Conversation with Paul Cooijmans on Censorship, Freedom of Speech, High-IQ Societies, Moles and Wolves, Cultural Marxism, and “Thoth”: Administrator, Glia Society (2)

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/01/01

Abstract

Paul Cooijmans is an Independent Psychometitor and Administrator of the Glia Society, and Administrator of the Giga Society. He discusses:the observation of the limitations in the I.Q. societies in terms of speech; the various forms of “editorial changes and vicious manipulations” of content; some manifestations of the permissive admissions policies; how many people like censorship; moles and wolves in high-IQ societies; guarding against moles and wolves; how highly intelligent people can have an anti-intelligence view; mainstream intelligence tests; Cooijmans tests providing the best approximation of general intelligence; testing at an intended level; anomalies at or above 1 in 200 in general intelligence; a common conflation between education and intelligence level; some of the other higher-I.Q. societies founded since 1997; the evidence for having introducing the idea of high-range testing and higher-I.Q. societies to European societies; the main attraction for prospective members; comments on members joining, staying, or leaving; cultural Marxism; the popular Netherlandic saying, “Act normally, then you are already acting crazy enough”; the popular Netherlandic saying, “No one is allowed to stick out above the mowing field”; the effects over 2020 of some of the aforementioned trends; and any earlier gods than Thoth as considered potential names for the journal.

Keywords: censorship, cultural Marxism, freedom of speech, high-IQ societies, moles, Paul Cooijmans, wolves.

Conversation with Paul Cooijmans on Censorship, Freedom of Speech, High-IQ Societies, Moles and Wolves, Cultural Marxism, and “Thoth”: Administrator, Glia Society (2)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In terms of the observation of the limitations in the I.Q. societies at the time, what were the forms of “limited freedom of speech” and “censorship”?

Paul Cooijmans[1],[2]*: I suspect these quotations refer to previous answers I gave in the 2020 interview. In the 1990s I observed limited freedom of speech and censorship in several societies with varying pass levels in the following manners: When, in an article, I criticized a society’s admission policy and procedure, which did not function well in my perception, a response article followed from the society’s psychologist, who was on good terms with the journal editor. In this response, which contained much error on the substantial level, I was personally attacked and character-assassinated. When I tried to defend myself and correct errors in further responses, these were either not published or delayed and manipulated to make me look foolish, and then the psychologist was given the chance to respond to my manipulated response in the same issue, a few pages further, saying something like, “look what that silly Paul Cooijmans is writing there”. Obviously, I was never given the chance to respond in the same issue to what others wrote about me.

What also happened was that when I submitted an article, the editor removed things that were considered violations, always without my consent. On one occasion, I was even sent the altered version before publication; I contacted the editor at once to say I did not agree with the alterations and forbade publication of the altered version. This was ignored and the altered version was published despite my forbidding this. Then, I knew I was dealing with scum of the lowest kind.

Very telling was also that negative responses to my articles were frequently published, but positive responses only came directly to me from readers. Once, someone told me he had sent a letter-to-the-editor containing a positive remark about me; when the letter was published, he had seen, to his amazement, that said positive remark had been removed. Then, I knew I was dealing with irreparable editorial corruption.

More general observations about that society were that discussions in the journal were cut off (“this topic is now closed”) and that irony and humour seemed forbidden.

In another society with a higher pass level I observed that discussion of certain topics was “edited for length and civility”, which, in practice, meant that some viewpoints were less likely to appear in print, and the published material was biased toward one side of the debate. This concerned matters like tests and admission. Broadly speaking, there was a battle between those who wanted a strict admission policy with tests that actually discriminated at the intended level, and those who (secretly) wanted to admit anyone interested in membership, and therefore wanted as many tests as possible on the list of accepted tests, irrespective of the high-range validity (or absence thereof) of those tests. Only years later would I understand that this battle was, roughly, one between “liberals” and “conservatives”, and that the former group was principally against the concepts of I.Q. societies and I.Q. testing altogether and trying to destroy them from within. To them, the admission policy and testing were merely symbolic. In societies with formal democratic procedures, the “liberals” tended to win, because they received the votes from those who had only been able to join through the inflated admission policies promoted by the same “liberals”.

Jacobsen: Following the same line, what were the “editorial changes and vicious manipulations”? Also, why the “lack of fora for verbatim communication and publication” if any further reasons apart from the aforementioned?

Cooijmans: I explained a bit about vicious manipulations in the previous question; there were also general editorial changes that I have not yet mentioned, such as changing the title of an article, changing the word order of sentences, changing words, changing, adding, or removing commas, leaving things out, changing the division in paragraphs, removing white space, not italicizing a few words when so requested, removing irony and humour, and more. All of this was done without consulting or informing the author, and the result was often that one’s well-written work appeared in the journal as ungrammatical gibberish. When people complained, the editor would say they were “nitpicking about commas”, which was a pretty stupid thing to say because when you change commas you change meaning. Adding a comma may change a restrictive relative clause into a non-restrictive relative clause, for instance, and then suddenly that sentence says something entirely different!

Another grossly felonious instance of editorial change occurred when I submitted a puzzle, and the editor, without consulting or informing me, left out part of the instruction and changed (ruined) the puzzle itself. Subsequently, when no correct answers from readers had come in a month later, aforesaid editor commented in the journal that this was because I had provided a bad puzzle that had no real solution. No, he did not mention to the readers that he had altered the puzzle single-handedly without my knowledge. I believe these observations show a need for verbatim communication and publication fora.

Jacobsen: What are some of the theoretical and practical manifestations of the permissive admissions policies – “too permissive”?

Cooijmans: I would say that the experiences related in the previous two answers constitute practical manifestations of the results of overly permissive admissions policies. The looser the admissions standards, the more riff-raff is let in. Another such manifestation are the people I have often seen in these societies who talk about themselves as being “gifted”, or having discovered their “giftedness” through the test that qualified them. My observation is that many of these persons are not “gifted”, let alone intelligent, by very far, and that something has gone horribly wrong in the testing and admission procedure. It gets embarrassing when they speak of problems they have had in life because of being “gifted” and misunderstood; I have to constrain myself then not to tell them that they are not “gifted” and their problems have different causes.

A special case form people like psychologists, who have professional access to the contents and scoring keys of many tests, so that their own scores on the same must be seen in a certain perspective (that was euphemistic) and their presence in I.Q. societies in no way implies that their intelligence is at the intended level. More than once have I had the impression that such unqualified professionals had joined fraudulently with the express purpose to become active as admissions officers and further pervert the society’s admissions policy. This impression has only become stronger in recent years, when I saw some of them, now mostly retired, on social media, still being critical about strict testing and admission practices (read: still foaming at the mouth whenever my name is mentioned). The obvious cognitive decline with age makes it ever harder for them to uphold the mask of hypocrisy, so that their true nature comes out in glowing colours (“loss of decorum” is the precise psychiatric term).

An anecdote illustrating a practical manifestation of admission gone wrong: In the early 2000s, a certain person was active in an abundance of societies, publishing an unstoppable diarrhoea of articles that were notorious for their many errors and extremely bad style of writing. In 2004, an essay on the Madrid train bombings appeared from his capable hand, stating that the attacks had killed some enormous number of people (I believe two hundred thousand was the claimed number). Soon, a few readers gently pointed out to the diligent publicist that the actual death count was 193. Thereupon, the good author provided the editor with a corrected version of his masterpiece, wherein he… had changed something else but left the error intact. In such cases, I have always tried to investigate exactly what went wrong with testing and admission, and to adapt the admission policy to prevent reoccurrence.

Jacobsen: Why do “many people really like censorship and curtailed freedom of speech”?

Cooijmans: This question brings the present coronavirus situation to mind: Much of the world has been living more or less under authoritarian, fascist rule since the spring of 2020, yet the vast majority of people have absolutely no problem with that. The minority that protest comprise a bizarre amalgam of libertarians, alt-right individuals, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, small business owners, performing artists, and maverick scientists. Historically, an abrupt move to authoritarianism has been the reflex to outbreaks of deadly infectious diseases (and incidentally, this may be the origin of the habit to call a strict, clean, rule-abiding individual “Nazi”). Reasons that so many applaud the restrictive measures and harsh punishments for offenders include fear of the disease, but also a certain pre-existing dislike of the independent thinkers that make up the protesters.

In I.Q. societies, censorship and curtailed freedom of speech tend to be unilateral, suppressing one side of the discussion. Those on the other side may experience the censorship as beneficial because it protects them from the confrontation with opposing views. Most people prefer not to see opposing views, and to surround themselves with like-minded folks.

Jacobsen: Why do some seem to “only join I.Q. societies to keep an eye on what is going on, or to destroy them from the inside, like a kind of moles or wolves in sheep’s clothes”? Other than the reason stipulated “anti-intelligence attitude.”

Cooijmans: It is a general phenomenon, not limited to I.Q. societies, for organizations to be infiltrated. The moles lie in ambush, waiting for compromising material to fall into their paws, which they may then make public to damage or destroy the organization. Engagement in sado-masochism, attendance of darkrooms or bareback parties, child pornography or paedophilia, eugenics, expressions of homophobia, racism, or – the holy grail – anti-Semitism. The infiltrators may act from a far-left ideological motivation, often belong to activist organizations, or they may even be paid actors; activism has “benefactors” with infinitely deep pockets who will not hesitate to finance this kind of spying, as well as demonstrations, propaganda, riots, terror attacks, or murder.

The first instance of such a scandal in the world of I.Q. societies, in my period of involvement in those societies, took place early 1995. In the journal of a certain I.Q. society, a member advocated the humane killing off of the old, the weak, the stupid, and the inefficient. Although the journal was strictly members-only, this article was instantly leaked out, resulting in an international scandal. The editor who published the article was dismissed, and many local branches of the society apologized to their members for the reputation damage the society had thus incurred. Never was the contents of the article taken seriously and discussed; the fuss was only about the society being publicly connected to the ideas expressed by the author.

Jacobsen: How can societies guard against these “moles” or disguised “wolves”?

Cooijmans: I am afraid that a bona fide organization, with an objective and fair admission policy such as I recommend, is powerless against infiltration. The moles have it easy to get in. Only advanced lie detection might keep them out. It should also be said that most of the I.Q. societies I have known contain very little “dirt” in this sense, but rather are havens of political correctness. Despite selecting for high intelligence, the societies are transparent to the outer world, and any subversive uttering or activity occurring in them is bound to leak out within hours.

How different is this in criminal organizations, where squealers are dealt with in soundproof rooms using bolt cutters, cigarette lighters, and other such tools of the trade. Not that I would want to threaten any I.Q. society moles with that, mind. Oh no. Such a thing could never occur to me.

Jacobsen: Why do some “highly intelligent people” have an “anti-intelligence attitude”?

Cooijmans: This conspicuous phenomenon has puzzled me for decades. Why do some of the most intelligent people propagate falsehood like “intelligence is not important or valuable in itself” or “a society of higher average intelligence is not a better society”? An obvious explanation would be that they be right, in which case we should all be relieved regarding the current downward trend of intelligence in the West. After all, it will not make society less civilized and more dangerous! There will be no increase of crime, violence, hatred, and misery, no loss of wealth, technology, and happiness. Alas! any objective study of the relation between intelligence and real-world functioning shows this to be false, and that the anti-intelligence propaganda of the intelligentsia is ideological in nature rather than scientific and factual.

The questions remains why highly intelligent individuals would (1) believe these things, or (2) pretend to believe them. Concerning the first, it is conceivable that a highly intelligent person, growing up with the present Marxist indoctrination and never encountering the science regarding intelligence (the “London school”, the hereditarians) keeps believing those doctrines well into adult life. An important factor is the psychological phenomenon of projection, which I have mentioned before but is so crucial that it bears repetition: The highly intelligent person, by default, involuntarily and unawares, assumes one’s own level of mental ability in all or most other people and is thus innately disposed to believe the Marxist-egalitarian dogmas. Those are attractive to such a person, they “feel right” and “ring true”. It takes some serious study and hard confrontation with reality to overcome this projection, as well as a wide associative horizon. I have long suspected that intelligent persons with narrow associative horizons (who do exist) are inclined to remain in their brainwashed states for all of their lives. Another factor that keeps the truth from these people is that the science of intelligence has been suppressed, pushed to the fringes, expelled from the academic world, as “scientific racism” or “hate”. So, for group (1), the explanation would lie in their personality combined with the indoctrinating environment, to which they have insufficient resistance due to a narrow associative horizon.

Regarding (2), this concerns intrinsically dishonest, evil entities who say one thing but believe the other. Yes, even though intelligence correlates positively and causally with all things good, the direction of causality being from intelligence to goodness, the correlation of intelligence with goodness is not unity (1, perfect). A class of intelligent, evil beings – one hesitates to call them humans – occupy vital segments of society and purposely spread crypto-political, pseudoscientific misinformation. They will tell us, “race is a social construct” but live in gated White communities themselves. They do not believe what they say but want us to believe it. Group (2) is really a caste, a set of genetic strains, possibly a species, that live among us in the guise of Homo sapiens. They consist of bloodlines wherein high intelligence has coagulated with evil after centuries of selective breeding; inbreeding (cousin-cousin, uncle-niece) to retain the desired unnatural combination of cognitive ability with insincerity, and occasional outbreeding to incorporate new blood and keep the outward appearance of humans. Without the outbreeding, they would begin to look unhuman, reflecting the fact that their configuration of personality traits is unhuman and anti-human.

Jacobsen: What mainstream intelligence tests seem to provide the best approximation of general intelligence?

Cooijmans: If educational tests like Miller Analogies Test, Scholastic Aptitude Test, and Graduate Record Examination are included, the older forms of those three are the only ones that I have observed to have some loading on general intelligence into the high range. The newer editions do not seem to have such, and another problem is that when people take those tests purposely (and sometimes repeatedly) to qualify for I.Q. societies, the tests’ “g” loadings disappear. They are only “g”-loaded when taken in their proper educational context, and not robust against determined attempts to obtain a super-high score.

I know of no other mainstream tests that have any noticeable “g” loading in the high range. If you are talking about the average range of intelligence, I can not answer from my own observation because I have only dealt with high-range tests.

Jacobsen: What Cooijmans tests seem to provide the best approximation of general intelligence?

Cooijmans: If I limit myself to the currently available tests for which there is enough data to answer this more or less objectively: Reason Behind Multiple-Choice – Revision 2008, The Marathon Test, Associative LIMIT, Test of the Beheaded Man, Cooijmans Intelligence Test – Form 3, Narcissus’ last stand, The Nemesis Test, Test For Genius – Revision 2016, Cooijmans Intelligence Test – Form 4, Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5. This is only about the high range.

Jacobsen: How can most other I.Q. societies treat homogeneous tests appropriately, so as to test at “their intended level”?

Cooijmans: If it concerns tests that possess validity around the intended level and there are no further problems with them (such as answer leakage) I would say that the Glia Society’s approach is best: Require qualifying scores on each of two such tests with different item types. Do not use methods to compute a “real I.Q.” from several test scores; that may result in inflated I.Q.’s.

Jacobsen: What seems to happen with anomalies at or above 1 in 200 in general intelligence rarity – of the more intelligent or the higher end of the curve – who happen to harbour delusions of grandeur, personality dis-order, supernaturalistic tendencies of thinking about the objects and relations in the natural world, or happen to have the inability for scientific rationality, skepticism, and logical reasoning? I am aware. You have written on these.

Cooijmans: I have no idea to which writing by me this could refer, but now that you ask, it is true that my general observation is that the ability to be rational and logical commences around the level of 1 in 200 in intelligence (the high end, not the low end). And indeed are there glorious exceptions, and I have been trying to understand, for a few decades now, how those come to be. Several causes seem to occur:

Full-blown psychosis is the easiest cause to recognize, also because it tends to subside within weeks or months, after which one may observe the subject in a more rational state.

Mild chronic psychosis is another frequent cause, and harder to identify. Some personality variants are forever on the brink of psychosis, but never develop an acute episode. Very, very evil tongues whisper that for typical women, this is actually the default state of being; of course, it would never occur to me personally, or to any sensible person for that matter, to make such a misogynistic suggestion, not even in jest. A point of concern in diagnosing this near-psychotic condition is that on a bad day, one may find oneself at the wrong end of the stick, that is, one may be delusional oneself while the other person is sane. Therefore it is necessary to frequently revisit and study in depth exactly those viewpoints that are at odds with what one has long believed or been taught. Those with a wide associative horizon possess this habit as an innate reflex, are obsessively drawn toward what violates the status quo of their knowledge, opinions, and attitudes.

Finally, there are entities that have some kind of interest, either financial, ideological, political, or ethnocentric, that discords with truth, logic, and righteousness. This makes them behave and express themselves in contrast with the rationality one would expect at their levels of intelligence.

Jacobsen: Why is there a common conflation between education and intelligence level, or amount of knowledge and general intelligence level?

Cooijmans: The essence is this: The correlations of intelligence with education and amount of knowledge are unidirectional, with the causality going from intelligence to those respective concepts. Higher intelligence is required for higher educational achievement, and higher intelligence causes one to store more knowledge in one’s long-term memory. It does not work the other way around; studying does not raise your intelligence, and putting more knowledge in your memory does not raise your intelligence. To believe such is a form of sympathetic magic, it is a reversal of causality.

For better understanding, one should know that part of higher intelligence is having a better working memory. The working memory, in turn, is the device that stores information in the long-term memory. With a better working memory, you are storing more in your long-term memory, whether you like it or not. This is why persons of higher intelligence have more general knowledge and a larger vocabulary; those are results, by-products, of the higher intelligence. Knowing this mechanism, it is easy to see that merely increasing one’s knowledge and vocabulary will not increase intelligence and working memory. The mechanism goes one way only.

Intelligence, including working memory, rests on physical properties like the number of cortical neurons, neural conduction velocity, the quality of the insulation material around the axons, and the energy-efficiency of the brain (the efficiency of the brain’s glucose metabolism). If any improvement to those is possible at all, it will be through physical means, not by mimicking the effects of the intelligence brought forth by them. Not by providing the brain with knowledge. Conversely, intelligence may be reduced by any physical damage to the brain, such as by mechanical impact, shortage of oxygen or glucose, poisons, or hormones.

Jacobsen: What have been some of the other higher-I.Q. societies founded since 1997?

Cooijmans: I have not paid attention, but it concerns a huge number of them. The Epimetheus Society comes to mind. I can not stand to look at the web locations of many of the newer societies; slow-loading, full of spaghetti code produced by contents management systems or what-you-see-is-what-you-get editors. If you are smart enough to start an I.Q. society, learning hypertext markup language should be no hurdle for you. Few things betray incompetence and not-being-at-the-proclaimed-level-of-your-self-founded-society more than that.

Jacobsen: What is the evidence for having “introduced the concepts of high-range testing and higher-I.Q. societies to Europe”?

Cooijmans: The articles and advertisements I published in the mid-1990s in journals of I.Q. societies, regarding my tests and the Glia and Giga societies. Some are shown, for instance, on my I.Q. tests web site in “The history of I.Q. Tests for the High-Range”, and somewhere on the Giga and Glia Society sites.

Jacobsen: As one of “the most interesting and brilliant” administrators in the world with such tantalizing societies on offer to the international community of the higher-I.Q., what seems like the main pull for prospective members?

Cooijmans: I do not understand the phrase “the main pull”, but the circumstance that Glia Society members can take tests for free appears to be attractive, while for the Giga Society it is mainly prestige.

Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, what seems like the main reason for members who join and stay, and those who leave?

Cooijmans: No Giga Society members have ever left except by passing away. Glia Society members leave rarely; I remember someone resigning after being suspended from the e-mail forum for violating the rules. Another one resigned because he thought I was “far right”, but later rejoined. And a third one left because he felt he no longer deserved to be a member; this one I suspect of having leaked out the complete scoring key of one of my tests, enabling an idiot to qualify for the Giga Society. Oh, and someone resigned, came back, and later resigned again because of misbehaviour and harassment by another member. In hindsight, it seems that roughly one in a hundred members misbehave significantly at some point, and in one case I expelled the culprit. This paragraph contains quite explosive information, but given the length of this interview no one will probably get this far and read it.

Members who stay in the Glia Society do so because they like the free testing and/or the communication fora. But many also simply stay inactive without formally resigning.

Jacobsen: What is “cultural Marxism”? Why is it an “ideological terror”? Why is it “to an extreme degree” in the Netherlands?

Cooijmans: That first question needs a book-length answer in itself. “Cultural Marxism” is a term used by critics of the movements in question. Cultural Marxists do not call themselves that but deem the concept a conspiracy theory. These movements started right after the First World War, as a step up from classical Marxism, which was perceived as having failed. Classical Marxism was about a class struggle, wherein the workers of all countries would unite against Capital. In the war though, the workers of the warring countries had been fighting each other in the trenches rather than uniting, thus revealing that nationalist tendencies were stronger than class divisions.

A variety of projects were then conceived and initiated to destroy all nation states and establish a new world rule with no place for national identity and tradition. These projects involved the purposeful occupation of all vital institutions and industries, and the promotion and facilitation of migration streams (and other genocidal schemes) to permanently alter the populations and cultures of Europe, North America, and the West in general. The motivation behind this was a burning hatred of nations, Christianity, White people, masculinity, artisanship, and manual labour. The basic strategy was to make the institutions and corporations more powerful than the national governments. This has meanwhile been achieved for much of the world.

The projected world government is not benign. It is a despotic feudal monarchy without citizenship or private property, wherein serfs are kept merrily submissive, lowly fertile, not too long-lived, and feminized (in case of men) by an incessant stream of poisons administered through the air, water, food, recreational drugs, clothing, cosmetics, medication, and vaccination. They can do this because they own and control all the relevant industries. Non-pharmaceutical strategies toward this goal are employed too, such as indoctrination and the propagandizing of pornography, onanism, prostitution, deviant (non-reproductive) sex, and other maladaptive behaviours. The current royal houses will not object to this usurping of the world throne; over the past centuries, the ancestors of our hostile elite have married into the major dynasties and/or financed them so that their bloodlines and interests are interwoven and they can make their move with royal approval. Said elite consists of several thousand to several tens of thousand specimens worldwide. This multiple genocide has progressed slowly but surely, and since the early 1970s, cultural Marxists have held the centre of the political spectrum in all Western countries. Views that were previously “centre” have ever since been denoted “far right”.

It is an ideological terror because it allows no dissent. Any expression that violates its dogmas is suppressed, censored, or made illegal and prosecuted. Cultural Marxism is the epitome of intolerance, tribalism, and xenophobia. It is a tribe aiming to subjugate the world and become the ruling caste in a new era of feudalism.

The Netherlands, small and densely populated, has been a laboratory for the testing of policies intended to be rolled out worldwide. The liberal approach to recreational drugs, prostitution, abortion, and euthanasia; extreme softness on crime; same-sex marriage; exempting multinational corporations from taxation; combining a welfare state with mass immigration; the forced implementation of multiculturalism; the public execution of a conservative politician on his way to power right before election day… it has all been tried in the test tube of the world. Oh, and on an entirely unrelated note, Netherlandic experts and universities have played leading roles in the development and patenting of the SARS-CoV2 polymerase chain reaction test and corresponding vaccines.

I have been compiling a list of segments of society presently occupied by cultural Marxism; in doing so, I discovered it is quicker to make its complement, that is, a list of societal segments that are still relatively free of cultural Marxism. This latter list would include conservative and/or nationalist organizations; small and medium-sized businesses; fundamentalist and orthodox religion; part of alternative or natural healing; amateur sports; “rogue” states and nation states; agriculture, farming, hunting; barter; rural life; fringe (independent, unconventional) media; independent science (independent of governments and corporations); and traditional art and culture.

I have considered providing the former list too, but believe it would be too depressing for the good readers; suffice it to say that said list contains practically everything else in the world.

Jacobsen: Any Cooijmans response to the popular Netherlandic saying, “Act normally, then you are already acting crazy enough”?

Cooijmans: I fully agree with this saying, when taken literally. But what is meant with it on the idiomatic level is, “you are merely average and nothing better than the rest, no matter how good you may be”. This is carved into the soul of every Netherlander from birth on.

Jacobsen: Any Cooijmans response to the popular Netherlandic saying, “No one is allowed to stick out above the mowing field”?

Cooijmans: The recent death of guitarist Eddie Van Halen, born in the Netherlands, has made this painfully clear. For a few days there was some attention for him in the news on television, but in the four decades up to that, including the heyday of the group “Van Halen”, he and his band had been virtually ignored by the Netherlandic media, despite his being one of the best guitar players in existence. In 1980, when I saw Van Halen at a festival in the Netherlands, I noted already that there was little media attention for them, and if they were mentioned, it was mainly to emphasize how arrogant they were or to ridicule them. Being good at something is not appreciated here. If you are born in the Netherlands as a genius and only publish your work in the Netherlands, chances are you and your work will never be recognized for what they are but always treated as merely average, and even you yourself will keep believing, for all of your life, that you are merely average, because that is what you have always been told with great emphasis.

Incidentally, other good guitarists I have listened to are Allan Holdsworth, Philip Catherine, and Konrad Ragossnig.

Jacobsen: What will be the effects over 2020 if this trend continues? What will be the effects if this trend is reversed?

Cooijmans: Unfortunately, the question fails to specify which trend is being referred to. Cultural Marxism? But why is the year 2020 mentioned then? Cultural Marxism is a century old and not specific for 2020. The actual trend over 2020 is the pandemic of censorship and restrictions of civil rights implemented in response to virus outbreaks. It does look like cultural Marxists are utilizing the disease to tighten their stranglehold of the world; to strengthen their ownership of it; to replace small businesses with large corporations without ties to local culture and tradition; to abolish cash; to kill off people by suppressing proven effective treatments; to let people accept vaccinations out of fear by hiding the true fatality rate of the virus; in short, to accelerate their rise to world domination. The end game has begun.

If “this trend” is taken to mean cultural Marxism, and the effects need not only be over 2020, the answer is as follows: A period of civil wars will occur as White people realize they are becoming minorities in their own countries. We are seeing the preludes to that in the form of terror attacks by isolated “far right extremists”, as well as well-organized, heavily financed violent “demonstrations” by pseudo-activists who are really paid mercenaries. So, “lone wolves” against crypto-armies. A peaceful defeat of cultural Marxism seems unlikely at this point, since the native populations of almost all Western countries have been diluted such that the nationalist votes can not gain a majority in elections any more (“And good at that?!” will cultural Marxists among the readers utter at this point).

Given the cultural-Marxist occupation of all vital segments of society, the odds look grim; or sublimely favourable, depending on which side one is on. The best one can hope for is that all of this, as cultural Marxists claim, is a conspiracy theory, a collection of paranoid delusions. I would rather be delusional than right.

In the event that cultural Marxism is beaten, the effect will be a return of nation states populated and ruled by citizens, and a purging of the corrupted institutions and industries. In the opposite case, we end up under the projected world government described a few answers ago. Attentive readers will have understood what the probable outcome is. Perhaps, the time to plausibly stop cultural Marxism, if ever, were the 1920s.

Once the new kingdom has been established, one of its challenges will be to prevent degeneration of its bloodlines. Inbreeding has often been the downfall of dynasties, and the classical approach was to marry royalty from abroad, or rich foreigners if no suitable nobility was available and/or the bottom of the treasury was in sight. As a result, royal families have tended to be genetically different from their subjects (“of different blood”, one says). In the absence of nubile extraterrestrial princesses, the new masters of the world will harvest fresh blood from selected juveniles among their billions of zombie slaves, who are legally their intellectual property as they have been genetically modified by mandatory nano-robot injections. Oh, and a merry Christmas incidentally. Or happy Easter, depending on when this is published.

Perhaps I should explain the reason for words like “kingdom” and “feudal” in this context, where others speak of a “Communist (or globalist) world government”: Without private ownership, and all of the world’s assets being on the balance sheet of a small bloodline-based elite, feudalism and kingdom are the proper terms to use. Our civil rights will be set back to the Middle Ages over the next one or two decades, if this trend continues. Considering how eagerly many are queueing up for that, perhaps it is what they deserve after all.

Jacobsen: Were there any earlier gods than Thoth who came as potential names for the journal – not necessarily connect with “science, wisdom, writing, art, magic” or “writing, mathematics, astronomy”?

Cooijmans: No earlier gods came up. If I were to look for such now, I would look at antediluvian times.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Administrator, Giga Society; Administrator, Glia Society.

[2] Individual Publication Date: January 1, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/cooijmans-2; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.