A.N.U.S.

American Nihilist Underground Society

ANUS.COM: American Nihilist Underground Society (A.N.U.S.) at www.anus.com
RSS feed of ANUS.com opinions and news Mailing list:
Search anus.com:

Nihilism, Futurist Traditionalism and Conservationism

Death to the under-120s

19 05 12 - 10:26

The basic laws of stupidity:


1. Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

2. The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons, while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake. - The Guardian


The people under 120 commit most of these. Some, who should know better, commit them even when over 120 IQ points. These are people with past trauma or mental problems.

Prole-Run Society (PRS) has been a massive failure because it insists a stupid person is equal to a smart one. This is a sabotage of the basic process of selection, and removes our choice to have something better than permissive anarchy and dominance by markets.

thirteen comments

Brett Cuntens
Finally, ANUS gets to "die Endloesung" for "der Kern des Problems".

But I respectfully disagree. Sure, we may be eliminating a lot of problems by getting rid of the under 120s, but shouldn't we be aiming for higher? More values and more goals. So the limit has to be 180 IQ and over. Plus I think everyone should get a totally awesome skateboard and a swimming pool. This is why ANUS will always be run by Untermenschen.

"Prole-Run Society (PRS) has been a massive failure because it insists a stupid person is equal to a smart one."

I agree so much. I mean everyone who can be bothered to work has a comfortable lifestyle, our governments do not arbitrarily abuse their power, and if you don't like talking stupid people or prefer listening to Beethoven, no-one is stopping you from changing your lifestyle. These are all problems we need to address.

"This is a sabotage of the basic process of selection"

OMG you are like reading my mind. Because natural selection is when a central committee gets to decide who dies and who lives, rather than people choosing their own partners. That's why it's called NATURAL selection, God, but some people don't get it.

"...permissive anarchy and dominance by markets."

OMG it's like you take this flashy inane phrases right from my brain. I love ANUS sooooo much. Brett Cuntens - 19-05-’12 12:56
Some observation
5. Mean collective IQ degrades in proportion to the number of people involved. Some observation - 19-05-’12 13:43
Franny
Who is this Cuntens guy? He is a bloody champ. I always assumed Prozak had a smart way of arguing his point, but I'm actually questioning if his arguments are just like a house built on quicksand.

Seems ANUS has to admit that nature is doing it wrong if they really want the under-120s gone. I know the woodchipper fantasy is an exaggeration and all (and high comedy that is, Conservationist!), but I reckon a LOT of under-120s would still be around in a truly organic society. It's not like you have to know quadratic formulas to survive in the wild. Of course if ANUS wants to take matters into its own hands, you could get rid of the under-120s, but I don't think it'd be 'natural'.

Also citing The Guardian is not exactly a form of evidence. Come on Prozak, you're smarter than this. Franny - 19-05-’12 22:25
flawsineverything
'Some, who should know better, commit them even when over 120 IQ points.'
This.
Some? 100? 1000? 1000000? This sentence is like almost admitting the -120 policy is lacking. flawsineverything - 20-05-’12 06:00
Immaculate Sodomizer
Ah, ANUS: where the critics are over-educated but under-intelligent.

Where shall we start?

@flaws:

‘Some, who should know better, commit them even when over 120 IQ points.’

Some over 120 commit error, but all under 120 do, and at a much greater rate. Sometimes, you can eat poo and you get away with it; sometimes, a steak will make you sick. But in general, eating poo is more likely to make you sick than eating a steak.

'Seems ANUS has to admit that nature is doing it wrong if they really want the under-120s gone.'

The instant humanity started using technology we took over from nature. The proliferation of under-120s is a result of human mistakes.

'Sure, we may be eliminating a lot of problems by getting rid of the under 120s, but shouldn’t we be aiming for higher?'

120 is where the abilities necessary for a thriving society begin. There's no point paring above that.

'if you don’t like talking stupid people or prefer listening to Beethoven, no-one is stopping you from changing your lifestyle.'

No comfort when your society fails. People were being individualistic in Russia in 1917 and suddenly, their society collapsed and they got executed. Your implied advice is stupid.

Your other points are addressed above. I can see the source of your objections: no one over 120 would take your arguments seriously. Immaculate Sodomizer (Email ) - 20-05-’12 09:55
Brett Cuntens
"120 is where the abilities necessary for a thriving society begin. There’s no point paring above that."

I won't bother to bring up the point that you obviously have no fucking idea what is necessary for a thriving society, nor that you indeed lack a trace of proof to show it requires everyone to be above 120 IQ points (I don't think citing a Brett Stevens article is proof enough), so instead I will point something out to you. So far during the history of this planet there have been no planned exterminations of persons under 120 IQ points. So why are you worried about society collapsing if it has always been on a downward slope? Or has the human race got genetically less intelligent in between inventing steam engines, jet engines, crossbows, printing presses, Beethovens 9th, vaccinations, parliamentary democracy, Archimedes's screw, internal combustion, microprocessors, biodegradeable plastic, catalytic converters, the internet and the like? Or are these facts not hallmarks of a thriving society?

"No comfort when your society fails."

When society fails? When was the last time this happened? Did it happen because the routine under-120 IQ extermination did not go according to plan?

"People were being individualistic in Russia in 1917 and suddenly, their society collapsed and they got executed"

Hilarious.

Funnily enough, everyone at ANUS seems to be talking out of their arse. Brett Cuntens - 20-05-’12 11:13
Franny
I have a hard time believing that Anton Bruckner, who came from a peasant background, would have tested over 120 on an IQ test. I guess his symphonies are some of the errors that under-120s are bound to make.

Really, no over-120s would take my argument seriously? Guess I didn't make enough analogies to eating poo in my points. Franny - 20-05-’12 17:26
but yeah
he what make the misteak of under estimating the destructive force of stupids is of one or more stupid himself but yeah - 20-05-’12 21:31
Franny
I'd say it's far more likely that no one with an IQ over 120 would take analogies about eating poop seriously. Franny - 21-05-’12 03:01
Franny
I can't handle the grittier aspects of life unless its a fat black wiener in my butt lol Franny - 22-05-’12 04:38
Franny
So shit-eating analogies = grittier aspects of life?

Or are you that sensitive to having you glorious leader's musings critiqued?

I think we need to be honest here. There are lot of proles in sheep's clothing at ANUS, bleating Prozak's diatrabe for want of an identity. Franny - 22-05-’12 23:04
@Franny
Yes, motherfucker. Are you dumb?

Glorious leader? You must be new.

I'm sorry everyone can't have a unique view point like you. Talk about want of an identity.

I will now proceed to climb up your torso and gouge your eyes out with my phallus. @Franny - 23-05-’12 18:54
Franny
So criticisng anything an ANUSite says is trying to convey a unique viewpoint? Interesting.

Most here regurgitate Prozak's views so they can seem smart, superior and realistic, but have zero intention of doing any activism themselves. Even in this era, you can still form meaningful relationships and heroic acts. But they're more intent on wearing an ideology like a badge so they seem so much smarter than those filthy masses, yet unaware they're equally unspectacular. I have a word for posturing like that: hipsterism. Now run along little hipster. Kudos on choosing to say phallus instead of cock too! Unique word choice -- bet your buddies will give you a pat on the back for it! Franny - 23-05-’12 20:26


(optional field)
(optional field)

Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.