture that is not resistant to usury will eventually suffer stagnation, declining birth rates and population shrinkage. This is happening in most, if not all, of the developed world.

Just as a population that is genetically prone to a plague can be wiped out by it, a population that is culturally prone to usury will be wiped out by it.

The idea of the gene-culture enables us to view matters of cultural (economic and religious) practice in Darwinian terms. Just as a harmful genetic mutation reduces a population’s viability, a harmful cultural mutation (in the case of Japanese, embracing Western-style usury) reduces the population’s viability.

The idea of the gene-culture also contains the important implication that culture affects genes and genes affect culture. Among animals, genetic fitness is the most important factor in their survival, most animals have negligible cultures (exceptions being higher primates like orangutans). Humans, however, due to their intellectual complexity, are extremely reliant on culture, so that culture makes up about half of the picture when it comes to examining a population’s reproductive fitness.

In the above chart, I’m counting the material environment in which the genes exist toward the gene side. The contribution of culture toward the reproductive fitness of humans varies a great deal from environment to environment, and the average amount of its contribution might be less than 50%.

Imagine a hundred Japanese middle class families in Tokyo adopting a hundred Haitian children from soon after birth. The children will grow up in a Japanese world, learning Japanese customs and ideals. But they do not have Japanese genes. Victorian romantics and modern proponents of “environment is everything” (junk 20th century social scientists, which is nearly all of them) would imagine that these children would grow up and make perfect Japanese citizens who will only be held back by racism.

What actually happens is that their Haitian genes will mutate Japanese culture, so that no matter how hard they try to be authentically Japanese, there will be clear manifestations of differences in their understanding and application of Japanese culture (which is not a bad thing, it is a simple fact of biology).

But the most interesting thing is the children of these children. These children will create a Creole Japanese culture that will seem quite foreign to the average Japanese. It will have aspects of Japanese culture and Haitian culture, even if the children and their parents know nothing about Haiti and its people. Haitian culture is partly a result of its population’s genetics. And if this population is made to grow up in Japan, these genes will ultimately show through, tearing Japanese cultural conditioning apart and creating something new and interesting out of it.

An interesting expression of the gene-culture came from Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia’s president, the Wall Street-friendly drunkard Boris Yeltsin, took off all of Russia’s defenses and threw it naked in a room with Wall Street’s fattest and ugliest usurers, who, in just a few years, managed to plunge the country into the worst demographic disaster in its history, where Russia’s started to become more like a third-world backwater than a proud Euro-Asiatic country. Regardless of the genetic fitness of Russia’s population, removal of its cultural defenses against usury destroyed its reproductive fitness.

Once Vladimir Putin took over, he kicked out the usurers and started the process of repairing Russia’s cultural fitness. The usurers, in turn, launched an all-out financial and propaganda war on him from Wall Street that has continued to date. Regardless Wall Street and Washington’s chest-pumping, Russia has continued its demographic recovery. Christianity is back on the rise, culture is flourishing, life expectancies increase and technological innovation grows.

The above is, of course, a gross simplification of what happened in Russia. But to the gene-culture this is not an issue, since the gene-culture is a high-level construct that enables researchers to examine human history from a Darwinian perspective. No facts are ignored or thrown out to fit reality into the theory (as is done by junk sociologists on the one hand, and certain behavioral psychologists on the other), as the theory encompasses all facts. Dysfunctions in politics are affected by, and affect, the gene-culture. Russia’s gene-culture leads to Czars, Arab and African gene-cultures lead to dictators, and Western Europe’s present gene-culture leads to usurer-controlled democracies. Cultures select for genes and genes select for cultures.

The gene-culture also sheds light on the effects of feminism. Feminism reduces fertility in many ways, such as encouraging women to spend their most fertile years working to enrich the usurer class. A gene-culture that is not immune to feminism will be infected and mutated by it, so that its reproductive fitness decreases. Meanwhile, gene-cultures that are immune to feminism will not be harmed by it, and will reproduce faster than the infected populations. This process will naturally eliminate feminism from any large population that contains a significant minority gene-culture that is resistant to feminism.

The gene-culture could also be called the gene-meme, or geme for short. But this gets too technical and only social scientists would understand it. I chose “gene-culture” since it is easier to imagine and comprehend. By “culture” I mean everything carried by a human population apart from genes and epigenetics. This includes language, religion, law and political institutions.

/ No Comments on The Gene-Culture

The Risk-Profit Differential: Why Usurers Practice Usury

[From my book, How to Really Occupy Wall Street. For a brief primer on usury, necessary for understanding this article, please see this article: The Wonderful Parallel Universe of Usury]

The evils of usury, and the immense urge that usurers feel to practice it, can all be summed up into one phrase: the risk-profit differential.

Whatever reasons usurers bring up to defend usury can be defeated by mentioning this phrase. The risk-profit differential is the core of usury, the reason why usurers prefer usury over productive investment, as was recognized by Jesus in his Parable of the Talents.

The risk-profit differential refers to the fact that, at its core, every usurious contract is about passing off more risk to the borrower than to the lender, and passing off more profit to the lender than to the borrower. This differential, this unbalanced arrangement that constantly pushes risk away from the usurer while also constantly pushing profit toward him, is where the attraction of usury lies.

It is the desire of every human to want to increase profits while also wanting to decrease risks. A usurer is simply someone selfish enough to create an arrangement that puts this unchecked, selfish animal desire into law through a contract that ensures him more profit and less risk, while also ensuring less profit and more risk to the borrower.

Usury is about enforcing a contract that enslaves the borrower to the usurer’s interests. The usurer class ensures itself a constant rate of profit (the class as a whole always profits, never loses), while the borrower class profits and loses randomly, so that as a whole no profit or loss is made. The usurer class gets guaranteed profits. The borrower class is forced to share its profits with the usurers, while also being made to keep its losses to itself.

Through this unbalanced arrangement, the wealth of the usurer class balloons. They build skyscrapers to house their banks and insurance companies. The rest of society’s prosperity grows fast at first, then stagnates, and then starts to decline as the debt load grows.

Regardless of how poor society continually becomes, regardless of how much it suffers, the wealth of the usurer class continues to increase. With their immense wealth they end up controlling our entire economy, our media, our politicians, ensuring that things will always stay in their favor. This is not new. The Knights Templar, through their practice of usury, were powerful enough to ignore the commands of popes and kings.

Casinos make vast profits by having machines that win very slightly more than they lose. Perhaps winning 52% of the time and losing 48% of the time. Usury, through the risk-profit differential, turns the entire economy into a casino where the usurers win 80% of the time, and lose 20% of the time (through defaults and bankruptcies). While a large casino makes a few billion a year for its owners through its rigged nature, the economy, due to the rigged nature of usury, makes trillions every year for the usurer class.

Usury is an unbalanced arrangement, otherwise it wouldn’t be usury. There is no way to make usury fair, to make it harmless, to make it add positive value to society. The only solution to usury is to ban it, as the Catholic King Edward I and the Protestant King Edward VI did.

Remember this phrase, the risk-profit differential. No matter how many clever arguments the usurers and their economists come up with in defense of their usury, they can never make this fact go away, as this is the only reason a usurer practices usury: he wants nearly all profits to come to himself, and nearly all losses to go to his borrowers.

[For ideas on non-usurious lending and insurance, please see the chapter on Socratic Finance in my book How to Really Occupy Wall Street.]

Usurers Love Immigrants

[From my new book, How to Really Occupy Wall Street.]

Note that I’m writing all of this as a (legal) immigrant myself from Iraq living in the US.

Helping immigrants who are trying to leave their hopeless countries for a better life is a cause that most of us can get behind. It’s difficult to refuse help to those who need it. At least, if you are not a usurer.

Usurers, who knowingly pass off their economic risks to society so that only profits remain for themselves, are at the forefront of supporting immigration. They fund ad campaigns and large non-profit organizations that promote immigration. And they pretend that they do it all because their hearts are bleeding for these poor people.

When someone’s entire lifestyle is based on passing off suffering to others, only a very gullible person would believe them when in this very specific case they seem to have bleeding hearts. They couldn’t care less about the people dying from drug overdose and alcoholism in small US towns, and black people dying in ghettos, when the usurers took their jobs overseas to increase their own profits.

The reason usurers support immigration is that, for them, immigration is a complete no-brainer. It is winnings and profits all the way.

Usurers want to promote “diversity” by importing immigrants from non-white countries. One important quality of these immigrants is that they are easy to convince that the locals hate them. They are told in the usurer media, in college, in movies and TV shows, in ads, that America’s peasant class are all racist and ignorant. In this way, America gets to have yet another class that can be used to fight off the peasant class.

By having a divided nation ridden with internal conflicts, and promoting these conflicts every chance they get, usurers believe they themselves will be safe. A brown person waiting at a bus stop is not going to be worrying about the power of the usurers if he is constantly bombarded with ideas suggesting to him that the white people around him are all secretly racists who hate everything about him.

The only instances in history where usurers have been in true danger are those in which a country’s population were all united for a common goal. Germany was entirely being run by usurers in the 1920’s. They owned the banks, the corporations and the media (similar to the United States today). It was usurers who financed Hitler’s rise to power, thinking that he would be even friendlier to usurer interests. What happened instead is that Hitler used the hopelessness and despair of Germany’s peasant class to unite the country and bend it to his will. Instead of doing as the usurers wanted, he used the power given to him by the people to take over the country’s economy.

Samuel Untermyer, a Jewish millionaire, wrote in The New York Times in August 1933 that it was a number of Jewish bankers who were financing Hitler. The Harvard-educated Rabbi Edward L. Israel wrote this in 1938 in The Pittsburgh Press:

One sad fact keeps ringing in our ears in the midst of the savage anti-Semitic outbursts in Nazi Germany. We cannot keep from mind the grim thought that during Hitler’s rise to power, a number of wealthy Jews helped to finance his campaign. Unbelievable as it now seems, this is the truth.

Hitler’s lesson, and many similar lessons throughout history, have taught usurers that a stable and united nation is a highly dangerous environment for usury, because usurers will be at the mercy of the whims of the nation’s leaders, who are empowered by the population’s unity.

What’s much safer for usury is a nation full of divisions. They promote hatred for men in the name of feminism, hatred for whites in the name of civil rights, and hatred for straight people in the name of gay rights. And toward this same goal, they promote immigration to create new classes of society who do not identify with the suffering of America’s peasant class. They can even be convinced to hate America’s peasant class by telling them that America’s peasant class are mostly racists who hate them. In this way, racial and religious divisions are used to destabilize the nation’s unity, and thus stabilizing the usurer’s paradise. As long as different classes of peasants fight each other, they won’t have the time to focus on their true enemies, the usurers living in their gated communities and high towers, protected by a militarized police.

The second reason usurers love immigrants is to get cheap workers and keep wages low for the entire population, so that more profits can be directed toward their own stomachs. After President Trump’s crack down on illegal immigration, wealthy California farmers can be found who are complaining about how “hard” it is to find workers. What they are saying is that it is hard to find workers at the disgracefully low wages they are used to paying them. Americans are “too expensive” for them, because if they hired Americans, instead of their making $10 million a year in profit, they might make only $7 million. What a tragedy! They may not even be able to afford that bigger yacht they’ve been thinking about for the past year!

It is true that the price of some things will go up if immigration stops. But that increased price goes to other workers. It is money being sent from one part of the peasant class to another, meaning that the peasant class’s economic fitness as a whole is not harmed. No, its fitness even benefits, because of the real Phillips curve: wage inflation reduces unemployment. When restricted immigration increases wages, as the money among the peasant class increases, their ability to purchase goods and services increases, and business profits in their area increase, so that these businesses are able to expand and hire more people (who will also be paid high wages). It is only the usurer’s personal profits that are reduced.

Immigrants, by increasing the population, also increase the number of people that can be enslaved through mortgages, credit cards, student loans and insurance. It is a way for usurers to increase the number of their slaves.

Many immigrants are able to assimilate and find better lives here. As usual for usurers, they and their media use this good fact to justify the whole thing, the same way they justify usury, for-profit-insurance, futures contracts and globalism. They ignore the fact that immigration makes local workers and professionals poorer. If today 100,000 Indian software engineers are brought to the country, the wage-earning ability of nearly all local software engineers will decline. And if they have secure jobs, they will not be able to ask for promotions, because their bosses can always say that they are already being paid more than all these newly available software engineers.

The usurer pretense is that immigrants are just as capable as the locals to fill out all job positions throughout society. They can be entrepreneurs, surgeons and farmers. And a few superstar immigrant entrepreneurs and surgeons are used as “proof” of this.

In the real world, if we consider 100,000 local software engineers, we can easily imagine that $200,000 has been spent educating and training each one of them, equaling a sum of $20 billion. If we bring in 100,000 Indian or Chinese software engineers, this $20 billion investment can easily lose half of its value, as our local software engineers will suffer wage stagnation and unemployment from the competition from the immigrant software engineers. That is 100,000 of our people who will find it so much harder to pay off their student loans, to buy a house, to start a family. What good is a kindness that benefits a group of people while destroying the hope and livelihoods of another group of people?

The usurers and their media frame the entire issue as a matter of racism and xenophobia, which is of course to their own profit, since whether it is low-skilled or high-skilled immigrants that we are bringing in, it is the usurers whose wealth will balloon as a result as their corporations end up paying lower wages and earning higher profits, and as their banks find new customers to enslave to credit cards, mortgages and student loans.

The issue of immigration is as complicated as the issues of usury, insurance, futures contracts and trade. This complexity gives the usurers and their media the ability to exaggerate the benefits of whatever the usurers want while ignoring the harms. And in the case of immigration, since it is so easy to call someone a racist for opposing immigration, there has been very little resistance to it.

It is possible to have a fair form of immigration, through having skill quotas. First, all immigration should be stopped. Next, we should look at the economic conditions of the workers in different sectors of the economy.

For example, we can look at low-skilled workers and see whether after a year of no immigration their median wages rise or fall. If they rise, it means their prosperity is increasing, and it means we could let in a limited number of unskilled workers who could supply the economy with labor without damaging the wellbeing of the local unskilled workers. The amount of unskilled immigrants allowed should be small enough to prevent wages from decreasing next year. It is fine if wage growth slows a little, but wage growth should not stop.

But if we find that even after stopping immigration low-skilled wages are stagnant, it means the economy is already oversupplied with low-skilled labor, so that letting in more low-skilled workers would do damage to the economic wellbeing of the local low-skilled workers we have. No more immigration should be allowed until their wages start to rise higher than inflation.

The same calculation can be done for software engineers, or welders. If it is determined that the wages of any sector are increasing quickly, we can let in more immigrants who can work in that sector without causing economic damage to the local population.

Even as they promote immigration, the usurer media ignores the fact that usurers have everything to gain and nothing to lose from it. The costs to the rest of society are entirely ignored, our local low-skilled workers are treated as stupid and worthless. The widely-read usurer lobbyist Bill Kristol says American workers are lazy and need to be replaced by immigrants. Americans are some of the hardest working and most overworked people in the world.

As a commentator who has nothing to do besides ensuring usurer interests are protected and that the status quo is unchallenged, he may really be stupid enough to think that every other American lives the same life of idleness and luxury. Most of our political elite are like this. Everything comes so easily to them that they really think the average American is also having a great time doing nothing useful.

Immigration is often nothing but another outlet for the usurers to increase their own profits at the cost of the rest of society. We should see through their duplicity and lies and realize that the reason they promote immigration is not that they have good hearts, but that they stand to gain all the benefit from it while passing off all the costs to the rest of society.

/ No Comments on Usurers Love Immigrants

Free Trade is Welfare for Wall Street

[From my new book, How to Really Occupy Wall Street.]

Free trade sounds like a good thing. Who doesn’t want freedom? How could restricted trade be better?

Usurer economists have managed to enforce the usurer-invented ideology that free trade benefits both nations that engage in it. It has certain benefits that usurers use to justify it, the same way that usurious lending, for-profit insurance and futures contracts have benefits that usurers use to justify them.

Free trade is how corporations (and their usurer owners) maximize profits by bypassing local laws that ensure livable working conditions, health insurance, and environmental protection. They move production to countries where workers are cheap because education is cheap or free there, instead of having to pay local workers who have $100,000 or more in student debt and who need a certain amount of pay just to make ends meet.

Free trade is how usurers double-dip the world economy, producing things where it is cheapest, and selling them where it is most expensive. They do their utmost to maximize profits while contributing the very least to either of the nations they exploit.

The usual argument in support of free trade goes like this: If one nation is good at producing airplanes, and another good at producing wine, then if each nation specializes at what it does best, both nations will produce more of the things they specialize in, and in this way the production of both nations increases, and thus both nations enjoy a surplus of both wine and airplanes.

What goes into this argument is the naive and fraudulent assumption that all of a country’s workers are equally capable of moving from one industry to another. If our country’s largest software companies move their best jobs to India, does that mean our own programmers can become farmers or airplane makers? Is that the best use of their talents for our country?

A programmer put out of work due to Microsoft off-shoring work to India (or importing workers from India through the H1-B visa) is not going to be happy as a farmer or accountant. They have spent years learning their specific trade (and perhaps have collected hundreds of thousands of debt from usurers in the process), and they need an outlet for their talents that can enable them to get their investment back.

Usurer economists will say that they are free to create their own companies. But they cannot. Usurer-backed companies like Microsoft, who get their cheap labor from India, will always be able to out-compete them, because their workers are cheaper, and they have the money to out-spend all competitors in advertising.

By putting our programmers out of work, these programmers are forced to either accept a low-paying job so that they can find work again, or start a company that supplies a small product to a niche market, while the major software industries of our country are run by foreign programmers, meaning that there will never be a major market for the talents of our own programmers.

The same is true for manufacturing workers. A worker who specializes in producing specific car parts for the car industry cannot effectively move to another industry when the car part maker decides to move production to Mexico or China. They cannot start their own car part making company because the company that fired them is going to be producing the parts cheaper, so that they cannot compete.

This has been happening in industry after industry in the United States as our globalist usurers have continually sent production overseas. The market for the talents of our local workers and professionals has continued to shrink, and their incomes have stagnated, even as the profits of corporate managers have skyrocketed.

Free trade is all about treating people like cattle. Your entire industry has been sent overseas so that there is no outlet for your talents? Too bad, start flipping burgers. You are an exchangeable cog, if a cheaper one can be found, then goodbye. And good luck paying off your student loans. If you are lucky, you will be able to find another job, or start a company that can make enough for you to get by.

But most people are not lucky. What free trade does to most people is that it takes away the jobs they enjoy (and have spent years learning to do effectively) and forces them to do second-rate jobs, often at lower pay. It turns thriving cities into ghost towns as factories and businesses close and the workers are left living in barren economies, to become alcoholics and drug addicts.

These workers are filled with an overwhelming sense of shame, as they feel there is no purpose to their existence anymore. They either completely give up, or leave for a larger city and start to rebuild their lives anew, often while carrying large debt loads from their past lives.

Since Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), which enacted free trade between the US, Mexico and Canada in 1994, drug overdose deaths and death rates in general in small US towns skyrocketed, in a phenomenon that’s only now being recognized. Some are calling it the “White Death”, as it has mainly affected majority-white counties in the Midwest and surrounding areas.

It was the counties that were hit hardest by NAFTA that gave the most votes to Donald Trump.

The NAFTA hasn’t been any easier on Mexico. Our usurer economists use the media’s nascent racism against lower-class whites (“they took our jerbs!”) to pretend that free trade is a good thing that the lower class opposes because it benefits other poor people.

What actually happened after the NAFTA is that it put millions of Mexican corn farmers out of work, since Mexico was flooded with cheap corn produced by US corporations. The devastation caused by NAFTA caused the biggest wave ever of Mexican illegal immigration into the United States.

Usurers and their economists said the NAFTA would help raise the wages of Mexicans. What actually happened is that Mexicans in 2014 actually had lower wages than they did in 1994. Millions of Mexican families had to give up the plots of land that had been farmed by them for generations, as their land was now worthless thanks to US corn.

And usurers on both sides of the border got richer. Mexico’s chief usurer, Carlos Slim, became the richest man in the world for a while.

The root evil of free trade is that it ignores the very, very important fact that the majority of the workforce cannot effectively move from one sector of the economy to another. Once free trade destroys their industry, they are left with nearly nothing. Years of education and training (in the case of US workers), or generations of hard work on a farm (in the case of Mexican farmers) or business are made entirely worthless by it.

People are not cattle. And a million-dollar factory cannot magically go from producing car parts, or milling grain, to producing smartphones. When free trade hits, all the investment that went into the factory becomes mostly worthless. The Midwest is full of abandoned and rusting factories that once were worth millions and were surrounded by thriving towns.

There are people who love to write software for computers, and who have spent years of effort, and have collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, to acquire the skills they have. If most of the country’s software industry is suddenly run by foreigners, then local software programmers will have no outlet for their talents, and they will suffer unemployment and lower wages. Corporations will treat them as undesirable, since they cost so much more than foreigners, and they will do their best to only maintain skeleton crews of local software programmers while outsourcing everything that can be outsourced.

Free trade is a great tool for beating employees into submission. If they complain that their wages aren’t sufficient for them to make a living, you can just threaten them to send their jobs overseas. Through the use of this threat, local wages can be kept low, so that more profits go into the stomachs of the usurers who own and run the country’s corporations.

Usurers want to be able to freely import goods and services from China. What they ignore to mention is that China doesn’t allow its own usurers to freely import goods and services from other countries. China only believes in one-way free trade, where it can flood the world with its own products while refusing to take in other countries’ products freely, in this way ensuring full employment for its own citizens and creating unemployment in other countries.

The people who run China are clever, and unlike the US government, their policy decisions are meant for the benefit of the nation as a whole, instead of entirely for the benefit of an all-powerful usurer class. China encourages local industry and employment through charging heavy taxes on imports. Many American and European car makers have been forced to build factories there, since China makes it so difficult for them to import cars built elsewhere. Through this policy, China makes these companies hire Chinese workers, who acquire the technologies of these companies, and through the government’s strong support for local industry, they are able to leave these Western companies and create Chinese alternatives to them. It’s one of the main goals of the Chinese government to reduce imports (its reliance on other nations) so much that by 2025 it means to ensure that 70% of all products the country needs are entirely locally produced. Universities are working with local factories to develop alternatives to materials which so far they have only been able to import from other countries.

Encouraging local employment and preserving the value of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that go into educating and training a skilled worker is only one of the benefits of restricted trade. The other important benefit is innovation. You cannot innovate in producing passenger airplanes if your country doesn’t have an industry producing passenger airplanes. If all of your airplanes are imported from China, the innovation is going to be happening there. This is the case with screen technology. As most smartphone, laptop and TV screens are made in South Korea and Japan, these two countries are the world leaders when it comes to inventing and marketing new screen technologies.

By importing any good or service from other countries, we are subsidizing innovation and research in that country, allowing them to maintain a permanent technological edge over us.

The solution to all of this is restricted trade, which we can also call “fair trade”. This was the policy of the United States during its extremely fast industrialization in the 19th century, until it was given up through the efforts of bank lobbyists.

One of the greatest American economists of the 19th century was the anti-free-trade thinker Erasmus Peshine Smith, whose ideas inspired American trade policy until the end of the 1800’s. Almost no one knows his name, since he wasn’t a usurer economist, and his ideas go against the interests of the usurer class, so that not a single mention of him can be found in most of today’s college textbooks. An entire 40 year period of American economic history has been wiped from the public consciousness.

One reason usurers and their media hate Donald Trump so much is that he says he will charge a tax on imports (such taxes are known as tariffs), which threatens their profits, and which will force them to raise the wages of their local workers. It is a policy that will help the peasant class at the cost of the usurer class, and so to a usurer it is utter blasphemy.

The latest defense of globalism and free trade is that sooner or later, everything is going to be automated, so that “bringing those jobs back” is not going to happen anyway, as the jobs will not exist. They are using some imaginary event 50 years in the future to justify continuing their current policy of plundering the working and middle classes. Bringing any industry back to the country would not only bring those jobs back, but will also create a great number of other supporting industries that too will employ people. Usurers will be forced to raise wages, and job opportunities would greatly increase for job seekers.

Yes, automation is a big, looming threat to everyone except the top 10% most skilled workers and professionals in society. But leaving our industries overseas is not the answer, because even if a factory is entirely automated, if it is overseas, the knowledge to run the factory, and the innovation required to improve it and make greater things out of it, will also happen overseas, giving that overseas nation (and its skilled workers) a great advantage over our workers.

The solution is to bring jobs back regardless of automation. As for automation, there is a powerful solution to it known as wealth recycling, that I will address in a future chapter, that will ensure that automation, instead of reducing people’s wages and living standards, will actually increase them.

To oppose free trade, which we should call “globalism”, since the word “free” in “free trade” makes it sound like a good thing to most people, fair trade has to be promoted in its place. That means putting our workers and professionals on an equal footing with foreign ones. We shouldn’t let a usurer corporation like Microsoft import tens of thousands of cheap foreign workers so that it wouldn’t have to raise the wages of local ones. Big tech companies have put hundreds of thousands of skilled software engineers out of work through this selfish and greedy policy.

The usual argument for these companies to import workers is that there aren’t enough skilled workers locally. Anyone familiar with their industries knows that this is a breathtakingly enormous lie. What they are really saying is that local workers cost too much. They want cheap workers who will ensure them continued enormous profits. So far, through importing cheap workers, these companies have managed to create wage stagnation for their workers over the past 15 workers just as executive pay has skyrocketed.

The United States does not have a talent shortage like these companies pretend. It has a massive surplus of talent that is going to waste. There are so many unemployed skilled workers that today even a PhD is not sufficient to ensure employment. A usurer corporation like Google gets to lord it over its employees by getting the best of the best of the country at incredibly discounted salaries, since they always have the power of outsourcing and hiring foreign workers.

There is nothing wrong with Google having an Indian branch that serves India. What is wrong is Google sending most of its jobs to India, and then from there serving the US market. Because this way all of the investment and innovation will happen in India, and Google will be able to offer services to the US market at discounted rates, so that no local company that hires local workers will be able to compete. This is the exact situation that has happened in industry after industry since the 90’s when outsourcing and worker importation soared.

Chinese leaders are very well aware of this, and so they make Western companies establish local operations there, and make them produce things there, if they want to serve the Chinese market.

President Donald Trump too seems to be aware of this and is promising to fix the matter. While this will be a step in the right direction for the people of the US, it is only a small step. It prevents one type of usurer abuse, but it doesn’t address the root cause of our economic woes: usury. Still, we need to be thankful for any progress made.

I call companies like Microsoft and Google usurer companies because they (and every other big corporation) all practice usury. They amass large hoards of cash, and like any usurer, lend these at interest to others through Wall Street banks. Apple made $4 billion solely from usury (reported as “interest income” on their earnings statements) in 2016, Microsoft made $903 million, Oracle $538 million, Google $434 million, and Facebook $91 million. The actual amount of money invested in usury by these large tech companies is probably upwards of $100 billion, the numbers earlier are only the interest they earned on their usurious lending.

Since taxes on imports are, in effect, a tax on the local population (since they end up having to pay higher prices for imports), the tax could be returned directly to the bottom 50% of society as part of the larger wealth tax that will be covered later. In this way imports will be prevented from destroying local industries on the one hand, and they will contribute to the wellbeing of the poor and the lower middle class on the other hand.

The Wonderful Parallel Universe of Usury

[From the first chapter of my new book, How to Really Occupy Wall Street.]

When asked, ‘What is to be said of making profit by usury?’
Cato replied, ‘What is to be said of making profit by murder?’
—Cicero (44 B.C.)

Someone who practices lending at interest is known as a usurer. Usurers have been hated by people throughout history, not just out of envy for their wealth, but because once usurers are in charge of any nation’s economy, wealth inequality explodes: the rich continue to get richer, the middle class stagnates, and the number of people living in poverty grows larger.

Modern economists, many of whom are nothing more than lobbyists for the usurer class, have rewritten the entire science of economics with usury at its foundation, so much so that only one in a thousand economists can be found who can think critically about the effects of usury on the nation’s economy. The majority are so immersed in Usurer Economics that for them to question anything about usury feels the same as questioning the value of breathing air.

What is so bad about earning and paying interest anyway? Shouldn’t a person who lends $10,000 USD to a business earn something in return?

There is one species of this price or reward …when money is lent on a contract to receive not only the principal sum again, but also an increase by way of compensation for the use; which generally is called interest…the enemies to interest… hold… any increase of money to be indefensibly usurious. And this they ground as well on the prohibition of it by the law of Moses among the Jews, as also upon what is said to be laid down by Aristotle, that money is naturally barren, and to make it breed money is preposterous, and a perversion of the end of its institution, which was only to serve the purposes of exchange” “and not increase. Hence the school divines (scholastic theologians) have branded the practice of taking interest as being contrary to the divine law both natural and revealed; and the canon law has proscribed the taking any, the least, increase for the loan of money, as a mortal sin.
Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book the Second, as quoted in Usury in Christendom, emphasis mine.

Some people who borrow money make profits through the use of this money, so that paying an interest rate of 5%, for example, is of little consequence to them. If you borrow $10,000 at a 5% annual interest rate, you will only have to pay $500 at the end of the year. That’s very little if during that year you made $2000 from the money you borrowed. Your profit is 20%, while the interest rate is 5%, meaning that you make a net profit of 15%, or $1500, during that year. The usurer who lent you the money is satisfied, and you who borrowed the money are satisfied.

To most people today, this seems like a perfectly fair and just transaction.

But it is not. It is one of the most evil and unjust transactions that humans have ever invented. According to the New Testament, the only time that Jesus used violence during his entire career was against the usurers.

Hermann Adler, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire from 1891 to 1911, says: “No amount of money given in charity, nothing but the abandonment of this hateful trade, can atone for this great sin against God, Israel and Humanity.” He is attacking usurers for using philanthropy (widely publicized acts of charity) to justify their usury, saying that no amount of charity will absolve them.

In Europe, during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, usurers were among the most despised classes of society, they had the same social standing as brothel owners, cesspit cleaners and public executioners. It was a source of pride for Christians that they did not engage in usury.

As the centuries passed, usury become commonplace. Usurers rebranded themselves as financiers, capitalists and industrialists, and through performing acts of charity, the majority of them were (and are) also known as philanthropists.

So what is the big deal with usury?

The problem with usury is that the profits of lenders always grows faster than the profits of borrowers. When you borrow $10,000 at 5% interest, within this transaction is the embedded assumption that your prosperity will grow by at least 5% in the next year. This is why Aristotle and many other philosophers and intellectuals call usury “unnatural.” The profits of usury are separate from the profits of the actual economy in which it exists. When usurers lend at 5%, they are maintaining a parallel alternate reality in which the economy grows at 5% in the next year, regardless of whether the actual economy grows at 5% or not.

While some borrowers make good use of the money they have borrowed and make more than 5%, so that they can pay off the usurers and still make a profit, others, because of the millions of different chances that operate in the reality of an economy, make a loss on the money they have borrowed.

They may have borrowed $10,000, and a year later they only have $8,000 left, because their business dealing didn’t work out as they expected. But the usurer, in his alternate reality, continues to pretend not only that the $10,000 still exists, but that the $10,000 made a 5% profit. He collects $500 from the borrower at the end of the year, leaving the borrower with $7500 in cash, and a $10,000 debt to pay off. If the borrower continues to be unlucky the next year, he loses another $2,000 of his cash, but he still has to pay about $500 to the usurer, so now he has $5,000 left in cash, and a $10,000 debt to pay off.

Meanwhile, during these two years, the usurer has earned $1,000 in profit, without losing any of the $10,000 he gave to the borrower, since the borrower is required to pay it back regardless of his or her profits or losses.

Usury is a way of earning money by the virtue of having money, while making others to carry the burden of any risk that comes out of using the money. It is an amazing deal—for the usurer. For the borrower, sometimes it is a good deal, sometimes it breaks even, and sometimes it is pure slavery.

A modern, poignant form of debt slavery today is student debt. A usurer lends a student $200,000 at, let’s say, 5% interest. Within this debt is the assumption that not only will the student be able to use their $200,000 degree to earn that much back over their career, but that they will also make a 5% profit, every year, over the cost of the degree.

As it happens, some students graduate and succeed in the business world, so that they pay off the loan in 10 or 15 years while enjoying a good, or at least an acceptable, standard of living.

But for many students, this is only something that they can dream of. They borrow tens of thousands of dollars, only to spend the rest of their lives barely being able to make the monthly payments on their loans. And ten years after graduation, due to changing economic, political or technological conditions, their degrees may be completely worthless, meaning that they racked up $200,000 or more in debt for something completely useless. This $200,000 will hover over them like a dark cloud for the rest of their lives.

Meanwhile, the usurer in his or her high tower, continues to extract a 5% interest, or $10,000 a year, from the student, with the law enabling them to maintain an alternate reality in which that completely useless degree is actually worth $200,000, and also that that useless degree is enabling the student to earn a 5% yearly profit over the value of the degree.

In 2015, there were 2.8 million Americans over the age of 60 who were still living with student debt. US law, authored by usurers and their lobbyists, prohibits these people from declaring bankruptcy so that they can get rid of this cloud that has been giving them constant stress since their early adulthood. The law forces them to pay it off, and empowers usurers to seize these people’s wages and properties to get not only the original $200,000, but an additional $10,000 yearly profit over and above that for every year these people have had their debt, which, for a person of 60, means for their entire adult lives. Student debt has turned these people into money-making machines for the usurers.

Usury is about creating an alternate reality in which the economy grows at 5%, or 20%, or whatever the usurers are currently lending their money at, and using the law to force this reality on the population, regardless of the actual economy.

In the real economy, each year and each month’s profits are different from the previous ones. One year the economy may make a 5% profit, another a 2.5% profit. A war may break out, or natural disaster may strike, causing the economy to make a loss. Political conditions can change. Trade wars, currency speculation and terrorism can severely damage an economy’s profits.

But in the blissful alternate reality of the usurer, none of this happens. Each year is full of sunshine and great harvests, and the population will have to subsidize this alternate reality for them, by their very blood if they have to.

If all the businesses in the United States borrow $5 trillion from usurers at 5% interest, but they only make a 2.5% profit, they will actually make a 2.5% loss, since they have to pay 5% to the usurers. That is a $125 billion loss that will have to be paid to the usurers.

A business may declare bankruptcy, in which case the government auctions off their assets to pay off the usurers. In such cases the usurers can lose a lot of money. Usurers use this risk of bankruptcy to justify their profits. While this risk does exist, it is the amount of the risk that matters. While usurers do make losses sometimes, their profits are always greater. The whole economy operates like one big rigged casino for usurers, in which 10% of the time they lose, and 90% of the time they win, regardless of economic conditions.

Since the dawn of civilization, it has always been the case that the profits of usurers has grown faster than the profits of the rest of the population. The wealth of usurers balloons while the wealth of the population grows during some years, and decreases during others.

The wealth of usurers grows faster than the wealth of the population, meaning that they always have the upper hand in the economy. They get to buy the most profitable companies and the most profitable patches of land and real estate. They own the biggest mansions and the nicest cars. They live in a blissful alternate reality where every day is a great day—all subsidized by the sweat and blood of the rest of the population.

They are celebrated in the media as philanthropists and art collectors, rather than being cursed for being leeches draining the blood from the rest of society.

Why? Mostly because they own most of the media. You will never, ever hear a critique of usury in the media, whether it is from conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, libertarians or any other media group that claims to have the good of the people at heart.

This chapter is a short introduction to usury. It is not expected that you should understand the true nature of usury until the end of the book, as usury’s effects are complex and often long-term. Continue reading and each chapter will make the matter clearer to you. Do not give up the book just because you are not convinced usury is bad. This is just the beginning.

Addressing the Muslim migrant crime crisis in Europe

Not a day passes except that news of more rapes, murders and assaults by Europe’s new multi-million-strong Muslim migrant population comes out. Europe’s politically correct mainstream media is doing its best to pretend the problem doesn’t exist, which is only infuriating the local population.

In Berlin, 12% of migrants are criminal suspects, while only 3% of the local population are. Berlin’s Senate has launched an investigation into why migrants are responsible for such a disproportionate amount of crime.

Today, Germany is where it was in the late 1920’s. A culture of political correctness is enforced by media that are almost entirely owned and operated by the lender class (banks and their lobbyists, i.e. usurers). They think of their local populations as ignorant, worthless and racist peasants that need to be lied to every hour of every single day in case they get the wrong ideas into their heads. In such an atmosphere, it is unlikely that the Berlin Senate’s investigation will lead to anything, besides more useless liberal projects intended to satisfy their own politically correct prejudices without really addressing the problem.

The problem with Europe’s migrants is not that they are Muslim. Zionist news sources like Breitbart (which is still infinitely better than the crypto-Zionist New York Times and their ilk) cannot stop pointing out that these migrants are Muslim, and that it is the fact that they are Muslim that is responsible for their criminality.

This is complete nonsense, as can be shown by a few simple mental exercises. Do you really think that Nigeria’s Christian population is any less criminal than Nigeria’s Muslim population? And do you think that letting one million Filipino Christians into Germany would lead to any better results than letting one million Filipino Muslims into the country? And do you think that Indian Hindus are any better than Indian Muslims? And what about Malaysian Muslims, these people who are too peaceful, too prosperous, too law-abiding and too intelligent for their existence to be acknowledged by anti-Muslims activists?

Germany has had hundreds of thousands of Muslim Turks living there peacefully for the most part. Argentina has 500,000 Muslims that never make the news. Japan has 100,000.

The problem is not Islam, but genetics. Generalizing about Malaysian Muslims using crimes committed by Afghans or Tunisians is as naive as generalizing about Norwegians using crimes committed by Mexicans, with Norwegians and Mexicans both being overwhelmingly Christian.

Europe, similar to Japan, Malaysia, Iran and Turkey, has gone through a thousand years of evolutionary selection for peacefulness and respect for the law. In Europe, just 150 years ago, criminals were being hanged at an industrial scale, often for minor crimes. Japan’s law enforcement was similarly vicious. The effect was that most genetic traits that lead to criminality were wiped out of the gene pool, resulting in populations that are extremely peaceful and law-abiding, and high in IQ, as respect for the law and IQ go hand in hand, and low IQ and crime go hand in hand.

It is not Islam that is the problem. America’s African-American population are overwhelmingly Christian. And yet their crime statistics have nothing to do with those of the local white Christians. African-Americans make up 12% of the United States population but are responsible for 32.5% of all rapes, 34% of all assaults, 54% of all robberies and 49% of all murders. Is it fair to blame Christianity for this?

The Bell Curve, perhaps the greatest scientific book of the 20th century (on par with Darwin’s Origin of Species), written by the professors Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, takes a deep and unpolitically-correct look at the basis for high black criminality, and it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that it is IQ that is responsible before anything else. And since IQ has a strong hereditary component (probably at least 60% or 70% heritable), what their results indicate is that crime is first and foremost an issue of genetics. People of a certain set of genes are more likely to be criminal than others.

Of course, it is unfair and inhumane to use these statistics to derive conclusions about individual black people. If 15% of blacks are criminal, that means the majority, the 85%, is not criminal. And similarly for migrants, if 12% are criminal, it means 88% are not. Black and migrant criminals are the loud minorities that taint the reputation of the whole.

The problem is not that all migrants are criminal. It is that there are more criminals among the ranks of migrants (12% of them) than there are among the ranks of the German (or Swedish, etc.) populations (3%). The majority of migrants and Germans are law-abiding. It is just that migrants have many more criminals among them.

Scientific fraudsters like Stephen Jay Gould (Jewish) and the criminally incompetent “intelligence researcher” Diane Halpern (Jewish) (who manages to write an entire book on intelligence without once mentioning g, the central variable that the whole science of intelligence research is dedicated to), have managed to throw the findings of the Bell Curve down some sort of Orwellian memory hole, aided by Jewish organizations like the New York Times, who pretend to be leaders of American enlightenment thinking while working to enforce their various narrow-minded prejudices on an unwary intelligentsia, continuing the sanctified tradition of Franz Boas (Jewish), ignoring science and attacking scientists for the greater good. They believe that whites acknowledging any genetic basis to intelligence (or anything else that puts whites in a good light) = Nazism = Auschwitz.

It is, however, perfectly fine in their opinions to acknowledge genetic bases for illnesses. And if you mention that Ashkenazi Jews have genetically-mediated high intelligence, they won’t complain. And if you mention that white men have a genetic tendency to be monsters, or that men have a stupidity gene, then they will celebrate it like the discovery of the century and plaster it all over their media. And if you ask whether the finding also applies to black men, they will change the subject. Their job, whether intentionally or unintentionally carried out, is to protect the “bounds on public discourse” by ensuring that no one strays too far from the party line to examine truths that may, in some distant future, be used to discriminate against Jews.

The Solution

There is no quick and easy solution for curing the criminality of a crime-prone population, as America’s experience with blacks and Scotch-Irish whites has shown. It takes hundreds of years of law-enforcement for crime-prone genes to be slowly weeded out of the gene pool. By imprisoning a murderer for 30 or 40 years, their chances of procreating are severely reduced, so that their genes are cast out of the gene pool, and law-abiding genes grow to make up nearly the entirety of the population, as they have done in Western Europe and Japan.

Here are a number of steps Europeans can take to fight back against the migrant crime wave. I use Germany as an example, but it applies similarly to other countries suffering from the crisis:

  1. Instate a very strong anti-crime regime where a single proven criminal offense is sufficient to deport a migrant. In this way the worst specimens can be removed from Europe, so that the 88% non-criminal migrant population grows to make up closer to 97%, in line with Europe’s native population.
  2. Double or triple police presence wherever large migrant populations reside, and wherever large numbers of the local population gather, especially near city centers, and in bus and train stations.
  3. If the government can’t be bothered to protect the population, the people can create civil protection units. These would be groups of 5 men or more, wearing a particular uniform, and wearing bodycams. They would respond to migrant crime, and if the corrupt legal system tries to attack them for defending the local population, the bodycam footage can be used as evidence to show that they were acting in the interest of the people.
  4. If deportation can’t be done because the women in charge have bleeding hearts for these rapists and murderers, long criminal sentences should be instated (20 years or more) to significantly reduce the ability of these criminals to commit crimes on the one hand, and to reduce their ability to procreate on the other hand (by shutting them up with people of the same sex, making procreation quite hard).
  5. A number of language and other courses could be provided freely to adult males of working age. Those who fail to take them, or fail to pass successfully, would be deported. If they cannot pass a few simple courses, or think they shouldn’t have to, they do not have the intelligence and the self-control to contribute in any way to the German civilization and would be a net cost on German society.
  6. German women should warned to be double as cautious of being raped and assaulted as they were before the migrant crisis. The Middle East ensures the safety of its women through a system of chivalry where males (including strangers) are ready to protect them in case of assault. German society has no experience dealing with a young male population that thinks it’s OK to assault and rape given the chance, a young male population that is only kept in check in the Middle East through the presence of other, usually older, males. German women, therefore, for the time being should use the protection provided by German males wherever they can, for example by not going out alone anywhere where they could be assaulted.
    It’s true that they “shouldn’t” have to do any of this, that they should be free to act as before. But this is not before. It’s their lives that are at stake; feminist bravado would only lead to more lives being lost and more women traumatized. Until the migrant crisis is somehow solved, women should take necessary measures to protect and defend themselves.

Of course, the best solution would have been for the migrants not to be there to begin with. If the US (and its European allies), at the behest of its Zionist neocons, hadn’t destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to ensure Israel’s status as the regional superpower, and if the CIA hadn’t spent billions funding terrorist groups to ensure perpetual war in the region, there wouldn’t be so many people wanting to leave.

There will, however, always be some economic migrants wanting to go from a less prosperous to a more prosperous state.

Charting the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory in 2017

Below is a chart (click it to zoom) that shows the seasonality of Anglo-American history since the end of the Middle Ages, according to the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory (as described in their 1997 book The Fourth Turning).

This chart is one of the most beautiful things I’ve seen in the social sciences (not the design, but the contents). Any effort to understand modern English and American history without this chart in mind is going to be hopelessly inadequate, similar to trying to understand the history of life without reference to the theory of evolution. In other words, the Strauss-Howe theory is probably indispensable, similar to the Standard Model of physics and the Theory of Evolution.

The blue-pink cross is my addition to the theory. Although The Fourth Turning does mention the seasonality of the rise and fall of feminism, it doesn’t take this to its logical conclusion, which is to propose a Masculinism-Feminism cycle that ticks in synchrony with the seasons of the saeculum.

Below is the inner circles zoomed in (for those who don’t want to click the above chart to zoom in):

The “saeculum” is the word that Strauss-Howe use for each circle of the chart above, four seasons together make one saeculum. A saeculum is generally the length of one human life time, and its regularity has been noted since ancient times. We are currently living at the end of the saeculum that started in 1943, and which will probably end sometime between 2025 and 2035.

Below is the part of the chart that is most relevant to 2017. Many world leaders feel that we are approaching a major war. Countries are preparing for war, with Russia and China at the forefront, and Japan starting its own re-militarization program. According to the Strauss-Howe theory, 2017 is equivalent to 1933 (when Hitler got in charge and started rebuilding Germany’s army), 1854 (when the prospect of an American Civil War felt more and more imminent), and 1779 (the middle of the American Revolutionary War against Britain, and the year of the French Revolution). Needless to say, right now we are living in very interesting times.

Many on the Left compare President Trump to Hitler. What they don’t realize realize (or knowingly ignore) is that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington too rose during similar eras, meaning that Trump might have as much chance to be like these men as to be like Hitler. Comparing people to Hitler has been an old tactic of the Left, and it is losing its power fast.

Slurs like “racist”, “bigoted”, “backward”, “homophobe”, “sexist” come in fashion as feminism rises (in the present area, starting from the 1960’s), and, what the Left doesn’t realize, is that they go out of fashion as masculinism rises (tides will turn around 2021). Using white guilt to make America’s whites vote for incompetent and out-of-touch people like Obama and Clinton is not going to work anymore. That is over. That works in the fall and early winter of the saeculum, but from midwinter and on, a new political culture is established.

The slurs of the new political culture, the culture that rises with the rise of masculinism, and which will last into the middle of the next Awakening around 2050, are going to be “unpatriotic”, “un-American”, “degenerate”, perhaps “homosexual”, and perhaps “blood traitor”, for whites who don’t act in the best interests of other whites. “Blood traitor” is already commonly used by blacks and Jews (not exactly in those words of course), it is only whites who, so far, are not allowed to use it. But that is going to change. And when that happens, vast quantities of popcorn would be in demand as we all watch the vast zombie behemoth of the Left collapse. And, it’s already happening.

On the other hand, the Right may not realize that it is not picnic time yet, and probably won’t be for a long time. A lot of suffering might be in store for everyone. Just because Trump is (or seems to be) well-meaning doesn’t mean it is going to end well. Abraham Lincoln was well-meaning, and he single-handedly plunged the country into the world’s bloodiest war up to that time, a war that might have been prevented by someone less radical and less well-meaning.

As for World War III, we can only hope that the third one will be charm.

The Fourth Turning ends with this beautiful poem from the Old Testament that seems to express the idea of the saeculum, whether intentional or otherwise.

To every thing there is a season,
and a time to every purpose under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to get, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to rend, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time of war, and a time of peace.
– Ecclesiastes 3.1-8

A Method for Measuring IQ Based on Preferred Mouse Pointer Speed

The correlation between intelligence and reaction times is well supported in the science of psychometrics[1]. In this article a potential method for accurately measuring a computer user’s IQ is laid out, based on their preferred mouse pointer speed (the ratio between physical movement of the mouse hardware and movement of the pointer on the device’s screen). This method can be implemented by scientists to screen subjects for IQ studies, and by online advertisers to target a particular IQ demographic. Study designs and caveats are discussed.

Background

As someone who prefers an extremely fast pointer speed on the computers I use, I’ve found that when I let others use my computers, they find the pointer speed unsettlingly fast. While working on a data entry job that required me to copy data from a table on one browser tab and paste it into a web form on another tab, I noticed that with my high pointer speed, I always overshot the targets I wanted to click, then slowed the pointer to a stop, and upon an attempt in the reverse direction at a slower speed, I was able to accurately click the thing I wanted to click.

This sounds like an inefficient method of using a computer, since it requires added cognitive load to reverse direction and go toward the target at a different speed. My hypothesis is that given a particular level of cognitive processing rate (IQ or reaction times), this overshoot-and-correct method of pinpointing a target on a screen actually saves time and allows the user to complete tasks at a higher speed than if the pointer was slower and the user was able to pinpoint a target with a single attempt.

It is likely that most computer users use the overshoot-and-correct method for pinpointing targets. What interests here is that the faster the pointer speed, the higher the cognitive demands of the overshoot-and-correct method becomes, so that there is a point on the IQ-pointer speed curve at which a particular IQ achieves maximum efficiency (enables the user to be maximally productive at the task they are performing):

The above chart is a hypothetical illustration of the relationship between IQ and mouse pointer speeds, based on a diminishing-returns model.

An Empirical Test of the Hypothesis

A group of subjects, using identical computers, are given a data-entry task to perform. The task involves accurately copying tabulated data on one tab of a browser screen and pasting it in a form on a second browser screen that only accepts one row at a time. The users will click a “submit data” button, at which point the page reloads and the users enter the data for the second row from tab 1. The users are rewarded based on task completion time (not the per-row speed but the speed at which they complete the entire test, perhaps taking 30 minutes) and accuracy.

The browser window should take up only part of the available screen (perhaps two thirds). In the remaining screen space a window is shown that the users can use to control the mouse pointer speed. By default, the mouse pointer speed is set to the slowest possible setting, so that all users will require to adjust the mouse pointer speed to a comfortable level. The users are informed by the researchers that they can increase their efficiency (and potential rewards) by increasing the mouse pointer speed. They must also be informed that if the pointer speed is too high, this can negatively affect their performance.

The time required for the completion of the task should be high enough that the amount of time spent on adjusting the mouse pointer speed should only have a minor negative impact on the completion time. The completion time should also be long enough for the users to find their efficiency-maximizing pointer speed. At the beginning of the task users may choose an unnaturally high speed that slows them down by creating a too high cognitive demand. But given enough time, as mental fatigue sets in, users will likely slow the pointer down until they reach a level of “comfort”. This point of “comfort” is what the researchers are seeking to find out, the point at which the pointer speed is at the maximum speed it can be without overtaxing the brain.

A time of at least 30 minutes will probably be required for the study. A time of one hour might provide further accuracy.

At the end of the study, the researchers will gather the subjects’ mouse pointer speed setting, task completion time, and accuracy. Using the following equation, a score can be given to each subject:

score = mouse pointer speed setting * (1/task completion time) * percentage accuracy

Thus a subject who used a pointer speed setting of 1.5, completed the task in 45 minutes with an accuracy of 99% will have a score of 1.5 * (1/45) * 0.99 = 0.031, while someone who used a setting of 2.5, took 40 minutes with an accuracy of 98% will have a score of 2.5 * (1/40) * 0.98 = 0.061.

Task Design Concerns

The best type of task for this study is one where the best users do not finish the task at significantly less time than the average user. Otherwise, if some users finish at 15 minutes when others take an hour, the study might actually be testing for the subjects’ technical proficiency at copying and pasting data and switching tabs than for their pointer speed point of comfort.

Another concern is the use of keyboard shortcuts, which can significantly enhance task completion time. For this reason subjects can be given computers without keyboards, or if using laptops computers, the keyboards should be covered with a material that effectively prevents the subject from using it.

Generalizing the Results

Using JavaScript code embedded in the browser tabs used in the study, a pixels-per-second value can be derived that can be used to compare pointer speeds across browsers, operating systems and hardware set ups. A standard IQ test given to the subjects (perhaps on a different day to reduce the effects of mental fatigue from the task) will determine their IQs. The researchers can then study the correlation between user scores, their preferred pointer speeds measured in pixels-per-second, and their IQs, which according to my hypothesis are all going to be highly correlated.

In this way, a formula can be derived that given a particular pixels-per-second, produces the IQ of the user with reasonable accuracy. This formula can then be implemented in JavaScript and embedded in web pages. Websites can use it to determine the IQs of their visitors. Advertisers can use it to make their highly irrelevant ads slightly less irrelevant.

Touchscreen Devices

This IQ-measuring technique will not work on touch devices due to the lack of a mouse. While an interaction-latency technique can be developed (how a long a user takes to interact with the various prompts and other buttons on an app, for example), this will be less useful than the mouse pointer speed technique due to the fact that there is no overshoot-and-correct phenomenon going on. We are left with the much less useful data point of how long a user takes to interact with an app, which is affected by the app’s user experience design, the user’s familiarity with the app, and the size of the screen of their device (whether they can reach the button with the a finger on the same hand that is holding the device, or if they need to use the fingers on the other hand).

The point here is that while on a computer, a generalized tool can be develop that can be embedded on any website to measure a user’s IQ, on touchscreen devices, no such general tool can be developed. On a computer, the generalized tool can instantly tell the user’s IQ without having them do a test (by simply measuring their mouse pointer speed setting), while on a touchscreen device the user will have to be tested and measured for their IQ to be found out.

Accounting for Technical Proficiency

Probably a large percentage of the population are not proficient enough to know how to change their computer’s mouse pointer speed, meaning that they will be stuck with the default pointer speed that comes with their computers. And even more importantly, many are probably unaware that increasing pointer speeds can improve their computer experience. I have seen people use computers with cumbersomely slow pointer speeds, needing to pick up the mouse and drop it somewhere else on their mouse pads to continue finishing a single mouse movement.

For this reason, it must be determined at which IQ level a user becomes self-observant and proficient enough to know that increasing mouse pointer speeds can have a benefit, to know that this is possible on their system, and to know how to do it (or find out how to do it with an internet search). As a hypothetical example, an IQ of 110 might be needed for someone to have the self-observance and proficiency to set their pointer speeds to their comfort levels. This means that if someone has a lower pixels-per-second rate, we cannot accurately tell what their IQ is. It might be 85 or 100. They don’t know how to change their computer’s pointer speed, therefore their pixels-per-second rate alone cannot reliably predict their IQ.

This is partially (or largely) mitigated by the fact that a user can choose to move their physical mouse faster or slower, regardless of the pointer speed setting, so that they can achieve their desired pointer speed. Therefore using the pixels-per-second as a measure of IQ might be highly accurate except in the circumstances where a user’s mouse pointer speed is set so low that moving their hands faster cannot overcome the slowness, or when the mouse pointer speed is set too high and the user cannot adjust their hand movement to slow down the mouse enough.

Improving the Dataset

The previous study I described can be used to establish whether there is any truth to a correlation pixels-per-second pointer speed rate and IQ. However, for industrial application, a different type of study is required. Instead of building a pixels-per-second to IQ database based on lab-derived data, a more accurate picture can be drawn by having subjects take IQ tests in the lab, but having them visit a web page on their home computers that records their pixels-per-second rate and sends the data back to the researchers.

In this way the real-world correlation coefficient between IQ and mouse pointer speeds can be established that accounts for the various factors that affect the measurement, such as different software and hardware set ups and different times of day.

References

[1] Jensen, Arthur R. “Why Is Reaction Time Correlated with Psychometric G?” Current Directions in Psychological Science 2, no. 2 (1993): 53-56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20182199.

Feminism as a self-eliminating eugenic tool

Every society selects for something. —Greg Cochran

Feminism—and I use this term as a synonym for “female supremacism”, the mainstream ideology of Women’s Studies departments at Western universities—severely restricts the fertility of individuals that subscribe to its tenets. There are, however, communities of individuals that are immune to feminist evangelism and who continue to function as if they are in the sweet English countryside of Queen Victoria’s time, where feminist talking points seem crazy, outlandish and irrelevant.

There is a certain set of genes, when paired with a certain type of culture—thus a gene-culture—that creates immunity to feminism. The necessary feminism-resistance genes probably have the most to do with intelligence. Enough intelligence is required to recognize the good in feminism and then going beyond it, knowing that the right way to create a fair and peaceful world is not through hate and supremacism. On the culture side, conservatism or empiricism are required, meaning that feminism-resistant people are overwhelmingly conservative, but the odd liberal can be found who insists that feminists must produce empirical support for their policies before he or she follows their way of life.

There are folks among anti-feminism activists  who think that feminism will cause the end of humanity through sub-replacement fertility. My optimistic view is that feminist eugenics will continually eliminate feminism-prone gene-cultures across the generations, so that only feminism-resistant gene-cultures remain. Since feminism is an anti-fertility tool, any society that adopts it will engage in an eugenic experiment where feminism-resistant gene-cultures have a much higher fertility rate than feminism-prone ones, meaning that within just a few generations, feminism-proneness can get eliminated from the gene-culture pool.

An example of a group that possesses a feminism-resistant gene-cultures is people who are middle class extremely conservative white Christians who, while appreciating that women’s equality is a good thing, reject the rest of feminism’s outlandish baggage. These people, despite the best efforts of liberals in the media and in college to infuse their minds with feminism and self-hate, and even though they probably lose 22% of each generation to less conservative blocs, rather than giving up on life and shrinking, they continue to grow.

If you see a white feminist girl who comes from an extremely conservative Christian family, it is not a sign that the world is ending for conservative Christians. She is merely a member of the 22% “leaver” minority.

Other feminism-resistant gene-cultures are conservative Muslims, who, while losing a sizable amount of each generation to feminism, rather than shrinking, they continue to grow. Orthodox Jews may also be a feminism-resistant gene-cultures.

An instance of a member of a feminism-prone gene-culture is a white Christian girl who believes in her parents’ conservative ideals, but who goes to college and becomes enamored with feminism and rejects her background. It doesn’t matter whether it was her genes (for example an IQ not high enough to see feminism’s failings) or her culture (a self-contradictory version of Christianity), the result is that the gene-culture becomes infected with feminism and loses its capability to reproduce effectively.

The longer that feminism is active in a society, the more feminism-resistant the society becomes, as feminism eliminates most feminism-prone individuals from the gene pool.

Gene-Culture Drift and the Feminism Cycle

Once feminism has been utterly defeated and consigned to history, its feminism-eliminating eugenic effect will disappear. What happens next is that feminism-prone gene-cultures will acquire higher fertility (as feminism is no longer there to restrict fertility). Segments of society will appear that are less appreciative of conservative ideals and more open to new and interesting ways of life. They will enjoy the high fertility of the feminism-resistant societies they live in. Once the feminism-prone population reaches critical mass, a catalyst such as the Sexual Revolution of the 60’s can give rise to a new wave of feminism, while also turning off the high-fertility switch in the infected population.

It is my view that the generation born after the Millennials (those born after 2005) will be the worst nightmare of feminists. White Millennials have already shown their blasé stance toward feminism and other extreme liberal ideologies by voting more for Donald Trump (48%) than for Hillary Clinton (42%) [according to Bloomberg]. The 2005+ generation is quite likely to go full anti-feminist despite being subjected to fascist-level all-out pro-feminist propaganda in schools and the media. The rise of nationalism in Europe and the United States, quite reminiscent of 1920s Europe, is a harbinger of what’s potentially to come.

However, there is no need to celebrate. Feminism will probably be old and boring news in 2050, but just when it dies, that is when it starts rising again.

One thing that needs to be clarified is the timeline that the feminism rise and fall cycle follows. Is it one human life time (every 80 years, as suggested by mid-1800’s and early 1900’s, and 1970’s feminism), or does it follow a centuries-long timeline with short-term ups and downs and general trends upward and downward?

Another question is whether each feminism cycle, through eliminating pro-feminism gene-cultures, makes its next resurgence more difficult or less. Now that feminism is running completely wild in the West, its anti-fertility effect is also running wild, meaning that it is eliminating pro-feminism gene-cultures with great efficiency. This could mean that the next feminist resurgence will be slower and weaker as a lot of time will be needed for pro-feminism gene-cultures to spread again through gene-culture drift.

The good news is that if feminism selects for one thing, it is feminism-resistance, meaning that feminism can probably never achieve a dystopian level of supremacy, as it always contains the seeds of its own destruction by killing off the offspring of its own supporters.

Another Ray of Hope

In my blog post “The death of false ideologies” I outline another process by which feminism (and other false ideologies) can meet an early demise: The possibility that children born to feminist parents will find the ideology boring and stifling. This is an important reason in my belief that the 2005+ generation is going to be anti-feminist, as many of them will be growing up in a world where feminism reigns supreme. Feminism, similar to communism, looks good from the outside. But once people are actually subjected to its tyranny, they will hate it with an exquisite passion.

Islam, the Good Parts: Guaranteed Basic Income for Women

One thing that is rarely mentioned when speaking about Islam, even among Muslims, is that Muslim women don’t have to work. They can work if they want to, but they don’t have to if they don’t want to.

Islam makes it the duty of a woman’s male relatives to take care of her financially. Men have to provide for their sisters, mothers, wives and daughters. This is not merely an act of charity that men are encouraged to do. It is their legal duty. In a devout Muslim society, no woman can ever be homeless as long as she has a self-respecting male relative.

This provides a tremendous sense of freedom for women, including single women, who want to do creative work. They can focus on doing what they like, for example growing a small business or a writing career, while enjoying freedom from the stress of having to earn a living. Instead of having to work for potentially abusive employers or customers, they will have the option of only choosing jobs they like and leaving whenever they want.

In a country like the United States where two incomes are often necessary for a small family to maintain a dignified existence, it may seem unrealistic (and potentially unfair to men) for such a system to be implemented. How can a few men provide for so many people? The answer is Islam’s mechanisms for wealth-preservation and the encouragement of productive investment that ensure the super-wealthy can never get too financially powerful and collude to lower wages as has happened in the United States, and also ensures that a single stream of income is generally enough to feed a large family. These mechanisms, such as the ban on interest and the speculation tax, will  be discussed later on.

There is one flip side to the system that needs to be mentioned. When inheritance is distributed, women receive half as much as men. Since Islam puts all financial duties on men, it rewards them by giving them a larger share of inheritance, as men’s wealth is, after all, also partially women’s, as a man is obliged to take care of all of his close female relatives. Islam, however, doesn’t run away with the idea of a male-provider society by giving all inheritance to men, since not all men can be relied upon to be good and fair care-takers of women. It also doesn’t run away blindly with the idea of equality by giving men and women equal shares of inheritance when it has burdened men with heavier financial duties. It chooses a middle ground between the two extremes. It gives men more duties and a larger inheritance, while also providing a fall-back in case of unfair and undutiful male relatives by giving women a half-share of inheritance.

The virtues and evils of such a system can be debated. Why not give men and women equality in all things? Islam’s view is that men and women are not identical when it comes to all things. It assigns different rights and duties to each sex depending on their particular strengths and weaknesses.

The main issue at question here is this: Is a system that takes the differences between the sexes into account more likely or less likely to be fair, compared to a system that assumes men and women are exactly the same? Is it unimaginable that differentiating between the sexes can lead to a fairer system of rights and duties compared to turning a blind eye to all differences?

Feelings run high when this matter is discussed. The only way to resolve the matter is to undertake large-scale scientific studies to find out whether sex-aware systems lead to better societal outcomes compared to sex-blind systems.

Does it improve the mental health and happiness of women for them to know they will never have to work, and for them to know that there isn’t one chance in a million for them to ever be homeless (given the potentially dozens of male relatives eager and willing to take care of them if they lose their homes or jobs)?

Does it increase or decrease a woman’s chance of career advancement for her not to have to worry about making a living while she focuses on her studies or work? Or is it better to put her in debt and compel her to work as a waitress or bartender so that she can make ends meet while she studies or grows her small business as it is done in the United States?

If we cherry-pick facts and anecdotes, we can make either system look good or bad, but rigorous and empirical comparisons can be done. We can fully resolve the debate through decades of unbiased social research  that compares the outcomes of an Islamic system to competing systems.

Any comparison’s of an Islamic system compared to others will have to take account of IQ, as IQ is the most important factor in determining a population’s prosperity. India is much poorer than China, for example, not largely because of Hinduism versus Communism or Buddhism, but because India’s average IQ is in the mid-80’s, while China’s IQ is above 100. Populations of equal IQ tend to converge toward having the same level of prosperity. China is in the same league as South Korea and Japan when it comes to IQ, so it is practically certain that it will reach the same level of prosperity as these two countries within a decade or two. India, however, is in the same league as the Dominican Republic and Paraguay when it comes to IQ, so as it develops, it will converge toward the same level of prosperity as these two countries. Of course, different population sizes and natural resources will affect things, but not to a great degree, and the larger the populations of the countries that we are comparing, the smaller will the effect of natural resources become. To study this topic further, I recommend the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by professors Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen.

To have a fair comparison of an Islamic system compared to others, we can compare ethnic Japanese Muslims to ethnic Japanese non-Muslims in Japan (similar IQ, same country) and see how Islam’s system of rights and duties affects the Muslim population compared to the non-Muslim one. Are ethnic Japanese Muslim women happier, more productive, more mentally healthy compared ethnic Japanese non-Muslims, or not?

Unlike Communism, whose adherents can claim that it wasn’t properly implemented when it fails, the Islamic system can be scientifically tested. The requirement is to account for IQ and devoutness (a Muslim who uses credit cards, mortgages and for-profit insurance is not following Islam properly and should not be counted toward the Muslim side). Examples of devout Muslim populations that can be studied are the conservative Muslim middle classes of Egypt and Malaysia. Egypt’s conservative Muslim middle class can be compared to the middle classes of non-Muslim countries of similar IQ (low-80’s), such as Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. And as for Malaysia (IQ 92), we can compare the conservative Muslim middle class there with the middle classes of Greece, Ireland, Bulgaria and Lithuania.

How Political Exploitation of Muslim Immigrants by America’s Liberal Elite is Endangering Lives

There is something strange going on with the liberal political elite in the United States. Clintonland liberals have no qualms about the wholesale slaughter of Muslims outside the United States. US-sponsored conflicts have resulted in the mass murder of one to two million Muslims over the past 15 years. The liberal president of hope and change, Obama, wins the award for being the first US president to approve the extra-judicial execution of a US citizen through a drone strike, a citizen who was Muslim and 16 years old at the time.

As a Muslim I am glad Trump won. Because Hillary is creepy. Really creepy. As if Obama’s continuation of the US policy of perpetual war in the Middle East wasn’t bad enough, Clinton was promising to escalate things further, even risking war with Russia in the process.

Despite liberal apathy toward the mass murder of Muslims around the world as a direct result of US policies, inside the US, the liberal elite are to be seen pretending to be protectors and representatives of Muslim interests. Clinton loved showing off her token Muslims during her rallies.

Why do the liberal elite love US Muslims so much? Because they think of Muslims as guaranteed Democratic voters. The Democrats are importing Muslims at an industrial scale, without proper screening, and without any thought to the possibility that some of the people they import may have no good intentions toward the United States. The Democrats are desperate to import voters as that is the only way they can maintain viability as a political force due to the simple fact that conservatives are growing faster than liberals in the United States.

Ohio State University stabbing attacker was imported through Obama’s voter importation policies.

Some of these imported Muslims then carry out attacks in the United States in the name of Islam. This increases resentment for Muslims in the country and leads to revenge attacks on Muslims who had nothing to do with the importation of the attackers and the ideologies said attackers believe in.

It is a testament to the tolerance of the American people (and to the power of the police state and corporate media) that there have been no pogroms against Muslims in the United States even though month after and month and year after year Muslim attacks on US citizens continue to mount.

And to make things even worse, liberals launch pathetic defenses of these terrorists in the media with no consideration for the poor victims of the attacks, not out of love for Muslims, but because they know they themselves are responsible for these people being in the country in the first place.

The Ohio State attacker himself seems to have been a victim of another liberal policy (besides the liberal policy of voter importation): The promotion of the White racism narrative to attract voters to the Democratic side (which the liberals exploited in the 2012 congressional elections to their loss). He was taking a class that covered “micro-aggressions”, a theory that promotes anti-White paranoia among non-Whites by encouraging them to see White racism everywhere.

Liberals import hundreds of thousands of Muslims into the country every year, knowing that due to their poverty they will be dependent on government welfare (the thing that liberals use to attract the poor to their camp) for years and possibly decades. They then expose these imported voters to liberal propaganda designed to show them that the average White American hates them, to further push them toward the Democratic side. And as anyone with a functioning brain can predict, this practically ensures that the US will continue suffering terrorist attacks month after month. The people that are being imported are constantly being told that they deserve to fight back, that it is the fault of White Americans that their countries are poor and dysfunctional in the first place, and that they will continue suffering from White oppression while residing in the United States. They will believe all of this nonsense because it is other Whites saying it, at universities and political rallies, in newspapers, magazines and on TV.

Who suffers most from this insane policy of importing people and teaching them to hate the locals? It is the five to ten million Muslims who are already here trying to lead peaceful and normal lives, as hatred and prejudice against them increases despite the liberal media’s best efforts to censor the identities of terrorist attackers and blame the attacks on White people.

I am afraid we might be on the road toward a major disaster. The liberal elite (in the US and Europe too) continue to test White people’s tolerance by importing refugees that are orders of magnitude more criminal than the local populations. There is only so much rape and murder that White people can suffer before they decide enough is enough.

What I fear is that Muslims will be blamed for all of this, when they have been nothing but tools used by the liberal elite to ensure perpetual rule over the population through inflating the number of liberal-leaning voters and weakening and dividing the native population by pushing them into corners (either you support liberal policies, or you are a conservative racist).

There is hope that by putting a stop to the mass importation of third-world immigrants, Trump can reduce the stress on the pressure-cooker that the liberal elite have turned America into, so that things can settle down a bit.

How to: Become wise

If you want to become wise, read 100 books that interest you. The books you choose to read can be about any topic and they can be of any quality, good or bad. The important thing is that you should find them interesting, because the fact that you find a book interesting means it contains information that is new1 to you (and thus it increases wisdom), because “interesting” simply means “something that provides new information to the brain”.

No book is going to solve all of your problems. Each book may make you a 1% wiser person. Thus if you want to become double as wise as you are now, you would have to read about 70 books. 100 books would be a safer number.

Some of the books you read will contain false information, because almost any book will contain some claims and assumptions that are false. But if you don’t give up and continue reading books one after another, as your knowledge increases, so will your awareness of what is true and what is false. Wisdom is simply a map of reality (accurate information about how things really are), and each book you read (even a simple story) tries to give you a small piece of the map. Some books will give you false pieces that do not describe anything that actually exists on the map. But as you read more books, your knowledge increases about the other pieces that surround the false piece, and thus you start to have an intuitive sense of what the false piece should actually look like, and thus you recognize the false piece for what it is: false. Recognition of the falsehood in itself increases your knowledge, for your brain can abstract the patterns of falsehood, and it can actually build a map of what falsehood itself looks like, and thus it will become increasingly hard for falsehoods to mislead you.

If you start to read a book that at first seems interesting, but eventually lose interest in it and start to find it boring and tiring, you should feel no qualms about abandoning the book and starting another. When this happens, it can be due to one of two things:

  1. The book does not contain anything that’s new to you, and thus your brain recognizes it as a repetition of things that you already know very well, and therefore you brain is asking you to stop wasting your time with the book.
  2. The book contains information that has too many prerequisites, and thus your brain is not equipped to handle the information. You should abandon the book now and return to it after reading many other books.

Spend a year doing this and at the end of it you may laugh at how unwise and biased you used to be a year ago. During your journey you would have picked up some new biases, therefore it is unwise to stop your journey. Continue reading books and these biases will be cleared up. You will never stop picking up biases, but their frequency will decrease as your wisdom increases, for biases have patterns of their own and the wise mind can learn to avoid many of them. This is why you find the wisest people to be those who are least ready to make final judgments on any topic–they are “open-minded”, knowing when they do not have enough information.

In most cases, when it comes to most topics, humans rarely have perfect knowledge, therefore the wisest often refuse to give final answers on anything or to give counsel freely to those who ask for it. They will speak about what they know, and refuse to delve into what they do not know.

/ No Comments on How to: Become wise

How cyber pirates anonymously torrent movies on the internet

We all know that you, as a law-abiding citizen, would never download a car. And yet there are people out there who download movies for free and refuse to add a few more bucks to the billions of dollars that movie studios squat upon. There are film executives who, thanks to cyber pirates, only have a net worth of $100 million instead of $101.

So how do they do it? How are these cyber criminals subverting our democracy and freedoms to acquire knowledge and entertainment for free without making the wealthy even wealthier? It all burns down to three simple letters: I2P.

I2P, or the Invisible Internet Project, is a project that enables anyone anywhere to download information in a way that makes it impossible for anyone to track them or reveal their identity. Many experts at the CNN agree that our democracy is in great danger when we freely allow citizens to practice speech that is genuinely free. Speech needs to be controlled and approved by the the government, for our own security, and most importantly, the safety of our children. The cyber police work tirelessly to prevent free speech from actually taking place; but the pirates have found a home in I2P where no one can catch them.

I2P is slightly like TOR, which you may have heard of. However, unlike TOR, I2P is not used to browse normal internet sites (though it can be used that way), rather, it has its own sites, such as stats.i2p. And unlike TOR, I2P supports and encourages torrenting; it even has a built-in torrent client that is ready to go as soon as you install I2P.

Cyber pirates follow the following steps when they download high quality Blue Ray movies, ebook and textbook collections, and the latest Battlefield video game anonymously. We can show you the steps since downloading, installing and using I2P is perfectly legal under current laws (so long as you do not intentionally seek out and download copyrighted movies, books, songs, etc., see step 18 below for more clarification on this).

  1. First, they visit the I2P site to download the I2P software:
    If the site is for some reason down or has moved, they can easily find the new site by Googling “download i2p”:
  2. Then they click the I2P download link to download the I2P software:
  3. Below is a picture of the finished I2P software download:
  4. They may then do a signature check to make sure their version of I2P has not been tampered with. You can read TOR’s guide for how to do this, and apply the same logic to I2P.
  5. Once I2P is installed, they do not run it. They will set up a browser to be fully dedicated to I2P. This means that the browser will be able to browse I2P websites, but not ordinary internet sites. In our example we show how the Opera browser can be configured to handle I2P. They click on the Opera button, then point to Settings->Preferences:
  6. Then they click the Advanced tab:
  7. Then they click on the Network section, then the “Proxy servers” button:
  8. Then they make the following changes to the window that pops up, then click “OK”:
  9. Once they are done setting up Opera, they start I2P. There are two programs, and it doesn’t matter which one you run, the only difference is that the second one has a restart option. In our example we show you the restartable one:
  10. The I2P Service window shows up for them. Here they wait a little while for the program to fully start up.
  11. If all goes well, their computer launches their default browser, which could be Internet Explorer. While they do not want this, it is useful for getting the address to the I2P service. Thus they copy the address shown.
  12. They go to Opera and paste the address in the address bar. Then they drag the icon where it says “Web” to the bookmarks bar for easy navigation in the future.
  13. They wait a while as their I2P program becomes integrated into the worldwide network. They watch these two indicaters on the I2P homepage. Once they are green, they know they are good to go:
  14. Now, they click on the “Torrents” link at the top of the I2P Console.
  15. They are taken to I2PSnark, which is the built-in torrent client for I2P. Currently the client is empty since we haven’t added any torrents. They click on the “Postman” link to take them to the Postman tracker, which is the largest torrent tracker on I2P. There is also the Diftracker link, which is another tracker.
  16. Depending on how long the I2P program has been running, the Postman website will open immediately or after a while. They may also get a “Proxy server error” kind of page, which is nothing to be worried about, they will simply try the website again in 5-10 minutes.
    In the image it can be seen that the sneaky anonymous cyber pirates have uploaded torrents for a movie called Let the Right One In and a video game called Wasteland 2.
  17. Since we are perfectly law-abiding citizens, we will show an example of downloading a legal non-copyrighted file from the Postman I2P bittorrent tracker. But the pirates download movies and other files, committing copyrighted infringement. Of course, nobody, government or otherwise, can catch them do it, since everything is fully anonymous and encrypted. So they get away with downloading their favorite movies without making the super wealthy even wealthier. The communism!
    Here, to find a legal file, we put the keyword “pdf” into the search box so that we only see ebook files, some of which are copyright-free and legally distributable.
  18. Here is an example of some of the books that came up. We find some German magazine, a book by John Gray for clueless men trying to lead a politically correct life, two sex guides for autistic individuals, some convoluted self help nonsense, and a book for antenna nerds. These are all copyrighted books, therefore we will have to skip them; we wouldn’t download a car, so why would we download books? Of course, balaclava-wearing cyber pirates do not skip them just because they are copyrighted, since they know the cyber police have no way of catching them, since they are using I2P.
  19. After a very, very long time, we find a book that seems copyright-free.
  20. Here, the pirates will right-click the magnet icon on the left of the book title and click “Copy Link Address”.
  21. Then, they will go back to I2PSnark, paste the link in the “From URL” box, then click “Add torrent”.
  22. Below we see that the torrent has been added to the list of torrents. The word “Magnet” ahead of all those numbers tells the pirate that the torrent file hasn’t been fetched yet (it usually takes a minute or two). Once it is, the name for the torrent will be shown.
  23. Below you can see the finished torrent being seeded. We have blacked out the names of the other torrents for undisclosed reasons. Seeding is also perfectly anonymous; therefore pirates often leave many torrents running in the seeding mode to help other pirates download things faster. Due to all of the cryptography that happens, downloading more than 5 torrents at the same time can cause significant CPU usage.