🤔Extraordinarily Low IQ Person

I assure you that this is not like “the pot calling the kettle black”

“Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” — Donald Trump, President of The United States of America


🤔 Extraordinarily low IQ person? 🤨!

I will not bother to waste time skewering the grammatical structure of the president’s statements in this piece, rather it is the oppressive conflicting language in this tweet coming from our president, who has self-proclaimed himself to be a person of extraordinary intelligence, that warrants emphasis.

Let me begin by saying this. I am neither in fear of, nor feeling intimidated by whiteness. I do not harbor any shame nor feeling of inadequacy concerning the veracity of certain data resulting from historical and prevailing sociocultural conditions turned norms. The skeptical results deriving from any research conducted maliciously to reveal disparities is an attempt to simply presuppose the white collective as hierarchically superior in intellect to others is trash.

These observations of pseudo-race studies and pseudo IQ testing conducted auspiciously by scholars of racially white membership, ironically, are subjectively articulated to discern and malign racial groups as subhuman in intellectual quality. I could easily develop and design testing to reveal how stupid most whites are to minorities. I could easily use cognitive biases to conduct research that reflect how morbidly racist attitudes and beliefs can produce a score that is so low that it would be deemed cognitively deficient among the greater population of whites. I can bet you a winning lottery ticket that this test, that I could easily devise, would surely be invalidated by consensus, not because it lacks veracity — clearly there would be truth in it, but because it is partial to a particular and specific type of intelligence.

Virtually all psychologists now believe that there is a generalized intelligence factor, g, that relates to abstract thinking and that includes the abilities to acquire knowledge, to reason abstractly, to adapt to novel situations, and to benefit from instruction and experience (Gottfredson, 1997; Sternberg, 2003). People with higher general intelligence learn faster.¹

There is this general agreement among psychologists that intelligence(s) can be categorically measured and determined either as general or specific.

The Stanford-Binet is a measure of general intelligence made up of a wide variety of tasks including vocabulary, memory for pictures, naming of familiar objects, repeating sentences, and following commands.¹

Although there is general agreement among psychologists that g exists, there is also evidence for specific intelligence (s), a measure of specific skills in narrow domains. One empirical result in support of the idea of s comes from intelligence tests themselves. Although the different types of questions do correlate with each other, some items correlate more highly with each other than do other items; they form clusters or clumps of intelligences.

That’s right, just like there is varying degrees of intelligence there can be just as many types of specific intelligence, that cannot be discounted. But still there are multiple types of intelligences that must be considered as well such as fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence, where by the former is the ability to learn and or perform new concepts and the latter is acquired via the accumulation of worldly experience. What is missing from these formulations is the conditions that lend itself to varying degrees of intelligence. There is this general bias in academia that traditionally doesn’t assess or perceive creativity as intelligence, which is defined as the ability to adapt to new situations and create new ideas or even recognize practicality. Most schools of thought are so rigidly analytical and biased as to only score intelligence based on answering questions with a single right answer. 🤨. Is there really only one single right answer to everything? 🤔 Is the earth round? Yes, presumably and lazily by the naked eye, but not exactly.

Getting back to these IQ tests and racial science which serve to only validate or highlight inherent but irrelevant nuance in these so called racial disparities through evaluations that fail to consider let alone account for social and environmental conditioning. They blatantly fail to account for the glaring sociopolitical oppression that would conclusively skew asymmetrical in any of those findings.

This offensively affective approach by a persistent bunch of white scholars is slyly being presented as some inconvenient truth about the validity of race. The audacity of the book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, written by Nicholas Wade, a British journalist has piggybacked off of the Bell Curve in an attempt to make a more convincing revisionist point on the matter of race. But when confronted about his conclusions on race it becomes, evidently, unsurprising with its inconsistencies. It ends up just as insufficient as the rest of these race-based studies. An editor writing for the publication RealClear Science writes

Wade himself concedes that these chapters contain much that isn’t proven, and his ideas have raised eyebrows even among experts who like much about the book and are not beholden to political correctness. Here’s Bell Curve coauthor Charles Murray, in his Wall Street Journal review: “Mr. Wade chose to expose his readers to a broad range of speculative analyses, some of which are brilliant and some of which are weak.” And here’s a tweet from evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker: “Disagree w much of Wade (goes beyond data, gets some wrong) but he explodes race-is-only-a-social-construction myth.”

So once again, Mr. Wade and other fans of whiteness — a collective self concept of their pathological delusions of grandeur — are still willing to continue grasping at straws to solidify the notion that natural selection has occurred to give them a genetic superpower in whiteness that grants them this evolutionary advantageous edge on the rest of the human race population. They do this in celebratory and contradictory fashion.

101 years to the day, in 1917, the vanity and insanity of whiteness led to one of the most heinous of race riots that was instigated and inspired by the very same white fragility concept of derangement with this collective’s genetic and evolutionary intelligence. First hand accounts are numerous and notable from the likes of Jazz great Mile Davis, or world renown entertainer Josephine Baker of the evils it produces for society at large.

Yet as Mr. Wade sees it, according to a review by his peers published in the NYTimes in 2014, non whites have a genetic predisposition to violence found in the “MAOA 2R variant” or “warrior gene” that has been linked to violent behaviors. 🤨

Mr. Wade acknowledges that specific evidence for the influence of “social behavior” genes is quite limited. The one example he presents repeatedly is the MAOA 2R variant, the so-called warrior gene that has been linked to violent behavior in men abused as children and is more common in blacks than whites or Asians. Mr. Wade admits that such genes at most create a tendency to violence, and adds that there may be other, yet undiscovered violence-susceptibility genes that could skew the racial picture.

I bring this up because what attributes to the rationalizing of this intellectualized sophistry in racism is the obsessive disparaging of political correctness to win over the nationalistic debate embedded in the American psyche contaminating its politics. Coming up with nonsensical race baiting rhetoric to instill pride and exert primacy over other groups has little to do with political correctness, and more to do with oppression and privilege. These self-deceiving notions cloaked in 1st amendent stylized posturing are outright inflammatory lies posing as “scientific”. What it does showcase is this callousness offered to politically mount a symbolically violent campaign to marginalize and subjugate minorities within the population and legitimate corruptive majoritarianism.

So when the leader of the politically incorrect movement #MAGA presidentially re-postulates our resistance — to immoral and unAmerican racial vices as some grievous harm towards his constituency — it is seen as a majoritarian and authoritative consent to the pervasive onslaught of their offensive in a symbolically violent cause arising from racial animus.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters has been quite admirable and unabashedly vocal against the repugnant zero tolerance immigration policy that was immorally carried out by the Trump Administration. Ms. Waters, who will turn 80 next month, is well aware that her party is in a hapless position in the government and the only (practical and creative) way to resourcefully confront a wayward party and its executive leadership is to publicly encourage the resistance to confront these officials in protest of the Trump administration who are callously complicit in abhorrent immigration policy making.

The retaliatory response by the President and his staff to Ms. Waters absolutely comes across as racial animus for apparently violating racial etiquette. I guess the President sees only one side in this scenario. The actions of Ms. Waters seem visually disturbing to the hierarchy because resistance is coming from a Black woman who happens to have served over 27 years in the House.

As reported in USA Today, the California Congresswoman appeared unfazed by the death threats she has persistently received after calling for the impeachment fo Trump. Something that republicans have often called for during President Obama’s tenure over providing healthcare for millions of Americans.

At a town hall meeting in Ingelwood last year, Waters was criticizing Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, when she heard a pop.

“I don’t know what the sound was,” she told the crowd without flinching. “But whoever it is, if it’s a shot, you better shoot straight!”

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Ms. Waters has also been vehemently critical of Obama when she compared his commitment to Iowa’s swing voters over the roughly 3 million unemployed African Americans recovering from the financial crisis back in 2011.

“There are roughly 3 million African Americans out of work today, a number nearly equal to the entire population of Iowa. I would suggest that if the entire population of Iowa, a key state on the electoral map and a place that served as a stop on the president’s jobs bus tour were unemployed, they would be mentioned in the president’s speech and be the beneficiary of targeted public policy,” Waters said in a statement to POLITICO

Based on the Congresswoman’s record it appears she has disdain for whoever uses the office for seemingly ego-driven political gains. The difference here is that President Obama did not encourage his base to threaten or harm the Congresswoman. Obama did not dogwhistle or distort her words as a call to violent actions towards her beliefs and her constituents. What Obama did was deflect from race relations and focused it squarely on racial etiquette. Something that minorities in return see unequal and marginal benefit from in placating the fragility of whiteness.

The face of the democratic party is neither Waters, nor Pelosi as Trump wants to instigate. The democratic party is a Nietzschean work in progress and there is no telling when it will be finished or whether it will be finished in time for the November midterm elections. But when it is finished it may no longer resemble the so-called theoretical opposite of what constitutes today’s republican.

Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher. In the nineteenth century he predicted that over the next two centuries, the philosophy of nihilism — purposelessness and despair — would take over the Western world, leading to an unprecedented level of violence and world-wide war. Obviously he was correct.

To be more specific, Nietzsche recommended that the way of defeating nihilism was for each individual to treat his or her life as an ongoing and unfinished work of art. The simple work of “giving style” to ourselves, expressing to the world our “overflowing creativity,” would give us a way to “Say Yes to Life.” This, argued Nietzsche, would stifle nihilist pessimism.²

While our president displays a paucity of general intelligence, he does effuse a specific intelligence in inspiring idiocy. President Trump solely relies on the intractable sway of broad based stupidity — where a perceived win is a loss not only to the other but to him or herself as well — has this truly awe inspiring effect on whiteness in the world which is seemingly redoubtable and defectively dystopian. So much so that we have no other choice but to implore general intelligence and reconsider why there can only be one single answer to each and every complexity we face. If #MakeAmericaGreatAgain is the single answer to what ails us as Americans then we must all be extraordinarily low IQ people.

Written by

It appears the more that I write the better I perceive.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store